Showing posts with label Paliens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paliens. Show all posts

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Aurora, Colorado killer, James Holmes: "gunman" or "terrorist"?

ne_072012_colorado_shooting_batman.jpg

. Judy Goos, center left, hugs her daughter's friend, Isaiah Bow, 20, while eyewitnesses Emma Goos, 19, left, and Terrell Wallin, 20, right, gather outside Gateway High School where witnesses were brought for questioning Friday, July 20, 2012, in Aurora, Colo. [Source for photo and caption: here]
Revised later in the day with additional analysis:

Through the sadness and disgust, I am paying attention to how the corporate media portray the white male terrorist who killed a dozen people in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater. Generally, a white man gets called "gunman", a term that comes from 1950s and '60s TV-Westerns where the killer is a loner. James Holmes is being described both as a "gunman" and as a "loner".

The concept of the loner is loaded with racist and sexist meaning: the advantage of being white is that one's race is generally invisibilised by whites, who control the largest systems of power in any white-ruled nation. It is to the advantage of whites to keep our race invisible and out of the realm of political scrutiny. One of several ways this is accomplished is by viewing white people, especially men, as only individuals.

How many times I've heard white men complain about how I categorise white men in terms of their race and gender. They will argue, using very similar lines of argumentation, that "I am not the White Man you speak of. I am just myself, an individual," as if anyone who is white or male doesn't benefit greatly by being a statused/destigmatised member of raced and gendered classes. The claim reveals the privilege and power: he need not know exactly to what degree he benefits in a white supremacist capitalist patriarchy by not being of color or female.

The concept of the white male loner is well-told in white men's myths about themselves. The Lone Ranger was considered alone even while he exploited the fictional assistance of Tonto. In the 18th and 19th centuries, white male trappers and genocidalist settlers in the U.S. relied on Native Americans or on the ways of Indigenous North Americans in order to survive. Men are considered alone, and consider themselves to be all alone, even while they exploit the labor and support of women throughout their lives.

Black or Brown people, women or men, routinely and systematically get identified by whites in terms of their race and how such races of people allegedly commit crime indiscriminately. We do not hear much about Black and Brown people as "loners", and when someone Black or Brown commits the kind of crime whites consider to be "criminal", s/he is always understood to be a criminal in part because s/he is Black or Brown, not in spite of it. This way of understanding humans-as-dangerous means we must ignore who, really, perpetrates atrocities against masses of people and the Earth.

We must ignore how overwhelmingly rich, white men organize and order the mass slaughter of Black, Brown, Asian, and Indigenous people, including, over the last decade, in Iraq and Afghanistan but also within the boundaries of the U.S., where genocide is on-going. And patriarchal war crimes target women and girls for particular atrocities, from sexual assault to sexual slavery to sexualised murder. Such grossly terroristic mass murders are never reported in those terms by corporate media because "terrorist" must be linked in the racist U.S. imagination with "not white", and as if the power men hold over and against women isn't a determining factor.

Current mass media stories of this most recent Colorado horror will exploit this, and are doing so right now. Where did James Holmes learn that men are entitled to direct hostility violently and terroristically against people who are unarmed? I am thinking now of efforts by some feminists to teach women how to operate firearms as means of self-defence, so that at least some men won't assume that women aren't capable of defending themselves with guns.

The sale and distribution of U.S. firearms and military weaponry within and beyond the U.S. is but one way for this country to ensure its dominance. Teaching the most powerful members of society to believe that the powerful have a right (if not also a responsibility) to violently aggress against the oppressed is another approach. James Holmes grew up in a society in which white men get to be terrorists without being called terrorists. In this same society, Black and Brown people of any sex are predetermined to be criminals; one recent publicised tragedy is the murder of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. Among whites I know who fly on planes, Arab Muslim passengers are predetermined to be terrorists and any Arab person or Muslim person is assumed to be a threat to them, simply by not being white or Christian or Jewish. (I'm reluctant to write that without adding this: white Christian men in the U.S. carry far less stigma and have much more institutionalised status and power, including economic power, than do white Jewish men or women.)

My question is:
Beyond what has occurred over the last several centuries in North America and globally, how much more terrorism has to be committed systematically and individually by white, European-descended men for white men to carry the stigma of being a distinctly advantaged and governmentally protected terrorist group?

"Gunman" keeps James Holmes in the realm of heroic anti-hero. Naming him a "terrorist" wouldn't have this effect.

My heart goes out to the loved ones of those killed by James Holmes and to the loved ones of the thousands of people terroristically murdered annually by xenophobic and white male supremacist U.S. police forces and imperialistic and white male supremacist military leaders, aka terrorists.

For more, see this:

http://www.voxunion.com/ExtraJudicialExecutions.pdf


Saturday, October 8, 2011

Will "ecocide" gets legal legs in UK and US courts?

image of book cover is from here
Let's not forget that Indigenous activists have been speaking out about this since the White Man's ecocidal practices first violated Sacred Ground. And if you haven't yet, please read the radical ecofeminist books by South Asian activist Vandana Shiva and the white Jewish North American ecofeminist, Starhawk.

From The Guardian:

See the video:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2011/oct/05/mock-ecocide-trial-video

Read the text (and please click on the title to link back to the source web page):

Test trial convicts fossil fuel bosses of 'ecocide'

Top lawyers put fossil fuel bosses on trial in the UK's supreme court in a mock case to explore if ecocide - environmental destruction - could join genocide as a global crime

Update: Two verdicts of guilty, one not guilty: that was the conclusion of the mock ecocide trial (details below) held at the UK's supreme court on 30 September. Real lawyers, judges and a public jury found the CEOs of fictional fossil fuel companies guilty of "extensive destruction, damage to or loss of ecosystem(s) to such an extent that the peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory, and of other territories, has been severely diminished", as a result of their company's extraction of oil from tar sands in Canada. The jury found one of the CEOs not guilt on the count of damage caused by an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Polly Higgins, the driving force behind the trial and who is working to have ecocide join genocide and three other crimes against peace in the UN, said: "For me the trial was a moment of truth. No longer is it acceptable to pursue profit without consequence. Corporate Ecocide is a global crime that is far greater and far more prevalent that most people realise. Those few people who dare to speak up about Corporate Ecocide in Wall Street have been arrested for speaking out about a greater crime, a far greater breach of the peace than their own shouting and campaigning. Surely it is now the time to prosecute the true destroyers of our world."

She added: "I'm not keen to see lots of [people] in the dock. What I want to see is people making responsible decisions. For example, a crime of ecocide could force governments to change the incentive structures for businesses by redirecting subsidises for fossil fuels towards clean energy sources. In this way the dirty energy companies that are wrecking the environment today could be transformed into the clean energy companies of tomorrow."

Original story (29/09/11):
It's a grim list: genocide, crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression (such as unprovoked invasions) and war crimes. All are recognised by the UN as crimes against peace and prosecuted through the international criminal court.

But should the bosses of polluting companies and the leaders of environmentally-unfriendly states join those responsible for mass murder in the dock. They could if a fifth crime against peace - ecocide - joined that list of human evils? The United Nations is now considering the proposal and the first test of how a prosecution for ecocide would work takes place on Friday, with fossil fuel bosses in the dock at the UK supreme court in London. It is a mock trial of course, but with real top-flight lawyers and judges and a jury made up of members of the public. The corporate CEOs will be played by actors briefed by their legal teams.

The crime of ecocide is the brainchild of British lawyer Polly Higgins, who in her UN submission defined it as:
Ecocide: The extensive damage, destruction to or loss of ecosystems of a given territory, whether by human agency or by other causes, to such an extent that peaceful enjoyment by the inhabitants of that territory has been severely diminished.
Crimes being considered for prosecution in Friday's trial include the extraction of oil from Canada's tar sands, a major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, fracking for shale gas in Nigeria and bauxite mining of Niyamgiri mountain, India. The real world parallels are not accidental, I'm sure.

An international law against ecocide, enforceable in the UK, will be assumed for the purposes of the mock trial. But there is no script and the jury's verdict is theirs alone to decide. "It is nerve-racking, it is not a done deal," says Higgins.

She argues the link between ecocide and genocide is that damage and destruction to the environment depletes the Earth's resources, which leads to conflict. Only by making ecocide a crime for which individuals can be jailed, will we change the norm which allows profit to be put before the planet, she told me.

Higgins says a key inspiration is William Wilberforce, whose campaigning led to the abolition of slavery in the UK. He changed to norm of how black people were treated, she says, and ecocide law would change the way the planet is treated. "We have go to the point when the ethical imperative trumps the economic imperative," she says. At the moment in many countries, she points out, the first responsibility of CEOs is a financial one to their shareholders. If environmental destruction is not illegal but can boost profit, it will happen, she says.

But she is not anti-corporate or anti-profit, she says: "I started as a corporate lawyer. Now I want to make the problem part of the solution." She says companies should be making profits from solving the problems of global warming, habitat destruction and the extinctions of animals and plants. The companies that traded in slaves did not go out of business after slavery was abolished, she claims.
I asked her about the problem of proving causation between the acts of companies and environmental damage, which has doomed previous attempted prosecutions in the US.

"Genocide is a crime of intent, but ecocide is not," she says. An ecocide law would create a pre-emptive responsibility to prevent ecological damage, she explains, in the same way that "superior responsibility" or "strict liablility" enables people to be prosecuted whether or not they intended to cause damage. "I am really not wanting to see lots of CEOs locked up," she says, but wants them deterred from ecocide in the first place.

I also asked her about the phrase in her ecocide definition that says "whether by human agency or by other causes". If there is a natural disaster, who can be prosecuted? The "other causes" term is there, she says, to place an obligation on governments to intervene in disasters to minimise damage.

If this all seems utter fantasy to you, it is worth noting that Bolivia has already passed laws granting all nature equal rights to humans. Furthermore, ecocide could become an international crime by amendment of the ICC's Statute of Rome, which would need 86 nations to back it. Are there 86 states backing the ICC who feel climate change, the crisis in the oceans and other environmental problems are trashing their "peaceful enjoyment" of the Earth's bounty? I wouldn't be surprised if there were.

Update (11:22 Friday): The two crimes chosen for the ecocide mock trial are the extraction of oil from Canada's tar sands, a major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I'll update the post again when the verdict comes.

Note: The trial, organised by the Hamilton Group, begins at 0900 BST on Friday 30 September and will be broadcast live by Sky News's Supreme Court web channel. Members of the public can attend. I'll post updates on this page. Michael Mansfield QC leads the prosecution against Nigel Lickley QC for the defence. Michael Norman will sit as the judge and the jury are members of the public recruited through Facebook and other social media and vetted for conflicts of interest.



Friday, August 5, 2011

Warren Jeffs and the US Military: same values--all of 'em WHM Supremacist



photo of serial rapist Warren Jeffs is from here

How it is that het men aren't stigmatised as child-rapists is beyond me. How it is that the US military can be seen as anything resembling "good" is also beyond me.

I am hearing about how the US military is suffering no economic downturn, doesn't know from recession, and will be profiting mightily--in every way--due to a very corrupt white male-led system of lack of checks and no balances.


The system was created by white het men and for white het men, well before white het manhood had cogealed into a globalised system of atrociously abusive power.

One white het man is allegedly "Christian". His name is Warren Jeffs. He represents some old-school white and male supremacist ideas about what girls and women are for. His view is that of  contemporary and past slave-holders: they exist for the Master, and he surely believes he's the master and, due only to his WHM supremacist location and privileges, is believed by man. Were he Black, Brown, Indigenous, Asian, Muslim, Jewish, gay, or a woman, he wouldn't have the positional/structural power he has had to rape and procure girls and women, including, especially, relatives of people he's already raped and procured.

Warren Jeffs is a slave-master. He controls minds and uses forms of force we're not likely to know too much about because when it comes to keeping control of other people, white het men do not like to brag about all the ways they do it, unless they can make it appear that girls and women are begging for such mistreatment and abuse.

I await his sentencing for committing crimes of sexual abuse, rape, and predation.

What Warren has against him is the fact that he's a single person, not a whole system of terrorism and corruption like the US military industrial complex. Because if he were a whole massive system, he'd be untouchable.

People will go hungry, people will die, people will become homeless, people will be raped, people and other sentient beings will be poisoned. This will be accomplished for great unstoppable profit by the US military. Its greediness for unchecked power, imbalanced control, Empire-bolstering domination, and various other manifestations of gynocidal, genocidal, and ecocidal destruction apparently knows no bounds and doesn't seek to encounter them.

US corporations and its military are the current slave-masters in a globalised economic world where might makes right and the weak are most of us.

President Eisenhower's caution to the future US, to curb the power of the military industrical complex, are unheeded. And he was no angel.

We've got the devil in charge and he isn't a US president: he's a force far beyond the power and control of presidency. We've been witnessing that during the weeks of ridiculous discussion about things like the debt ceiling. There's one way to bring the US into what many people might term "economic stability" (which would remain ecocidal, genocidal, and gynocidal), and that is to end our wars.

Ending het men's wars against girls and women ought to rise up as a central issue for human concern and social justice. Hopefully with Warren Jeffs behind bars, at least one predator/perpetrator will not be able to get his rapist hands on another female human being.



"Corporate destruction of Mother Earth most censored issue in Indian country", by Brenda Norrell

Most Censored in Indian Country: The Corporate Polluters

Corporate destruction of Mother Earth most censored issue in Indian country

By Brenda Norrell
Censored News
http://www.bsnorrell.blogspot.com
Photo: Marisa Joseph, Yankton Sioux, stands with Gerald Danforth, Oneida Wisconsin, before the solar panels and wind generator providing power to the Earthcycles. Photo Brenda Norrell.


NEW TOWN, North Dakota -- The 16th Annual Protecting Mother Earth Gathering revealed the most censored issues in Indian country, including the corporate polluters who are protected and promoted, under the guise of economic development. From Peabody Coal in Arizona, to BP on the Gulf Coast, and tar sands profiteers in Alberta, Canada, corporations destroy the land, air and water.

The Gathering of the Indigenous Environmental Network attracted Native Americans from throughout the United States, First Nations in Canada, Wixirika from Mexico and Maya from Guatemala, July 28-31.
For the rest of this post, please click *here*, at Censored News. Thank you, Brenda, for uncensoring the news.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

A Relatively New Radical Feminist blog!!! With thanks to Christina, the Angry Fem

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b362/freaksonaleash27/My%20Icons/feminist2.jpg
image is from here

It is with great pleasure that I introduce my readers to a new blog, Christina the Angry Fem, that I am so glad to see added to the many radical feminist blogs out there. The host is a wonderful, fierce woman named.. can you guess? Christina. I call her "friend". I want to direct you to her series on South Africa, here:

Racist and Sexist White Afrikaner Males, The Real Threat to SA - Part 1

Racist and Sexist White Afrikaner Males, The Real Threat to SA – Part 2

Racist and Sexist White Afrikaner Males, The Real Threat to SA – Part 3

 

And I encourage you to read and respectfully comment on all of her other posts thus far. 

Keep telling it like it is, Christina!!!!!! 

http://chelsiking.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/feminism-symbol1.jpg
image is from here


Monday, May 23, 2011

The Sperminator: Arnold Schwarzenegger Builds a Master Race, one baby at a time. Or is he just an ignorant dickhead?

image of Arnold Schwarzegger is from here
 Compare to this:

image is from here
 Compare to this:
photo is from here
Revised on 24 May 2011. Third image added on 26 May 2011.

From Wikipedia:
Arnold Alois Schwarzenegger (born July 30, 1947) is an Austrian-American former professional bodybuilder, actor, model, businessman and politician who served as the 38th Governor of California (2003–2011).
Schwarzenegger began weight training at the age of 15. He was awarded the title of Mr. Universe at age 20 and went on to win the Mr. Olympia contest seven times. Schwarzenegger has remained a prominent presence in the sport of bodybuilding and he has written several books and numerous articles on the sport. Schwarzenegger gained worldwide fame as a Hollywood action film icon. He was nicknamed the "Austrian Oak" and the "Styrian Oak" in his bodybuilding days, "Arnie" during his acting career and more recently the "Governator" (a portmanteau of "Governor" and "Terminator").
But listen... Do you hear it? People who speak English are calling him a new name. The Sperminator.

Arnold Schwarzenegger had some level of het-sex education. He learned how to put on a condom. Did he learn how to place a condom each time he has penetrative genital sex, on his penis. Not on his allegedly superior-shaped cranium. (Is there functional a difference between that head and the one on his penis?)

When an educated and well-exercised man like Arnold, muscled both in body and ego, decides to not use a condom routinely, does that mean he welcomes the woman he is with becoming pregnant with his and her child? Or, well, women. Many women. While married to one woman. While having children with that one woman to whom he was heterosexually married.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is a big, ego-testicle man.With testicles that he apparently thinks contain golden (or, well, yellow-blond) sperm that must be spread about the land, but not cast onto rocks and instead invading women's bodies, heading in the general direction of their cervixes and uteruses. He surely must know, by now, that when he has VOP (vagina-on-penis) or PIV (penis-in-vagina) sex that one possible consequence is a child being born approximately nine months later, in one case only a few days after another of his off-spring was born.

From *here*:
The [birth] certificate [, not Hawai'ian], which blacks out the boy's first and middle name, reveals that he was born on October 2, 1997 just five days after Schwarzenegger and Shriver welcomed their fourth child, Christopher Sargent Shriver Schwarzenegger, to the family. Which means his mistress and his wife were both pregnant at the exact same time with his children.
Is Arnold Schwarzenegger trying to build his own personal partly-ethnically-Austrian Master Race? Or is just teaching his sons how to be irresponsible sexist, controlling, impregnating penis-heads?

He's at least doing the latter. Are we to believe that every woman he impregnates willy nilly is thrilled to be carrying another of his many children to term? I surely hope some have chosen to abort, but that's a misogynistic, harmful way to practice birth control, and it's a sexist way that puts no responsibility on the dude to prevent pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

What other sexist lessons is he teaching his sons (and millions of het male fans who still have het-penetrative sex with or without erection-inducing drugs), through his behavior, not what he says? Meanwhile, I'm wondering this: When your very publicly esteemed and prominent father sticks out socially and engages in a whole lot of sexist-misogynist behavior, repeatedly, how easy is it to see all that sexist-misogynist behavior as immoral and grossly irresponsible without viewing one's father as immoral and grossly irresponsible? (Read: a P.R.I.C.K.) I'd say it's hard. I mean difficult.

He's taught by example that women, existentially, are for two things primarily: satisfying het men's sexual 'needs' and bearing what too many men view as het men's property children. (As, tragically, men also view women as possessions.) Each of these lessons is dangerous to humanity--women's. It not only puts women at great risk for rape, battery, sexual and economic exploitation, harassment, and homelessness. His behavior also spreads STDs and STIs, such as many strains of cervical cancer-causing HPV. His behavior also puts their lives at risk during pregnancy, during child-birth if the women choose to take the pregnancy to term, and while raising her children, often without any control of "their" finances. Arnold reportedly has his own money kept separate, for now. (I wonder: may a woman impregnated by Arnold's sperm freely choose to have an abortion? If she does, will Arnold consider this the murder of a part of his precious body and superior soul? The body and blood of Arnold Christ? What kind of man assumes the world needs a lot more of people who look like him? A man who has a narcissistic god-complex, perhaps? A normal, self-absorbed, selfish, sexist man with heaping helpings of privilege?)

Arnold, you're a terrible role model for all men and boys, and if you were practically any other ethnicity than the one you are--except German, perhaps--people might racistly think your behavior was pre-programmed into your DNA. I don't. I think it's you and that you've demonstrated that you're a dickhead. Why? Because you preach the evils of single people having babies, then ensure that some single people have babies... who look a whole fucking lot like you. (Damn you and your dominant genes.) Please, please keep those genes in your jeans from now on. Please. (Really.) The political and celebrity worlds have had enough of you.

From *here*:
In a statement, Arnold’s agency broke the news of his hiatus:
“Governor Schwarzenegger is focusing on personal matters and is not willing to commit to any production schedules or timelines. This includes ‘Cry Macho,’ The ‘Terminator’ franchise and other projects under consideration. We will resume discussions when Governor Schwarzenegger decides.”
Word has it that Arnold’s ‘Governator’ animated series has now been cancelled. TMZ reports that it received this statement from a rep for the animated project:
“In light of recent events, A Squared Entertainment, POW, Stan Lee Comics, and Archie Comics, have chosen to not go forward with the Governator project.”
Unfortunately for all parties involved, the fallout of this disaster is just getting started and will apparently play out in a very public manner. Shriver reportedly has hired a divorce attorney as the couple works to divide their assets.
As this relates to film, what remains to be seen is if even has a choice at a potential film career revival at this point. Most film studios wouldn’t want the risk of being attached to this publicity nightmare and a whole crop of prospective moviegoers have been alienated by his actions.
Arnold, why don't you, Charlie Sheen, and Mel Gibson go buy an island together and live on it. And don't turn that into a reality TV show called Big Ego Brother, The Equivalent of Twelve and a Half Egos, or The Biggest Loser At Being Humane. While together, you three can decide who has committed more crimes against women, including sexual harassment, unwelcomed groping, gross sexual exploitation, procurement, rape, and domestic terrorism. And then you can decide who, among you, is the most anti-Semitic. My bet is on Mel for that charge. But you get the lifetime achievement award for The Most Controlling, Irresponsible, and Oppressive WHM Supremacist Man. That's not a call to say congratulations. Rather, shame on you.

You've produced and reproduced way too many off-spring willy nilly. Cut it out or cut it off: it's called a vasectomy. Really: just do it. Both cords. Snipped. Neuter yourself for the betterment of humanity. Please.

I join Maria Shriver in saying: Hasta la vista, baby-making man. Don't say "I'll be back". Just terminate the fertile sperm, use a condom, and stop being such a sexist scumbag.


Saturday, May 21, 2011

Harold Camping: Another 15 Minutes of Rapture


These white Christian fundamentalist evangelists are violent. Their heterosexism, sexism, racism, and moralistic CRAP is a form of social violence against many groups of people: women, people of color, the poor, Indigenous people, and LGBTIA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intergender, Intersex, Asexual) folks. That means their violence harms most of us. And, contrary to some of their beliefs, they aren't leaving some time today. They may well be packed and ready. But they're unfortunately not going anywhere.

One day, perhaps, these white racist, heterosexist, pro-patriarchal paliens will be taken from Earth leaving the non-human animals, non-Christian fundamentalist evangelists, air, plant life, sea, and land to live together in peace. This gay, intergender, profeminist Jew will pray this to happen sooner than later.

***Here is more on this from HuffPo***.

Friday, May 20, 2011

Noam Chomsky on the Death of bin Laden

photo of Noam Chomsky is from here
I like and respect Noam Chomsky. It is not an accident that he's a Jew. Jews in Amerikkka, due entirely to social-structural location, not genes, have a long history of radical social protest and for being outspoken in a drowning sea of white Christian silence and white Gentile acquiescence. The voices of Jews media most promotes are usually liberal and almost entirely Ashkenazi, but there are Jews of color--Sephardi and Mizrahi, within and beyond the US, who also share in the traditions of radically speaking out against injustice.

What I hope is that Noam increasingly incorporates radical feminist and pro-Indigenist political analysis into his work. When I hear Noam speak out against patriarchal abuses of women and girls, as such, and against Western Civilisation's assault against Indigenous People and people of color worldwide, as such, I'll respect him even more.

All that follows is from ZNet and ZCommunications.org.
There is Much More to Say

By Noam Chomsky
Friday, May 20, 2011

After the assassination of bin Laden I received such a deluge of requests for comment that I was unable to respond individually, and on May 4 and later I sent an unedited form response instead, not intending for it to be posted, and expecting to write it up more fully and carefully later on. But it was posted, then circulated. It can now be found, reposted, at http://www.zcommunications.org/my-reaction-to-osama-bin-laden-s-death-by-noam-chomsky.

That was followed by a deluge of reactions from all over the world. It is far from a scientific sample of course, but nevertheless, the tendencies may be of some interest. Overwhelmingly, those from the “third world” were on the order of “thanks for saying what we think.” There were similar ones from the US, but many others were infuriated, often virtually hysterical, with almost no relation to the actual content of the posted form letter. That was true in particular of the posted or published responses brought to my attention. I have received a few requests to comment on several of these. Frankly, it seems to me superfluous. If there is any interest, I’ll nevertheless find some time to do so.

The original letter ends with the comment that “There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about.” Here I will fill in some of the gaps, leaving the original otherwise unchanged in all essentials.

Noam Chomsky

May 2011



On May 1, 2011, Osama bin Laden was killed in his virtually unprotected compound by a raiding mission of 79 Navy Seals, who entered Pakistan by helicopter. After many lurid stories were provided by the government and withdrawn, official reports made it increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law, beginning with the invasion itself.

There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 79 commandos facing no opposition - except, they report, from his wife, also unarmed, who they shot in self-defense when she “lunged” at them (according to the White House).

A plausible reconstruction of the events is provided by veteran Middle East correspondent Yochi Dreazen and colleagues in the Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/05/goal-was-never-to-capture-bin-laden/238330/). Dreazen, formerly the military correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, is senior correspondent for the National Journal Group covering military affairs and national security. According to their investigation, White House planning appears not to have considered the option of capturing OBL alive: “The administration had made clear to the military's clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions. A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive.”

The authors add: “For many at the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency who had spent nearly a decade hunting bin Laden, killing the militant was a necessary and justified act of vengeance.” Furthermore, “Capturing bin Laden alive would have also presented the administration with an array of nettlesome legal and political challenges.” Better, then, to assassinate him, dumping his body into the sea without the autopsy considered essential after a killing, whether considered justified or not – an act that predictably provoked both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

As the Atlantic inquiry observes, “The decision to kill bin Laden outright was the clearest illustration to date of a little-noticed aspect of the Obama administration's counterterror policy. The Bush administration captured thousands of suspected militants and sent them to detention camps in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay. The Obama administration, by contrast, has focused on eliminating individual terrorists rather than attempting to take them alive.” That is one significant difference between Bush and Obama. The authors quote former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, who “told German TV that the U.S. raid was ‘quite clearly a violation of international law’ and that bin Laden should have been detained and put on trial,” contrasting Schmidt with US Attorney General Eric Holder, who “defended the decision to kill bin Laden although he didn't pose an immediate threat to the Navy SEALs, telling a House panel on Tuesday that the assault had been ‘lawful, legitimate and appropriate in every way’.”

The disposal of the body without autopsy was also criticized by allies. The highly regarded British barrister Geoffrey Robertson, who supported the intervention and opposed the execution largely on pragmatic grounds, nevertheless described Obama’s claim that “justice was done” as an “absurdity” that should have been obvious to a former professor of constitutional law (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-03/osama-bin-laden-death-why-he-should-have-been-captured-not-killed/). Pakistan law “requires a colonial inquest on violent death, and international human rights law insists that the ‘right to life’ mandates an inquiry whenever violent death occurs from government or police action. The U.S. is therefore under a duty to hold an inquiry that will satisfy the world as to the true circumstances of this killing.” Robertson adds that “The law permits criminals to be shot in self-defense if they (or their accomplices) resist arrest in ways that endanger those striving to apprehend them. They should, if possible, be given the opportunity to surrender, but even if they do not come out with their hands up, they must be taken alive if that can be achieved without risk. Exactly how bin Laden came to be ‘shot in the head’ (especially if it was the back of his head, execution-style) therefore requires explanation. Why a hasty ‘burial at sea’ without a post mortem, as the law requires?”

Robertson attributes the murder to “America’s obsessive belief in capital punishment—alone among advanced nations—[which] is reflected in its rejoicing at the manner of bin Laden’s demise.” For example, Nation columnist Eric Alterman writes that “The killing of Osama bin Laden was a just and necessary undertaking.”

Robertson usefully reminds us that “It was not always thus. When the time came to consider the fate of men much more steeped in wickedness than Osama bin Laden -- namely the Nazi leadership -- the British government wanted them hanged within six hours of capture. President Truman demurred, citing the conclusion of Justice Robert Jackson that summary execution ‘would not sit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride…the only course is to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused after a hearing as dispassionate as the times will permit and upon a record that will leave our reasons and motives clear’."

The editors of the Daily Beast comment that “The joy is understandable, but to many outsiders, unattractive. It endorses what looks increasingly like a cold-blooded assassination as the White House is now forced to admit that Osama bin Laden was unarmed when he was shot twice in the head.”

In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In June 2002, FBI head Robert Mueller, in what the Washington Post described as “among his most detailed public comments on the origins of the attacks,” could say only that “investigators believe the idea of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon came from al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan, the actual plotting was done in Germany, and the financing came through the United Arab Emirates from sources in Afghanistan…. We think the masterminds of it were in Afghanistan, high in the al Qaeda leadership.” What the FBI believed and thought in June 2002 they didn’t know eight months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence. Thus it is not true, as the President claimed in his White House statement, that “We quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

There has never been any reason to doubt what the FBI believed in mid-2002, but that leaves us far from the proof of guilt required in civilized societies – and whatever the evidence might be, it does not warrant murdering a suspect who could, it seems, have been easily apprehended and brought to trial. Much the same is true of evidence provided since. Thus the 9/11 Commission provided extensive circumstantial evidence of bin Laden’s role in 9/11, based primarily on what it had been told about confessions by prisoners in Guantanamo. It is doubtful that much of that would hold up in an independent court, considering the ways confessions were elicited. But in any event, the conclusions of a congressionally authorized investigation, however convincing one finds them, plainly fall short of a sentence by a credible court, which is what shifts the category of the accused from suspect to convicted. There is much talk of bin Laden's “confession,” but that was a boast, not a confession, with as much credibility as my “confession” that I won the Boston marathon. The boast tells us a lot about his character, but nothing about his responsibility for what he regarded as a great achievement, for which he wanted to take credit.

Again, all of this is, transparently, quite independent of one’s judgments about his responsibility, which seemed clear immediately, even before the FBI inquiry, and still does.

It is worth adding that bin Laden’s responsibility was recognized in much of the Muslim world, and condemned. One significant example is the distinguished Lebanese cleric Sheikh Fadlallah, greatly respected by Hizbollah and Shia groups generally, outside Lebanon as well. He too had been targeted for assassination: by a truck bomb outside a mosque, in a CIA-organized operation in 1985. He escaped, but 80 others were killed, mostly women and girls, as they left the mosque – one of those innumerable crimes that do not enter the annals of terror because of the fallacy of “wrong agency.” Sheikh Fadlallah sharply condemned the 9/11 attacks, as did many other leading figures in the Muslim world, within the Jihadi movement as well. Among others, the head of Hizbollah, Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah, sharply condemned bin Laden and Jihadi ideology.

One of the leading specialists on the Jihadi movement, Fawaz Gerges, suggests that the movement might have been split at that time had the US exploited the opportunity instead of mobilizing the movement, particularly by the attack on Iraq, a great boon to bin Laden, which led to a sharp increase in terror, as intelligence agencies had anticipated. That conclusion was confirmed by the former head of Britain’s domestic intelligence agency MI5 at the Chilcot hearings investigating the background for the war. Confirming other analyses, she testified that both British and US intelligence were aware that Saddam posed no serious threat and that the invasion was likely to increase terror; and that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan had radicalized parts of a generation of Muslims who saw the military actions as an “attack on Islam.” As is often the case, security was not a high priority for state action.

It might be instructive to ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic (after proper burial rites, of course). Uncontroversially, he is not a “suspect” but the “decider” who gave the orders to invade Iraq -- that is, to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country and the national heritage, and the murderous sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region. Equally uncontroversially, these crimes vastly exceed anything attributed to bin Laden.

To say that all of this is uncontroversial, as it is, is not to imply that it is not denied. The existence of flat earthers does not change the fact that, uncontroversially, the earth is not flat. Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Stalin and Hitler were responsible for horrendous crimes, though loyalists deny it. All of this should, again, be too obvious for comment, and would be, except in an atmosphere of hysteria so extreme that it blocks rational thought.

Similarly, it is uncontroversial that Bush and associates did commit the “supreme international crime,” the crime of aggression, at least if we take the Nuremberg Tribunal seriously. The crime of aggression was defined clearly enough by Justice Robert Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States at Nuremberg, reiterated in an authoritative General Assembly resolution. An “aggressor,” Jackson proposed to the Tribunal in his opening statement, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as “Invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State….” No one, even the most extreme supporter of the aggression, denies that Bush and associates did just that.

We might also do well to recall Jackson’s eloquent words at Nuremberg on the principle of universality: “If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” And elsewhere: “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”

It is also clear that alleged intentions are irrelevant. Japanese fascists apparently did believe that by ravaging China they were laboring to turn it into an “earthly paradise.” We don’t know whether Hitler believed that he was defending Germany from the “wild terror” of the Poles, or was taking over Czechoslovakia to protect its population from ethnic conflict and provide them with the benefits of a superior culture, or was saving the glories of the civilization of the Greeks from barbarians of East and West, as his acolytes claimed (Martin Heidegger). And it’s even conceivable that Bush and company believed that they were protecting the world from destruction by Saddam’s nuclear weapons. All irrelevant, though ardent loyalists on all sides may try to convince themselves otherwise.

We are left with two choices: either Bush and associates are guilty of the “supreme international crime” including all the evils that follow, crimes that go vastly beyond anything attributed to bin Laden; or else we declare that the Nuremberg proceedings were a farce and that the allies were guilty of judicial murder. Again, that is entirely independent of the question of the guilt of those charged: established by the Nuremberg Tribunal in the case of the Nazi criminals, plausibly surmised from the outset in the case of bin Laden.

A few days before the bin Laden assassination, Orlando Bosch died peacefully in Florida, where he resided along with his terrorist accomplice Luis Posada Carilles, and many others. After he was accused of dozens of terrorist crimes by the FBI, Bosch was granted a presidential pardon by Bush I over the objections of the Justice Department, which found the conclusion “inescapable that it would be prejudicial to the public interest for the United States to provide a safe haven for Bosch. ”The coincidence of deaths at once calls to mind the Bush II doctrine, which has “already become a de facto rule of international relations,” according to the noted Harvard international relations specialist Graham Allison. The doctrine revokes “the sovereignty of states that provide sanctuary to terrorists,” Allison writes, referring to the pronouncement of Bush II that “those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves,” directed to the Taliban. Such states, therefore, have lost their sovereignty and are fit targets for bombing and terror; for example, the state that harbored Bosch and his associate -- not to mention some rather more significant candidates. When Bush issued this new “de facto rule of international relations,” no one seemed to notice that he was calling for invasion and destruction of the US and murder of its criminal presidents.

None of this is problematic, of course, if we reject Justice Jackson’s principle of universality, and adopt instead the principle that the US is self-immunized against international law and conventions -- as, in fact, the government has frequently made very clear, an important fact, much too little understood.

It is also worth thinking about the name given to the operation: Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound that few seem able to perceive that the White House is glorifying bin Laden by calling him “Geronimo” -- the leader of courageous resistance to the invaders who sought to consign his people to the fate of “that hapless race of native Americans, which we are exterminating with such merciless and perfidious cruelty, among the heinous sins of this nation, for which I believe God will one day bring [it] to judgement,” in the words of the great grand strategist John Quincy Adams, the intellectual architect of manifest destiny, long after his own contributions to these sins had passed. Some did comprehend, not surprisingly. The remnants of that hapless race protested vigorously. Choice of the name is reminiscent of the ease with which we name our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Blackhawk. Tomahawk,… We might react differently if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes "Jew" and "Gypsy".

The examples mentioned would fall under the category “American exceptionalism,” were it not for the fact that easy suppression of one’s own crimes is virtually ubiquitous among powerful states, at least those that are not defeated and forced to acknowledge reality. Other current illustrations are too numerous to mention. To take just one, of great current significance, consider Obama’s terror weapons (drones) in Pakistan. Suppose that during the 1980s, when they were occupying Afghanistan, the Russians had carried out targeted assassinations in Pakistan aimed at those who were financing, arming and training the insurgents – quite proudly and openly. For example, targeting the CIA station chief in Islamabad, who explained that he “loved” the “noble goal” of his mission: to “kill Soviet Soldiers…not to liberate Afghanistan.” There is no need to imagine the reaction, but there is a crucial distinction: that was them, this is us.

What are the likely consequences of the killing of bin Laden? For the Arab world, it will probably mean little. He had long been a fading presence, and in the past few months was eclipsed by the Arab Spring. His significance in the Arab world is captured by the headline in the New York Times for an op-ed by Middle East/al Qaeda specialist Gilles Kepel; “Bin Laden was Dead Already.” Kepel writes that few in the Arab world are likely to care. That headline might have been dated far earlier, had the US not mobilized the Jihadi movement by the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, as suggested by the intelligence agencies and scholarship. As for the Jihadi movement, within it bin Laden was doubtless a venerated symbol, but apparently did not play much more of a role for this “network of networks,” as analysts call it, which undertake mostly independent operations.

The most immediate and significant consequences are likely to be in Pakistan. There is much discussion of Washington's anger that Pakistan didn't turn over bin Laden. Less is said about the fury in Pakistan that the US invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor had already reached a very high peak in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it.

Pakistan is the most dangerous country on earth, also the world’s fastest growing nuclear power, with a huge arsenal. It is held together by one stable institution, the military. One of the leading specialists on Pakistan and its military, Anatol Lieven, writes that “if the US ever put Pakistani soldiers in a position where they felt that honour and patriotism required them to fight America, many would be very glad to do so.” And if Pakistan collapsed, an “absolutely inevitable result would be the flow of large numbers of highly trained ex-soldiers, including explosive experts and engineers, to extremist groups.” That is the primary threat he sees of leakage of fissile materials to Jihadi hands, a horrendous eventuality.

The Pakistani military have already been pushed to the edge by US attacks on Pakistani sovereignty. One factor is the drone attacks in Pakistan that Obama escalated immediately after the killing of bin Laden, rubbing salt in the wounds. But there is much more, including the demand that the Pakistani military cooperate in the US war against the Afghan Taliban, whom the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis, the military included, see as fighting a just war of resistance against an invading army, according to Lieven.

The bin Laden operation could have been the spark that set off a conflagration, with dire consequences, particularly if the invading force had been compelled to fight its way out, as was anticipated. Perhaps the assassination was perceived as an “act of vengeance,” as Robertson concludes. Whatever the motive was, it could hardly have been security. As in the case of the “supreme international crime” in Iraq, the bin Laden assassination illustrates that security is often not a high priority for state action, contrary to received doctrine.

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts should provide us with a good deal to think about. 

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Polo, by Ralph Lifshitz? No. Ralph Lauren, with Oprah Winfrey, have well-understood the racist, anti-Semitic society they each grew up in

photo of Oprah Winfrey and Ralph Lauren is from here
Revised quite a bit in places, on 20 May 2011.

Judging from a recent Oprah Winfrey Show, Mr. Lauren and Ms. Winfrey both appear to desire to live at the top of this allegedly only-great society. And to the casual observer, they do. But neither will, let me tell you. Neither can, because neither person is white, male, and Christian. And only white het male Christians or Gentiles can be at the tippety-top in this misogynist, racist, anti-Semitic, heterosexist, and increasingly classist country of mine.

I'm so sick of white people--women and men--telling me how powerful Oprah is, as if she's nearly as powerful as the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, GW Bush, Bill Clinton, or, even, Arnold Schwarzenegger. She isn't. She has a place in dominant cultural media. That's it. That's power too. But consider the power to control, violate, and oppress other people's lives. Oprah can get books sold and can get people to watch a TV show. She doesn't control state or other government policies which really do harm vulnerable people. She doesn't have a military or police force she can unleash onto oppressed citizens. Those kinds of destructive, inhumane power are very valued in the US.

Oprah Winfrey doesn't have or exercise that kind of power. She has participated in creating dominant society's culture and has benefited from it, building a career all around it, figuring out how to have a very financially successful life on the white skeleton of CRAP's bloody body; but her life is not stained red with the Richest White Man's blood. She, unlike so many white het men, is not a war criminal, a serial rapist of women and girls living on US, Indigenous, or another country's land. She doesn't mass produce or compulsively consume images of raped and incested girls (or boys)--grown or not. And if she spoke out too much against racism, capitalism, and misogyny (I'm not concerned she'll start doing this, by the way), she'd be not so graciously removed from public life. Her corporate and financial supporters would stop having her back.

One of the most anti-status quo things I think she's done is to be so overtly pro-lesbian and pro-gay. She has also worked to keep adult male predators away from children, for a little while. There is also the example of her life, for so many people. There's the bootstraps myth, that her life participates in: she pulled herself out of poverty and a racistly and misogynistically abusive childhood to become an ultra-successful businessperson and celebrity in what is usually a White Het Man's World. She demonstrates how to have a lot of economic power but not abuse it horrendously. That's a very rare thing and there are, weekly, rich white het men who remind us how abusively some forms of power can be expressed, with no meaningful or class-level human rights accountability keeping them or the institutions in check; it's the actions with the institutional supports that make their normalised corruption possible. The white het men who commit these egregious crimes are not charged with exploiting the powers they, alone, possess. The power they possess is socially, generally, seen as "good". But it's anything but good.

White het Christian and Gentile men have the most dominant, institutionalised destructive power in my country, exercised exploitively without any class-level relief against all women, including against white women, but additionally destructively against the lives of women of color. White het Christian or WH Gentile men also oppress and destroy men of color, and potentially any person determined by het men to be of lesser value for being not masculine or manly enough--if male. Women cannot be masculine or feminine enough to avoid the atrocities and abuses men, as a class, misogynistically commit. Either way, along any cultural continuum, the femme woman and the stud or butch, the non-gender conforming or the gender variant woman will be punished somehow, usually in more than one way, by men. Lesbians, in particular, however the appear to het men, will be oppressed by het men, institutionally and socially (structurally) if not also personally.

Ralph's ability to abusively exploit and take lives depends on his willingness to use slave labor in the production of his carefully designed clothes--clothes designed to sell back to the United Rapes of Amerikkka, and to the capitalist world, an idea of itself that is white non-Jewish male supremacist to the core of its bloody being. It depends on whether and to what degrees he reinforces dominant cultural ideals of beauty, used against just about everyone but the ideals actively enforce and support rape against girls and women by portraying women as sexxx-things for men. This is dovetailed in a way that won't create peace or social justice for people of color.

photo of model whose "looks" could locate him in a neo-Nazi Aryan Youth movement is from here
As a white Jew, I've had occasions--many recently--to observe, among whites (Jewish and not), how there are hierarchies that don't get spoken about out loud any more. Suffice it to say blond people are valued more, Christian or just plain Gentile light-whites are valued more--even while some of them get to be tan. Anyone who has a Western European patriarchal "sir" name that isn't Jewish is valued even more. Ralph knew this very well. He chose "Lauren" as his name and "Polo" as his icon because it represented an economically and ethnically-specific class of humanity to US Americans that he was not born into. He cannot ever occupy it either. He can pretend to. He, like Oprah, can acquire many of the trappings of it. But if you believe there aren't many, many places across this country, many new versions of old-fashioned country clubs, polo clubs, golf clubs, fraternities, Lion's clubs, Mason's organisations, and other whiteboys' clubs--like that of white male priests, that won't let Ralph and Oprah in their doors and won't welcome them to be members, let alone leaders, you're living in a grand or deep level of denial. There are many places in the Christian/Gentile white world that will look with strange curiosity or suspicion upon anyone who is Jewish (or Muslim).

Oprah Winfrey visited Ralph Lauren on his Colorado estate. She was impressed--"wow"ed--clearly.  This level of being impressed reminded me that even among the multi-millionaires or billionaires in the world, there are social and cultural stratifications and degrees of material status.

From the interview I learned (from Oprah, not from Ralph) that he is the son of immigrant Russian Jews. ("Russian" being a term that was, in his childhood, used as a synonym for the whole of the USSR. His family is from Belarus, not what is now the country of Russia, however.) We also learned from this show, which introduced us to his spouse and children, that his wife of many years is blond (they do seem to have a lovely and very loving relationship). We also learned about the sexual orientation of at least of his grown children: a daughter and a son, are about to be heterosexually wed to their respective fiancée/fiancé. So we have the presentation of this almost ideal nuclear family, which exists on the throats of so many who will never get what they have.

I had a friend once who was also Jewish, white, very heterosexual while not especially homophobic. He was pro-feminist. He only chose to date non-Jewish white women. His last name had also been anglo-sized away from being identified too readily as "Jewish" European. His family holidayed in Telluride, Colorado, which is near where the Lauren land is located.

If you go to Colorado, or Utah, or Arizona, or any other state in the union, please pay attention to where and when there are places that won't allow anyone who is Black, Brown, Indigenous, Jewish, Muslim, Arab, or Indigenous. And pay attention to how many of those places value women and gay males as much as het men.

White, economically class-privileged, het men who complain about not having enough rights, as males, are so deeply in denial about all the structural, institutional power they have--including, of course, the power to rape, the power to assault, the power to control, the power to exclude, the power to sue, the power to imprison, the power to economically and sexually exploit other human beings, that it's no wonder they view feminists as a powerful enemy. They don't know the meaning of the word "enemy". White het Christian and Gentile men, in the U.S., have no enemies. They might have people who don't respect them, although not a lot. They might have people who feel appropriately disgusted by the entitlements, privileges, and forms of power they posses quite possessively. But that's not the same thing as having the power to oppress whole classes of people. At all.

The sooner white het men admitted that, the sooner we might be able to address the many forms of social injustice and inhumanity that rule this White Het Man's world. It's most powerful citizens won't even consider me to be a man, because I'm male and so stubbornly pro-feminist, so against sucking the intellectual dicks of white men, so opposed to the unjust and evil forms of structural power they so furiously and defiantly, and secretively and privately protect.

Ralph understood what any person wants in the US: status, power, respectability. In the US, wealth is a quick ride to all of those things. It won't get you to the tippety-top, unless you've got a few other culturally and ethnically specific things going for you which are not so easily gotten rid of once you have them--the stigma of racial, sexual, regional, religious, or economic inferiority.

To those who know cultural history--and believe me, Ralph is sure hoping you don't find this out--the religious and regional roots of the game of polo take us directly to Muslim Asia. The game itself comes from Central Asia, specifically the region now known as Iran, but has been played across many regions including South Asia and Northern Africa. It is a sport that was colonised by the White British. And it is this period of its history, and its location in the US as a white Christian-statused rich man's sport of leisure, that Ralph is referencing and exploiting.

Appropriation and colonisation is what white Christian westerners do so well. If you want to see a rather obnoxious, racist display of this, just note how, in Ralph Lauren's Colorado estate, he has many well-appointed living structures (also known as teepees), and has many items throughout that have been ripped off or stolen from the societies of people the White Man killed and are still killing here. It is a sign of racial and ethnic superiority to be able to display the artifacts of the societies you destroy. No where is this more evident than in upper class and wealth class white homes, built, every one of them, on criminally stolen and corruptly named White Man's land. But on with our history lesson. From Wikipedia *here*:
From Persia, in medieval times polo spread to the Byzantines (who called it tzykanion), and after the Muslim conquests to the Ayyubid and Mameluke dynasties of Egypt and the Levant, whose elites favored it above all other sports. Notable sultans such as Saladin and Baybars were known to play it and encourage it in their court. Polo sticks were features on the Mameluke precursor to modern day playing cards.
Later on Polo was passed from Persia to other parts of Asia including the Indian subcontinent and China, where it was very popular during the Tang Dynasty and frequently depicted in paintings and statues. Valuable for training cavalry, the game was played from Constantinople to Japan by the Middle Ages. Known in the East as the Game of Kings. The name polo is said to have been derived from the Tibetan word "pulu", meaning ball.
The modern game of polo, though formalized and popularized by the British, is derived from Manipur (now a state in India) who played the game known as 'Sagol Kangjei', 'Kanjai-bazee', or 'Pulu'. It was the anglicised form of the latter, referring to the wooden ball which was used, that was adopted by the sport in its slow spread to the west. The first polo club was established in the town of Silchar in Assam, India, in 1834.
The modern sport has had difficulty grappling with the traditional social and economic exclusivity associated with a game that is inevitably expensive when played at a serious level. Many polo players genuinely desire to broaden public participation in the sport, both as an end in itself and to increase the standard of play, while others value and seek to preserve the social and economic exclusivity of the sport.
If one searched the world over, you'd find few other sports less associated with being a European Jew than polo. The internalised and externalised anti-Semitism that is revealed by Ralph making that decision to whiten (franco-anglocize) his last name is evident enough, as is his need to escape his family's cultural "trappings". And I'm sure he's not hurting all that much, as he gazes across his land to the picturesque and glorious Colorado mountaintops in the distance. Not even Oprah possesses that view, although she has envied it over the years from just beyond his fenced in land, which she apparently has driven by many times. She envies what he has exactly the way any US American is supposed to; but most of us won't visit the outside, or inside, of his visually bordered backyard. How many other Black women, or any women of color, born into poverty do you suppose Ralph and his spouse and children have had as special guests there (and not as hired staff)?

In Ralph Lauren's logo there's no indication of the Muslim or Asian roots, or South American present, of the game of polo. Below, the iconic human figure atop the horse is off-white, just like the status of many white Jews in Amerikkka, who will never, ever control this not-so-great country of mine, despite what so many non-Jewish people around the world and within Amerikkka believe is going on. A Black Christian man and, hopefully, a Christian white woman, will be president before a Jewish woman or man of any color. Ralph's home isn't filled with Belarussian Jewish cultural artifacts for a reason. They wouldn't signify him as a "great" conquering, settler white man.

image is from here



Friday, May 13, 2011

End:Civ Resist or Die (Full Movie), with Waziyatawin, Lierre Keith, Stephanie McMillan, Qwatsinas, Derrick Jensen and more



"Environmentalism", to me, is the White Man's term to describe something that is part of non-defiled Indigenous traditions called "living". The White Man seeks to defile and destroy everything he possibly can about Indigenous life--including the people. But also the ways of being, the values, the worldview, the practices, and the spirituality and religions. When people tell me "I'm anti-religion" I wonder what religions they are speaking about--well, I don't, actually. I already know: they mean one or two of three religions--the Ibrahimic/Abrahamic ones: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, named here in reverse chronological order. They never, ever mean Indigenous religion, because they don't think of Indigenous people as having a religion. They don't think of Indigenous people, usually.

Environmentalism is what white men have done with Indigenous ways of being, pretending it is the White Man who must save the day, and the Earth. These men ignore not only the on-going work of Indigenous activists globally, but of ecofeminists. Environmentalists are a notoriously sexist/misogynist bunch of men; virtually all bunches of men are sexist and misogynistic. They ought not be listened to, made into heroes, leaders, given awards, proclaimed as the new Messiah, and so on. The White Man must follow, not lead. He has led us into hell and he doesn't know how to get us out.

In case it isn't yet clear, I don't have faith in the White Man's ways of being, his values, worldview, practices, or spirituality and religions. He appropriates and exploits everything he touches. It's like The Midas Touch story except that everything he touches turns to CRAP.

There are very few white men I hold deep respect and regard for. Most of the activists I feature on this blog are neither white nor male, for a reason. I believe both whiteness and manhood, as socially constructed and politically acted out, are poisonous and inhumane. One of the white men I believe is doing good work is Derrick Jensen, and he is one of the key people involved in the production of a new film called End:Civ Resist or Die.

Derrick asks: “If your homeland was invaded by aliens who cut down the forests, poisoned the water and air, and contaminated the food supply, would you resist?”

The answer is that many people have been resisting all along, but not nearly enough people who are white and male, and those who are activist resisters who are white and male do not usually hold themselves accountable to activists who are women of color.

I am drawn to watch this movie because it is not a movie about the experiences of white men only, as most films are in North America. This means that actual human beings who are not white or are not male are spoken to and with as if they had something important to say. You won't find that happening on CRAPitalist media, unless the women or men of color are saying exactly what the White Man wants them to say.

Please click on the link below to return to the film's web page. All that follows if from there. At some point I may offer a review of the film here. But for now, please watch it.

http://endciv.com/

END:CIV examines our culture’s addiction to systematic violence and environmental exploitation, and probes the resulting epidemic of poisoned landscapes and shell-shocked nations. Based in part on Endgame, the best-selling book by Derrick Jensen, END:CIV asks: “If your homeland was invaded by aliens who cut down the forests, poisoned the water and air, and contaminated the food supply, would you resist?”
The causes underlying the collapse of civilizations are usually traced to overuse of resources. As we write this, the world is reeling from economic chaos, peak oil, climate change, environmental degradation, and political turmoil. Every day, the headlines re-hash stories of scandal and betrayal of the public trust. We don’t have to make outraged demands for the end of the current global system — it seems to be coming apart already.
But acts of courage, compassion and altruism abound, even in the most damaged places. By documenting the resilience of the people hit hardest by war and repression, and the heroism of those coming forward to confront the crisis head-on, END:CIV illuminates a way out of this all-consuming madness and into a saner future.
Backed by Jensen’s narrative, the film calls on us to act as if we truly love this land. The film trips along at a brisk pace, using music, archival footage, motion graphics, animation, slapstick and satire to deconstruct the global economic system, even as it implodes around us. END:CIV illustrates first-person stories of sacrifice and heroism with intense, emotionally-charged images that match Jensen’s poetic and intuitive approach. Scenes shot in the back country provide interludes of breathtaking natural beauty alongside clearcut evidence of horrific but commonplace destruction.
END:CIV features interviews with Paul Watson, Waziyatawin,  Gord Hill, Michael Becker, Peter Gelderloos, Lierre Keith, James Howard Kunstler, Stephanie McMillan, Qwatsinas, Rod Coronado, John Zerzan and more.
“A fierce critique of systematic violence and industrial civilization, End:Civ is not intended for garden-variety environmentalists. If you are anywhere below, say, an 8 on that sliding scale of pissed off, then this film is going to scare you — which means you should watch it.”
-Eugene Weekly
.”A tour de force film from Franklin López which does more than justice to Derrick Jensen’s thesis that industrial civilization is destroying life on the planet.  Employing all the contemporary audio visual techniques our digital world makes possible for a single brilliant penurious filmmaker, López harvests sounds and images from our demented world to relentlessly show the rape of the mind and the earth.  To those outside the small choir who see the message of resistance as obvious, this powerful film makes them deal with it either by denial or acknowledging, yes I see it is obvious.”
James Becket
-Director of The Best Revenge
“Franklin Lopez is a fantastically talented filmmaker, who has created a powerful and important film about the most important topic ever: how to stop this culture from killing the planet.”
-Derrick Jensen, Author of Endgame
“By far the most routinely praised contemporary media activist is Franklin López. His shows and films not only possess a distinctive look and feel, but they also contain a wicked sense of humor that is often sorely lacking among alter-globalization activists. López’s work engages in constructing a new vision where popular culture serves the interests of the poor and dispossessed, where humor is reignited within activism, and the D.I.Y. ethics of punk and hip-hop allow those with talent and gumption to be the media, once again.”
-Chris Robé, Pop Matters
“Franklin Lopez’ END:CIV is a labour of love, a stunning 75 minutes film…”
John Zerzan, author of Future Primitive
“It brought me to tears…” “I recommend it to people”
-Alex Smith, Host of Radio Ecoshock
“Franklin Lopez’s END:CIV project is awesome.”
-Shannon Walsh, Director of H2Oil
“Both the quantity and the quality of this movement’s filmmaking is increasing. This is the big battlefield on which we fight right now.”
-Michael Rupert, CollapseNet.com
Franklin López will be touring with END:CIV in 2011.
The END:CIV DVD by PM Press can be ordered now. 
If you wish to book a screening in your town or want to order a DVD, simply click on the links below.
Order DVD — Book a community screening — Book a university screening
Upcoming Shows:

END:CIV with Director Franklin López  

Date City Venue Country
Tour: END:CIV TOUR
05/11/11 END:CIV with Director Franklin López in Kingston, ON AKA Autonomous Social Centre Canada
Time: 7:00pm. Address: 75 Queen St.. With Aric McBay
05/13/11 END:CIV with Director Franklin López in Peterborough, ON The Cannery Art Centre Canada
Time: 7:00pm. Admission: Sliding Scale: $5-$50 (no one wi. Address: 168 Hunter St. W..
05/14/11 END:CIV with Director Franklin López in Toronto Detour Bar Canada
Time: 7:00pm. Admission: $5-$1- PWYC – No one turned away. Address: 193 Baldwin St. Buy tickets
05/16/11 END:CIV with Director Franklin López in London, ON Lifespin Canada
Time: 7:00pm. Admission: 5-10$ suggested donation (nobody. Address: 866 Dundas St.. Opening night of the London Anarchist Film Festival
05/17/11 END:CIV with Director Franklin López in Waterloo University of Waterloo – EIT room 1015 Canada
Time: 7:00pm. Admission: 0-50 PWYC.

END:CIV  

Date City Venue Country
Tour: END:CIV TOUR
05/15/11 END:CIV in Copenhagen Folkets Hus Denmark
Time: 7:00pm. Address: Stengade, 50. Sponsored by The Climate Collective A discussion will follow. “how do we fight?”
05/21/11 END:CIV in Austin Austin Zen Center United States
Time: 7:00pm. Admission: FREE. Address: 3014 Washington Sq. Venue phone: 512-452-5777.
Subscribe: RSS | iCal

For more tour dates click here
Creative Commons License
END:CIV by subMedia.TV is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at blip.tv.
ShareThis

Order END:CIV DVD

SHIPPING NOW
END:CIV DVD’s can be ordered in several ways.
1. US and Canada orders – $19.95 + $5.00 shipping.
2. International orders – $19.95 + $10 shipping
3. Pack of 10 DVD’s – $150
4. Community Screening Kit – $200*
5. For Institutions, libraries and Universities – $200
All prices include shipping world wide.
*The community screening kit includes 10 DVD’s, 10 promotional posters and a press kit.

License Type
Region 0 DVD-NTSC
Total running time: 75 Minutes
Subtitles: Spanish, English, German, Slovak, Italian and Romanian
The END:CIV DVD is published and distributed by PM Press