The Myopia of Anglo-American Rulers: How They Can’t Face Their Loss to the “Eurasian Miracle”

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
SOCIALIST PLANNING BEYOND CAPITALISM

Resize text-+=

The Myopia of Anglo-American Rulers: How They Can’t Face Their Loss to the “Eurasian Miracle”

International Relations (IR) theory fails to deliver on one of its key promises, specifically to produce positivist, value free analysis. What we encounter in the vast majority of international theory is the provincial or parochial normative purpose of defending and celebrating the ideal of the West in world politics. IR theory can no longer be represented as positivist, objective or value free.

—John M. Hobson

Orientation
In 1981, Eric Jones wrote a very powerful book called The European Miracle: Environments, Economies and Geopolitics in the History of Europe and Asia. He was not alone in claiming there was something unique about Europe compared to the rest of the world. Though I doubt it was his intention, his work perhaps unintentionally supported a Eurocentric, paternalistic, racist orientation of a Wren theory which claimed to explain world politics. This is called International Relations Theory which claimed to be positivist, objective and value free. International relations theory is so deeply embedded in Western triumphalism that it has failed to notice that the West has been losing to China, Russia and Iran for the last 20 to 30 years. International relations theory barely understands that this has happened and it has no theory to explain it. What we are witnessing today is a “Eurasian Miracle.”

The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics, I point out a good reason for this is because of the Eurocentric nature of Neocon Realists, Neoliberal Globalists and Liberal Institutionalists theory. However, Hobson’s criticism of Eurocentrism does not stop there. He argues that even left-wing theories like constructionism and world-systems theory are guilty of Eurocentrism. Eurocentrism, not only because it takes different forms, but that some of these are even anti-imperialist. The conventional contrast of a Eurocentric or racist conception of imperialism from a constructivist and Marxist point of view is too simple and Eurocentrism is too deep.

What is Eurocentrism?
Hobson’s claim that there two steps in Eurocentric big-bang theory of world politics:

Europeans single-handedly created a European capitalist international state system through their pioneering and exceptional institutional genius.
They export their civilization to remake the world in their own image through globalization, imperialism or hegemony.
To add to this, Eurocentrism claims the Eastern and Southern part of the world had no independent status. There was no East or South big bang. In the West the various movements of the Renaissance, the Protestant Reformation the scientific revolution, capitalism, the Enlightenment, the industrial revolution or socialism were purely Western. The East and South either helped out or they were left behind. With rare exceptions. Eastern and Southern parts of the world system never led Western development.

What is paternalism?
Historians of the modern West sought to explain social evolution. In doing so, they divided societies into three stages:

barbarism (horticultural and agricultural states) and
civilization—industrial capitalist societies

Supposedly Europeans hoped that all societies would want to become civilized. But when societies of the East and South did not aspire to this, they were labelled either savages or barbarians. However, some historians and anthropologist thought it was their duty (white man’s burden) for the savages and barbarians to see the light. This led to paternalism.

An example of well-intentioned paternalist Eurocentrism: Rawls
John Rawls believed that his liberal vision had genuinely universalist criteria and it did not offend cultural sensibilities of non-Western people. He was interested in culturally converting Eastern people rather than containing them as in Western liberal realism.

Yet there are five key Eurocentric dimensions of his theory:

All well-ordered hierarchical societies must exhibit a separation of church and state (this will not work for Muslims).
Imposition of free trade (free trade can only work with wealthy societies).
Governed by a liberal law of peoples (teaching Eastern women to have less babies won’t work if they are being blocked by the IMF and the World bank from industrializing.
Eastern states receive only conditional sovereignty because they are classified as despotic states and “failed” states are deemed uncivilized.
Developed societies have a duty to assist burdened societies (paternalism).

Hobson’s claims

Hobson’s explicit claims are first that International Relations Theory contains six myths:

the theoretical great traditions myth.

Hobson’s 2^nd claim is there are six types of imperialism which are laid out over 250 years. His third claim is that Western racism was not always triumphant but was based on fear of what would become of Europe if Easterners and Southerners of the world got the upper hand. Lastly, I close out with theories that are exceptions to the rule and are not Eurocentric or paternalistic and with a minimum of racism.

Hobson’s implicit claim is that without “the rest” there might be no West. The West was not an early, but a late development. This topic will be covered in my future article based on another of Hobson’s books, The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization.

Six Eurocentric Myths of International Relations Theory
Hobson tells us the conscious or unconscious moral purpose of IR is to be a defender and promoter of Western Civilization. The key of disciplinary assumptions that are presently revered as self-evident truths really are largely Eurocentric myths. As stated above, these include the above myths.

The noble identity foundation myth: Whig and progress theory of history
International Relations Theory has embedded in a Whig an interpretation of its intellectual history. Whiggish means that the past is reorganized to make it seem that the present was the only possible passage that could have led to contemporary life. The Whig theory of history has the theory of progress embedded in it. The theory of progress claims that the later in time we go in social evolution the better societies get in material wealth, less labor, higher morality and happiness.

It is a now conventional assumption that the discipline of International Relations was born in 1919. Supposedly, it had a moral purpose to finding ways to solve the universal problem of war. This now conventional view was originally constructed by E.H. Carr in his classical text The Twenty Year’s Crisis(1946).

Contrary to this convention, IR theory did not appear all of a sudden after WW I out of the head of Zeus. It continued from its pre-1914 roots which were neither positive, objective nor value free. Rather they were paternalist, Eurocentric and intentionally or unintentionally racist. There are deep continuities that the 1919-1945 period of international theory has with the pre-1914 period of international theory. The Eurocentric racism and paternalism that underpinned it had been forged in the previous century. In addition, there is a continuum of imperialism that goes all the way back to the middle of the 18^th century. Thirdly, there was an explosion of anti-colonial resistance. What were colonists resisting – those noble Western powers that colonialized them. In this larger scheme of things, the end of World War I was not the only game in town. As positivists, what Neocon realists and liberal globalists ignore is that the noble identity myth can also be a ideological justification for Eurocentrism, capitalism, racism and imperialism. The four stages are of Hobsons history if International relations include:

1760-1914 Manifest Eurocentrism and scientific racism
1914-1945 Manifest Eurocentrism and scientific racism
1945-1989 Subliminal Eurocentrism
1989-2010 Manifest Eurocentrism

The positive myth of IR of theory of liberalism as emerging between the wars

This myth was that the between the wars IR theory was dominated by liberal globalists who searched for a new cooperative global order as a reaction to the Neocon realism of World War I. It was characterized as a harmonious and optimistic theory because it stands for peace. But as Hobson points out, interwar international theory was not monopolized by idealism or liberalism because it also exhibited a vibrant racism realist stream that emerged after 1889, especially in the world of geopolitical theorists, Ratzel, Mackinder, Mahan and others.

IR claims to be positivist with a value free epistemological base. This has been challenged by African-American Marxists Ralph Bunche, WEB Dubois and CLR James. They say that when viewed through a non-European lens, the vast majority of international theory produces a parochial or provincialanalysis of the West that can masquerade as if it were universal. Further, the imperialist aspect of interwar idealist theory has not been widely noticed among modern IR scholars. Realist and so-called Liberal Idealists were united by the concern to restore the mandate of Western civilizational hegemony in one guise of another.

The great debate myth and reconceptualizing the idea of the clash of IR theories

These debates include the controversy between realism and idealism in the interwar period between history and scientism in the 1960s and between positivists and post-positivists in the 1990s. The first two appear as if these were great qualitative struggles, but like with Republicans and Democrats in Mordor, all parties have far more in common than they have in differences. The struggle between positivists and post-positivists are real but it are presented in too stark a manner. There were post-positivists as far back as the 1960s and those political scientists who were more statistical and quantitative also go back to the 50s and 60s. In other words that debate did not begin in the 1990s as IR theorists claim but thirty years earlier. In spite of these differences, there is consensus of virtually all parties concerning the politics of defending and celebrating Western civilization in world politics. These theories supported the Western powers. Their differences were small compared to the paternalism, racism and imperialism that they all shared.

Sovereignty vs anarchy myth
The sovereignty vs anarchy myth claims that in International Relations Theory all states are sovereign. But because there is no world-state the relations between nation-states are characterized as anarchistic. In the first place, IR theory limits which nation-states are considered sovereign to European countries. Eastern and Southern states are not considered sovereign because they lack the proper Western European credentials such as voting systems, more than one party, and capitalism. The school of Realism operates with universalist analytical principles that supposedly apply to all states regardless of how 2^nd class some states are treated in practice. The problem for IR theorists is that the post the 1648 era there had been a proliferation of international imperial hierarchies, which were comprised of a series of single sovereign colonial powers, many of which were not nation-states. Its supposedly universal and ideologically unbiased principles of state-centrism sovereignty directly contradict its practice. For example, in 1878 the conference in Berlin divided Africa between European imperial powers. These sovereign states had colonies.

Furthermore if by anarchy they mean disorder, the relationship between sovereign states without a world state is by no means disorderly. There are shifting alliances between states rather than a Hobbesian war of all single states against each other. Secondly, to characterize this disorder as “anarchy” reveals either complete political bias or ignorance of anarchism as a respectable political tendency on the socialist left. Anarchism has involved thousands of people in many countries around the world since the late 1840s. It has had some success in the Paris Commune, the Russian and especially the Spanish revolutions. To characterize this as disorderly is an unforgivable omission from theorists who claim to be political scientists.

The globalization myth
The myth is that globalization has only recently (the last century) become an issue for international theorists. But to Hobson’s own surprise in his initial research, in many areas including some though not all realists, international theorists since 1760 have placed considerable emphasis on globalization. In his book The Eastern Origins of Western Civilization, Hobson points out that there were globalizing trade networks of, Africa, West Asia, India and China as far back as 500 CE.

The theoretical great traditions myth
IR theorists are no different than those who initiate artistic or spiritual movements in their search for origins. All political, artistic or spiritual movements seek to find their origins in the deep past rather than the recent past. In the IR traditional textbooks realism is claimed to go back to Thucydides in the ancient world and then forward to Hobbes and Machiavelli to culminate in Waltz, Gilpin and Mearsheimer via Carr and Morgenthau. But each of these theories are not air-tight. In fact IR theories mix with other theories within a given moment in time and each theory changes internally due to changes in history.

Defining Imperialism and Anti-imperialism International Theory
Hobson claims that the vast literature on imperialism and anti-imperialism generally lacks conceptual precision. Here Hobson confront two broad definitional approaches:

Narrow Eurocentric
Expansive postcolonial

Most of modern Eurocentric international theory embraces a narrow definition and allows for considerable wiggle room when confronted with a charge of imperialism. It sees Eurocentrism and imperialism as distinct. You can be Eurocentric and not imperialist and conversely imperialist without being Eurocentric. At the other extreme, by contrast, post-colonial theorists seek to completely shut down this wiggle room by assuming that being Eurocentric is inherently imperialist and imperialism is always Eurocentric.

In table 1 I have a divided a spectrum of imperialism throughout history into 6 types. The three types on the left accept that they are imperialists and don’t apologize for it. The theories on the right deny they are imperialists. The theories on the left are formal empires, while the theories on the right are informal liberal empires. The people in the last cell are the theorists of various types of imperialism. The cell above it include the nature and justification of their mission. The names of the theorists are not important for now, but some of the more famous ones might be familiar to you. The importance of this table are not the theorists but rather the systems of justification, none of which are value free, universal and objective.

Table 1 The Definitional Continuum of Imperialism, Past and Present

Definitional Consensus Most coercive definition Accept they are imperialists	Definitional Controversy Least coercive definition Deny they are imperialists
Formal Empire	Informal liberal empire

Tributary relations, political containment conquest of barbarism

National civilizing mission/cultural
conversion

Civilizing mission, via international government
protectorates

Anglo-Saxon hegemony

To protect, duty to prevent, duty to assist concept of democracies

Universalization

of Western civilization and global empire of liberal democratic peace

Gumplowicz, Ward, Mahan
Mackinder,
K. Pearson, Hitler, Von Treitschke, Kidd, Spykman
Haushofer

Cobden, Bright, Angell, Mill, Marx, Reinsch,
W.Wilson

Hobson, Buell, Woolf
Krasner, Fukuyama

Gilpin
Kindleberger Kagan, Brzezinski,
Cooper, Ignatieff

Slaughter, Ikenberry, Wheeler, Risse, Finnermore Rawls, Held
Nussbaum

Friedman, Wolf, Russet, Owen

Eurocentric Imperialism: Liberal and Marxism

In Table 2 below, one interesting but expected difference between liberalism and Marxism is that liberals see imperialism as benign. J. A. Hobson and John Stuart Mill see imperialism is benign at an international level, but Cobden, Bright and Angell see imperialism as benign at a national level. The fact that Marxists thinks imperialism as coerced rather than benign should not come as a surprise to anyone. Traditional International Relations Theory sees liberal internationalism and classical Marxism as the antithesis of imperialism. However, John Hobson’s main point is what Marxism and liberals have in common. They all agree that:

The East can be characterized as “barbaric oriental despotism”
The capitalist peripheral countries (Third world) are savage, anarchistic societies residing in a domestic state of nature
Western agency is always pioneering, learning nothing from the rest of the world
Eastern agency even at its best is conditional, always learning from the West

It is these four points that show how deep Eurocentrism of all Western theories, even Marxism. These are the type of deep assumptions, hundreds of years old the keep Western theorists of world politics that the BRICS world of the East is bypassing them.

Table 2Paternalistic, Eurocentric. Institutional Imperial Concepts of World Politics

Marxism	Left Liberal	Liberal
Marx	Mill and Hobson	Cobden, Bright, Angell
Coercednational civilizing mission	Benigninternational mission	Benign national mission
East as barbaric Oriental Despotism	East as barbaric Oriental Despotism	East as barbaric Oriental Despotism
South as savage—3^rd world anarchistic societies residing in a domestic state of nature	South as savage—3^rd world anarchistic societies residing in a domestic state of nature	South as savage—3^rd world anarchistic societies residing in a domestic state of nature
Pioneering Western agency	Pioneering Western agency	Pioneering Western agency
Conditional Eastern agency	Conditional Eastern agency	Conditional Eastern agency

Here are some further examples of Eurocentrism. In the 19^th century, even when IR theory was sensitive to interdependence, it wasn’t world interdependence. Rather it was interdependence among the civilized states of Europe. Outside of Europe there was no recognition of interdependence. Eastern societies only got recognition once they became colonies or only if these countries were at war with Europe. It is something like calling the ultimate baseball playoffs “the World Series” even when it only includes the United States.

At the same time, the Eurocentrists had no problem imagining war with the East if it was profitable. But when it came to the civilized states of Europe, war was seen as unprofitable. Also, as we shall see later, racist theories bemoaned Europeans fighting because this would result in the depletion of the white race. Colonial annexation was entirely appropriate when it came to Europe’s relation with the East. The East has conditional agency, such as Japan during World War II. However, the East cannot take the lead in historical development without being predator (as in the Yellow Peril).

As for the Global South, (Africa) for it to be a respectable civilized state, Western core countries took a page out of Calvinism and insisted that these “savage societies” have a duty to develop their land productivity (meaning agriculturally) and abandon their primitivism (hunting and gathering). Non-Western politics, whether they be monarchies without constitutions or the egalitarian political consensus societies of hunting and gathering, are not recognized as sovereign. It was representative bourgeois state politics that was the “civilized” norm. As late as 1993 Paul Johnson said most African states are not fit to govern themselves. Their continued existence and the violence of human degradation they bring are a threat to the stability and peace as well as an affront to our moral sense. As of today Zionist Israel has massacred over 200,000 Palestinians. Yet there is no call from the United Nations (controlled by the West) to intervene in this “failed state”.

European imperialists hide their protectionist policies. As Friedrich List remarked, once imperialists have attained their summit of greatness, they kick away the ladder by which they climbed up in order to deprive others of the means of climbing up afterwards behind them.

Both the US and Britain industrialized on the back of extremely protectionist regimes and only turned to free trade once they arrived at the top of the global economic hierarchy. Thus, the imposition of free trade on developing countries by Britain after 1846 and the US after 1945 prevents Third World states from using tariffs to protect the infant industries. The projection of “free trade” by Americans…constitute an economic containment strategy to keep the Third World down.

A Century of Marxist Eurocentrism
Karl Marx’s paternal Eurocentrism and the political necessity of the Western civilizing mission
Marx appears to have had little appreciation for the complexity of ancient Chinese and Indian civilizations. For him China and India were the home of “Oriental Despotism”. The East could only be emancipated from its backwardness by the British colonialists. India stands outside world history and China was understood as a rotting semi-civilization. Believe it or not, for Marx, opium wars were emancipatory for China. Without British intervention there would be no future emancipatory socialist revolution. Imperialism was an instrument for both political progress and a requirement of global primitive accumulation. Was the result of British colonization Chinese emancipation? No, it was a century of Chinese humiliation (1839-1949). The imperialist engagement with China did not lead to order but to massive social-dislocation. The various Chinese revolutions were in part stimulated by a reaction against the encounter with the West.

For Marx and Engels, the East could belatedly jump aboard the Western developmental plane as Hobson says as “The Oriental Express”. It could participate in the construction of world history. But they could never lead the train in a progressive direction. They only had conditional agency. The Western states on the other hand had hyper-sovereignty. Sadly, Hobson says there hasn’t been much effort to reconstruct Marx’s theory along non-Eurocentric lines in traditional Marxism.

Lenin has no theory of Eastern emancipation
According to Hobson, Lenin says the East is inherently incapable of self-development. Lenin discusses how the period of free competition within Europe was succeeded after 1873 with the rise of cartels which intensified after 1903 into full-fledged monopoly capital and finance capital. But the causes of the crisis lay in the West whether underconsumption (Hobson) or the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (Marx and Engels). There was no mention of resistance in the colonies. Lenin discussed the right of self-determination of nations, but those nations would never influence the West or provide leadership.

World-systems theory
Wallerstein
Immanuel Wallerstein was heavily criticized by Robert Brenner and other classical Marxists for overstating the interdependence of trade and hierarchy between societies and understating the class struggle within societies. But he maintains his traditional Marxian orientation in emphasizing the dynamics for the evolution of the world-system clearly in the Western part of the world. The West represents the civilized world, the core countries. The second division in the world is occupied by the regressive redistributive world empires in Asia. Division three of the world system is occupied by primitive reciprocal mini-systems found in North America, parts of Africa and Australasia (savage societies in the 19^th century parlance).

World-empires mainly in Asia saw their state structures weakened while their boundaries underwent a forced contraction and the surviving mini-systems of North American, Caribbean and Australia underwent wholesale destruction.

Arrighi and Chase-Dunn

Other world-systems theorists like Giovanni Arrighi and Christopher Chase Dunn suggested that the world-system didn’t consist of just a core and a periphery but consisted of a semi-periphery which may or may not be Western. They argued that when core Western countries experienced crisis and decline, it was the semi-periphery countries that provided a new resource which allowed them to become a new core.

Exceptions to the rule Gunder Frank, Abu-Lughod

To be fair, both a sympathizer and an arch-critic of World-Systems theory, Andre Gunder Frank accused Wallerstein of Eurocentrism in his writings culminating in hisbook Re-Orient: Global Economy in the Asian Age. The work of Janet Anu-Lughod Before European Hegemony was so very powerful in showing the advanced state of non-Western trade networks between 1250 and 1350 CE.

Exceptions to the Rule Outside of Marxism: James Watson

The Evolution of International Societymoves from the Italian city-state system and then proceeds with the emergence of sovereignly at the Westphalia conference by way of the Renaissance and the Reformation to arrive at the balance of power in 1713 at Utrecht. Yet he does talk about Eastern developments as reacting back on Europe as in a dialectical way. What the East contributed from the West included:

Industrialization, centerpiece of “British genius” was significantly enabled by Chinese innovations that stem back several millenniums.

Further, Watson analyzes in considerable detail many non-Western political formations prior to 1648.

Western Fear of Eastern and Southern Power

Most interesting is that many anti-imperialist racists argue against imperialism because it brings the white race in racially fatal conflict with the contaminating influences of non-white races. The impossibility of Eastern progressive development renders the Western civilizing mission all but futile.

Charles Henry Pearson: the decline of white supremacy and the barbaric rise of the yellow peril
National Life and Character, a Forecast. He argued that white racial supremacy was being superseded by very high levels of predatory Eastern agency. But in Pearson’s racist imagination it is the white West that has been fated to remain within its stationary limits while the yellow races are destined to expand and triumph over the higher whites. The barbaric threat also came from within as a result of the socialist states’ preference to prop up the unfit white working classes and from without via the Yellow Peril were all leading to deterioration.

James Blair and David Jordan

Jordan’s defensive social Darwinist racism was a pacifist’s eugenics. It had three components:

The white race cannot survive in the tropics.

It serves to affect a degeneration of the physical and intellectual energy of the Europeans. He gives an example of that as the Philippines lie in the heat of the torrid zone which he called natures asylum for degeneration. Benjamin Kidd argued though we in Europe have the greatest food-producing regions of the earth, we want to administer the tropic from a distance. The white races needed to wake up because the tropics will lure them to their death. Kidd wanted to absolve the West of its home-grown liberal imperial guilt syndrome. His key concern about colonizing the tropics was the degenerative impact that the climate would have on white imperialists.

The second anti-imperialist argument concerned the perils of immigration.

The Oriental is of the past. They have not progressed for centuries. The Easterner hates progress. He contends that the constitution of China is said to not have been changed for thousands of years. On the other hand, the West is progressive, energetic and intolerant of the very thing which is the East’s most marked characteristic, indolence. The two races should never amalgamate.

Anti-war because the fittest white people would get killed

Jordan argues that warfare selects the best or fittest elements of the civilized white race to go out and fight, but in so doing leads to a reduction in the numbers of the fittest element as they lose their lives in futile colonial wars. Meanwhile the infirm and cowardly and feckless stay home, away from the battlefield. Some defensive racists were against the war between white countries so they could preserve white unity.

To summarize the threat from the East:

Domestic white barbaric threat – unfit working class
Racist interbreeding threat – contamination
Tropical climatic threat
Threat of European wars depleting the white race

The crisis of Western self-doubting and deep anxiety was reflected in a host of books which included:

Spengler’s Decline of the West (European Institutionalist) (1919,1932)
Madison Grant’s the Passing of the White Race (1918)
Lothrop Stoddard The Rising Tide of Color Against White Supremacy (1920)
Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents (1930)

Stoddard

Eurocentrism and racism do not always deny non-white race’s agency. The climax of eugenics reflected not the moment of supreme white confidence but an acute sense of anxiety regardless of the future hegemony of the white race. For Stoddard, globalization is a real threat. The greatest threat to white racial existence lies

in colored immigration problem
a demographic explosion

The white races are under siege and disunited within their inner sanctum excavated by the Trojan horse of Western liberalism. Stoddard takes the notion of predatory Eastern agency beyond Mahan and Mackinder. He wants to call out the hubris of the white race. He is nervous and panicked about the Japanese victory over the white Russians in 1905. Further, rise of communism dealt a cruel blow to white racial unity. He is afraid of the white wars in which the best white stock would be lost on the battlefields. The white need to retreat from their imperial bases in Asia and leave the land to yellow and brown rule.

Madison Grant

Racialist Madison Grant

Grant claimed colonialism weakens the white races. The Nordic race is unable to survive south of the line of latitude on white Virginia because of the detrimental impact of the hot climate. Nordics must keep away from the native population for fear of racial contamination from the sun’s actinic rays. Grant says the rapid decline in the birthrate of native white Americans is gradually withdrawing from the scene, abandoning to these aliens the land which they once conquered and developed. The man of the old stock is being crowded out.

Patrick Moynihan
In Patrick Moynihan book Pandemonium, he explores a Malthusian logic in predicting the demographic doomsday scenario at the hands of the Eastern Hordes as does Paul Kennedy in his book Preparing for the 21^st Century. For them, the greatest challenge to world order in the coming century is the rising relative demographic gap between West and East. Western civilizations will have stable or declining populations and would be swamped by the East and the South. While Malthus in his day did not prevent a rising demographic to Europe from the East, by the late 19^th and early 20^thcenturies these became a staple of much of racist Western thought.

Huntington and Lind on demographics
In the work of Huntington and Lind a close parallel can be drawn between their work and the racist imperialist thinker Mahan. But an even closer link can be found with CH Pearson’s National Life and Character, a Forecast; Stoddard’s The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy(1920); Clashing Tides of Color (1935). In Huntington’s book The Clash of Civilizations (1996). The roots of the barbaric threat that the Chinese and Muslims pose for the Western Civilization are located within a neo-Malthusian framework. It begins with the Eastern population explosion. This surplus population is problematic because it will seek to flood into the heartlands of the West.

For Huntington and Lind, non-Western societies were increasingly becoming the movers and shakers of their own history and of Western history. This meant in their ability to economically develop as well as resist imperialism. Lind writes that with the break-up of the Soviet “empire” the West’s great right flank will almost certainly be endangered as the Islamic republics will seek to join their Muslim brothers. Islam will be at the gates of Vienna as either immigrants or terrorists. Domestically multiculturalism in the West today is a “political virus” for it serves to boost the vitality of foreign cultures within the West.

Conclusion
The purpose of this article is to expose the theoretical blockages to the West’s understanding that they are being left beyond by the multipolar world of BRICS.

First, their Western International Relations Theory history has hardly been a positivist value free theory. It oozes Eurocentrism, paternalism, racism and imperialism. Secondly International Relations Theory only dimly perceives that these theories are not 100 years deep, starting after World War I, but have a 250 year history as Table 3 below shows. Thirdly, table 3 shows over 50 theorists over that 250 years, thus cementing a deep ideological commitment to “the rise of the West”. Those international theorists who have really understood that the East and the South are not merely passive recipients of the wisdom of the West but are themselves innovators. These theorists are isolated and could be counted on two hands.

Table 3 Eurocentrism, Paternalism and Racism in International Theory 1760-2010

1760-1914 Manifest Eurocentrism	Paternalism Cobden/ Bright, Angell, Hobson, Mill, Marx	Ant-paternalism Smith, Kant
Scientific racism	Offensive racism Ward, Reinsch, Kidd, Mahan, Mackinder and von Treitschke	Defensive Racism Spencer, Sumner, Blair, Jordan, CH Pearson, Ripley, Brinton
1914-1945 Manifest Eurocentrism	Paternalism Wolff, Zimmern, Murray, Angell	Anti-paternalism Subliminal Eurocentrism Laski/ Brailsford, Lenin, Bukharin
Scientific racism	Offensive Racism	Defensive racism
Wilson, Buell, Kjellen, Spykman, Haushofer, Hitler	Stoddard, Grant, E. Huntington
1945-1989 Subliminal Eurocentrism	Paternalism Gilpin, Keohane Walz, Bull, Watson	Anti-Paternalism Carr, Morgenthau
1989-2010 Manifest Eurocentrism	Paternalist Rawls, Held, Nussbaum, Fukuyama	Anti-paternalist World-system theory, Cox
Offensive Eurocentrism Kagan, Cooper, Ferguson	Defensive Eurocentrism SP Huntington, Lind

Below is the Conventional linear narrative of Liberal great tradition:

From 1760 to 1816 there is classical liberal internationalism of Smith, Kant and Ricardo.
From 1830 to 1913 classical liberal internationalism continues in the work of Cobden, Bright, JS Mill and Angell.
Between 1900 to 1945 the emphasis switches to interdependence theory of liberal institutionalism of Hobson, Wilson, Zimmerman and Murray.
Between 1989 and 2010 liberal cosmopolitanism is embodied in the theories of Fukuyama, Held and Rawls.

The Table 4 below shows Hobson’s very different breakdown of liberalism, calling it “paternalistic imperial liberalism”.

Table 4 Hobson’s history in international Liberalism

1830-1919	1860-1919	1900-1939	1914-1939	1960-1989	1989-2010	1989-2010
Liberal imperialism	Liberal Imperialists	International Imperialists	International Imperialists	Statist liberals	Liberal cosmopolitan	Realist liberals
Cobden, Bright Mill, Angell, Robertson	Dike, Seeley Ritchie Ireland, Bagehot	Wilson, Buell Jordon	Hobson Zimmerman Angell Murray	Bull, Watson, Keohane	Rawls, Fukuyama, Held Nussbaum	Ikenberry Slaughter Cooper Ignatieff
Manifest Paternalist Eurocentrism	Offensive Racism	Oppressive Racism	Manifest Paternalist Eurocentrism	Subliminal Paternalist Eurocentrism	Manifest Paternalist Eurocentrism	Manifest Paternalist Eurocentrism

Table 5 shows that history of realism has also been filled with political activity about as far from positivism as one can imagine.

Table 5 Hobson’s history of international realism

Racist realism	Racist cultural realism	Classical realism	Neorealism	Western realism	Western liberal realism	Cultural Realism
Mahan Mackinder von Treitischke Spykman Haushoter Hitler	CH Pearson Stoddard, Grant	Carr Morgenthau	Gilpin Kindleberger Kennedy Krasner	Kaplan Brzezinski Ferguson	Kagan, Krautammer Bootk	Huntington Lind
Explicit Imperialism	Anti-imperialism	Anti-imperialism	Implicit Neo-imperialism	Explicit Neo-imperialism	Explicit Neo-Imperialism	Explicit Anti-imperialism
Offensive racism	Defensive Racism	Subliminal Eurocentrism	Subliminal Paternalist Eurocentrism	Offensive Eurocentrism	Part- Paternalist Part offensive Eurocentrism	Defensive Eurocentrism
1889-1945	1889-1945	Post 1945	Post 1973.	Post 1989	Post 1989	Post 1989

Lastly Hobson charts the history of Marxism from 1840 to post 1989.

With classical Marxism of Marx and Engels between 1840-1895. Hobson calls it explicit imperialism which is paternalist Eurocentrism.
Between 1910 and the 1920s classical Marxism continues with the work of Lenin, Luxemburg, Hilferding and Bukharin which Hobson characterizes as anti-imperialist, but a subliminal anti-paternalist Eurocentrism.
Between 1967 and 1989 although World-Systems Theory differs from classical Marxism with its emphasis on conflicts between states more than class struggles within states, it shares the same combination of anti-imperialist, subliminal, anti-paternalist Eurocentrism of the Marxists of 1910-1920. The same is true for Robert Cox’s Gramscian hegemony theory.
In the post 1989 period we find in the work of Giovanni Arrighi and Christopher Chase-Dunn a continuation of anti-imperialist, anti-paternalist emphasis on Europe, but both are more willing to grant autonomy to non-Western countries. If Eastern or Southern countries occupy what both call the capitalist semi-periphery of the world system. Arrighi’s last book was called Adam Smith in Beijing, showing his interest in China as the new global hegemon
In the same period It is in the work of Andre Gunder Frank and Janet Abu-Lughod that we finally theories that challenge any Eurocentrism or paternalism. Gunder Frank has always contended that World Systems Theory is Eurocentric and claims, as Hobson argues in another book that Europe only surpassed China after 1800. His book Re-Orient claims, correctly I think that the new Asian Age is on the horizon.

ADDENDUM
Recommended related post

The decline of the West, the rise of the East and the South, and the internal dynamics of Western collapse discussed in this extraordinary video with Garland Nixon and Joti Brar.

IMPERIALISM: DECADENT AND DOOMED WITH JOTI BRAR - PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH - REVOLUTION IS IN THE AIR!

Garland Nixon
Streamed live on Oct 18, 2024

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

Must-read dispatch from Oliver Boyd-Barrett: On nuclear provocations, actual Gaza toll, alarming Western censorship, and more.

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

Oliver Boyd-Barrett
Empire, Communication and NATO Wars

Resize text-+=

Image by WikiImages from Pixabay

Steps to Nuclear Confrontation in West Asia

Some elucidation, if not exactly clarification, on Iranian-Russian relations is offered by Indian commentator, M.K.Bhadrakumar. He recalls how, almost two decades ago, Tehran paid for but did not receive Russian S-300s. And Iran filed a $4 billion lawsuit against Russia’s defense export agency. It also, and I think this is important, embarked on the manufacture of its own long range, mobile air defense system, the Baver-373.

This is the main point: with or without Russian weapons, Iran is a competent and canny weapons producer.

Arms Technology describes this system thusly:

“Bavar-373 is an indigenous surface-to-air missile defence system developed by the Iranian Defence Ministry. It can intercept aircraft and drones as well as destroy high-speed ballistic missiles.

The air defence system was launched on the country’s National Day of Defence Industry in August 2019. It is in service with the Iranian Armed Forces. The stimulator of the Bavar-373 missile system was unveiled in September 2021.

The Bavar-373 missile system is claimed to be more advanced than its Russian counterpart S-300 long-range surface-to-air missile system. Several studies and tests conducted by the Iranian military showed that the system is superior to the American Patriot PAC-3 air defence system.

Bavar-373 was first employed in a joint air defence exercise of the Iranian Army and Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) in October 2020. It successfully destroyed stand-off targets during the exercise, which was codenamed ‘Guardians of Velayat Sky-9

Bavar-373 is an impenetrable, anti-hacking surface-to-air missile defence system comprising a vertical launching system, two acquisition and engagement radars, Sayyad-4 missiles, and a command-and-control centre.

The design minimises the need for additional support equipment and systems. The vertical launching system features square launchers that are identical to the launchers utilised by naval warships for air defence.

The Bavar-373 missile system can be prepared for launch easily. It features anti-stealth capability that allows it to detect hidden targets with a very low radar cross-section.

The weapon system provides high operational speed, as well as enhanced shelf life and operator safety. The spare parts of the system can be easily replaced.

The air defence system incorporates an advanced radio detector and secure protocols between targets, missiles and radars.

Bavar-373 can be armed with three different types of missiles designed to neutralise different targets at varying altitudes. It can detect up to 100 targets, track 60, and engage six of them simultaneously.

The air defence missile system has a maximum detection range of 320km and a tracking range of 260km. It can engage targets up to 200km away and at a maximum altitude of 27km”.

The fly in the ointment in 2007 was Russian deference to the US and Israel, a time when Russia was still valiantly but foolishly trying to establish its credentials as a promising member of Western civilization. In 2015, a year after the Western instigated coup d’etat in the Maidan in Kiev, the Kremlin formally lifted its own ban on the delivery of S-300 missiles to Iran, setting the legal groundwork for the possible Russian sale of a powerful air-defense system to Tehran. Iran purchased S-300 systems from Russia in a a deal worth $800 million in 2016. Moscow completed the delivery of the S-300s to Iran in late 2016, according to Russia's state-run news agency, Tass.

Alterman: “But more so, the one broad dynamic is just more confrontation. The logic of confrontation with the West is really dictating Russia's approach to the region. And the best example of that is how Russia has navigated the post-October 7th Middle East and the war in Gaza and we'll talk about that later. Now, a second dynamic and that is very much related, is that I would say we see a growing Russian tilt towards anti-Western forces in the region. Meaning Iran, but also Iran's partners and proxies in the Axis of Resistance. And we can talk about how that has manifested. Now, I think Russia still cares about pursuing certain balancing acts in the region that have been characteristic of its approach to the region for a long time.

And Russia still cares about, for example, its relations with the Gulf Arab states, in particular with Saudi Arabia and the UAE, because that is important to Russia economically. But I think Russia has been willing to somewhat sacrifice its relations with Israel since October 7th. We've seen this quite stark pro-Palestinian posturing over the war in Gaza. So, I think there is this pro-Iran, pro-Axis of Resistance tilt. And one way in which that manifests very much, and we can talk about this more, is in a growing Russian-Iranian military defense relationship, which goes far beyond the drones that Russia has procured from Iran for its military campaign against Ukraine.

And I think we should be looking at how that relationship is going to evolve into the future.

Mr. Bergmann: Maybe, if I could just follow up on that last point. Because it strikes me that in Russia's role in the Middle East prior to the war there was a large military component of Russia being an arms provider of S-400s to Iran. Support for Assad in Syria, but also potential arms sales, or arms sales to the Gulf States. But now Russia needs to absorb arms, it's not exporting as much. It needs countries to provide it with aid. It's getting that from North Korea in particular, but also Chinese support. But Iran has been really helpful here and maybe you could outline what is the nature of this military relationship now. And also, what is Russia providing back to Iranians?

Dr. Notte: Sure, happy to. I would say that the Russia-Iran military relationship was one, I mean, it's long-standing, it goes back decades. But until 2022 there was what one could call a patron-client dynamic in that relationship where, really Iran was on the receiving end hoping for certain systems from the Russians, which were not always forthcoming. If I think back to 2010 when the Russians, under President Medvedev did not provide the S-300 system to Iran. But we didn't really see Iranian support to Russia in any sort of a meaningful scale. What have we seen since? Since 2022 of course, the UAVs, the Shahed drones, I mean different types of Shahed drones.

But not just complete systems, importantly also Iran sharing production technology for those kinds of systems, enabling the Russians to effectively indigenize the production of those drones in Russia, in Yelabuga and in Tatarstan. The Iranians providing training on how to operate those UAVs and that training has happened in various countries based on what we know from reporting. Actually, including in Syria, where according to Ukrainian military intelligence, Hezbollah have trained Russian officers on the use of Iranian drones on Syrian soil. So, quite a sort of convoluted situation there.

But the Iranians have also given support to Russia for their ground war with ammunition, with shells. I think that's sometimes less talked about because we pay so much attention to the drones. So, that's what Russia has gotten from Iran. We can also have a separate conversation about learning on techniques how to overcome the effect of sanctions and sanctions evasion. There might be a lot of knowledge diffusion going on between those two partners in that area that's obviously harder to study from the open source. But certainly, they have come to agreements in that domain that they're going to work together on countering or mitigating the effects of Western sanctions.

If we now look at what the Russians have given the Iranians in return, you know, there's certain things that the Iranians have wanted for quite a long time that they haven't gotten yet. For example, the Sukhoi 35 fighter aircraft, even though there's been sort of intermittent talk about deals and delivery forthcoming, but we haven't seen those systems delivered. We've seen trainer aircraft, we've seen increased collaboration on electronic warfare, which is having the Israelis very worried in terms of what the Russians give the Iranians in terms of support in that area. We have seen Bill Burns, head of the CIA, state on multiple occasions this concern of Russian engineers supporting Iran's missile and space launched vehicle program.

So there's different areas in which the two sides are probably working together. And then one final point, I think that's important to mention here is that we've also seen indications of Russia passing captured Western origin technology captured on the battlefield in Ukraine to Iran. Which is probably studying those systems, and possibly using them for the purpose of reverse engineering or sort of looking into those systems. And of course, the Iranians are probably getting a lot of operational insights and sort of learning from how their own systems fair against Western air defenses or other technologies on the battlefield in Ukraine.

So, I think we need to not just look at hard systems and hard technology that is passing past both, in both directions but also the area of knowledge diffusion and intangible assistance.”

Distrust with Russia and Europe will never have been more intense than during the collapse at then President Trump’s insistence, of the JCPOA agreement on Iran’s nuclear energy program, at a time when Russia, on the other hand, was pioneering the construction of Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran (a project, by the way, with a very long history).

In 2022 Iran was reported to be seeking Russia’s help to bolster its nuclear program, in the form of some kind of backup plan should a lasting nuclear deal with world powers fail to materialize. It was said that Iran asked Russia for help acquiring additional nuclear materials and with nuclear fuel fabrication, resources that could help Iran power its nuclear reactors and could potentially further shorten Iran’s so-called “breakout time” to create a nuclear weapon.

To this day, the CIA continues to insist - contrary to claims from Netanyahu and US neocons notwithstanding - that there is no evidence, even on the brink of a war between Iran (which has no nuclear warhead) and Israel (which likely has over 200), that Iran has made a decision to produce a nuclear weapon.

Russia’s relations with the US today are, of course, very different to how they were in 2007 and one might not expect to find continuing hesitation by Russia in consolidating an agreement with Iran that includes military cooperation. Russia signalled its readiness to sign such an agreement back in June this year, and more recently it was expected that the treaty or the “strategic partnership” would be signed in Kazan during the BRICS summit. Iranian President Pezeshkian in his most recent statement on this matter said simply that he “hoped” the agreement would be signed. Commentator Pepe Escobar, talking with Judge Napolitano earlier today expressed full confidence that the agreement would be signed, but that it might not be signed until sometime towards the end of the year.

Given the current state of crisis, this dilatory approach to the treaty seems quite strange. Some commentators, including Ray McGovern, Gilbert Doctorow and myself, have been inclined to suspect a Russian coolness, following the possible murder of former Iranian President Raisi in May. Raisi was a close friend to Moscow whereas his successor, following a popular election, Pezeshkian, is a known advocate for improved Iranian relations with the West, and seems to have been duped by the US and Israel into a posture of restraint in the face of Israeli assassinations of Hezbollah leaders in return for a ceasefire in Gaza which never materialized. Yet following Pezeshkian’s recent meeting with Putin at the East Asian Economic summit, Pezeshkian told media outlets in Tehran that Russia could be doing more to bring an end to Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Yes, indeed it could. Furthermore, Iran did indeed launch a surprisingly impactful barrage of ballistic missiles on Israel on October 1st.

If there is help that Russia could be giving Iran that it has not already provided, then the arrival of any such help is now well past its due date. Iran’s apparent refusal to consider any form of preemptive attack on Israel amidst an international chatter that appears to take Israel at its word that it will retaliate for October 1st can be read as a dangerously naive belief in the game of calibrated escalation, or as a strategic delay while Iran absorbs new Russian arms shipments, or as a quiet despair in the knowledge that it lacks the means to sustain an escalatory relationship, or as a very prudent, nuanced handling of an aggressive maniac in a manner calculated to yield as little damage as possible.

I am inclined to think that even if Russia has not provided S-400 air defense systems, as I and others have recently intimated, Iran has nonetheless benefitted from other kinds of state-of-the-art Russian help, including, very likely, hypersonic kinzhal missiles, and that Iran has a very sizable stock of more missiles, many likely developed by Iran itself, and that if Israel does strike Iran the Iranian response will be very considerable.

I do think we should worry, by the way, that Israel will conduct a strike on Iran during the BRICS summit in an Israeli show of disdain for BRICS every bit as arrogant and nauseous and stupid as the disdain it has shown the UN. UNIFIL positions remain in place in Southern Lebanon, by the way, even if their soldiers have not yet fired back on the IDF.

Steps to Nuclear Confrontation in Ukraine

As Ukrainian forces are routed in Kursk by Russia, which has now, according to Russian reports, recovered half of the territory that was originally invaded by Ukraine, and as Western support for Ukraine appears to shrivel, not least in the face of a US presidential election that might put into power a President who has expressed his great skepticism about Project Ukraine, Zelenskiy has shown increasing signs of desperation, to the point of utter recklessness and foolishness.

The speech by a now unelected Zelenskiy to his equally unelected RADA two days ago, and to the European Council a day ago, boils down to demands for instant membership of NATO, integration of Ukrainian military into that of NATO so that Ukraine benefits from NATO’s nuclear umbrella, as well as from protection under the cover of a US nuclear umbrella, with US/NATO nukes positioned on Ukrainian soil along with a NATO army, all in return for the laughable if not preposterous notion that after the war Ukrainian troops can take over the role up until now fulfilled by US forces of protection of Europe.

Europe, be afraid, very afraid. With “protectors” like these…..

If Zelenskiy cannot get these things, and there is very little objective reason to think he will, then he threatens that Ukraine will build its own nuclear bomb. This would require him to obtain the materials without Russian detection and then to build a bomb, a process that would very likely take at least a year, by which time there would be every good reason to expect Russia to have crushed Kiev, forced regime change, assassinated or otherwise have disposed, once and for all, of the insatiably manipulative Zelenskiy (if his own Banderite colleagues or the Ukrainian people have not done the job before the Russians get there), or allowed Zelenskiy safe passage to one of his Mediterranean palaces and let him set up just another risible, hopelessly expectant “government in exile.”

Perhaps Zelenskiy could get his bomb through Amazon from Israel, which never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty anyway (if it had, it would have had to admit to its possession of nukes. The US would not have legally been allowed to funnel aid to Israel had its illegal acquisition of nukes been confessed. I expect there are all kinds of mischief that the two maniacs could get up to with the joint development of nuclear forces.

Zelenskiy’s recent comments demonstrate that Russia was entirely right to launch the SMO when it did. Zelenskiy is as much a maniac, even more of a maniac, than Netanyahu, if the numbers of deaths that a maniac causes is any measure of maniacness. That 20% of recent Ukrainian conscripts are beaten to death by the Polish-staffed Territorial Recruitment Office kind of says it all. Zelenskiy’s nuclear blackmail will have frightened the wretched poodles of Europe and of the UK that threw the maniac their wealth, their kisses, their credibility and the credibiity of Western civilization and “rule of law.”

The US can look forward to saving itself the $1.5 billion that Zelenskiy says the US currently sends to Kiev each month just to keep the Administration afloat. Perhaps the might of the US, still the strongest economy on the planet (at least in terms of nominal GDP), and fast making clear blue economic water between itself and the newly poor countries of Europe and Japan and the G7 that trusted the US to look after their interests and whose competition the US has done its best to suppress, could do something vaguely useful, like introduce free healthcare.

But beware of the kick from left side, this time in the form of some kind of NATO assault through Finland on Saint Petersburg, or some new NATO push into Belarus or Russia, that will serve not to prevent a Russian win, but to delay it at the cost of a few hundreds of thousands more lives than have already been sacrificed.

West Asia and Russia: Recent Publications

OLIVER BOYD-BARRETT

OCT 18, 2024

WEST ASIA

Palestinian Deaths

335,500 Gaza Dead Ignored By Western Mainstream Media: Input To Special Rapporteur Report To Human Rights Council

by Dr Gideon Polya

17/10/2024

Excerpts

“I have made a detailed and documented Submission (below) in response to the Call for input for the report of the Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory to the Human Rights Council 58thsession. My position is that a major contributor to the horrific and ongoing Palestinian Genocide and specifically the ongoing Gaza Genocide is lying by omission and lying by commission by Western Mainstream media. Genocide ignored yields genocide repeated.

“Put simply and bluntly, a major contributor to the ongoing Palestinian Genocide by Apartheid Israel and the ongoing Gaza Genocide in particular is massive and remorseless lying by omission and lying by commission by Western Mainstream journalist, editor, politician, academic and commentariat presstitutes. Presstitute is defined thus by Wikipedia: “Presstitute is a term that references journalists and ‘talking heads’ in mainstream media who give biased and predetermined views misleadingly tailored to fit a particular partisan, financial or business agenda, thus neglecting the fundamental duty to report news impartially” [1].

“War is the penultimate in racism and genocide the ultimate. The core ethos of Humanity is Kindness and Truth. More specifically, the key moral imperatives from the WW2 Jewish Holocaust – and indeed from all WW2 holocausts and from all of about 70 genocides and holocausts – are “zero tolerance for lying”, “zero tolerance for racism”, “bear witness” and “never again to anyone”. However these moral imperatives are resolutely ignored by Western Mainstream presstitutes lying to hide numerous genocidal atrocities in living memory by the US and the US Alliance, including Apartheid Israel”.…

“Palestine was a culturally rich part of the Semitic Fertile Crescent that gave the World the alphabet, civilization, cities, agriculture, mathematics, astronomy, plant breeding and philosophy. The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem was the World’s second oldest mosque. Gaza had a rich history. The Nabateans exported spices and perfumes to the Roman Empire via Gaza. Gaza was important in the spread of India-derived Arab mathematics to Italy, Spain and Europe [19]. Oil was discovered in Iraq in 1906, the British invaded Iraq in 1914, the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement divided the Middle East between the UK and France, war-related famine killed 100,000 Palestinians and 2 days after the 31 October 2017 Australia victory over the Turks at Beersheba the British gave over Palestine as a Homeland for non-Semitic Ashkenazi Jewish Zionist settler colonialists, and thence started the Palestinian Genocide after 400 peaceful years under the Ottoman Turkish Caliphate. In 1948 the British-armed and British-trained Zionists seized 78% of Palestine and expelled 800,000 Palestinians (about 60% of the population). In 1967 a nuclear-armed Apartheid Israel seized all of Palestine plus bits of Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, and expelled a further 400,000 Arabs – and thus began the 57 year Occupation.

“Before the 7 October 2023 Palestinian Breakout from the Gaza Concentration Camp the World’s 15 million Palestinians included 7 million Exiled Palestinians (excluded from the homeland continuously inhabited by their forebears for over 3,000 years), 5.6 million Occupied Palestinians (with no human rights under brutal foreign military rule and confined to ever-dwindling West Bank patches and the Gaza Concentration Camp), and 2.1 million Israeli Palestinians (able to vote for the government ruling them albeit as Third Class citizens under 65 race-based, Nazi-style discriminatory laws and under threat of dispossession and expulsion). Before 7 October 2023 the Gaza Concentration Camp was already subject to severe blockade for over 16 years (from June 2007), as well as several massive bombing and killing episodes, although none as horrendously lethal as the present Gaza Massacre. Before 7 October 2023 the deadly Jewish Israeli-imposed blockade was designed to permit bare survival of the Gaza population. Before 7 October 2023, the GDP per capita was about $52,000 for Occupier Apartheid Israel, $3,400 for the Occupied Palestinian Territory and a mere $l,000 for the Gaza Concentration Camp. There was a 10 year life expectancy gap between Occupied Palestinians and Israelis [21].

“Before 7 October 2023 the Indigenous Palestinians represented about 51% of the Subjects of Apartheid Israel but after the killing of 335,500 Gazans by 5 September 2024 this had shrunk to 50%. Apartheid Israel is a democracy by genocide. Before the 7 October 2023 Breakout the Palestinian Genocide was associated with about 2.2 million deaths from violence (50,000) and deprivation (the remainder). However as set out below the Palestinian Genocide is now associated with about 2.5 million deaths from violence (100,000) and imposed deprivation (2.4 million) i.e. similar to Jewish deaths in the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million) [22-24] and indeed I have referred to a Palestinian Genocide and Palestinian Holocaust [8, 9, 25, 26].

“Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor (6 October 2024): “Since the start of the genocide in Gaza, more than 50,000 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli army, including around 42,000 recorded by the Gaza Ministry of Health, the majority being women and children. In addition, approximately 100,000 have been injured, with thousands of bodies still lying under the rubble and in the streets, unreachable by rescue and medical teams. An estimated 10 per cent of Gaza’s population has been killed, injured, reported missing, or detained as a result of Israeli military assaults. Of the 50,292 Palestinians killed—including those still buried under the debris—33 per cent were children [16,596 children], and 21 per cent were women [10,561 women and hence 23,134 men]. Thousands more have been forcibly detained, with 3,600 still languishing in various Israeli prisons and detention centres” [27]. The Mainstream media have been typically reporting about 40,000 killed for some months but this does not include those dead in the rubble (perhaps 10,000) and a huge and growing number of Gazans killed by the Jewish Israeli siege and the deadly lack of water, food, shelter, electricity, sanitation, medicine and medical care”.

Western Censorship

By: Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada

Excerpts

Attack on journalist part of broad crackdown on Palestine reporting, activism.

“Approximately 10 officers arrived at Winstanley’s North London home before 6 am and served the journalist with warrants and other papers authorizing them to search his house and vehicle for devices and documents.

“A letter addressed to Winstanley from the “Counter Terrorism Command” of the Metropolitan Police Service indicates that the authorities are “aware of your profession” as a journalist but that “notwithstanding, police are investigating possible offenses” under sections 1 and 2 of the Terrorism Act (2006). These provisions set out the purported offense of “encouragement of terrorism.”

“An officer conducting Thursday’s raid informed Winstanley that the investigation was connected with the journalist’s social media posts. Attempts to reach the Metropolitan Police Service for comment for this story have been unsuccessful.

“Although his devices were seized, Winstanley was not arrested and has not been charged with any offense.

“Winstanley is active on several social media platforms, and has more than 100,000 followers on Twitter/X, where he frequently shares articles, other peoples’ opinions and his own comments on Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people, British government support for these crimes, and the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation, apartheid and genocide”.

RUSSIA

Pressuring Russia from the West

Uriel Araujo: Gulf of Finland may become site of new conflict between NATO and Russia

By Uriel Araujo, InfoBrics, 10/4/24

Excerpts:

“Finland and Estonia, two NATO countries, have recently signed an agreement about Baltic Sea security. Moreover, and more importantly, they have announced their intention to blockade the Gulf of Finland by closing it to Russian shipping. The Russian Foreign Ministry reacted by stating that Russia would regard any such action as a violation of maritime law. Establishing their boundaries (pertaining to the Gulf of Finland’s contiguous zones) would be within their sovereign rights, of course. However, restricting maritime shipping the way they intend to do cannot be described as anything else than a violation of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea – with potential serious consequences.

“The Gulf of Finland extends to Saint Petersburg in Russia to the east. Its southern coast contains a network of ports plus the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant. The port of Primorsk at the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland is important for oil products, for example – there are several others. It would be hard to exaggerate the importance of the gulf for Russia. For one thing the construction of the Nord Stream pipeline began in Finnish waters.

“With that said, as Pavel Klachkov (Russian political scientist and a Financial University director) remarks, NATO’s military presence is increasing in the Baltic region, which is such a strategic area for Russia as well. In April, for instance, NATO joint military exercises commenced in Lithuania. Finland’s accession to the Alliance, he argues, gave “new momentum to the northern direction, where conditions are being created for a potential conflict between NATO and Russia.” The Atlantic Alliance has also begun setting up a headquarters in Mikkeli, a Finnish city, which lies very close to the Russian border.”…

“Moreover, NATO exercises have been rehearsing the blockade of key routes for Russia – both the Suwalki Gap and the Gulf of Finland are crucial for supplying Russia’s northwestern regions. This is the larger context behind the recent Finnish-Estonian announcement…

“In November 2020 I wrote that, under Joe Biden’s presidency, Washington would pursue the policy of countering and encircling Russia, bringing changes not only in US relations to Ukraine and Eastern Europe, but to the entirety of Europe. At the time, tensions were rising in most – if not all – countries neighboring Russia. For one thing, in September 2020 NATO troops took part in provocative military exercises in Estonia near the Russian border.

“Earlier that same year Washington sent no less than 20,000 troops to Europe to take part in the NATO exercise “Defender Europe 20”, It involved 18 countries across 10 European nations, including Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Georgia (all of which share a border with the Russian Federation). It was described as the “largest military exercises on the continent since before the end of the Cold War.” From 2020 onwards things intensified considerably – with vast consequences for the continent and the whole world.

Pressuring Russia from the South

Western Politics of Regime Change

The West and Georgia’s Crisis

Anatol Lieven, Almut Rochowanski and Artin DerSimonian

Posted on October 17, 2024

Excerpts

Executive Summary

“Until recently, Georgia was often held up in the West as an example of a relatively healthy post-Soviet democracy. For example, the Atlantic Council report “2024 Atlas: Freedom and Prosperity Around the World” rated Georgia in the top quarter of all nations for the health of its democratic institutions, ahead of countries like Poland and Ukraine. Yet, in advance of this month’s Georgian parliamentary election, claims are being made that the ruling Georgian Dream party is falling under the control of Moscow, and that Georgia is on the edge of sliding into autocracy. Both the U.S. and the E.U. have begun to put sanctions in place against Georgia. What happened?

In this research brief, we give a background analysis of the current challenges to Georgian democracy. We explore the history of Georgia’s democracy over the past several decades, conditions leading into the upcoming election, recent controversies such as the “foreign influence” law put forward by the ruling party, and the Georgian government’s reluctance to take a stronger line against Russia over the Ukraine war.

We argue that a fuller examination supports a more balanced view of Georgia’s situation, one that avoids an extreme black-and-white perspective on Georgian politics and the current election. Claims that the ruling party has fully embraced a Putin-like authoritarianism, or that it has even fallen under Russia’s direct control, seem highly exaggerated given Georgia’s recent history of real — if imperfect — democracy, and evidence of the government’s desire to cooperate with the West and join the E.U.

Unfortunately, it remains true that heated rhetoric on both sides has raised the stakes of the coming elections, and increased the likelihood of a new political crisis that could destabilize Georgia and potentially risk its relationship with the West. The Georgian government has threatened to ban opposition parties after the election, while the opposition has implied that if they do not accept the results of the elections, they will attempt to overturn them through street demonstrations.

Western governments should seek to avoid playing into this spiral of mutual radicalization between opposing political sides in Georgia and stress the importance of the Georgian people deciding their own future through democratic means. Western analysts should also appreciate the objective imperatives created for Georgian policymakers by Georgia’s geographical position bordering on Russia and its economic ties to Russia.

The U.S. and the E.U. can best honor Georgians’ right to self-determination by supporting election monitoring by objective international observers, and by committing to respect the election’s outcome. Georgian democracy would be hurt, not helped, if the West supports efforts to overturn an election result due to dissatisfaction with its outcome”.

The Yahya Sinwar Trap

OLIVER BOYD-BARRETT

OCT 17, 2024

Yahaya Sinwar

Western mainstream media are anxious to sell the notion that Yahya Sinwar, assassinated within the past day by Israel in southern Gaza was the architect of October 7 2023, responsible, they say, for the killings of over 1,000 Israelis and the taking of over 200 hostages. The idea that October 7 was simply one more cry for the liberation of a people abused and suppressed by Israel since the inception of the apartheid state gets no press today and never does. Nor the fact that some 50% of those killedon October 7 were killed by Israelis applying the Hannibal doctrine, that the most horrific of crimes attributed to the Hamas have been proven to be Israeli propaganda fabrications, and that most of the hostages are dying as a result of Israeli bombings and Israeli neglect.

This is the Yahya Sinwar trap, the selling of the idea to an apparently credulous public that monsters come out of nowhere, unbidden, to disturb the sleep of the oh-so-innocent, the so-deserving West (did we not all deserve Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Elon Musk - are not these the paragons of human blessedness?), heirs to the perpetrators of the greatest genocides - as of Native Americans by White invaders, of Inca and Aztec indigenous by the conquistadores, or African and Amazonian slaves to the rubber lust of Belgium’s King Leopold, or the holocaust by German Nazis of the Jews and millions more. There is no room in this idea for centuries of despoliation, mass murder, enslavement, because it is unthinkable that the West, now having basked itself for a few years in the self-annointed goodness of me-too feminism, same sex marriage and LGBT orthodoxy, could ever have been responsible or might still be responsible for anything really bad that might give cause to monsters to monsterize.

As the world waits for Israel to strike Iran, determined as Israel appears to be to lure a not-so-unwilling imperial hegemon into the fray of a regional war - possibly World War 3, possibly the end of the human species - the slaying of Yahya Sinwar somehow escapes notice as the start of Israel’s strike, in the same breath as reports of US strikes by B2 stealth Spirit bombers of five underground weapons storage sites in Yemen announce US readiness to join Israel in its campaign of regional slaughter.

A B-2 "Spirit" stealth bomber has just been used by the Americans to subdue the Houthis, in a move that announces a broader and deeper involvement of the US Empire in the Middle East conflagration. This type of aircraft has also been used to attack and intimidate smaller powers: Primarily designed as a nuclear bomber, the B-2 was first used in combat to drop conventional, non-nuclear ordnance in the Kosovo War in 1999. It was later used in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Yemen.^[6]^[7]

This generation of B2, at a cost of $2 billion per plane (there are 19 operational) can deliver conventional and nuclear warheads, and can fly without re-fuelling for distances up to 6,000 nautical miles - certainly enough to get a fellow from Missouri to Tehran. Their huge payload allows for the dropping of GBU-57 MOP “bunker busters,” - GPS-guided 30,000 pound bombs that can strike targets up to 200 feet below ground before exploding. That these weapons are used against the Yemenis but not the Russisans nor, yet, Iran, may signal US deference to a nuclear Russia and a potentially nuclear Iran.

The message is a warning to Tehran to back away. Even if Tehran had truly conducted a nuclear test a few days ago, as some believe, it would still be a year away from actually having warheads it could actually fit on missiles. We don’t know for sure what is the state of Iranian air-defense, and there is just a chance that whatever it is it could still take down a B2 missile. Russia’s caution in dealing with Pezeshkian, a man it has every reason to distrust, may have fatally slowed the transition of Russian S-400s to Iran, but Iran probably does have other Russian weapons and these might include either S-300s or the equivalents, at least, of Russian TOR and Panzir missile defense systems which, even if they lack the protection offered by more comprehsive systems can provide effective defense of vulnerable facilities.

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

Perfidy In Tehran – OpEd

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

Alastair Crooke
EURASIA REVIEW

Resize text-+=

Iran's Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei with Masoud Pezeshkian. Photo Credit: Tasnim News Agency

John Kerry, just last week at the World Economic Forum, so clearly blurting out the truth: “Our First Amendment stands as a major block to our ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence”.

Translated: Governing is all about narrative control. Kerry articulates the ‘International Order’s’ solution to the unwelcome phenomenon of an uncontrolled populism and of a potential leader who speaks for the people: Simply, ‘freedom to speak’ is unacceptable to the prescriptions agreed by the ‘inter-agency’ – the institutionalised distillation of the ‘International Order’.

Today’s reality unhinged narration is that Iran’s launch on Tuesday of 200 ballistic missiles – of which 181 reached Israel – were overwhelmingly intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome and Arrow missile defence systems. and with no deaths to show for the assault. It was “defeated and ineffective”, Biden pronounced.

Will Schryver however, a technical engineer and security commentator, writes: “I don’t understand how anyone who has seen the many video clips of the Iranian missile strikes on Israel cannot recognize and acknowledge that it was a stunning demonstration of Iranian capabilities. Iran’s ballistic missiles smashed through U.S./Israeli air defences and delivered several large-warhead strikes to Israeli military targets”.

The effect and the substance then lies in ‘proven capacity’ – the capacity to select other targets, the capacity to do more. It was in fact a restrained demonstrative exercise, not a full attack.

But the message has been erased from sight.

How is it that the U.S. Administration refuses to look truth in the eye and acknowledge what occurred, and prefers instead to ask the entire world, who saw the videos of missiles impacting in Israel, to ‘move along’ – as the authorities advise, pretending that there was ‘nothing substantive to see here’. Was ‘the affair’ just a nuisance to system governance and ‘consensus’, as Kerry so branded free speech? It seems so.

The structural problem, essayist Aurelien writes is not simply that the western professional class holds to an ideology – one that is the opposite to how ordinary people experience the world. That certainly is one aspect. But the bigger problem lies rather, with a technocratic conception of politics that is not ‘about’ anything. It is not really politics at all (as Tony Blair once said), but is nihilistic and absent of moral considerations.

Having no real culture of its own, the western professional class views religion as outdated and sees history as dangerous since it contains components that can be misused by ‘extremists’. It prefers therefore not to know history.

This produces the mixture of the conviction of superiority, yet deep insecurity, which typifies western leadership. The ignorance and fear of events and ideas that fall outside the confines of their rigid zeitgeist, they perceive, almost invariably, as innately inimical to their interests. And rather than seek to discuss and understand, that which is outside their capabilities, they use disparagement and character assassination instead to remove the nuisance.

Does this matter?

Yes, it matters, because it makes Iran’s ability to communicate effectively with the International Order’s ideological alignment highly problematic.

The West sought and pressured for a mitigated response from Iran – firstly after Israel’s April assassination of an Iranian General and his colleagues at the Iranian Consulate in Damascus.

Iran obliged. It launched drones and missiles towards Israel on 13 April in such a manner that sent a short (pre-warned) concerted message of capability, yet did not invite all-out war (as requested by the West).

Subsequent to the Israeli assassination of Ismail Haniyeh (a guest of Tehran participating in the inauguration of the new Iranian President), western states once again pleaded with Iran that it should again refrain from any military retaliation against Israel.

The new President has said publicly, that European and American officials offered Iran the removal of substantive sanctions on the Iranian Republic and a guaranteed ceasefire in Gaza in line with Hamas’ terms – if Israel was not attacked.

Iran held fire, accepting to appear weak to the outside world (for which it was harshly criticised). Yet western action shocked the inexperienced new President, Pezeshkian:

“They (the western states) lied”, he said. None of the promises were kept.

Then followed the ‘pager assault’ and assassinations of the Hizbullah leadership, including the iconic figure of its leader, Seyed Hassan Nasrallah, amidst huge civilian collateral deaths. The U.S. Administration (President Biden) said simply that this was ‘justice’ being done.

And once again, the West importuned, and threatened Iran against any retaliation towards Israel. But on this occasion, Iran launched a more effective ballistic missile attack, though one which deliberately omitted targeting Israel’s economic and industrial infrastructure, or the Israeli people, focusing instead on key military and intelligence sites. It was, in short, a demonstrative signal – albeit one with an effective component of inflicting damage on air bases and military and intelligence sites. It was yet again, a limited response.

And for what?

Open sneering from the West that Iran was deterred/ too frightened/ too divided to fully respond. In fact, the U.S. – knowing well that Netanyahu is looking for the pretext for war with Iran – offered Israel full support of the U.S. for a major retribution against Iran: “There will be severe consequences for this attack and we will work with Israel to make that the case”, Jake Sullivan said. “Make no mistake, the United States is fully, fully, fully supportive of Israel”, Biden said.

The ‘professional permanent class’ (the western deep state) eschews any moral underpinning. It makes a virtue of its nihilism. Perhaps the last leader capable of real diplomacy that springs to mind was JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis and in his subsequent dealings with the Soviet leaders. And what happened? … He was killed by the system.

Of course, many are angry in Iran. They ask whether Iran projected weakness too readily, and question whether that manifestation in some way contributed to Israel’s readiness to strike Lebanon so ruthlessly and without limitations, as in the Gaza model. Later reports suggest that the U.S. has new technological intel (not available to Israel) that pinpointed Sayyed Nasrallah’s whereabouts, and was supplied to Israel, which led to his assassination.

If the West insists to so demean Iranian restraint – wrongly attributing restraint to impotence – is the European and U.S. world order ‘uni-party’ ever capable of cold realism? Can they make a sound assessment of the consequences should Israel launch war on Iran? Netanyahu has made it clear that this is the Israeli government’s aim – war with Iran.

Hubristic misperception of an adversary, and the misperception of his hidden strengths, is so often the precursor to wider war (WW1). And Israel is awash with fervour for war to establish its ‘New Order’ for the Middle East.

The Biden Administration is ‘more than willing’ – laying the ‘revolver on the table’ – for Netanyahu to pick it up and discharge it, whilst Washington pretends to stand aloof from the act. Washington’s ultimate target is of course Russia.

That in diplomacy the West is not to be trusted is understood. The story’s moral, however, has wider implications. How exactly, in such circumstances, can Russia bring an end to the Ukraine conflict? It would appear that many more will needlessly die, simply because of the uni-party’s rigidity and its incapacity to ‘do’ diplomacy.

Just as many more Ukrainians have perished since the Istanbul II process was trashed.

The West is in the throes of at least one, potentially two, crushing defeats at the moment – and so the question arises: Will lessons be learned? Can the right lessons be learned? Does the professional world order class even accept that there are lessons to be learned?

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

As Western media drags its feet: Israel Is Routinely Shooting Children in the Head in Gaza.

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

CHIEF WITNESSES
Rajaa Musleh • Dr. Feroze Sidhwa

Resize text-+=

Democracy Now!

Oct 16, 2024 Latest Shows
https://democracynow.org/donate/sm-de...
As the official death toll in Gaza passes more than 42,400, the true number may be impossible to know until Israel's war is over. But medical workers who witnessed the carnage in Gaza's hospitals are speaking out. We speak with Dr. Feroze Sidhwa about his op-ed in The New York Times that features harrowing stories from dozens of healthcare workers and CT scans of children shot in the head or the left side of the chest. The Times called the corresponding images of the patients too graphic to publish. "I personally wish that Americans could see more of what it looks like when a child is shot in the head, when a child is flayed open by bombs," says Sidhwa. "I think it would make us think a little bit more about what we do in the world." We also speak with Palestinian nurse Rajaa Musleh, who worked at Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. "I will never forget the dogs were eating the dead body inside Shifa Hospital at the front of the emergency department. This will be stuck on my mind for my whole life," says Musleh. "My message for the whole world: We are human beings. We are not numbers. We have the right to receive healthcare inside Gaza."

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

Pausing on the Escalation Escalator } Vital Dispatches from Oliver Boyd-Barrett

Oliver Boyd-Barrett
Empire, Communication and NATO Wars

Pausing on the Escalation Escalator

Alastair Crooke : Resistance Escalates; Netanyahu Degenerates

Ray McGovern : US Aid to Israel is Illegal

09/11/10/07

09/11/10/07

Sinwar Fallout

BRICS Summit a Date for Regional War

Mobilizing Kiev

North Korean Soldiers in Russia

Funding Ukraine

Print this article

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

The Myopia of Anglo-American Rulers: How They Can’t Face Their Loss to the “Eurasian Miracle”

Bruce Lerro
SOCIALIST PLANNING BEYOND CAPITALISM

The Myopia of Anglo-American Rulers: How They Can’t Face Their Loss to the “Eurasian Miracle”

Hobson’s claims

Arrighi and Chase-Dunn

Stoddard

Madison Grant

ADDENDUM
Recommended related post

The decline of the West, the rise of the East and the South, and the internal dynamics of Western collapse discussed in this extraordinary video with Garland Nixon and Joti Brar.

IMPERIALISM: DECADENT AND DOOMED WITH JOTI BRAR - PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH - REVOLUTION IS IN THE AIR!

Print this article

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

Must-read dispatch from Oliver Boyd-Barrett: On nuclear provocations, actual Gaza toll, alarming Western censorship, and more.

Oliver Boyd-Barrett
Empire, Communication and NATO Wars

Print this article

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

Perfidy In Tehran – OpEd

Alastair Crooke
EURASIA REVIEW

Print this article

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

As Western media drags its feet: Israel Is Routinely Shooting Children in the Head in Gaza.

CHIEF WITNESSES
Rajaa Musleh • Dr. Feroze Sidhwa

Print this article

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

Pausing on the Escalation Escalator } Vital Dispatches from Oliver Boyd-Barrett

Oliver Boyd-Barrett Empire, Communication and NATO Wars

Pausing on the Escalation Escalator

Alastair Crooke : Resistance Escalates; Netanyahu Degenerates

Ray McGovern : US Aid to Israel is Illegal

09/11/10/07

09/11/10/07

Sinwar Fallout

BRICS Summit a Date for Regional War

Mobilizing Kiev

North Korean Soldiers in Russia

Funding Ukraine

Print this article

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

The Myopia of Anglo-American Rulers: How They Can’t Face Their Loss to the “Eurasian Miracle”

Bruce Lerro SOCIALIST PLANNING BEYOND CAPITALISM

The Myopia of Anglo-American Rulers: How They Can’t Face Their Loss to the “Eurasian Miracle”

Hobson’s claims

Arrighi and Chase-Dunn

Stoddard

Madison Grant

ADDENDUM Recommended related post

The decline of the West, the rise of the East and the South, and the internal dynamics of Western collapse discussed in this extraordinary video with Garland Nixon and Joti Brar.

IMPERIALISM: DECADENT AND DOOMED WITH JOTI BRAR - PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH - REVOLUTION IS IN THE AIR!

Print this article

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

Must-read dispatch from Oliver Boyd-Barrett: On nuclear provocations, actual Gaza toll, alarming Western censorship, and more.

Oliver Boyd-Barrett Empire, Communication and NATO Wars

Steps to Nuclear Confrontation in West Asia

Steps to Nuclear Confrontation in Ukraine

Palestinian Deaths 335,500 Gaza Dead Ignored By Western Mainstream Media: Input To Special Rapporteur Report To Human Rights Council

by Dr Gideon Polya

Western Censorship

Pressuring Russia from the West

Pressuring Russia from the South

The Yahya Sinwar Trap

Print this article

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

Perfidy In Tehran – OpEd

Alastair Crooke EURASIA REVIEW

Print this article

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

As Western media drags its feet: Israel Is Routinely Shooting Children in the Head in Gaza.

CHIEF WITNESSES Rajaa Musleh • Dr. Feroze Sidhwa

Print this article

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

Oliver Boyd-Barrett
Empire, Communication and NATO Wars

Bruce Lerro
SOCIALIST PLANNING BEYOND CAPITALISM

ADDENDUM
Recommended related post

Oliver Boyd-Barrett
Empire, Communication and NATO Wars

Palestinian Deaths

335,500 Gaza Dead Ignored By Western Mainstream Media: Input To Special Rapporteur Report To Human Rights Council

Alastair Crooke
EURASIA REVIEW

CHIEF WITNESSES
Rajaa Musleh • Dr. Feroze Sidhwa