Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Sunday, February 25, 2018

Palestinian killed by Israeli Navy after leaving fishing zone


The Gazan fishermen's union said Israeli forces fired on a fishing boat

A Palestinian fisherman paddles off the coast of Gaza City (Reuters)

Sunday 25 February 2018 
A Palestinian was killed on Sunday when Israeli forces opened fire on a boat from the Gaza Strip after it left a zone where Israel allows Palestinians to fish, officials said.
A spokeswoman for the Israeli army said the boat "deviated from the designated fishing zone in the northern Gaza Strip".
Naval forces called on the boat to halt, then fired warning shots in the air before shooting toward it when the three people on board did not stop, the spokeswoman said.
A severely wounded Palestinian later died from his wounds, she said. The other two Palestinians were detained by security forces.
The fishermen's union in Gaza said a boat with three fishermen was fired upon by Israel's military. 
Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza, run by Islamist movement Hamas, have fought three wars since 2008 and the territory has been under an Israeli blockade for more than 10 years.
Fishing off the northern part of the strip, adjacent to Israel, is limited to six nautical miles offshore and the Israeli navy regularly fires at Palestinians at the zone's outer limit.
Last month a Palestinian fisherman was shot and killed by Egyptian forces and in May 2017 another fisherman was shot and killed by the Israeli navy. However, such incidents a rare.

Israel’s visible gun culture has been downplayed by The New York Times.
Najeh Hashlamoun APA images

Michael F. Brown-23 February 2018
Israelis, according to The New York Times, carry out “nationalist” attacks against Palestinian civilians; Palestinians commit “terrorism” against Israeli civilians.
So indicates correspondent Isabel Kershner this week in the “newspaper of record.”
In a “Fact Check” piece, Kershner references Baruch Goldstein’s attack on Palestinian civilians in the occupied West Bank city of Hebron. She writes, “There have also been occasional nationalist attacks against Palestinians by armed Israelis, such as the massacre perpetrated by Baruch Goldstein in Hebron in 1994 with an army-issued automatic rifle.”
The words “nationalist” and “massacre” are appropriate, but can Israeli settlers not commit “terrorism”? The absence of the word speaks to the fact that The New York Times regards some forms of violence as more acceptable than others, particularly the violence of a colonizing occupying force and its accompanying settlers against an occupied population.
The violence and intimidation brought to bear by that settler-colonial force is consistently described in less menacing terms than the response from those subjugated. This article is a clear example of such thinking.
Kershner reinforces this message throughout. “Palestinian gunmen carried out deadly terrorist attacks on a school in Maalot, near the border with Lebanon, in 1974 and at a rabbinical seminary in 2008,” she writes.
Kershner does not explain why this Palestinian violence is terrorism, but the Israeli violence is not. Readers are forced to conclude that terrorism is something Palestinians do, but Israelis simply act out of “nationalist” belief. These beliefs, evidently, shelter Israel from charges of terrorism.
Routine Israeli military gun violence against Palestinian civilians is not mentioned. Nor is there a mention of the impunity for Israeli soldiers responsible for the deaths of Palestinian school children in even the most egregious cases such as that of Iman al-Hams, which was reported by The New York Times at the time. She posed no threat, was repeatedly shot at close range and yet the Israeli officer who killed her was cleared.
Similar impunity for police officers and “stand your ground” vigilantes in the US is not cited, though racial bias pervades the legal systems of both countries.

Misleading

Elsewhere in the article, Kershner writes: “Guns are not seen as a hobby, but as a tool for self-defense, and if necessary, to help protect others from terrorism. And while Israel has sophisticated policing and intelligence aimed at stopping terrorism, it has little experience with the kinds of civilian mass shootings that have become the source of anguished debate in the United States.”
But this is grossly misleading. Israel does have abundant experience with “civilian mass shootings.” It is just that it is Palestinian civilians doing the dying – whether meted out by Israeli settlers as in the case of Goldstein or by Israeli soldiers.
Strikingly, Kershner reinforces the double standard when she recalls a Palestinian truck attack against Israeli soldiers. She notes, “Last year, a tour guide was among those who opened fire at a Palestinian driver who plowed his truck into a group of soldiers in Jerusalem.”
Kershner referred in that story to the incident constituting “terrorism.” She wrote of the January 2017 attack: “Israel buried its latest terrorism victims on Monday, the day after they were run down by a Palestinian man in a truck, enveloping them in the country’s familiar outpouring of love for its service members.”
The Electronic Intifada highlighted the flawed reporting guidelines at the newspaper at the time and quoted Jodi Rudoren, a former Jerusalem bureau chief and at the time deputy international editor, as commenting, “A truck ramming into a crowd felt like terrorism.”
An Israeli plane dropping bombs on Palestinian civilians, however, is not described as terrorism.

Perspective

Where one sits makes an enormous difference in what one regards as terrorism. The newspaper has yet to figure this out – or has ceded the language to right-wing organizations that insist one form of violence is terrorism and the other self-defense.
Anybody who has been in the occupied West Bank and confronted by an Israeli settler with a drawn weapon is apt to have a very different perspective on what constitutes legitimate resort to “self-defense.” From that perspective it looks less like self-defense than intimidation and the sensation felt is apt to be one of terror.
The Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah last month pointed out how the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has similarly resorted to the “nationalistic” motives euphemism.
And Ahmad Tibi, a Palestinian member of the Israeli parliament, this week used an opinion piece for Haaretz to admonish European leaders for failing to denounce Israeli attacks on Palestinians while consistently criticizing Palestinian attacks.
Tibi noted this tweet from the Norwegian ambassador to Israel and similar messages from the European Union, Austrian and Cypriot ambassadors.
My condolences to the family of Rabbi Raziel Shevah who was brutally killed last night, to his wife and to his young children. There is no justification for terror, nor for glorification of such acts. The violence and killing must stop.
In the piece for Haaretz, Tibi added, “I am not opposed to expressions of empathy. But why the willful blindness to empathize on both sides?”
Tibi also criticized US ambassador to Israel David Friedman for similar behavior.
So, Amb. Friedman is horrified with death? Why didn’t I hear him being horrified when Palestinian are killed ? when Muhannad Tamimi and ibrahim abu thurayya , were killed? It’s because of such double standards.and he dares to blame people under occupation why there is no peace? https://twitter.com/usambisrael/status/950991665216532480 
Earlier this month, Tibi made a related point regarding European double standards when he pushed backagainst a tweet from Charlotte Slente, Denmark’s ambassador to Israel, in which she praised Israel’s “vibrant democracy.”
Tibi pointed her toward work by Adalah, a group campaigning for Palestinian citizens of Israel, highlighting “over 50 discriminatory laws against non-Jews.”
There is no other issue where quite so many people – from The New York Times to European leaders – are inclined to indulge in double standards and discriminatory practices.
Sadly, Kershner has brought forward her own double standards in an article that Second Amendment enthusiasts may cite in their ongoing battle to keep the US armed to the teeth no matter the cost to school children.
Yes, she claims that Israel has stricter gun laws, but that’s certainly not the experience of Palestinians confronted by Israeli soldiers and armed settlers in the occupied West Bank.

All change in southern Africa

South Africa, as was thought in Mandela’s time, does have a great future. Now, after years of bad leadership, it has to recover its underlying strength and show its worth.


2018-02-24
It’s been an odd couple of months for southern Africa. No one predicted last year that in almost the same breath the long-serving dictator of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, and the super-corrupt president of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, would be soon overthrown- and non-violently to boot.

In Zimbabwe, the Army did trigger Mugabe’s demise, but it was a sort of passive coup, a non-violent withdrawal of support. In South Africa Zuma was compelled to stand down as leader of the African National Congress because of a majority vote against him in an assembly of the ANC, the party of black protest against former minority white-led rule. Again, all done non-violently.

What is more, in South Africa, although violence had played some part in black liberation, the negotiations that took place in the closing years of the apartheid regime were accomplished without violence. There were peaceful negotiations between the black and white leadership that led to a new constitution that allowed free elections and thus the accession to the presidency of the ANC leader, Nelson Mandela.

Compare this with the violence and intimidation that has plagued the recent Kenyan elections, the imposition of dictatorial rule in Ethiopia and the ongoing mayhem in the Congo and Somalia. It is as if there are two different worlds in sub-Saharan Africa.
Cyril Ramaphosa was Mandela’s favourite for successor but lost out to Mbeki. He left politics and went into business and became rich without apparently becoming corrupt. 
Of course, there are other countries in black Africa that are increasingly democratic and have regular non-violent elections- Tanzania, Botswana, Senegal, Angola, Cote d’Ivoire, Mozambique, Liberia and Nigeria among others.

No sub-Saharan African countries, apart from Namibia, Zimbabwe and Kenya, achieved their independence by use of the sword. It was done by negotiations with the metropolitan power in Europe. (Ethiopia and Liberia were not colonized.) Apart from Kenya and Cote d’Ivoire, there were not large numbers of white settlers to complicate matters, as in Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Both Zimbabwe and South Africa have frittered away a good part of their inheritance. In Zimbabwe, the Marxist president created massive inflation, impoverishment of the masses and a silver platter for his associates.

In South Africa, it has been more complex. White South Africa, dominated by the Afrikaners, Dutch settlers, was exceedingly corrupt, as well as rich. The new black elite stepped into their shoes, despite the leadership of Mandela, a leader of probity and integrity. Mandela, and his successor, Thabo Mbeki, seemed unable to stem its tide. Zuma made it far worse. He and his associates creamed off hundreds of millions of dollars. It is this corruption that finally undid Zuma. 

The straw that broke the camel’s back was the 650,000 US dollars he paid out of State funds for a swimming pool and other delights on his magnificent homestead.
Mandela, and his successor, Thabo Mbeki, seemed unable to stem its tide. Zuma made it far worse. He and his associates creamed off hundreds of millions of dollars. It is this corruption that finally undid Zuma. 

A majority of the ANC, albeit a slim one, could not abide this. Indeed such was their agitation that he was compelled to pay it back.

Zuma might well face prosecution for alleged bribes he was supposed to have taken some years ago, paid out for a defence contract. During his presidency, he managed to undermine the independence of the police, the public prosecutor and the tax authorities. Now they can move against him. Cyril Ramaphosa has taken over. He started life in politics as a student. Then he helped establish a powerful union of miners. He was Mandela’s favourite for successor but lost out to Mbeki. He left politics and went into business and became rich without apparently becoming corrupt. Next, he became Zuma’s deputy.

His intelligence and negotiating skills are legendary. It has been said that in a negotiation he removes his opponent’s trousers but the man only finds this out once he leaves the room. Meanwhile, Ramaphosa has walked away with the agreement he wanted. He is charismatic and exceedingly popular among the black masses.

Yet while deputy president he kept his mouth shut about his boss’s excesses.

He now has to restore the authority of the police and prosecutors. (Senior judges, mainly black, have done a sterling job of keeping the courts independent. The printed press has kept itself almost free.) He has to reverse plans to take away the independence of the central bank. He has to drive down the unemployment rate of 25% by attracting foreign investment and encouraging small-scale, labour-intensive, industry in the African townships. He must build on the good work of his predecessors in bringing sewerage, clean water, better housing and health services into many poor neighbourhoods. He needs to pursue the forgotten promise of land reform while fairly compensating white owners.
Quality education has to be ramped up. Defence spending, much of it unnecessary, must be severely cut back.

South Africa, as was thought in Mandela’s time, does have a great future. Now, after years of bad leadership, it has to recover its underlying strength and show its worth.Jonathan Power has been a foreign affairs columnist for the International Herald Tribune/New York Times for 17 years. 

U.S. Spies to Partner With Human Rights Groups to Keep an Eye on North Korea

The imagery agency wants its own “CIA World Factbook.”

North Korean soldiers stand at their watchtower in February, 2016 on the banks of the Yalu River in the North Korean town of Sinuiju. (Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images) 

No automatic alt text available.
BY 
 | 
For the past several years, humanitarian groups and nongovernmental organizations have combed commercial satellite imagery in North Korea, looking for evidence of human rights abuses, such as mass graves. Now, some will have access to satellite photos and analysis from an American spy agency.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which maps the earth’s surface with data from drones, satellites, and other airborne craft, will provide raw imagery, expert review, and the use of an already developed digital app and publishing platform to several nonprofit organizations and think tanks.

These first partnerships will focus on North Korea, Chris Rasmussen, a longtime military intelligence analyst and data expert with NGA, told Foreign Policy in an interview.

The NGA maps everything from coastline data to the far reaches of the Arctic; some of that imagery and those maps are already public. But rarely does the U.S. government share imagery of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s isolated regime, let alone an intelligence agency’s analysis of sites there.

The decision to work with NGOs to highlight the human rights abuses by the regime in Pyongyang comes at a critical time. The Trump administration has charted a confrontational course with Kim over his nuclear program, and the intelligence community has ramped up its focus on the country.

Highlighting Pyongyang’s human rights abuses is also part of the Trump administration’s larger strategy toward North Korea.

During his State of the Union speech, U.S. President Donald Trump made a point of honoring the late American graduate student Otto Warmbier, who died shortly after being released from imprisonment in Pyongyang for allegedly trying to steal a propaganda poster. Trump also invited North Korean defector Ji Seong-ho as a special guest to the speech, drawing thunderous applause as Ji hoisted his crutches in the air in the audience.

Rasmussen said he and his coworkers, and their future partners in the public sector, are “motivated by public service to produce original research on high-priority strategic and humanitarian intelligence issues.” Rasmussen declined to mention which specific partners NGA would be working with, saying the agreements have not been formalized yet.

Rasmussen recently presented the program, many months in the works, to the Intelligence Community Transparency Council, which was created after Edward Snowden’s leaks in 2013. While NGA declined to describe specifics about what issues it would be helping outside organizations to study, there are numerous human rights concerns in North Korea.

The North Korean government has a long record of imprisoning and killing its own people, and in the past, humanitarian organizations have helped plot the locations of mass graves where the regime carried out brutal mass killings, pinpointed political prison camps, and examined environmental and weather-related disasters, all using satellite imagery and defector testimony. Having NGA’s assistance will give this kind of work a major boost, going beyond traditional contracting partnerships to something public and sharing information without requiring onerous security clearances or secrecy, Rasmussen explained, without mentioning specific issues NGA will help examine.

The intelligence community often publishes declassified historical information, but that can take years. Doing something with current imagery is something new.

No government assets, like imagery from government satellites, will be used initially, which means the pictures for now will be limited to the commercial imagery NGA purchases — but even those could be beneficial to outside groups.

I want to see this turn into the CIA World Factbook of high-quality authoritative original research on intelligence

,” Rasmussen said. He called the opportunity to put NGA’s skills on the humanitarian problems of the world and create detailed, original reports about these issues with NGOs and think tanks “incredibly exciting.”

Scott Edwards, a senior advisor at Amnesty International, said the group has a blanket prohibition on working with governments, based on the possibility that critics could argue the research is somehow tainted. However, when smaller organizations agree to partner with NGA and publish information on human rights abuses, Amnesty International would applaud them.

“Any shining of a light on a human rights abuse is a good thing,” Edwards told FP. “I’d be remiss to critique any other NGOs for innovative ways of getting to findings of fact,” he said.

He cautioned, however, that Amnesty would seek to verify that analysis based on its own independent assessment of the imagery. “Amnesty would look to purchase the imagery and replicate the analysis ourselves, to make sure the findings of fact can’t be dismissed … as a ploy by the U.S. government
Amnesty would look to purchase the imagery and replicate the analysis ourselves, to make sure the findings of fact can’t be dismissed … as a ploy by the U.S. government
,” he said.
Scott Stevens, the administrative director of the Transitional Justice Working Group, based in Seoul, found the possibility of partnership with the U.S. government appealing, though fraught with a few potential concerns. “High resolution satellite imagery for specific locations is expensive,” he wrote in an email to FP. “With higher resolution imagery, we could take a closer look at the suspected human rights crime scenes we’ve identified. Better imagery might mean better analysis.”

However, Stevens said there’s danger in revealing the location of the sites to anyone outside the organization, even if the intelligence community does keep information very safe and secure. “Revealing which sites we have identified to date would give those opposed to our work a short list of priorities for any clearing operations. I would assume that the NGA’s security protocols are strong, but there is always a risk in transferring information outside of our organization’s security environment.”

The group would have to balance existing privacy agreements it has with defectors whose information they receive, particularly if working with NGA required signing any additional agreements. It would also take a lot of work to incorporate new information into their workflow, Stevens explained.

Rasmussen stressed that NGA won’t be writing any of the reports; the organizations NGA partners with will maintain full editorial independence over the issues they cover, he said.

This isn’t Rasmussen’s first push to open up the intelligence world. At NGA, Rasmussen pushed for software that would allow intelligence community employees to view unclassified summaries of reports on their smartphones, rather than having to be at their desk in a secured facility. That effort turned into Tearline, a smartphone application for government employees, now available in the Apple app store and the Google Play store.

He also headed up the Pathfinder project, which has been focused on acquiring more open-source intelligence from public companies, pushing NGA to do more unclassified analysis.

New reports from NGA’s partners on North Korea will be available in multiple locations, including the public Tearline smartphone application and website, where a preview page is already available, and most likely on a new website from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence called the Public’s Daily Brief, a riff on the President’s Daily Brief, the high-level intelligence report the president has received almost every day since 1946.

NGA is in a unique position, according to Rasmussen. The CIA and National Security Agency can’t publish intercepted communications or human source reporting. But NGA has access to a massive repository of satellite imagery that isn’t all classified and could serve the public, not just the intelligence community. “The targets aren’t flagged as sensitive,” Rasmussen said.

Rasmussen was a part of the process to update the classification policies, an effort he said “paved the pathway” for projects like the partnership to monitor the North Korean humanitarian issues. “This kind of collaboration has never been done before with an intelligence agency
This kind of collaboration has never been done before with an intelligence agency
 … at least that I’m aware of,” Rasmussen said.
As tensions with North Korea escalate to a fever pitch, including toward a potential conflict, it’s an opportune time for both parties to shed light on some of the atrocities from within the secretive nation.

As for future projects in other areas of the world? Rasmussen is hopeful.
“If we get a million downloads, it’s going to make it easier for me to say, let’s expand to other areas,” he said.

More governors willing to consider gun law changes after Florida shooting


Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), center; Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), left; and Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) speak during a news conference Friday in Washington. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

 

A growing bipartisan number of state governors have joined calls for a reconsideration of gun laws and school safety measures after the mass shooting in Parkland, Fla., a sign that resulting legislative changes could extend far beyond Florida in the coming months.

The impact of the shootings rippled through the winter meeting of the National Governors Association in Washington this weekend, as state leaders expressed willingness to consider new limits on gun ownership and stepped up efforts to address mental-health factors. But most said they were opposed to President Trump’s proposal to allow more teachers to be armed.

The comments came as students and grieving families continued to push lawmakers to pass new measures to address the murder of 17 students and faculty members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

“I just want to get the word out to the governors of every state that they have to do something today,” said Andrew Pollack, whose daughter, Meadow Pollack, was killed at the school, in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” “My daughter’s death can’t be in vain.”

Individual governors said they would be open to raising the age limit for the purchase of long guns to 21, a measure opposed by the National Rifle Association, or said they believed there should be better ways for family members or others to take concerns about unstable individuals to a judge and have weapons confiscated.
 
Both measures were endorsed Friday by Florida’s Republican governor, Rick Scott, a longtime supporter of the NRA, who opposed new gun laws after the 2016 mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Florida and the 2017 mass shooting at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.

“What I ask people to do is, you’ve got to search your heart on this,” Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, said Sunday in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.” “Nobody wants to take everybody’s guns away. Nobody wants to repeal the Second Amendment — oh, a few people. But this is about reasonable approaches to keep our community safe.”

Like other Republicans, Kasich has shifted his position in recent weeks, even removing pro-Second Amendment language from his website and replacing it with a call for “common sense” on the issue of guns. He won reelection with the endorsement of the NRA, but he now says he is open to reconsidering a ban on the sale of assault weapons such as the AR-15 police say was used in the Florida shooting.

Other Republicans have said they are taking a fresh look at the gun issue. “Obviously it’s being a catalyst to bring that discussion to the forefront,” said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R). “We’ve had too many of these shootings. We should be trying to find common ground and move them ahead.”

Snyder also said he hoped for “a very open discussion” on a so-called red flag law to make it easier to take weapons out of the hands of unstable individuals after petitioning a court. Michigan does not currently have such a law.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam (R) said he was open to moves to deny assault weapons to those under 21. “I haven’t heard a good answer to: Why should a 20-year-old be able to buy an assault rifle and not a beer?” he said. “The issue around bump stocks, I don’t hear a lot of people defending why we should have that.”

Democratic governors were pointed in calls for their fellow Republicans to buck the NRA and praised Scott for the measures he is calling for in Florida.
 
“You’re seeing some of the Republicans show some tiny glimmer of throwing off the masters of the NRA,” said Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D). “The youthful voices [calling for steps to restrict guns] have been very powerful and very inspirational.”

The NRA opposes a ban on the sale of assault weapons and is waiting to review legislative language before it takes a position on a new proposal to allow the removal of guns from people deemed a threat in Florida.

“There are laws on the books in Florida that would have prevented this tragedy, and it is mind-boggling that focus isn’t on the systematic breakdown and the many failures to implement those current laws instead of punishing law-abiding gun-owners for the acts of a deranged person by taking away their constitutional right to self-protection,” said Jennifer Baker, an NRA spokeswoman.

The proposals come as President Trump and some congressional leaders have called for possible actions on the federal level. These could include a bipartisan measure to improve the information that states provide to the federal background check system, a renewed effort to require background checks for private gun sales and an effort to raise the federal minimum age for long gun purchases to 21.
Federal law requires purchasers of handguns from a licensed gun dealer to be 21, but the minimum age for buying rifles and shotguns is set at 18. The alleged shooter in Parkland, Nikolas Cruz, 19, legally purchased the weapon police say he used.

“The role of the federal government obviously can spur the issues in terms of the grant funding, and hopefully that will be available to us,” Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) said during an appearance Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “But largely the security side and the safety side will be the governors.”

Governors interviewed during the NGA meeting said for the most part that they did not have proposals ready to take to their legislatures and said that, with limited time in legislative sessions, action might not be speedy.

A number of governors said they opposed arming teachers, saying that educators should teach and not become law enforcement officers. “Putting more guns into the mix is not something I believe is an answer,” Snyder said.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said his state already has moved to do exactly as Trump has proposed and that at this point nearly 20 percent of Texas schools have trained and armed educators. There are signs outside schools in the Argyle Independent School District that read, “Please be aware that the staff at Argyle ISD are armed and may use whatever force is necessary to protect our students.”

The Texas governor said the culture of his state is different from some others and that opposition to restrictions on guns is strong. But he also said the Florida shooting could become a pivotal moment in moving forward on other factors that could contribute a reduction in mass shootings like the one that occurred at the First Baptist Church in November in Sutherland Spring, Tex.

“When a shooting takes place, people want to rush to simple solutions,” Abbott said. “It’s time to tackle the tough solutions, and that’s mental health.”

The Useful Idiocy of Donald Trump

Chris Hedges-JAN 28, 2018
Truthdig: Expert Reporting, Current News, Provocative ColumnistsThe problem with Donald Trump is not that he is imbecilic and inept—it is that he has surrendered total power to the oligarchic and military elites. They get what they want. They do what they want. Although the president is a one-man wrecking crew aimed at democratic norms and institutions, although he has turned the United States into a laughingstock around the globe, our national crisis is embodied not in Trump but the corporate state’s now unfettered pillage.
Trump, who has no inclination or ability to govern, has handed the machinery of government over to the bankers, corporate executives, right-wing think tanks, intelligence chiefs and generals. They are eradicating the few regulations and laws that inhibited a naked kleptocracy. They are dynamiting the institutions, including the State Department, that served interests other than corporate profit and are stacking the courts with right-wing, corporate-controlled ideologues. Trump provides the daily entertainment; the elites handle the business of looting, exploiting and destroying.
Once democratic institutions are hollowed out, a process begun before the election of Trump, despotism is inevitable. The press is shackled. Corruption and theft take place on a massive scale. The rights and needs of citizens are irrelevant. Dissent is criminalized. Militarized police monitor, seize and detain Americans without probable cause. The rituals of democracy become farce. This is the road we are traveling. It is a road that leads to internal collapse and tyranny, and we are very far down it.
The elites’ moral and intellectual vacuum produced Trump. They too are con artists. They are slicker than he at selling the lies and more adept at disguising their greed through absurd ideologies such as neoliberalism and globalization, but they belong to the same criminal class and share many of the pathologies that characterize Trump. The grotesque visage of Trump is the true face of politicians such as George W. Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The Clintons and Obama, unlike Bush and Trump, are self-aware and therefore cynical, but all lack a moral compass. As Michael Wolff writes in “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” the president has “no scruples.” He lives “outside the rules” and is “contemptuous of them.” And this makes him identical to those he has replaced, not different. “A close Trump friend who was also a good Bill Clinton friend found them eerily similar—except that Clinton had a respectable front and Trump did not,” Wolff writes.

Trump, backed by the most retrograde elements of corporate capitalism, including Robert and Rebekah MercerSheldon Adelson and Carl Icahn, is the fool who prances at the front of our death march. As natural resources become scarce and the wealth of the empire evaporates, a shackled population will be forced to work harder for less. State revenues will be squandered in grandiose projects and futile wars in an attempt to return the empire to a mythical golden age. The decision to slash corporate tax rates for the rich while increasing an already bloated military budget by $54 billion is typical of decayed civilizations. Empires expand beyond their capacity to sustain themselves and then go bankrupt. The Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Mayan, Khmer, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires all imploded in a similar fashion. The lessons of history are clear. But the illiterate charlatans who seize power in the dying days of empire know nothing of history. They are driven by a primal and inchoate lust for wealth, one that is never satisfied no matter how many billions they possess.
The elites in dying cultures turn everything into a commodity. Human beings are commodities. The natural world is a commodity. Government and democratic institutions are commodities. All are mined and wrecked for profit. Nothing has an intrinsic value. Nothing is sacred. The relentless and suicidal drive to accumulate greater and greater wealth by destroying the systems that sustain life is idolatry. It ignores the biblical injunction that idols always begin by demanding human sacrifice and end by demanding self-sacrifice. The elites are not only building our funeral pyre, they are building their own.
The elites, lacking a vision beyond satiating their own greed, revel in the intoxicating power to destroy. They confuse destruction with creation. They are agents of what Sigmund Freud calls the death instinct. They find in acts of national self-immolation a godlike power. They denigrate empathy, intellectual curiosity, artistic expression and the common good, virtues that sustain life. They celebrate a hyper-individualism embodied in celebrity, wealth, hedonism, manipulation and the ability to dominate others. They know nothing of the past. They do not think about the future. Those around them are temporarily useful to their aims and must be flattered and rewarded but in the end are ruthlessly cast aside. There is no human connection. This emotional numbness lies at the core of Trump’s personality.
[Stephen] Bannon described Trump as a simple machine,” Wolff writes. “The On switch was full of flattery, the Off switch full of calumny. The flattery was dripping, slavish, cast in ultimate superlatives, and entirely disconnected from reality: so-and-so was the best, the most incredible, the ne plus ultra, the eternal. The calumny was angry, bitter, resentful, ever a casting out and closing of the iron door.”
The elites in a dying culture confuse what the economist Karl Polanyi calls “real” and “fictitious” commodities. A commodity is a product manufactured for sale. The ecosystem, labor and money, therefore, are not commodities. Once these fictitious commodities are treated as real ones for exploitation and manipulation, Polanyi writes, human society devours itself. Workers become dehumanized cogs. Currency and trade are manipulated by speculators, wreaking havoc with the economy and leading to financial collapse. The natural world is turned into a toxic wasteland. The elites, as the society breaks down, retreat into protected enclaves where they have access to security and services denied to the wider population. They last longer than those outside their gates, but the tsunami of destruction they orchestrate does not spare them.
As long as Trump serves the interests of the elites he will remain president. If, for some reason, he is unable to serve these interests he will disappear. Wolff notes in the book that after his election there was “a surprising and sudden business and Wall Street affinity for Trump.” He went on: “An antiregulatory White House and the promise of tax reform outweighed the prospect of disruptive tweeting and other forms of Trump chaos; besides, the market had not stopped climbing since November 9, the day after the election.”
The Russia investigation—launched when Robert Mueller became special counsel in May and which appears to be focused on money laundering, fraud and shady business practices, things that have always characterized Trump’s financial empire—is unlikely to unseat the president. He will not be impeached for mental incompetence, over the emoluments clause or for obstruction of justice, although he is guilty on all these counts. He is useful to those who hold real power in the corporate state, however much they would like to domesticate him.
Trump’s bizarre ramblings and behavior also serve a useful purpose. They are a colorful diversion from the razing of democratic institutions. As cable news networks feed us stories of his trysts with a porn actress and outlandish tweets, the real work of the elites is being carried out largely away from public view. The courts are stacked with Federalist Society judges, the fossil fuel industry is plundering public lands and the coastlines and ripping up regulations that protected us from its poisons, and the Pentagon, given carte blanche, is engaged in an orgy of militarism with a trillion-dollar-a-year budget and about 800 military bases in scores of countries around the world.
Trump, as Wolff describes him in the book, is clueless about what he has unleashed. He is uninterested in and bored by the complexities of governance and policy. The faster Trump finds a member of the oligarchy or the military to take a job off his hands the happier he becomes. This suits his desires. It suits the desires of those who manage the corporate state. For the president there is only one real concern, the tumultuous Trump White House reality show and how it plays out on television. He is a creature solely concerned with image, or more exactly his image. Nothing else matters.
“For each of his enemies—and, actually, for each of his friends—the issue for him came down, in many ways, to their personal press plan,” Wolff writes of the president. “Trump assumed everybody wanted his or her fifteen minutes and that everybody had a press strategy for when they got them. If you couldn’t get press directly for yourself, you became a leaker. There was no happenstance news, in Trump’s view. All news was manipulated and designed, planned and planted. All news was to some extent fake—he understood that very well, because he himself had faked it so many times in his career. This was why he had so naturally cottoned to the ‘fake news’ label. ‘I’ve made stuff up forever, and they always print it,’ he bragged.”
Yes, the elites wish Trump would act more presidential. It would help the brand. But all attempts by the elites to make Trump conform to the outward norms embraced by most public officials have failed. Trump will not be reformed by criticism from the establishment. Republican Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee, who denounced Trump, saw their approval ratings plummet and have decided not to run for re-election. Trump may have public approval of only 39 percent overall, but among Republicans the figure is 78 percent. And I don’t think those numbers will decrease.
The inability of the political establishment and the press to moderate or reform Trump’s egregious behavior is rooted in their loss of credibility. The press, along with political and intellectual elites, spent decades championing economic and political policies that solidified corporate power and betrayed and impoverished American workers. The hypocrisy and mendacity of the elites left them despised and distrusted by the victims of deindustrialization and austerity programs. The attempt to restore civility to public discourse and competency to political office is, therefore, fruitless. Liberal and establishment institutions, including the leadership of the two main political parties, academia and the press, squandered their moral authority. And the dogged refusal by the elites to address the engine of discontent—social inequality—ensures that they will remain ineffectual. They lay down the asphalt for the buffoonery of Trump and the coming tyranny.