Protests And A Prognosis

 Posted by Lawrence Davidson

Part I—A Dangerous Dichotomy

If we go with the United States’ own picture of itself as a constitutional democracy that aims to guarantee citizens equal rights under law, how are we to interpret President Donald Trump’s reported desire to use ten thousand active duty troops to “dominate the streets” and quell largely peaceful protests against racist police behavior? A reasonable interpretation of President Trump’s attitude, and that of his supporters as well, is that they seek to prioritize the political and cultural desires of a largely racist subgroup of whites over the constitutional rights of citizens in general. This sets up a very dangerous dichotomy that constitutes a danger to the country’s democracy—at least as defined above.  

It should be kept in mind that the right-wing side of this dichotomy, and its challenge to a democracy based on a liberal interpretation of the Constitution has always been with us. Considering just the 20th and 21st centuries, figures such as Woodrow Wilson and his consistently racist use of power both prior to and during World War I; J. Edgar Hoover and his rights-defying use of the FBI; Joseph McCarthy and his pernicious use of anti-Communism; George W. Bush and his initiation of war on false premises; and now the clearly autocratic aspirations of Donald Trump. Such “leaders” have ruined countless lives while eroding the constitutional basis of equal rights.

Part II—The Bureaucratic Factor 

Why has the Constitution proven so fragile in this regard? One reason is the autocratic nature of bureaucracies. All these men wielded power through bureaucracies, and their power was magnified by such institutions. Bureaucracies are top-down affairs, and so those operating within them are expected to, and almost always do, follow the orders of their superiors. For instance, the President of the United States is also “Commander-in-Chief” of the armed forces—which in turn are themselves top-down bureaucracies. When, in early June, Commander-in-Chief Donald Trump demanded ten thousand active duty soldiers for deployment onto the streets of America, none of them could be expected to pull out a copy of the U.S. Constitution and fact-check the legitimacy of the orders issued. Nor were they expected to take seriously their induction oaths to “defend” the integrity of that same document. They were expected to readily follow their orders regardless of constitutional limits. Thus, all things being equal, President Trump should have gotten what he asked for. We are very fortunate that at that moment all things were not equal—a factor is to be considered below. 

If the regular army had hit the streets in June of 2020, they would have done so in order to suppress largely peaceful protests over the lack of equal rights and lack of legal treatment under the law. Indeed, in Washington, D.C.—the only place Trump’s order was partially followed—active-duty military police and the D.C. National Guard did act side-by-side against peacefully demonstrating citizens. Elsewhere, the National Guard called up by governors abetted the police in “riot control,” during which almost no distinction was made between looters and peaceful demonstrators. A few National Guard troops have subsequently expressed regrets over their participation.

The typical police force is also a bureaucracy with its own institutional culture that in many ways mimics the military. Most (there often proves to be a small number of exceptions) of those in the ranks are going to follow the orders of whomever they recognize as having authority. Quite frankly, there is a strong tendency over time for the police, particularly those assigned to minority neighborhoods, to forget all about the U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and other niceties of law, and slip into a fraternal (often white supremacist) culture which sets them apart from those they are “policing.” They are then easily used as an arm of establishment power. That certainly was the expectation of President Trump and many of the nation’s chiefs of police.  

Part III—All Was Not Equal

At this point we can ask, What were the demonstrators protesting? Specifically, thousands of citizens across the country were protesting the behavior of the police, who had long been brutalizing African American and other minority group citizens in the name of law enforcement. Most of the demonstrators understood their cause within the context of both human and U.S. Constitutional rights of citizens to live in a community where the law serves the cause of equitable justice. “No justice, no peace.”

The nation was fortunate that most of the protesters understood rights in this way. That understanding allowed them, in their great numbers (less a relatively small number of both black and white looters), to quite literally save American democracy. They did so by demanding that those who had authority confront one of the autocratic threats of our day—racist police forces, the brutality of which was captured repeatedly on video. The demonstrators used that evidence to force the issue, and this, in turn, caused the bureaucrats to eventually stop acting in a knee-jerk fashion. Thus, city councils, mayors, governors and even military officials had to choose between oppression (which included, in this case, following Trump’s order that they “dominate the streets) and the Constitution. Choosing oppression would have resulted in two things: erosion of the constitutionally sanctioned rule of law and the burning of cities across the land. No one, except perhaps Donald Trump and his white racist base, wanted either of those two consequences. So the notion that “without the right to protest, there can be no [liberal] democracy” was upheld, and that made the protesters “the nation’s true patriots.”

Part IV—Will the Changes Last?

According to a recent piece in the HuffPost, the demands of the protesters for a just and safe America are being heeded. As proof, the article notes the following:

—Police officers are being held accountable for brutal behavior.

—Some police departments are reforming police practices.

—Monuments to racist and hardline historical figures are coming down.

—Technology companies are halting cooperation with police departments when it comes to facial recognition techniques. 

—Finally, there has been a shift in public opinion: Americans “support the anti-racism protests by a 2 to 1 margin.”

 All this is for the better, but will it last? Barack Obama has compared the present protests to those of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. He believes that they have brought about a similar “sea change” or profound transformation. Is that actually the case?

It should be recalled that the earlier civil rights protests led to a series of changes in law and, ultimately, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination in the public realm. These changes smoothed the way for other legislation expanding rights to people with disabilities, to homosexuals, lesbians and transgender folks, and to others. However, and quite significantly, these events triggered a culture war that focused white resentment and resistance within conservative political and fundamentalist religious movements. Among their unofficial institutional allies were and are some of the nation’s police forces. The racism, now exhibited by today’s Republican Party and its leader, President Donald Trump, as well as modern episodes of police brutality toward African Americans, should be understood within the context of that on-going culture war.

Looking at things this way, we can ask if the progressive response to today’s protests is best described as a “sea change” or a continuing, albeit important, chapter in what is still a very long-term struggle? As one activist and organizer, Sajari Simmons, realizes this is certainly not the end of the struggle for justice. Referring to the protests, she noted that “This is not just it. This is just one component,” she said. “There’s a lot more that we can do to help impact and educate and support.”

Part V—Conclusion

The American political system is lobby based. If the average citizen is important, it is only to be rallied at election time. However, if they are organized into politically potent interest groups, those citizens can have a long-term impact. To ultimately win the culture war, today’s protesters must be somehow united into a standing movement capable of “educating and supporting” their cause at local, state and national levels over the long run. 

Lest we forget, the enemies of a liberal, non-discriminatory interpretation of the Constitution are still out there and they have power. President Trump and his minions are still in place, as are millions of racist voters. Their political power must be broken at the polls, in the courts, and through a multigenerational process of reeducation. In working toward these goals, demonstrations are necessary, but not sufficient. Without a competently led and lasting movement, police brutality will come back, and “ten thousand soldiers” might, someday, really “dominate the streets.”

About Lawrence Davidson

Lawrence Davidson is professor of history emeritus at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He has been publishing his analyses of topics in U.S. domestic and foreign policy, international and humanitarian law and Israel/Zionist practices and policies since 2010.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

سورية/ الشام تستعدّ لمواجهة السيناريو الأسوأ

د . بيير عازار

في الوقت الذي لا تزال فيه الولايات المتحدة تحترق بنار المحتجين على سياسة الديكتاتور دونالد ترامب، وفي الوقت الذي عرفت فيه هذه الاحتجاجات توسّعاً لافتاً وشملت حوالي 130 مدينة أميركية؛ لجأت واشنطن إلى تصدير أزماتها الداخلية إلى الدول التي تعارض سياساتها العوجاء، وهي سعت، في هذا المجال، إلى تكثيف عقوباتها الاقتصادية على سورية/ الشام قبيل دخول قانون سيزر (قيصر) حيّز التنفيذ في السابع عشر من شهر حزيران الحالي بهدف الضغط على دمشق لقبول العروض السياسية الأميركية؛ لكنّ سورية تبدو، وفق بعض المراقبين والإعلاميين، قادرة على تحمّل وتجاوز كلذ هذه العقوبات الاقتصادية.

وكان المبعوث الأميركي إلى سورية/ الشام جيمس جيفري أعلن متباهياً، في لقاء مع مجاميع من المعارضات السورية في الخارج عبر الفيديو، أنّ العقوبات الأميركية المفروضة على البلاد السورية ساهمت في انهيار قيمة الليرة السورية، وأنّ الحكومة السورية لم تعد قادرة على إدارة سياسة اقتصادية فاعلة، ولا على تبييض الأموال في المصارف اللبنانية بسبب الأزمة الاقتصادية التي تعصف بلبنان أيضاً. وأشار جيفري إلى “أنّ الكونغرس الأميركي يقف وراء قانون سيزر، وأنّ العقوبات المشمولة بقانون حماية المدنيين السوريين ستطال أيّ نشاط اقتصادي بشكل تلقائي، وكذلك أيّ تعامل مع ايران”.

من المعلوم أنّ «قانون سيزر» يستهدف، إلى جانب الحكومة السورية، جميع الأفراد والشركات الذين يقدّمون التمويل للشعب السوري، كذلك يستهدف كمّاً من الصناعات السورية بما في ذلك تلك المتعلقة بالبنية التحتية والصيانة العسكرية وإنتاج الطاقة، وهو يتجاوز حصار سورية/ الشام إلى حصار كلّ من إيران وروسيا والصين وسائر البلدان العربية والأجنبية التي ترغب في إعادة العلاقة مع دمشق، وتشارك في ملف إعمار سورية/ الكيان الشامي.

إنّ مباهاة جيمس جيفري وعجرفته في عرضه لـ «قانون سيزر» ستسقط، لأنه سياسي منافق وكذوب على شاكلة رئيسه دونالد ترامب؛ كما أنّ «قانون سيزر» سيصطدم بصمود الشعب السوري الأسطوري وأيضاً باقتدار الجيش السوري النموذجي.

ويُضاف إلى ذلك، أنّ الرئاسة السورية كانت قد رفضت عروضاً تُقدّر بمئات المليارات من مشيخات الخليج المترهّلة للقبول بفضّ التحالف مع المقاومتين الفلسطينية واللبنانية وأيضاً إيران، وهي العروض نفسها التي حَمَلَها جيفري إلى دمشق ولم تجد آذاناً صاغية، بل اعتبرتها الشام بمثابة «إعلان حرب».

لا يحق للولايات المتحدة أنْ تحاصر الدول التي تناهض سياساتها القمعية، كما لا يحق لها أن تفرض عقوبات اقتصادية على دول حضارية مثل سورية/ الشام، لأنّ أميركا دولة مارقة وقاطعة، فهي تسرق 150 ألف برميل نفط من حقول النفط في شمال شرق سورية/ الشام، أيّ أكثر من أربعة مليارات دولار سنوياً؛ وهي تسرق كذلك 400 ألف طن من القطن سنوياً، أيّ حوالى خمسة مليارات دولار، كما تسرق أكثر من ثمانية ملايين رأس غنم من الثروة الحيوانية السورية.

وقبل سورية كان العراق – البوابة الشرقية لبلاد الشام – حيث فرضت الولايات المتحدة حصاراً جائراً بدءاً من شهر آب عام 1990 مما أدّى إلى وفاة مليون ونصف مليون طفل عراقي نتيجة الجوع ونقص الدواء الحادّ وسط ذهول دول العالم المتمدّن وتشفّي دول الخليج.

ونرى لزاماً علينا التذكير بأنّ المعارض العراقي أحمد الجلبي، الذي كان عميلاً لوزارة الدفاع الأميركية ويتقاضى منها راتباً شهرياً قدره 335 ألف دولار شهرياً، كان الأخير يفخر على الدوام بدوره في إصدار الكونغرس الأميركي» قانون تحرير العراق» عام 1998، والذي أصبح في ما بعد الأساس القانوني لغزو العراق عام 2003 ومن ثم وضع مشروع تقسيمه وتفتيته إلى دويلات طائفية وعرقية.

وعلى شاكلة «الجلبي» انبرتْ المعارضات السورية في الخارج إلى تأييد «قانون سيزر»، ولا عجب في ذلك، فهي تعمل بغالبيتها لدى مخابرات الدول الغربية حيث يقيم (بسام جعارة وجورج صبرا) نموذجاً، وأيضاً لدى المخابرات المركزية الأميركية (سهير الأتاسي ورضوان زيادة) نموذجاً آخر، والتي تُشغّلهم حسب الطلب لمحاربة الدولة السورية، وكذلك محاربة المواطن السوري حتى في لقمة عيشه، وهو الذي ناظر أيوب في الصبر على الشدائد والتحمّل الشاق على خلفية تكريس النهج الوطني والقومي وصولاً إلى البناء والإعمار من خلال التكامل الناجز بين الشعب والجيش والقيادة السورية.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

• مع الحدث – د.بيار عازار & د.علي مطر & أبو مجاهد
• Dr. Pierre Azar _ read geopolitical shifts in the region د بيار عازار _ قراءة جيوسياسية للتحولات بالمنطق

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

هل يتحرّر لبنان… خاصة من الاستعمار الاقتصاديّ الأميركيّ؟

العميد د. أمين محمد حطيط

تنظر أميركا إلى لبنان باعتباره الحلقة الأضعف في محور المقاومة، ونظرتها هذه ليست من باب القدرات القتالية للمقاومة وهي قدرات حققت الكثير مما أزعج أميركا وأقلقها، بل من باب البنية اللبنانية والوهن البنوي في تركيبته السياسية والديمغرافية والاقتصادية وقدرتها أيّ قدرة أميركا على تجنيد من يلزم فيه لتنفيذ المهامّ التي تخدم سياستها لا بل تمارس عبره عدوانها المستمرّ على المنطقة.

ففي لبنان تجد أميركا سياسيين يجاهرون بمواقفهم التي تصبّ في خدمة المصالح الأميركية على حساب المصالح اللبنانية، وتجد موظفين كباراً يمارسون مهامّ وظائفهم بمنظور وفهم أميركي بحت حتى وبأفضل مما تقوم به أميركا نفسها، وتجد أحزاباً وهيئات وتنظيمات تعمل في خدمة هذا المشروع الأميركي الاستعماري بجدية والتزام وحرص على النجاح يفوق ما تطلب أو تتمنى الإدارة الأميركية.

والأدهى من كلّ ذلك نجد انّ أميركا التي تتلقى السهام الجارحة في داخلها لا بل تثخن بالجراح اليوم من باب جائحة كورونا والاضطرابات الشعبية التي اندلعت تحت عنوان رفض «التمييز العنصري» في الداخل الأميركي، أميركا التي أخفقت في سياساتها تجاه الصين وروسيا، واضطرت للتعامل بواقعية بعيدة عن التهديد العسكري الجدّي مع كلّ من إيران وكوريا الشمالية، أميركا التي تآكلت هيبتها العسكرية وضاع حلمها بالأحادية القطبية في النظام العالمي المنهار، أميركا التي لا يتوقع عاقل أنها ستعود وسترمّم هذه الأحادية مهما كانت نتائج المواجهة العالمية القائمة حالياً؛ الأدهى في الأمر أنّ أميركا هذه تجد في لبنان من يتعبّد لها ويأسر نفسه في حبائل مشاريعها الكيدية والاستعماريّة والعدوانيّة، ويرى فيها الملاذ والملجأ والحصن الذي يلجأ إليه لمعاقبة شركائه في الوطن بعد أن يجنّد نفسه عندها مخبراً محرّضاً أو جاسوساً عميلاً أو مأجوراً في خدمتها.

لقد شكلت أميركا ممن يتبعها أو ينصاع لها أو يأتمر بأوامرها ما يمكن وصفه بـ «جبهة أميركا في لبنان» التي يتوزع أعضاؤها الأدوار ويتساندون في ما بينهم بحيث يحمي بعضهم بعضاً في أيّ موقع كان لأنّ تلك المواقع التي يشغلها من يحمل الهوية اللبنانية تستفيد منها أو تخدم السياسة الأميركية فيكون واجباً عليهم حمايتها. لأنهم يرون فيها محميات يمنع المسّ بها ويسلّط السيف الأميركي على رقبة كلّ مَن يفكر بهذا الأمر. وعليه نرى انّ مهامّ أعضاء «جبهة أميركا في لبنان» نوعان… الأول المهامّ الأصلية المباشرة التي تخدم تلك السياسة، والثانية مهامّ احتياطية فرعية تمارس من أجل حماية الأعضاء بعضهم لبعض في مواقع الدولة. وفي ممارسة مهامهم الأصلية يطالب أعضاء «جبهة أميركا في لبنان» بما يلي:

1

ـ نزع سلاح المقاومة الذي هو مصدر قوة رئيسي للبنان للدفاع عنه أرضاً وشعباً وثروة وكياناً، وهو مصدر قلق عميق لـ «إسرائيل» وأميركا يهدّد مطامعهما خاصة في الأرض والثروة، وانّ نزعه يسهّل لأميركا وضع يدها على كامل المفاصل اللبنانية ويمكّنها من تعديل الحدود ورسم حدود بحرية وإنهاء ملف مزارع شبعا خدمة لـ «إسرائيل»، كما جاء في رؤية ترامب.

2

ـ الابتعاد عن سورية من أجل إحكام الحصار عليها خدمة لسياسة العقوبات الأميركية التي تسعّر اليوم مع بدء تطبيق قانون قيصر الأميركي الكيدي الإجرامي. يريدون سدّ الرئة اللبنانية التي تتنفس منها سورية يريدون ذلك رغم انّ علاقة لبنان بسورية هي من طبيعة تجعلها مسألة حياة أو موت للبنان هذا قبل أن ينص عليها في وثيقة الاتفاق الوطني في الطائف بأنها علاقات مميّزة وقبل أن تصاغ تلك العلاقات في 22 اتفاقية متنوّعة المواضيع لتفعليها.

3

ـ رفض إقامة أيّ علاقة اقتصادية مع العمق المشرقي للبنان من سورية إلى الصين مروراً بإيران وروسيا، ويصرّون على تضييع الفرص عن لبنان من أجل ان يبقى تحت الاستعمار الاقتصادي الأميركي الذي فرض عليه نهجاً اقتصادياً حوّل اقتصاده إلى اقتصاد ريعي وحرمه من الخدمات الأساسية ومنعه من إقامة بنية تحتية تناسب تطوّر العصر وأغرقه بالديون… كلّ ذلك خدمة لاستراتيجية أميركية تقوم في جوهرها على إفقار التابع المستعمر من أجل إبقائه تحت السيطرة على أساس «جوّعه يتبعك».

لقد نجحت «جبهة أميركا في لبنان» في تحقيق ما طلب ويطلب منها في مسألة العلاقة مع سورية والمسألة الاقتصادية وفشلت في مسألة سلاح المقاومة، وسبب فشلها هنا عائد إلى انّ للسلاح قوة تمسكه وتحميه لا تخضع للدولة بشكل كلي بل تنسق معها ضمن مفهوم «التنسيق السلبي» الذي تفرضه الرغبة في عدم التصادم والاحتكاك، من دون أن يصل هذا التنسيق إلى حدّ الخضوع التامّ للقرار الرسمي اللبناني، الخضوع الذي لو حصل لتعطل دور السلاح ولكان لبنان اليوم من غير مقاومة ومن غير سلاح مقاوم، وبالمناسبة نذكر بأنّ أحد الأسباب الجوهرية التي تحول دون وضع سلاح المقاومة بأمرة الدولة هو هذا الخطر، حيث إنّ وضعه بيدها يعني حتماً تعطيل استعماله لأنه يجعل قرار الاستعمال بيد جهة رسمية يكون فيها بعض من «جبهة أميركا في لبنان»، وأن حصول ذلك يعني زوال معادلة الردع الاستراتيجي التي فرضتها المقاومة على «إسرائيل» وبها حمت لبنان ومنعت الحرب عليه.

لقد نجحت «جبهة أميركا في لبنان» في تحقيق أغراض أميركا من مسائل العلاقة مع سورية والمسألة الاقتصادية، لأنّ هذا الأمر يتطلب قراراً رسمياً ويتوزّع من بيدهم سلطة القرار أو صلاحيته بين فئات أربع: الأول خاضع مباشر للقرار الأميركي بوصفه عضواً في «جبهة أميركا في لبنان» والثاني خائف على مصالحه من ردّة الفعل الأميركي عليه انْ خالف الإيحاء الأميركي ثم يغلف خوفه على مصالحه الشخصية بالادّعاء بانه خائف على المصالح الوطنية اللبنانية، والثالث عاجز بمفرده لا يملك صلاحية اتخاذ القرار المناسب وحده. ورابع غير مكترث للصراع بذاته أو لنتائجه قادر على التكيّف مع تلك النتائج كيفما كانت. وفي هذا التصنيف يكمن مأزق لبنان، المأزق الذي يضيّق فسحة الأمل بالتحرّر من الاستعمار الأميركي الفعلي المفروض عليه والذي يصل أحياناً إلى حدّ ظهور سفير أميركا في لبنان وكأنه الحاكم الفعلي فيه.

بيد أنّ الغريب في الشأن هو فجور «جبهة أميركا في لبنان» في توصيفها لواقع لبنان حيث تقلب هذه الحقيقة وتدّعي وجود عكسها في أبشع عملية تزوير وتقليب للحقائق، فبدل الإقرار بهذا الاستعمار تطلق مقولة «الدويلة التي تحكم الدولة»، وتقصد دويلة حزب الله التي هي وهم في رؤوس أعضاء «جبهة أميركا في لبنان»، يصرحون به ليخفوا حقيقة الاستعمار الأميركي الذي هم في خدمته، ويطلقون مقولة «حكومة حزب الله» التي لو كانت حقيقة قائمة لذهبت إلى سورية بكلّ ثقة بالنفس ولفتحت الطريق للبنان للانتظام في الاقتصاد المشرقيّ وكسرت الاحتكار الأميركي لسوقه. أما الدرجة الأعلى من الفجور فتتمثل في مطالبة أميركا وجبهتها في لبنان بالإصلاح وتضع الإصلاحات شرطاً للمساعدات. وطبعاً لا يمكن لعاقل إلا أن يؤيد هذا الشرط لا بل يجعله هدفاً رئيسياً من أهداف سياسته، بيد انّ سلوك أميركا وأتباعها يخالف الطلب اللفظي، حيث إنّ النسبة الكبرى من منظومة الفساد في لبنان وناهبي المال العام هم أعضاء في «جبهة أميركا في لبنان» وتمنع أميركا المسّ بهم وتضع الخطوط الحمر التي تحميهم ويتطوّع أعضاء الجبهة كلّ في موقعه من أجل حمايتهم.

هذا هو مشهد لبنان ومأساته، ومجريات الصراع فيه، صراع شرس بين مَن يريد أن يستكمل استعماره وإحكام السيطرة عليه بنزع سلاح المقاومة، ومن يريد أن يستكمل التحرير الذي بدأ في العام 2000 بتحرير الجنوب وتصاعد في إرساء منظومة الردع الاستراتيجي بوجه العدو، ويعمل لتحرير لبنان اقتصادياً من الاستعمار الأميركي وليطهره من الفساد الداخلي الذي يرعاه هذا الاستعمار.

صراع ليس بالأمر السهل خاصة أنه دخل اليوم إلى لقمة عيش المواطن التي أقحمتها أميركا في الصراع من باب الحصار والعقوبات وقانون قيصر والتلاعب بالنقد الوطني، لكن رغم ذلك ليس الفوز فيه مستحيلاً بالنسبة للمقاومة خاصة أنّ الطرف المناهض لها عاجز كلياً، مهما حشد من طاقات ومهما ابتدع من أساليب، عاجز عن نزع سلاحها، يبقى عليها هي ان تعمل بالمتاح والمتوفر من أجل خوض معركة التحرير الاقتصادي والإصلاح في أهمّ حرب يواجهها لبنان الحديث. وهنا يبرز دور الشعب الذي عليه تقع الأعباء التي لا يستهان بها.

أستاذ جامعي – خبير استراتيجي.

فبديوات متعلقة

• مع الحدث – سركيس ابو زيد
•  تخبّط سوق القطع اللبناني: قوى السوق أم تآمرٌ على الليرة

مقالات متعلقة

• وقف الاستيراد دون إجازة حكوميّة لسنة
• نحو قراءة نقديّة لمسار مواجهة الأزمة
• الحياة السياسيّة في لبنان ظاهرة صوتيّة
• لبنان وسورية والعراق: اختناق الافتراق
• ماذا تقول الأحداث الأميركيّة؟ وماذا عن المقارنات اللبنانيّة؟
• مكافحة الفساد ومحاكمة الفاسدين لن تحلّ المشكلة..فهل نصدّق؟
• معادلات جديدة للسيد نصرالله – 1 – خريطة طريق لنهاية كيان الاحتلال
• معادلات جديدة للسيد نصرالله ـ 2 ـ خريطة طريق للتغيير: إلى الانتخابات درْ
• معادلات جديدة للسيد نصرالله ـ3ـ مكافحة الفساد: مطلوب قضاة استشهاديّون

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

أحداث أميركا ومستقبل ترامب

June 14, 2020

by Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker Blog

In the United States questioning liberal economic ideology is not tolerated, so when the latest inevitable economic bust in capitalism occurs it is little wonder that their society talks about everything except economic ideology. They spend their time inventing and discussing non-economic solutions to economic catastrophes, which is precisely how their fundamental weaknesses and inequalities only get worse and worse.

Now we are talking about the murder of George Floyd, police brutality and White supremacy – these are old but still important issues, but they are also certainly issues which will not lead to systematically redistributing one cent towards governmentally-abandoned African-American areas.

The fall of the USSR and the triumphant parades led by banners bearing TINA – There Is No Alternative (to neoliberalism and neo-imperialism) – encouraged Americans to throw away their textbooks on the “dismal science” of economics. “Yeah,” they said, “Marx might have been interesting in his day, but it’s all over now – get with the times: it’s the economy, stupid! (whisper) But seriously – don’t openly question liberal economic ideology.”

For those of us following the data it has become quite clear: “Everything Bubble 2” is a great pica-saving handle to describe the 2020 Western economy, but it gives the wrong impression that what’s going on is just a repeat of 2008 (when Everything Bubble 1 popped) – it’s actually much worse. Nobody expected Everything Bubble 2 to be popped by something as economically-suicidal as a Great Lockdown, but we now have no choice but to add the effects of the two together, so… wow… we just cannot say that this is like 2008, or 2001, or 1929, or any other era.

But in the US you can’t say anything about ideological economic direction, of course. This leads us to two realisations about their society which are now obvious to all:

1) By abandoning economic ideological debate for three decades Americans can only politically snipe each other to death in 2020 because they simply cannot intelligently discuss economics, much to the glee of the 1%. 2) By censoring ideological debate the US is unable to devise new solutions to the latest capitalist bust, so in order to end this very atypical capitalist bust they are vainly reapplying previous solutions: hyper-partisanship, militarism and economic ideological totalitarianism.

Combine these two realisations and it’s clear that the American solution to their 2020 economic crisis is militarist in nature: Militarism against those who disagree with the Mainstream, militarism to guide the economic way out, and militarism towards the Covid-19 germ as well. As a result of the George Floyd murder we may even add a fourth militarism – though one which will surely end after the November presidential election – militarism against anti-Black racism.

Why would this “solution” of militarism be a surprise to anyone?

Removing economics from politics creates stupid politics, but also hyper-partisanship

Americans today have only one solution for domestic or international failure – declare war on the other guy, even if he is a fellow citizen.

This economic crisis is so bad for the already-weakened West that one would think the economic debate for its solutions would have never become partisan. (Considering that both mainstream parties agree on TINA – what was there to argue about economically, anyway?) Georgia, Florida and Texas have cities just as dense as Illinois, Michigan, California, New York and New Jersey, but it can’t be a coincidence that this latter camp of blue-states remain economically closed with a severity and duration seemingly unparalleled in the world.

It is as if working with the other side – even for the good of the nation – implies risking a deadly (moral) contagion? It’s as if doing a single thing Trump did, suggested or supported makes one an irredeemable “deplorable”? It’s as if losing an election this November is a bigger catastrophe in the minds of politically-involved Republican and Democrat citizens than the unprecedented capitalist catastrophe of having over 40 million unemployed people?

All I can say is: LOL you can’t possibly run a nation that way. I am as political as anybody, but if unemployment was 25% my primary motivation would not be getting credit at the polling booth!

So it’s an amazing proof of how undesirable the American cultural-political-economic model truly is when we observe how the re-opening of their economy has become such a politically-polarised issue.

That may or may not be old news to many, but here is something which is never discussed: This seeming “militarisation of political partisanship” is predicted on confining mainstream political discussion solely to exactly that – the alleged importance of political partisanship. Western culture’s proclamation of TINA, the chucking out of economic textbooks and censoring “time-wasting” economic debate has thus given two-party political affiliations an entirely outsized place in US culture.

And TINA was always going to be especially fatal for heterogenous Western societies: In a country like Iran, which is 90% Shia, or homogenous & self-segregated Japan it’s perhaps not necessarily economics which can hold the title of “champion of societal unification”, but in the very heterogeneous West economic class clearly provides the broadest basis for life-saving and nation-saving unity. (The West’s White supremacists will sputter that, “It didn’t used to be this way here!” Who cares? It is this way now for your children, and it was only ever not “this way” because of massive segregation.) National unification may be rejected by Trotskyists, but not everyone wants to see the nation founder in response to every serious crisis.

But by rejecting discussion of economic unity (a.k.a. class warfare against the 1%) the West could only logically choose to emphasise other factors in its place, i.e. political, cultural, ethnic, sexual, gender and religious factors, all of which (for their heterogeneous societies) are inherently less unifying and even quite controversial. In a crisis this disunity is not just readily apparent but leads to tangible disaster – certainly the West is currently burning in crisis.

The problem goes deeper than their facile blaming of only the political and media classes: there are many everyday American citizens who clearly want to increase the stranglehold of this economic crisis in order to oust Trump or just their local incumbent. In 2020, because they are not in power, it’s logical to agree that Democrats are acting the most desperately and power-hungrily. However, it’s not as if Republicans are promoting consensus, unity and high ideals – of course they are using the economic crisis to achieve the neoliberal tenet of slashing government ranks down to just cops and fire departments.

It is not an exaggeration to say that by removing economics from the discussion US political culture has become not “militant” – which has positive connotations of ideological purity – but “militarist”: Democrats and Republicans are going on the war path to stoke problems instead of focusing on societal unity amid this unprecedented crisis.

You couldn’t honestly talk about imperialism with an American in 2019, and it’s not like they want to hear about it now; nor can you honestly talk about capitalism with an American despite its current epic fail; in June 2020 they want to talk only about how their political party is superior, and how corona is the new Black Plague, and now they’ve added a new problem they’ve recently discovered: police brutality against Blacks.

The problem of this faux-militancy, which has such a gaping intellectual void (the lack of an economic component), is similarly and glaring obvious in the centuries-old militarisation of imperialist US culture: War on Indians, war for/against slavery, war on socialism, war on Soviet-led communism, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on Muslims – the US solution of “war on corona” is thus not at all unique for them.

The new – and probably temporary – “war on police brutality” is certainly necessary but cannot possibly reach the halls of power nor the ears of the US vanguard party of bankers.

The solution in US corporate fascism is always war, but conquering corona yields no booty

The real economic ideology of the US is – of course – corporate fascism, which is why their military-industrial complex had a ready solution to the 2001 Y2K/dot.com bust via declaring war on the Muslim world. Very profitable indeed, and it allowed their Pentagon-planned economy (the Pentagon is the world’s largest employer) to continue organising the very unequal US economic redistribution.

There was no new war to be had in 2008 – Obama could only double down on the existing wars (after accepting his Nobel Peace Prize) and double down on the status quo economic ideology as well: QE dropped helicopter money at the problem and hoped the problem was resolved. It was resolved very satisfactorily indeed, but only for the 1% and their asset classes.

In 2020 Everything Bubble 2 was popped by the Great Lockdown and a new war was declared: against corona. As if Red men with tomahawks had amassed just outside the picket-topped fort, Americans threw themselves wholeheartedly into this battle for self-survival. Now, as the stock market has been boosted with taxpayer QE money back to pre-crisis levels, Americans are (kind of) throwing themselves into a battle against police brutality as well.

Declaring war is what American culture does, period.

What does war do? It rallies around the flag – for countries who were not inspired by 1917 it is truly the “champion of societal unification” – but there is no booty to be had this time: no new frontiers to provide cheap land; no new resources to allow Western manufactures to be made more cheaply; no oil; not even any way to use US taxpayer money to pay mercenaries in order to boost the stock prices of Pentagon-linked corporations.

Americans need to realise that “keep-capitalism-alive-through-jingoism” is a primary pillar of imperialism, and that true patriotism is never allowed in neoliberal capitalism – thus their hyper-partisanship today. War also provides a useful distraction from endemic economic inequality, which is why this “endless war” ruse has been going on across the anti-socialist West ever since WWI.

The West has thrown themselves into the war on the corona germ, but their lower classes are screaming that this war is economic suicide. Once the war on corona is over – even if the West extends past the “surge” this fall or even into 2021 – economic ideology will finally have to be discussed.

But the West doesn’t ever have to do that intelligently – they were the economic ideological winners, right?

*********************************

Corona contrarianism? How about some corona common sense? Here is my list of articles published regarding the corona crisis.

Capitalist-imperialist West stays home over corona – they grew a conscience? – March 22, 2020

Corona meds in every pot & a People’s QE: the Trumpian populism they hoped for? – March 23, 2020

A day’s diary from a US CEO during the Corona crisis (satire) March 23, 2020

MSNBC: Chicago price gouging up 9,000% & the sports-journalization of US media – March 25, 2020

Tough times need vanguard parties – are ‘social media users’ the West’s? – March 26, 2020

If Germany rejects Corona bonds they must quit the Eurozone – March 30, 2020

Landlord class: Waive or donate rent-profits now or fear the Cultural Revolution – March 31, 2020

Corona repeating 9/11 & Y2K hysterias? Both saw huge economic overreactions – April 1, 2020

(A Soviet?) Superman: Red Son – the new socialist film to watch on lockdown – April 2, 2020

Corona rewrites capitalist bust-chronology & proves: It’s the nation-state, stupid – April 3, 2020

Condensing the data leaves no doubt: Fear corona-economy more than the virus – April 5, 2020

‘We’re Going Wrong’: The West’s middling, middle-class corona response – April 10, 2020

Why does the UK have an ‘army’ of volunteers but the US has a shortage? – April 12, 2020

No buybacks allowed or dared? Then wave goodbye to Western stock market gains – April 13, 2020

Pity post-corona Millennials… if they don’t openly push socialism – April 14, 2020

No, the dollar will only strengthen post-corona, as usual: it’s a crisis, after all – April 16, 2020

Same 2008 QE playbook, but the Eurozone will kick off Western chaos not the US – April 18, 2020

We’re giving up our civil liberties. Fine, but to which type of state? – April 20,

2020

Coronavirus – Macron’s savior. A ‘united Europe’ – France’s murderer – April 22, 2020

Iran’s ‘resistance economy’: the post-corona wish of the West’s silent majority (1/2) – April 23, 2020

The same 12-year itch: Will banks loan down QE money this time? – April 26,

2020

The end of globalisation won’t be televised, despite the hopes of the Western 99% (2/2) – April 27, 2020

What would it take for proponents to say: ‘The Great Lockdown was wrong’? – April 28, 2020

ZeroHedge, a response to Mr. Littlejohn & the future of dollar dominance – April 30, 2020

Given Western history, is it the ‘Great Segregation’ and not the ‘Great Lockdown’? – May 2, 2020

The Western 1% colluded to start WWI – is the Great Lockdown also a conspiracy? – May 4, 2020

May 17: The date the Great Lockdown must end or Everything Bubble 2 pops – May 6, 2020

Reading Piketty: Does corona delay the Greens’ fake-leftist, sure-to-fail victory? – May 8, 2020

Picturing the media campaign needed to get the US back to work – May 11, 2020

Scarce jobs + revenue desperation = sure Western stagflation post-corona – May 13, 2020

France’s nurses march – are they now deplorable Michiganders to fake-leftists? – May 15, 2020

Why haven’t we called it ‘QE 5’ yet? And why we must call it ‘QE 2.1’ instead – May 16, 2020

‘Take your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty public servant!’ That’s Orwell? – May 17, 2021

The Great Lockdown: The political apex of US single Moms & Western matriarchy? May 21, 2021

I was wrong on corona – by not pushing for a US Cultural Revolution immediately – May 25, 2021

August 1: when the unemployment runs out and a new era of US labor battles begin – May 28, 2021

Corona proving the loser of the Cold War was both the USSR & the USA – May 30, 2021

Rebellions across the US: Why worry? Just ask Dr. Fauci to tell us what to do – June 2, 2021

Protesting, corona-conscience, a good dole: the US is doing things it can’t & it’s chaos – June 3, 2021

Why do Westerners assume all African-Americans are leftists? – June 5, 2020

The US as Sal’s Pizzeria: When to ‘Do The Right Thing’ is looting – June 6, 2020

The problem with the various ‘Fiat is all the problem!’ (FIATP) crowds – June 9, 2020

---

Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of the books ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’ and the NEW ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Syria in Seattle: Commune Defies the U.S. Regime

Pepe EscobarJune 12, 2020

The marriage of post-Lockdown and George Floyd protests has nurtured a rough beast that is still immune to any form of civilized debate in the U.S.: the Seattle Commune.

So what really is the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone cum People’s Republic all about?

Are the communards mere useful idiots? Is this a refined Occupy Wall Street experiment? Could it survive, logistically, and be replicated in NYC, L.A. and D.C.?

An outraged President Trump has described it as a plot by “domestic terrorists” in a city “run by radical left Democrats”. He called for “LAW & ORDER” (in caps, according to his Tweetology).

Shades of Syria in Seattle are visibly discernable. Under this scenario, the Commune is a remixed Idlib fighting “regime counter-insurgency outposts” (in communard terminology).

For most American Right factions, Antifa equals ISIS. George Floyd is regarded not only as a “communist Antifa martyr”, as an intel operative told me, but a mere “criminal and drug dealer”.

So when will “regime forces” strike – in this case without Russian air cover? After all, as dictated by Secretary Esper, it’s up to the Pentagon to “dominate the battlefield”.

But we’ve got a problem. Capital Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) is supported by the city of Seattle – run by a Democrat – which is supported by the governor of Washington State, also a Democrat.

There’s no chance Washington State will use the National Guard to crush CHAZ. And Trump cannot take over Washington State National Guard without the approval of the governor, even though he has tweeted, “Take back your city NOW. If you don’t do it, I will. This is not a game.”

It’s enlightening to observe that “counter-insurgency” can be applied in Afghanistan and the tribal areas; to occupy Iraq; to protect the looting of oil/gas in eastern Syria. But not at home. Even if 58% of Americans would actually support it: for many among them, the Commune may be as bad if not worse than looting.

But then there are those firmly opposed. Among them: the “Butcher of Fallujah” Mad Dog Mattis; color revolution practitioners NED; Nike;

JP Morgan; the whole Democratic Party establishment; and virtually the whole U.S. Army establishment.

Welcome to the Only Occupy Others movement.

Still the question remains: how long will “Idlib” be able to defy the “regime”? That’s enough to cause an alleged “bully”, Attorney General Barr, many a sleepless night.

Real Black Power

Trump and Barr have already threatened to criminalize Antifa as a “terrorist organization” – even as Black Lives Matter has pointed a yellow dagger in the asphalt of 16th St. in D.C. towards the White House.

And that brings us to the across the board legitimacy enjoyed by Black Lives Matter. How’s that possible? Here is a good place to start.

Black Lives Matter, founded in 2013 by a trio of middle class, queer black women very vocal against “hetero-patriarchy”, is a product of what University of British Columbia’s Peter Dauvergne defines as “corporatization of activism”.

Over the years, Black Lives Matter evolved as a marketing brand, like Nike (which fully supports it). The widespread George Floyd protests elevated it to the status of a new religion. Yet Black Lives Matter carries arguably zero, true revolutionary appeal. This is not James Brown’s “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud”. And it does not get even close to Black Power and the Black Panthers’ “Power to the People”.

The gold standard on civil rights, Dr. Martin Luther King, in 1968, concisely framed the – structural – heart of the matter:

“The black revolution is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws—racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society. It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction of society itself is the real issue to be faced.”

The Black Panthers, young, extremely articulated intellectuals who had mixed Marx, Lenin, Mao, W.E.B. Du Bois, Malcolm X and Frantz “Wretched of the Earth” Fanon took MLK’s diagnosis to a whole new level.

As summed up by the Panthers’ Minister of Information Eldridge Cleaver: “We believe in the need for a unified revolutionary movement … informed by the revolutionary principles of scientific socialism.” That synthesized the insights of MLK, who was, crucially, a proponent of color blindness.

Fred Hampton, the target of a de facto state assassination in December 1969, made sure the struggle transcended race: “We got to face some facts. That the masses are poor, that the masses belong to what you call the lower class, and when I talk about the masses, I’m talking about the white masses, I’m talking about the black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too. We’ve got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water. We say you don’t fight racism with racism. We’re gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don’t fight capitalism with no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism.”

So this is not only about race. This is not only about class. This is about Power to the People fighting for social, political and economic justice under a system that’s intrinsically unequal. It expands on the in-depth analysis by Gerald Horne in The Dawning of the Apocalypse, where the 16th century is fully dissected, “creation myth” of the U.S. included.

Horne shows how a bloodthirsty invasion of the Americas engendered fierce resistance by Africans and their indigenous populations allies, weakening imperial Spain and finally enabling London to dispatch settlers to Virginia in 1607.

Now compare this depth of analysis with the meek, almost begging for mercy “Black Lives Matter” slogan. One is reminded, once again, of Malcolm X’s sharpness: “We had the best organization the black man’s ever had—niggers ruined it!”

To solve the Black Lives Matter question, one must, once again, follow the money.

Black Lives Matter profited in 2016 from a humongous $100 million grant from the Ford Foundation and other philanthropic capitalism stalwarts such as JPMorgan Chase and the Kellogg Foundation.

The Ford Foundation is very close to the U.S. Deep State. The board of directors is crammed with corporate CEOs and Wall Street honchos. In a nutshell; Black Lives Matter, the organization, today is fully sanitized; largely integrated into the Democratic Party machine; adored by mainstream media; and certainly does not represent a threat to the 0.001%.

The Black Lives Matter leadership, of course, argues that this time, “it’s different. Elaine Brown, the formidable former chairwoman of the Black Panthers, takes no prisoners: Black Lives Matter has a “plantation mentality”.

Try to set the night on fire

Set the Night on Fire is an extraordinarily absorbing book co-written by Jon Wiener and the inestimable Mike Davis of City of Quartz and Planet of Slums.

Cataloguing in exhaustive detail the L.A. of the Sixties, we are plunged into the Watts riots in 1965; the antiwar movement joining the Black Panthers to form a uniquely Californian Peace and Freedom Party; the evolving grassroots unity of the Black Power ethos; the Che-Lumumba club of the Communist Party – which would become the political base of legendary Angela Davis; and the massive FBI and LAPD offensive to destroy the Black Panthers.

Tom Wolfe notoriously – and viciously – characterized L.A. supporters of the Black Panthers as ‘radical chic”. Elaine Brown once again sets the record straight: “We were dying, and all of them, the strongest and the most frivolous, were helping us survive another day.”

One of the most harrowing sections of the book details how the FBI went after Panthers sympathizers, including the sublime Jean Seberg, the star of Otto Preminger’s Saint Joan (1957) and Godard’s Breathless (1960).

Jean Seberg contributed anonymously to the Panthers under the codename “Aretha” (yes, as in Franklin). The FBI’s COINTELPRO took no prisoners to go after Seberg, enrolling the CIA, military intel and the Secret Service. She was smeared as a “sex-perverted white actress” – as in having affairs with black radicals. Her Hollywood career was destroyed. She went into deep depression, had a stillbirth (the baby was not black), emigrated, and her – decomposed – body was found in her car in Paris in 1979.

In contrast, there have been academic rumblings identifying the sea of converts to the Black Lives Matter religion as mostly products of the marriage between wokeness and intersectionality – the set of interlinked traits that since birth privileges heterosexual white men, now trying to expiate their guilt.

Generation Z, unleashed en masse from college campuses across the U.S. into the jobs market, is a prisoner of this phenomenon: in fact a slave to – politically correct – identity politics. And once again, carrying zero revolutionary potential.

Compare it once again to immense political sacrifices of the Black Panthers. Or when Angela Davis, already a pop icon, became the most famous black political prisoner in American history. Aretha Franklin, when volunteering to post bail for Davis, famously framed it: “I’ve been locked up for disturbing the peace, and I know you’ve got to disturb the peace when you can’t get no peace.”

Elaine Brown: “I know what the BPP [Black Panther Party] was. I know the lives we lost, the struggle we put into place, the efforts we made, the assaults on us by the police and government – I know all that. I don’t know what Black Lives Matter does.”

It’s open to endless debate whether Black Lives Matter is intrinsically racist and even inherently violent.

And it’s also debatable whether taking a knee, now a household ritual practiced by politicians (complete with Kente scarves from Ghana), cops and corporations, really threatens the foundations of Empire.

Noam Chomsky has already ventured that the protest wave so far carries zero political articulation – and badly needs a strategic direction, far beyond the obvious revolt against police brutality.

The protests are dying down just as the Commune emerges.

Depending on its evolution that may pose a serious problem to Trump/Barr. The President simply cannot allow a running color revolution to develop in the middle of a major American city. At the same time he’s impotent as a federal authority to dissolve the Commune.

What the White House can do is to dog whistle its own counter-insurgency units, in the form of armed to their teeth white supremacist militias, to go on the offensive and crush the already flimsy supply lines of the wokeness-cum-intersectionality crowd.

Occupy after all took over key areas of 60 American cities for months just to suddenly dissolve into the ether.

Additionally, the Deep State has already war-gamed plenty of scenarios to deal with siege situations way more complex than the Commune.

Whatever happens next, one key vector is immutable. A state of permanent insurrection only benefits the 0.00001% plutocracy comfortably ensconced while the plebs set the night on fire.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!