Air Strip One: UK suffers humiliating defeat in UN over theft of Chagos Islands

From: 21st Century Wire

Air Strip One: UK suffers humiliating defeat in UN over theft of Chagos Islands


IMAGE: Britain’s Ambassador to the UN, Karen Pierce, left in the lurch by near unanimous resolution.

Back in 1967, the United Kingdom made the decision that was going to take Chagos Islands away from its indigenous inhabitants in order to give the United States yet another military base. To do this, Britain had to forcibly evict its native inhabitants. Since being expelled, Chagossian natives have been prevented from returning to their rightful home and have been fighting the UK in the courts, but to no avail. However, yesterday a United Nations ruling may have finally turned the tide in favor of the islands’ victims of ethnic cleansing.

The United Nations general assembly overwhelmingly backed a motion condemning Britain’s illegal occupation and theft of the Chagos Archipelago located in the Indian Ocean.

UN General Assembly members voted 116-6 for a non-binding resolution which left a reeling UK diplomatically isolated, but is also a symbolized the diminished status of the US on the world stage. Despite months of behind the scenes campaigning and glad-handing by US officials, the vote was a complete route and a categorical repudiation of the Anglo-America imperial dominion.

“Even we didn’t expect support for the UK to go into single figures,” said Jagdish Koonjul, the Mauritian ambassador to the UN, to the Guardian. “More importantly, this has happened despite the huge, huge, pressure on national capitals and at the UN.”

The vote set forth a six-month deadline for the UK to exit from the Chagos Islands who would then be reunified with the island nation of Mauritius. The UN ruling endorses an advisory opinion which had previously been issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in February 2019, which called for the UK to relinquish its illegally gotten territory and allow the native people it had ethnically cleansed 40 years ago – to return to their rightful homes.

If the Chagos residents are successful, then the real challenge begins, as the US military is known worldwide as the worst polluter and dumper of toxic waste which it routinely does at military sites globally. Whether the US or the UK would pay for a proper clean-up of the island is unknown, and more likely will seek to bribe the natives with cash payments in order to maintain their geopolitical “Air Strip One” strategic location which allows it to militarily join the Middle East and Asia.

In many ways, for the Chagossians, the real battle is only beginning.

For more information on this story, watch filmmaker John Pilger‘s masterpiece, ‘Stealing a Nation: Theft of the Chagos Islands’ (2014):

.

On any number of metrics, the USA is the world’s most lawless state.

From: Steel City  Scribe

Can Alice Miller shed light on America?

23MAY

“Every once in a while I try to make sense of otherwise savvy people who refuse to see a reality staring us in the face: that on any number of metrics the USA is the world’s most lawless state.

*

Which nation used nuclear weapons for real?

Image result for hiroshima image

Don’t say it was to defeat Japan and end WW2. That ain’t so, as politicians and soldiers as high up the food chain as Eisenhower have said.1 It was to put the USSR in its place and, in keeping with a mindset that continues to vaporise millions in the global south, the deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki hardly register on the Pentagon charts of collateral damage.

*

Which nation has more military bases, on every part of the planet, than all others combined?

Image result for map us military bases around iran

The above map is no longer available but was sold by Amazon.com as a laminate.

*

Which nation has an arms sector that dwarfs all others, enabling state made billionaires to syphon off wealth from the many?

https://ourworldindata.org/military-spending

*

Which nation operates in a state of permanent war?

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/how-perpetual-war-became-us-ideology/238600/

*

Which nation calls itself Exceptionalist (and disregards international law with impunity)?

*

Underpinning all this on the material front are the sheer size of the US economy,2 and unique advantages conferred by Bretton Woods and petrodollars. (See The Global Minotaur, by Yannis Varoufakis.) On the ideological front, it helps that English is the world’s lingua franca, enabling an entertainments industry worth trillions of dollars to spread American Values and blind the world – especially Western Europe, Canada and the Antipodes – to the most stubborn of non-erasable truths.

But there’s something else. Back in the nineties I read widely on child abuse. One psychologist, Alice Miller I think, says victims blame themselves. Why? It’s the least pessimistic conclusion to draw. The idea of the most powerful person in the child’s world being a Bad Person leaves her without hope. Better to blame herself and strive to be a Good Person, since that is the only take on her situation to offer the illusion of control.

If I try hard to be good, one day I’ll get it right and daddy won’t need to keep on hurting me.

Not a perfect analogy, I grant you. By definition, analogies never are. But when it comes to the risible idea of America as force for good in the world, it has no small explanatory power. Today, Caitlin Johnstone offers her own take. It’s not the same as mine – in fact it extends it; this dad’s violence going beyond his kids – but not at odds with it either. Caity describes a bad dad who:

… patrols the neighborhood with a loaded pistol in each hand, and if anyone so much as looks at him funny he runs up to them and points both barrels in their face until they lay on the ground with hands behind head and apologize. With particularly noncompliant neighbors he’ll burst into their house late at night and beat them within an inch of their lives until they agree to his demands, then get all his other neighbors to testify in court that he did it in self defense. Sometimes he’ll even stage events to make it look like a neighbor attacked him, then he’ll go to their house and murder them in cold blood.

Emphasis added – in light of Douma revelations deafeningly ignored by corporate media – and case rested.

*

This video should be of more than passing interest to Brits. It’s all good, but if pushed for time, skip to 3:51. The context is a particularly awkward question for the Evil Assad narrative. Why use poison gas to kill a few dozen civilians when he’s winning the war and the only thing that could change that would be to give the US an excuse to go from covert to overt aggression?

A Sky News presenter – I’ve never liked the term ‘presstitute’ but if ever it applied, it does here – asks General Jonathan Shaw, who commanded the British forces in Iraq, a question designed to elicit condemnation of Russia “for making it harder to launch an attack without putting it to a parliamentary vote”. Clearly that would be a damning indictment in her (or Rupert’s) book, but Shaw throws a spanner in the works: saying that “the debate that’s missing here is …” precisely that question of motive.

The general starts to elaborate, only to be cut off at 4:47 by the tight lipped presenter. And if you think Sky News a special case, do please tell me where the leaked OPCW report – surely a massive story – has been covered in Guardian or BBC.”

* * *

  1. ‘In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson … informed me our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt there were a number of cogent reasons to question … such an act … I voiced my grave misgivings, first … that Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb … unnecessary, and secondly I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion.’ Dwight D Eisenhower, The Whitehouse Years.
  2. That China’s economy is set to surpass America’s, and soon, is all we need know to understand the dangerous provocations and alarming war talk from Washington.

US owner of Panorama abuse hospital previously filmed and accused of similar patient abuse in 2017

Pride's Purge

Undercover videos from 2017 show staff from same US owner assaulting young patients

A hospital owned by the private US firm at the centre of the shocking mental health abuse scandal revealed by BBC Panorama tonight was secretly filmed in 2017 showing its staff assaulting and abusing young mental health patients.

Whorlton Hall – the UK hospital at the centre of the UK allegations – is run by a company called Cygnet Health Care with headquarters in Kent.

But Cygnet is owned by a massive US healthcare company called Universal Health Services.

And in 2017, a UHS mental health unit was secretly filmed revealing similar abuse as that revealed tonight by Panorama in the UK:

Videos Show UHS Hospital Staff Assaulting Young Patients

UHS has been the subject of abuse accusations and investigations into its mental health care units in the US for years.

The abuse investigations include abuse

View original post 41 more words

Cases Against Assange, Manning Prove: US Legal System Is a Farce

Paul Craig Roberts Mon, May 20, 2019

https://russia-insider.com/en/cases-against-assange-manning-prove-us-legal-system-farce/ri27082
“Everyone who is aware of the US government’s extraordinary criminal actions at home and abroad bears a heavy weight. The millions of peoples murdered, maimed, orphaned, widowed, and displaced by gratuitous American military aggression comprise a Holocaust of deaths based entirely on lies and false accusations in order to advance secret American and Israeli agendas. I suspect that the heavy burden of responsibility for mass murder and destruction committed in our name is the reason most Americans prefer the fake news fed to them about how good and wonderful and exceptional we are and how hard our government works to protect us from the nasty folks elsewhere.

This storyline converts the illegal brutal war crimes of the US government against women, children, defenseless citizens, schools, wedding parties, funerals, and farmers in their fields into glorious and brave defenses of our liberty and virtue. If you want the truth watch the video leaked by Manning of US troops enjoying themselves while from the air they machine-gun reporters and innocent civilians walking along a street and follow up by machine-gunning a father and his two young children, babies, who stopped to help the wounded bleeding in the street. The leak of the video that showed the true picture of Washington’s wars is the reason Manning was tortured and imprisoned. It is the person who told the truth, not the criminals who committed the murders, who was punished.

I agree that the fake story of America’s moral worthiness is much easier to live with than it is to bear the shame of the true story. But in the end the fake story destroys our liberty even more completely than would conquest by a foreign opponent. People are more suspicious of an occupying power than they are of their own government and are less likely to believe foreign occupiers when they lie to them. In contrast, a people’s own government can trap them in a false consciousness and keep them there with fake news.

Wherever one looks at the behavior of Americans today, from airline flight attendants to police to national security advisors and secretaries of state, one sees people devoid of moral conscience, integrity, compassion, empathy, and self-control. For unreasonable and petty spite alone, a female airline attendant on a long-delayed Southwest Airline flight called police and had a man to whom she took a dislike arrested and taken off the airplane. All of the passengers protested to the police that the arrested person had done nothing, but the cops didn’t listen. They had another victim to abuse. Was the victimization of this person the result of Identity Politics teaching women to hate men?
Recently, a black woman pushed an elderly white male off a bus into the street simply because he interrupted her harangue of other passengers by telling her she should be nicer to people. He died from his injuries. Was this murderous act the product of Identity Politics teaching black Americans to hate white Americans?

Trump’s crazed war criminal national security adviser, John Bolton, and the idiot secretary of state, Pompeo, want to cause massive civilian deaths in Iran and Venezuela. Iran is to be overthrown for Israel, and Venezuela for US oil companies. The motives are blatant and obvious, but Bolton and Pompeo are not denounced and forced to resign for their shameful murderous intentions. Yet, if they used the n-word or sexually harassed a woman, they would have to resign. This demonstrates the twisted and sick state of American morality today. Bombing people is acceptable, but words might really hurt them.

Washington’s case against Julian Assange is so contrived and so weak, that the corrupt US attorney assigned to frame-up Assange has resorted to persecution of Manning in an effort to coerce false testimony against Assange from Manning. After being tortured and serving seven years in prison for revealing a US war crime, as Manning was required to do under the US military code, Manning was pardoned by President Obama. Now Manning is back in prison for a second time after being pardoned, because Manning will not cooperate in the frame-up of Assange by giving false testimony to a grand jury. Without false testimony, the corrupt US attorney hasn’t a case that could get a conviction from even the typical insouciant American jury, normally a collection of gullible people easily manipulated by the prosecutor.

When Manning was imprisoned for 63 days for refusing to tell lies about Assange, Manning spent 28 of those days in solitary confinement. Why?

A week after Manning was released, the corrupt US attorney called Manning again before the grand jury that the corrupt US attorney is using to contrive a case against Assange. Again Manning refused to cooperate in the frame-up, and was again held in contempt and again remanded into federal prison. This time a corrupt US federal district judge, Anthony Trenga, added to Manning’s jail time a daily fine of $500 rising to $1,000 daily after 60 days. In other words, the corrupt judge is helping the corrupt US attorney to coerce Manning into cooperating in a frameup of Assange. Americans need to understand that their judges are not judges. They are operatives of the American police state.

When I characterize the US attorney and judge as corrupt, I don’t mean that they are taking money, although that cannot be ruled out. I mean that they are corrupt in the sense that they have abandoned the rule of law and do not see their function as serving justice. The US Constitution and its amendments establish law as a shield of the people against coercive and arbitrary actions of government, but the US attorney and judge are using law as a weapon against individuals against whom authorities want revenge. For years we have been witnessing the rule of law being attacked from every level, from the president to the local police. See Roberts and Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

No one has protested the open and highly visible effort to force Manning to commit perjury that can be used to build a case against Assange or otherwise be imprisoned for “contempt” and fined into penury. The despicable liberal-progressive-left whores that comprise the US print and TV media and NPR will not protest the injustice. They hate Manning and Assange for having more integrity than all of them together. The conservative talk radio hosts won’t protest the attempt to coerce Manning, because they love Trump, Washington’s wars, and hate “anti-Americans,” which is everyone who dares tell the truth about the US. On conservative talk radio on May 17, I heard one popular host say “I am happy Manning is in prison.”

No US senators or representatives and neither the Senate or House judiciary committee sees anything untoward in forcing an American citizen to produce the needed lies for framing up the world’s best journalist. Law schools and bar associations are not demanding the corrupt US attorney to be disbarred for violating every precept laid down by US Attorney General, Surpreme Court Justice, and Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson. Nor are they demanding the impeachment of the corrupt federal district judge, who perhaps has his eye on appointment to the appeals court for his cooperation in finishing off the First Amendment.

The American people are too insouciant and brainwashed to know what is happening. Regardless, they are as powerless as third world peasants who have a dictator’s boot on their necks.

The “Western democracies”—what a joke—have not raised a voice at the US government’s public display of intimidation of a witness, at the US government’s use of imprisonment and coercive fines in a public display of forcing a person to lie in order that the US government can get revenge on a journalist who published leaked materials that show conclusively that the US government is a deranged war criminal, a liar and deceiver of its dumbshit allies and population, and the greatest threat to peace and stability in the world.

Assange might be saved by prosecutors with a guilty conscience in Sweden, the country in which Assange’s troubles began. Assange’s troubles began in Sweden where two women enthralled with his celebrity separately invited him into their beds. One of them became alarmed when he did not use a condom. To reassure herself that he did not have a sexually transmitted disease, she asked him to take a test. He foolishly refused. She went to the police, not to report a rape but to inquire if Assange could be forced to submit to testing. The other woman found out about the other woman, and was angry that she was not the only woman in his sexual life.

It was the police and a feminist prosecutor taught to hate men who made it into a rape investigation. But as the women said it was consensual sex, the charges were dropped. Assange was released and free to leave Sweden.

His second mistake was to go to England, an American puppet state. Once Assange was in Britain, he was as good as in Washington’s hands. Washington encouraged a second Swedish feminist prosecutor to reopen the case. As there were no charges against Assange, all the feminist prosecutor could do was to try to extradite Assange for more questioning. Once Sweden had him, the expectation was that Washington would pay the bribe for his extradition to the US. Normally, extradition requires formal charges, but Sweden had none. Normally, there is no extradition for questioning. But a corrupt British court, perhaps well paid by Washington, agreed to the extradition for questioning and placed Assange under house arrest under a large bond paid, if memory serves, by Sir James Goldsmith’s daughter.

Whether or not Sir James’ daughter understood it, Assange and his lawyers understood that he was in line to be delivered to Sweden and from there to the Washington torturers. Therefore, asylum was arranged for Assange in the Ecuadoran Embassy where he lived seven years until a Washington-compliant and corrupt Ecuadoran president, well paid with an IMF loan, gained power and revoked Assange’s asylum. The British police then did Washington’s bidding and dragged Assange out of the embassy and placed him in a maximum security prison as if he were some sort of dangerous criminal.

The second Swedish prosecutor had eventually consented to interviewing Assange in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London and afterward dropped her extradition request, and the case was closed for the second time. But the corrupt British legal system, which is almost as corrupt as the American one, put Assange in jail for 50 weeks based on “bail jumping” despite the fact that the extradition request from Sweden on which the bail was based was withdrawn.

Now Washington’s British vassal is considering the request from Britain’s Washington master to hand over Assange for torture, confession, and death or long-term imprisonment. But suddenly Sweden has found that there is “still probable cause” that not using a condum could be a sexual offense and have again requested Britain to hand Assange over to Sweden.

Is this a rescue attempt on Sweden’s part to make up for having ruined the life of the world’s best journalist? Or is it Washington’s insurance polcy against the British coming to their senses and, on the basis of justice, refusing Washington’s extradition order?

In England the decision is up to the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, who is not of British ethnicity. Hopefully, he is an immigrant from one of the abused colonies and will stick his finger in the UK/US eye and turn Assange over to Sweden where he is unlikely to be convicted for engaging in unprotected sex. Hopefully, Assange will not be so stupid as to then travel to another Washington puppet state. If he does, he will experience his tribulation again.

But Washington pays so well I doubt Assange can escape. The corrupt Western media is against him because Assange shows them up as devoid of an ounce of integrity and devoid of the practice of journalism. The American presstitutes don’t care about the First Amendment. As they never tell the truth, they don’t need First Amendment protection.

Washington, which claims to represent the American people, is for war and more war. Bolton intends that the US will, for Israel, attack Iran and create chaos there as was created in Iraq and Libya, and also in Syria prior to the Russian intervention.

Under neoconserative and Israeli leadership, America has become a deranged country, distrusted by other governments and considered the primary threat to peace and life on earth.

Every American should be ashamed. But they are not. At some point, the Russians, Chinese, Europeans, Iranians, and everyone else will finally realize, hopefully before it is too late, that Washington is overwhelmed by evil, capable only of destruction, and a dangerous threat to life on earth.

Source: PaulCraigRoberts.org

Congress Wants to Steal $1.68 Billion from Iran

From: Global Research

Congress Wants to Steal $1.68 Billion from Iran

Iranian

It’s not enough to want untold thousands to die and the country destroyed, now neocons in Congress want to steal more than a billion and a half dollars from Iran as compensation for something somebody else did or didn’t do. 

From the Daily Caller:

A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday to make $1.68 billion worth of Iranian funds available to the families of 241 American servicemen killed in the 1983 suicide bombing on a Marine base in Beirut, Lebanon.

In Trump Bizarro World, as in the Obama and Bush versions of the same, reality and facts are only applicable when they serve the agenda. 

For instance:

The Iranian regime founded and supported the terror group responsible for the attack, Hezbollah. Multiple court decisions have authorized that Iranian funds be seized and given to the victim’s families.

It looks like The Daily Caller is going for The Washington Post Fake News Award, or one similar handed out by The Atlantic Council with the help of the Rockefeller Bros. 

First and foremost, Hezbollah was not founded by Iran. It is certainly funded by Iran in much the same way the US funds Israel. 

If Israel hadn’t invaded Lebanon in 1982, there would today be no Hezbollah. Hezbollah began as a Shia resistance to Israel’s invasion and mistreatment of Shias in Southern Lebanon. 

Second point. It is not conclusively known what group or country is responsible for the bombing of the US Marine Barracks in Beirut back in 1983. 

At the time, Reagan’s Vice President Bush, Secretary of State George Shultz, and National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane decided to blame Iran and Syria for the attack and a second on the US embassy in Lebanon. The US later said elements that would become Hezbollah were responsible. 

“Hezbollah’s track record on terror is largely speculative,” I wrote in April. “There is no evidence the group kidnapped the president of the American University in Beirut, Davis S. Dodge, or is there conclusive evidence it attacked the US embassy in Beirut or truck bombed a US military barracks in Lebanon.”

The US said the Islamic Jihad, a little-known group that claimed responsibility for the attacks, was actually Hezbollah, an organization that did not yet exist. Hezbollah formed in 1985. 

The attacks allowed the US and France to collaborate on attacking Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Lebanon’s Beqaa Valley. The USS New Jersey fired hundreds of shells at Druze and Syrian positions. 

“In a nine-hour period, the USS New Jersey fired 288 16-inch rounds, each one weighing as much as a Volkswagen Beetle. In those nine-hours, the ship consumed 40 percent of the 16-inch ammunition available in the entire European theater,” write Martin and Walcott in Best Laid Plans: The Inside Story of America’s War Against Terrorism. 

The target was Syria. If the US-Israeli plan for the Middle East was to be realized, Hafez al-Assad’s influence in Lebanon would need to be terminated. 

The first step was to kill Syrian commanding officers by lobbing 30 or more shells at a command center in the Shouf mountains. 

Many Shia and Druze civilians were killed in the effort by the US, France, and the Lebanese Army to eliminate the influence of Syria in the artificially created state of Lebanon carved out of Syria decades before by the French. 

All of the above historical information is easily available on the internet. Is it too much to ask corporate media journalists to do their homework? Or is putting things in their proper historical and political context a conspiracy theory? 

At the absolute minimum, they should mention the fact the Marine barracks and US embassy bombings have not been conclusively linked to Hezbollah, a group that did not exist at the time. 

Of course, I don’t expect this to happen under the current propaganda system imposed by the state and its corporate media. 

If a professional journalist wants to keep his or her job, they read the script. 

It’s not the truth, at best half-truth. It is deception. 

It’s the manipulation of millions of people to gain their acquiescence for the unimaginable—bombing sorties, cruise missiles, the drones of Hell unleashed, and the mangled and dismembered bodies of men, women, and children Mike Pence and John Bolton will never see. 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

At last Corbyn fights back against the anti-Semitism smears – now its time to junk the Witchhunter’s Charter, the IHRA

Tony Greenstein’s Blog

Socialist, anti-Zionist, anti-racist

Tuesday, 7 May 2019

https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2019/05/at-last-corbyn-fights-back-against-anti.html

Corbyn’s AccuserTimes ‘journalist’ Lord Finkelstein was a Board Member of the RacistGatestone Institute – this is Jonathan Freedland’s accomplice


Corbyn’s sin was one of omission. He had failed to comment on some 10 anti-Semitic lines in a book of 400 pages. Anti-Semitism was unfortunately not unknown a century ago.
The latest episode in the fake anti-Semitism smear campaign began on April 30th when Times Associate Editor and Tory peer Danny Finkelstein wrote Corbyn’s praise for deeply antisemitic book. The book in question was J.A. Hobson’s classic Imperialism – A Study.

What is good though is that for the first time instead of apologising and promising to do better and then being kicked in the teeth, Corbyn has stood up to his racist abusers. Prime amongst these being Jonathan Freedland and the Board of Deputies, a Zionist organisation whichjustified the cold blooded murder of Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza last year.

In his letter of 2nd May to Marie van der Zyl, President of the BOD Corbyn spoke of the ‘mischievous representation to the foreword to my book’ and the ‘false accusation that I endorsed the anti-Semitic content of this 1902 book.’

Jonathan Freedland never misses an opportunity to attack Corbyn on behalf of his Zionist friends – in this instance this establishment journalist poses as a radical

Because Corbyn has stood up to these bullies we can expect these liars to slink away because bullies are also cowards.  But it is worth noting that if one of us had accused our detractors of making false accusations, then according to the Compliance Unit that would itself have been proof we were ‘anti-Semitic’

Just tweeting that the Israel lobby is responsible for the fake anti-Semitism campaign is in itself enough to warrant somebody being suspended.

This tweet is part of the evidence for a member of the Labour Party being suspended – merely referring to an article making an allegation that the Israeli lobby is behind the antisemitism smears, which is itself based on an undercover Al Jazeera programme, The Lobby, is sufficient in itself to prove antisemitism

However Corbyn must go further. If ‘mischievous’ allegations are made about him then the same is true for many of us and who is making these allegations if not Israel’s lobbyists?

Hobson’s book with a warm endorsement from The Guardian

On the front cover of Hobson’s book was a blurb from a Guardian Review: it said the book had ‘changed the course of social history.’ The Guardian seems to have gone overboard on this book. A Guardian Review described it in glowing terms:

‘Hobson’s Imperialism belongs to the small group of books in the years from 1900 to the outbreak of war that have definitely changed the contours of social thought.’

Michael White, their former Political Editor, described how:

someone thrust into my hand a copy of JA Hobson’s influential classic, Imperialism (1902) whose 2011 edition contains Jeremy’s own perfectly decent introductory essay. Its analysis will impress many. Others will shake their heads.

However to the Guardian’s peripatetic former Comment Editor Finkelstein’s article was like a red rag to a bull. Freedland has penned innumerable anti-Corbyn articles and he immediately penned another which appeared the next day – Jeremy Corbyn is either blind to antisemitism – or he just doesn’t care.

So pleased was Freedland with Finkelstein’s ‘scoop’ that hetweeted ‘credit to @Dannythefink for exposing this deeply depressing episode, one to add to an already long list.’

And here you have a good example of how Establishment journalists feed off each other’s prejudices. Finkelstein is a Tory peer, Freedland is a ‘liberal’ journalist but when it comes to Zionism and Israel, sorry ‘anti-Semitism’, you couldn’t put a piece of paper between them. They operate within a consensus that has a very small gap between them. What they share is more important than what divides them.

Freedland wrote that

In today’s Times, [it was the previous day’s] the columnist Daniel Finkelstein has dug out a 2011 reissue of JA Hobson’s 1902 work, Imperialism: A Study. The foreword was written by Jeremy Corbyn in 2011.’

According to Freedland this mural contains Jewish bankers with ‘hooked noses’ – if so I can’t find them!

So blatant is Freedland’s dishonesty that I penned an Open Letter to Jonathan Freedland. I was particularly taken with the idea that Finkelstein just happened to come across Corbyn’s 8 year old Review, that he dug it up much like you might dig up a few weeds. No doubt Luciana Berger also just happened to ‘dig up’ a mural dating back to 2012 last year!

One can only await with bated breath what will be on offer next year.  Judging by present trends it will be at least a decade old by then!

Andrei Brevik, the Norwegian fascist who killed over 70 young socialists, is quite clear that anti-Zionist and anti-racist Jews are the enemy of both him and the Zionists 

We can assume that the ‘digging up’ was done by others, whether they are at the Israeli Embassy or MI5 is irrelevant. But given that Freedland at least pretends to be a democrat, I wrote that

[if what was happening to Corbyn] happened to any other politician then we would have no one in public life and you know it. You are an integral part of a concerted attempt by powerful forces in the British State to discredit a radical politician. Of course the Right would like to attack Corbyn for his economic proposals or his opposition to austerity but that wouldn’t play well. Hence the ‘anti-Semitism’ card which you use.

Freedland quickly passed over Hobson having been a political correspondent for the Manchester Guardian! It’s quite a tradition that Freedland has to live down. Ted, the son of C.P. Scott, the Guardian’s most revered editor, even married Hobson’s daughter, Mabel!

Corbyn’s crime was that he hadn’t mentioned that Hobson was anti-Semitic. It is as if a mention of T S Elliot’s anti-Semitism is compulsory before you can discuss his poetry. And not only Elliot, but Virginia Woolf, Jack London, Dickens, Shakespeare and Orwell too. Although anti-Semitism has all but disappeared today, other than as a stick to beat the Left, it had an inglorious tradition amongst the British ruling class. People like Freedland and Finkelstein.

What is also true is that people like Hobson tended to abandon such views when the reality of the society they lived in changed. Even T S Eliot seems to have become a reformed character.

On the 7th June 2003 Zionist solicitor Anthony Julius wrotethat

‘Eliot was not a typical anti-semite. He was instead an extraordinary anti-semite. He did not reflect the anti-semitism of his times, he contributed to it, even enlarged it.’

Six months before Professor Ronald Schuchard of Emory University ‘in a ground-breaking essay’ in the January 2003 issue of “Modernism/ Modernity”, refuted the charge of Eliot’s anti-Semitism, backing his claims with a cache of new documents.

As Paul Kelemen showed in The British Left and Zionism – History of a Divorce (MUP 2012) anti-Semitism was far more deeply entrenched in the right-wing leadership of the Labour Party in years gone by. Sydney Webb, founder of the Fabians and later Colonial Secretary Lord Passfield, wrote that ‘French, German, Russian socialism is Jew-ridden. We, thank heaven, are free.’ And why? ‘There’s no money in it.’ 

During the war years Attlee, Morrison and Bevin supported Churchill and Eden in their implacable hostility to the entry of Jewish refugees. They even worried when they learnt that Jews might be extruded by Germany’s allies rather than exterminated. But Freedland and Finkelstein have no complaints because the Zionist movement, led by President of the Board of Deputies Selig Brodetsky was also opposed to the entry of Jewish refugees. Their argument being that Jewish refugees should go to Palestine if they were to go anywhere.

It was left to Professor Donald Sassoon, in a letter to the Guardian, to explain that Hobson’s book has been taught for years in universities without anyone feeling the need to highlight the 10 anti-Semitic lines.

Sassoon also makes the point that ‘Far less marginal are Hobson’s comments about the “lower races” (ie black Africans) and what to do with them’ but anti-Black concern is of no interest to Freedland or Finkelstein. Only anti-Semitism concerns them.

Freedland also failed to mention that Gordon Brown also failed to mention Hobson’s anti-Semitism when wrote that

‘in Britain, this idea of liberty as empowerment is not a new idea, J A Hobson asked, “is a man free who has not equal opportunity with his fellows of such access to all material and moral means of personal development and work as shall contribute to his own welfare and that of his society?”

Tony Blair also described Hobson as “probably the most famous Liberal convert to what was then literally ‘new Labour’.” in a pamphlet for the Fabians.

Daniel Finkelstein – Board Member of White Supremacist Gatestone Institute

According to Powerbase Finkelstein was a founder member of the board of Gatestone

Finkelstein is or was a member of the Board of Governors, as of October 2015 of the Gatestone Institute.  What is the Gatestone Institute?  Well according to Wikipedia

the Gatestone Institute is a right-wing anti-Muslim  think tank with a focus on Islam and the Middle East. The organization has attracted attention for publishing false articles and being a source of viral falsehoods.

Gatestone was founded in 2012 by Nina Rosenwald, who serves as its president. Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton, now national security advisor, was its chairman from 2013 to March 2018. Its current chairman isAmir Taheri. Its authors include Nonie DarwishAlan DershowitzRaymond IbrahimDenis MacEoinDaniel Pipes,Raheel RazaKhaled Abu Toameh, and Geert Wilders.

Finkelstein is recorded in the House of Lords Register as having spoken and been paid at a number of its events. The engagements are listed below. It is clear that he is a regular speaker for the GI.

Speaking engagement, 27 October 2016, Gatestone Institute

Speaking engagement, 20 November 2015, Gatestone Institute

Speaking Engagement, 14 October 2014, Gatestone Institute

Speaking engagement, 10 March 2014, Gatestone Institute

Daniel Finkelstein is a member of what is, according to the article White supremacists at the heart of Whitehall a racist organisation with strong international links and ties with other anti-Muslim Groups.

One key figure is neo-con Douglas Murray, Associate Director of the cold-war Henry Jackson Society. According to Nafeez Ahmed  

Behind the facade of concern about terrorism is a network of extremist neoconservative ideologues, hell-bent on promoting discrimination and violence against Muslims and political activists who criticise Israeli and Western government policies

Another prominent figure in the HJS is Baroness Cox, a former Deputy Speaker of the House of Lords. She is a virulent Islamaphobe and all round bigot. According to Ahmed in 2007, she told the Jerusalem Summit – an anti-Palestinian network of which she has been co-president since 2005, that “Britain has been deeply infiltrated” by Islamist extremists, who have converted the country into “a base for training and teaching militant Islam”.

“They are using our institutions to recruit young people, and preventing any critical analysis of Islam,” she added. “Britain’s cultural and spiritual heritage are under threat.”

Later that year, Cox told the Jerusalem Post she was concerned about “the disturbing alliance between the Islamists and the Left in the UK,” On the presidium of the Jerusalem Summit alongside Cox was another well-known anti-Muslim hate-monger Daniel Pipes.

According to former British ambassador Craig Murray, Cox is “a prominent supporter of organisations which actively and openly promote the ethnic cleansing of all Palestinians from Gaza.’

According to James Bloodworth in  Labour should cut its ties with the illiberal Henry Jackson Society Murray wrote that the problem was skin colour not religion or colour:

“We long ago reached the point where the only thing white Britons can do is to remain silent about the change in their country. Ignored for a generation, they are expected to get on, silently but happily, with abolishing themselves, accepting the knocks and respecting the loss of their country. ‘Get over it. It’s nothing new. You’re terrible. You’re nothing’.”

Bloodworth wrote that in 2013 11 Labour MPs were members of the HJS. He wrote to all 11 with his concerns about the HJS but none replied. Gisela Stuart is no longer an MP. Solomon Hughes in the Morning Star this March wrote describing how right-wing MP and friend of Tom Watson, John Spellar, is a member and how both Yvette Cooper and Shadow Defence Minister Nia Griffiths had co-operated with HSJ over a conference they held in Oxford. Margaret Beckett was also a member as I understand was Chris Bryant.

In 2009 Murray described Robert Spencer, the leader of a group calling itself “Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA)”, as a “very brilliant scholar and writer”. He is so brilliant that along with Pamela Geller he got himself banned from entering Britain. He is responsible for Jihad Watchwhich is allied to David Horowitz’s Freedom Centre andFrontpagemag.com which as I write is busily peddling Israel’s line that it is under attack from Hamas.  Nothing about Israeli military strikes and bombing are allowed to come between it and the truth.

Bloodworth described how Marko Attila Hoare, a former senior member of the Henry Jackson Society was driven out of the organisation in 2012 because of his opposition to Murray’s anti-Muslim and anti-immigration views.

“It rapidly became clear that Murray had not tamed his politics, and that actually they were becoming the politics of the whole organisation,”

In an otherwise appalling apologia for Finkelstein on the Barrister’s Blog, Matthew describes how, in a 2006 speech to the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference Murray demanded that “conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board.”:

All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop. In the case of a further genocide such as that in the Balkans, sanctuary would be given on a strictly temporary basis. This should also be enacted retrospectively. Those who are currently in Europe having fled tyrannies should be persuaded back to the countries which they fled from once the tyrannies that were the cause of their flight have been removed. And of course it should go without saying that Muslims in Europe who for any reason take part in, plot, assist or condone violence against the West (not just the country they happen to have found sanctuary in, but any country in the West or Western troops) must be forcibly deported back to their place of origin.”

Abbi Wilkinson, who has come in for criticism from Finkelstein’s elite barrister friends, nails the simple truth about Finkelstein – an upper class racist

Abbi Wilkinson’s article Danny Finkelstein And The Bigotsrefers to Murray’s statement that ‘There are certain things in Britain about which it is impossible to speak frankly. The birth rate of the Muslim population is a prime subject”. In either of those cases, had he used “Jews” and “Jewish”, he’d have been denounced for anti-Semitism.

Finkelstein however disagreed. As far as he was concerned, Douglas Murray was both ‘stimulating and worthwhile and often right.’ Nor did he agree with the ‘characterisation of Gatestone’ which he found both ‘stimulating and worthwhile and often right’ indeed ‘Gatestone acts as an excellent platform …”.

Finkelstein’s admiration for Murray in 2015 should be seen in the light of the decision of the Tory Party leadership to cut its links with Murray. Paul Goodman, a former MP and editor of Conservative Home wrote on October 17 2011 Why the Conservative frontbench broke off relations with Douglas Murray – and what happened afterwards.

In 2006 Murray made a speech in the Dutch Parliament“What are we to do about Islam?” His answers were what most normal people would describe as racist. To Finkelstein they were ‘stimulating’ and ‘worthwhile’. Murray declared:

“Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition… all immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop”

Muslims who

“take part in, plot, assist or condone [my italic] violence against the west must be forcibly deported to their place of origin”.

So someone whose parents or even grandparents came from Bangladesh, who supports Palestinian resistance against Israel, which Murray sees as ‘part of the West’should be deported ‘back’ to a country they have never seen. Or someone who supports resistance to French troops in Africa should be deported. One wonders what part of this Finkelstein finds stimulating?

Goodman therefore went  to see Murray to ask him to disown his remarks.  He refused and therefore relations with the Tory Party were broken off.  Later Murray claimed to have recanted ‘years earlier’ but this was clearly untrue.

Murray is listed as a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the GI whose Board he sat on until late October 2014. John Bolton, now Trump’s National Security Advisor, chaired the GI from 2013 to 2018. Gatestone’s board also included Baroness Cox. The GI proudly lists all of Murray’s writings. They make interesting reading.

Finkelstein claims not to support Wilder’s views but he defends Murray whose views are similar and he was part of the Gatestone Institute which did share Wilder’s views
Wilders in court in The Netherlands on charges of racial discrimination
Geert Wilders – Gatestone’s favourite fascist

In his article on Gatestone’s site The Guilty Verdict Dutch Politicians Wanted So Much Murray rails at a Dutch court for having convicted Geert Wilders of inciting discrimination and fostering hatred of Moroccans. Apparently all poor Geert did was to ask a crowd of his supporters whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans and they responded ‘fewer’. In fact the transcript is damning. EuroNews describes howRonald van Vliet a parliamentary member of his far-right Freedom Party resigned in protest against the speech.

During the meeting Wilders encouraged supporters to chant racist slogans against Moroccans before he addressed them:

“So I ask you what do you want in this city more or less Moroccans?”

The crowd chants, “less. less.”

Wilders continues: “We will fix it.”

The crowd laughs.

Finkelstein changes his story & lies through his teeth

Ahmed described how Finkelstein was ‘promoting far-right politics, and in the name of freedom itself.’

When his membership of GI’s Board was raised Finkelstein lied, lied and lied again. When three years ago, Nafeez Ahmed asserted “you are on the board of [Gatestone]”, he replied

I naturally don’t (and didn’t) say that I didn’t know who it was or what it publishes or who it hosts. Of course I do. Being on the Board doesn’t mean I agree with every article or every speaker, nor does it imply that I don’t”

He went on

I don’t accept your characterisation of Gatestone. I find Douglas Murray stimulating and worthwhile and often right, without always agreeing. I think Gatestone acts as an excellent platform …(my emphasis)

Yet on 1st August 2018 Finkelstein tweeted

‘I do not serve on the board and have never had any role of any kind running Gatestone or supervising it in any way. They listed me on the board, until I told them to stop. I have spoken to them as have many distinguished guests.’

Realising that that might not sound all that convincing Finkelstein clarified 7 minutes later in response to a query from kadhim:

‘To clarify, are you saying that you never served on the board and that they listed you as such (for two years) in error?

To which Finkelstein replied

‘Essentially. I realise that sounds like a weasel word so let me unpack it. They listed me on a board and I didn’t actually know at first. The board never met or was asked to meet or had any role and rather lazily, once I do know, just left it.’

As clear as mud. Four minutes later

‘More recently, I thought, mmm, being listed on a board is different to making a speech or two and I don’t want to be responsible for everything they do with no actual control so I’d better not continue lazily ignoring this. So I asked to be taken off. That, I’m afraid is the

And knowing he was being caught in a trap of his own making tweeted ‘‘unheroic truth’

But 8 hours later, realising that nothing he said had made sense Finkelstein tweeted

Yes I’m sorry I was on it and I apologise for the error. Worst of all it gives the legitimate impression that I support ideas that I think are completely wrong and rightly thought offensive

But was it an error? For at least two years Finkelstein sat on the board of an openly racist and Islamophobic organisation, spoke at their meetings, defended people like Douglas Murray who the Tory front bench had dissociated themselves from and then expects us to believe that this worldly wise man, who goes around on the lecture circuit explaining the political climate to people was unaware of who he was mixing with?  And worse can then call anti-Semitic a man who has fought racism his whole life.  As Private Eye used to say ‘pass the sick bucket Alice’.

The reality is that Finkelstein sat on the Board of an organisation which consciously promoted the writings of Geert Wilders, an open fascist whose racism is such that even members of his own misnamed Freedom Party have resigned.

Gatestone Institute defend Geert Wilder’s racist views

The  Gatestone’s response to this was an article Who is in More Trouble: Wilders or The Netherlands?

According to the Center for American Progress in Washington DC, Nina Rosenwald and the foundations controlled by her and her family are part of “a small, tightly networked group of misinformation experts” that “peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam.” This is the organisation Finkelstein has such close connections with and who Jonathan Freedland, in his battle against ‘anti-Semitism’ considers a trusted ally.

The GI has repeatedly endorsed the myth of “Muslim no-go-zones” in Europe that caused David Cameron to describe a Fox News pundit echoing the same views as an “idiot.”

Freedland’s email to me as the antisemitism smear campaign began

There is also a good article in the Morning Star The Times launches yet another desperate smear against Corbyn

I have one more question to Freedland, Finkelstein and all the other obsessives who are willing to chase down anti-Semitic opinions expressed over a century ago.  You describe yourselves as Zionists.  When are you going to distance yourself from the anti-Semitic opinions of Zionism’s founders. Unlike Hobson’s views they are still relevant today because Israel is in a de facto alliance with white supremacists the world over, from Trump to Orban.

Freedland doesn’t care what company he keeps when
attacking Corbyn
Theodor Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement, railing against ‘the terrible power of our purse’

I am referring for example to Theodor Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism, who wrote about the Jews in the pamphlet which started off the movement, The Jewish State:

When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse.

Or Jacob Klatzkin, join editor of the Zionist paper die Welt, who wrote that the Jews were

 ‘a people disfigured in both body and soul – in a word, of a horror… some sort of outlandish creature… in any case, not a pure national type… some sort of oddity among the peoples going by the name of Jew.

Or how about Israel’s first Justice Minister, Pinhas Rosenbluth who described Palestine as ‘an institute for the fumigation of Jewish vermin’

There are many more such quotes I can dig up if necessary. Zionism began with a rejection of the Jewish diaspora. It’s called ‘negation of the diaspora.’ Zionism literally hated the Jewish presence outside Palestine. Many Zionists considered themselves proud anti-Semites.  For example Arthur Ruppin, one of the most important Zionist figures in the last century, after whom streets and boulevards are named in Israel and the Father of Land Settlement:

We can rely on Aaronovitch, a former communist who went to the neo-liberal right, to defend Finkelstein

When a friend of Ruppin called him an anti-Semite he retorted ‘I have already established here [in his diary] that I despise the cancers of Judaism more than does the worst anti-Semite.’ Ruppin associated Judaism with capitalism and his writings reflected his belief in the identity between anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism. [Joachim Doron, Classic Zionism, parallels and influences’ (1883-1914), Studies in Zionism 8, Autumn 1983]

Compared to Ruppin and Herzl, John Hobson was a very mild anti-Semite.  Perhaps we could see some explanations from Jonathan Freedland as to why he has said nothing about the origins of Zionism up till now?

Tony Greenstein

U.S. violates International Law – Again, this time it’s the Vienna Convention

From: WSWS

The assault on the Venezuelan embassy

18 May 2019

Events that transpired Thursday at the Venezuelan embassy in the upscale Washington neighborhood of Georgetown expressed in microcosm the criminality and contempt for international law that characterize US imperialist operations the world over.

US Secret Service agents, Washington’s Metropolitan Police and agents of the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service, hundreds of armed men, stormed the building to evict four peaceful antiwar activists, part of a larger contingent that had been staying in the embassy for the last month at the invitation of the Venezuelan government.

The units deployed included agents wearing battle fatigues and helmets and carrying battering rams to force their way into the embassy. Many of those sent to break into the building wore flak jackets.

This deployment of overwhelming militarized force was hardly necessary given the small number of activists in the building and their prior assurances to US authorities that they would not resist what they regarded as an unlawful arrest. It was staged as a demonstration of the power of the US state, an act of intimidation against anyone opposing its machinations, both domestic and international, and a graphic statement that might makes right, the law be damned.

The Venezuelan government has denounced the invasion of its embassy as a gross violation of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations signed by the United States in 1963 and observed by virtually every country in the world. It affirms that embassies and other diplomatic facilities are “inviolable” and cannot be entered by agents of the host government without the express permission of the head of the diplomatic mission. It likewise requires that the host government protect diplomatic premises “against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.”

Washington has ridden roughshod over these provisions in relation to the Venezuelan embassy on every score. Before forcing its way into the building, it had allowed a mob of fascistic and right-wing thugs to mobilize outside the embassy, erecting tents on its grounds and physically assaulting those supporting the activists inside or attempting to bring them food. These elements repeatedly attempted to break into the embassy, damaging its facilities, and threatened those inside with murder and rape. When police intervened to halt the most egregious of these illegal acts, they immediately released the perpetrators, facilitating and inflaming the lynch mob atmosphere.

For decades Washington has treated Iran—which it now threatens with war—as a so-called “rogue state” for the events of November 1979. In the throes of a revolution, militant students stormed the US embassy in Tehran, taking US personnel hostage. Washington went to the UN and the International Court of Justice, charging the Iranian government with violating the Vienna Convention for failing to halt the attack.

The Iranian government did not participate in these proceedings. Instead, it insisted that the action had to be treated in the context of the previous quarter-century of US imperialist crimes in Iran, from the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup that overthrew the nationalist government of Mohammad Mossadeq, through to Washington’s support of the Shah’s dictatorship and the murders and torture carried out by its hated Savak secret police. The Iranian government insisted that the embassy issue could be resolved only through the US extradition of the Shah back to Iran and the return of the vast amounts of wealth he had taken with him.

Six years after going to the court in The Hague over the US embassy in Iran, Washington renounced the court’s jurisdiction in order to avoid prosecution for its terrorist contra war against Nicaragua.

When it comes to “rogue states” there does not exist a government on the planet that can rival that of the United States of America.

In storming the Venezuelan embassy, it claims to be acting on behalf of the “government” of Juan Guaidó, the far-right, CIA-backed political operative who proclaimed himself the “interim president” of Venezuela last January, with the backing of Washington. Nearly four months later, this regime change operation launched with Guaidó’s self-“swearing-in” has waned. An attempt on April 30 to consummate the coup with an appeal for an outright military overthrow of the Maduro government failed miserably, eliciting neither a military revolt nor any significant support from the population.

The seizure of the embassy is part of an increasingly open appeal for direct US military intervention to bring about the desired regime change.

The embassy is now to be occupied by Carlos Vecchio, a fellow member of Guaidó’s far-right, US-funded Voluntad Popular (Popular Will) party. Vecchio went into exile after being charged with fomenting violence in Venezuela. While proclaimed by Guaidó as Venezuela’s “ambassador,” he, like the “interim president” himself, represents neither the Venezuelan people nor any real government. His “embassy” cannot issue passports or visas or conduct any other business common to diplomatic missions.

Rather, both he and Guaidó are paid agents of Washington. They are pawns in the US drive to establish unfettered control by the US energy conglomerates over Venezuela’s oil reserves, the largest on the planet, and to roll back the growing influence of both China and Russia in Venezuela and Latin America more broadly, which US imperialism has long regarded as its “own backyard.”

One of Vecchio’s first actions as “ambassador,” newly installed by the US Secret Service, will be to meet on Monday with the chiefs of the Pentagon’s Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), which oversees all US military operations in Latin America and the Caribbean. In a letter to SOUTHCOM, the Guaidó camp said its aim was to conduct “strategic and operational planning so that we may… restore our democracy.”

This “democracy” is to be provided a war for regime change by the US military to install the most right-wing representatives of Venezuela’s ruling oligarchy, committed to turning over the country’s oil wealth to Exxon Mobil, Chevron and the rest of Big Oil. Such a regime can be imposed only by means of a bloody war and the most ruthless repression of the Venezuelan working class.

With its invasion of the Venezuelan embassy, Washington is cementing a precedent. It claims the right to overthrow any government in the world, select its own puppet to head the replacement, and install its representative in the country’s embassy in Washington to assist in coordinating and legitimizing US military intervention.

This criminal action has been largely passed over in silence by the US corporate media, and justified in the few reports that have appeared. Noteworthy was the coverage of the New York Times, which claimed that “The dissonance of a Venezuelan diplomatic compound being occupied by a group of predominantly white, American, anti-interventionist activists had been a source of resentment among the predominantly Venezuelan protesters who had surrounded the embassy.”

What filthy nonsense! The “resentment” among the fascist thugs who besieged the embassy was not over the racial or national identity of those opposing the US regime change operation, but rather their standing in the way of the exiled right-wingers and oligarchs returning to power on the backs of the US military. As is its wont, the Times uses right-wing identity politics to justify imperialist criminality.

Nor has there been a hint of opposition from the Trump administration’s ostensible political opponents in the Democratic Party, all of whom, from Biden to Sanders, have lined up behind the regime change operation in Venezuela.

The Venezuelan embassy siege, with its mobilization of massive police power alongside right-wing gangs to accomplish illegal aims that further the interests of the US ruling elite, constitutes a warning to the working class in the United Sates and all over the world.

In the face of a resurgent class struggle and the insoluble contradictions of the global capitalist system, the capitalist ruling elites in the US and every country are shedding even the pretense of democratic principles and processes and turning ever more openly toward authoritarian rule and the promotion of fascistic and right-wing forces.

The storming of the Venezuelan embassy in Washington follows the throwing open of the doors of the Ecuadorian embassy in London to a British police snatch squad acting on behalf of US prosecutors seeking to punish WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for exposing US war crimes, laying charges against him that could result in his execution.

The defense of democratic rights, together with the struggle against the threat of war in Venezuela, lies with the international working class, whose interests are diametrically opposed to those of the warmongers in the US ruling class and their lackeys in the Democratic Party and the media.

Bill Van Auken