Global South Sees U.S. Congress Hail Israeli Killer of 39,000 of Their People Mostly Women and Kids   

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


Jay Janson


Resize text-+=

Netanyahu addressing a joint session of U.S. Congress on Wednesday (C-Span screenshot)


The Health Ministry in Gaza reports that as of the end of July, 2024, more than 39,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, have been slaughtered in Gaza by the Israeli military using hegemon U.S.A.'s mighty weapons of mass destruction.[1]

A good deal of people in the awakening Global South have learned that those tens of thousands precious Palestinian lives of mostly women and children were ordered taken by the criminally insane Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This week billions of majority Humanity watched on TV or heard of the obnoxious killer Netanyahu being welcomed by the assembled entire U.S. government that provides Israel with the bombs, missiles, guns, planes, tanks, ships, munitions, and diplomatic and military protection that has made the murder of those 39,000 fellow Global South men, women and children possible.[2]

Yes, those 39,000 dead Palestinians are now seen in the ever more sensitive awakening Global South as their fellows, fellows within the nations of the grand Global South of Africa, Asia and the Americas that were once conquered, colonised, enslaved and exploited by racist Europeans, and their overseas offspring.

Global South Lives Matter


Today, Global South lives are still considered less important than the lives of white descendants of the conquering colonialists, who have retained a substantial amount of hegemony over most of the planet largely through powerful international reach media.

This difference in the value and importance of lives is apparent in the Middle East now. For example, the lives of a hundred Israeli hostages certainly are being given much more importance than the lives of 39,000 Arabs and the 90,000 injured, including thousands of amputees, and another thousand buried under the ruble of what was the cities of Gaza.

The CIA overseen Western entertainment/news & information conglomerates [3] emphasise this difference with their coverage of the suffering of the families of the hostages, interviewing the family members at length, while rarely interviewing Arabs, many of whom have lost their entire family, and rarely if ever, mention the thousands of Palestinians, including women and children in Israeli prisons the hostages were taken to exchange with.

Whether watching British BBC, German DW, Tokyo's NHK, French TV, or NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, or PBS, the loss of thousands of Palestinian children's lives is only occasionally  mentioned within a numerical report of the ever rising statistic of dead Palestinians.

Those of us who get our news from the Internet have been reading for nine months Aljazeera's morning report of another 40 or 60 or 80 Palestinians killed overnight during an Israeli bombing of a school or other structure where hundreds of families made homeless had taken shelter with their children. One receives such horrible news with pathos, but as the killing keeps going on and on and on regardless of all outcries (in this writer's case publishing many articles about it), one fights a feeling of hopelessness frustrated without any way to stave off the horror and pain of the pitiless attacks of tomorrows stretching out into the future seemingly forever.

Netanyahu Before the U.S. Congress Emphasises the Hostages Without Mentioning the 39,000 Massacred Palestinians [2]

The genocidal level of cruelty of the American government is made clear by its having invited this bloody madman, for whom the UN International Criminal Court has asked for his arrest for crimes against humanity.[4]

The Gaza genocide, so proudly ignored in Washington, will cause the citizenry of the nations of the Global South to remember the U.S./NATO deadly destruction of oil rich Iraq and Libya, the latter having had a higher quality of living standard than nine European countries; the grim perishing of a million Syrians at the merciless hands of Islamic terrorist organisations secretly provisioned by CIA arrangements;[5] in Somalia the never ending regime change war for a warlord regime replacing a popular Islamic courts government; the decades of U.S. led occupation war in Afghanistan; the millions murdered in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia; the massive bloodshed brought about in Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua, the bombing obliteration of all North Korean cities, and U.S. invasion of the South when the civil war was already over with the North easily prevailing for meeting little opposition; the bombing and invasions of Panama, Dominican Republic, Cuba and Grenada; the ruthless murder of the first President of a free Congo initiating 70 years of hellish civil wars. Not to mention CIA homicidal machinations overthrowing governments in Iran in 1953 and Chile in 1973.

As people in the Global South learn of monster killer Netanyahu receiving great applause during a special session of the U.S. Congress while the horrific genocide continues in Gaza, one or more other American crimes against the humanity that is the Global South will come to mind.


Global South Lives Will Soon Matter

In our now multi-polar world led by a remarkably productive China, the lives of the majority of humanity in the Global South, (until recently disrespectfully called The 'Third' World or The 'Developing' World, earlier, The 'Underdeveloped' World and still earlier The 'Undeveloped' World), are restored to the level of the ingenious human species they never were otherwise.

It would appear that the so-called Caucasian race might be thought to be on the back foot for much considering  itself of superior worth.

The lands of the non-White Global South contain the ancient empires of high civilisations of Egypt, China and India, conquered by the more primitive arising empires of the marauding Europeans, whose inhumane racism as practiced for more than five centuries, will become as non-existent as it was before the farm boy soldiers of Portugal, Spain, Holland, France and England, got to be wonder the Taj Mahal, the Great Wall of China, the Temples of Egypt, Aztec Tenochtitlan and other sights of higher civilisations than their own.

But with the ancient non-recriminatory attitude inherent in Chinese culture soon to be influencing life throughout the world, peace and reciprocal admiration should replace today's and yesterday's era of confrontation.


End Notes
1. Israel-Hamas war latest: Israeli military orders evacuation of part of humanitarian zone in Gaza - Associated Press, July, 22, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/gaza-israel-war-latest-july-22-bc3d06280090adf1ed52c533f5d05483

2. We’re protecting you: Full text of Netanyahu’s address to Congress, Times of Israel, July 25, 2024 https://www.timesofisrael.com/were-protecting-you-full-text-of-netanyahus-address-to-congress/

3. “Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the C.I.A,” December 26, 1977, New York Times

4. UK won’t challenge ICC arrest warrant request for Netanyahu, Gallant, Aljazeera, July 26, 2024. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/26/uk-wont-challenge-icc-arrest-warrant-request-for-netanyahu-gallant

5. Wayne Madsen, John-Paul LeonardWashington’s Blog, Syrian Girl Partisan. ISIS IS US: The Shocking Truth: Behind the Army of Terror, Progressive Press, October, 2016, a panel of cutting-edge researchers tell what ISIS really is, Paperback – https://www.amazon.com/ISIS-US-Shocking-Behind-Terror/dp/1615771522



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.

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.

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




Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein sentenced to 23 years in prison: “Obscene” culmination to a travesty of a trial

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


David Walsh


Once upon a time in Hollywood, Harvey Weinstein, a bully by nature, was probably one of the most arrogantly despicable figures in a culture crawling with disagreeable and unprincipled types. In that regard, Hollywood is not much different than any other privileged sector of US society, but that, per se, is no justification to gloat on account of his judicial mugging, for that is what this trial was, a mugging. The Weinstein trial is a glaring example of judicial travesty in both verdict and sentencing. Just as much "just" as the justice dealt to real heroes like Assange or Manning. We forget at our peril that the very idea of justice—from its etymological roots on up—is grounded in proportionality. The severity of the punishment must fit the crime. This sentence makes a mockery of that principle. As the defense tried to prove, there was a mountain of evidence pointing to "reasonable doubt"; many of the victims admitted going along with Weinstein in order to advance their careers.  They admitted to maintaining friendly and even loving relationships with the fallen mogul for years and even decades after the imputed offense. There is a substantial trail of messages of all kinds confirming this, and there's the testimony of third parties. Pervasive prostitution—we see that in our political class everywhere, too, and, equally crucial, it totally permeates our media—is an old practice in the entertainment world. Women are usually the most afflicted by this ugly reality—a reflection of power differences—but men are too, as the memoirs and biographies of many famous male stars make clear.  None of these factors influenced the judge nor the jurors, as the trial was conducted in a lynching atmosphere aggravated by the smug posturings of the #metoo movement leaders, almost all, without exception, members of the "celebrity media culture", even if some of them have only been outliers in this self-pampering milieu. This is bourgeois feminism run amok, and I expect that these proceedings will damage the law and standing civil protections —such as they are in this country—even further, to the detriment of all. —PG

Weinstein with his then trophy wife, fashion designer Georgina Chapman.


[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he sentence of 23 years in prison imposed on film producer Harvey Weinstein by Justice James A. Burke of the New York State Supreme Court is a savage conclusion to a travesty of a legal process. In a case in which a “mountain of doubt,” in the words of one journalist, was raised by Weinstein’s defense team, Burke handed out nearly the maximum possible sentence. Weinstein was found guilty February 24 of a criminal sexual act in the first degree and rape in the third degree.

After experiencing chest pains Wednesday, Weinstein was taken from Rikers Island prison to Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan.

Weinstein’s sentence is longer than that given to numerous former Nazi officials convicted of horrifying war crimes at the Nuremberg trials. US government leaders, responsible for illegal, aggressive wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, resulting in more than 1 million deaths and tens of millions of refugees, have never been charged with any crime. Executives of corporations that murder workers or civilians, out of profit concerns, such as Boeing and General Motors, likewise escape without punishment.

Burke’s brutal action was an obviously and overtly political one. The judge had no intention of coming under fire like Judge Aaron Persky, who sat on the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. Persky handed down a relatively humane decision in the Brock Turner sexual assault case in 2016 and was turned out of office in a recall vote.

At an impromptu press conference following the sentencing hearing, defense attorney Donna Rotunno correctly pointed to the “obscene” character of the sentence, to the “total unfairness” of the trial and noted that many convicted murderers would leave prison sooner than her client.

A partial guilty verdict was achieved through subjecting the jury pool to a torrent of media filth and creating an intensely hostile climate in the courtroom, aided and abetted by a trial judge who manipulated the proceedings in such a manner as to prejudice the jury and ensure Weinstein’s conviction.

The testimony of the three principal witnesses, Annabella Sciorra, Mimi Haley and Jessica Mann, was full of inconsistencies, gaps and implausibilities. Each of these women maintained long-term and friendly relations with Weinstein for years following the alleged attacks, asking him for jobs and favors, not indicating in a single email or text they were his victims.

At the sentencing hearing Wednesday, Weinstein’s accusers had the opportunity to denounce him and demand the harshest possible sentence.

Mann first attacked the defense attorneys, claiming that she had been “grilled” on the stand by lawyers who “twist the truth.” In fact, Weinstein’s lawyers, as was their obligation, merely pointed to the fact that Mann had sworn her love and friendship for Weinstein in the years following his alleged attack on her.

Bizarrely, Mann described Weinstein as “a senior citizen who is literally crumbling” before our eyes. “Behind bars, Harvey can have the chance to rehabilitate while being held accountable for his crimes,” Mann said, while asking for the judge to throw the book at her former lover.

Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzzi delivered the prosecution’s sentencing statement. Illuzzi asserted that Weinstein “got drunk on the power. He saw no authority over him, no limit to what he could take. He could take what he wanted knowing that there was very little anybody could do about it. He held all the cards and played them well.”

Arthur Aidala, a member of Weinstein’s defense team, indicated he did not intend to rush. “This is a man's life here,” he said. Aidala argued for the minimum sentence of five years, observing that eight and a half years is the average sentence in New York for these offenses. Aidala went on, “He has no criminal history, he’s almost 70, he’s a broken-down man.” He said a longer sentence would be “a death penalty.”

Donna Rotunno asked that Weinstein’s career as a movie producer and creative person should be considered, along with the impact of a sentence on his family, including his grown and young children. “No matter what happens here today, judge, no one really wins,” Rotunno told the court. Even if the producer received the minimum sentence, considering his health issues, “there's a good chance that Mr. Weinstein won’t live to see the end of that sentence, which is very sad.”

In his own speech to the court, Weinstein explained that he thought the relationships with the various women were consensual and suggested, in the words of the New York Times, that “he was the victim of a rush to judgment.”

He argued, according to the Times, “that the #MeToo campaign was similar to the Red Scare of the 1950s and compared himself to the screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, who was jailed and blacklisted after joining the Communist Party. ‘I think that is what is happening now all over this country,’ Mr. Weinstein said.”

Addressing his accusers, Weinstein remarked that he had re-read his correspondence with them and still saw their relationships as “a serious friendship, and that’s what I thought I had with you.” He continued, “I’m not going to say these aren’t great people. I had a wonderful time with these people. I’m confused, and I think men are confused,” he continued, turning once again to the #MeToo campaign. “I think about the thousands of men and women who are losing due process, and I’m worried about this country.”

Judge Burke ignored the appeals of the defense and Weinstein’s own comments. “Although this is a first conviction, it is not a first offense,” he said. “There is evidence before me of other incidents of sexual assault involving a number of women, all of which are legitimate considerations for sentence.”

Weinstein, in fact, has never previously been charged, let alone convicted, of any crime. By the “evidence before me,” the judge presumably is referring to the so-called Molineux witnesses, i.e., witnesses permitted to testify about prior uncharged crimes by the defendant, a legally and constitutionally dubious practice. Burke allowed the testimony of several women whose alleged attacks fell outside the statute of limitations. In essence, by this logic, Weinstein received the lengthy sentence because of testimony relating to crimes that could not be proven or disproven.

Burke gave Weinstein 20 years for the alleged attack on Haley and an additional three years for the alleged rape of Mann.

Outside the courtroom, an obvious irate Rotunno addressed the media. “That sentence that was just handed down by this court was obscene,” she said. “That number [of years in prison] was obnoxious, there are murderers who will get out of [prison] faster than Harvey Weinstein will. That number spoke to the pressure of movements and the public. … That number did not speak to evidence, nor did it speak to justice. I am overcome with anger at that number, I think that number is a cowardly number to give. I think the judge caved, just as I believe the jury caved.”

The sentence, the lawyer continued, showed “total unfairness, and a complete lack of acknowledgement of what the facts and evidence of this case actually showed. I think the judge took things into consideration that never should have been taken into consideration, especially when we know in a prior case recently, the judge gave someone in a much worse circumstance, seven and a half years.”

Turning to the journalists, Rotunno pointed out that “most of you that I’ve spoken to privately have been very candid with me about the fact that you were surprised by this verdict.”

Referring to the “victims’ statements,” Weinstein’s lead attorney suggested it was “very easy to say all these horrible things about him, but I think if you look at the circumstances, in real time, you say, wait a minute, what was really going on? … We don’t know what happened in those rooms, but what we do know is all of the circumstances that surrounded it, and I will never be able to reconcile that all of those circumstances are what normal, regular rape victims do.”

Fellow Damon Cheronis spoke bluntly, insisting that Weinstein “wasn’t treated fairly at all, let’s just call it what it is, not by the court, not by the jury, not by a lot of you, that’s what happened. The evidence in this case, we firmly believe, did not establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about anything else [other] than whether there was reasonable doubt in this case. And to say that there wasn’t, based on the defense we put forward, is outrageous. The pressure came from everywhere, from you, from the public … Every single step of this case was engineered for this moment right here. And for people not to accept that, I find pretty disingenuous.”

Weinstein faces extradition to California to face four charges there. Rotunno indicated that the defense would file its appeal in July.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
While using Marxian methods of historical analysis, and working toward a non-capitalist future, The Greanville Post does not endorse Trotkyism or any other specific faction. Thus we republish only those views we regard as useful and largely free of sectarian distortions. In a world in which truth and the correct path to social change, equality and peace are increasingly difficult to discern due to the proliferation of ideologies, information and disinformation sources, and the confusing imperfections and contradictions of many progressive voices, we try hard to give our audience the most reliable roadmap to effective struggle. 




[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]


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

Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

[google-translator]

black-horizontal

Keep truth and free speech alive by supporting this site.
Donate using the button below, or by scanning our QR code.





And before you leave

THE DEEP STATE IS CLOSING IN

The big social media —Google, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter—are trying to silence us.




Ellen Defends Hanging With War Criminals

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

EDITOR'S NOTE
OK, I guess it's a simple case of class solidarity among the uber rich.  And, of course, judging by Ellen DeGeneres' deeds, all is forgiven, Georgie boy. In her latest kerfuffle, Ellen DeGeneres reminds us (in no particular order), that,

a) Rich liberals have skin-deep political and moral principles
b) that hanging with the Uber Rich is dangerous to your progressive creds (if any)
c) that Ellen, posturings aside, has joined the ruling class media's campaign to rehabilitate the image of war criminal George W Bush and his ilk. This actualy began with the Clintons, extended like an oil slick to the Obamas, and now it has penetrated all layers of the liberal peanut gallery, with whores like Steven Colbert and the rest of their bunch finding nothing wrong with the former notorious commander in chief.
d) that class actually trumps gender, sex identity, or anything else you can throw into that dubious pot.
But Jimmy says it best, so we leave you here in his able hands:
e) Ellen is a classhole. "An empty, fucking, soulless, Hollywood scum!" Or, as Glenn Greenwald sums it up: Ellen reflects the liberal ethos.
Afraid we can't improve on that.
—PG


Dateline: October 8, 2019

Ellen Defends Hanging With War Criminals

https://www.youtube.com/embed/yGNebWt9_zI


This post is part of our Orphaned Truths series with leading cultural and political analysts.

 




 

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

PLEASE COMMENT ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP OR IN THE OPINION WINDOW BELOW.
All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 

black-horizontal




Are You Sure You Hold to the Philosophy of Nonviolence?

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.


John Spritzler


NewDemocracyWorld.org


Originally posted on June 30, 2013

[dropcap]B[/dropcap]efore you decide that you hold to the philosophy of nonviolence, you need to know some things about that philosphy that you probably did not learn from whatever pamphlet or training session made you think you follow that philosphy.

The founder of the philosophy of nonviolence, Mahatma Gandhi, gave a very important interview (also cited here) with his biographer, Louis Fischer, reported in his The Life of Mahatma Gandhi (1950) (pg. 435 paperback edition):

“Hitler,” Gandhi said, “killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. I believe in hara-kiri. I do not believe in its militaristic connotations, but it is a heroic method.”

This is what the philosophy of nonviolence preaches. Do you agree with it?

Do you say you believe in nonviolence simply because you don't think violence is a useful tactic in situations you anticipate being in personally? Please understand that this belief of yours, while perhaps quite true, does not make you a follower of the philosophy of nonviolence. There is a huge difference between thinking that violence is inappropriate in a particular situation versus thinking it is a moral failure to ever use violence even in self defense, as the philosophy of nonviolence does.

Perhaps you believe that the philosphy of nonviolence allows for violence in self defense? Is this why you feel comfortable in saying that you subscribe to the philosphy? If so, you need to ask yourself if you consider it a moral failing to use violence in self defense, because Gandhi most certainly did.

Do you believe it was a moral failure when Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto violently fought the German troops carrying out Nazi orders to exterminate them? Was it a moral failure when the French Resistance used violence to fight the German occupation of France--an occupation that involved rounding up Jews and other French people and sending them to die in concentration camps? Is it a moral failure when a mother shoots a man to protect her children from being kidnapped or molested? Is it a moral failure when a person fights back violently (even perhaps lethally) against the one who is raping them? Gandhi said it was indeed a moral failure.

Sometimes you hear about Gandhi supporting violence in self defense. People will take a quotation from his "The Doctrine of the Sword" out of context. It reads:

"Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence."

But the full context of this quotation shows that Gandhi is merely saying that while using violence is a moral failing* even in self defense (or defense of one's father's life), nonetheless if one is going to be a moral failure then at least avoid the worst moral failing, which is cowardice--the refusal to oppose injustice, even to oppose it with violence, out of fear for one's personal safety. Thus Gandhi's sentence immediately preceding the above quotation reads: "I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence." But where, exactly, is there "only a choice between cowardice and violence?" It is when a person lacks the moral strength to use nonviolence. Gandhi says in this same article, "Nonviolence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering." Thus, if one lacks the moral strength to choose "conscious suffering" (as, for example, Jews committing collective suicide) then the only remaining choices are violence or cowardice, and Gandhi says cowardice is the worst choice. Violence in self defense is wrong, but not as wrong as cowardice. Is this the philosophy you subscribe to?

If you subscribe to Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence, then you have an elitist attitude towards people who fight their oppressors with violence when it is necessary. Your attitude is to look down on them as not being as moral as yourself, who you hope would only use nonviolence (and its conscious suffering) if you were in their shoes. If you say, "Oh no, I am not an elitist that way; I admit I might myself fail morally and resort to violence in their situation," then where does that leave you? Your philosophy is that other people should accept conscious suffering, but if you were in their situation you probably wouldn't. That's called the philosophy of hypocrisy. Let's face it, if you subscribe to the philosphy of nonviolence, then you've got to be willing to say that the Jews of Europe should have committed collective suicide, and it was a moral failing on their part that they didn't. I find it nauseating to even write such a statement. Can you proudly say it out loud? Try it. I dare you! You've got to be able to say that a woman who shoots the attempted kidnapper of her baby is a moral failure for having not, instead, chosen consciously to suffer the loss and perhaps death of her child. Go ahead. Say it. Can you?

Or do you wish to reconsider your adherence to the philosophy of nonviolence?

Let me help you make the break from Gandhi's absurd philosophy. It might help you to know that the only way advocates of nonviolence can claim that "it works" is by using some sleight of hand rhetorical tricks. Here's how it works. The supposed power of nonviolence is what Gandhi called "moral suasion." The idea is that when lots of people demonstrate the sincerity of their opposition to oppression, by willingly accepting conscious suffering, then this creates "moral suasion" that causes the oppressor to stop oppressing. If you were ever in a nonviolence training session, you no doubt learned to go limp when the police come to arrest you, and to willingly go to jail and so forth. This is your conscious suffering, which is what makes "moral suasion."

Here's how the nonviolence advocates argue that moral suasion works. They define "works" to mean replacing one oppressor with another. Thus they say nonviolence "worked" in India because nonviolence (actually there was substantial violence too, but we'll ignore that little detail) made the British leave. What they don't say is that when the British left, the Indian people remained terribly oppressed by a native ruling elite. Gene Sharp is a famous nonviolence preacher today [whom the ruling class loves and promotes] and he argues that nonviolence can cause "regime change." But "regime change" is a far cry from ending class inequality and elite oppression, as anybody paying attention to Egypt recently can attest.

The theory of "moral suasion" is based on a fallacy. The theory is that the oppressor, deep inside, knows that what he or she is doing is morally wrong. Moral suasion supposedly taps into that hidden goodness in the oppressor. The fact, however, is that oppressors believe that what they do is morally right, in fact necessary to keep the world from going to hell in a handbasket. That's how the slave owners in the American Confederacy felt during the Civil War. There is no evidence to the contrary, and overwhelming evidence to support this view. The Nazis thought they were waging the good war, to save the German Volk from a dire threat by the Jews. Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger, I am quite sure, do not lose sleep at night for their war crimes. Nor does Obama.

Here's something else that may help you make a break from your nonviolence philosophy. I'm guessing that part of your attraction to nonviolence is your fear that when oppressed people take up arms against oppression it only leads to them using violence against innocent people. Better, therefore, to prevent ordinary people, even when oppressed, from using violence against the oppressor. Nothing personal, but this notion is elitist BS! The ruling class wants you to have this elitist BS in your head because the elite love the philosophy of nonviolence--for oppressed people, not themselves, of course. When workers and peasants fought violently against the fascists in the "Spanish Civil War" (better named the Spanish Revolution) they didn't kill innocent people. They didn't develop a crazed taste for blood. The stories in your head about Ropespierre and Lenin and Stalin killing innocent people are largely true, but these were not ordinary people but new rising, and very anti-democratic, elites. The fault of ordinary people time after time is that they have not used violence when they should have. The ruling class wants us to be afraid to use violence against them. They want us to believe nonsense. They fill our heads with warnings such as "violence begets violence." They tell us that if one uses violence against evil one becomes evil oneself, as if a mother shooting a kidnapper becomes a kidnapper, and a person violently resisting a rapist becomes a rapist, and a slave violently resisting a slave owner becomes a slave owner.

Here's another fact that may help you make the break. You may have adopted nonviolence out of a fatalistic belief that it is not really possible to end oppression, and therefore the most important thing is to adapt to the reality of oppression by at least avoiding doing anything nasty (i.e. violent) oneself. This fatalism is based on the idea that almost all people are selfish and so there will always be oppression and injustice; there just aren't enough really good people in the world to end oppression. This idea is also ruling class-sponsored BS. Very few people share the disgusting values of the ruling elite: treat others like dirt to make a profit, dominate others to make many people poor so a few can be rich, pit people against each other with lies and manipulation (like Orwellian wars) to control them, pollute the earth--like BP did the Gulf of Mexico--to make a buck.

Another fact will help you ditch an absurd philosophy: You know the difference between wishing something is true and believing it is true, right? Do you believe in Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy? Do you believe that manna will fall from heaven? Of course not. As much as you might wish these things existed, you know they don't. Then how hard is it for you to admit that there is a big difference between a) wishing (as we all do!) that--without any violence whatsoever--the plutocracy that rules the United States can be removed from power and b) believing it is true? Try it; it's really not that hard to put the wishing aside and act according to what you actually believe. People who insist that "moral suasion" can remove oppressors from power are acting on the basis of pure wishful thinking. They are acting like children. They need to grow up!

Yes, a revolution to remove the plutocracy from power and create an egalitarian society without oppression will involve some violence, inevitably. But if a revolution is ever going to succeed in the United States it will be because a huge revolutionary movement develops and it gains the support of a critical mass of members of the military, so that when ordered to attack the movement those soldiers refuse and use their weapons to defend the movement from those who would attack it violently. This is what happened in the February, 1917 revolution in Russia that led to the Czar abdicating. A similar thing happened in Iran, which is why the Shah, even though he thought he had the largest military force in the region, had to flee the country. A revolution most certainly does not mean half the population shooting the other half.

Do you want to learn to live in a world of oppression, or build a movement to end oppression? The philosphy of nonviolence is not geared to defeating oppression, but rather to something else--avoiding getting one's hands "dirty" with violence. Given the choice between defeating oppression and avoiding violence, it opts for avoiding violence. You don't really make this choice, do you?

There is a better philosophy than the philosophy of nonviolence. It is a philosophy that says:

a) Most people oppose oppression and therefore we can build a mass movement to successfully abolish oppression.

b) One of the highest obligations of morality is to abolish oppression.

c) Ending oppression should be done with the minimal violence but it is immoral to allow oppression to continue in order to avoid all violence entirely.

e) Violence that is not in self-defense (for example violence directed at non-combatant civilians) is counter-productive, and hence immoral, because it only isolates one from potential allies and allows the oppressor to gain support by pretending to protect people from the anti-oppression movement.

f) Sometimes violence in self defense is very productive. For example the Vietnamese gained support from American GIs because in using violence to defend themselves against the American invasion they made those GIs start to wonder (there is nothing like being shot at to make one concentrate on understanding why it is happening) why so many ordinary Vietnamese were fighting them if, as they had been told in boot camp, they (the GIs) were in Vietnam to defend freedom. When people violently resist oppression they make soldiers of the oppressor (and civilians of the oppressive government) pay attention and learn the truth about that oppression.

*Postscript: A reader of this article challenged me to prove that Gandhi viewed the use of violence to resist oppression as a "moral failure." Here is my reply:

From Gandhi's The Doctrine of the Sword (all quotations here are from it) he refers to "The religion of nonviolence," and hence makes it clear that the topic is about morality, not mere practicality. He  says, "Nonviolence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering." He adds, "Nonviolence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute." He adds this of the Rishis, who discovered the law of nonviolence: "Having themselves known the use of arms, they realized their uselessness and taught a weary would that its salvation I may not through nonviolence." [There is a typo in the online version where it reads "I may not" but the meaning is clear.]

From the above it is quite clear that Gandhi is contrasting his religion (morality) with that of those who practice violence and are therefore acting as a "brute," and who are not taking the path that leads to "salvation," which requires "conscious suffering" that they are unwilling to make. If this isn't a contrast between his philosophy of nonviolence and the moral failing of those who do not follow it, then I don't know what is.

The above essay is part of our discussion on tactics & strategies toward a freer and juster world, and how to defeat world imperialism. Views expressed in this section do not necessarily reflect the position of this publication.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
A longtime activist and onetime member of SDS, John Spritzler is senior founding editor of  NewDemocracyWorld.org.





Be sure to get the most unique history of the Russo-American conflict now spanning almost a century!  The book that every American should read.

Nuclear Armageddon or peace? That is the question.
And here’s the book that answers it.
CLICK HERE to buy The Russian Peace Threat.

Creative Commons License
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



Tulsi Defends Assange Powerfully On CNN

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.


Published on Apr 13, 2019

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff we publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for our website, which will get you an email notification for everything we publish.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Creative Commons License
THIS WORK IS LICENSED UNDER A Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License





 

Be sure to get the most unique history of the Russo-American conflict now spanning almost a century!  The book that every American should read.

Nuclear Armageddon or peace? That is the question.
And here’s the book that answers it.
CLICK HERE to buy The Russian Peace Threat.