African Voices: Why some of us ROOT for V Putin!

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

FEMI AKOMOLAFE

Resize text-+=

Why some of us ROOT for V Putin!

No, we are not Russian bots and are not persuaded by Russian propaganda, even though I feel entitled to be swayed by whatever I choose.

It is the 500+ years of unremitting violence and destruction that people of the European Stock have inflicted on the rest of humanity that makes some of us cheer Putin as he struggles to end the hegemonic domination of the World by Westerners.

I am no expert on biology, much less on genetics, so I cannot offer opinions on what exactly makes people of European extraction find it impossible to live and let live. Why do they have an insatiable desire to dominate and control?

It would not be such a bad thing if other people were persuaded by the superiority of the Western ways of life that they wanted to emulate and copy, but why must Europeans try to impose their ways of life on other people through violence?

Just look at this video of Hilary Clinton gloating like a demented hyena over the [brutal] death of Muammar Ghadafi!

!function(r,u,m,b,l,e){r._Rumble=b,r[b]||(r[b]=function(){(r[b]._=r[b]._||[]).push(arguments);if(r[b]._.length==1){l=u.createElement(m),e=u.getElementsByTagName(m)[0],l.async=1,l.src="https://rumble.com/embedJS/u4"+(arguments[1].video?'.'+arguments[1].video:'')+"/?url="+encodeURIComponent(location.href)+"&args="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify([].slice.apply(arguments))),e.parentNode.insertBefore(l,e)}})}(window, document, "script", "Rumble");

Rumble("play", {"video":"v53f43k","div":"rumble_v53f43k"});

Whatever his offense or shortcomings, Ghadafi was a Sovereign head of a sovereign nation. What gave Sarkozy and “brother” Obama the right to kill him?

Sample this:

“The leaders of the US, the UK and France have said in a joint letter that there can be no peace in Libya while Muammar Gaddafi stays in power. Barack Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy say Nato must maintain military operations to protect civilians and maintain pressure on Col Gaddafi. To allow him to remain in power would "betray" the Libyan people, they write. Signs of division remain within NATO, which is struggling to find additional combat aircraft for its strikes.UK Foreign Secretary William Hague met his US counterpart Hillary Clinton at a Nato summit on Friday, before telling the BBC he was "hopeful" more aircraft could eventually be found.” - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13089758

And this:

2. Today, President Obama called for the President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, to step aside and took the strongest financial action against the Syrian regime (sic) thus far. Here is President Obama's full statement on the situation in Syria: The United States has been inspired by the Syrian peoples’ pursuit of a peaceful transition to democracy. They have braved ferocious brutality at the hands of their government. They have spoken with their peaceful marches, their silent shaming of the Syrian regime, and their courageous persistence in the face of brutality – day after day, week after week. The Syrian government has responded with a sustained onslaught. I strongly condemn this brutality, including the disgraceful attacks on Syrian civilians in cities like Hama and Deir al Zour, and the arrests of opposition figures who have been denied justice and subjected to torture at the hands of the regime. These violations of the universal rights of the Syrian people have revealed to Syria, the region, and the world the Assad government’s flagrant disrespect for the dignity of the Syrian people.” - https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2011/08/18/President-obama-future-syria-must-be-determined-its-people-President-bashar-al-assad

Who gave these murderous imperialists the right to kill a Head of State?

While we can hold our noses and try to tolerate their sickening self-reverential posture, the Sense of Entitlement of Westerners is simply disgusting.

Just consider the behaviour of the French in their colonies (I did not say ex-colonies) in West and Central Africa, the arrogant disposition of the British settlers in places like Kenya, and the racist hubris of German settlers in Namibia!

And talk about their behaviours not in the 19th or 20th century but right now!

The most disturbing part of Westerners' behaviour is that they continue to visit on the rest of the world what they would find unacceptable if done to them. The same people gallop around the world breathlessly pontificating about their Father in Heaven, who should forgive them as they forgive those who trespass against them!

Hypocrisy of the highest degree!

Besides trying to safeguard his country’s wealth, how did Gaddafi trespass against either Obama, Sarkozy, or Tony ‘Lying’ Blair?

©️ Fẹ́mi Akọ́mọ‌láfẹ́
(Farmer, Writer, Published Author, and Social Commentator.)
Kindly subscribe to my Substack here: HTTPS://femiakogun.Substack.com
You can Chat with me on my Substack here: https://tinyurl.com/y6yueb7d

Femi Akomolafe is a Freelance writer, Author, Film & Video Documentary Producer, IT Consultant and Web-Designer. He is a Columnist for the Accra-based Daily Dispatch newspaper, and a Correspondent for the New African magazine. Femi, a committed Pan-Africanist, is a Karate-do Enthusiast. Email: fakomolafe@gmail.com

Subscribe to Femi African Report

By Femi Akomolafe · Launched 2 years ago
Femi Akomolafe Pan-African Corner

Discussion about this post

Comments

Caribbean Hawk

Freedom, Liberty And Sovereignty

Oct 16Liked by Femi Akomolafe

We in the Caribbean have suffered 500 years of colonial-imperialist domination ever since Columbus landed on our shores. As a legacy of this colonial plunder of the Caribbean we the people of African heritage are today in the grip of financial servitude to the American and European bankers and their multi-lateral lending institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. None of the so-called politically independent Caribbean countries are truly sovereign nations. None of them can take independent action to improve our economy and social services to a level that our people do not have to emigrate in thousands to other countries in search of better opportunities. Ironically the majority of our contemporary politicians are satisfied with the status quo, a posture similar to most slaves at the beginning of the 19th century who saw no alternative to remaining in servitude. Emancipation in 1832 was for them a major shock. A similar historical inflection point is imminent as Putin and Russia are on the verge of a historical defeat of the Anglo-Saxon 500-year historical domination. Such a defeat which will eventually force the Caribbean out of its current slumber regardless of the feelings of the politicians and the ruling elites.

LIKE (2)

Surviving the Billionaire Wars

Mary’s Newsletter

Oct 16Liked by Femi Akomolafe

I'll put it this way. In my youth I did not believe in Satan.

Now I do.

LIKE (2)

Lili News 029

In cynicism and power, the US propaganda machine easily surpasses Orwells Ministry of Truth.
Now the fight against anti-semitism is being weaponised as a new sanctimonious McCarthyism.
Unless opposed, neither justice nor our Constitutional right to Free Speech will survive this assault.

URL has been copied successfully!

window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });

Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Iran’s next retaliation will intensify Russia’s fight with “Israel,” & make this conflict’s battle lines clearer

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Rainer Shea
Rainer’s Newsletter
OpEds

Resize text-+=

Iran’s next retaliation will intensify Russia’s fight with “Israel,” & make this conflict’s battle lines clearer

What does it mean that Iran plans to retaliate for the latest Zionist aggression, and that Russia is

working to keep “Israel” on a leash throughout the latest confrontations).

Our only path forward is to build a domestic united front against monopoly capital, one that can keep organizationally operating amid the state’s crackdowns. As our allies abroad finish the job of crippling imperialism, we need to defeat it from within, and the global conflict’s next stage will bring us many more allies in this task.

Go to top

If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures amid late-stage capitalism, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here.

To my Substack subscribers: if you want to use Substack’s pledge feature to give me a donation, instead donate to my Patreon. Substack uses the payment service Stripe, which requires users to provide sensitive info that’s not safe for me to give the company.

Subscribe to Rainer’s Newsletter
By Rainer Shea ☭ · Launched 3 years ago
Marxist-Leninist analysis on geopolitics & socioeconomics

URL has been copied successfully!

window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });

Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Cross-Cultural Comparative Politics: Social Science or Cold War Propaganda?

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Bruce Lerro

OpEds

Resize text-+=

Prefatory Note

The field of comparative politics took off in the 1950s in Mordor and for many years it never lost its heavy anti-communist tinge. It continues to take for granted the fact that democracy exists (sic) in the United States and compares it favourably to "authoritarian" societies of communism, a convenient Cold War dualism. Its definition of politics. It is lopsidedly insensitive to cross-cultural definitions of politics. Historically, its definition excludes the politics of egalitarian hunter-gatherers and simple horticulturalists who comprised well over 90% of human history. Comparative politics is part of a self-propagandizing triumphalism that includes domestic political science, neoclassical economics and international relations theory. All these fields are ideological smoke screens that keep the West from facing its deep political and economic decline in the face of the rise of the East.

Orientation
What is politics?

Nine Questions for Determining What is Politics
In Part I of my article Seven Theories of Politics I posed ten questions for narrowing down what the range for defining what is politics.

Temporal reach

How far back into human history does politics go? Does politics go back to pre-state societies? Or does politics begin with state societies? Is politics possible before there were political parties?

Cross species scope

Is politics confined to the human species or does it ooze into the life of other species? If so, which ones? If politics crosses species, is it social species that are political? Is it possible to have animal societies which are social such as lions or wolves, but not political? Does a species need to be social to be political? Is being social a necessary but not sufficient condition for politics? Is being social a necessary and sufficient condition for politics? Or is being social neither a necessary nor sufficient condition? In other words, is it possible for a non-social species to have political relationships?

How much does evolutionary biology impact politics?

At a macro level, how does natural adaptation impact human politics? In terms of men and women, how much does sexual selection determine politics? At the micro level, how much do genetics and brain chemistry determine the level and the interest and skill in politics? Or is politics primarily a creature of the socio-historical level of reality?

Spatial reach

Where does politics take place? Many political scientists limit politics to what is taking place within states. Is that casting the net too narrowly? Can there be politics through discussions in private space? Is it politics when I get into a discussion about the viability of capitalism while I am at the unemployment line waiting for my check? Are there politics within families? Are there politics between lovers? Or are politics only about public affairs?

Am I being political if I ask my partner if she wants to go to the movies and propose a movie and she agrees to both proposals, is spontaneous agreement political? Suppose she said she wants to go to a movie but prefers another movie. We debate about it, and one of us persuades the other. Has the discussion become political? Suppose you and I are riding bicycles. We reach a crossroads where we have to decide whether to turn left or right. We each want to go in a different direction. Is the process of deciding this political?

Political agency

Who does politics? Is politics done only by politicians? If I argue with my neighbor about police brutality in my neighborhood, are my neighbor and I political beings in this discussion? Do I become political only when I vote on the issue in the next election? Do I become political when I bring police brutality to a town hall meeting next month? Or is the only person who is political the mayor who decides whether or not to make it part of his platform for his campaign next month?

What is the relationship between politics and power?

Can you have politics without having power? Can you have power without having politics? If power and politics are related, in what way? Are politics and power interchangeable? Is one a means to another? Is power the means and politics is the end? Is politics the means and power the end?

Politics, force and coercion

Let’s go back to this movie issue. Suppose Sandy has been drinking, and in the past she has been bad-tempered to her partner. She starts drinking while they are deciding on a movie. Sandy’s partner starts worrying and gives in to the movie Sandy wants to watch prematurely to avoid the risk of being yelled at. Is that politics?
This example is a small slice of a larger issue: what is the relationship between politics and force or the threat of force? Is violence an inherent part of politics or is politics what you do to win someone over without being violent? Some political theorists like Bernard Crick say that politics is the art of compromising when you know you cannot get what you want. Others say that the whole political system is based on violence because the entire class system is based on exploitation and force. All attempts to change things must come up against this militaristic force which protects the rulers. Some say that the only force is political and that the state is the ultimate political actor because it has, in Weber’s words, a monopoly on the means of violence.

Interdisciplinary span of politics

How (if at all) is politics related to economics? What is the relationship between technology and politics? Does the economy dictate politics? Does politics determine economics? Does technology determine politics or does politics determine technology? The same question could be asked about religion or mass media.

What, if any, is the relationship between theories of politics and political ideologies?

Is there a relationship between a consistent set of answers to these questions and whether you are a liberal or conservative? How will the answers of social democrats, communists and fascists be different than that of either anarchists on the left or libertarian capitalists on the right?

As it turns out, the field of cross-cultural politics I will be discussing gives very narrow answers to these questions and therefore leaves a great deal out.

Temporal reach – narrow, starts with class societies and leaves out tribal societies
Cross-species – narrow, limits it to the human species
Is politics biological? Narrow, politics is limited to the social, psychological
Spatial reach – narrow, limited to what happens in states
Political agency—limited to what politicians do, no one else
Relationship between politics and power, wide, used interchangeably
How is politics related to force or coercion? Narrow, understates force
Interdisciplinary span of politics – narrow, it excludes economics
Theories of politics and ideology -narrow, it tries to make politics scientific and above ideology

In Part II of my article, I identity seven theories of politics:

Old Institutionalists

Civil Republicans

Weberian political sociologists
Marxian political scientists
Rational choice theorists
Radical feminists
Bio-evolutionary

All the answers comparative politics gives to those questions primarily come from two schools, the old institutionalists and rational choice theorists. They pretty much leave out the other five schools.

Connection to past articles
About three years ago I wrote four articles about the ideological nature of political science. One article Anti-Communist Political Science: Propaganda for the Capitalist State was primarily about political science as it is practiced in the United States (not Europe). The second article, Invasion of the Body Snatchersconnects political science to neo-classical economics and shows how both support each other while blocking out an integrated approach called political economy. In my third article Dictatorship and Democracy I expose how Mordor political scientists were quite interested in dictatorships both in Europe and even within the United States in the 1930s. On the other hand, their interpretation of democracy was thin and lacked any subsistence. Lastly, my piece Totalitarian Anti-Communism showed the manipulation of the use of the word “Totalitarian” from the 1930s into the late 20^th century. However, there is one topic that I did not cover in much detail and that is the subject of comparative politics. I did discuss it a bit in the last part of my first article but not in any depth. I would especially like to write about it now because while the field of comparative politics is not taken seriously outside the United States because its political manipulation is well-known, it still serves as propaganda for war and imperialism within the United States. It is as part of Yankee self-propaganda that discussing the field of comparative politics is still worth an analysis.

To call them democratic serves the ideological purposes of cold warriors and their desire to fight communism and preserve Western imperialism, in one shot.

Sources for my criticisms of comparative politics
Sources for my criticisms of comparative politics are as follows. Ronald Chilcote wrote a very good criticism of comparative politics from a Marxian point of view. He was especially good at exposing the ideological nature in the field. For example he pointed out the connection between the social sciences and the CIA. Ido Oren was also really excellent at showing the connection between modernization theorists and the promotion of US foreign policy. Michael Latham’s book Modernization as Ideology
reveals how modernization theory was behind JFK’s international anti-communist program, Alliance for Progress. Lastly, Irene Gendzier’s book Development Against Democracy explains how the word “development” was used by comparative politics involved in foreign policy to railroad countries on the capitalist periphery away from socialist and communist transition programs.

Where are we going?
In this article I will show eight foundational problems with comparative politics:

Its treatment of nation-states as autonomous and not determined by alliances and between larger, more powerful states and transnational capitalists.

Oligarchies vs Democracy

Those of you who were unlucky enough to take a political science class might have been exposed to a cross-cultural version of the same thing. I refer to the field of comparative politics. The first thing that struck my eye in looking at the table of contents of a college textbook on comparative politics was the different types of rule. According to mainstream theorists, there are only two kinds of rule, democratic and authoritarian. The United States and Western Europe are deemed “democratic” whereas Russia, China and Iran are deemed authoritarian.

The unpopularity of democracy in the West until the 20^th century
One problem with this formulation is that it fails to address the unpopularity of democracy in Yankee history itself, not only among conservatives but liberals as well all the way to the end of the 19^th century. In the 19^thcentury when liberalism really took hold as a political ideology, liberals were not interested in democracy, and considered it “mob rule”. Most industrialized countries did not have the right to vote at the end of the 19^th century. Back then farmer populist parties and socialist parties took their democracy seriously, bringing economics into it. The result was a “substantive democracy” championed by Charles Merriman and Charles Beard in the 1930s. But the rise of fascism and communism had shaken liberal confidence in the natural sympathy between democracy and capitalism. So in the 1940s Joseph Schumpeter introduced a weakened form of democracy as simply the circulation of elite politicians that people choose between. The procedural democracy of Robert Dahl of the 1950s involved choosing between these elites through voting. There was nothing about economics.

In his book Strong Democracy, Benjamin Barber distinguishes “thick democracy” from the “thin democracy” of Dahl. My point is by the standards of thick democracy few if any Western countries are democratic. To call them democratic serves the ideological purposes of cold warriors and their desire to fight communism. Since democracy is a loaded virtue word, and authoritarian is a loaded vice word, a cold war opposition between the two is built into the entire field of comparative politics.

How many parties make a democracy?
What is striking is the criteria for what constitutes democracy when it comes to political parties. For comparative politics, a single party rule constitutes authoritarian rule. But the addition of just one more party, as in the American political system, we suddenly then have a democracy. Countries with many parties including most of Europe are also constituted as democracies. Aristotle argued that there were 3 forms of rule – monarchy, oligarchy and democracy. Oligarchy is the rule of the few. Given the actual nature of who controls the elections in the United States, it is most reasonable to say the United States and Western Europe are oligarchies, ruled by the ruling class, the upper class and the upper middle class. Taken together this is about 20% of the population, hardly a democracy. In the United States most of middle class, working class and poor have no representation and yet the country is called democratic.

One party – authoritarian
Two parties – democratic
Many parties – democratic

In other words, the difference between one and two parties is greater than the difference between two parties and many parties. In fact, the implication of those who defend the two-party system is that having many parties can be confusing and unwieldly. So we wind up with the two parties of the United States as a kind center of stability. This is so despite the fact that for about the last 50 years, forty percent or more people in the United States do not vote. Is this a sign that democracy in the United States doesn’t work? Not at all. Those who don’t vote are dismissed as ignorant, apathetic or pathological in some way. The reason people don’t vote is simply because neither party represents their interest is never present. When voting tallies are presented, the number of people who don’t vote is rarely presented. Voting tallies are presented like 50% vs 49% for the two parties as if that constituted all the people who could have voted. In fact, in the actual tallies the winning party gets 30% of the vote. The loser gets 29%. What is ignored is the highest tally: 40% who don’t vote. This is democracy? What we have here is an oligarchy. But in comparative politics, democracy is not a process that actually exists but a self-congratulating ideology for the ruling capitalist oligarchs who control both parties.

Governing vs Ruling
In comparative politics, “governing” is a taken for granted term for Western capitalist societies. “Ruling” is saved for countries suspected of not being democratic, like “authoritarian” countries. I prefer to take the governing word very seriously as it is used in cybernetic systems. Governing in cybernetic systems means steering a system which includes goals, communication within the system, adaptation to the environment, feedback systems which allow for adjustment and few forward system which results in planning. The human heart is a “governor” of the human body. By these standards the only type of society in which there was governing was the egalitarian politics of hunting and gathering societies. Simple horticulture societies in these societies decision-making was collective. They adapted and moved when the ecology dictated a change.

For the last 5,000 years, complex political systems had rulers. This means that political goals were rarely carried out, communication systems were blocked and muddled by self-interested bureaucracies. Adaptations to the environment were slowed down by the machinations of the short-term thinking of ruling classes. Feedback systems were ignored such as extreme weather and pollution. Feed forward mechanisms were clogged by myopic ruling classes who couldn’t think three months ahead – if that. In Joseph Tainter’s book The Collapse of Complex Societies he describes how inept the ruling classes can be. Calling complex societies “governing” is ridiculous when compared to hunting and gathering societies which prevailed for 90% of human history. We are ruled by oligarchies and this should be reflected in any political field that considers itself scientific.

The Exclusion of Propaganda from Political Communication in the West
In part, the reason we have the illusion of democracy and a governing class rather than rulers of an oligarchy is because of Western propaganda. There are many textbooks describing propaganda in the West. If you like videos more than books, check out Adam Curtis’ documentary, The Century of the Self. This video demonstrates how 100 years of psychological propaganda in the person of Edward Bernays and the brainwashing in the work of Ewen Cameron controlled the Mordor public. Despite this, the only mention of propaganda in my comparative politics textbook is when it comes of “authoritarian” regimes. No surprises here.

Comparative Politics Ignores Capitalism
Following the tradition of Mordor social sciences, just as political science excludes economics while neoclassical economics ignores politics, comparative politics ignores the economic system of capitalism when it discusses Western politics. They ignore economic exchange and act as if politics was merely system of law, voting, institutional systems of bureaucracies and foreign policies. Without saying so, countries that count as “democratic” have capitalist exchanges. The field of comparative politics theorists act as if there was a natural, unremarkable relationship between capitalism and democracy. But as Rueschemeyer, Stephens and Stephens have described in their book Capitalist Development and Democracy, it was not the capitalist merchants that brought representative democracy to the West, but the working class. Capitalist economic exchanges should be foundational to understanding political systems. Yet in my comparative poetics textbook that I’m reading, “political economy” is buried in the last chapter of the book.

Two reasons why capitalism should be included in politics
Capitalism should be foundational to politics because countries that have counted as politically “underdeveloped” have become so because of capitalist imperialism, as Gunder Frank pointed out decades ago. At the same time capitalist societies should be foundational to politics because it was under capitalist crisis that fascism emerged. The political ideology of fascism can never be understood without its roots in capitalism. There has never been fascism in human history before capitalism and there has never been fascism without the presence of capitalism.

The Deep State and International Pressure Groups are not Included in the Decision-making Processes of Politics

Supposedly, democratically elected leaders of political parties govern their populations by carrying out “the will of the people”. I am countering this by saying these politicians represent the will of the oligarchs who rule over people. But the oligarchs do not just use political leaders to carry out their will. Besides capitalists that politicians have to answer to, there are agencies such as the FBI, the CIA as well as international pressure groups such as AIPAC, Five Eyes, and NED. None of these groups are mentioned in my comparative politics textbook as involving political decision making. The textbook on Political Psychology in International Relations writes as if political leaders make decisions for their nation by themselves. It is only in “authoritarian” societies that bureaucracies, revolutionary factions and terrorist groups come into play that constrain the decision-making will of the official political leaders.

Authoritarian Politics is Synonymous With Socialism

When it comes to the West the field of comparative politics ignores the fact that its ruling oligarchy is run by capitalism. However, they have no problem declaring that authoritarian politics goes with a socialist “command economy”. Western countries that became socialist, such as Sweden and Norway, are presented as socialist democracies only because the presence of a market or capitalism. This made the naturally socialist authoritarian states more democratic.

Most military dictatorships are capitalists

Advocates of comparative politics ignore the fact that military dictatorships are often attempts by capitalists to hold on to power in the face of socialist uprisings. Most dictatorships are not socialist, but capitalist installations. In the case of socialism, the textbook cases that are trotted out are the old Soviet Union, Cuba or China. These countries have oligarchies as well. But whether or not they are more authoritarian than the capitalist West is much more complex than it first appears. Theories of comparative politics play down or ignore the relentless international class war any socialist system has to endure on a daily, weekly, monthly and yearly basis at the hands of the heads of state in the West along with their capitalist rulers. Capitalists in the West act as if the whole world is their private property. They treat any elected national leader (even if not a socialist) who has the nerve to set their own agenda for international trade as an enemy. All socialist leaders have to treat most any oppositional party in their country as potentially a tool of international capital. The extent to which socialist countries are authoritarian has a great deal to do with the pressure they experience from international capital.

What about “totalitarian”?

Fortunately, this Cold War vice word is now internationally discredited. However, the use of the term totalitarian to characterize socialist or communist countries, leaves out at least the following. If we grant that Sweden and Norway were once socialist, there has never been a socialist country with an advanced technology, communication systems, or advanced science. These societies have never had the ability to control the messages sent out to the population so that people were all thinking the same thing at the same time due to centralized control of propaganda. It is only advanced capitalist countries that have the capacity to do this. For example, Mordor’s media has roughly five corporations that all send out the same propaganda message in the case of Israel. People are severely punished by the police for supporting the Palestinians. All third parties in Mordor are blacked out. They cannot get into the “debates”. My point is that because of its control over mass media, capitalist control of the state is much closer to real totalitarianism than anything Stalin or Orwell ever dreamed up. The Soviet Union and China are poor countries. Their communist parties have no centralized control over their entire nation state. Peasants in both countries made up their own mind as to what was happening. Only in Mordor do you hear the same anti-working-class slogans against health care, or “welfare queens” from New York to San Francisco, from Houston Texas to Missoula in Montana. This is the power political propaganda holds to be internalized by people who imagine they are making up their own minds.

Comparative Politics Ignores Anarchism as Part of Socialism
The claim that all socialism is authoritarian ignores the 180-year history of the anarchist movement and its leaders from Proudhon to Bakunin to Malatesta, Kropotkin, to Lucy Parsons, Emma Goldman to Durruti. Anarchism was no intellectual movement. It was followed by thousands of people who fought in and out of labor unions and in the Russian and Spanish revolutions. This negligence on the part of comparative political theorists is ironic given that anarchism at its best is the purist form of democracy – direct democracy. If comparative political theorists understood the scale that the anarchists organized during the Spanish revolution of 1936-1939, they would be ashamed to think that what goes on in Western societies has anything to do with democracy, at least comparatively speaking.

Comparative Politics Ignores the International Pressures Within Larger States or Alliances Between other States

Comparative politics acts as if political decisions begin and end at national borders and with only official political leaders. But today’s nation-states have formed alliances with other nation-states. They have agreements about where they or won’t all act together. In the West we have the alliance of United States, England and Israel. None of those countries enacts a political decision by themselves. The same is true with China, Russia and Iran. Nation-states are interdependent, not independent actors.

Conclusion

I began this article with nine foundational questions of what politics is. I described how narrowly the field of comparative politics is in answering these questions. Then I identified seven theories of politics and showed how each of the seven theories of politics answers these nine questions differently. As it turned out, the field of political science uses only two of the seven theories: old institutionalism as rational choice theory.

Then I embedded within this article other articles I had written about how anticommunist domestic political science and neoclassical economics are in their studies and how international political science (comparative politics) is in carrying on that tradition. After that I named eight areas in which comparative politics are weak, including:

Its propagandistic use of the word “democracy”. I claim that no state society on this planet is democratic. They are oligarchies.
Its propagandistic use of the world governance. I identify with a cybernetic definition of governance, using the heart as an example. With this as criteria, no state system in the world governs a society. They all rule, not govern.
Comparative politics over-emphasizes the use of propaganda in “authoritarian” societies while barely even mentioning propaganda in capitalist ruling oligarchies.
Comparative politics does not successfully integrate capitalism into the comparative systems it analyzes . One textbook tacks it on as a last chapter.
Comparative politics ignores the power of the institutions of the deep state and transnational capitalists in determining the decision-making capacities of politicians.
Its treatment of the term “authoritarian” is more or less synonymous with socialism. It plays down the existence of socialism in Scandinavian countries and communal councils in Venezuela.
Lastly, the use of the term “totalitarian” to depict Soviet Union, China and Cuba is completely false. In the case of the Soviet Union and China they were too poor to have a centralized state that could reach down to every peasant village and bombard them with propaganda. The foundation for this totalitarian state is a centralized media apparatus, mass transportation, a country that was electrified. Paradoxically it is Mordor’s control over its mass media where we see the closest approximation to totalitarianism.

URL has been copied successfully!

window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });

Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

INTERNMENT: What They Have Planned For Us! Bringing Repression & The War Home, Time To Wake Up!

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Mark Taylor

Resize text-+=

Wisconsin State Prison at Green Bay. Note the watchtower door. A true statement of the US Empire. Photo by M. Taylor

INTERNMENT: What They Have Planned For Us! Bringing Repression & The War Home, Time To Wake Up!

MARK TAYLOR

OCT 26, 2024

Resist. Persist. Don't submit.

Pentagon’s New Plans To Use Lethal Force Against Americans!

Jimmy Dore (10/17/24)

The Posse Comitatus Act, passed by Congress in 1878, bans the United States Armed Forces from being used to enforce domestic policies. Meaning the government can’t deploy the army to suppress protesters or otherwise act as police within the U.S. borders. Except that the Defense Department recently issued a directive that conflicts directly with the Posse Comitus Act and states that the military can and will be deployed domestically to crush internal dissent.

Pentagon’s New Plans To Use Lethal Force Against Americans!

The Jimmy Dore Show

Oct 17, 2024 #TheJimmyDoreShow

The Posse Comitatus Act, passed by Congress in 1878, bans the United States Armed Forces from being used to enforce domestic policies. Meaning the government can’t deploy the army to suppress protesters or otherwise act as police within the U.S. borders. Except that the Defense Department recently issued a directive that conflicts directly with the Posse Comitatus Act and states that the military can and will be deployed domestically to crush internal dissent.

Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss all the problems inherent in using the military as an internal police force.
Kurt Metzger on Twitter: / kurtmetzger
Kurt’s website: http://www.KurtMetzgerComedy.com
Download Freedom Chat by going to: http://Freedomchat.com/dore

Go to top

Does New Pentagon Directive EXPAND Military Authority Over Civilians?
“Everything’s in place to round people up.”

Due Dissidence
(10/25/24) 27-minute video

Go to top

LEAKED: Military Manual For Policing Homeland Internment Camps For Political Dissidents

[Editor’s Note: FYI, I did some copy editing of the text below and added several subheadlines. — M. Taylor]

By Ray Joseph Cormier (10/17/19)

LEAKED US MILITARY MANUAL FOR POLICING HOMELAND INTERNMENT CAMPS FOR POLITICAL DISSIDENTS

The link above confirms what is now Legally possible in the US as earlier reported in the link below posted January 11, 2012 on the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act giving the US Military legal authority to grab American citizens out of their homes or off the street, and lock them up indefinitely in some Gitmo-Gulag based on bureaucratic determination that someone has some vague association with terrorism.

There is no phone call to a lawyer. The Writ of Habeus Corpus, or a day in court, to contest the government allegation is removed. Anyone arrested becomes one of the Disappeared.

Go to top

The following video details the contents of a Department of Defense document entitled “INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT OPERATIONS” or FM 3-39.40. The document is 325 pages long and is signed by JOYCE E. MORROW Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. It was created in 2010 however it has just recently [2019] been leaked to the public via the internet and can now be downloaded from multiple sources. In the description below you will find a download link for the document. I encourage you to download it yourself and verify everything that is being said here.

US citizens targeted

The document outlines military procedures for internment and resettlement of civilians and it describes the layout and administration of internment camps. It clearly states on page 38 that it applies within U.S. territory and specifically addresses the detainment of U.S. citizens as is indicated by the identification procedures for new prisoners on page 146, which states that social security numbers are to be recorded alongside their photograph and fingerprints. Included in the list of organizations which may be involved in these internment operations are the Department of Homeland Security, the FEMA, the Department of Defense and the United Nations.

Leaked Document: Military Internment Camps in U.S to be Used for Political Dissidents

StormCloudsGathering

Internment camps for political dissidents in the U.S. aren't a conspiracy theory. The Department of Defense document entitled "INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT OPERATIONS" or FM 3-39.40 proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

4-minute video

On page 56 the document outlines the responsibilities of Psychological Operations officers within the camps among which it states that a Psyop officer “Develops and executes indoctrination programs to reduce or remove antagonistic attitudes and Identifies political activists.” On page 281 the document goes into more detail regarding the role Psychological Operations within the camps specifically in regards to pacifying the population and insuring cooperation.

On page 238 it gives the conditions for the use of deadly force in such camps, among the justifications for lethal force it includes to “terminate an active escape attempt”.That point right there should make it clear that these camps are not benevolent disaster relief type facilities.

On page 244 the document calls for the use of snipers during riots to quote “scan a crowd and identify agitators and riot leaders for apprehension and fire lethal rounds if warranted”.

On page 260 it shows the basic layout for a facility focusing on detainment. It is depicted with interrogation areas, tribunal areas and mortuaries. Each detainment facility is designed to hold 4,000 prisoners and they are depicted with multiple levels of barbed wire separating compartments within the facilities with a double barbed wire fence enclosing them and 24 guard towers.

‘Resettlement’…behind barbed wire

On page 261 it depicts the layout for what they call civilian resettlement facilities, which are designed to house 8,000 people. And though it uses the word resettlement, the plans show multiple levels of barbed wire dividing the sections of the facility and double barbed wire fencing on the outside as well as 16 guard towers.

On page 262 the layout for facilities designed for what they call non-compliant prisoners is shown. These camps are designed to hold up to 300 prisoners, they have 3 interrogation centers and are guarded by 13 guard towers.

Now if there is any question whether these plans are active or are just theoretical this should be settled by the fact that the U.S. army has been running ads for job positions in these camps since 2009 and apparently they are still hiring.

http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/…

If you look in the description you’ll find all the links you need to verify this information.

It’s important to note here that this document was created in 2010, which was under the Obama administration, and it predates the NDAA of 2012 which authorized military detainment of U.S. citizens. This clearly shows a long term agenda at work.

Download link for FM 3-39.40: http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf

Army hiring for these internment camps:
http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/browse-career-and-job-categories/…

THEY’VE DONE IT BEFORE: Don’t For A Moment Think They Won’t Gun Citizens Down

Origins OSU (4/27/23)

Just past noon on Monday May 4, 1970, a squadron of Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire at a loose collection of students gathered across an expanse of leafy lawns and campus parking lots at Kent State University in northeastern Ohio.

12-minute video

“Thirteen seconds and sixty-seven rounds later, one student was dead, three others lay dying. Nine students were wounded, including Dean Kahler, who took a bullet in his spine and never walked again.

“The victim closest to the troops, Joe Lewis, was more than twenty yards away. His crime? He gave the Guardsmen the finger. The nearest fatality, Jeffrey Miller, was unarmed and nearly 100 yards away. Allison Krause was unarmed and 343 feet way. William Schroeder, a ROTC member, was nearly 400 feet away, as was Sandy Scheuer, who was walking to her next class. Clearly, none presented a threat to the State of Ohio.”

“Establishment Servants”

Why Do Dems Love the Security State?

Glenn Greenwald
System Update (9/26/24)

18-minute video

URL has been copied successfully!

window.addEventListener("sfsi_functions_loaded", function() { if (typeof sfsi_widget_set == "function") { sfsi_widget_set(); } });

Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License •
ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Israel Backs Down?

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Billy Bob's Blowback Roundtable
THE WORLD THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT LEFT LENS

Resize text-+=

Provocative roundtable discussions of world events from unusual political and cultural perspectives by thinkers and activists interested in building a new society.

Israel Backs Down?

Billy Bob
Streamed live on Oct 8, 2024
10/8/2024 Episode 115 of Blowback: Exposing Imperial Decline with special guest Vladimir Golstein.
Israel has long had a beef with Iran, the only nation in the Gulf capable and willing to stand up to its crimes and provocations. The events of 10/7, which some regard as a false flag designed to allow Israel to carry out a systematic genocide of Palestinians (with open encouragement and support by the US empire), have also sharpened the conflict with Tehran, triggering a dangerous cycle of Israeli aggressions and Iranian well-measured escalatory responses, which have now put the two nations on the brink of an all-out war. Some analysts suggest that the US, despite its "pro-peace" mask, and using "plausible deniability", is actually pushing Israel to lead the way in the military conquest of Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iran and other parties of the "Axis of Resistance". The panel is however dubious about the seriousness of Tel-Aviv's thirst for a major war with Iran, and so is Iran for that matter. Everyone has much to lose in this confrontation, which could easily get out of hand and escalate to WW3 dimensions and complete economic collapse. Israel—despite its bellicosity, born of a sense of impunity given its close connection with the US and Britain—is extremely vulnerable to an Iranian attack on its infrastructure, as Iran could easily destroy its desalination plants, electricity stations and other vital resources. While the US is clearly the main force behind the Palestinians' genocide and the expansion of Israeli territorial ambitions, the US ruling class, itself pathetically led at this point, and fractured into several factions with different priorities and imperialist approaches, seems unsure about the consequences of a regional and possibly global war with the multipolar alliance. The panel also discusses the horrid "choices" Americans face in this election, with both candidates swearing hatred for Iran, and the possibility of a rapid expansion of conflict to other flashpoints. Trump's erratic personality adds further tension to this contest.

News 2739

If you approve of this article, please share it with your friends and kin.
Help us expand our reach. Defeat appalling hypocrisy. Lies cost countless lives.
We must act together to smash the VILE Western disinformation machine.
This is the Lying Machine that protects the greatest evil humanity has ever seen.
YOU know what we are talking about.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR / SOURCE
Billy Bob is a dedicated anti-imperialist activist and blogger. He hosts the Blowback roundatable. You can reach him at his Facebook page HERE.

Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

Unfortunately, most people take this site for granted.
DONATIONS HAVE ALMOST DRIED UP…
PLEASE send what you can today!
JUST USE THE BUTTON BELOW

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

African Voices: Why some of us ROOT for V Putin!

Why some of us ROOT for V Putin!

Subscribe to Femi African Report

Discussion about this post

Caribbean Hawk

Freedom, Liberty And Sovereignty

Oct 16Liked by Femi Akomolafe

SHARE

Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Iran’s next retaliation will intensify Russia’s fight with “Israel,” & make this conflict’s battle lines clearer

Rainer Shea Rainer’s Newsletter OpEds

Iran’s next retaliation will intensify Russia’s fight with “Israel,” & make this conflict’s battle lines clearer

Subscribe to Rainer’s Newsletter By Rainer Shea ☭ · Launched 3 years ago Marxist-Leninist analysis on geopolitics & socioeconomics

Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Cross-Cultural Comparative Politics: Social Science or Cold War Propaganda?

Bruce Lerro

OpEds

Orientation What is politics?

To call them democratic serves the ideological purposes of cold warriors and their desire to fight communism and preserve Western imperialism, in one shot.

Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

INTERNMENT: What They Have Planned For Us! Bringing Repression & The War Home, Time To Wake Up!

Mark Taylor

INTERNMENT: What They Have Planned For Us! Bringing Repression & The War Home, Time To Wake Up!

Pentagon’s New Plans To Use Lethal Force Against Americans!

Does New Pentagon Directive EXPAND Military Authority Over Civilians? “Everything’s in place to round people up.”

Go to top

US citizens targeted

Leaked Document: Military Internment Camps in U.S to be Used for Political Dissidents

Internment camps for political dissidents in the U.S. aren't a conspiracy theory. The Department of Defense document entitled "INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT OPERATIONS" or FM 3-39.40 proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

On page 238 it gives the conditions for the use of deadly force in such camps, among the justifications for lethal force it includes to “terminate an active escape attempt”.That point right there should make it clear that these camps are not benevolent disaster relief type facilities.

‘Resettlement’…behind barbed wire

THEY’VE DONE IT BEFORE: Don’t For A Moment Think They Won’t Gun Citizens Down

“Establishment Servants”

Why Do Dems Love the Security State?

Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post.

Israel Backs Down?

Billy Bob's Blowback Roundtable THE WORLD THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT LEFT LENS

Provocative roundtable discussions of world events from unusual political and cultural perspectives by thinkers and activists interested in building a new society.

Israel Backs Down?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR / SOURCEBilly Bob is a dedicated anti-imperialist activist and blogger. He hosts the Blowback roundatable. You can reach him at his Facebook page HERE.

Print this article

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Rainer Shea
Rainer’s Newsletter
OpEds

Subscribe to Rainer’s Newsletter
By Rainer Shea ☭ · Launched 3 years ago
Marxist-Leninist analysis on geopolitics & socioeconomics

Orientation
What is politics?

Does New Pentagon Directive EXPAND Military Authority Over Civilians?
“Everything’s in place to round people up.”

Billy Bob's Blowback Roundtable
THE WORLD THROUGH AN INDEPENDENT LEFT LENS

ABOUT THE AUTHOR / SOURCE
Billy Bob is a dedicated anti-imperialist activist and blogger. He hosts the Blowback roundatable. You can reach him at his Facebook page HERE.