“From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, “look at that, you son of a bitch.� – Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 astronaut

Five years ago, the eminent astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson was asked by a reader of TIME magazine to share what he considered to be his most astounding fact about the universe. In a moving response that would later go ‘viral’ via the magic of YouTube, Dr. Tyson elucidated a simple truth that fittingly, in a world of extremes, casts our species as both centrally important, and vitally insignificant, in the play of life. The most astounding fact, he said, is that the universe is quite literally within us, that the atoms that make up the human body can be traced to the very stars above. There is no need to feel disconnected, he summarized, because just by being alive, we are connected to everything there has ever been, and ever will be.

Perhaps it’s this knowledge that brings to light that for all of humanity’s advances, the way that we organize life on this planet is, at best, woefully inadequate and short-sighted. In a state of affairs almost as comical as it is painful, we have decided to reduce ourselves to participation in an (anything but) cosmic rat race that leaves us ultimately unfulfilled, confused, and disillusioned. Consider how much human potential has been wasted over the course of time. For every Newton or Edison, there are an incalculable many for whom greatness was impossible, simply due to the environment they were born into. Maybe they were oppressed, marginalized, even killed before their time – their names never known, and their stories never told. Read more È

It was the great Irishman Oscar Wilde’s observation that in a universe of infinite possibilities, given the choice to exist or live, most of us would rather opt for the former. Extending this exist/live paradigm further, we could use it to evaluate if we are upholding, or challenging the status quo. Exactly why the status quo needs to be challenged should, by now, be fairly clear: aside from the widening gap between rich and poor, illegal wars, and secret kill lists (need I go on?), the history of our species tells us that those in power have a tendency to slide towards tyranny if their privilege is unchecked. Despite the idiotic and quite frankly, worrying proclamation made recently by the comedian Chris Rock that the President is “our boss…our Father,� the fact remains that in democratic societies, we must never forget that governments work for us, and not the other way around.

While we thankfully have examples of influential men and women past that stood up to social injustice and systems of control, increasingly with narrowing media ownership, our modern day heroes are prevented from even reaching our sphere of consciousness. As regular visitors to this website will be aware, last week saw the Hedges v. Obama NDAA Lawsuit move into its next phase, as both sides presented their arguments before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. However, a Google News search for ‘NDAA lawsuit’ on the day before the hearing revealed that the event received practically no play from the mainstream media, and aside from the copious coverage all over the blogosphere and independent media, it was almost as if nothing was happening at all. All this on the eve of what was to be another key plot point in one of the more important legal cases in modern American history. Read more È

It may be a New Year, but age-old problems and issues still plague our Western societies. While there are many that gravitate to fire-and-brimstone negativity, rejoicing in the idea that a total planetary collapse is imminent and that they may get to observe it, what cannot be denied is the gradual and radical shift in consciousness that is happening all around us.

On a fundamental level, the same struggle has always existed: freedom vs. control.  In this 21^st century however, we find ourselves at an extremely important moment in human history. Aided by a revival (at least in terms of visibility) of political activism, the continued scholarly activity regarding the not-so-trustworthiness of the mainstream media, and the impact of the Internet, there are extraordinary opportunities to challenge systems of control in a way that previous generations could only dream of.  We must never lose sight of this – despite the constant wave of depressing headlines and disheartening developments we can clearly see at every level.

Look at the Occupy movement. For all the efforts on the part of the corporate-owned media to dismiss, demonize, and denigrate its message, it succeeded in drastically challenging many of the general public’s previously held assumptions about the capitalist system that they live under. As political scientist Michael Parenti and others have recognized, Occupy turned the tables on the establishment through its dissemination of a formula that was essentially propagandistic in nature (1% vs. 99%), that while overly simplistic, brought to the fore the rapidly rising inequality of the past three decades. This is a huge victory – imagery is powerful, and to borrow from Paulo Freire in his seminal text Pedagogy of the Oppressed, the struggle truly begins with men’s recognition that they have been destroyed. Read more È

Israel-US War on Iran: How Cheap has it Become to ‘Buy a War’ in the US

The mounting threat of a US-Israeli military attack against Iran is based on several factors including: (1) the recent military history of both countries in the region, (2) public pronouncements by US and Israeli political leaders, (3) recent and on-going attacks on Lebanon and Syria, prominent allies of Iran, (4) armed attacks and assassinations of Iranian scientists and security officials by proxy and/or terrorist groups under US or Mossad control, (5) the failure of economic sanctions and diplomatic coercion, (6) escalating hysteria and extreme demands for Iran to end legal, civilian use-related uranium enrichment, (7) provocative military ‘exercises’ on Iran’s borders and war games designed for intimidation and a dress rehearsal for a preemptive attack, (8) powerful pro-war pressure groups in both Washington and Tel Aviv including the major Israeli political parties and the powerful AIPAC in the US, (9) and lastly the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (Obama’s Orwellian Emergency Decree, March 16, 2012).

The US propaganda war operates along two tracks: (1) the dominant message emphasizes the proximity of war and the willingness of the US to use force and violence. This message is directed at Iran and coincides with Israeli announcements of war preparations. (2) The second track targets the ‘liberal public’ with a handful of marginal ‘knowledgeable academics’ (or State Department progressives) playing down the war threat and arguing that reasonable policy makers in Tel Aviv and Washington are aware that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons or any capacity to produce them now or in the near future. The purpose of this liberal backpedaling is to confuse and undermine the majority public opinion, which is clearly opposed to more war preparations, and to derail the burgeoning anti-war movement. Read more È

The March 11 Massacre of the 17 Afghan citizens, including at least nine children and four women, raises many fundamental issues about the nature of a colonial war, the practices of a colonial army engaged in a prolonged (eleven-year) occupation and the character of an imperial state as it commits war crimes and increasingly relies on arbitrary dictatorial measures to secure public compliance and suppress dissent.

After the cold-blooded murder of the 17 Afghan villagers in Kandahar Province the US military and the ever-complicit Obama regime constructed an elaborate cover-up, exposing the Administration up to charges of conspiracy to suppress the essential facts, falsify data and obstruct justice: All are grounds for criminal prosecution and impeachment.

This massacre is just one of several hundred committed by US armed forces according to the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. It could ruin the Obama presidency, by putting him on trial for conspiracy to obstruct justice and arguably send him to jail for war crimes.

Obama’s deliberate lies about the events surrounding the massacre and the fundamental responsibility of the high military command for the crimes committed by its troops underscores the breakdown of the occupation of Afghanistan, the very centerpiece of Obama’s war policy. The President of the United States has personally played a major role in the cover-up. From a political vantage point, the executive conspiracy charge has wider and deeper implications than the massacre itself, as horrible as it is. Read more È

The Triple Alliance’s War on a Sovereign State

There is clear and overwhelming evidence that the uprising to overthrow President Assad of Syria is a violent, power grab led by foreign-supported fighters who have killed and wounded thousands of Syrian soldiers, police and civilians, partisans of the government and its peaceful opposition.

The outrage expressed by politicians in the West and Gulf State and in the mass media, about the ‘killing of peaceful Syrian citizens protesting injustice’ is cynically designed to cover up the documented reports of violent seizure of neighborhoods, villages and towns by armed bands, brandishing machine guns and planting road-side bombs.

The assault on Syria is backed by foreign funds, arms and training. Due to a lack of domestic support, however, to be successful, direct foreign military intervention will be necessary. For this reason a huge propaganda and diplomatic campaign has been mounted to demonize the legitimate Syrian government. The goal is to impose a puppet regime and strengthen Western imperial control in the Middle East. In the short run, this will further isolate Iran in preparation for a military attack by Israel and the US and, in the long run, it eliminates another independent secular regime friendly to China and Russia. Read more È

Some Lessons from the Past

The study of world power has been blighted by Eurocentric historians who have distorted and ignored the dominant role China played in the world economy between 1100 and 1800.

John Hobson’s[1] brilliant historical survey of the world economy during this period provides an abundance of empirical data making the case for China’s economic and technological superiority over Western civilization for the better part of a millennium prior to its conquest and decline in the 19th century.

China’s re-emergence as a world economic power raises important questions about what we can learn from its previous rise and fall and about the external and internal threats confronting this emerging economic superpower for the immediate future.

First we will outline the main contours of historical China’s rise to global economic superiority over West before the 19th century, following closely John Hobson’s account in The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization. Since the majority of western economic historians (liberal, conservative and Marxist) have presented historical China as a stagnant, backward, parochial society, an “oriental despotism�, some detailed correctives will be necessary. It is especially important to emphasize how China, the world technological power between 1100 and 1800, made the West’s emergence possible. It was only by borrowing and assimilating Chinese innovations that the West was able to make the transition to modern capitalist and imperialist economies.

In part two we will analyze and discuss the factors and circumstances which led to China’s decline in the 19th century and its subsequent domination, exploitation and pillage by Western imperial countries, first England and then the rest of Europe, Japan and the United States. Read more È

A Step toward Greater Independence

Introduction: Between April 21-23, thousands of activists from most of the major urban and rural social movements and trade unions, human rights groups and indigenous, afro-Colombian movements will meet to unify forces and launch, what promises to be the most significant new political movement in recent history.

United by a common pledge to seek a political solution to over 60 years of armed social conflict, the meeting will decide on a strategy to defeat past and present narco- para political regimes, recuperate land and households for 4 million displaced peasants, Indians, farmers and afro-Colombians. Central to the mission of this gathering will be the recovery of national sovereignty, severely compromised by the presence of seven US military bases, the large-scale, long-term takeover by foreign multi-nationals of the country’s mineral and energy resources and the protection of indigenous and afro-Colombian communities from environmental depredation. The April meeting has been proceeded by mass gatherings, organized by popular councils, intent on breaking military, paramilitary and the landlords political machines’ control over the electorate. Read more È

Resist the Temptation to Access the Mass Media by Providing a ‘Progressive Cover’ to Imperial Dubbed “Rebels�

One of the great paradoxes of history are the claims of imperialist politicians to be engaged in a great humanitarian crusade, a historic “civilizing mission� designed to liberate nations and peoples, while practicing the most barbaric conquests, destructive wars and large scale bloodletting of conquered people in historical memory.

In the modern capitalist era, the ideologies of imperialist rulers vary over time, from the early appeals to “the right� to wealth, power, colonies and grandeur to later claims of a ‘civilizing mission’. More recently imperial rulers have propagated, many diverse justifications adapted to specific contexts, adversaries, circumstances and audiences.

This essay will concentrate on analyzing contemporary US imperial ideological arguments for legitimizing wars and sanctions to sustain dominance.

Contextualizing Imperial Ideology

Imperialist propaganda varies according to whether it is directed against a competitor for global power, or whether as a justification for applying sanctions, or engaging in open warfare against a local or regional socio-political adversary.

With regard to established imperial (Europe) or rising world economic competitors (China), US imperial propaganda varies over time. Early in the 19th century, Washington proclaimed the “Monroe Doctrine�, denouncing European efforts to colonize Latin America, privileging its own imperial designs in that region. In the 20th century when the US imperial policymakers were displacing Europe from prime resource based colonies in the Middle East and Africa, it played on several themes. It condemned ‘colonial forms of domination’ and promoted ‘neo-colonial’ transitions that ended European monopolies and facilitated US multi-national corporate penetration. This was clearly evident during and after World War 2, in the Middle East petrol-countries.

During the 1950s as the US assumed imperial primacy and radical anti-colonial nationalism came to the fore, Washington forged alliances with the declining colonial power to combat a common enemy and to prop up post-colonial powers to combat a common enemy . Even with the post World War 2 economic recovery, growth and unification of Europe, it still works in tandem and under US leadership in militarily repressing nationalist insurgencies and regimes. When conflicts and competition occur, between US and European regimes, banks and enterprises, the mass media of each region publish “investigatory findingsâ€� highlighting the frauds and malfeasance of its competitors ..and US regulatory agencies levy heavy fines on their European counterparts, overlooking similar practices by Wall Street financial firms. Read more È

“All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is surrender. For it is all give and no take.� – Mohandas Gandhi

This is real life where there are compromises and there are pitfalls of being compromised. There is the question of flexibility, and then the notion of fundamental principles to stand by. There exists a fine line separating ‘bending the rules’ from actually breaking them. The question is where one begins to draw the line to separate compromise from being compromised, to hold to one’s fundamental principles while remaining flexible, and to bend core rules without actually breaking them.

When it comes to American politics the above dilemma has had but one answer. The same consistent answer throughout the past century: one can’t, and one won’t – that is, for those who seek viability for their candidacy and political campaigns. The fundamental rules every single political candidate in search of viability and a chance for success adheres to are: readily submit to being compromised, prepare to revise and change your fundamental principles and beliefs, and be ready to break without hesitation every rule you once adhered to.

Political candidates rise to lead the masses only to quickly turn to serving the interests of the very few- the few that count when it comes to gaining needed ‘viability’ and becoming a candidate with a ‘chance.’

Political actors must go through a crash course in learning the real art of compromise, which translates into willingness to part with core fundamental principles they once adhered to.

Wanna-be political leaders have to submit to training in becoming masters of breaking the rules while making it look as if they are only bending them.

The closer American political candidates get to the finish line where the ‘viable’ are separated from the ‘nonviable’, the more willing they become to give up old sentimental notions of principles and integrity- the greed that naturally flows from their intense desire and inflated egos now tied to the outcome: to win or to lose.

Everyone knows what is meant by becoming the devil’s advocate. Many have seen the film with that title. However, only a few are familiar with a slightly modified application of that term: the willingness to have the devil as the advocate; a familiar pattern showing up with every ‘viability seeking’ political candidate in the US. Just take a quick look at the last few presidents’ candidacies and you’ll see exactly what I am talking about.

We have already seen it vividly with Obama’s candidacy and presidency – appealing to the masses while placing his main focus on appealing to the few that held the key to his ultimate viability test and a real chance to win. What better way to do this than bringing in a few devils as the advocates! He wanted the support of and the green light from the powerful Israel lobby, so he brought in the dual citizen Israeli agent Rahm Emanuel as his advocate. Checkmark that. He wanted the nod from the Neocons so he brought an advocate or two from their camp and promised a key seat to one of their agents, Hillary Clinton. He sought the approval of the corrupt financial megas, so he brought in an advocate from their turf. Very quickly, with the real devils on board, Obama became a ‘viable candidate’, not withstanding his racial disadvantage, his lack of experience, and his less than stellar record.

With the interests of the very few, to name a few – the financial and military industrial complex and the Israel lobby, represented and check-marked, Obama was declared ‘viable’ and guaranteed the securing of the unknowing masses’ vote. Read more È