|
12/18/2024 Trump’s Pro-Israel Dream Team: Patel Nomination Caps Hawkish Cabinet By: Kit KlarenbergRead Now On November 30, Donald Trump nominated Kash Patel to serve as FBI director. A staunch MAGA activist and loyalist with significant standing in Trump’s orbit, Patel aligns closely with the president-elect on both domestic and foreign policy matters. Indeed, he appears to struggle to pinpoint areas of disagreement with Trump’s agenda. Patel has consistently advocated for a hardline approach to China and is an unabashed supporter of Israeli interests, often prioritizing them over U.S. considerations. On October 7, marking the first anniversary of the Hamas attack, Patel delivered a fiery interview on Fox News. During the segment, he vowed that the incoming Trump administration would intensify its crackdown on anti-Israeli elements. We should be side by side [with Israel]…When we are back in power with President Trump…we will shut off the machinery that feeds money into Iran…We need America to wake up and prioritize Israel, and that is not what Kamala Harris is about, we need to bring home Americans and end this war, bring home Israelis, and stand by our number one ally in Israel, and people need to wake up on November 5.” A relative political outsider who has never occupied high office, the media has been awash with profiles of Patel and fevered speculation about what his management of the Bureau could mean in practice ever since. In the process, he has been subject to a level of mainstream scrutiny and criticism that was entirely lacking over recent weeks, as Trump filled his cabinet with a rogue’s gallery of dedicated hawks, hardcore pro-Israeli elements, and characters both unknown and notorious with potential extremist ties and views. For some, the composition of Trump’s cabinet is a crushing disappointment. On November 9, Trump caused shockwaves when he announced neither Nikki Haley nor Mike Pompeo would be invited to join his administration in any capacity. The news, coupled with comments he made in a late October appearance on Joe Rogan’s popular podcast, perked optimism in some quarters that the President-elect’s longstanding anti-war posturing could produce real-world results in Ukraine, if not elsewhere. In his discussion with Rogan, Trump professed that “the biggest mistake” of his first term was he “picked a few people that I shouldn’t have picked” – “neocons or bad people or disloyal people,” among them John Bolton. Haley was the U.S. ambassador to the UN under Trump and perhaps the most ardent, outspoken Zionist ever to fill the role. She, Bolton and Pompeo – who personally orchestrated Iranian General Qasem Soleimani’s assassination, among other hostile deeds – were widely regarded as the administration’s leading hawks. Yet, any slight hope that the pair’s absence from Trump’s new White House might herald an influx of some doves and, in turn, a more peaceful shift from the U.S. government was comprehensively dashed when the President’s transition team nominations began rolling in. Now the cabinet is fully stocked, countless millions around the world have urgent and grave concerns about what the future could hold for them, their families, countries, regions, and more. In particular, Trump’s prospective government can already claim the mantle of the most fervently pro-Israel in U.S. history. This is despite replacing an administration that has done more than any before to accelerate, encourage, and facilitate Israel’s war on Gaza. The prospect that Tel Aviv’s deadly assaults on Gaza and Lebanon will escalate somehow further is now not only very real but seemingly inevitable. However, as we shall see, there are minor rays of hope among the mass doom and gloom. ‘Promised Land’ New Secretary of State Marco Rubio hardly needs any introduction as one of the most pro-war members of the modern U.S. political class. Since his career kicked off in 2000, he has been consistently among the loudest voices on how America’s officially designated enemy states should be dealt with, be that China, Iran, Venezuela, or otherwise. Threats of sanctions, coups, and military intervention are almost a daily staple of his political oratory.  A close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, in 2019, Rubio cosponsored a Senate resolution condemning UN Security Council resolutions designating Jewish settlement expansion in occupied Palestine as a violation of international law. He has referred to Israel’s mass murder in Gaza since October 7, 2023, as legitimate self-defense, claimed Hamas is “100% to blame” for any civilian casualties inflicted by the horrific onslaught, and ominously declared Palestinian resistance must be “eradicated,” as Tel Aviv cannot coexist “with these savages.” The media has reported that the Trump administration is already concocting plans to “bankrupt Iran” with “maximum pressure” upon taking office. Rubio, who has long called for tightening already crippling sanctions on Tehran, is reportedly at the forefront of this effort, alongside nominated National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, a Pentagon journeyman who previously sat on the House Armed Services Committee. At an event convened by NATO adjunct the Atlantic Council, in October, Waltz bragged: Just four years ago…[Iran’s] currency was tanking, they were truly on the back foot…we need to get back to that posture.” Neutralizing Iran has long been touted as a prerequisite for reclaiming Israel’s waning dominance in West Asia. Any measure that destabilizes Tehran—economically, militarily, or politically—diminishes its capacity to curb Israel’s actions, leaving Tel Aviv emboldened to act without restraint. The logic is stark: weakening Iran strengthens Israel. Within the Trump administration, with its hawkish alignment, policies serving this end will likely be met with uncritical endorsement. Already, Trump has pledged to lift the few remaining restrictions and end delays in the supply of military equipment and ammunition to Israel immediately after his inauguration. This includes an embargo on certain weapons shipments and limitations on various combat-related equipment. This embargo reportedly impacts Israel’s war-fighting capabilities, as its forces struggle with multiple self-initiated active battle fronts, requiring “strict control” over ammunition supply and use. The pro-Israel credentials of Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Michael Waltz are unquestionable. Yet their fervor for supporting Israel’s controversial policies pales in comparison to some of President-elect Donald Trump’s other nominees. Take Mike Huckabee, the ultraconservative former Arkansas governor and twice-failed presidential candidate, now tapped to serve as U.S. ambassador to Israel. Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist pastor, wasted no time declaring his intentions. He vowed to publicly refer to Israel in biblical terms, calling it the “Promised Land,” and proclaimed that Jews hold a “rightful deed” to Palestinian territory.  Huckabee, centre right, attends a ceremony for the opening of a Jewish-only settlement in the Palestinian West Bank, Aug. 1, 2018. Oded Balilty | AP ‘American Crusade’ Despite its unwavering consensus on Israel, Trump’s cabinet has been labeled “eclectic” by the mainstream press—and not without cause. Alongside establishment stalwarts like Huckabee and Rubio, Trump has tapped figures long considered political outsiders. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a polarizing figure in his own right, has been nominated for a senior post. Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host and U.S. military veteran, has also emerged from the fringes to claim a role in Trump’s cabinet. Hegseth, who quietly advised Trump during his first term, pushed for the pardons of American soldiers convicted of heinous war crimes—a campaign that, in some cases, was effective. Hegseth, a contender for Defense Secretary, has made his allegiances to Israel unmistakably clear. He has described Israel’s settler population as “God’s chosen people.” He has openly advocated for transforming Jerusalem’s al-Aqsa Mosque into a Jewish-only recreation of the historic Temple Mount, framing such an act as a “miracle.” At a 2018 National Council of Young Israel gala in New York City, Hegseth left no room for ambiguity: "Zionism and Americanism are the front lines of Western civilization and freedom in our world today.” Such disturbing comments have elicited little media interest since Hegseth’s nomination. However, NPR has chronicled his unsettling array of tattoos, including a Jerusalem cross—a Christian emblem with origins in the Crusades—and the Latin phrase deus vult, often interpreted as a call to reclaim the Holy Land through the slaughter of Muslims. Both symbols have been co-opted by Neo-Nazi groups. Perhaps predictably, Hegseth’s 2020 book, “American Crusade,” brims with incendiary Islamophobic rhetoric. Another wildcard nomination is Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Concurrently a politician and serving U.S. military officer, for years she occupied a dissident, dovish space on the Democrat left, all along smeared as an Assad or Putin apologist for her anti-war positions. However, she acrimoniously quit the party in October 2022, slamming it as “under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers who are driven by cowardly wokeness” and for purportedly “stoking anti-white racism.” Gabbard had, by that point, been distancing herself from previously held progressive stances on issues such as abortion and LGBTQ rights, and she has rapidly grown ever more conservative since formally joining the Republican party. Despite her longstanding criticism of U.S. military interventionism, Gabbard effusively supports Israel, opposing any limits on its assaults on Gaza and Lebanon. She has slandered protesters critical of Israel as “puppets” of a “radical Islamist organization,” accusing them of supporting Hamas. ‘Maverick Appointment’ Despite her inflammatory rhetoric and overt support for Israel’s most belligerent policies, Gabbard’s nomination as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) could be a silver lining in Trump’s cabinet. The position wields immense power, coordinating the work of America’s sprawling intelligence apparatus across 18 agencies. Since the announcement, deep anxiety has rippled through intelligence circles on both sides of the Atlantic, with veterans voicing fears about the potential consequences of her leadership. Trump spent much of his first term at war with the U.S. intelligence community. The President and his supporters quite legitimately accuse the CIA, FBI et al. of seeking to undermine and sabotage his first term in office. On November 24, The Economist forecast—based on interviews with U.S. and European intelligence officials—a “likely” mass exodus from American spying agencies, as many operatives are “fearful of falling foul” of Trump and Gabbard, under whom “spies are on notice.” Gabbard’s disdain for America’s spy agency alphabet soup was writ large in her April book, “For Love of Country.” She blamed the CIA, FBI, “and a whole network of rogue intelligence and law enforcement agents working at the highest levels” of the U.S. government, in conjunction with “the Democratic National Committee, propaganda media, [and] Big Tech” for America’s most egregious ills. She declared this shadowy nexus “so dangerous that even our elected officials are afraid to cross them.” Gabbard reserves some of her sharpest criticism for the intelligence community’s role in fueling the Ukraine proxy war, accusing it of laying the groundwork for conflict to benefit defense contractors. “How would their friends in the military-industrial complex make trillions of dollars from the fear they fomented in America and Europe by stoking the fires of the new Cold War?” she wrote. American spies, it seems, are taking her seriously. “We are all reeling,” a “current intelligence official who’s worked through multiple administrations” told TIME magazine following the announcement of her nomination.  Gabbard poses with Benjamin Netanyahu apologist Shmuley Boteach and top GOP donor Miriam Adelson at the Champions of Jewish Values 2016 Gala Per The Daily Telegraph, the intelligence community in London is likewise “alarmed” by Gabbard’s nomination. The doggedly pro-Ukraine outlet quoted a number of “British defence figures” which slammed the move in the harshest possible terms. Disgraced former MI6 chief Richard Dearlove attacked the “maverick appointment,” lambasting her lack of “experience of intelligence and security.” Elsewhere, former British Army tank commander Hamish de Bretton Gordon angsted that the “special relationship” between Britain and the US “could be impacted.” The perspectives of Dearlove and de Bretton Gordon are striking, for both have long histories of exploiting the “special relationship” to further London’s ends and bounce the U.S. intelligence and military establishment into war. MI6 chief Dearlove was responsible for cooking up false intelligence that formed the basis of the formal British and U.S. case for invading Iraq. The subsequent Chilcot Inquiry was completely damning of his activities in this regard. Its report noted that Dearlove personally informed Prime Minister Tony Blair that Baghdad could definitively strike Britain with chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes, and this information had been provided to MI6 by an Iraqi with “phenomenal access” to the highest levels of Saddam Hussein’s government. That false claim was central to London’s justification for war and much repeated in the media at the time. In reality, British spies were furnished with the claim “indirectly” by a taxi driver. ‘Perfect Nominee’ More recently, Dearlove was a central figure in Russiagate and a prominent advocate for the credibility of former MI6 operative Christopher Steele and his ‘Trump-Russia’ dossier in the media, despite the document’s self-evident falsity and concerns about its veracity within British and U.S. intelligence circles. Russiagate was clearly intended to ensure relations between Washington and Moscow didn’t improve under Trump, and were it not for the belligerent stance resultantly taken by his administration, the Ukraine proxy war could well have been avoided. Hamish de Bretton Gordon also played a personal role in pushing for a U.S. war in Syria. He was part of an MI6 operation that smuggled soil samples out of Syria, purportedly to prove the Syrian government’s responsibility for chemical weapons attacks. These samples were later revealed to be falsified. A senior Western source acknowledged in August 2013 that the true aim of British intelligence was to pressure Washington into direct boots-on-the-ground military intervention, ala Iraq. While that catastrophic outcome was avoided, a supposed government chemical weapons attack in Douma in April 2018 succeeded in pushing Trump to launch missile strikes against Syria. Leaked documents and independent investigations have since revealed that this incident was staged by British intelligence operatives and their assets. Notably, Gabbard publicly criticized Trump’s response, questioning whether Douma was a staged ruse by the opposition to prolong the conflict at a time when the White House appeared ready to de-escalate. With Gabbard in the role of DNI, the sway of intelligence agencies over political decisions and the readiness of figures like Rubio, Trump and Waltz to act on dubious intelligence could be blunted. While this may not provide immediate solace to the Palestinians, who remain under constant threat of death and displacement, it could signal a positive shift in the unchecked influence of British and U.S. intelligence on the White House. These tentative grounds for optimism are somewhat reinforced by Patel’s nomination as FBI director. As a committed Israel-firster, he comfortably aligns with the rest of Trump’s prospective cabinet, and one might expect that mainstream news outlets eager to advance a pro-Israel agenda would embrace him as a result. Yet the media’s response has been anything but supportive. The New York Times warns that Patel would bring “bravado and baggage” to the role, while The Washington Post branded him a “dangerous and unqualified choice” to lead the Bureau. The Atlantic, run by long-time pro-Israel activist Jeffrey Goldberg, has intensified this scrutiny of Patel, publishing multiple hit pieces in recent weeks. A November 30 op-ed warned that senior FBI officials “would likely resign rather than serve under Patel, which would probably suit Trump just fine.” The article concluded, “If Trump’s goal is to break the FBI and undermine its missions, Kash Patel is the perfect nominee.” This may well be one of the administration’s core objectives—on top of galvanizing Israel. Patel has vowed that a future Trump administration would “come after” government officials, intelligence agency leaders, journalists, and other establishment figures he associates with what he describes as the “Russiagate hoax.” It’s hardly surprising that these same factions view his rise—and the broader ascent of a new administration—with trepidation. Like Gabbard, Patel’s combative disdain for the U.S. deep state offers little solace. His stance does not mitigate, let alone counteract, his Pro-Israel leanings or the Trump administration’s aggressive resolve to ensure that Israel’s actions in Gaza, which human rights groups characterize as a genocide, proceed to their grim conclusion. Yet, one might argue that the left could find itself in a stronger position to oppose the ongoing atrocities in Gaza under a Republican administration that makes no pretense of sympathy for the Palestinians. Unlike Democratic governments, which weaponize progressive rhetoric to attempt to shame solidarity activists and progressive dissidents into supporting its doggedly pro-Israel actions, the Trump administration’s overtly pro-Israel stance strips away such falsifications. And the possibility that entrenched institutions like the CIA and FBI—longstanding adversaries of progress and justice in America—might finally face accountability for their actions could be a potential silver lining. Watch this space. AuthorKit Klarenberg is an investigative journalist and MintPress News contributor exploring the role of intelligence services in shaping politics and perceptions. His work has previously appeared in The Cradle, Declassified UK, and Grayzone. Follow him on Twitter @KitKlarenberg. This article was produced by MPN. Archives December 2024
0 Comments
 We now know most of what happened on that dark day of November 22, sixty-one years ago. After many years of competing theories, we now have solid evidence that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy was planned and carried out by the CIA, in retaliation for the peace project of JFK’s short-lived presidency. Kennedy’s project for peace included peace initiatives with respect to Russia, Vietnam, and Cuba; sustained private dialogue with Nikita Khrushchev; the signing of a nuclear test ban treaty as a first step toward complete disarmament, sustained through the development of institutions of cooperation in commerce and science; and support for and cooperation with Sukarno and the emerging Non-Aligned Movement. We now know these important facts of American history as a result of the 2008 book by James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, which presents the hypothesis that the CIA coordinated the assassination of a president who rejected the fundamental assumptions of the national security state, and who was actively engaged in pursuing initiatives that circumvented the structures of the state, including direct appeals to the people, who supported, Kennedy found, his gestures and initiatives toward peace. Douglass’ conclusions are well documented in the 518-page book, which puts together the various pieces by carefully examining all the available evidence, some of which gradually emerged over the years. § The Cold War and JFK’s counterproject of world peace Although the woke Left liked to condemn the American republic for slavery, conquest, and racism, in fact conquest is a normal human tendency, ironically providing the foundation for progress in economic development, science, philosophy, literature, and moral norms. The real test of the social and moral qualities of a conquering power comes following the conquest, and it is measured by the extent to which it uses the structures and advances attained through conquest to construct a society with justice for all. In the case of the USA, the period of conquest began prior to its founding as a Republic and continued to the end of World War II, by which time it had arrived to be the hegemonic power of the modern world-system, which had been formed by the Western European conquest of the world beginning in the sixteenth century. As the hegemonic power in a world-system that was in transition to neocolonialism, the USA was perfectly positioned to lead the world toward a post-colonial world-system that recognizes the sovereignty of all nations and constructs peace and prosperity on the institutional foundation of mutually beneficial trade among nations. However, the USA at that critical historic moment took a dark turn. It turned toward confrontation with its principal rival, the USSR, and with the emerging nations of the Third World, which were calling for a more just world order that uses the structures imposed by colonialism to develop a modern, equal, and just world, in which all nations have the possibility for modern economic and social development. The U.S. turn to confrontation occurred in a historic moment in which progress through conquest was no longer possible, and a world of competing imperialisms was no longer sustainable. It was justified through a Cold War ideology that falsely cast the Soviet Union as expansionist in its foreign policy. The CIA was created by the National Security Act of 1947, which established, in addition to the CIA, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Security Council. On June 18, 1948, President Harry Truman issued a top-secret directive that authorized the CIA to engage in sabotage and subversion against hostile states. The order was in violation of international law, and it established official lying as necessary to prevent covert activities from being known by the people. JFK’s differences with his own government, and especially with its national security sector, were visible even before Kennedy took office. As a Senator, even though JFK strongly embraced Cold War premises, he sometimes broke ranks with the West with respect to colonial wars, as was reflected in his support for the independence of Algeria. With respect to Indochina, he cautioned that military assistance has limits, and he ridiculed the notion that military force can conquer a so-called enemy of the people that “has the sympathy and covert support of the people.” As Chair of the African Subcommittee, Kennedy said to the Senate in 1959, “Call it nationalism, call it anti-colonialism, call it what you will, Africa is going through a revolution. . .. The word is out—and spreading like wildfire in nearly a thousand languages and dialects—that it is no longer necessary to remain forever poor and in bondage.” A definitive breaking of trust between President Kennedy and the CIA occurred in April 1961. The CIA had trained Cuban exiles in a secret base in Guatemala for an invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. In reluctantly approving the plan, JFK made clear that there would be no military intervention with U.S. troops, even if the exile brigade faced defeat. Kennedy realized following the failed invasion that he had been drawn into a trap by the CIA, in which he was faced with the choice of accepting defeat or escalating the battle. The authors of the plan “assumed that he would be forced by circumstances to drop his advance restrictions against the use of U.S. combat forces.” In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs defeat, Kennedy asked the three leaders of the failed operation to resign, namely, CIA Director Allen Douglas, Deputy Director Richard Bissel Jr., and Deputy Director General Charles Cabell. He also cut the CIA’s budget, aiming at a 20% reduction by 1966. And he tried through executive memoranda to redefine the agency’s mission and reduce its power. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev initiated private correspondence with Kennedy on September 29, 1961, with a letter that was twenty-six pages long, during the Berlin crisis. For the next two years, Khrushchev and Kennedy exchanged at least twenty-one secret letters, which included discussion of the possibilities for peaceful coexistence and of the need to avoid another world war. They also discussed the constraints placed on them by their respective states. The correspondence between them was helpful in avoiding a military confrontation during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 and in making possible a private agreement, according to which the Soviets would withdraw its missiles from Cuba, and the USA would dismantle the missiles that it had installed in Turkey. The American military chiefs were outraged that Kennedy had not taken advantage of the situation created by the discovery of Soviet missiles to attack Cuba. On June 10, 1963, Kennedy delivered an address at American University in Washington, in which Kennedy announced his decision for peace, taken against the advice of his political and military advisors, excepting Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy. He declared: I have chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and truth is too rarely perceived—yet it is the most important topic on earth: peace. Kennedy further asserted that “both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race.” He further declared that a general and complete disarmament is the primary long-range interest of the United States, a disarmament designed to take place in stages, accompanied by the development of new institutions of peace. To this end, Kennedy announced that he, Khrushchev, and British Prime Minister Harold MacMillan had agreed to hold discussions in Moscow on a test-ban treaty. Kennedy attended personally to working out with the U.S. negotiating team the details of the proposed nuclear test-ban treaty. There was strong opposition to the treaty from the Joint Chiefs and the CIA, as well as in the U.S. Congress, all under the influence of Cold War assumptions. Kennedy therefore went on a whirlwind public education campaign on the treaty, and he found that his message was well received by the people. In September 1963, public opinion polls showed that 80% of the people were in favor of the Treaty. It was ratified by the Senate on September 24, 1963, by a vote of 80 to 19, fourteen votes more than the required two-thirds majority. Kennedy also sought better relations with Indonesia’s Sukarno, who was a guest at the White House in 1961. On August 16, 1962, Kennedy issued a national security memorandum countering CIA plots against Sukarno and ordering the State Department, Defense Department, CIA, AID, and the U.S. Information agency to take a more positive approach to Indonesia that would seek a new and better relation. A reciprocal visit by JFK to Indonesia was scheduled for the spring of 1964, for which Sukarno had promised the U.S. President “the grandest reception anyone ever received here,” while Kennedy viewed his visit as a way of dramatizing in a very visible manner Kennedy’s support for Third World nationalism. The event, to the world’s misfortune, was cancelled by Kennedy’s assassination. Sukarno was at that time a leading figure in the Non-Aligned Movement, which today consists of 120 member states, and which advocates for the step-by-step construction of an alternative world order based in respect for the sovereignty of all nations, non-interference in the affairs of states, and mutually beneficial trade among nations. In March 1963, Kennedy initiated a new approach with respect to Cuba. The USA began a crackdown on Cuban émigré groups, preventing them from using U.S. territory to launch raids against Cuba, although Kennedy continued authorizing covert CIA operations against Cuba. In September, Kennedy initiated an indirect dialogue with Fidel Castro through intermediaries, which was still in process at the time of Kennedy’s assassination. Fidel of course responded favorably to this initiative; normal relations with the United States had been a persistent proposal of the Cuban Revolutionary Government since 1959. With respect to Vietnam, Kennedy agreed to send military advisors, support units, and helicopters to Vietnam, but not combat troops. In his exceptional and honest memoir on the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara affirms that Kennedy was persistently opposed to sending combat troops to Vietnam, convinced that South Vietnamese leaders can only attain their nation’s sovereignty by themselves, with U.S. help, but primarily on the basis of their own legitimacy in the eyes of the people. As Kennedy became convinced that the government of South Vietnam was not up to the task, he turned toward withdrawal. He told McNamara to order the military to draw up plans for withdrawal, concerning which the military was dragging its feet. On October 11, 1963, the president’s National Action Security Memorandum Number 263 mandated the withdrawal of 1,000 military personnel by the end of the year and the withdrawal of the bulk of U.S. personnel by the end of 1965. With JFK’s assassination within six weeks, the executive order was never implemented, and it was never announced to the public. § The CIA plan to assassinate the president In the context of the Cold War against the Soviet Union, there was a naval intelligence program in which approximately three dozen young men were sent to the Soviet Union, presenting themselves as disenchanted with American society and wanting to learn about communism, with the intention of developing useful connection with Soviet intelligence, working covertly for the CIA. It seems that one of them was Lee Harvey Oswald, who in 1957 and 1958 had been a Marine Corps radar operator in a U.S. Air Force base in Japan. He had a high security clearance and listened regularly to radio communications among U.S. secret U-2 spy planes flying over the Soviet Union and China. On October 31, 1959, two months after being discharged from the Marine Corps, Oswald renounced his U.S. citizenship at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, and he affirmed his allegiance to the Soviet Union. He further declared he had told Soviet officials that he would make known to them information concerning U.S. radar operations. Oswald returned to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow after working for over a year in a factory in Minsk. The Embassy made no effort to prosecute him for his defection, and it lent him money to return to the United States. Once back in the USA, it seems that Oswald was working for the CIA as an agent provocateur, presenting himself as a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and as a defender of Cuban socialism, distributing leaflets and conducting street theater designed to attract media attention, for the purpose of discrediting the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. In his role as CIA agent provocateur, Oswald, without his knowledge, was being set up as a patsy and a scapegoat for the assassination of the president. Russia and Cuba were intended as secondary scapegoats. Using Oswald’s feigned support for the Soviet Union and Cuba to create the belief that the alleged assassin of the president was an agent of the Soviet Union and/or Cuba, public opinion could be rallied toward support for war with Russia and Cuba. Douglass thoroughly documents the fact that over the years, various people have come forward with testimony indicating that the shots that killed President Kennedy were fired from a grassy knoll to the front of the presidential motorcade, and not from the Texas School Book Depository that the motorcade had passed, where Oswald was located. This accumulating testimony, gradually overcoming fear, pertains to Oswald’s various movements prior to the assassination, observations of the shooting, the escape routes of the shooters and Oswald, and medical observations of the president’s fatal wounds. President Lyndon B. Johnson, upon being informed following the assassination of the CIA plan, refused to use Oswald’s feigned Soviet and Cuban connections to arouse public passion for war with Russia and Cuba, because it was evident that neither Russia nor Cuba had anything to do with the assassination. Nor did LBJ authorize investigation of the CIA’s involvement in the affair, which if made known, could have provoked a public outcry that would have resulted in the dismantlement of the CIA as well as intense internal conflict in the nation. Instead, Johnson created the Warren Commission, privately advising key members of the Commission to avoid all questions that would lead to revealing who Oswald really was and the role of the CIA in the Kennedy assassination. Accordingly, the Commission created the narrative that Oswald was a loner who was alienated from others and hostile to his environment and who had acted alone, a narrative that had many internal contradictions and inconsistencies with known facts, with the consequence that the Commission’s conclusions were never completely accepted by the people. At the same time, having internalized Cold War anti-communist assumptions, LBJ was genuinely not in agreement with JFK’s peace project, which he quietly set aside. Immediately following the assassination, LBJ met with Kennedy’s advisors on Vietnam, all of whom, with the exception of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, were opposed to Kennedy’s peace project. As is made clear in Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s memoir on the Vietnam War, LBJ’s orientation was clear at that initial meeting: the USA must and will win the war in Vietnam. Moreover, JFK’s initiatives toward Cuba were dropped. Cuba was not informed of the shift, in spite of Fidel’s efforts to communicate his continued interest in rapprochement and a normal relation between Cuba and the USA. § Final considerations The unspeakable crime of the CIA destroyed emerging prospects for peace and sustained world cooperation at a critical time in human history. As such, it was a crime against the people of the United States and the peoples of the world. The people of the United States should know of John F. Kennedy’s determined and courageous effort to establish peaceful co-existence among world powers as well as structures of peace and cooperation among nations, including cooperation between the Global North and South, which today remains a key demand and hope of the once-colonized peoples of the earth. The people of the United States should know the story of JFK and the CIA. It is not a question of attacking the legacy of blameworthy individuals. Rather, it is a question of identifying pitfalls to the construction of peace, so that collective political intelligence can be mobilized to overcome them. AuthorCharles McKelvey This article was produced by Charles McKelvey. Archives December 2024  SEOUL, South Korea (RTSG) – On December 3rd, residents of the capital of the Republic of Korea were rudely awakened in the middle of the night to the sounds of helicopters and jets flying over their houses after the president declared martial law. President Yoon Soek-Yeol gathered an emergency meeting of the press at 10:23 PM to announce the establishment of martial law in the country, decrying what he called “North Korean communist forces” that he alleged were “paralyzing the essential functions of the state and undermining the liberal democratic constitutional order.”  Lawmakers had to hop the fences of the National Assembly building, South Korea’s legislative meeting hall, to avoid police and military forces that had blocked off all entrances to the building. After thousands of protestors showed up outside the building, there was chaos between protestors and the military, though no deaths or injuries happened. After several hours of uncertainty, members of the South Korean parliament voted to lift the martial law at around 1 AM. By 2 AM, all troops had left the compound. The events of December 3rd shocked not just the East Asian nation, but also the rest of the world. The Republic of Korea has not instituted martial law since 1980, and since then, the country has created ostensibly strong democratic systems. The events of this week seem to have disproved that assumption. The question remains: how did this happen? President Yoon Seok-Yeol has been one of the Republic of Korea’s most unpopular presidents since his election in 2022, which he won with a barely 1% margin of victory. He and his party, the People’s Power Party (국민의힘), rode to victory promising deregulation and tax reductions. As a result, he was particularly popular among the youth in Seoul, the largest metropolitan area of South Korea. Now, however, it seems that his fortunes have changed significantly after repeated attacks from the opposition, the Democratic Party (더불어민주당). Suffering from one controversy to another, Yoon saw his approval ratings dip to 19% nationwide at the beginning of November. Recently, the Democratic Party launched a prosecution targeting Yoon’s relationship with an election broker and owner of a polling agency. The election broker, named Myung Tae-Kyun, was under scrutiny for gloating that he held power over the President and his wife in a leaked phone call, and the president himself is under investigation for exercising inappropriate power over the People’s Power Party in selecting officials for election brokering and the like. Additionally, Yoon’s presidency has seen a marked increase in tensions between North and South Korea, with the latter restarting several provocative military exercises against the North. North Korea (officially the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) has continued to respond to these advances in a tit-for-tat series of escalations, including dropping propaganda leaflets over the capital city of Seoul. Most recently however, the North accused the South of flying drones over the North’s capital city, Pyongyang. Amidst all this pressure, Yoon declared martial law, primarily to stop the investigation and to “restore government functions.” However, lawmakers in South Korea are already preparing to remove the president, with six of the opposition parties banding together to draft an official motion to impeach Yoon. The People’s Power Party, despite opposing the declaration of martial law, has stated it will not support the motion to impeach. AuthorSeraph This article was produced by RTSG. Archives December 2024  Al-Qaeda affiliates with a history of receiving western funding have reactivated in Syria along with Turkish-backed fighters to recapture significant amounts of territory in the war-ravaged nation. It’s hard to say exactly what’s happening in the moment, but I will say it’s mighty convenient how Russia being tied up in Ukraine and Hezbollah being decapitated by Israel leaves Syria once again exposed to the longstanding regime change agendas of the same western empire who’s been backing both of those proxy conflicts.  Syria is more complicated and harder to understand than Gaza, but if you look into it you’ll find mountains of evidence that for many years the US and its allies and partners have been actively fomenting violence, chaos and destruction in that nation to effect regime change. Anyone who denies this is either ignorant or dishonest, as is anyone who calls you a Russian propagandist or an Assad lover for stating this well-evidenced fact. There are a lot of people who see through the imperial lies about Gaza but still buy into the imperial lies about Syria, largely because the lies about Gaza are so much easier to see through. Immense amounts of propaganda and information ops have gone into framing the violence we’ve been seeing in Syria since 2011 as a completely organic rebellion against a tyrannical dictator who just wants to murder civilians because he is evil. But if you bring the same sincere curiosity and rigorous investigation to this issue that you brought to the plight of the Palestinians, you will discover the same kinds of lies and distortions which you’ve seen the western political/media class promote about Gaza being spun about Syria as well — frequently by the same people. This is how unpacking the lies of the empire tends to unfold for folks. Your eyes flicker open because of some really obvious plot hole in the official narrative like Vietnam, the Iraq invasion, or Gaza, and then once you’ve seen through those lies you start getting curious about how else you’ve been deceived. You start pulling on other threads and learning more and more, and then after a while you start seeing the big picture about the US-centralized empire inflicting horrific abuses upon humanity all around the world with the goal of dominating the planet. If you saw through the lies about Gaza, don’t stop there. Keep going. Keep pulling on threads. Keep learning. Stay curious. They lied about Gaza, they lied about Iraq, they lied about Libya, they lied about Ukraine, and they’re lying about Syria too. Don’t listen to anyone who tries to dull your curiosity. Ignore anyone who tries to shout you down and shut you up for asking inconvenient questions. Keep waking up from the matrix of empire propaganda until your eyes are truly clear. ❖ Boris Johnson told The Telegraph in a recent interview that the west is “waging a proxy war” in Ukraine, which, while obviously true, was once considered by the western political-media class to be a very taboo thing to say. “We’re waging a proxy war, but we’re not giving our proxies the ability to do the job,” Johnson said. “For years now, we’ve been allowing them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs and it has been cruel.” For years it was considered Kremlin propaganda to call the war in Ukraine a western proxy war against Russia. Now the line is “Well this is obviously a proxy war so we need to give our proxies more weapons, duh!” ❖ We’re taught that heroes look like western soldiers and cops taking out bad guys, when really heroes look like Palestinian journalists risking everything to tell the truth about genocidal atrocities that are backed by western governments while western journalists make propaganda. ❖ I don’t want the Australian government to ban kids from social media, I want the Australian government to stop supporting Israel’s genocidal atrocities and stop turning this country into a giant US military base in preparation for Washington’s war with China. ❖ It should be illegal to force homeless people to relocate. If a rich neighborhood is the best place to sleep rough then the rich should be forced to look at a daily reminder of the dystopia they live in until the underlying problems which cause homelessness have been fixed. You shouldn’t be allowed to hide such things to make people comfortable. All the laws designed to criminalize homelessness and force the unhoused to relocate are just one more way our dystopia hides its abuses and contradictions from public view, the same as propaganda and internet censorship and murdering Palestinian journalists. They want the homeless out of sight and out of mind in the same way their wars and genocides are out of sight and out of mind. They just want the homeless to go “away”, because they can’t fix the injustices and inequality which cause homelessness without upending the power structure they rule. They wish all the symptoms of poverty and injustice in our society could be hidden on the other side of vast oceans like their wars are. AuthorCaitlin Johnstone This article was produced by Caitlin Johnstone. Archives December 2024  The G20 summit in Rio earlier this week offered the quite intriguing spectacle of a deeply divided world, geopolitically and geoeconomically, trying to put on a brave ‘holiday in the sun’ face. There was plenty of fluff to amuse attentive audiences. French President Emmanuel Macron surrounded by a beefy security detail strolling on Copacabana beach near midnight; European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen barefoot in the sand, stunned by the lapping waves; the White House lodger, US President Joe Biden – with his expiry date in less than two months – missing the G20 family pic because he was talking to a palm tree. Right before the summit, Biden posed on a soundstage in the rainforest, complete with two giant teleprompters, pledging to save the Amazon just as his handlers in Washington let leak the “authorization” for Ukraine to attack targets inside the Russian Federation with ATACMS; a qualified preamble for a possible WWIII. With Rio providing the ultimately gorgeous set, at the very least, tempers at the renovated Museum of Modern Art, the G20 venue with the Sugarloaf in the background, were bound to mellow out. This even allowed for a short, tense handshake between Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a true leader of the Global South, and Argentina’s President Javier Milei, a US asset who hates Lula’s guts. China steals the show The populist Brazilian head of state, whose political capital transcends all barriers, was, of course, an impeccable master of ceremonies, but the real star of the show was Chinese President Xi Jinping – fresh from his previous triumph, when he was for all practical purposes coronated King of Peru during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Lima - complete with the inauguration of the $1.3 billion port of Chancay, the new South American node of the Pacific Maritime Silk Road. As China is all about global connectivity corridors, Chancay-Shanghai became an instant new motto ringing all across the Global South. Beijing’s prime role as an engine and cooperation propeller across Asia–Pacific also applies to most of the G20 members. China is the largest trading partner of the 13 APEC economies, and is responsible for 64.2 percent of Asia-Pacific’s economic growth. This prime role extrapolates to China’s BRICS colleagues among the G20, as well as brand-new BRICS partner-nations such as Indonesia and Turkiye. Compare that with the G7/NATOstan contingent of the G20, starting with the United States, whose main global offerings range from Forever Wars and color revolutions to weaponizing of news and culture, trade wars, a tsunami of sanctions, and confiscation/theft of assets. So, predictably, there was some serious underlying tension permeating the G20, especially when it came to the face-off between the G7 and the Russia-China strategic partnership. Russian President Vladimir Putin didn’t even bother to attend, sending his uber-competent Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov instead. As for Beijing, after 7 years of combined Trump-Biden trade and tech war, the Chinese economy continues to grow by 5.2 percent a year. Exports now account for only 16 percent of China’s GDP, so the economic powerhouse is far less vulnerable to foreign trade machinations. And the US share of that 16 percent is now only 15 percent; that is, trade with the US represents only 2.4 percent of Chinese GDP. Even under what can be described as NATOstan’s all-out tech sanctions, Chinese tech firms are growing at warp speed. As a result, all western tech companies are in deep trouble: massive retrenchment, factory downsizes, and shutdowns. Meanwhile, China’s trade surplus with the rest of the world has expanded to a record one trillion US dollars. That’s what horrified Western economists qualify as China on a “collision course” with some of the world’s biggest – yet dwindling – economies. Efforts to ‘Ukrainize’ the G20 agenda The Brazilians had to dodge quite a few precision bullets to extract some success out of this G20 summit. US Think Tankland, on the eve of the summit, went on an all-out propaganda campaign, accusing BRICS nations of doing nothing but posture and complain. The G20, on the contrary, with “all major creditors on the table,” might be able to redress “financial grievances” and development deficits. The Brazilians were clever enough to understand that an indebted NATO bloc exhibiting less than zero political leadership would do nothing under the G20 framework to redress “financial grievances,” not to mention contribute to “enfranchise” Global South nations. The only thing that would interest the Hegemon’s financial elites out of a G20 meeting is to “deepen partnerships,” a euphemism for further co-option and vassalization with an eye on 2026, when the US will host the G20. China, just like Brazil, had other ideas. Enter the campaign to fight hunger and poverty, officially launched in Rio. The Global Times has re-emphasized how China “has lifted all 800 million people out of poverty and achieved the poverty reduction goals of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development ahead of schedule.” In his G20 speech, Xi called all members to “make a fresh start from Rio,” by practicing “inclusive globalization” and “true multilateralism.” NATOstan, as every grain of sand in the Sahel desert knows, simply abhors multilateralism. The official theme of the Rio G20 was “Building a Just World and a Sustainable Planet.” The Hegemon’s ruling classes, irrespective of who sits in the White House, are not interested in a “just world,” only in maintaining unilateral privilege. As for “sustainable planet,” it is code for what the Davos Gang wants: the toxic imbrication of interests of the UN, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and NATO. The G7/NATOstan did try by all means to hijack the agenda of the Rio G20, as confirmed by diplomatic sources. Yet the Brazilians stood firm in the defense of Global South-led multipolarity, negotiating a compromise agenda that, for all practical purposes, evaded getting deeper into the Hegemon's latest Forever Wars, Ukraine and Gaza. With NATOstan as a whole de facto supporting the Gaza genocide, the G20 85-point Final Declaration could, at best, offer a few consensual generalities, at least calling for a ceasefire in Gaza - which was promptly vetoed by the US at the UN Security Council immediately after the G20 summit's conclusion. Lavrov, at his G20 press conference, offered some extra nuggets. He said that while the west did “try to 'Ukrainize' the G20 agenda, other members insisted that other conflicts be included in the final declaration … Those countries reluctantly agreed to discuss the points of the G20 final declaration on the Middle East [West Asia].” Indonesia, India, Brazil, South Africa Lula’s personal imprint at the G20 represented a Global South move: to establish an alliance against hunger, poverty, and social inequality, and at the same time impose extra taxation on the super-wealthy. The devil will be in the details, even as over 80 nations have already subscribed, plus the EU and the African Union (AU), along with several financial institutions and a series of NGOs. The alliance should, in principle, benefit 500 million people up to 2030, including the expansion of quality school meals for over 150 million children. It remains to be seen, for instance, how the AU will make it happen in practice. In the end, to a certain auspicious extent, the Rio G20 worked as a sort of complement to the BRICS summit in Kazan, trying to pave the way towards an inclusive multi-nodal world framed by social justice. Lula significantly stressed the key connection linking the latest G20s: the Global South - ranging from Indonesia, India, and now Brazil to South Africa, which will host the G20 next year, bringing “perspectives that interest the vast majority of the world’s population.” Incidentally, that, right there, includes three BRICS and one BRICS partner. On a personal level, it was quite an experience to observe the G20 fresh from a series of rich dialogues in South Africa itself, centered on the construction of African unity in a multipolar world. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa reiterated it when he said in Rio that this passing of the baton from Brazil is the “concrete expression of the historical, economic, social and cultural links that unite Latin America and Africa.” And unite, hopefully, the whole Global Majority. AuthorPepe Escobar is a columnist at The Cradle, editor-at-large at Asia Times and an independent geopolitical analyst focused on Eurasia. Since the mid-1980s he has lived and worked as a foreign correspondent in London, Paris, Milan, Los Angeles, Singapore and Bangkok. He is the author of countless books; his latest one is Raging Twenties. This article was produced by The Cradle. Archives December 2024  They say those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Unfortunately, much of the public seems to have a rather selective memory where recent American history is concerned. When examining the depraved actions confirmed to have been perpetrated by the United States government in recent decades and contrasting such an unflattering image of the American government with the portrait painted by apologists for the American political elite, one might conclude that much of the public has fallen victim to a disinformation campaign conducted by the mainstream media and their ruling class allies who would rather the population forget about their misdeeds. Over the years, such misdeeds have included mind control experiments, lying the nation into war, mass surveillance, poisoning illegal substances to dissuade citizens from consuming them, and much more. And yet, despite the many examples of how morally bankrupt the elite are in the United States government, there are still large swaths of the population who trust that the political establishment is acting in good faith or that such atrocities committed by the Unites States government could only have been perpetrated in the past. What those who come to the defense of the political elite do not realize is that one of the most overt examples of the United States government’s lack of morality is occurring in plain sight in the way the American government enforces the petrodollar system. But one might ask, “What is the petrodollar system?” To understand the petrodollar system, historical context is vital. Towards the end of the Second World War at the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944, an assortment of Allied leaders met to establish a new economic world order. From the ashes of the world economy stood the United States as the leading economic power and it was at the Bretton Woods Conference that a new monetary system that relied on the American currency was established. According to such a system, the U.S. dollar could be converted into gold at a fixed rate while foreign currencies themselves were pegged to the American currency. When a nation lost confidence in the U.S. dollar, they would have the option of exchanging their holdings in dollars for gold. This system generated a demand for American currency and such a demand gave the United States government reason to print more money. The Federal Reserve, a private banking entity, benefitted from a global demand for the U.S. dollar since it was the Federal Reserve that loaned the money to the United States government to be paid back with interest and it was the Federal Reserve that set the interest. When the Bretton Woods system was set up, it seemed that the answer to the problems faced by the global economy had arrived. Yet, the Bretton Woods system suffered from a severe Achilles’ heel. This Achilles’ heel was that this system was dependent on a stable American economy. In the 1960s, the American economy faced adversity due to the costs of the Johnson administration’s domestic programs whose stated aims were to alleviate poverty and the Vietnam War. Because of the economic woes facing the United States at the time, many a nation began to request gold in exchange for U.S. dollars. The days of the Bretton Woods system were numbered. 1971 marked the death of the Bretton Woods system. It was in this year that President Nixon ended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold. This had the effect of turning the U.S. dollar into a fiat currency, a currency whose value is not decided by another commodity. Following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, it wouldn’t take long for a new economic arrangement to take shape. The Nixon administration was aware that the fall of the Bretton Woods system would cause an overall decline in demand for the U.S. dollar. However, an opportunity to generate demand for the U.S. dollar would present itself with the Yom Kippur War and later oil crisis. In 1973, a coalition of Arab nations attacked Israeli forces to take back territory seized by Israel during the Six-Day War. In retaliation for support given to Israel by the United States and other western nations, the Organization of Oil Exporting Countries enacted an oil embargo. As a result, the price of oil dramatically shot up. For his part, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger worked to negotiate an end to the embargo. Specifically, he worked out an agreement with the Saudi government in which Saudi Arabia would sell their oil in the U.S. dollar in exchange for weapons and the protection of Saudi oil fields by the United States Armed Forces. Not long thereafter, all the other OPEC nations agreed to sell their oil in American currency and the petrodollar system was born. With that historical context surrounding what the petrodollar system is in mind, one might ask, “What makes the petrodollar system so diabolical?” The answer to that question can be found by examining how this system is enforced. Simply put, nations that jeopardize the petrodollar system often find themselves in the crosshairs of the globalists. The most infamous example of this kind of imperialism is the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War of 1991, the Iraqi economy was devastated by the sanctions imposed upon it. Among the sanctions was one that banned Iraq from exporting oil. This changed in the mid-90s with the creation of the Oil-for-Food Program, a program that allowed Iraq to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian needs. In 2000, the Iraqi government, believing the European market to be best, requested they be allowed to sell oil in the euro. Following the approval of the Iraqi request by the United Nations, the Unites States government, unwilling to allow the petrodollar system to be jeopardized, began a propaganda campaign to build a case for an invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of its dictator, Saddam Hussein. Much of this campaign was composed of lies. Arguably one of the most infamous of these lies was the claim that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Another of these lies came in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks when the Bush administration tried to link Saddam Hussein to the terrorist group implicated in the attack, Al-Qaeda. Yet, no link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime was ever found. Furthermore, no weapons of mass destruction were ever discovered following the invasion. This means that the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq were sacrificed over the imperialistic agenda of the globalists who framed the war as a mercy mission to rid the world of a terrorist-supporting tyrant who was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Yet, those who masterminded this illegal war have still not faced justice. However, the Iraq War is not the only example of this kind of imperialism. Other countries that have gone on to threaten the petrodollar system in one way or another have included Libya, Syria, and Iran. In the case of Libya, the globalists succeeded in regime change. As for Syria, the globalists are still trying to overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad. With regards to Iran, the United States and its allies spent two decades occupying Iran’s neighbors while perpetuating propaganda depicting Iran as a terrorist-supporting nation hell-bent on building nuclear weapons to attack Israel. In short, this kind of imperialism persists to this day. So, the next time someone you know makes the mistake of running defense for the corrupt ruling class, kindly remind them of this ongoing example of the lack of morals and ethics of the American political elite. AuthorGrant Klusmann is an author on Substack and a member of the Wisconsin chapter of the American Communist Party. His writing primarily focuses on foreign policy and anti-imperialism. This article was produced by Grant Klusmann. Archives December 2024  Truth is cheap. Not in the sense that it is worthless. But quite literally, it just is there. All that an understanding of truth requires is our ability to comprehend the world; to see how things are connected to each other, how they exist in various processes, and how they always carry within them opposing tendencies, upon whose interaction, movement is produced. Our spontaneous interaction with the world is always-already embedded in a view that sees how things are constantly changing and affecting everything else around them. It is in the schools where we learn how to disconnect things from their time and place. And this action of abstract thought, although helpful to obtain certain forms of detailed knowledge of particulars, corrupts our spontaneous awareness of the dynamic integration of reality. This is not to say that truth is simple. After all, once we are developed enough to ask the question, the bias towards disconnection and staticity would’ve already been inserted in our minds by the dominant institutions. A process of “brain washing” our “brain washing” is necessary. But nonetheless, truth is always readily available. To acquire truth there is no need to massage reality. The way the world is, is sufficient. Truth does not require makeup crews. It is. Lies, however, have a high cost of maintenance. To lie is to fabricate. To lie is to distort. It requires effort. The lie, unlike the truth, is not just there. The presence of the lie presupposes its absence. The lie is there because it wasn’t. The lie is there because the way the world was, was insufficient for the men and institutions who lie. Lies are costly. They require the wholesale creation of new worlds, based disingenuously on the world. To lie is, as Michael Parenti would say, to invent reality. The liar, which includes men and their historically determined institutions, is the demiurgos of a new universe. From the matter of the world, they provide form to a new one. But this is costly. The lie is haunted by the ever-present reality of change. Change presents the real possibility for fissures to arise in the invented world. The lie clings hopelessly on to the purity of the first moment, the moment when it fooled fools into entering its invented world. The liar must operate, out of necessity, with a purity fetish. They must resist the desecration of the sanctity of their invented world by the developments in the real world. Truth is in the attunement of our understanding of the world and the real changes in it. Lies long for Parmenidean permanence. In a real world where nothing is permanent and fixed, lies, the invented world, is constantly in an existential struggle against reality. Reality wears it out; it increases, in time, the costliness of the invented world’s survival. The lovers of purity are, consciously or not, lovers of lies. Lies are not only based on purity, that is, the pure moment when the invented world obtains followers, its own beings-in-the-world. Purity itself is a lie. They are partners in a crime against the real world, against truth. The final crack will be dealt by those who were thrown into the invented world. Their own followers will be their headsmen. It is popular to say that a “lie has no legs.” It would be more correct to say that a lie’s legs are as capable as the pocketbooks that secure the prosthetics. Billions are needed, for instance, to sustain the Zionist entity’s Hasbara program. Only a phone, a universal object in the modern world, is needed to record the truth. With millions of phones that have recorded and shared the genocide, truth has pierced, for many, the invented worlds of imperialist lies. The costly resources forwarded to sustain lies-based new worlds are no guarantee of the long-term survival of these worlds. The prosthetic, expensive though it might be, could break with constant stress. That is what the truth, the world, provides lies, the invented worlds. It provides it with a constant stress, a haunting ever-presence that looms over the invented world. At nodal points it cracks it, and like Shiva, becomes a destroyer of worlds. José Martí held that a lie can run for a hundred years, but the truth can catch up to it in a minute. In that hundred years of running, the lie felt the truth breathing down its neck, like a shadow which becomes a striking shade when the moment is right. Today the invented world of the imperialists is seeing the stress fractures of the evermore-visible truth. No amount of money will fix the prosthetic legs of their lies, of their invented worlds. The question, today, is not whether it will crack, but when. AuthorCarlos L. Garrido is a Cuban American philosophy professor. He is the director of the Midwestern Marx Institute and the Secretary of Education of the American Communist Party. He has authored many books, including The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism(2023), Why We Need American Marxism (2024), Marxism and the Dialectical Materialist Worldview(2022), and the forthcoming On Losurdo’s Western Marxism (2024) and Hegel, Marxism, and Dialectics (2025). He has written for dozens of scholarly and popular publications around the world and runs various live-broadcast shows for the Midwestern Marx Institute YouTube. You can subscribe to his Philosophy in Crisis Substack HERE. Archives November 2024  On October 29-30, 2024, the General Assembly of the United Nations debated the Cuban resolution, “The need to end the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.” The October 29 session began with addresses to the General Assembly by seven political and regional groups of nations: the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), consisting of ten countries; the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), 57 nations on four continents; the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations, 18 member States; the African Group, 55 member States; the Community of Latin American States (CELAC), 33 member states; the Caribbean Community (Caricom), 15 member states; the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), 120 member states; and the G77 and China, 134 member States. In addition, thirty-one nations took the podium to address the question. All spoke clearly in support of the resolution, and many condemned the arbitrary inclusion of Cuba on a spurious list of nations that supposedly sponsor terrorism. On October 30, 187 countries voted in favor of the resolution, with two opposed (United States and Israel). The small central-eastern European country of Moldavia abstained.  Cuban Minister of Foreign Relations Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla addressed the General Assembly in presentation of the resolution. He began with a powerful example of the impact of the U.S. blockade on Cuban society. For five days, from Friday, October 18 to Wednesday, October 23, Cuban families were deprived, except for a few hours, of electricity, with anxiety that food would spoil, and it would not be possible or very expensive to replace it, and many lacked running water. Hospitals operated under emergency conditions, and schools and universities suspended classes. Political, economic, and cultural activities were closed, and only vital institutions remained open. The economy came to a halt. Rodríguez declared that the Cuban economy in recent years has experienced difficulties without precedent, in spite of the fact that the government works tirelessly to find solutions. There are various causes of this situation, he noted, but the most outstanding factor is the deliberate intention of the United States to suffocate and sabotage our national economy, placing significant obstacles to impede our growth and development. The U.S. government knows very well, Rodríguez maintained, that the blockade violates the UN Charter and international norms, and that it has a direct and indirect effect on the Cuban system of health and the general wellbeing of the people. The U.S. policy deliberately intends to impoverish the people and provoke shortages, as the centerpiece of a multidimensional unconventional war against Cuba, with the intention of provoking the collapse of the Cuban Revolutionary Government. Even though the blockade has not provoked political instability in Cuba, it functions as a message of warning to the entire world that there is a price to be paid for rebellion. The Minister noted that the strengthening and intensification of the blockade was initiated by the Trump Administration in the period 2017 to 2019, and the new measures have been maintained by the Biden Administration. These measures have included pressures and threats directed against companies and banks in third countries that have commercial and financial relations with Cuba. A dimension of this is the inclusion of Cuba on a spurious list of countries that supposedly sponsor terrorism, which, in spite of its absurdity, enables the government of the United States to threaten and penalize companies and banks in third countries. It thus functions as a key element of economic coercion in the unconventional war against Cuba. In addition, the recent measures have included the blocking of an expedited visa for European citizens to travel to the United States, if they have previously made a trip to Cuba, thus damaging Cuban tourism, the nation’s principal source of international currency. The surprising fact, Rodríguez declared, is that Cuba, during six decades of the blockade, was able to construct a social project that attended to the fundamental needs of the people with respect to nutrition, housing, education, health, and transportation; and that Cuba persists with the support of the people and with political stability in the current stage of the intensified blockade. As result, Cuba enjoys great prestige in the world today.  The U.S. reply in the General Assembly debate The rules of the General Assembly grant the right to the United Sates to reply to the resolution, and a solitary representative of the U.S. diplomatic corps assumed the responsibility. Cuban diplomats frequently express sympathy for their professional diplomatic colleagues of the U.S. diplomatic corps in this situation, because they are placed in a situation where they must defend the indefensible before the clear condemnation of the representatives of the world. In this case, the U.S. representative began with his best pitch: he declared that the sanctions are part of U.S. global efforts "to promote democracy and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba." In an editorial on October 30 in Granma, Carmen Maturell Senon and Claudia Thalía Suárez Fernández point out that the UN Charter and international norms do not grant the United States the legal authority to judge the political practices of other nations. Moreover, as is commonly argued in Cuba, the United States does not have the moral authority to judge the political practices of other nations from a democratic perspective, taking into account numerous undemocratic situations and practices, frequently cited, provided by critical currents within the United States. Although such Cuban counterarguments against the U.S. charge of undemocratic practices in Cuba are valid, I have never been entirely satisfied with such a response. The accusation that Cuba has an authoritarian government that violates human rights is widely believed, at least in part, among the people of the United States. And there is an international norm in favor of democracy and against totalitarian or authoritarian governments. The accusation of authoritarian practices by Cuba has credibility, because there is lack of understanding of the actual functioning of the Cuban political process of people’s democracy, which has structures different from representative democracy. The Cuban political system does not provide freedom of choice of competing political parties, as in representative democracies; rather, it provides alternative mechanisms for the voice and political participation of the people, in the form of people’s assemblies with true political power and mass organizations of workers, farmers, students, women, and neighborhoods, which are constitutionally integrated into the Cuban political process. Cuba developed this alternative approach to democracy during the 1960s and 1970s, in the aftermath of the delegitimation of the political parties and the system of representative democracy in Cuba during the 1940s and 1950s. Therefore, I maintain that, in debates about the U.S. blockade, we who defend Cuba should explain how Cuba’s system of people’s democracy works, so that the imperialist claim that it is promoting democracy in Cuba can be dismissed, on the grounds that Cuba has democracy of a different form, rooted in its history of having struggled for democracy in the context of a neocolonial situation. The Cuban democratic process is designed to grant power to the people and to block the usurping of power by an elite that represents its interests and those of a foreign power. People’s Democracy in Cuba: A vanguard political-economic system Aside from his myopic approach to democracy, the U.S. representative was guilty of a couple of misrepresentations. First, he mentioned 1,000 supposed political prisoners that were detained illegally in Cuba, stemming from the events of July 21, 2021. In fact, as Maturell and Suárez point out, 177 citizens were detained during the events of July 11 for serious offenses, with 790 detained with lesser charges. They were accused of vandalism, attacks on persons, and destruction of public property. In legal processes characterized by respect for due process, proof of violence was provided by statements of witnesses and victims as well as expert witnesses who examined videos published in different media, which allowed the identification of the accused in such criminal acts as public disorder, instigation to commit crimes, damage to property, robberies with force and violence, attacks of persons, sabotage, and sedition. The great majority of the persons accused are no longer detained, having been acquitted of the charges, paid their fines, or completed their sentences. (Description of the events of July 11 can be found in Chapter Five, People’s Democracy in Cuba). In addition, the US representative asserted that U.S. regulations with respect to Cuba permit the exportation of food and medicine to Cuba. In fact, the conditions stipulated for such commerce are onerous and costly, and the authorization is bureaucratically complex, such that it is not a workable option in practice. Cuban entities have attempted to use it, and they have found that it appears to function as a mechanism to justify the U.S. claim that food and medicine are being sold to Cuba. In the recently held Forum of Cuban Civil Society against the Blockade, the shortages of medical equipment and supplies and medicines in the Cuban health system were described by Cuban doctors, including Dr. Jorge Juan Marinello, president of the Cuban Society of Oncology, Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine; Dr. Albia Pozo Alonso, director of the Cuban Journal of Pediatrics; Olga Agramonte Llanes, president of the Cuban Society of Hematology; and Eugenio Selman-Houssein, director of the William Soler Cardiological Center. Moreover, the U.S. representative did not say a single word with respect to the inclusion of Cuba on the list of countries that supposedly sponsor terrorism. It is widely recognized throughout the world that this is an entirely baseless accusation against Cuba. Yet the inclusion of Cuba on the spurious list is a central mechanism of the intensification of the blockade since 2019, because it provides a legal mechanism for the blocking of commercial and financial transactions with Cuba by companies and banks in third countries. The arbitrary inclusion of Cuba on the list was rejected by many of the delegations that took to the podium to express their country’s call for the end of the blockade. § Further Considerations To state the obvious, the U.S. blockade of Cuba violates the sovereign right of Cuba to determine its own political-economic system, in accordance with its national characteristics and history. And it violates the sovereign right of third countries to regulate the economic relations of their corporations and citizens. As such, it violates the UN Charter and international norms. Moreover, it violates the economic rights of U.S. citizens and residents. This is well understood in the world. Cuba has become a symbol in what some leaders and intellectuals of the Global South have called World War III, a multidimensional unconventional war between Western imperialist nations, led by the United States, and nations of the Global South and East that are leading an anti-imperialist process of construction of an alternative world order based in mutually beneficial commerce and cooperation. At the current time, the power elites and the people of the United States are not ideologically prepared to discern that their best interests in the long term would be served by cooperation with the emerging process of alternative construction. Regardless of the obstacles placed in their path, the nations of the Global South and East will continue on the road of developing in practice a world order characterized by cooperation and respect for the sovereignty of all nations. Their persistence will increase the probability that either the American power elite or the American people will awaken to enlightened consciousness, through which it would be discerned that the rise of China and the Global South and the persistence of Cuba are not threats to the United States. Rather, these world dynamics provide the USA with the opportunity to adjust course in foreign policy and find an anti-imperialist road, which would provide the key to the fulfillment of the American promise of democracy, inherent in the nation’s Declaration of Independence and Constitution. AuthorThis article was produced by Charles McKelveys blog. Archives November 2024
From the big Western cartelized media, traditionally hostile to the Cuban Revolution, coverage of the situation has been largely irresponsible, with clear ideological biases contrary to the Cuban socialist project, which prevents us from extracting from these analyses elements for an objective understanding of the fundamental causes that have led the island to the current situation. Especially when we insist on seeing it outside the socioeconomic panorama in which the country is developing. Looking at Cuba in a regional context helps to understand, first of all, that the island’s energy crisis is not an extraordinary scenario, but is unfortunately quite common in the region. Building and sustaining a modern and reliable energy system is an extraordinary challenge for developing economies. The dynamics of contemporary societies impose an increasingly higher energy demand on the generation capacities of countries, as an infinite number of electrical devices are being incorporated adding more demand on the power systems. At the same time, the increase in the average global temperature, droughts and other climatic disorders impose additional stress on the grids, which often end up dangerously overloaded. In Mexico, for example, in May of this year, high temperatures and the resulting increase in demand led to blackouts in 16 of the country’s 32 states. In Costa Rica, the drought drastically reduced the country’s generation capacity, which depends on hydroelectric generation for 70% of demand, forcing the rationing of electricity consumption. A similar situation has hit Colombia, whose reservoirs remain 16 points below the historical average. In Ecuador, drought and generation obsolescence have now led to outages of up to 14 hours a day. Venezuela has also been facing blackouts in several states of the country, as a result of US sanctions, internal sabotage and the deterioration of the energy infrastructure. On the nearby island of Puerto Rico, a U.S. colony, blackouts are a frequent reality, with situations such as the one on June 13, where a disconnection left more than 300,000 customers without service. Undoubtedly, Cuba has one of the worst generation scenarios in the region at present. The island faces the same climatic situations and deterioration of infrastructures that are common to the countries in the area, but with the significant aggravating factor that for more than sixty years the nation has had to deal with a strangulating economic, commercial and financial blockade, intensified by Donald Trump in the pandemic which the government of Joe Biden has left the most aggressive provisions untouched, including the permanence of the island in the infamous list of Countries Sponsors of Terrorism, which hinders any attempt to access financing that would help to overcome the crisis. To get an idea of the dimension of the material cost, the human cost is more difficult to gauge, just take a look at the recent report prepared by Cuba for the vote by the UN General Assembly on October 30 of resolution 78/7 entitled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba”. Between March 1, 2023 and February 29, 2024 alone, the damages and material losses caused by the blockade amounts to more than five billion dollars, some 189 million dollars more than the figure presented in the previous report. In the absence of the blockade, Cuba’s GDP, at current prices, could have grown by around 8 percent in 2023. In more than six decades, the accumulated damage amounts to 1 trillion 499 billion 710 million dollars. Specifically in the energy and mining sector, the report presented by the island details that the accumulated damages in the period amount to no less than 388 million 239 thousand 830 dollars. Since 2019, the U.S. government began the persecution of ships and shipping companies that transport fuel to the island. In that year alone, 53 vessels and 27 companies were sanctioned. Companies such as the Italian Termomeccanica, acquired by the American Trillium and the firm Accelleron, refused to supply the country with parts and pieces indispensable for the maintenance of thermoelectric power plants. As a result of this, together with the lack of financial resources, the maintenance cycles have been lengthened, often failing to comply with them. Currently, 13 of the 15 generation units are out of the maintenance cycle. Therefore, to understand the electric power crisis in Cuba, implies, in fairness, to measure how much the U.S. blockade is affecting the entire economic, productive and social fabric of the island. Without exonerating political responsibilities that may exist internally, no serious analysis can ignore the siege against the island as the first factor of the current crisis. The narrative of the mainstream corporate press, complicit with the West, seeks to present as proof of the failure of socialism what is, above all, the responsibility of imperialism. This is not the first time that those of us born on this island find ourselves in a complex situation. It is worth recalling, perhaps, an anecdote that expresses one of the profound meanings of the Cuban revolutionary process since its beginnings in the 19th century. In a moment of desperation in 1871, during the Ten Years’ War, when there was a shortage of war supplies, food, medicines and the pressure was increasing on the troops operating in
AuthorJosé Ernesto Novaes Guerrero, is a Cuban writer and journalist. Member of the Hermanos Saíz Association (AHS) , the National Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba (UNEAC) and the Coordinator of the Cuban chapter of the Network in Defense of HumanityREDH. This article was produced by Resumen. Archives November 2024  The XVI BRICS Summit, held under the theme of “Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security,” met in Kazan, Russian Federation, from October 22 to October 24, 2024. Delegations from thirty-five countries and six international organizations participated in the Summit. BRICS was established as an intergovernmental economic-commercial association in 2009 by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, with South Africa joining in 2010. On January 1, 2024, BRICS officially expanded its membership to include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, and Iran. The Sixteenth Summit in Russia was the first summit of the expanded BRICS, often referred to as BRICS Plus or BRICS+. There were three important developments in the Kazan Summit. First, an evident deepening of the commitment of BRICS to construct an alternative, multilateral and more just world order. Secondly, the creation of an alternative method of payment among the BRICS nations, which avoids the need to use the U.S. dollar. And thirdly, the inclusion of thirteen nations in the newly created category of BRICS Partners.  § The deepening of the construction of an alternative, multilateral world order From the beginning, BRICS contained an inherent orientation toward the creation of an alternative, more just, multilateral world. But also from the beginning, the evolution of BRICS as a project of ascent by its member nations was a possibility, which would imply the continuity of the political-economic structures of the world economy, which function to sustain and intensify global inequalities in power and wealth. Ascent would imply only that there would be a partial redistribution of power and wealth in the world-system, with stronger emerging nations receiving more of the spoils. And it would imply a failure to address the unsustainable contradictions of the world-system. However, during its evolution, BRICS has evolved with an increasing commitment to the creation of an alternative world order. This was especially evident in the Xiamen Declaration issued by the 2017 Summit in China, which affirms that since the founding of BRICS in 2006, the member nations have: fostered the BRICS spirit featuring mutual respect and understanding, equality, solidarity, openness, inclusiveness and mutually beneficial cooperation. . . . We have shown respect for the development paths of our respective choices, and rendered understanding and support to each other's interests. We have upheld equality and solidarity. We have furthered our cooperation with emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs). We have worked together for mutually beneficial outcomes and common development. The Declaration commits to the promotion of a more just and equal world. We will enhance communication and coordination in improving global economic governance to foster a more just and equitable international economic order. We will work towards enhancement of the voice and representation of BRICS countries and EMDCs in global economic governance and promote an open, inclusive and balanced economic globalization, thus contributing towards development of EMDCs and providing strong impetus to redressing North-South development imbalances and promoting global growth. The evolution toward commitment to the construction of an alternative world order was evident in the 2024 Summit in Russia. The Kazan Declaration reaffirms the commitment of BRICS to mutual respect, sovereign equality, inclusiveness, and collaboration. It declares, “we note the emergence of new centres of power, policy decision-making and economic growth, which can pave the way for a more equitable, just, democratic and balanced multipolar world order. Multipolarity can expand opportunities for EMDCs to unlock their constructive potential and enjoy universally beneficial, inclusive and equitable economic globalization and cooperation.” The Declaration further declares the importance of the principles of the UN Charter as the “indispensable cornerstone” for ensuring cooperation based on mutual respect, justice, and equality. This commitment to the construction of an alternative world order was echoed by the discourse of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who was host and moderator of the activities and sessions. At the BRICS Plus Outreach plenary session of October 24, Putin noted that the plenary session will discuss pressing issues in the world today, including sustainable development, poverty, climate change, technology, terrorism, and international crime. He declared that “it is crucial for BRICS members to discuss all these issues with countries from the Global South and East that share our approach. All our countries share similar aspirations, values and a vision of a new democratic world order that reflects cultural and civilisational diversity. We are confident that such a system should be guided by the universal principles of respect for the legitimate interests and sovereign choice of nations, respect for international law and a spirit of mutually beneficial, honest co-operation.” Putin observed that the construction of a more just international system is not easy, because its development is hampered by forces of domination, who seek to impose what they call a “rule-based order,” which is in reality an attempt to contain the independent development of countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. These forces resort to illegal unilateral sanctions and the manipulation of currency markets; and they interfere in the domestic affairs of nations, ostensibly promoting democracy. Their methods are “twisted” and “perverse.” He further declared: I would like to reiterate that Russia, like all BRICS countries, is open to cooperation with all countries of the Global South and East to promote inclusive and sustainable development and ultimately build a better world. It will be a world where every nation’s stance and interests are taken into account, their right to sovereign development and their identity are respected, and the absolute value of all cultures, traditions and religions is recognised. At an international press conference following the event, Putin noted that the participation in the Summit of delegations from thirty-five countries indicates the growing interest in cooperation with us from states that are indeed pursuing truly independent and sovereign policies. Each of these countries has its own path of development, distinct models of economic growth, and a rich history and culture. It is obviously this civilisational diversity and unique combination of national traditions that underlie the strength and enormous potential for cooperation not only within BRICS but also within the broader circle of like-minded countries that share the group's goals and principles. In a similar vein, Chinese President Xi Jinping declared at the Summit that “BRICS countries should conform to the general trend of the rise of the Global South, seek common ground while reserving differences, and work with one heart and one mind to further consolidate shared values, and safeguard common interests. . .. BRICS countries must work together to build BRICS into a primary channel for strengthening solidarity and cooperation among Global South nations and a vanguard for advancing global governance reform.” [Reported on the Website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China].  The creation of an alternative form of payment The Kazan Declaration endorses the use of newly developed cross-border instruments to facilitate the use of local currencies in financial transactions between BRICS countries and their trading partners. The Declaration assigns the foreign ministers and central bank directors the task of further consideration of the use of local currencies and payment instruments and platforms, reporting back to BRICS by the next presidency. Putin reiterated at the Expanded Meeting of the Summit that “creating incentives for using national currencies in trade and investment remains high on our agenda.” He noted, in response to a question at the press conference following the Summit, that the BRICS nations are using their respective national currencies in trading with each other. Each of the BRICS nations have developed their own systems for international payments using national currencies. The Venezuelan outlet Misión Verdad reported that a presentation of a system of payments in development was made at the BRICS Business Council of October 17-18, 2024. While each country has a centralized banking system that facilitates the control of transactions in each State, the BRICS Pay platform would establish an interconnection of the networks of national payments, which would permit the participating national banks to establish direct ties with foreign banks and other financial institutions. The new structure of payments would enable rapid and inexpensive international commercial transactions, without depending on foreign platforms. It would permit the use of national currencies, avoiding the use of the dollar or the Euro. Misión Verdad further reports that the creation of a new mechanism of international payments has been developing since the BRICS presidency of South Africa in 2017. It has been mentioned from time to time the possibility of creating a new currency, something like the creation of the Euro in the European Union. So far, however, BRICS has been oriented in practice to the development of secure and rapid payments involving the use of national currencies. It seems to me that this route is more consistent with the BRICS stress on the sovereignty of each nation, because the nations involved do not lose control of their national monetary policy. In the case of the European Union, some of the weaker economies were significantly damaged by their inability to control monetary policy under the Euro regime. It perhaps is a historic lesson from the experience of the dollar and the Euro that a common currency among nations benefits the stronger economies in the union. BRICS, however, is forging a union based in the sovereignty and equality of all, and it thus far is oriented to developing new methods of payments using national currencies.  The establishment of BRICS “partner countries” as a new category With recognition of the considerable interest in BRICS by the countries of the Global South, the Kazan Declaration endorsed the category of BRICS Partner Country, which was named as a modality in the BRICS Summit in South Africa. In the press conference following the Summit, Putin reported that the list of countries for the first phase of expansion has been agreed upon. All these countries have filed requests, and BRICS will send out invitations and proposals to future partner countries, formally requesting them to join the work of BRICS. Upon receiving favorable responses, the countries on the list will be announced. Serguei Monin reported from Kazan in Brasil de Fato on October 24 that the BRICS countries have agreed to include thirteen nations in the category of partner states: Turkey, Indonesia, Algeria, Belarus, Cuba, Bolivia, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Thailand, Vietnam, Nigeria, and Uganda. These are by and large nations with a progressive and/or anti-imperialist orientation. Venezuela was excluded from the list as a result of a veto by Brazil. There has been much speculation in Latin American media concerning the reason for the veto by the government of Lula, who has played a central role in the process of Latin American union and integration. I do not find credible many of these various speculations, which suggests confusion on the question. As best as I can discern, Brazil has a short-term interest in excluding Latin American partners from BRICS, especially the larger nations, because most of the infrastructural investments in the region by the BRICS Development Bank currently go to Brazil. Any government committed to the BRICS approach would overrule such short-term considerations in favor of the long-term interest in common development, which implies the inclusion of more Latin American countries in BRICS. But at the present time, Brazilian sectors less committed to the development of an alternative world order are part of the Workers’ Party coalition in power in Brazil, and Lula is compelled to make concessions to these sectors within the ruling coalition. The question of Venezuela is not settled. At least Russia and China favor the inclusion of Venezuela, which possesses a foreign policy fully consistent with BRICS values. And Venezuela has much to offer the BRICS group, including oil reserves. If Venezuela remains excluded during the current phase of expansion, the Bolivarian nation nonetheless would be able to take advantage of strategic partnerships with BRICS member countries, as presently is occurring with respect to China and Russia. Deepening bilateral relations with BRICS member nations would strengthen Venezuela’s petition, paving the way for Venezuela’s inclusion in the Group. Putin declared that Russia disagrees with Brazil with respect to Venezuela. He expressed the hope that Brazil and Venezuela would work out their differences, and he noted that Lula had asked him to pass a message to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. In a bilateral meeting with Maduro during the Summit, Putin expressed his appreciation for Venezuela’s commitment to its sovereignty and for the contributions of the Venezuelan government to the construction of a multilateral world order.  A note on the participation of Cuba The Cuban delegation at the Summit was headed by Minister of Foreign Relations Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla. Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel decided not to attend the Summit, because of the electrical blackout and the damage inflicted by Hurricane Oscar. He remained in Cuba to direct the civil defense response. In his address to the Summit, Rodríguez referred to these events in Cuba, pointing out that the consequences would have been more grave, if it were not for “the selflessness of fifty-two thousand electrical workers, engineers and managers; the conscious participation and popular mobilization in support of recovery; the understanding and complete tranquility of the citizenry; and the effective conduct of the Government.” (Indeed so). The Minister of Foreign Relations declared that “BRICS has emerged as a fundamental actor of increasing relevance, authority and leadership on the global geopolitical stage and a real hope for the countries of the South on their complex path towards achieving a more just, democratic, equitable and sustainable international order.” He noted Cuba’s emphatic rejection of any attempt to impose a so-called “rules-based” international order, which violates international law and the norms and principles of international relations. Cuba especially appreciates the road of the BRICS Group toward the structural reform of an international system that is obsolete, unjust, speculative, and exclusive. Meanwhile, he noted, the BRICS Bank of Development plays an increasingly decisive role as an alternative source of financing for the nations of the Global South, with more just conditions; BRICS is contributing to the construction of a new and inclusive international financial architecture, thereby reducing dependency on the U.S. dollar. The Cuban Foreign Minister asked the representatives of the BRICS member states to support Cuba’s formal solicitude to become a “Partner Country.” He pointed out that Cuba has maintained historic ties with the BRICS member nations; and Cuba is able to make contributions to the group in such areas as the pharmaceutical biomedical industry, health, education, and science and innovation.  Final Considerations BRICS is the culmination of a historic tendency that has been expressing itself since the Bandung Conference of newly independent states of Asia and Africa in 1955. It is a tendency that is logically consistent with the interests of the Global Majority and with the dialectical march of human history. It therefore can only be stopped by the destructive unleashing of global war by the imperialist powers, or by the self-destruction of the movement itself through politically immature exaggerated rhetoric, which inflames the passions and eclipses reasoned and well-conceived strategies. Russia, China, and Cuba model the politically mature reasoned approach that is necessary to preserve the forward march of the construction of an alternative world order, more just and sustainable, necessary for the peace and prosperity of humanity in future epochs. The consolidation of an alternative world order would be a defeat for the power elites that rule the USA and the other Western powers. But it would not be a defeat for the peoples of the West. Quite the contrary. For the peoples of the West, the construction of a new world order by the Global South and East would be good news, because the leaders of the processes of change of the South and East call upon the peoples of the West to participate in and cooperate with the emerging world order. They are not playing a zero-sum game; they believe in a sustainable common future based on a win-win philosophy. It has been so since Bandung and the founding of the Non-Aligned Movement, through which the newly independent nations of Asia and Africa and the neocolonized nations of Latin American and Caribbean have put forth a proposal for North-South cooperation to complement South-South cooperation. AuthorThis article was produced by Charles McKelvey blog. Archives November 2024 11/3/2024 The West Only Has Pretend Heroes Like Spider-Man And SpongeBob By: Caitlin JohnstoneRead Now As the US-backed atrocities in the middle east get uglier and uglier, I keep thinking about something that was said by an Iranian cleric named Shahab Moradi after the US assassinated Iran’s immensely popular general Qassem Soleimani in 2020. Moradi complained that Iran can’t even really retaliate for the assassination because the US doesn’t have any real heroes of its own like Soleimani, saying, “Think about it. Are we supposed to take out Spider-Man and SpongeBob?” I’ve never seen a more incisive and withering critique of western culture, and I probably never will. It’s such an accurate statement and paints such a clear picture of what this civilization is really like that it’s hard to imagine how anyone could possibly top it. There are no real heroes with popular support in the western empire, because everything that’s truly heroic gets stomped down here, and everything that gets amplified to popularity is either vapid distraction or directly facilitates the interests of the evil empire. Our own generals are busy butchering civilians for oil and geostrategic control. Our military personnel are imperial stormtroopers. Our police are the security guards of capitalism. Our most prominent journalists are all propagandists. Our most prominent celebrities are famous because of their ability to pretend to be fictional characters doing fake things in Hollywood movies. Our most prominent artists are famous because of their ability to churn out formulaic pop songs about empty-headed bullshit. Our most widely recognized symbols are corporate logos. Our most highly regarded professionals are those who can sell westerners the most future landfill manufactured by wage slaves in the global south. Our most well-known government leaders are those who’ve sold their souls to oligarchs and imperialists and can lie to the public most convincingly. The only westerners doing truly heroic things here get thrown in prison, or murdered, or pushed into obscurity, because the only truly heroic thing anyone can do in today’s world is to take a stand against the western empire. Those who bravely resist the US war machine or make themselves inconvenient for western empire managers don’t get to become popular heroes. You don’t see the westerners who work to stop weapons shipments to Gaza being celebrated for their efforts on CNN and the BBC. You don’t see antiwar activists getting Hollywood movies made about their work — at least not until the wars they were protesting lie safely in the distant past. You don’t see journalists who work to expose the most egregious crimes of the empire being elevated to fame and fortune. The only figures who get elevated to fame and fortune in this fake plastic dystopia are those who either actively serve the interests of the empire or who passively distract people from its abuses. Donald Trump. Elon Musk. The Kardashians. Taylor Swift. Spider-Man and SpongeBob. Those are the only heroes we’re allowed to have here in any major way. You can have real heroes if you want, but if you tell the average westerner their names the first word out of their mouth will be, “Who?” Every once in a great while someone will sneak past the many security checkpoints into fame and begin opposing the empire, but they are always quickly demonized and marginalized by the imperial perception managers. And for every Roger Waters or Susan Sarandon, there are a thousand imposter heroes making themselves extremely convenient for the rulers of the western empire. This is the civilization we live in. A mind-controlled wasteland where everything is fake and stupid. The only path toward fulfillment and inner peace in such a dystopia is to dedicate yourself to tearing it down, brick by plastic brick. AuthorCaitlin Johnstone Archives November 2024 11/3/2024 Beyond Protest Votes: Can Jill Stein and the Green Party Push America Toward Revolutionary Change? By: Jonathan BrownRead Now As the 2024 presidential election campaign heats up, one thing is for certain: there is a widespread lack of enthusiasm for either of the major party candidates. This is hardly surprising. The 2024 election is occurring during a moment of unprecedented crisis for the U.S. political establishment. There is widespread distrust in public institutions, a deeply unpopular incumbent president who is carrying out a genocide in Gaza, a failing economy, and a world on the brink of nuclear war. One of the two major presidential candidates is a former “top cop” who was anointed to the Democratic Party presidential nomination through a backroom deal that bypassed the will of the voters. The other major party candidate is a corrupt real estate mogul and reality TV con man with multiple felony convictions. Both candidates have received hundreds of millions of dollars from wealthy oligarchs; both have promised that, if elected, they will continue the status quo of endless war and corporate tyranny. Is it any wonder, then, that many disillusioned voters are looking to third party candidates as an alternative to the two mainstream parties? Perhaps the most prominent third party campaign on the ballot this year is Green Party candidate, Jill Stein. The Green Party is a self-described “eco-socialist” party that “opposes capitalism” and runs on a campaign platform of “people, planet, peace.” In numerous speeches and interviews, Stein has railed against the evils of the two-party system, denounced the “war machine,” and called for a populist message of getting Big Money out of politics. Such positions make Stein’s campaign an increasingly popular choice among disgruntled voters, but perhaps the issue that most stands out is her steadfast opposition to Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza. With many potential Democratic voters outraged over the Biden/Harris administration’s complicity in Israel’s war crimes, Stein seems poised to make inroads among voters who otherwise would be in the Harris camp. In fact, recent polling has suggested that Stein leads Harris among Muslim voters in key swing states, much to the dismay of parisian Democrats. But is Jill Stein and the Green Party a viable alternative to the two-party system? Or is she merely “controlled opposition” – a spoiler running a vanity campaign for protest votes that does not really challenge the power of monopoly-capitalism? This is a critical question for Marxist-Leninsts to ask ourselves this election. Can the Green Party be a viable path to achieving revolutionary change in America? Or are the Greens merely a pressure group oriented towards the Democratic Party? Perhaps one way we can answer these questions is by examining how the Democratic Party has reacted to Jill Stein’s candidacy, and how, in turn, Stein herself has responded to the Democrats. It can be observed that the Democratic Party has a long record of hostility against the Green Party in general, and Jill Stein in particular. The Democrats blame Ralph Nader for costing Al Gore the 2000 election, and Stein for the 2016 defeat of Hillary Clinton. Of course, the Democrats do not wish to compete against the Greens in a fair and open election. Instead, they believe they are entitled to win votes, simply because they are not Trump. So instead of viewing the challenge of a third party campaign as an opportunity to self-reflect and improve their policies, the Democrats have instead opted to rely on dirty tricks to stifle Green Party’s chances at winning, leading to the Democratic Party operatives and their puppets in the corporate media to launch a barrage of attacks on the Stein campaign. One tactic has been to employ the fraudulent “democratic-socialist” congresswoman and establishment shill, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to smear Jill Stein as running a “predatory” campaign to steal votes from the Democrats. Another strategy has been to simply kick the Green Party off the ballot. Despite claiming that “democracy is on the ballot” in 2024, the so-called “Democratic” Party has no qualms about employing an array of anti-democratic maneuvers to remove the Green Party candidate from the ballots in key swing states. But perhaps the most odious strategy the Democratic Party has employed thus far is its use of red-baiting techniques straight out of the Cold War to smear Jill Stein as an agent of Russia and a lackey of Vladimir Putin. It was not that long ago that Democrats mocked Cold War rhetoric as outdated. In 2012, for example, then-President Obama lambasted Republican challenger Mitt Romney’s fear-mongering over Russia by declaring, “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. The Cold War has been over for 20 years.” But things changed drastically in 2014, when the U.S. government orchestrated a coup in the Ukraine to install a puppet regime that would facilitate the expansion of NATO onto Russia’s borders. Since that time, the Democratic Party has leaned heavily into an aggressive militarism against Russia, both to destabilize Russia’s growing geopolitical influence and to facilitate Western control over Russia’s considerable natural gas reserves. The long-term goal, as President Joe Biden has acknowledged, is to use Ukraine as a proxy to carry out a regime-change war against Putin, leading to the disintegration of the Russian Federation into a multitude of smaller states. Around the same time that the U.S. Empire was plotting to destabilize Russia, it began covertly arming Islamic extremist groups in Syria for the purpose of overthrowing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad aimed at securing control over Syria’s oil pipelines. Assad resisted the US attempt at overthrowing his government and was supported by Russia in an effort to prevent the U.S. military from doing to Syria what it had previously done to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. All of this set the stage for the Democratic Party to position itself as a neoconservative war party that is committed to permanent military expansion abroad and an aggressive campaign of Cold War McCarthyite hysteria at home. The lynchpin of this campaign is the use of false allegations of malign Russian influence to silence any political opposition. After losing the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton promoted a conspiratorial campaign known as “Russiagate” to scapegoat Russia for her electoral defeat, peddling the falsehood that Trump was installed to power via Russian interference in the election. This is ironic, given that it was actually Bill Clinton who meddled in Russia’s 1996 election to help Boris Yeltsin defeat the Communist Party candidate. Hillary Clinton’s red-baiting campaign had the dual effect of both sewing doubt in the legitimacy of the electoral process, while also becoming a convenient tool for the Democrats to use for smearing all opposition parties as Russian agents. This McCarthyite campaign of red-baiting has been successfully employed not only against Donald Trump, but also left-wing opposition to the Democrats. During the 2020 Democratic Party primary campaign, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders was targeted by a Russiagate smear campaign. In response, Sanders fell in line behind the Democrats’ McCarthyite narrative, engaging in some red-baiting of his own by accusing Trump of being “good friends” with Vladimir Putin. Sanders continued his pattern of hostility towards Russia in 2022, when he called for sanctions and voted to send billions of dollars in armaments to Ukraine. After 2016, Jill Stein became a primary target of Russiagate allegations. Stein’s frequent appearances on the Russian news station RT were subjected to scrutiny. A 2015 gala dinner in Moscow became a particular point of controversy, where Stein was photographed sitting across from Vlladimir Putin. She was also photographed meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in New York. Then, a report by the Senate Intelligence Committee claimed that “Russian troll farms” were using social media to encourage minority groups to vote for the Green Party in the 2016 election. “Is Stein a fellow traveler or a useful idiot?” asked an NBC News editorial, in typical McCarthyite language. The red-baiting amped up even further during Stein’s 2024 election campaign. When Stein made an appearance on the popular radio talk show The Breakfast Club in September, she was grilled by the Democratic Party-aligned hosts with renewed allegations of Russian collusion. Then, former MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan demanded Stein denounce Putin as a war criminal in a highly contentious interview. Hasan repeatedly badgered Stein, talking over her and demanding that she declare Putin a “war criminal.” Unfortunately, Stein’s performance in the interview came across as weak, muddled, and defensive. She refused to outright answer Hasan’s questions, and failed to push back against his flawed line of reasoning. She argued that Putin was a war criminal “in so many words” and that Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine was a “criminal and murderous war.” However, she implied that her reluctance to label Putin an outright “war criminal” was not rooted in any sort of solidarity with Russia, but rather a mere desire to give the U.S. a stronger negotiating position against Putin. Humiliated by the interview, Stein released an official statement to clarify her position on Russia. In this statement, Stein unequivocally condemned both Putin and Assad as “war criminals responsible for immense suffering and devastation.” She equated Russia’s support for Assad with the U.S. invasion of Iraq and bizarrely accused Russia of being an “imperialist power.” She went on to rattle off a long list of U.S. and Israeli leaders – including Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – that she defined as “war criminals.” It is important to note, however, that Stein’s statement did not condemn Vlladamir Zelensky – the corrupt NATO puppet in Ukraine – as a war criminal. Nor did she condemn the CIA for attempting to overthrow the Syrian government which prompted Russia to intervene in the first place. Stein’s statement is nothing more than a full-blown capitulation to the U.S. war machine. She is attempting to play both sides, employing a variation of the old Trotskyite slogan “neither Washington nor Moscow.” The problem with Stein’s “both sides are bad” approach should be obvious to any committed anti-imperialist. By condemning Putin and Assad as “war criminals,” Stein equates the countries that are resisting imperialism with countries that are engaging in imperialism. In other words, she is drawing a false equivalency between the victim and the aggressor. In doing so, she reveals the true colors of her campaign and of the Green Party itself. Far from being a revolutionary party – a legitimate alternative to the Two-Party System – the Green Party positions itself as “Democratic Party lite.” They claim to oppose the war machine while they reinforce the same Western imperialist narratives against Russia and Syria that the Democrats do. In doing so, Stein reveals that her commitment to anti-imperialism is rather thin. Although Stein has spoken positively about multipolarity, when Stein is pressured, she capitulates and falls into line behind the forces of U.S. imperialism. When push comes to shove, she condemns the countries that are building the new multipolar world that she claims to support. How can Stein claim to be against U.S. imperialism while opposing the countries that are on the front lines of the fight against imperialism? This inconsistency places Stein’s claim of being a viable alternative to the two-party duopoly in serious doubt. What the American working-class needs is not a protest vote for a wishy-washy candidate who wants to offer a kinder, gentler face of U.S. Empire. Instead, what we need is a strong and courageous party that will be the vanguard of the working-class – that will fight against U.S. imperialism and will stand in solidarity with the new emerging multipolar world, declaring openly its support for Russia’s self-defensive actions against NATO aggression, and for Syria’s self-defense against an attempted CIA-backed coup. If Stein and the Green Party cannot offer this minimal level of anti-imperialist commitment, then the true colors of the Green Party have been revealed. While Stein and the Greens should be applauded for their opposition to the two-party system, and anti-democratic measures to limit their ballot access must be condemned – we must accept that the Greens are not a viable alternative to the system. Supporting the Greens, then, is not a revolutionary strategy for achieving social change. The American Communist Party is the only force in U.S. politics that can mount a consistent challenge to U.S. imperialism and stand in solidarity with the rising multipolar world. AuthorJonathan Brown teaches high school social studies in Athens, Georgia, where he inspires students with his deep passion for exploring society and history. He also teaches sociology as an adjunct professor at Athens Technical College. Jonathan holds a bachelor’s degree from the University of Georgia and a master’s degree from California State University, Northridge, where he studied culture and politics from a Marxist perspective. Outside the classroom, Jonathan plays guitar in a punk rock band and is an active member of the Jewish anti-Zionist community. He is a committed member of the American Communist Party. Archives October 2024 10/29/2024 Educational Dual Power: Learn the Marxism-Leninism the Academy Will NEVER Teach You! By: Carlos L. GarridoRead Now The American political philosopher, Michael Parenti, said that the only thing about regular working people that the ruling class cares about is what they think. The owners of capital spend exuberate amounts of their dearest love – money – on crafting institutions that control how people think, the parameters of acceptable and unacceptable views. Frameworks of thought which facilitate the reproduction of the dominant social relations are proliferated, those which challenge these are silenced. The academy, which fancies itself as the center of free and critical thought, is the locus through which the most advanced forms of capitalist apologetics is derived. This apologetics, as Georgy Lukács described in The Destruction of Reason, doesn’t always have to be direct. In advanced capitalist societies the greatest defenders of the system are not necessarily those who explicitly defend it. Conscious of the crisis-driven character of the system, the capitalist class is competent enough to understand that to sustain its power it must control not only the narrative which champions the dominant order, but also the institutions and discourses which purport to challenge it. Indirect apologetics emerges as the most efficient defense of hegemony. It can take many forms. But in general, it puts forth a critique of the system which is culturalist, transhistorical, and superficial. The grievances people hold are prevented from rising to the level of systematic consciousness, to an awareness of the roots of their individual ills in the capitalist form of life itself. Systemic issues, in turn, are obfuscated as cultural issues or problems of “human nature.” No revolutionary should be naïve enough to think that they will be given the intellectual tools to change the world by the bourgeois academy. It is not in the capitalist academy where we find those ropes Marx and Engels spoke of. At best we might find some yarn, but that is far from sufficient for our purposes. For one to expect the intellectual apparatuses of the dominant order “to be impartial in a wage-slave society,” Lenin aptly tells us, “is as foolishly naïve as to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the question of whether workers’ wages ought not to be increased by decreasing the profits of capital.” The purpose of the academy is to create the officers which lead the army of the capitalist intellectual apparatuses. They are the ones who make sure the boat is not rocked. When they fail, the armed bodies of men, the police, military, etc., appear. What must those of us who seek to radically change our societies do? If for our task of winning the masses we can’t be ideologically trained in the traditional institutions of “higher learning,” we must build our own educational institutions. This is what, in part, dual power is all about. This is what is required to build hegemony for our class. We must construct educational dual power. There is no better example of the metaphorical rope the capitalist sells us than the advances in technology we have seen over the last two decades. Through means such as zoom, a class on Marxism-Leninism taught at night in the midwestern United States can be attended by a revolutionary in New Delhi after feasting on his breakfast chole bhature. This is precisely the opportunity I wish to present to you, dear reader. As the Director of the Midwestern Marx Institute, the largest Marxist think tank in the U.S., and as the Secretary of Education for the American Communist Party, I wish to invite you to join my two-part course on Marxism-Leninism. In this course we will learn about the outlook that has been the most successful in challenging the parasitic order of the capitalists. From November to December, and then from January to February 2025, we will study the classics of the 20th century, from Lenin to Stalin to Mao, and provide for ourselves the revolutionary ideological tools the official academy will never give us. This is how, in the modern age, we use the ropes the capitalists sell us. Sign up HERE. AuthorCarlos L. Garrido is a Cuban American philosophy professor. He is the director of the Midwestern Marx Institute and the Secretary of Education of the American Communist Party. He has authored many books, including The Purity Fetish and the Crisis of Western Marxism(2023), Why We Need American Marxism (2024), Marxism and the Dialectical Materialist Worldview(2022), and the forthcoming On Losurdo’s Western Marxism (2024) and Hegel, Marxism, and Dialectics (2025). He has written for dozens of scholarly and popular publications around the world and runs various live-broadcast shows for the Midwestern Marx Institute YouTube. You can subscribe to his Philosophy in Crisis Substack HERE. Archives October 2024  Since its establishment in July 2024, the newly formed American Communist Party (ACP) has swiftly become a hot target for anti-communist vitriol from both left- and right-wing factions. Forced to fortify its resolve in its infancy, the ACP has highlighted the contradictions of the radical liberal left, revealing them as fascists at their core. In the face of true Marxist-Leninist principles, these critics appear perplexed by the ACP’s unwavering commitment to serving the working masses, rather than engaging in endless debates over the social-identitarian issues that have long stymied the American left. This distortion of Marxism into a mere social movement, rather than the rigorous economic science it is, drives our opponents to weaponize the “woman question” and the oppression of women against our party. In 2022, I wrote a critique in Midwestern Marx, analyzing how numerous socialist and self-proclaimed communist parties in the U.S. have failed to grasp the lived reality of American women, and consequently, have fallen short in their efforts to bring them into the communist fold effectively. For decades, the radical left has presented prostitution, the sex trade, abortion, and gender ideology as the solutions to alleviate the struggles of working American women. Even more troubling, they have demonized and dismissed women who reject these shallow offerings, showing no willingness for self-reflection. Today, it is the American Communist Party (ACP)—and the ACP alone—that offers working women a vision of a future beyond mere tokenism and the hollow idealism surrounding womanhood. Only the ACP can put women on the Marxist-Leninist path. The Plague of Feminism on Leftists It is crucial to clarify that rejecting feminism as an ideology does not mean Marxists are indifferent to the role of women in society and the economy. The radical liberal left often reduces any critique of their ideology to a simplistic liberal-versus-conservative framework, but this is a profound misunderstanding. Marxists reject feminism because it misidentifies the primary antagonism as one between men and women. In contrast, we understand the true conflict to be between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Feminism mistakenly suggests that bourgeois, capitalist women share common interests with working-class, proletarian women. Even more troubling, it implies that the bourgeois woman is oppressed by the working man, further perpetuating the myth that the antagonism between the sexes is irreconcilable—that men and women are inherently and perpetually in opposition to one another. It is unnecessary for us to differentiate between "Marxist Feminism," "Liberal Feminism," or "White Feminism" because, at its core, feminism remains a bourgeois ideology—and by extension, an anti-communist one. Feminism, in any of its forms, serves the ruling class by perpetuating the illusion that merely placing women in positions of power equates to advancing women’s interests. Much like the Democratic Party, our critics view our commitment to women’s liberation solely by the presence of women in leadership roles—whether on our Executive Board or as presidential nominees—while showing little concern for actual policies that address the economic realities of working women, let alone a meaningful analysis of womanhood. To demand the promotion of women purely for the sake of virtue signaling is, in itself, an insult to women’s competence. It suggests that we are to fill quotas, rather than rise on our own merits and prove our capability to lead as if we are asking for a favor rather than demonstrating our readiness. Moreover, this line of thinking assumes that our male comrades are incapable of advancing women’s interests—echoing the flawed feminist notion that men and women are fundamentally at odds, like oil and water. Our critics seem to demand our appeasement as if we owe them loyalty instead of staying true to our class. They, who could never win the trust of the working woman or man, somehow believe themselves entitled to dictate our party’s direction. How laughable! The Aversion to Womanhood and Motherhood. To date, the socialist and so-called "communist" parties in the U.S. have failed to offer any program that addresses the real needs of working American women. Some parties have blatantly ignored the American people entirely, let alone the specific concerns of working women, while others merely follow the lead of the Democratic Party. For them, women's issues begin and end with the right to abortion and the commodification of our bodies. They reject any connection between female anatomy and womanhood, dismissing Engels' insights in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, where he asserts that “the first division of labour is that between the man and women for child breeding” which in turn provides the basis to develop monogamous marriage in hand with the emergence of private property. This, as Engels writes, becomes “the first class oppression with that of the female sex by the male sex”, inextricably linking femaleness with that of womanhood. In the radical liberal view, womanhood is reduced to a subjective feeling, something one can opt in and out of—completely detached from any material foundation. This inability, or unwillingness, to define and understand the material basis of womanhood puts these parties fundamentally at odds with any real representation of working women. In 2023, the U.S. experienced historically low birth rates, as economic conditions have made it nearly impossible for many women to raise children and for families to grow. Instead of addressing this crisis, radical liberals and their left-wing allies, in lockstep with the Democratic Party, focus solely on defending the right to abortion, ignoring the economic realities that make motherhood unattainable for many. They do not believe in the right of women to motherhood—nor do they address the fact that many women feel forced to terminate pregnancies simply because they cannot afford to raise a child. This is not to suggest, however, that motherhood and domestic labor should define the entirety of a woman’s aspirations. In socialist societies, women have been and continue to engage in the shaping of culture, sciences, politics, industry, leadership and beyond. Reactionaries attempt to limit women to the confines of the home, while liberals often dismiss the significance of the home altogether. In contrast, we affirm that working women hold vital roles in both spheres. Only the American Communist Party (ACP) offers a comprehensive program to tackle the economic hardships that make starting a family and securing a home nearly impossible for young working Americans. With policies like canceling all debt, implementing extensive land and housing reforms, and nationalizing healthcare, the ACP addresses the root causes of these challenges. At a time when the U.S. has more college-educated women than ever before, rents are skyrocketing, and the average cost of childbirth exceeds $19,000, these policies offer real solutions for young families and women. Rather than limiting the conversation to pro-abortion slogans, the ACP provides a true choice—a path that empowers women economically and socially. The women of the ACP have no need for hollow photo ops, grandstanding speeches to like-minded crowds, or other empty symbols of representation that our critics seem to value. Our women are on the ground, helping families feed themselves and secure internet access in Appalachia, they are providing clothing to homeless and battered women in New York’s Catskills. Feminism’s view of women’s liberation insists that to lead, women must mimic men, adopting a masculine façade that feels unnatural to us. But the women of the ACP—like all working American women—are leading in our homes, caring for our families, and nurturing our communities. The brand of feminism championed by leftists has failed, proving itself an ally of the ruling class parties. We have no interest in following their path to answer the woman question. We are forging a new path for our compatriots. We, the women of the ACP, are the true communist women - the New American Women. AuthorKayla Popuchet is a Peruvian-American from New York City with a background in Latin American history and Slavic studies from City Universities of New York system. She currently works in housing law, dedicated to advancing social fair housing policies in Manhattan and the Bronx. She is also a member of the American Communist Party. Archives October 2024 10/28/2024 Haiti: Resistance Under Attack, Calls For International Solidarity By: MOLEGHAF, Popular Resistance.Read Now VIV ANSANM (the paramilitary gang strangely named “Live Together”) has plunged our population into a terrible darkness in Solino, Fò Nasyonal, Nazon, Kriswa and other nearby popular neighborhoods or ghettos in Port-au-Prince. None of us are free to leave our homes. We don’t know which way to go. The bloodthirsty death squads kill the poor and unfortunate inside their shacks. They burn through homes and memories. We, the population of Solino, have long resisted this barbarism. Stand with us, We need help! The neocolonial Haitian state and their foreign masters lay the basis of these massacres. We cannot continue in this situation. Solidarity is our only hope. Fighting Imperialism Those who admire and support Haiti in the English-speaking world should understand what is happening. Like the genocidal war on Palestine, the attacks against Solino are easy to understand. After all, our misfortune is not mandated by heaven, thank goodness. The sellout Haitian bourgeoisie, at the service of U.S. imperialism, controls our country. The ruling class seeks to break the back of all forms of Haitian resistance. By burning our neighborhoods down, they exterminate our very ability to exist and resist. While the United Nations is allegedly sanctioning and embargoing weapons and bullets, the murderous group “LIVE TOGETHER” magically has access to hundreds of thousands of U.S. weapons. These bandits have only become stronger and better armed, and continue to seek reinforcements among their fresh, hungry recruits. The production of gangs and violence has become big business in our capital city. There is a fresh reservoir of desperate young women and men ready to pick up the nearly 1 million illegal, trafficked U.S. guns. This is how the United States embassy spearheads their strategic, ongoing underdevelopment project of Haiti. Since our 2021 national uprising—and long before—U.S. and Western imperialism have targeted our neighborhoods, particularly in the Western department of Port-au-Prince. Though hundreds of Kenyan troops now occupy us, the attacks against our peaceful communities continue. The basic formula is that bourgeois gangsters with political connections arm their gangsters in flip flops to attack us. The ruling class wants to take Solino so they can dig their heels in and expand deeper into upper Delma, then Petyonvil. They recruit more hungry assassins as they expand. The more space the gangs occupy, the more resistance crumbles and big investors can exploit and suck the blood of our people. We understand the plan. The oppressed masses must find unity and strength everywhere to stop this criminal project. The “LIVE TOGETHER” alliance of gangs led by Jimmy “Barbecue” Cherezier and his bloodthirsty lieutenants such as Izo, Kempès, Lamò san jou among others, contain within them the shock troops of the bourgeoisie. They emerged in the void left by the 2010 earthquake, the pillaging of our public funds, such as PetroCaribe, and the ongoing abuse we endure at the hands of the “international community,” aka our colonizers. It is a lever they use when they need to intimidate the masses of people who are resisting all forms of neoliberal policy implementation in Haiti. The Political Timing and Context Since the installation of the puppet Transitional Presidential Council (KPT), the “Live Together” gang has sought to take Solino. Sometimes they even use revolutionary-sounding rhetoric like a dirty blanket to cover their filth. During the installation of American imperialist satellites in the KPT, these vultures spend 24 hours a day, 7 days a week killing, robbing and burning the homes of the hapless men and women who merely seek to survive another day without being raped or murdered. Their goal was to depopulate Solino and use it as a base to raid other areas until they control the entire city. Their plan did not work. After they installed their latest puppet government, the owners of the dogs reeled them back in. The former president of the Transitional Presidential Council, Edgar Leblanc Fils and Garry Conille, agreed to negotiate with the capitalist class to give the oppressed masses a little 6-month peace. How generous of them! Suddenly there was an unexpected change. The bourgeoisie furiously demanded that the “LIVE TOGETHER” gang attack the population of Solino ten days after the transfer of power to Lavalas’ Lesly Voltaire in the Transitional Presidential Council. Official corruption investigations mention the names of the ruling class’s children while preventing the institutions that are there from making necessary moves to prosecute and end this question of corruption. The “LIVE TOGETHER” gang is now engaged in vicious attacks in the popular neighborhoods, burning houses and massacring the population. Broader Implications for Haitian Resistance We must understand that the attack on the Solino neighborhood is timed to distract from the scandal that has broken out between the KPT and the Government of Garry Conille. From the perspective of the capitalist class and the traditional politicians, Solino and other bastions of resistance are a threat to them. If the masses can kick out the armed thugs, then the resistance can prevail. Despite decades of the most brutal repression against the Lavalas movement, the population living in these neighborhoods still has an undying love for the Lavalas political movement, the party of the twice-kidnapped and twice-couped president Jean Bertrand Aristide. The ruling Haitian Bald Headed Party (PHTK) and its allies are fighting all organizations and political parties that represent the aspirations of the masses. That is why they unleash the force of hell onto us, the oppressed masses. This explains why they are seeking to break the back of the popular social movements. They are afraid of the following formula: popular organizations + Socialist Party + the masses = National Front for a real popular power. In addition to this, the fascist president of the Dominican Republic, Luis Abinader, is deporting thousands of Haitians, humiliating them as if they were garbage. What we need in our most dire moments is solidarity, not more stereotypes, hatred and violence. The current political context is indeed worrying. Misinformation and poor analysis can cloud judgment, leading you to take a regrettable stance against the very people you seek to help. There are those foreign blan journalists who have naively suggested that MOLEGHAF and our communities should negotiate or even join the “Living Together” death squad. To them we say: milk and lemon do not mix. We cannot sit down with our executioners anymore than our sisters and brothers in Palestine can sit down with the genocidal zionists. The masses and their conscious political parties of the Haitian left will never close our eyes to reality. We are running for our lives, but where can we go? Almost all the Port-au-Prince is rotten with bandits. For every Haitian family living in the Western department, you will find one or two living in the gang-controlled areas. We are tired of crying and running. The mountain ahead of us is steep, but we must keep climbing. Faced with this social and economic crisis, we must remain strong. We must rise to fight. A well-organized people, united in solidarity, cannot be defeated. Long live the popular resistance of the heroic Haitian people! AuthorDavid Oxygène, General Secretary MOLEGHAF This article was republished by Popular Resistance. Archives October 2024 |
Archives
April 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed