The Greanville Journal

Dateline: May 8, 2007

An Interview with Ben Dangl | By JOSHUA FRANK

Ben Dangl is the author of The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia (AK Press 2007) and the editor of Upside Down World, an online magazine that covers Latin American politics, and Toward Freedom, a progressive perspective on world events. Recently Dangl, who won a 2007 Project Censored Award for his coverage of US military operations in Paraguay, spoke with Joshua Frank about the emerging social movements in South America and how they are threatening Washington’s power in the region.

Joshua Frank: Ben, before we talk about the situation in Bolivia, I think it is important to discuss the history leading up to the current state of affairs in the country. Could you explain to us how and why Bolivia has been fighting the neoliberal agenda, and when this resistance began to gain strength?

Ben Dangl: Resistance to neoliberalism isn’t anything new for Bolivia. Most Bolivians live under the poverty line, earning less than $2 dollars a day. Over the course of history, from Spanish colonization to today, this poor majority has risen up against such exploitation. In 1936, Bolivia was one of the first countries in the world to kick out a foreign corporation and expropriate its assets. That corporation was New Jersey-based Standard Oil. They were kicked out of Bolivia for corruption, illegally exporting the country’s gas to Argentina and playing a heavy hand in initiating a war against Paraguay. In 1952, a revolution took place in Bolivia which put much of the mining industry under state control, redistributed land and expanded the right to vote to most citizens.

More recently, movements have developed against corporate privatization of water and gas. In 2000, citizens of Cochabamba, Bolivia united in protest against the Bechtel Corporation, which worked with the Bolivian government to increase water fees, privatize the city’s water system, communally built wells and irrigation systems. In 2003 a large movement emerged against a plan to export Bolivian gas to the US for a low price. Many protestors demanded that the gas be put under state control, and used in Bolivia for national development, instead of enriching foreign corporations. Bolivia’s landless movement has fought against the concentration of unused land in the hands of a few. In the same way unemployed workers in Argentina occupied bankrupt factories in the 2001-2002 economic crisis, these Bolivian farmers occupy unused land and work it with their families.

JF: Do you think that the growing trend in Bolivia against neoliberalism led to the victory of Evo Morales for president?

Pres. Evo Morales (l) is the first Latin American leader of direct indigenous origin.

BD: This is definitely the case. Neoliberal policies have wrecked Bolivia’s economy. The election of Evo Morales is in many ways a response to this economic failure. People see in Evo Morales an alternative to neoliberal business as usual. There are two specific conflicts which paved the way to his election.

One was the drug war in Bolivia, which has been a kind of military arm of neoliberalism. The coca leaf is a popular crop in Bolivia. Many farmers grow the leaf to survive. There is a vast, legal market for this leaf. It has been used for centuries by Andean people, and is an important part of indigenous cultures. It is used for medicine, is chewed or used in tea. Even the US embassy recommends using coca leaves as a cure for altitude sickness. Coca is also an ingredient in cocaine, and thus a target in the US funded drug war. Many poor coca growers have been repressed or killed in this war on coca, meanwhile the amount of cocaine available in the US and Europe remains the same or increases. Coca farmers organized unions to defend their right to grow coca, and resist military and police violence. Evo Morales came into politics through these coca unions. He was a coca farmer himself, and helped create the Movement Toward Socialism political party, which is an extension of these coca unions. The coca leaf came to be a key symbol in this party’s campaigns. The leaf represents anti-imperialism, indigenous coca, mining history (miners chew the leaf) and campesino struggles. The leaf united these diverse sectors. To a certain extent, this explains some of the popularity of Evo Morales, who has been able to unite different groups through this common symbol, this common struggle.

The 2003 Gas War also helped paved the way to the election of Evo Morales. In this protest movement, in which citizens rejected a plan to privatize and export Bolivian gas to the US, the president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada was ousted from office. This created a space for the 2005 elections, as did the departure of president Carlos Mesa amidst similar protests. When Morales ran in 2005 he was in many ways riding the momentum of the 2003 and 2005 protest movement for gas nationalization. In his campaign he promised to put the country’s gas reserves under state control a clear alternative to neoliberalism. This promise significantly contributed to his electoral victory.

JF: How has the U.S. government responded to this new emerging pattern in Bolivia? And how is the country’s fight against the neoliberal agenda reflective of a larger struggle in the region? I’m thinking of President Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. In what ways has this movement impacted or influenced Morales and Bolivia’s politics?

BD: The US government has always been concerned with coca production in Bolivia, and that remains a controversial issue with Evo Morales, a former coca-grower, in office. Most of Bolivia’s gas goes to Brazil, Argentina and Chile, so partial gas nationalization in Bolivia doesn’t impact US markets as much as the state-run oil industry in Venezuela. Washington doesn’t like to see Bolivia as a leftist example to other governments in the region, and it is doesn’t like to see the very strong relationship between Evo Morales and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. What’s going on Bolivia politically and economically is happening with the help of funds, expertise and solidarity with Venezuela, and that worries Washington.

It’s important to point out that the political and social changes in Bolivia are very homegrown and grassroots, and not happening because of Venezuela’s example or lead. Bolivian land re-distribution, gas nationalization, the re-writing of the country’s constitution, redirecting government spending into more social programs and public services, these are all policies that have been demanded from below in Bolivia for decades. They are taking place now in part because of the victories forged in street mobilizations in recent years, and because of the administration of Evo Morales. However, Venezuelan advisors and money are helping with these projects.

Whereas US officials used to be all over Bolivia advising Bolivian politicians, now Venezuelans have filled their place. Venezuela is also lending money to Bolivia, replacing the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in certain ways. This new lending and advising lacks a neoliberal agenda and is directed at more of a socialistic method of political and economic changes. For example, the IMF or US embassy would give money and advice, but with neoliberal or imperialistic strings attached such as privatization of public water systems or increased militarization of coca growing areas. That isn’t happening with Venezuelan advice. This is all part of a growing integration and solidarity between left-leaning leaders in South America that isn’t based on bowing down to US government or US corporate interests. This is a historic shift that is powered by the failure of neoliberalism in South America, Venezuelan oil wealth and a need among the majority of Latin Americans for a viable economic and social alternative.

JF: What other nations in the region do you think are shifting against the US in terms of our economic and military policies in the region? Do you think this is more of a grassroots or a state led movement?

BD: Each country’s dynamics are different. I’ll speak of a few examples and projects. Trade and economic alliances outside the sphere of the US such as the Banco del Sur are limiting the possibility of a US dominated economic bloc in the region. Bolivia recently became a part of a People’s Trade Agreement (PTA), a progressive alternative to standard free trade agreements. It is based on collaborations between countries, increased public ownership of the economy, and sustainable trade relationships, rather than exploitative practices standard in other agreements-such as NAFTA and the FTAA. In April, 2006, Venezuela, Cuba, and Bolivia signed a PTA in a move toward creating a “Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas,” a sustainable trade project to eliminate poverty throughout the region. In the PTA, Venezuela eliminated tariffs and opened its state buyers to Bolivian producers, policies which are not usually applied to Bolivia’s smaller economy. Through the PTA, both Venezuela and Cuba will send doctors and technicians to Bolivia, as well as provide health care and college scholarships for Bolivians. The PTA gives states more power over economic decisions and regulates the economy to help the poorest sectors of society instead of corporations.

As far as military and political shifts away from the US, some of the biggest advances in Argentina and Chile with their new leaders are in the area of human rights and investigations and justice regarding disappearances and torture under dictatorships. Ecuador’s new president Rafael Correa has also led the charge to rewrite the constitution, following in the recent footsteps of Venezuela and Bolivia. Other important shifts are happening in the area of military alliances. Venezuela has stopped sending its military to the School of the Americas (SOA) in the US. In Bolivia, however, the number of military officials sent to the SOA has risen under the Morales presidency. This could possibly be a strategy on the part of the Morales administration to keep the military on his side, rather than with the right wing civic groups and political parties based in Santa Cruz. In Ecuador, Rafael Correa has pushed the US military out of its base in Manta, Ecuador. In December, 2006 the Paraguayan Senate voted against the immunity previously granted to US troops operating in the country.

Where the political and social power is concentrated varies widely in each country. In Argentina, for example, the middle class plays a very key role in the way politics are done in the country. One of the reasons why the 2001-2002 economic crisis was so tumultuous for Argentina was because the middle class was directly impacted and hit the streets in solidarity with other economic classes. Now the middle class is content for the most part with administration of Nestor Kirchner, so he (or his wife) may very well win the next elections.

In Venezuela, many of the political and social changes that have happened since Chavez came into office in 1998 are based on more of a “top-down” organization of power. What’s happening in Venezuela is very much centralized around Chavez as a key and charismatic figure. In some cases the diversity of social programs and social spending are being applied to the country from above, from this centralized political environment. This is not the case in Bolivia, where the political power is still very much outside the realm of the state, of the government of Evo Morales. The grassroots power of social movements in Bolivia is perhaps stronger than anywhere else in the region. Much of the success under the Morales administration depends on the social movements to either radicalize his policies, or to create change outside the political sphere or reforms.

JF: So what do you think the future holds for Bolivia and how can they be successful at implementing these changes?

BD: Much depends on the success of Bolivia’s constitutional assembly. If the infighting and gridlock continues in the assembly, there is risk that conflicts over these divisive issues - such as land distribution, gas nationalization, coca, autonomy - could spill out into bloody conflicts in the streets rather than be solved at the negotiating table.

The Morales administration is up against a lot of challenges, both institutionally and economically. It’s no small task to reverse 500 years of looting and injustice. In order to navigate through the rough waters ahead, Morales and his government need to stay true to the radical course set for them by social movements in recent grassroots victories.

Bolivian social movements - unions, neighborhood councils, students, coca farmers, miners and landless movements - need to hold the administration’s feet to the flames, while remaining independent and avoiding political cooptation.

Joshua Frank is the co-editor of DissidentVoice.org, and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush. He can be reached through his website, BrickBurner.org.

Tags: Obstinate History, Imperial Policy by Greanville
No Comments »

I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble…”

Cindy Sheehan | “Good Riddance Attention Whore” •
Cindy Sheehan | Letter to Democratic Congress •

Sheehan Quits as Face of US Anti-War Fight
By Dan Glaister
The Guardian UK | Dateline: Tuesday 29 May 2007

Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in Iraq three years ago, said yesterday she was stepping down from her role as the figurehead of the US campaign against the war.

“This is my resignation letter as the ‘face’ of the American anti-war movement,” she wrote in a sometimes bitter diary entry on the website Daily Kos. “I am going to take whatever I have left, and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children, and try to regain some of what I have lost.”

Ms Sheehan, 49, rose to prominence when she voiced her discontent with President George Bush’s policies when he met her and other grieving members of military families.

Announcing her decision on Memorial Day, the anniversary on which the US remembers its war dead, she said that her announcement had been prompted by the recent hostility she had faced from Democrats.

“I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican party,” she wrote. “However, when I started to hold the Democratic party to the same standards that I held the Republican party, support for my cause started to erode, and the ‘left’ started labelling me with the same slurs that the right used.”

On Saturday, in an open letter to Democratic members of Congress, she announced that she was leaving the party because she felt its leaders had failed to change the country’s course in Iraq.

She said that the most devastating conclusion she had reached after three years of protest, which included a trip to Cuba and the setting up of a protest camp outside Mr Bush’s Texas ranch, was that her son had died for nothing.

“I have tried ever since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful,” she wrote. “Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months.”

“Good Riddance Attention Whore”
By Cindy Sheehan
t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor

Dateline in our fraternal site truthout: Tuesday 29 May 2007

I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called “Face” of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such “liberal blogs” as the Democratic Underground. Being called an “attention whore” and being told “good riddance” are some of the milder rebukes.

I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day morning. These are not spur-of-the-moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.

The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a “tool” of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our “two-party” system?

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the “left” started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of “right or left”, but “right and wrong.”

I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be [put aside] when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt “two” party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?

I have also reached the conclusion that if I am doing what I am doing because I am an “attention whore” then I really need to be committed. I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have spent every available cent I got from the money a “grateful” country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried ever since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.

It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won’t work with that group; he won’t attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.

Our brave young men and women in Iraq have been abandoned there indefinitely by their cowardly leaders who move them around like pawns on a chessboard of destruction and the people of Iraq have been doomed to death and fates worse than death by people worried more about elections than people. However, in five, ten, or fifteen years, our troops will come limping home in another abject defeat and ten or twenty years from then, our children’s children will be seeing their loved ones die for no reason, because their grandparents also bought into this corrupt system. George Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity.

I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.

Camp Casey has served its purpose. It’s for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford, Texas? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too … which makes the property even more valuable.

This is my resignation letter as the “face” of the American anti-war movement. This is not my “Checkers” moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or any more people that I love and the rest of my resources.

Good-bye America … you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

It’s up to you now.

*******************************
Letter to Democratic Congress
By Cindy Sheehan
Tuesday 29 May 2007

May 26, 2007
Dublin, Ireland

Dear Democratic Congress,

Hello, my name is Cindy Sheehan and my son Casey Sheehan was killed on April 04, 2004 in Sadr City, Baghdad, Iraq. He was killed when the Republicans still were in control of Congress. Naively, I set off on my tireless campaign calling on Congress to rescind George’s authority to wage his war of terror while asking him “for what noble cause” did Casey and thousands of other have to die. Now, with Democrats in control of Congress, I have lost my optimistic naiveté and have become cynically pessimistic as I see you all caving into, as one Daily Kos poster called: “Mr. 28%”

There is absolutely no sane or defensible reason for you to hand Bloody King George more money to condemn more of our brave, tired, and damaged soldiers and the people of Iraq to more death and carnage. You think giving him more money is politically expedient, but it is a moral abomination and every second the occupation of Iraq endures, you all have more blood on your hands.

Ms. Pelosi, Speaker of the House, said after George signed the new weak as a newborn baby funding authorization bill: “Now, I think the president’s policy will begin to unravel.” Begin to unravel? How many more of our children will have to be killed and how much more of Iraq will have to be demolished before you all think enough unraveling has occurred? How many more crimes will BushCo be allowed to commit while their poll numbers are crumbling before you all gain the political “courage” to hold them accountable? If Iraq hasn’t unraveled in Ms. Pelosi’s mind, what will it take? With almost 700,000 Iraqis dead and four million refugees (which the US refuses to admit) how could it get worse? Well, it is getting worse and it can get much worse thanks to your complicity.

Being cynically pessimistic, it seems to me that this new vote to extend the war until the end of September, (and let’s face it, on October 1st, you will give him more money after some more theatrics, which you think are fooling the anti-war faction of your party) will feed right into the presidential primary season and you believe that if you just hang on until then, the Democrats will be able to re-take the White House. Didn’t you see how “well” that worked for John Kerry in 2004 when he played the politics of careful fence-sitting and pandering? The American electorate are getting disgusted with weaklings who blow where the wind takes them while frittering away our precious lifeblood and borrowing money from our new owners, the Chinese.

I knew having a Democratic Congress would make no difference in grassroots action. That’s why we went to DC when you all were sworn in to tell you that we wanted the troops back from Iraq and BushCo held accountable while you pushed for ethics reform which is quite a hoot … don’t’ you think? We all know that it is affordable for you all to play this game of political mayhem because you have no children in harm’s way…let me tell you what it is like:

You watch your reluctant soldier march off to a war that neither you nor he agrees with. Once your soldier leaves the country all you can do is worry. You lie awake at night staring at the moon wondering if today will be the day that you get that dreaded knock on your door. You can’t concentrate, you can’t eat, and your entire life becomes consumed with apprehension while you are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Then, when your worst fears are realized, you begin a life of constant pain, regret, and longing. Everyday is hard, but then you come up on “special” days … like upcoming Memorial Day. Memorial Day holds double pain for me because, not only are we supposed to honor our fallen troops, but Casey was born on Memorial Day in 1979. It used to be a day of celebration for us and now it is a day of despair. Our needlessly killed soldiers of this war and the past conflict in Vietnam have all left an unnecessary trail of sorrow and deep holes of absence that will never be filled.

So, Democratic Congress, with the current daily death toll of 3.72 troops per day, you have condemned 473 more to these early graves. 473 more lives wasted for your political greed: Thousands of broken hearts because of your cowardice and avarice. How can you even go to sleep at night or look at yourselves in a mirror? How do you put behind you the screaming mothers on both sides of the conflict? How does the agony you have created escape you? It will never escape me … I can’t run far enough or hide well enough to get away from it.

By the end of September, we will be about 80 troops short of another bloody milestone: 4000, and MoveOn.org will hold nationwide candlelight vigils and you all will be busy passing legislation that will snuff the lights out of thousands more human beings.

Congratulations Congress, you have bought yourself a few more months of an illegal and immoral bloodbath. And you know you mean to continue it indefinitely so “other presidents” can solve the horrid problem BushCo forced our world into.

It used to be George Bush’s war. You could have ended it honorably. Now it is yours and you all will descend into calumnious history with BushCo.

The Camp Casey Peace Institute is calling all citizens who are as disgusted as we are with you all to join us in Philadelphia on July 4th to try and figure a way out of this “two” party system that is bought and paid for by the war machine which has a stranglehold on every aspect of our lives. As for myself, I am leaving the Democratic Party. You have completely failed those who put you in power to change the direction our country is heading. We did not elect you to help sink our ship of state but to guide it to safe harbor.

We do not condone our government’s violent meddling in sovereign countries and we condemn the continued murderous occupation of Iraq.

We gave you a chance, you betrayed us.

Sincerely,
Cindy Sheehan
Founder and President of
Gold Star Families for Peace.

Founder and Director of The Camp Casey Peace Institute

Eternally grieving mother of Casey Sheehan

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Except for endorsing the views and information contained herein, Cyrano’s Journal Online has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is CJO endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Tags: The Left & Pseudo Left, Obstinate History, Mediocrats, Imperial Policy by Greanville
3 Comments »

BY SADI RANSON-POLIZZOTTI, tant mieux project (2004)

12 July 1921—13 April 2007

Author extraordinaire Hans Koning was born in Amsterdam and remembers being in high school when the Germans invaded his country on May 10, 1940. Koning, thankfully, managed to escape, and in 1942, he fled to England where he enlisted in The British Army (7 Troop, 4 Commando). After the stint, Koning attended The University of Amsterdam and The Sorbonne. A quick review: after university, Koning was invited to Indonesia to take part in a radio program on western arts and literature. When his contract was up, Koning decided to go back to Holland and saw his way back through his homeland by way of Los Angeles. After some time, Koning returned to America and boarded a Greyhound bus to New York City where he found a job in publicity at the Dutch cultural attaché’s office. Ever the traveler, Koning moved yet again, this time to Mexico where he wrote his first novel, the one that would Koning’s career as a great writer of great fiction that was always on the cutting edge, always unexpected and original and always well-received. The book was “The Affair.”

Like so many foreign authors in the United States, Koning initially found it difficult to find an American base audience. Sadly, this is not uncommon. Many great foreign writers do not get published in the U.S. for some time and often, it is a younger editor who spots the talent and is willing to take the chance. What’s more, as more and more sales people are driving editorial decisions at the big houses, it becomes even harder for literature, let alone foreign literature or any work in translation, to find a home, regardless of how worthy or wonderful the book, a fact many foreign writers, including the late and great Marguerite Duras also came up against before her book The Lover was finally published to great acclaim (the book was initially rejected by many houses who felt the book “too foreign” for American audiences).

In Koning’s case, it took two years before “The Affair” found a good home with the excellent publisher Alfred A. Knopf where, after publication, the book won Koning considerable success and excellent reviews and set Koning on course as a writer of great fiction. Since then, Koning has established himself as one of the foremost writers today, having written thirteen novels as well as numerous works of nonfiction that cover topics as broad ranging as China, Che Guevara, Russia, and so much more.

It’s likely you’ve seen Koning’s work many times in The New Yorker or The Atlantic Monthly I had the great honor of publishing Koning’s novel Pursuit of a Woman on the Hinge of History when I was running my own imprint - Lumen Editions. “Pursuit” not only garnered great critical success with reviews from The New York Times and all the big nationals, but also had tremendous attention in general and demand. When Koning writes, as I knew when I bought the book, people will stop and they will read and they will listen to what he has to say. They do this because he is established but more, because Koning delivers the unexpected. His novels, while similar in that they all bear the Koning style and grace of writing, manage to be remarkably different. Like the author himself, the books keep us thinking, keep us on our toes, and always until the last page, keep us guessing and wanting more.

In short, Hans Koning is anything but predictable and this may be but one of the keys to his great success as a writer and a journalist. And speaking of unpredictable on the day of our interview, we get a glimpse into classic Koning, quick, witty and fierce a radical as ever and always, carrying with him a sincere empathy and ferocity that seem at once contradictory and yet, coming from Koning, complimentary. At last, we have a rebel with a cause. Here is Hans Koning:

Hans, your first book, The Affair took two years to find a good home, where it finally found a good home and considerable success with Knopf. I know you and I have discussed this, but why do you think foreign or European writers have such a hard time getting published in America? Is there just a different sentiment? OR do you think that publishing has fundamentally changed?

A: Knopf was not a good home for Alfred hated The Affair; he was chagrined at is success and when I heard this, I decided to leave him (proud but stupid) Then he wouldn’t let me go and we had to appeal with the Guild. About “foreign writers”: well, the US is parochial, and of course publishing has changed drastically, the marketing director vetoes the editors. Literature is largely a dirty word. But Europe is hardly better, France is (still) different, translating is still a risk taken. (5 of my novels were published in France

Hans, I know you were for a time, Stokeley Carmichael’s pistol-carrying bodyguard. Where you the only white member of the Black Panthers? What drew you to that group specifically? Where you politically aligned and if so, in what way… what were you politics at the time… it sounds like you were a bit of a radical to say the least. Tell me about that…

A: I wasn’t a “member” of the Panthers, no such thing. I, and other “honkies” (as sixties slang had it), were simply, on their side; justice, anti- Vietwar, and so on… Of course I was, and am, a radical (and paid for it; this didn’t make you popular with publishers and critics).

I know you have written a great deal for The New Yorker and The Atlantic Monthly. What is the nature of the articles you write for them?

A: Mostly, reports from other places on the globe, the kind of reporting which The New Yorker did so well with its “Letters from –” A different approach than found in the NY Times. I (we) saw farther, weren’t believers in “The US is the most moral country” as was basic then *(and will be again under Bush.)

At one time, I believe you were a foreign correspondent, is that right?

A: I was “Reporter-at-Large” for The New Yorker.

Which agency, if any one particular, did you work for? Tell me briefly or in depth, whichever you prefer, where you went, what sorts of things you reported on. It sounds like a dangerous job, but an interesting one. Tell me about that.

A: China, Russia, Egypt, East Germany, Cuba, World War I and II, Mexico, Argentina, a.o. No agency, just directly for the magazines (note: as above question).

Did you ever fear for your life on such assignments?

A: In China and Indonesia I’ve been in tight spots. But “fear for my life” is too strong.

You’ve done so much nonfiction and yet you are a prolific fiction writer as well. That’s hard to do - most people are good at one, not both. How do you reconcile your fiction with your nonfiction? is there any intersection of the two works - i.e., examples or events that you experienced that you then fictionalize, or is it all purely made up?

A: I hardly see an intersection. The subject of fiction, for me, is the human condition, “love and death”. Non-fiction is concerned with human action-reaction in history. But clear writing is clear writing.

That makes me wonder, do you believe that fiction is ever truly made up? Or do you think that all fiction writers tend to draw on their own lives and their own experience and then gussy it up, fictionalize it a bit?

A: Some do, some don’t; a novel “is” a man or a woman, but the “it really happened” label is stupid and assuredly not something that makes a book literature.

Of your own fiction - then apply the last question - is most of it fantasy, made up? or is Hans Koning in there in some ways? I mean, isn’t that unavoidable to some extent?

A: Of course I am in there (see above) but this is not something to “avoid.” What happens in a novel is secondary. Primary is that the ideas and actions ring true, throw light on la condition humaine.

You’ve lived in the states for a long time now. Do you go to Europe for part of the year or head home just to touch bas with your roots, or do you live in the states year round?

A: I go to Europe as much as feasible, just to stay sane. Not to Holland necessarily or in the first place.

You have been in your life and extremely political person, yet I see a balance there. At one time, I know you still carried a pistol - was that a lay-over from the Black Panther days, or do you and did you then, still fear that living in this climate, one needs to carry a weapon, that one is safer? I know you’ve had some real personal hardships, and we don’t need to go there, but you must have your reasons — tell me about that.

A: I still have one (little) pistol. It would make things more equal if I had to protect myself or a daughter of mine or whomever against an eighteen year old mugger. I was in a rifle and fence club as a student, those were Olympic sports, a very diff. atmosphere than the Am Rifle guys. And then also of course “my” war. I had a Luger with a swastika on it that was taken from a German sergeant.

Would you say that any writer’s have influenced your work? i.e., who did you read and admire when you were just starting out and do you see parts of that author in the work that you’ve produced?

A: Perhaps, to a degree. Stendhal, Giovanni Verga, Joyce Joyce Joyce, other Russians, Djuna Barnes, a.o.

Any young writers that you admire now or that you see mimicking your style?

A: Not really, but I read little modern writers, lack of time mostly.

What books are you reading at the moment?

A: Only 1812 by Paul Britten Austin.

How many books have you written now, Hans - divided into fiction and nonfiction?

A: Fourteen novels so far and six non-fiction books, give or take one or to.

Of the two categories, would you say one is closer to your heart - fiction or nonfiction?

A: I would say fiction. At its best, literature is more revealing to the human condition than any non-fiction.

And in that category, do you have a particular or sentimental favorite of all time, or do you value each of your books for different reasons. So many writers I interview value different books for different reasons or times in their life. What about you? Which book, if there is a favorite and why that one?

A: Perhaps — “perhaps” because I don’t usually think in these terms, “I Know what I’m doing” and” The Kleber Flight” because rereading some of that I am surprised at myself that I got it just right.

You mentioned in an earlier question that you had been in some tricky situations while working as a foreign correspondent, though you hadn’t feared for your life. I think that must take incredible bravery. Do you think it’s that, or is it more that you just got wrapped up in what you were doing and so it wasn’t an issue for you?

A: No bravery involved, just a certain laissez-faire shrug.

What advice would you give any young radicals today? Say, those who are looking to change the world in some way and still have that youthful optimism and belief?

A: I would perhaps call it a 19th century optimism - youthfulness doesn’t enter into it. “Keep going,” I’d say, don’t take yourself too seriously, take the world very seriously.

In your own words, what would you say makes someone a true revolutionary as you certainly have been and continue to be?

A: I cannot answer that, it is all much more iffy and changing. A belief in human justice, perhaps; finding in the fearful mystery of life a reason to make people’s lives in general, and esp. children’s lives as good as can be.

I know you once ran for office — which office was it? If after reading this, people want to vote for Hans Koning, what office would you fill?

A: I was running for Conn. state senator on a Green Party ticket. I came out second: the district was 80 % black-demo. (But then the Gov of CT put number 1 in his cabinet and I could have made it on the repeat election but decided time was better spent on writing.)

You’ve had so many amazing experiences in your life and at one time, I believe you were an attaché with the Dutch consulate, is that right?

A: Yes, after arriving in NY from Indonesia with a dollar in my pocket, the Dutch Embassy gave me a publicity job -diplomatic, no work permit needed, and tax-free Scotch at a dollar a bottle.

It’s easy to see given how you’ve lived your life, with your foreign correspondent days, the books you write and their themes, that you sort of seem like a secret agent in some ways. Does that seem strange to you? Why do you think people view you that way, or do you not see it?

A: No, I don’t see that. A crypto-commie or an anarchist maybe, but not a secret agent. But make me an offer!

Tell me what is on your desk at the moment?

1. Typewriter
2. Discarded pages from novel I am writing
3. First 60 pp of that novel
4. Bose ear stops
5. Pens and pencils
6. Webster’s New World Dictionary
7. Larousse.

If you had a mantra that you could have the whole world repeat every day, a simple phrase to help us all have some hope for the future, what would it be?

A: Nul n’est besoin d’esperer pour entreprendre; that was William of Orange’s mantra. (16th century Holland). (*You don’t need to hope in order to do)

I’d like to thank Hans Koning for the sit-down and for his usual frankness and generosity of time. To find out more, you can Google Koning, or check out his work on Amazon or begin with any of his books - they’re all good. Other work can be found in The New Yorker and The Atlantic Monthly and many other publications.

—FINIS—

NOTE: Word reached us a bit late about Hans’ departure from this world, on 13 April 2007, at his home in Easton, Conn., not too far from where Cyrano’s main office is located. Impeccably urbane, the epitome of a cosmopolitan, civilized human being, Hans had no difficulty casting a romantic and influential shadow among many intellectuals of his time, not to mention younger generations, this writer included. It is a reflection of his character that, despite a sad malentendu between us at the personal level, our tacit attitude toward each other remained one of mutual respect and genuine affection for a comrade. His passing is a loss to us all, but we are comforted that he left a rich harvest of visions and carefully marshalled moral facts, and a fine example for those serious in the pursuit of justice. —Patrice Greanville

Tags: The Left & Pseudo Left, Book Reviews, Obstinate History by Greanville
2 Comments »

No need for their kind of takeover. Not subtle enough for American consumption.

BY RICHARD BLAIR

Posted on May 17, 2007, Printed on May 18, 2007 | Originally at AlterNet
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//52019/

During the time the Vietnam war was in full swing, Edward Luttwak wrote a seminal book on the phenomena of overthrowing governments, Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook. In defining the attributes of a typical coup, Luttwak explains:

A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.

Let that definition rattle around your brain for a moment.

When we think of coups, our mental image tends to be populated by medal-festooned lapels of banana republic military commanders, surrounded by gun toting militias riding around in jeeps, in a location somewhere south of the equator. Obviously, that is not an accurate picture. A coup is typically a partnership between civilian politicians (usually, but not always, by the party in opposition to the current government) and sympathetic military commanders. Contrary to popular concept, the “use of military or other organized force is not the defining feature of a coup d’état”. It can be argued, though, that co-opted military command of civilian authority and positions is integral to consolidation of power in a coup environment.

With yesterday’s appointment of General Lute as the war czar, there are more active duty military commanders involved in the operational control of America’s war and intelligence efforts than ever before. Additionally, James Comey’s remarks this week to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the race to John Ashcroft’s hospital bed to authorize the warrentless wiretap program, we get a small peek behind the curtain of how the Bush regime has operated, time and time again, outside the bounds of (at least) propriety and (potentially) beyond the confines of constitutional authority.

The confluence of several events over the past year or so lead to the question: did a true coup d’état occur in the U.S., and we missed it? …

Since the time that George Bush came to power in the contested election of 2000, many have opined that the Supreme Court decision in Bush -v- Gore was, in fact, a coup. Legal historians will certainly be arguing the finer points of the SCOTUS decision long after most of us are dead. However, a coup in the classic sense requires that fundamental changes occur to both the power structure of a government and the precepts of enabling documents and legislation (for example, constitutional interpretations).

Setting aside the constitutionality and use of presidential signing statements and all of the other challenges to constitutional authority that have occurred in the past 6 years, let’s just take a quick look at the recent militarization of the heretofore civilian infrastructure of the U.S. government:

Item: In an unprecedented presidential appointment, active duty General Michael Hayden was installed as director of the CIA in 2006.

Item: General David Petraeus makes the rounds in Washington, and updates political leaders on progress / lack thereof in Iraq. George Bush holds a press conference, and invokes Petraeus’ name no less than 12 times. He also implores, “Let the commanders do their job”. Some would argue that Bush is abdicating his authority (and responsibility) as Commander in Chief for the prosecution of war.

Item: 11 GOP congressmen hold a frank conversation with Bush, telling him that he has no clothes (or credibility). They’ll “only believe General Petraeus”.

Item: Active duty generals are going on record (at least anonymously) telling journalists that they’ll “revolt against the regime” in September if the regime is still sticking with the surge into 2008.

Item: General Petraeus denies that he has come under pressure from President Bush or other political leaders to paint a false or skewed picture of the U.S. military campaign in Iraq:

“I am not being pressured by the president to say anything,” Petraeus told reporters after 3 hours of back-to-back briefings of House and Senate members on the situation in Iraq. “I am not going to be pressured by political leaders of either party.”

Item: Lt. Gen. Lute is selected as the Bush regime’s “war czar”, in an apparent direct contravention to the constitution of the United States and the powers of the executive branch. Thoroughly unreported in the U.S. legacy media (or even the progressive new media) is that Lute views the internet as a battleground in the war on terror.

Either Gen. Petraeus is being set up as the biggest patsy in history, or he’s already taken over. He’s basically been anointed as the “honest broker” and ombudsman between the Bush regime and congress. Everyone is deferring to him, and it doesn’t seem as if much of anyone is questioning Gen. Lute’s new job, either. The civilian cabinet position of Secretary of War was deprecated in 1947, but it seems that it’s now been resurrected, and that a military guy is running the show. General Hayden is running the intelligence apparatus of the United States, and holds no allegiance to the civilian legislative branch, even though that branch was required to confirm him (another GOP rubber stamp job in 2006).

It’s acceptable to squirm in your chair a little bit. Perhaps “coup” is too strong of a word, but clearly, the Bush regime has consolidated the executive branch’s hold over the military, and the military’s current influence over day-to-day decision making at the highest levels of government is pretty much unprecedented in U.S. history.

Perhaps more to the point, it’s really bothersome because I don’t think we can click those ruby slippers and go back to Kansas again, Dorothy…

Richard Blair is a Philadelphia area freelance writer and the blogmaster of All Spin Zone.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers//52019/

Tags: Obstinate History, Imperial Policy by Greanville
No Comments »

BY URI AVNERY | 5.19.07

THE WINOGRAD committee of inquiry is not a part of the solution. It is a part of the problem.

Now, after the first excitement caused by the publication of the partial report has died down, it is possible to evaluate it. The conclusion is that it has done much more harm than good.

The positive side is well known. The committee has accused the three directors of the war - the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense and the Chief-of-Staff - of many faults. The committee’s favorite word is “failure”.

It is worthwhile to ponder this word. What does it say? A person “fails” when he does not fulfill his task. The nature of the task itself is not considered, but only the fact that it has not been accomplished.

The use of the word “failure” all over the report is by itself a failure of the committee. The new Hebrew word invented by the protest groups - something like “ineptocrats” - fits all of the five committee members.

IN WHAT did the three musketeers of the war leadership fail, according to the committee?

The decision to go to war was taken in haste. The war aims proclaimed by the Prime Minister were unrealistic. There was no detailed and finalized military plan. There was no orderly staff-work. The government adopted the improvised proposal of the Chief-of-Staff at it was, without alternatives being offered or requested. The Chief-of-Staff thought that he would win by bombing and shelling alone. No ground attack was planned. The reserves were not called up in time. The ground campaign got off very late. In the years before the war, the forces were not properly trained. Much equipment was missing from the emergency stores. The big ground attack, which cost the lives of so many soldiers, started only when the terms of the cease-fire were already agreed upon in the UN.

Strong medicine. What is the conclusion? That we must learn these lessons and improve our performance quickly, before we start the next war.

And indeed, a large part of the public drew precisely this conclusion: the three “ineptocrats” have to be removed, their place has to be filled by three leaders who are more responsible and “experienced”, and we should then start Lebanon War III, so as to repair the damage caused by Lebanon War II.

The army has lost its deterrent power? We shall get it back in the next war. There was no successful ground attack? We shall do better next time. In the next war, we shall penetrate deeper.

The entire problem is technical. New leaders with military experience, orderly staff-work, meticulous preparations, an army chief from the ranks of the ground forces instead of a flying commander - and then everything will be OK.

THE MOST important part of the report is the one that is not there. The report is full of holes, like the proverbial Swiss cheese.

There is no mention of the fact that this was from the start a superfluous, senseless and hopeless war.

Such an accusation would be very serious. A war causes death and destruction on both sides. It is immoral to start one unless there is a clear danger to the very existence of the state. According to the report, Lebanon War II had no specific aim. That means that this war was not forced on us by any existential necessity. Such a war is a crime.

What did the trio go to war for? In theory: in order to free the two captured soldiers. This week, Ehud Olmert admitted publicly that he knew quite well that the soldiers could not be freed by war. That means that when he decided to start the war, he blatantly lied to the people. George Bush style.

Hizbullah, too, does not present an existential danger to the State of Israel. An irritation? Yes. A provocative enemy? Absolutely. An existential danger? Surely not.

For these problems, political solutions could be found. It was clear then, as it is now, that the prisoners must be freed through a prisoner exchange deal. The Hizbullah threat can be removed only by political means, since it stems from political causes.

THE COMMITTEE accuses the government of not examining military alternatives to the Chief-of-Staff’s proposals. By the same token, the committee itself can be accused of not examining political alternatives to the government’s decision to go to war.

Hizbullah is primarily a political organization, a part of the complex reality of Lebanon. For centuries, the Shiites in South Lebanon were downtrodden by the stronger communities - the Maronites, the Sunnis and the Druze. When the Israeli army invaded Lebanon in 1982, the Shiites received them as liberators. After it became apparent that our army did not intend to go away, the Shiites started a war of liberation against them. Only then, in the course of the long and ultimately successful guerilla war, did the Shiites emerge as a major force in Lebanon. If there were justice in the world, Hizbullah would erect statues of Ariel Sharon.

In order to strengthen their position, the Shiites needed help. They got it from the Islamic Republic of Iran, the natural patron of all the Shiites in the region. But even more important was the help coming from Syria.

And why did Sunnite Syria come to the aid of the Shiite Hizbullah? Because it wanted to create a double threat: against the government in Beirut and against the government in Jerusalem.

Syria has never given up its foothold in Lebanon. In the eyes of the Syrians, Lebanon is an integral part of their homeland, which was torn from it by the French colonialists. A look at the map is sufficient to show why Lebanon is so important for Syria, both economically and militarily. Hizbullah provides Syria with a stake in the Lebanese arena.

The encouragement and support of Hizbullah as a threat against Israel is even more important for Syria. Damascus wants to regain the Golan Heights, which were conquered by Israel in 1967. This, for Syrians, is a paramount national duty, a matter of national pride, and they will not give it up for any price. They know that for now, they cannot win a war against Israel. Hizbullah offers an alternative: continual pinpricks that are intended to remind Israel that it might be worthwhile to return the Golan.

Anyone who ignores this political background and sees Hizbullah only as a military problem shows himself to be an ignoramus. It was the duty of the committee to say so clearly, instead of prattling on about “orderly staff-work” and “military alternatives”. It should have issued a red card to the three ineptocrats for not weighing the political alternative to the war: negotiations with Syria for neutralizing the Hizbullah threat by means of an Israeli-Syrian-Lebanese accord. The price would have been an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan heights.

By not doing so, the committee really said: there is no escape from Lebanon War III. But please, folks, try harder next time.

A CONSPICUOUS hole in the report concerns the international background of the war.

The part played by the United States was obvious from the first moment. Olmert would not have decided to start the war without obtaining explicit American permission. If the US had forbidden it, Olmert would not have dreamt of starting it.

George Bush had an interest in this war. He was (and is) stuck in the Iraqi morass. He is trying to put the blame on Syria. Therefore he wanted to strike a blow against Damascus. He also wanted to break the Lebanese opposition, in order to help America’s proxy in Beirut. He was sure that it would be a cakewalk for the Israeli army.

When the expected victory was late in coming, American diplomacy did everything possible to prevent a cease-fire, so as to “give time” to the Israeli army to win. That was done almost openly.

How much did the Americans dictate to Olmert the decision to start the war, to bomb Lebanon (but not the infrastructure of the Siniora government), to prolong the war and to start a ground offensive at the last moment? We don’t know. Perhaps the committee dealt with this in the secret part of the report. But without this information it is impossible to understand what happened, and therefore the report is to a large extent worthless for understanding the war.

WHAT ELSE is missing in the report? Hard to believe, but there is not a single word about the terrible suffering inflicted on the Lebanese population.

Under the influence of the Chief-of-Staff, the government agreed to a strategy that said: let’s bomb Lebanon, turn the life of the Lebanese into hell, so they will exert pressure on their government in Beirut, which will then disband Hizbullah. It was slavish imitation of the American strategy in Kosovo and Afghanistan.

This strategy killed about a thousand Lebanese, destroyed whole neighborhoods, bridges and roads, and not only in Shiite areas. From the military point of view, that was easy to do, but the political price was immense. For weeks pictures of the death and destruction wrought by Israel dominated world news. It is impossible to measure the damage done to Israel’s standing in world public opinion, damage that is irreversible and that will have lasting consequences.

All this did not interest the committee. It concerned itself only with the military side. The political side it ignored, except to remark that the Foreign Minister was not invited to the important consultations. The moral side was not mentioned at all.

Nor is the occupation mentioned. The committee ignores a fact that cries out to heaven: that an army cannot be capable of conducting a modern war when for 40 years it has been employed as a colonial police force in occupied territories. An officer who acts like a drunken Cossak against unarmed peace activists or stone-throwing children, as shown this week on television, cannot lead a company in real war. That is one of the most important lessons of Lebanon War II: the occupation has corrupted the Israeli army to the core. How can this be ignored?

THE COMMITTEE judges Olmert and Peretz as unfit because of their lack of “experience”, meaning military experience. This can lead to the conclusion that the Israeli democracy cannot rely on civilian leaders, that it needs leaders who are generals. It imposes on the country a military agenda. That may well be the most dangerous result.

This week I saw on the internet a well-done presentation by the “Reservists”, a group of embittered reserve soldiers set up to lead the protest against the three “ineptocrats”. It shows, picture after picture, many of the failures of the war, and reaches its climax with the statement that the incompetent political leadership did not allow the army to win.

The young producers of this presentation are certainly unaware of the unpleasant smell surrounding this idea, the odor of the “Dolchstoss im Ruecken” - the stab in the back of the army. Otherwise they would probably not have expressed themselves in this form, which served not so long ago as the rallying cry of German Fascism.

Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, left wing peace activist, and Knesset member, who was originally a member of the rightwing Revisionist Zionist movement. He’s the founder of Gush Shalom, Israel’s leading antiwar organization.

Tags: Obstinate History, Imperial Policy by greanville
4 Comments »

Oblivious to the truth and the contradictions of the situation, a misguided mom crisscrosses the country in a superpatriotically decorated Hummer (!) in honor of her son and fellow Marines’ sacrifices.

A CAPSULE ASSESSMENT

There are those who believe (and can’t understand why) American foreign policy has been such a “resounding failure.” I’m afraid such folks are painfully mistaken. US foreign policy has NOT been a failure from the perspective of its creators and direct beneficiaries. It has been a fantastic success story—at least until September 11—when, for the first time in a long, uninterrupted American imperial history of sordid and criminal interventions in other nations’ affairs, we experienced some of the “blowback” widely anticipated by even many of our own experts.

With 9/11 the era of “total impunity” for our actions may have come to an abrupt end, but now we have entered a more complex period of “quasi-impunity” which is still a major godsend for the very folks who put us into this quandary. For in this new era of widespread fear and open-ended “wars on terror” the plutocracies who always benefitted lavishly from our criminal foreign policy have found a new pretext to deepen and extend their near-absolute control over government levers around the world, beginning with our own.

So what are the basic facts? By now they are widely known, at least in progressive circles, so I will not go into any detailed account of this sordid chapter of “the American Experience.”

More than a century ago, sensing that their time has come, the leading American corporatists of the age set out to expand the United States “sphere of influence.” As is customary with adventures of this type, this newfangled imperial notion required from the start more than a normal diet of lies to the people. Lies to manufacture “valid” reasons for wars in distant places (such as the trumped up reasons for the 1898 war with Spain that yielded Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines); for toppling existing governments that refused to do our bidding; for making enduring alliances with enormously unsavory characters in all latitudes, and for robbing sovereign nations—such as Mexico—of large chunks of their territories.

The chief and almost exclusive purpose of this wholesale robbery and murder across the globe was the classical reason fueling most colonialist interventions: the quest by the nation’s plutocratic circles to seek further sources of riches and power, and, in the case of the US, the first nation to practice reactionism with a clear class-conscious agenda, to perpetuate their system of structured (but carefully concealed) selfishness.  In all of this they were wildly successful, even now that the legendary chickens are finally coming home to roost. As a result of such policies, always carefully wrapped in the robe of sanctimonious superpatriostism or a suitable moral crusade, the plutocracy enriched itself beyond its wildest expectations. Croesus-rich even before the empire seeking adventure began at the turn of the 20th century, by now these elites have become masters of the universe.

So let’s get this straight, and let the new Judges for a new Nuremberg remember this: The moneyed elites have acted and they do what they do with open eyes about the perfidy and hypocrisy of their policies. No use telling them that such policies are immoral, as well-intentioned people are always trying to do. They know it. Nor, for that matter, giving them counsel about how misguided such policies are in terms of the “real facts on the ground.” Again, they know that or they simply don’t care. And why should they? They have specific class objectives to fulfill and the real cost, like when some dying has to be done, or when some treasure has to be emptied—is not likely to fall on their shoulders. They have us, the perennially bamboozled, to do the heavy lifting.

So what’s the real problem? The real problem, and the constant engine for such criminal policies lies in the disconnect between the true aims of the American and world plutocracies and the interests of the people whom they continue to mislead under the pretense of “democracy.” As a result, they can never admit, up front, why they topple an Iranian premier in the 1950s, or engineer a bloodbath in Indonesia in the 60s, or they go into Iraq in 2003, for example, or attack Nicaragua in the 1970s, or strangle Cuba for half a century, and so on. They can’t afford to come clean because the American masses might not only NOT follow them, but throw them in jail or worse.

Having ridden the tiger of imperialist falsehoods for so long, now they can’t risk dismounting. Hence they have to go on invoking that long litany of repulsive lies that refer the public mind to the highest and noblest motives.  And they still manage to fool quite a few, I’ll say that.  By last count, 80 million Americans remained mired in this kind of mental cesspool, in this highly adulterated version of reality, ready to support this crowd’s abominable and increasingly deranged goals.

—Patrice Greanville

Tags: Obstinate History, Imperial Policy by Greanville
4 Comments »