wm blum: anti-empire report #105 (counterpunch no likee, for some reason)

The Anti-Empire Report
William Blum, Killing Hope, May 2 2012

A few months ago I told the USAian people that I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that is true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not. (President Ronald Reagan, 1987) (1)

What you need to succeed is sincerity; if you can fake that, you’ve got it made. (Old Hollywood axiom)

On Apr 23, speaking at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, Obama told his assembled audience that, as president:

I’ve done my utmost to prevent and end atrocities.

Do the facts and evidence tell him that his words are not true? Well, let’s see. There’s the multiple atrocities carried out in Iraq by US forces under Obama. There’s the multiple atrocities carried out in Afghanistan by US forces under Obama. There’s the multiple atrocities carried out in Pakistan by US forces under Obama. There’s the multiple atrocities carried out in Libya by US/NATO forces under Obama. There are also the hundreds of US drone attacks against people and homes in Somalia and in Yemen, including against US citizens in the latter. Might the friends and families of these victims regard the murder of their loved ones and the loss of their homes as atrocities? Reagan was pre-Alzheimer’s when he uttered the above. What excuse can be made for Obama? He continued in the same fashion by saying:

We possess many tools, and using these tools over the past three years, I believe, I know that we have saved countless lives.

Obama pointed out that this includes Libya, where the US in conjunction with NATO took part in seven months of almost daily bombing missions. We may never learn from the new pro-NATO Libyan government how many the bombs killed, or the extent of the damage to homes and infrastructure. But Obama assured his Holocaust Museum audience:

Today, the Libyan people are forging their own future, and the world can take pride in the innocent lives that we saved.

As I described in last month’s report, Libya could now qualify as a failed state. Language is an invention that makes it possible for a person to deny what he is doing even as he does it. Obama closed with these stirring words:

It can be tempting to throw up our hands and resign ourselves to man’s endless capacity for cruelty. It’s tempting sometimes to believe that there is nothing we can do.

But Obama is not one of those doubters. He knows there is something he can do about man’s endless capacity for cruelty. He can add to it. Greatly. And yet, I am certain that, with exceedingly few exceptions, those in his Holocaust audience left with no doubt that this was a man wholly deserving of his Nobel Peace Prize. And future USAian history books may well certify the president’s words as factual, his motivation sincere, for his talk indeed possessed the quality needed for schoolbooks.

The USraelian-Iranian-Holocaust-NobelPeacePrize Circus
It’s a textbook case of how the US media are at their worst when it comes to US foreign policy and particularly when an Officially Designated Enemy (ODE) is involved. I’ve discussed this case several times in this report in recent years. The ODE is Ahmadinejad. The accusation has been that he had threatened violence against Israel, based on his 2005 remark calling for “wiping Israel off the map.” Who can count the number of times this has been repeated in every kind of media, in every country of the world, without questioning the accuracy of what was reported? A Lexis-Nexis search of “All News (English)” for “Iran and Israel and ‘off the map'” for the past seven years produced the message:

This search has been interrupted because it will return more than 3000 results.

As I’ve pointed out, Ahmadinejad’s “threat of violence” was a serious misinterpretation, one piece of evidence being that the following year he declared (2):

The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon, the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom.

Obviously, he was not calling for any kind of violent attack upon Israel, for the dissolution of the Soviet Union took place remarkably peacefully. But the myth of course continued. Now, finally, we have the following exchange from Democracy Now! on Apr 19:

A top Israeli official has acknowledged that Ahmadinejad never said that Iran seeks to “wipe Israel off the face of the map.” The falsely translated statement has been widely attributed to Ahmadinejad and used repeatedly by USraeli government officials to back military action and sanctions against Iran. But speaking to Teymoor Nabili of Al Jazeera, Israeli Deputy PM Dan Meridor admitted Ahmadinejad had been misquoted:
Teymoor Nabili: As we know, Ahmadinejad didn’t say that he plans to exterminate Israel, nor did he say that Iran policy is to exterminate Israel. Ahmadinejad’s position and Iran’s position always has been, and they’ve said this as many times as Ahmadinejad has criticized Israel, he has said as many times that he has no plans to attack Israel.
Dan Meridor: Well, I have to disagree, with all due respect. You speak of Ahmadinejad. I speak of Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani, Shamkhani. I give the names of all these people. They all come, basically ideologically, religiously, with the statement that Israel is an unnatural creature, it will not survive. They didn’t say, ‘We’ll wipe it out,’ you’re right. But ‘It will not survive, it is a cancerous tumor that should be removed,’ was said just two weeks ago again.
Teymoor Nabili: Well, I’m glad you’ve acknowledged that they didn’t say they will wipe it out.

So that’s that. Right? Of course not. Fox News, NPR, CNN, NBC, et al. will likely continue to claim that Ahmadinejad threatened violence against Israel, threatened to “wipe it off the map.” And that’s only Ahmadinejad the Israeli Killer. There’s still Ahmadinejad the Holocaust Denier. So until a high Israeli official finally admits that that too is a lie, keep in mind that Ahmadinejad has never said simply, clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally that he thinks that what we historically know as the Holocaust never happened. He has instead commented about the peculiarity and injustice of a Holocaust which took place in Europe resulting in a state for the Jews in the Middle East instead of in Europe. Why are the Palestinians paying a price for a German crime? he asks. And he has questioned the figure of six million Jews killed by Nazi Germany, as have many other people of various political stripes. In a speech at Columbia University on Sep 24 2007, in reply to a question about the Holocaust, the Iranian president declared (3):

I’m not saying that it didn’t happen at all. This is not the judgment that I’m passing here.

Let us now listen to Elie Wiesel, the simplistic, reactionary man who’s built a career around being a Holocaust survivor, introducing Obama at the Holocaust Museum for the talk referred to above, some five days after the statement made by the Israeli Deputy PM:

How is it that the Holocaust’s #1 denier, Ahmadinejad, is still a president? He who threatens to use nuclear weapons, to use nuclear weapons, to destroy the Jewish state. Have we not learned? We must. We must know that when evil has power, it is almost too late.

“Nuclear weapons” is of course adding a new myth on the back of the old myth. Wiesel, like Obama, is a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. As is Henry Kissinger and Menachim Begin. And several other such war-loving beauties. When will that monumental farce of a prize be put to sleep? For the record, let it be noted that on Mar 4, speaking before AIPAC, Obama said (4):

Let’s begin with a basic truth that you all understand: No Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction.

Each time I strongly criticize Obama a few of my readers ask to unsubscribe. I’m really sorry to lose them but it’s important that those on the left rid themselves of their attachment to the Democratic Party. I’m not certain how best to institute revolutionary change in the US, but I do know that it will not happen through the Democratic Party, and the sooner those on the left cut their umbilical cord to the Democrats, the sooner we can start to get more serious about this thing called revolution.

Two simple suggestions as part of a plan to save the planet
(Written on Earth Day, Sunday Apr 22 2012)

1. Population control. Limit families to two children. All else being equal, a markedly reduced population count would have a markedly beneficial effect upon global warming, air pollution, and food and water availability, as well as finding a parking spot, getting a seat on the subway, getting on the flight you prefer, and much, much more. Some favor limiting families to one child. Still others, who spend a major part of each day digesting the awful news of the world, are calling for a limit of zero. The Chinese government announced in 2008 that the country would have about 400 million more people if it wasn’t for its limit of one or two children per couple. (5) But, within the environmental movement, there is still significant opposition to this. Part of the reason is fear of ethnic criticism, in as much as population programs have traditionally been aimed at or seen to be aimed at primarily the poor, the weak, and various “outsiders”. There is also the fear of the religious right and its medieval views on birth control.

2. Eliminate the greatest consumer of energy in the world: The US military. Here’s Michael Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, Mass. in 2007 (6):

Sixteen gallons of oil. That’s how much the average US soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis, either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region, including sailors aboard US warships in the Persian Gulf, and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for US combat operations in the Middle East war zone. Multiply that daily tab by 365 and you get 1.3 billion gallons: the estimated annual oil expenditure for US combat operations in Southwest Asia. That’s greater than the total annual oil usage of Bangladesh, population 150 million, and yet it’s a gross underestimate of the Pentagon’s wartime consumption.

The US military, for decades, with its legion of bases and its numerous wars has also produced and left behind a deadly toxic legacy. From the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam in the 1960s to the open-air burn pits on US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 21st century, countless local people have been sickened and killed; and in between those two periods we could read things such as this from a lengthy article on the subject in the LA Times in 1990 (7):

US military installations have polluted the drinking water of the Pacific island of Guam, poured tons of toxic chemicals into Subic Bay in the Philippines, leaked carcinogens into the water source of a German spa, spewed tons of sulfurous coal smoke into the skies of Central Europe and pumped millions of gallons of raw sewage into the oceans.

The military has caused similar harm to the environment in the US at a number of its installations. Do a Google search for “‘US military bases toxic.” When I suggest eliminating the military I am usually rebuked for leaving “a defenseless USAia open to foreign military invasion”. And I usually reply:

“Tell me who would invade us? Which country?”
“What do you mean which country? It could be any country.”
“So then it should be easy to name one.”
“Okay, any of the 200 members of the UN!”
“No, I’d like you to name a specific country that you think would invade the US. Name just one.”
“Okay, Paraguay. You happy now?”
“No, you have to tell me why Paraguay would invade the US.”
“How would I know?”

Etc., etc., and if this charming dialogue continues, I ask the person to tell me how many troops the invading country would have to have to occupy a country of more than 300 million people.

Yankee karma
The questions concerning immigration into the US from south of the border go on year after year, with the same issues argued back and forth: What’s the best way to block the flow into the country? How shall we punish those caught here illegally? Should we separate families, which happens when parents are deported but their US-born children remain? Should the police and various other institutions have the right to ask for proof of legal residence from anyone they suspect of being here illegally? Should we punish employers who hire illegal immigrants? Should we grant amnesty to at least some of the immigrants already here for years? On and on, round and round it goes, for decades. Every once in a while someone opposed to immigration will make it a point to declare that the US does not have any moral obligation to take in these Latino immigrants. But the counter-argument to the last is almost never mentioned: Yes, the US does have a moral obligation, because so many of the immigrants are escaping situations in their homelands made hopeless by US interventions and policy. In Guatemala and Nicaragua, Washington overthrew progressive governments which were sincerely committed to fighting poverty. In El Salvador, the US played a major role in suppressing a movement striving to install such a government, and to a lesser extent played such a role in Honduras. And although Washington has not intervened militarily in Mexico since 1919, over the years the US has been providing training, arms, and surveillance technology to Mexico’s police and armed forces to better their ability to suppress their own people’s aspirations, as in Chiapas, and this has added to the influx of the impoverished to the US. Moreover, Washington’s North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), has brought a flood of cheap, subsidized US agricultural products into Mexico and driven many Mexican farmers off the land. The end result of all these policies has been an army of migrants heading north in search of a better life. It’s not that these people prefer to live in the US. They’d much rather remain with their families and friends, be able to speak their native language at all times, and avoid the hardships imposed on them by US police and right-wingers.

Several readers have asked me why Counterpunch, one of the most important progressive websites, no longer runs this report. It’s been going on for about six months. A while ago I wrote to the two gentlemen who run the site, asking what happened. Neither one answered. It’s a big mystery, particularly since I seemed to be on very friendly terms with them. Any reader who shares my concern can feel free to contact the editors; perhaps you’ll have more luck than I did.

1. WaPo, Mar 5 1987
2. AP, Dec 12 2006
3. WaPo, Sep 24 2007
4. White House, Mar 4 2012
5. WaPo, Mar 3 2008
6. TomDispatch.com, Jun 14 2007
7. LA Times, Jun 18 1990


  1. lafayettesennacherib
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    I suspect he’s answered his own question ( re absence from Counterpunch). When elections come round, liberals revert to type.

    ” Each time I strongly criticize Obama a few of my readers ask to unsubscribe. I’m really sorry to lose them but it’s important that those on the left rid themselves of their attachment to the Democratic Party. I’m not certain how best to institute revolutionary change in the US, but I do know that it will not happen through the Democratic Party, and the sooner those on the left cut their umbilical cord to the Democrats, the sooner we can start to get more serious about this thing called revolution.”

  2. Sarte
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 11:02 am | Permalink

    I first found out Blum after reading his article on Angela Davis. Here is a video, where she again supports Obama (start around 55 min) http://www.ustream.tv/channel/boggsanddavisevent
    Notice the facial expression of the old woman, sitting beside her. How sad!

    Blum writes:

    1. Population control. Limit families to two children.

    I disagree. There is plenty of space in our planet! The solution is not less children, but more justice. And besides, how can you regulate who should have a child? And the statistic show once women get secure future,the tend to have less children. So, I would not touch this area. Too much history involved!

    PS, the Chinese government is struggling to figure out, what to do with the 40 mio. surplus men, who will never get married, thanks to one child policy.

  3. niqnaq
    Posted May 3, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    The one thing we must not do is to leap from a rising oil price to coerced population reduction, since that represents the core program of the Malthusian Anglo-American oligarchy, and has been in place as a policy goal since Kissinger’s infamous “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests,” National Security Study Memorandum 200, Dec 10 1974. This document posited a “special US political and strategic interest” in population reduction or limitation in many developing sector nations because of potential competition with the US for access to natural resources and raw materials. This amounted to a strategy of thinly veiled genocide, and facilitated US support for the murderous Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. and the Global 2000/Global Futures campaigns of the Muskie State Department under the disastrous Carter administration.

    – Tarpley, Synthetic Terrorism, p 101 of 405

  4. Helvena
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    I never take anyone seriously who uses the Karma argument because they NEVER apply it to those they wish to view as oppressed. Would Blum agree that jewish suffering is simply jewish karma playing out? Or Black suffering simply the fruit of the seed they sowed? The karma argument is simply a way of applauding injustice being done to those you’ve judged deserving.

  5. niqnaq
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    Yes, I’ve thought a lot about that too. The hypothesis of divine justice doesn’t make sense on the level of the isolated individual — perhaps the expectation that it should, is evidence of the hold that liberal individualism, which is a protestant heritage, has on modern moral philosophy. But the hypothesis of divine justice might still make sense on a national level; nations get what they deserve, and the individuals who dwell within them just have to accept that on the individual level this is unjust, since they didn’t ask to be born there (as far as we know). But on the plus side, it means that all members of a nation are in practice saddled with collective responsibility for what happens to it, which should spur them to take an interest. Not that all are equally able to do anything, but that all are responsible within the limits of what they can do.

  6. Helvena
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    I believe in cause and effect because that is reality. Any deeper meaning then that is just hocus pocus. The divine is in our genes both collectively and individually. Did you listen to Davis and Boggs? Grace Boggs said it was important not to think biologically. WTF!!! How can she participate in a Black feminist form then? Her good intentions simply become a tool of division because she refuses reality.

  7. niqnaq
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    I disagree with that; the idea that “the divine is in our genes” is mechanistic, rather absurd (as I have often pointed out, genes cannot think, strategise, plan, scheme, or develop tactics), and from a religious point of view, it’s an idolatrous neo-pagan cult (you should worship the gene, pray to it, build shrines to it). This is one of the basic differences between Fascism and Nazism; Fascism was not based on racial mysticism, as Nazism was. My interest here is in the question of whether the Nazis considered that Judaism was a form of racial mysticism and wished to imitate it.

    Judaism is not in fact a form of racial mysticism, because it remains possible for a non-Jew to become a Jew — not a second-class Jew, or a pseudo-Jew, but a real Jew. The Jews are however very prone (culturally) to misinformation; they generally assume that Meir Kahane was a racist, but that Lubavitch are not so bad, because the latter have religious arguments. In fact, no-one who has actually read Meir Kahane would accuse him of preaching that Jews were a race, because he didn’t, but Lubavitch do. This is one of a growing number of things that suggest to those who take religious theory seriously that Lubavitch is not Judaism, but something else.

  8. Helvena
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

    Hey, why isn’t my Ezra showing up?

  9. niqnaq
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Go look at your gravatar page and find out. But please don’t add your gravatar URL as your site URL in your niqnaq profile; that won’t fix it. If the gravatar is OK at the gravatar page, it will be added here automatically.


  10. Helvena
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Ok, we agree to disagree. I place my bet on nature, not the strategizing of men, because from what history has proven men can’t think either, if they could they would factor in reality/nature.

  11. Helvena
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

    Everything seems to be in order, oh well.
    The Nazis weren’t wrong about everything anymore then the jews are wrong about everything. I don’t judge a cat superior to a dog although I acknowledge a difference. And that’s all I’m going to say about this until you come to a greater understanding.

  12. niqnaq
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

    Cats and dogs belong to different species, darling; humans all belong to the same species. Case closed.

  13. Helvena
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Arabians and Clydesdales then. Same damn principle.

  14. niqnaq
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    You know all humans belong to the same species, by the way, because they can all interbreed. It is therefore no coincidence that racists disapprove of interbreeding: if as they wish to believe races are the equivalent of species, then it shouldn’t be physically possible for them to interbreed, but they do. This is why you find remarkable works of proto-Nazi mythology such as Jorg Lanz von Lebenfels’ “Theozoology”, in which he recycles the old myth that the proto-human or pre-human races did interbreed, and produced monsters. There is a vague hint of this in Genesis chapter 6. It was a widely spread belief in ancient times and follows almost logically from the belief that different races means or should mean the same thing as different species. Mme Blavatsky’s “Secret Doctrine” is full of it, as is her earlier “Isis Unveiled”; in fact it’s about the only belief she carried over from her first magnum opus to her second. And Theosophy is ‘respectable’ — possibly because it was of great use to the British in pre-independence India.

  15. Helvena
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, one last thing. Species is a social contruct developed by man to better explain the world to himself and so is race. One isn’t anymore valid then the other.

  16. Helvena
    Posted May 5, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    lions can breed with tigers, horses with mules. Because these animals can then the argument falls that humans don’t differ because they can all interbreed.
    In Wild Cats of the World (1975), Guggisberg wrote that ligers and tiglons were long thought to be sterile; in 1943, however, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an “Island” tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, although of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.

    Fine, this is a rare example of species interbreeding but what in nature is black and white? no pun intended.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.