Aletho News


Andrew Korybko – We shouldn’t be surprised about Trump’s victory

Katehon Think Tank | November 9, 2016

November 9, 2016 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Video | , , | 1 Comment

Hillary versus Donald: Ding Dong, The Witch Is Dead! Victory for the Wizard of Oz!


By Diana Johnstone | Global Research | November 9, 2016

“There’s no place like home.”

That’s the lesson. Even when home is Kansas.

The real meaning of this election is not, as bitterly disappointed Hillary supporters still maintain with tears in their eyes and fear in their throats, a victory for racism and sexism.

The real meaning of this upset is that Wall Street’s globalization project has been rejected by the citizens of its homeland.

This has major implications for the European nations that have been dragged along into this ruinous project.

Hillary Clinton was the candidate of the military industrial complex and international finance capital. She designed herself to be the figurehead of those forces, as queen of regime change. She aspired to be the one to remake the world in the image Wall Street dictates. It was a project enthusiastically and expensively supported by the one percent who profit from arms contracts and the trade deals they write themselves for their own interests.

To distract from the genuine significance of her candidacy, the Clinton campaign appealed to the desire for respectability of educated city dwellers, portraying Trump supporters as racist yokels motivated by a hateful desire to scapegoat minorities as revenge for their own inadequacies. They were “deplorables”, and you wouldn’t want to be one of them, would you?

Trump was sexist, because he referred to certain women as “bimbos”. Elizabeth Warren called him out for this, on a platform where Hillary sat listening, mouth wide open in delight – she who had referred to Bill’s girlfriends as “bimbo eruptions”. Sleaze and hypocrisy drowned out policy discussions. The worst the Clinton campaign could come up with was an eleven-year-old locker room exchange – just words, hardly comparable to Bill’s chronic actions.

Still, millions who were taken in by the Clinton campaign line are devastated, terrified, convinced that the only reason Trump won was the “racism” and “sexism” of that lower caste in globalized society: white heterosexual working class males.

But no, Virginia, there were other reasons to vote for Trump. Racism and sexism are surely low on the list.

Trump voters were scandalized by Hillary’s lies and corruption. Many of them would have voted for Bernie Sanders if they had the choice. That choice was taken away from them by Democratic Party manipulators who were sold on their own advertising campaign to elect “the first woman President.” A brand new product on the Presidential election market! Be the first to vote for a woman President! New, improved!

Bernie’s success already showed that millions of people didn’t want that woman. But the Democratic Party manipulators and their oligarch sponsors went right ahead with their plans to force Hillary Clinton on an unwilling nation. They brought this defeat on themselves.

Contrary to what you could believe by reading the New York Times, there were even intellectuals who voted for Trump, or at least refused to vote for Hillary, for the simple reason that Trump appears less likely to lead the world into its third and final Great War. He said things giving that impression, but such statements were ignored by mainstream media as they worked overtime to inflate the ogre image. No war with Russia? You must be a Putin puppet!

Trump voters had several reasons to vote for Trump other than “racism”. Most of all, they want their jobs back, jobs that have vanished thanks to the neoliberal policy of transferring manufacturing jobs to places with low wages.

But racism is the only motive recognized by the globalized elite for rejecting globalization. British citizens who voted to leave the European Union in order to recover their traditional democracy were also stigmatized as “racist” and “xenophobe”. Opposition to racism and xenophobia is the natural moral defense of a project of global governance that deprives ordinary citizens of any important power of decision.

This extraordinarily vicious campaign has brought out and aggravated sharp divisions within the United States. The division between city and countryside is most evident on the electoral maps. But these real divisions are exacerbated by a campaign that portrayed Donald Trump as a racist madman, a new Hitler about to bring fascism to America. The antiracism of this campaign, denouncing “hate”, has actually spawned hate.

No, Virginia, Trump is not Hitler. He is the Wizard of Oz. He is a showman who pulled off an amazing trick thanks to the drastic moral and intellectual decline of the American political system.

He is neither as dangerous as his opponents fear, nor as able to “make American great again” as his supporters hope. He is the Lesser Evil. What will become of him in Washington is anybody’s guess.

November 9, 2016 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , , , , | 1 Comment

Trumping the New World Order

By Gearóid Ó Colmáin | November 9, 2016

The Trump victory is a blow to liberalism, political correctness and human rights ideology. It is a revolt, albeit limited, against globalisation and therefore a momentary victory for truly progressive forces. Today in Damascus there is at least the hope that the US might wind down its terrorist operations against the Syrian people. Today in Moscow, there is at least a pause in the anxiety of Russians who feared they were going to have to face another Great Patriotic War against Western reaction. Today in Europe, the liberal, child-raping, mass-murdering, lying scumbag establishment are uncomfortable – more so than ever before.

The French media are calling the Trump victory a ‘nightmare’ and a ‘catastrophe’. We who have stood up for the downtrodden workers of this world have long sought to turn the nightmare they have imposed on us back on them. Now, everything depends on how the national democratic movement in the US is turned into the cause of labour against capital. American labour should demand pay rises and an end to ‘free trade’. There will be no more turn-coat Bernie Sanders, no more liberal ‘anti-imperialists’, no more Wall Street ‘democrats’.

A victory for Muslims

Muslims should rejoice at a Trump victory for the Saudis banked on Clinton and lost and the Saudis are the enemies of all Muslims. Trump is unlikely to push for war on Iran. But the United States remains an empire, an extremely predatory war machine. Trump must be pushed in the direction working class people need him to go. He has said he wants to get rid of ‘foreign lobbies’ influencing US policy. It is time to talk about those foreign lobbies – especially the lobby of the Zionist regime. Muslims in the United States should seek to educate Trumpists on the real causes of the wars in the Middle East. They need to understand that Iran and Syria are not enemies of the United States and that the US government should abandon Zionism.

A victory for Blacks

Black people in the United States should be happy with the Trump victory. Black nationalists know that Trump does not care about them. But they also know that he will not impede their cause through espousal of pseudo anti-racism. Black liberation activists will now have allies against the racist, Soros-funded project of ‘Black Lives Matter’ – a programme designed to destroy the Black family through LGBT infiltration of the Black Liberation movement. The Trump victory presents a unique opportunity to expose the agenda of the people waging race war on America’s black proletariat. A halt on mass immigration into the United States will also benefit the Black lumpen proletariat and put it, through organised agitation, back on the ladder of social mobility which was deliberately sabotaged by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Trump will do nothing for Blacks but he has helped lift the weight of political correctness which has sabotaged Black liberation.

A victory for Latinos

American Latinos should also support regime change in Washington. A wall between Mexico and the United States will intensify the class struggle in both countries, to the advantage of workers. Although a wall opposing the entry of desperately poor Mexican families into the United States is undoubtedly cruel, it also hurts the oligarchs and in the long term, no change is possible without hurting them! If Trump were to follow through on the construction of the wall and his promises to end ‘democracy promotion’ in other countries, progressive forces in Latin America could re-organise and be in a better position than ever before to shake off the shackles of international finance capitalism. US isolationism and protectionism is good for Latin American liberation!

Deep state intrigue

As I pointed out before, the US electoral system is rigged and that the American deep state may have been in revolt against the rampant corruption of Washington. But there is also a possibility that senior and highly influential US imperial strategists within the Council on Foreign Relations, such as  former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Bzrezinski and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, may have secretly wanted Trump to win. Kissinger has often spoken highly of Russian president Vladmir Putin and Dr. Bzrezinski  recently published a paper entitled: ‘Towards a Global Realignment’ where he wrote of the necessity of ‘cooperation’ between the imperial powers. Could the Trump victory be part of a new ‘multi-polar’ marketing strategy of  US-led global governance? It is something we cannot rule out. Although the revelations about the crimes of the Clinton dynasty by Wikileaks are most certainly true, the exact role of Julien Assange and his organisation in the global imperial system remains ambiguous.

Looking ahead

So, what can we expect from the new Trump administration? Very little, almost nothing. Everything will depend on how popular movements throughout the world exploit the weaknesses that have been exposed in US imperialism. The leaders of America’s minorities MUST reach out to the white proletarian Trumpists. The Trumpists MUST reach out to the Black Liberation movement, to people like Dr Randy Short, Ezili Danto, Irritated Genie, Dr Umar Johnson and others. Dr Randy Short, while pointing out Trump’s shortcomings, described the Republican as “what America needs” and “anti-globalisation”. Ezili Danto, a Haitian lawyer who has worked tirelessly to expose US imperialism against Haiti urged Americans to vote for Trump.

This election has, more than any other, separated genuine anti-imperialists with a strategic and dialectical analysis from the petty-bourgeois, White, urban, ‘anti-racist’, ‘anti-fascist’ mob. The Chomskyites, Trotskyites and anarchists have been trumped! Grass-roots community leaders against the values of globalisation from all ethnic backgrounds must unite against the oligarchs. They need to constantly remind Trump of the necessity of turning the Republican Party into a Workers Party. All of the most nefarious conspiracies against honest labour have been dealt a blow by this result from the global warming scam to the reactionary and racist LGBT to endless foreign wars in the name of ‘human rights’.

My prediction is that Trump will not willingly deliver on any of his promises however a space has been opened for class emancipation; a section of the US proletariat has given the two fingers to the liberal imperialist elite. That is something to be happy about. But watch how the Sorosite oligarchs respond. There will be ‘race riots’ and storms of great magnitude. The Saudi-Israeli backed ‘Islamic State’ will strike. There are violent reactionaries operating at the heart of Trumpism too – far too many! A Sorosite onslaught of race riots and terrorism will be grist to their reactionary mill. That is why Trumpism must become a stepping stone towards a popular front against monopoly capitalism. But we should not overlook the fact that Trump still represents ruling class interests and had considerable support from sections of the oligarchy, such as Rupert Murdoch and Sheldon Adelson.

The Trump victory is, notwithstanding all these problems, good news. There was an applause in the Russian State Duma after the election of Trump. That is an unprecedented development in international relations, which will create a major move for detente between the imperial powers and peace in Syria. There is reason to harbour cautious hope for the new year while not losing sight of the fact that only mass popular movements will bring real change to the world. Conditions today are better than yesterday for the emergence of those movements.

November 9, 2016 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | 3 Comments

Vatican Mediation in Venezuela Changes Political Equation for Washington

By Mark Weisbrot | The Hill |  November 6, 2016

The Vatican’s participation in the mediation effort in Venezuela poses an unusual challenge to US policy in Venezuela and the region. On Sunday, October 30, three of the four major opposition parties and other prominent opposition leaders met with the government, with mediators from the Vatican and UNASUR (the Union of South American Nations). Some progress was made. The government released four people who the opposition considers political prisoners, and the opposition called off a political trial against President Maduro and a planned demonstration that most observers believed ran a high risk of violence.

Thomas Shannon, the number three official in the US State Department, also went to Venezuela this week, met with President Maduro and opposition leaders, and supported the dialogue. I wish I could say that this represents an actual change in US policy in the region, but all evidence still points to the contrary.

The US government is not looking at Venezuela in terms of dialogue or compromise. The Obama administration has economic sanctions against Venezuela, which President Obama renewed last March. In renewing these sanctions, the executive order again declared that Venezuela presented “an unusual and extraordinary threat to US security.” The world knows what happens to countries that the US deems to be “an unusual and extraordinary” security threat. Look what happened to Iraq. Look what happened to Nicaragua in the 1980s. It doesn’t matter how many people are directly affected by the specific sanctions against Venezuela. The threat is what matters, and it is ugly and belligerent enough to keep many investors from investing in Venezuela and to raise the country’s cost of borrowing. (Not to mention that the whole premise of Venezuela as a “security threat” is absurd.) And the US government has also directly pressured financial institutions not to do business with Venezuela.

For all of these reasons, it is clear that Washington’s goal in Venezuela is currently the same as it has been for almost all of the past 15 years. Shannon’s support for dialogue is almost certain to turn out the same as previous diplomatic thaws in the past: a brief and insincere interlude. President Obama initiated the longest period (about five months) of calm US-Venezuela relations ― since the US-backed military coup of 2002 ―between March and July last year. It soon became clear that this was only because the Cubans ― with support from the rest of the region ― made it a condition of progress in their own negotiations for opening relations with the US. This was something that Obama wanted for his legacy. But as Venezuela’s National Assembly elections approached, the Obama administration went back to its regime change strategy, supporting an international campaign to delegitimize Venezuela’s elections. (This turned out to be unnecessary, since the opposition won in a landslide.)

The Venezuelan opposition pursued a “strategy of military takeover” for the first four years of the Chávez government, including the 2002 military coup. But since 2004, they have been divided on whether to pursue change through legal means. Whenever they had people in the streets supporting a violent or extralegal overthrow ― as in 2002–03, 2013, or 2014 ― the US government has taken their side. Washington has also led various campaigns to delegitimize the Venezuelan government, a vital part of any extralegal “regime change” strategy.

But for the moment, Pope Francis has altered everyone’s calculations. It is not good optics for the hard-line Venezuelan opposition to condemn the pope. And the Obama administration cannot exert the kind of pressure on the Vatican that it does on, e.g., European governments to support its sanctions against Russia, or various unpopular military adventures. Also, the international media cannot marginalize or ignore the pope in the way they do the rest of the hemisphere’s governments, e.g., when these governments resist Washington’s support for regime change in Venezuela, Honduras, and other countries.

The pope is likely to look at the Venezuelan crisis in a pragmatic way, rather than through the lens of Washington’s imperial and ideological imperatives. There is a divided government in Venezuela, with the chavistas controlling the presidency and to a large extent the judiciary. The fractious opposition controls the National Assembly. Until the next presidential election, there is no way to resolve the political conflict except through dialogue and negotiation.

Pope Francis can be a pragmatic diplomat, but he has certain principles and is not easily intimidated. He is likely to understand that Venezuela’s divided government is a result of a divided country. From 2003, when the Chávez government got control of the national oil industry, until 2014, the large majority of the population experienced enormous gains in their living standards. That is why, in December of last year, in the elections for National Assembly, the ruling PSUV still got more than 40 percent of the vote ― despite inflation running at 180 percent and widespread shortages of basic consumer goods.

A big part of the gains of the Chávez era have been lost in the past nearly three years, and especially over the past year. But the governing party still has a political base that remembers worse poverty and exclusion, if not worse shortages, in the pre-Chávez era. They do not see the political opposition, which is a right-wing political movement that has always represented the upper classes, offering solutions that will make their lives better.

The Vatican will therefore likely seek negotiation and compromise on both sides of the political divide. This poses a unique challenge to Washington and some of its closest allies in Venezuela.

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of  Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

November 9, 2016 Posted by | Economics | , , | Leave a comment

Trump Wins: Welcome to the new world

The BRICS Post | November 9, 2016

Modern history will record November 8, 2016 as the day when the United States of America officially decided to vote for a global retreat – from the heady rhetoric of ‘Let’s make the world a better place’ to “Let’s make America great again”.

Americans have voted for building a wall to protect what they have, against the dream of global dominance. This surely marks the end of the uni-polar world as we know it.

The tenor and assertions (of rebuilding American infrastructure, erecting border walls, keeping immigrants away, and dismantling Obamacare) during Republican candidate Donald Trump’s campaign trail followed by his massive victory on Tuesday completes this US retreat.

The resulting void comes at a time when no one nation is ready to fill this space which will be left empty – and this could fuel the rise of real multi-polarity.

At the moment, and surely for many years now, China remains America’s biggest economic rival. That juggernaut continues with Beijing’s ambitious new Silk Road (One Belt One Road) project across Asia and Europe.

China is the world’s second largest economy after the United States and the biggest trading partner for most Asian and African economies. With over 160 cities hosting 1 million+ inhabitants and new cities emerging, China continues to be one of the fastest growing consumer markets.

However, its biggest domestic challenge is to continue to guard against any slips in its politically conservative agenda and that internal social upheaval does not go out of those “iron hands”.

But there is no denying that China will continue as the centerpiece of the global economic discourse even as Trump takes stock of US economic health indicators.

Enter Russia

The next biggest tension point on the global agenda is strategic geopolitics.

Unpalatable as it may be to many, President Vladimir Putin’s Russia – which is facing severe economic difficulties – is ready, willing and able to play an important role here.

Among the Republican leader’s most discussed campaign promises was that America would outsource the fight against ISIS to Putin in Syria.

For Putin, to manage public opinion at home, it’s important to be doing things which can divert attention from local to global affairs.

We are likely to hear more and more of Russia in the coming days, especially since Trump spoke about working with Putin “to wipe out shared enemies”.

They say establishment always resists change.

So it’s likely that Trump might continue on the path set by his predecessors on foreign policy in the short term. But it is quite clear that his focus would be inwards rather than outwards.

Trump might find friendly right-wing dispensations in India and Brazil that could be further persuaded to become Washington’s proxies in their struggle against economically-asserting China and strategically-defiant Russia. In turn, India and Brazil are likely to benefit from this dependence.

Rise of strategic blocs

But in order to understand the likelihood of an American retreat, one needs to look at the recent announcements of Asian countries like the Philippines and Malaysia that have openly rebuffed US meddling in the region vis-à-vis the South China Sea or of the eagerness of EU countries in joining the new China-led financial institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Now more than ever, strategic groupings are likely to wield more eminence – BRICS is one such group.

Former UK Vice Finance Minister, Jim O’Neill, who is the father of this acronym, has recently said that BRICS has outperformed his expectations and – as things stand today – it seems he is in for an even bigger surprise.

Meanwhile, Germany’s Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen has already asked President-elect Trump to reassure US allies of his commitment to NATO following some bitter comments during his 2016 campaign.

The EU is another big grouping.

If it succeeds in fighting the growing right-wing onslaught and continues to work with other groups like BRICS and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the EU is likely to gain from this US retreat.

What Americans have done today is historic. They may not have made history by electing the first female president but they have, unintentionally, initiated steps towards a historic retreat.

They have sent an outsider to the White House with a mandate to look within.

The American Dream has opened its eyes to the new realities.

Welcome to the new world order.

November 9, 2016 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , | 1 Comment

Netanyahu Congratulates Trump, Calls Him ‘True Friend’ of ‘Israel’

Al-Manar | November 9, 2016

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Donald Trump on his election as US president on Wednesday and called him “a true friend” of the Zionist entity.

“President-elect Trump is a true friend of the state of Israel, and I look forward to working with him to advance security, stability and peace in our region,” the right-wing premier said in a statement.

“The ironclad bond between the United States and Israel is rooted in shared values, buttressed by shared interests and driven by a shared destiny.”

“I am confident that president-elect Trump and I will continue to strengthen the unique alliance between our two countries and bring it to ever greater heights.”

Netanyahu avoided controversial topics in his statement, unlike members of his government.

Education Minister Naftali Bennett, who heads the hardline Jewish Home party, said after Trump’s victory that the idea of a Palestinian state was over.

“Trump’s victory is an opportunity for Israel to immediately retract the notion of a Palestinian state in the centre of the country, which would hurt our security and just cause,” Bennett said in an apparent reference to the occupied West Bank.

“This is the position of the president-elect … The era of a Palestinian state is over.”

Others, including politicians from Netanyahu’s Likud party, called for Trump to follow through on his promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to al-Quds (Jerusalem).

November 9, 2016 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Illegal Occupation | , , , , , | 6 Comments

Protests in Western Sahara against solar and wind plant construction

MEMO |November 8, 2016

Protests erupted yesterday in the Western Sahara over the construction of renewable energy plants without the permission of the Sahrawi people.

The protests, which took place in the capital Laayoune, coincided with the United Nation’s COP22 conference on climate change yesterday in Marrakech.

Siemens and Enel are building solar and wind plants in the region

“Siemens should not back Morocco’s occupation of Western Sahara through energy infrastructure,” the Western Sahara Resource Watch (WRSW) said on social media.

Siemens has constructed 22 new renewable energy plants in the Western Sahara, which power over 95 per cent of mineral extraction plants in the Sahrawi region.

The World Bank, the European Investment Bank, and the European Union have previously refused to finance development projects in Western Sahara.

“If we support those investments, it would look like we are supporting the Moroccan position. We are neutral regarding that conflict,” a banker told Reuters.

The contested region has recently been engrossed in tensions between Morocco and the Sahrawi Polisario Front which has been ongoing since 1975.

November 9, 2016 Posted by | Economics, Illegal Occupation | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obama’s promise of change questioned as presidency closes

November 9, 2016 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Video | , | 1 Comment

EU leaders rollback anti-Trump righteousness

November 9, 2016 Posted by | Video | , | Leave a comment

Respecting “Rules of War” in Societal Battles: Science, Sex and Hate Speech

By Denis Rancourt | Dissident Voice | November 8, 2016

Summary: I argue that in the many societal battles that serve to repair continually arising unjust features of the societal hierarchy, individuals must respect two fundamental “rules of war”: (1) Not to violate the natural right of individual self-determination (control over one’s body and mind) and (2) not to violate the natural right of individual free expression (control over one’s expression and attempts to have societal influence by expression). This centrally includes not allowing the state and its institutions to violate the said rights. My main example is drawn from the current society-wide battle around sexual identity and the language of sexual identity.

In a recent TV-Ontario debate1, Dr. Nicholas Matte of the University of Toronto emphatically stated: “Cis normativity is basically that everyone assumes that there is male and female […] It’s not my view, I just know that for over 50 years scientists have shown that that’s not true.” The debate is one where the university is trying to suppress another professor’s right of free expression. In this case, the professor (Jordan Peterson) wants to express and debate on campus that he will not be forced to use gender-neutral pronouns.

Dr. Matte has not responded to my written request for clarification about the alleged scientific consensus that there is no male and female in the human species. I read Dr. Matte’s 2014 PhD thesis2 to seek clarification, and then I did my own examination of the scientific literature about sex differences in humans, including influential books and essays about the “fluidity” of sex and gender.

Leaving questions of self-identity aside, which are largely cultural, it appears that the idea that there is no binary male/female sex divide in humans is simply a vast overstatement of the fact that many other things also occur in the genital and metabolic physiology of a minority of individuals.

Irrespective of the genetic, metabolic, biological and environmental circumstances in which a minority of individuals cannot unambiguously be attributed with a physiological sex that is unambiguously either male or female, there is without a doubt a male/female binary in humans, across time (history) and space (locality), where the male or female sexes correspond to distinct sets or groupings of physiological differences.

Variability in the said physiological differences, and border uncertainty about which physiological attributes contribute to resolving sex, are not valid reasons to deny that there is a clear male/female bimodal distribution of a (variable) set of (variable) physiological attributes, fundamentally linked to natural reproduction.

That environmental factors — including culture and the violence or authoritativeness of the local social dominance hierarchy — affect both natural reproduction and the said set of sex-differentiating physiological attributes does nothing to invalidate the sex binary in human society.

Widespread male/female division is consistent with the reproductive function being distributed in the human species, or at least having the intrinsic possibility of being distributed. Such distribution across classes occurs and is hormonally driven, in societies and cultures in which the dominance hierarchy does not strictly interfere with reproduction in classes of individuals.

Likewise, admitting that, in a distant (dystopic?) future, social hierarchy could result in classes or large populations that are deprived of natural reproduction, or could result in dominance-hierarchy stress dramatically affecting biological expression of sex3, does nothing to invalidate the conclusion of the reality of a dominant male/female binary in present societies. Glimpses of that distant future are visible in present Western societies, such as the fertility problems related to delayed child-bearing, the economic and cultural pressures away from reproduction and family focus and towards models of individual liberation and institutional child-rearing, etc., but these glimpses do not allow one to extrapolate towards an imminent sexless society.

One cannot deny the societal battle for institutional and political territory between traditional “family value” folks and the folks who wish to thrive in a more societally engineered and politically correct “just” environment where natural reproduction and family economic organization take a second place to individual liberation free from criticism and worldview threats. However, denying the reality of the male/female binary does nothing to help anyone see more clearly in the said societal battle.

Individuals must have both self-determination and free expression rights. Despite all the legalistic hubris, these rights are not contradictory. Both self-determination and free expression are methods for shaping society in the inevitable battles that must occur. They are not “values”. Neither right should be suppressed as part of a machination intended to seek advantage, for a given side in a given battle.

All sides should recognize the two fundamental rights of self-determination and free expression as nonnegotiable and not in opposition, and as necessary for the constant adjustments and struggles in society. There needs to be this “rule of war”. Otherwise, both clarity and sanity are lost, and all players become more vulnerable to hierarchical oppression. There is no right not to be offended. There are natural rights of participation, self-determination, and free expression.

Attempting to deny opponents their fundamental right of self-determination (self-definition, body ownership, beliefs, and control over one’s entire person) or of free expression (not hierarchical power but individual free expression, motivated by a desire to influence society or simply to express whatever thought or emotion) is no way to have a decent and healthy societal conflict. In common language, such tactics of denying rights are “fucked up”. The said tactics are societally pathological and always serve those elements in society seeking steeper and broader hierarchical domination, even at the risk of approaching or increasing totalitarianism. The said tactics are both induced by and a positive feedback towards totalitarianism.

Individual expression of disapproval for personal choices or preferences or beliefs, however offensive or vehement, is not suppression of the individual right of self-determination. Only actual (institutional or mob) physical oppression is oppression. Apartheid and segregation laws are oppression. Economic barriers are oppression. Institutionalized exploitative class structures are oppression. Class targeting enforced by the “justice” system against personal consumer or other choices is oppression. Individual expression seeking influence is not oppression. Attempts to make unorthodox life choices are not oppression. Political organizing around common beliefs or desires is not oppression. Oppression occurs when a societal structure uses effective physical force (withdrawal of resources or freedoms) to obtain compliance against individual rights.

The “hate speech” screaming and criminalizing must stop. And the hysteric phobias about individual choices, beliefs, and politics, must be prevented from materializing into state suppression. Already materialized oppressive structures must be dismantled. Our “rules of war”, as individuals in the always changing society, must include both self-determination and free expression, and these rules must be protected beyond all else, as though we were protecting humanity itself. Otherwise, Western states show little restraint in violating these rights4.

To be specific, the exaggerations a la Matte are politically motivated. I think the new “justice warriors” are fighting for territory within academia. What better way than to represent oppressed groups? How dare anyone question the keepers of the new territories, given the enormous suffering that the appropriated victims have endured throughout history (The Holocaust Industry model is a proven method).5 Anyone who questions the new priests is a racist, sexist, etc. Political correctness, like “critical race theory”, is born from the new breed of academics who expressly use oppressed groups as their dominant raison d’être, rather than expressly allege “truth seeking”. Consequently, there is no place or utility for outside criticism. Resulting rampant and predictable intellectual insecurity among followers leads to shrill accusations of “hate”, in place of debate.

The campus battles have little to do with actually alleviating oppression of the lower classes, and much to do with the classic manoeuvres to gain professional status and disciplinal territory. Virtually all academics are service intellectuals that act as overseers, collaborators, and house negroes6,7. This includes the most strident institutional defenders of social justice, who train society’s social justice cadre. That cadre includes foundation-funded Black Lives Matter (BLM) organizations. In the words of Black Panther Elaine Brown, in speaking about BLM tactics: “This to me is a plantation mentality. It smacks of ‘master, if you would just treat me right’. And it has nothing to do with self-determination, empowerment and a sense of justice, or anything else.”8

Are Elaine Brown’s words hate speech? Would they be hate speech if spoken by a white academic? Is Elaine Brown racist? Would she be racist if she was white? We must all reject the harmful notion that state-enforced speech control is acceptable, and we must all reject state-condoned forceful violations against individual self-determination. The way forward is to organize and argue, without ever allowing the state to forcefully violate fundamental freedoms of our opponents or anyone.

If I had my way, no public washrooms would segregate the sexes, starting in schools. People should live together and not be segregated by the state. Agree or disagree but don’t ask the state to remove the rights of those who are different or have different opinions and seek societal influence.

  1. Genders, Rights and Freedom of Speech”, The Agenda, TV-Ontario, 2016-10-26.
  2. Nicholas Matte, Historicizing Liberal American Transnormativities: Medicine, Media, Activism, 1960-1990. 2014 PhD thesis, University of Toronto.
  3. Stress from dominance hierarchy is the dominant determinant of individual health, and is known to cause large metabolic responses. See, for example: Robert M. Sapolsky, “The Influence of Social Hierarchy on Primate Health”, Science, 29 Apr 2005: Vol. 308, Issue 5722, pp. 648-652. DOI: 10.1126/science.1106477
  4. One example for Canada is documented in this report: Denis G. Rancourt, “Canadian defamation law is noncompliant with international law”, report for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, 2016-02-01
  5. The exploitation of suffering to shut down criticism or to extract personal or institutional gain is a common machination among management classes. One example is authoritatively documented in Norman G. Finkelstein’s 2000 book: The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering.
  6. I defined “service intellectual” in my 2006 essay: “Gradual Change is not Progress
  7. I describe the central role of collaborators in maintaining social dominance hierarchies in my 2013 book: Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism
  8. Black Lives Matter has a plantation mentality’ — Black Panther Elaine Brown on the degradation of black liberation. Tom Slater, Deputy Editor. Spiked: 2016-10-19.

Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. While he was at the University of Ottawa, he supported student activism and opposed the influence of the Israel lobby on that institution, which fired him for a false pretext in 2009.

November 9, 2016 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Timeless or most popular | , | 1 Comment

Trump’s Victory Should Not Obfuscate Election Fraud

By Doug Steil | Aletho News | November 9, 2016

As luck would have it Hillary Clinton’s landslide loss was so big that massive election fraud by Democratic Party operatives in various cities could not overcome her deficit.

The “shock” by insiders of having lost obviously reflects their earlier certainty of prevailing, which hints at the extent of their vote rigging schemes. The unverifiable system of voting in America is so flawed that foreign observers are now being blocked from monitoring US elections. The topic of fraud can no longer be swept under the rug.

Surely Clinton and the media will try to make a big deal of having “received more votes” than Trump in the popular vote total, which according to the current tabulation has already occurred, with an even higher differential to come once West Coast state results are all counted.

Those inside the DC Beltway and within elite campuses will claim that this is “unfair” and that Hillary really “should have won”.

However, this assertion should be vociferously challenged. Surely this surplus is artificial. Is it really possible that so many Americans would have ignored the prospect of going to war with Russia?

The question needs to be raised publicly: How many hundreds of thousand votes were switched from Trump to Clinton altogether and how many invalid (illegal) votes were registered for her?

Aside from that — assuming all the votes were legitimate — the electoral college system is intended to prevent, say, a concentration of votes in urban centers to the detriment of rural voters across the country. As is the case in Maine and Nebraska, voters in individual states can decide how to allocate their electoral votes, so it doesn’t have to be a winner-take-all system.

It is a tribute to the designers of the US Constitution that the Electoral College mechanism still exists. It’s almost as if though they might also have already suspected long ago that there could be illicit efforts in the future to change an election outcome simply by stuffing the ballots in a few locations. The indirect US electoral system has saved the country from a big crisis brought on by election fraud. Instead of changing the Constitution future election reforms should focus on making vote fraud impossible or extremely difficult to carry out.

November 9, 2016 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Militarism | , , | 13 Comments

Putin on Trump victory: Russia is ready to restore relations with US


© Aleksey Nikolskyi / Sputnik
RT | November 9, 2016

Russia is ready and looks forward to restoring bilateral relations with the United States, Russian President Vladimir Putin said, commenting on the news of Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election.

“We heard [Trump’s] campaign rhetoric while still a candidate for the US presidency, which was focused on restoring the relations between Russia and the United States,” President Putin said, speaking at the presentation ceremony of foreign ambassadors’ letters of credentials in Moscow.

“We understand and are aware that it will be a difficult path in the light of the degradation in which, unfortunately, the relationship between Russia and the US are at the moment,” he added.

Speaking about the degraded state of relations between the countries, the president once again stressed that “it is not our fault that Russia-US relations are as you see them.”

Earlier today, in a message to Donald Trump the Russian President expressed confidence that the dialogue between Moscow and Washington, in keeping with each other’s views, meets the interests of both Russia and the US.

The Russian leader noted in the message that he hopes to address some “burning issues that are currently on the international agenda, and search for effective responses to the challenges of the global security,” RIA Novosti reported.

On top of it, Putin has expressed confidence that “building a constructive dialogue between Moscow and Washington, based on principles of equality, mutual respect and each other’s positions, meets the interests of the peoples of our countries and of the entire international community.”

Russian State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin has also expressed hope that Trump’s victory in the presidential election will help pave the way for a more constructive dialogue between Moscow and Washington.

“The current US-Russian relations cannot be called friendly. Hopefully, with the new US president a more constructive dialogue will be possible between our countries,” he said.

“The Russian Parliament will welcome and support any steps in this direction,” Volodin added on Wednesday.

Commenting on Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia will judge the new US administration by its actions and take appropriate steps in response.

“We are ready to work with any US leader elected by the US people,” the minister said on Wednesday.

“I can’t say that all the previous US leaders were always predictable. This is life, this is politics. I have heard many words but we will judge by actions.”

According to many observers, US-Russia relations are now at their lowest point since the Cold War. Putin has repeatedly noted that the worsening of Russia’s relations with the US “was not our choice,” however.

For things to improve between Moscow and Washington, the US should first and foremost start acting like an equal partner and respect Russia’s interests rather than try to dictate terms, Putin said last month.

The US will have to negotiate with Russia on finding solutions to international issues as no state is now able to act alone, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said last week, adding that problems in bilateral relations began to mount long before the Ukrainian crisis broke out in 2014.

November 9, 2016 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | 2 Comments