afellowkid
Now
•
100%
These quotes are all from Davison Budhoo's 1988 public resignation letter from the IMF, "Enough is Enough", which is around 100 pages long. He goes into detail on the institutional fraud in the IMF taking examples from around that time. It's available on archive.org here and ProleWiki's library here.
Unfortunately, I'm not very well-read on the topic (yet) so I don't have much else I can point you to. I do know this site focuses on this topic: Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt. They have some articles like this: "The International Monetary Fund (IMF): an ABC.". And I haven't read these books yet, but they're on my list to check out: "50 years is enough : the case against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund" and The World Bank : a critical primer.
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
Former IMF economist Davison Budhoo:
Once we set ourselves up as part of the State Machinery that would deny benefaction to certain groups while promoting the welfare of others - and we necessarily do this when we force the government to bite our bullet - we become, by definition, a domestic political force in the job of redistributing national wealth among social groups in a particular way that can enhance the effectiveness of our "program". We may say that we are merely out to ensure that adequate adjustment occurs in the economy - ie, that "economic and financial balance" is restored - but that's only a fancy way of saying that we are taking a direct hand in reallocating the national cake to suit our own purpose and that we are punishing certain groups and rewarding others so as to further our own cause.
You know, not so long ago, the colonial power, in circumstances where the colony concerned was perceived to be errant, would just go ahead and suspend the constitution and take over power directly and brazenly and unceremoniously. We don't operate that way today; internationally that is unacceptable, and logistically it is impossible, but we get the same results through other means. And unlike the colonial power of yesteryear, we can fine-tune our intervention so that we take away today only those rights and constitutional guarantees that it is necessary to take away in order to achieve our immediate ends (which of course may change from time to time). In other words, we undermine constitutional rights gradually, and in a non-visible sort of way. And before we know it (if our relationship with the country concerned is intensive and sustained enough, and if we perceive that Great Things are at stake for us) we render the government naked and defenseless and on its knees before us, and we go about our business of doing absolutely as we please. And nobody, in retrospect, would seem to know how on earth we could have managed to subjugate both government and peoples thus, and how such a state of affairs could ever have been made to exist in the first instance.
More under spoiler tags:
Fund and other members of the creditors' cartel have always managed to repress, immediately and completely, any attempt to organize what can remotely be perceived as a 'debtors' cartel'...
We have drawn the teeth of all countries, or groups of countries, that harboured thoughts of going, or actually attempted to go, against existing orthodoxy, as defined to mean the methods and expectations of the established order, represented by the conclusions of the G7 on Third World debt, and by the creditor's cartel that we have established, and that we so effectively chair. Indeed, our punishment for erring countries have been immediate and withering. To see this one just has to look at the Peruvian abortive experiment to contain its debt crisis, or the fate of countries like Brazil and Argentina and Nigeria that tried to flirt with 'national' debt solutions, or the outcome of attempts at 'regional solutions'. Concomitantly, the Fund and other members of the creditors' cartel have always managed to repress, immediately and completely, any attempt to organize what can remotely be perceived as a 'debtors' cartel'. We did manage to get this obedience in the South, and to bring protesting debtors to their knees, by unscrupulously declaring miscreants ineligible for use of our resources, irrespective of circumstance - eg; whether external factors beyond their control were responsible for their inability to repay, or whether they deliberately took a decision to defy us thus. By mid-1988 several countries were so declared and others were on the verge of being blacklisted. Our declaration of ineligibility constitutes the kiss of death for all these countries. They immediately became international lepers, with no hope of making operational any other alternative to the Fund's iron fist.
President Reagan effectively told us to go out and make the Third World a new bastion of free wheeling capitalism...
President Reagan effectively told us to go out and make the Third World a new bastion of free wheeling capitalism, and how we responded with joy, and with a sense of mission! Of course the entire strategy for propagating Third World economic rebirth into unfettered free enterprise was finalized and explicitly stated in the Baker Plan of 1985 and in the eligibility criteria to Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility to the 62 'poorest' countries of the world. Thus everything we did from 1983 onward was based on our new sense of mission to have the south 'privatised' or die; towards this end we ignominiously created bedlam in Latin America and Africa in 1983-88.
When we talk of structural adjustment we have nothing else in mind but an irresistible motivation to implement, in every country of the South, the following political agenda: to call an immediate and complete stop to economic policies that can be interpreted as being in the slightest degree 'socialist' or 'populist' or 'people- oriented'...
When we use the term "structural adjustment," we wish to convey to those who are being "structurally adjusted" the idea of economic and financial policies to get the economy out of an economic hole and place it on a path of sustainable growth and social transformation within a context of indigenously-determined economic and social priorities and trade-offs among desirable objectives, and within a time-frame defined by our 'program.' But there is a big difference what we want others to believe, and what we know to be true. For us the term "structural adjustment" conveys a politically inspired ploy, as against an economic concept that can be measured and evaluated in relation to some criterion of economic efficiency and optimal resource use by the recipient. More specifically, when we talk of "structural adjustment" we have nothing else in mind but an irresistible motivation to implement, in every country of the South, the following political agenda: to call an immediate and complete stop to economic policies that can be interpreted as being in the slightest degree 'socialist' or 'populist' or 'people- oriented', or weighted, however slightly, in favour of the poor and economically underprivileged, or based on the collective, social consensus of the population concerned. All such policies, if they exist, must be summarily scratched, and substituted forthwith with the type of Reaganite free-wheeling capitalism that is so comprehensively built into our 12 to 18 month stand-by arrangements, and our 3 year SAF and ESAF. Now as we implement, in each country of the South, t his agenda for political transformation, we have no expectation whatsoever that our policies would lead to economic development or enhancement of the social welfare function of our Third World clients; in no instance do we aspire to have our program set the stage for sustained economic and social transformation - a goal that we hoodwink others to believe that we are out to achieve, Yes, yes, Sir. We hide behind the mask of 'structural adjustment' - a concept with great respectability in economics, to do political things in Third World nations that make all known precepts of economics to look like old hat. You know, sooner or later someone will have to start rewriting the economics of developing countries in terms of the basic precept of IMF political imperatives that relate directly to the on-going debt strategy of creditor nations and institutions.
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
Remember there is c/documentaries! You might find something good there too.
Taken for a Ride - The U.S. History of the Assault on Public Transport in the Last Century - This documentary takes a look at the old public transport system of Los Angeles and follows the step-by-step process by which it was dismantled by General Motors. IMO it's a good one for seeing a concrete example of the actual steps that privatization can take -- GM bought the streetcars after a campaign calling them inefficient/run down etc., then after buying them, let them degrade in quality and service, then replaced them with a supposedly superior bus system. Then they allowed the buses to give poor service, ultimately promoting individual cars over buses and highway expansions as the solution to traffic congestion.
Former CIA Agent John Stockwell Talks about How the CIA Worked in Vietnam and Elsewhere - This interview clip is only 15 minutes long but gives a very concise and specific example of how the CIA manipulates the media by having contacts with reporters and passing them a mixture of true and false stories, basically coming up with bullshit and fake photos that will go viral and spread CIA talking points while the "source" of the information becomes more and more obscured as the story is passed around different news agencies, as well as how the CIA have funded the production of countless books, whose authors were allowed to write whatever they wished as long as they included this or that specific point, and that these authors have gone on to have solid and respected careers in academia.
Cybersocialism: Project Cybersyn & The CIA Coup in Chile - From what I recall it gives a good overview of what happened in Chile. In my opinion, due to Chile's case being so well-documented, it's a case which people without a lot of background knowledge can start to learn about the process of CIA coups from and how it relates to protecting the interests of the bourgeoisie. A viewer of this documentary can then start applying that knowledge to many other cases where a similar pattern comes up (country tries to nationalize industries/resources which are in foreign imperialist hands => economic loan denial/asset freezes/sanctions are implemented by the imperialists & opposition groups and terrorists in the country are funded & coups are orchestrated by the imperialist power.)
The Human Face of Russia - Simply, lots of footage of everyday life in 1980s USSR. As I recall, it was a foreign group going there to film and fact-check about the living standards and learn about various political and social activities of the people. IIRC it was a pretty calm and positive documentary, a good one if you need some time away from more heavy and upsetting topics.
The Weight of Chains - About the breakup of Yugoslavia.
The U.S. School That Trains Dictators & Death Squads - About the School of the Americas.
Gaza Fights For Freedom - About the Great March of Return.
The Lobby - Four-part undercover investigation into Israel's covert influence campaign in the United States.
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
My Life and Faith by Ri In Mo.
It's the memoirs of a guy who grew up in rural poverty in Korea under Japanese colonization, and from a young age was involved in resistance movements, starting communist/anti-imperialist reading groups as a child, etc., and wanted and tried to join the guerrillas. After Korea's liberation from Japan, he lived in DPRK's early days until 1950 when the war escalated and he went to south Korea as a war correspondant. During his activities following this, he was captured and spent almost 40 years imprisoned in south Korea, being tortured along with other political prisoners in an attempt to get them to renounce communism. Finally in 1988, he was released, and then eventually repatriated to north Korea, where he wrote this memoir of his experiences.
I am only part way through this one, but so far I have found it a very interesting first person account of the liberation struggle against Japan and the early days of DPRK's development in the post-liberation period prior to 1950, and the mentality of someone who grew up trying to find a way to end colonization by Japan since his childhood, and saw the resistance develop and participated in it, and saw the various reforms/developments being made under DPRK. I recommend it for anyone curious about Korean history or in reading the first person experiences of someone fighting colonial rule (at least from what I have read in it so far).
Also, coincidentally I just recently added a book by Gerald Horne to my reading list, but I have a few other things to get through first. He also has been interviewed several times on this channel though I have only seen one of the interviews and don't know much about the channel.
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
Man I hate this dude
The history of the Middle East since 1948 shows Israel constantly striving for peace, only to be rebuffed time and again by the Arabs.
-- Antony J. Blinken, "Lebanon and the Facts", 1982
Israel is not, has never been, nor will ever be the irreproachable, perfectly moral state some of its supporters would like to see. Israelis are, after all, only human. Still, one pedestal the Jewish state can stand on--and stand on alone in the Middle East--is that of a democracy. Yes, there are tragic excesses in the occupied territories. True, the invasion of Lebanon claimed many innocent lives. The fact remains, though, that Israelis question themselves and their government openly and honestly. Eventually, as in other democracies, those responsible for wrongdoing are held accountable.
-- Antony J. Blinken, "Israel's Saving Grace", 1982
The summer of 1982 may be remembered in history as the time Israel passed from adolescence to adulthood. The illusions of a child are left behind. But the Jewish state remains special, an oasis in a desert. Its citizens have built a working democracy from scratch in a region that has no others. Israelis must treasure that democracy, protect it with all their will. For if they don't, the growing pains that are Lebanon, Shatila and Sabra, the repression of Arabs and the feud between Ashkenazim and Sephardim could turn into a plague.
-- Antony J. Blinken, "The Danger Within", 1983
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
I recommend Geopolitical Economy Report.
Edit: Just remembered there is also People's Dispatch, whose articles I sometimes read, but they also have a YouTube channel. I haven't really watched their videos though. Maybe someone else can comment further about it.
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
/c/socialistmusic: "A subreddit dedicated to sharing and appreciating music that is socialistic either in nature or in spirit."
/c/tankietunes: "The music must apply to one or more of these categories: Communist Propaganda Music ... Music from Socialist countries ... from an anti-capitalist group supported by MLs ... anti-capitalist songs and artists (real ones not grifters like Tupac, make sure of that), or music that is absent of politics entirely(shaky one here, don’t toe the line) like classical or instrumentals, and remixes of the previously listed items ... You must put the Name of the song, and artist on the title (in that order)."
Personally, I like the simple rules of socialistmusic, which seems like if it has a socialist vibe ("in spirit") you can post it. While it's totally fine with me that tankietunes has such specific rules, it led me to personally not post there as much.
I do like having a catch-all socialist music sub for things like songs from labor union and civil rights movements, because sometimes those can be enjoyable or historically interesting, likewise for mainstream songs and anarchist songs and others which just strike the poster as socialist "in spirit" even if it wouldn't qualify for tankietunes' rules.
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm not making arguments for or against anything specific, just trying to lay out my initial thoughts.
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
Not sure of my favorite but check this out
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
Yes, that link you posted says some of the info. Additionally, the "shot in Evers' back" refers to the killing of civil rights activist Medgar Evers by a Klansman in 1963. The Klansman went to trial twice but was not convicted, and walked free. (Though was finally convicted in a 1994 retrial.)
And as your link says, "Mr. Charlie" is an old term for referring to condescending/abusive/exploitative white people.
::: spoiler Lyrics It isn't nice to block the doorway, It isn't nice to go to jail, There are nicer ways to do it, But the nice ways always fail. It isn't nice, it isn't nice, You told us once, you told us twice, But if that is Freedom's price, We don't mind. It isn't nice to carry banners Or to sit in on the floor, Or to shout our cry of Freedom At the hotel and the store. It isn't nice, it isn't nice, You told us once, you told us twice, But if that is Freedom's price, We don't mind. We have tried negotiations And the three-man picket line, Mr. Charlie didn't see us And he might as well be blind. Now our new ways aren't nice When we deal with men of ice, But if that is Freedom's price, We don't mind. How about those years of lynchings And the shot in Evers' back? Did you say it wasn't proper, Did you stand out on the track? You were quiet just like mice, Now you say we aren't nice, So if that is Freedom's price, We don't mind. It isn't nice to block the doorway, It isn't nice to go to jail, There are nicer ways to do it But the nice ways always fail. It isn't nice, it isn't nice, Well thanks for your advice, But if that is Freedom's price, We don't mind, we don't mind! ___ :::
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
I just found out about this guy today, and after a cursory look into his work, I thought of your post because it seems he is potentially covering this kind of thing, Prof. Oliver Boyd-Barrett. This page lists the courses he teaches as "The Political Economy of Mass Communication", "The Political Economy of Hollywood and the Press", and "Media Representation and Propaganda in Times of War and Terror". And when I looked him up he has books titled (for example) "Media Imperialism", "Approaches to Media", "Conflict Propaganda in Syria: Narrative Battles", "Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda".
Considering that I only just now found out about him, I can't exactly vouch for his work, but he wrote this 2021 article about Ukraine which is how I found him.
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
Ultimately it means meet/talk with other people and engage in planning and work to accomplish something together, whether that thing is big or small.
Easiest thing to do is look around for people who are already organized, e.g., a party or other org focused on a particular issue. IMO if someone has no experience with organizing whatsoever, then they can benefit from joining almost anything, even something run by liberals, anarchists, etc., just simply to see what kind of dynamics are at play when people are trying to work together to accomplish something. A lot of orgs and such are not easy to find online. It's better to just go to protests and demonstrations or to community projects and start meeting people and learning about what they are doing by word of mouth. People who are involved in organizing are typically going to be open to teaching/involving new people. A demonstration is the kind of place where people are purposely trying to educate and involve the public. Just don't come across as a cop and be wary that some people trying to involve you in things might be cops themselves lol. Approach groups with a critical eye, join a small-scale/low-risk org whose goals you support to learn about the practical dynamics of how organizing works and to build up a network of acquaintances and friends, and keep learning from there. Trying to organize something from scratch with no experience is possible but if you don't have a clear idea of what you're doing nor have a group of other people who are keen and intrinsically motivated to work on the goal, it's going to be pretty difficult.
theoregongroup.substack.com
I found this article to be interesting as it talks a bit about methods of mining uranium, as well as talks about a current issue regarding a shortage of a necessary ingredient of that process (sulfuric acid), while also going over issues in how to transport uranium supply to the West in light of sanctions on transport routes through Russia and recent deals with China. In general the article is just stressing how precarious the West's supply of uranium from Central Asia may be, and highlighting that China and Russia are much better positioned to trade with that region. Also a mention of how France has been prompted to rely more on Central Asia for uranium in light of the instability of sourcing uranium from Niger. > * Kazatomprom, world's largest uranium producer, warns of production shortfall >* logistical issues, eg transport and shortages in sulfuric acid could take years to fix > * concerns long-term supply contracts prioritize Russia and China over the West > **Kazatomprom is the world's largest and, arguably, most important uranium producer, accounting for 23% of global supply in 2022.** To put in context, that's double the next largest producer, Cameco in Canada. > > **The company has now warned production will be 20% below levels allowed by permits in 2024, with production impacted possibly into 2025.** The warning comes just as uranium prices are approaching historic highs with significant fallout across the global energy and nuclear sector. > Critically, as we'll get to shortly, Kazatomprom mines exclusively with in-situ leach (ISL) methods (or, in-situ recovery (ISR)), which involves dissolving the ore while it's still in the ground with acid and soda, and then pumping the solution to the ground where it can be recovered with no tailings, waste or disturbance on the surface. [...] **The main problem, ostensibly, is that they don't have enough sulfuric acid, essential for in-situ leaching, to raise output levels.** [...] The problem is so acute that Kazatomprom plans to construct a new sulfuric acid plant in the Turkestan region to produce 800,000 tonnes of sulfuric acid per year. However, it's only expected to be ready in 2026. > **The deals between Kazatomprom and both Russia and China threaten to squeeze out Western access.** [...] China has just signed a long-term contract to procure a significant amount of uranium — for domestic consumption, not for export. The West, we suspect, would also be reluctant to trade vulnerable supply chains through Russia for supply chains through China. [...] In the high-stakes Great Game of resource control in Central Asia, any sudden and severe tightening of global uranium supply threatens to expose the West's precarious position compared to its competitors.
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
Here's a documentary about it that leaves out most of the blood and gore that you could easily find if you looked: Donbass (2016). You will see a bit of people being burned to death in this documentary and some other injuries but not to the extent you could find in other videos of the time.
Here's a scene of the burning of the trade union building in 2014. Russian speakers were protesting regarding the repeal of a law which protected Russian as a minority language (or as the Ukrainian former soldier in the video states, they were "contesting a ban on the Russian language in Ukraine.") The protestors hid in the trade union building when Ukrainian right wing nationalists showed up. Eventually, the Ukrainian nationalists set fire to the building and many of the protesters burned to death, with those who jumped out of the windows getting beaten to death by the Ukrainian nationalists. (See also: "Burnt Alive in Odessa").
If you can stomach seeing bodies blown up in the streets, limbs removed, dead babies, and footage of people dying, there are other documentaries around which show it. It's not hard to find footage like this from 2014 onwards. E.g., Result of a 2014 shelling by Ukrainian military (CW: Numerous dead bodies); More aftermath of a shelling (CW: Extremely graphic, numerous mutilated bodies, and footage of a person dying).
You can make up your own mind about the conflict's particulars as you learn about it, but it's a mistake to ignore events happening before 2022 or treat them as insignificant.
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
- DPRK mainly uses its own intranet. You might be able to access the wider internet under some limited circumstances, but I'd say don't count on having access.
- You can go through a tour company, imo Young Pioneer Tours is one of the better ones which seems to offer a lot of variety/flexibility of travel options and are generally respectful in how they portray the country in their material. Afaik you can contact them to customize an individual trip or join a group tour. For a longer-term stay you might consider doing something like taking a Korean course for foreigners at a university, like this for example. It says the duration is 17-29 days.
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
I'd be really interested in reading that
exposingimperialjapan.com
Link includes Japanese original text and photograph of the article. English version: This is a short article from 1939 where a Japanese abductee escaped captivity from Korean Communist Guerrillas to tell the Japanese police in Ranam, Korea about meeting Kim Il-sung and his comrades, many of whom were women. [Translation] Gyeongseong Ilbo June 3, 1939 Astonished by Female Bandits Kim Il-sung was a Gentleman A Kidnap Victim Shares His Experience [Telephone Report from Ranam] On the 22nd of last month, a person who had been kidnapped by bandits in the jurisdiction of the Samjang Police Station returned and spoke about the interesting inner workings of the bandits, based on his experiences of living with them deep in the mountains for over ten days. One surprising thing was the presence of many female bandits among them, not just men as he had initially thought. These people are primarily ethnic Koreans from the Gando region and usually handle cooking and sewing for the bandits. It was unique that they cook rice in a washbasin, but it was also surprising that they skillfully made Western clothes and combat hats using a proper hand-operated sewing machine. All of them uniformly expressed nostalgia for their homeland and said they wanted to return to Korea as soon as possible. He met the leader who introduced himself as Kim Il-sung. Kim was a fair-skinned, good-looking man in his thirties, about 5 shaku and 5 or 6 sun tall (167 to 170 cm tall). He was bald, wore a combat hat, dressed in brown woolen clothes, and wore jika-tabi footwear.
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
Agreed, sadly the reactionary anti-feminist MRA stuff gets spread, while people really working on men's liberation issues are often sidelined.
wspaper.org
Note: This is machine translation of selected quotes from the articles. Additionally, several photos of the events are available in the linked articles. [November 4th Palestinian solidarity rally and march condemning Israel: Participants of various nationalities come together](https://wspaper.org/article/30223) 2023-11-04 >On November 4, a rally and march condemning Israel and solidarity with Palestine were held near the Israeli Embassy in Korea. This was the 6th rally. > >There was great anger because the rally was held immediately after Israel bombed the Jabilia refugee camp in the Gaza Strip, Palestine for three days. > >Today's rally was notable for the diversity of race and nationality of the participants. People of various races and nationalities marched through downtown Seoul, listening to remarks and shouting slogans in unison despite their different religious and political backgrounds. > >“We're all Palestinians!” > >At this rally, 37 organizations in Korea expressed support and solidarity. There were 9 more places than the rally a week ago. [...] >At the end of the rally, various participants, including workers, college students, and doctors, representing the solidarity groups that prepared for today's rally, read a resolution pledging to further foster and continue solidarity. > >“The resistance of Palestinians who have fought to protect their lives, their homes, and their right to live like human beings is completely justified. … Palestinian resistance is not isolated. Israel is already facing resistance, and will face more resistance in the future. > >“Although the Israeli government, which is afraid of the truth, mobilized fake news and various Western governments that support Israel have tried to interfere, righteous movements in solidarity with the Palestinian people’s resistance have continued all over the world. > >“Israel, stop the massacre right now! Israel's unjust force will never be able to bring down the legitimate resistance of the Palestinian people. Solidarity with Palestine!” --- [Palestine Solidarity Campaign Takes First Step in Busan](https://wspaper.org/article/30219) 2023-11-02 > On November 1, a campaign was held in Seomyeon, Busan, to condemn Israel and show solidarity with Palestine. > Even though the campaign plan was announced on social media only a day or two in advance, many people gathered. In addition to Koreans, people from various countries including Palestine, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the United States participated. These were people who could no longer tolerate Israel's atrocities. Everyone welcomed this campaign and thanked each other for taking action in solidarity with Palestine. > Palestinian international students also participated in the campaign that day. He is said to have lost contact with his family in Gaza. He complained that it was difficult to bear because his heart was always sore. He expressed gratitude to those who participated in the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. > The campaign attracted the attention of downtown Busan citizens. There were many people who looked closely at the photos and cartoons that conveyed the reality of Palestine. > Several workers from the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions who were holding other rallies and marching nearby also expressed solidarity by raising their fists toward the Palestine solidarity campaign. > The voice of Palestinian solidarity must and can become louder.
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
At this point the men's rights groups are mainly doing harassment campaigns (leading to various cases of suicides), but outbursts like this have some precedent, e.g. in 2018: South Korean Women Beaten Until Skull Exposed For ‘Looking Like Feminists’ (some accounts of this say the women were making fun of the men, though obviously that doesn't justify beating them), or this:
In August [2021], a South Korean man dressed as the Joker live-streamed himself harassing activists who had gathered in Daejeon city to protest against advertisers profiting from YouTube videos that promoted hatred against women.
His words were chilling: “I heard that there were f*****g feminists here; I’m going to murder them all.”
According to Lee Hyo-rin, from the women’s rights group Haeil, no passers-by stepped in as the man chased the activists down the street.
[...} Since the demonstration on August 22, Lee from Haeil has not been able to resume her normal life.
Her personal information and photographs were leaked on antifeminism forums online, and she was caught up in a violent cyber-harassment campaign that included death threats.
A report by local broadcaster SBS last month said a woman was asked about her opinion on feminism during a job interview. She was also asked whether men and women had distinct physical strengths and told to remove her face mask so the men who interviewed her “could judge her facial expressions”.
Eun, 24, told This Week in Asia she was asked whether feminism was the reason behind her short haircut during a job interview in Seoul earlier this year. The male interviewer said it did not fit the image expected of her by the company.
[...] Suicide rates among South Korean women in their 20s rose by more than 40 per cent last year, while the figures among men of the same age declined during the same period.
As for attacks on women in general (without the feminism component), those of course happen as well, e.g.: After another femicide, many Korean women say nowhere feels safe.
Note I haven't carefully read the above articles nor am I informed enough on this issue to produce a thorough analysis, this is just to give the general idea of the tense environment around feminism and MRAs in south Korea's public discourse, obviously these articles approach from a liberal lens.
[“I'm with Men's Solidarity” Man in his 20s arrested for assaulting female employee at convenience store](https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/area/yeongnam/1114996.html) - Nov. 5, 2023 (article in Korean) [Machine translation + slight editing] > A man in his 20s who assaulted a woman in her 20s working at a convenience store was caught by the police. He told the police, ‘I am a member of the [Men’s Solidarity](https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%8B%A0_%EB%82%A8%EC%84%B1%EC%97%B0%EB%8C%80). He is said to have said, “Feminists must be beaten.” > Jinju Police Station in Gyeongsangnam-do announced on the 5th, “We have applied for an arrest warrant for Mr. According to what the police said, Mr. A was drunk at around 0:10 a.m. on the 4th and acted unruly, including throwing items he had chosen at a convenience store in Hadae-dong, Jinju. > It is said that a female employee in her 20s who worked at a convenience store stopped him, but the throwing of objects continued. Mr. A took the mobile phone of an employee who was trying to report it to the police, put it in the microwave, and beat the employee who tried to stop him from doing so. Mr. A even assaulted a customer in his 50s who tried to stop him. The police responded to the scene following a report from a passerby and arrested Mr. A. > The police said, “Mr. A, who was being investigated, said, ‘I saw that (the convenience store employee) had short hair and thought she was a feminist. “I said, ‘I am a member of the men’s solidarity and you should be beaten,’” he said. --- [“Why does a woman have short hair?” A 20-year-old who indiscriminately assaulted a part-time worker at a convenience store.](https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20231105030200057?input=1195m) (article in Korean) [Machine translated excerpts] > A man in his 20s who indiscriminately assaulted a female part-time worker at a convenience store because of her short hair was caught by the police. > Mr. A is accused of assaulting Ms. B, who was in her 20s and was working part-time at a convenience store in Hadae-dong, Jinju, by punching and kicking her > He assaulted Mr. C, a customer in his 50s who tried to stop the assault, several times, and also hit him with a chair provided in the store. > As a result of Mr. A's crime, Ms. B suffered a sprain, ligament damage, and an ear injury, and Mr. C suffered fractures in his shoulder, forehead, and nose. > At the time of the crime, he was found to have made remarks to Mr. B, saying, "When I see a woman with short hair, I see a feminist" and "I am a Men's Solidarity member, feminists should be beaten."
www.youtube.com
Some quotes from the video: > The official orders, to anyone who breaks curfew, is shoot to kill. > I wasn't sure if I was enjoying the power of controlling all of these people, or if I don't understand why kids look at me frightened, why are they running away when I walk into the street? Before my service, I worked as an educator, I love kids, so I think I was very confused on why a kid would find me scary. > I realized that my job is actually to maintain an apartheid system. Very early on I understood that the rights that the Jewish settlers have are not the rights that the Palestinians have. I understood that I cannot touch a Jewish settler if he is attacking a Palestinian; the best I can do is call a local police department to come handle it, like I would do at home in Jerusalem. So these Jewish settlers are living under the same rights that I live in Jerusalem but the Palestinian next to them next house over next building over sometimes next apartment over lives under my rule, my military rule, and I can do whatever I want with him. > > I can take his home as a temporary base for a few hours to a few days to a few weeks, I can decide that I'm arresting the people of the house and tying him up to the fence of my base. If we will get an order to demolish their home or just lock their front door and don't let them out into the street, their house is on a street that only Jewish settlers can walk on, and Palestinians cannot > I felt like I am the terrorist and my job was literally to scare people so they cannot think about acting against the Israeli settlers or the Israeli military, that was actually our defined mission: to make sure that to instill fear in the hearts of Palestinians in Hebron, and that's exactly what we did > Growing up in Israel like I said I believe that I was the good guy, I mean the story that all of us are being told all around the world is that the the very clear difference between good and bad people. You learn about the Holocaust growing up. I saw my grandma screaming in the middle of the nights, memories from Auschwitz in her mind, memories of our family, I knew that I am going to be a good human being, you know. In the age of 15, 16, I began being almost obsessed with trying to understand the Nazi side in the Holocaust, not only to hear the stories of the victims of the Jewish victims and any other victims from the Holocaust, but to try to understand how can a Nazi soldiers get up in the morning, give his kids a kiss his wife a hug and go out to the camps and do his job? > > I just couldn't understand that. And when I got into the occupied territories for the first time I understood how can there be a contradicting inside yourself, as a human being you could do your job and be a one person at home, be a loving caring, you know, boyfriend or a son or brother, and in the same time, hold people under a regime so oppressed that people are dying not from only your bullets, but the amount of calories being entered into their territory, like in Gaza, from depression or sickness > Leaving the military and start interviewing soldiers, really, I think, made me understand that there's a systematic oppression that is taking place in the occupied territories > Actually what being an Israeli means, being an Israeli, growing up in the Israeli educational departments, you understand that all the Arabs hates you [...] Going into the military you're already going so full of hate and fear at the same time that you don't need much to be very aggressive, violent, and racist toward Palestinians, they see the Palestinian women and the Palestinian men as subhuman
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
Richard Medhurst posted a couple of videos recently talking about this:
Part 1 - "Israel and the United States want the giant amounts of gas in Gaza, and to create a rival to China's New Silk Road."
Part 2 - "Israel and the United States plan to turn Gaza into the "Ben Gurion Canal", a rival to Egypt's Suez Canal. This is about controlling the world's most geostrategic shipping lane."
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
When reading books written in the imperial core, about the enemies/targets of imperialist nations, I would keep this in mind:
Former CIA case officer John Stockwell: Well for example, in my war, the Angola war, that I helped to manage, one third of my staff was propaganda. [...] We would take stories which we would write and put them in the Zambia Times, and then pulled them out and sent them to a journalist on our payroll in Europe. But his cover story, you see, would be what he had gotten from his stringer in Lusaka, who had gotten them from the Zambia Times. We had the complicity of the government of Zambia, Kenneth Kaunda if you will, to put these false stories into his newspapers. But after that point, the journalists, Reuters and AFP, the management was not witting of it. Now, our contact man in Europe was. And we pumped just dozens of stories about Cuban atrocities, Cuban rapists--in one case we had the Cuban rapists caught and tried by the Ovimbundu maidens who had been their victims, and then we ran photographs that made almost every newspaper in the country of the Cubans being executed by the Ovimbundu women who supposedly had been their victims.
Interviewer: These were fake photos?
Stockwell: Oh, absolutely. We didn't know of one single atrocity committed by the Cubans. It was pure, raw, false propaganda to create an illusion of communists, you know eating babies for breakfast and the sort. Totally false propaganda.
Interviewer: John, was this sort of thing practiced in Vietnam?
Stockwell: Oh, endlessly. A massive propaganda effort in Vietnam in the '50s and in the '60s, including the thousand books that were published--several hundred in English--that were also propaganda books sponsored by the CIA. Give some money to a writer, "Write this book for us, write anything you want, but on these matters, make sure, you know, you have this line."
Interviewer: Writers in this country? Books sold and distributed in this culture?
Stockwell: Sure. Yeah. English language books, meaning an American audience as a target, on the subject of Vietnam and the history of Vietnam, and the history of Marxism, and supporting the domino theory, et cetera.
Interviewer: Without opening us up to a lawsuit, could you name one of them?
Stockwell: No, I could not. The Church Committee, when they found this out, demanded that they be given the titles so that the university libraries could at least go and stamp inside "Central Intelligence Agency's version of history," and the CIA refused because it's been commissioned to protect its sources and methods, and the sources would be the authors who wrote these false propaganda books, some of whom are now distinguished scholars and journalists.
Also note:
-
It's a recognized problem in south Korea that "time and time again, conservative outlets and foreign media circulate and reproduce rumors [about DPRK] based on questionable sources ... retractions and apologies are rarely ever provided when the reports are shown to be false" and "Sometimes, the South Korean government itself has been the epicenter of false reports ... The situation has been made worse by defector groups aggressively proliferating claims from unverified 'North Korean sources,' as if attempting to draw attention to themselves."
-
South Korea's national intelligence service (NIS) forges documents to frame people and tortures them into false confessions as well as pays defectors for sensational stories and harasses and silences people who say positive things about DPRK (and takes away their passports so they can't go back, even when they came to south Korea against their will)
-
UN human rights researchers who have worked directly with defectors from DPRK have written about how testimonies are made unreliable by cash incentives paid by the NIS and other organizations: "North Korean refugees are well aware of what the interviewer wants to hear. ... The more terrible their stories are, the more attention they receive. The more international invitations they receive, the more cash comes in. It is how the capitalist system works: competition for more tragic and shocking stories. ... In my 16 years of studying North Korean refugees, I have experienced numerous inconsistent stories, intentional omission and lies. I have also witnessed some involved in fraud and other illicit activities. In one case the breach of trust was so significant that I could not continue research."
Edit: So, to summarize -- Former CIA case officers have discussed how they pay academics and journalists to write thousands of books about foreign communist enemies that contain whatever content the author wants as long as it pushes certain specific lines; the CIA regularly plants false stories into foreign newspapers and gets them circulated around; the NIS (formerly the "KCIA", formed on the US-backed side during the Korean War to combat communists) is known to forge documents, extract false confessions, pay people to lie or embellish to the point that mainstream south Korean liberal media and UN researchers say it's making it too hard to tell what's true; defectors with sensational stories receive payments and get book deals and international speaking tours while people with positive things to say get arrested and surveilled by intelligence agencies...So, keep that info in mind as you consider what's going on with these books.
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
The New Atlas touches on and reads some quotes from this paper a bit in this video: https://www.yewtu.be/watch?v=MWzF5NvFdOs&t=2507s (@41:54)
A very normal quote from the paper:
...it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)
An example of what's discussed in the New Atlas video:
[Brian Berletic speaking about the paper] They also laid out the the whole Iran nuclear deal, they didn't mention it by name, but they were talking about a deal they would propose to Iran, deliberately sabotage, blame its failure on Iran, and then use that as a pretext for military aggression. So it says, "in a similar vein any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper International context both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to and minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support, however grudging or covert, is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer"--and they're talking about a widespread conviction--not an understanding of a fact, but the belief in a US fabricated lie--so they say to "strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer, one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down" because, for the wrong reasons they admit in this paper--and many other policy papers, including from the Rand corporation--that if Iran ever did have nuclear weapons they would be used solely as a deterrent.
It says, "under those circumstances the United States or Israel could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians brought it upon themselves by refusing a very good deal." I mean remember shortly after this paper was published, under the Obama Administration the Iran nuclear deal was proposed. Eventually it was signed, it was implemented, the Iranians adhered to it, and then under the Trump Administration it was the US unilaterally withdrew from it, blaming Iran, just as the Brookings institution spelled out. And the Biden administration was supposed to reinstate it, but of course that was never going to happen because that was not the plan as laid out by the real policy makers of US foreign policy, these unelected, corporate-funded think tanks.
These think tanks produce these policy papers, teams of lawyers craft parts of these policy papers into bills, the bills go with lobbyists to Washington to be rubber stamped--many people in Washington don't even read them--and then the bill is sent to the corporate media to sell these policies to the public. It's very important to understand how the US really operates where foreign and domestic policy really stem from. Not your elected representatives, unfortunately. The fact that this Brookings institution ploy to propose sabotage, unilaterally withdraw from and then use a deal with Iran as a pretext for military aggression transcended the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administration. This demonstrates the continuity of US foreign policy regardless of who sits in the White House and whoever is running Congress.
www.youtube.com
Video's content begins @56:44 For a quick look of the general vibe see @1:04:32 "We now stand at a moment where many are again making the bet that we’re too divided, we’re too distracted at home to stay the course..." says Blinken in his speech about supporting Israel and Ukraine, as he is repeatedly disrupted by activists demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and an end to funding genocide and are gradually pulled out of the room one-by-one by the Capitol Police. Remarks on the State Department website: https://www.state.gov/opening-remarks-by-secretary-antony-j-blinken-before-the-senate-appropriations-committee-on-a-review-of-the-national-security-supplemental-request/ The several statements and chants by activists demanding an end to the bombing of Gaza and genocide of Palestinians are listed only as "(Interruption.)" in the transcript. I just happened to be reading that transcript and was curious what the repeated "interruptions" were, assuming it would be something like this, so I checked the video out. In the vid you can see the tense atmosphere as Blinken attempts to deliver his soulless advertisement-like speech in a firm optimistic or "inspiring" tone, making statements about how the US's adversaries have assessed the US is internally divided but the US is actually a resilient and strong leader, while the chairwoman has to keep hitting the gavel and pausing the hearing as activists shouting "genocide" at Blinken are dragged out one by one by the cops, while Blinken sits in a tense, irritated, and pathetic posture and then keeps trying to continue with his sales pitch tone between interruptions and being called a genocide supporter, with others sitting in the hearing behind him looking variously annoyed, drained, and bleak
afellowkid
Now
•
100%
I'm glad you found it worthwhile!
More context here: https://electronicintifada.net/content/watch-film-israel-lobby-didnt-want-you-see/25876 > The Electronic Intifada has obtained a complete copy of The Lobby – USA, a four-part undercover investigation by Al Jazeera into Israel’s covert influence campaign in the United States. > We are releasing the leaked film simultaneously with France’s Orient XXI and Lebanon’s Al-Akhbar, which have respectively subtitled the episodes in French and Arabic. > The film was made by Al Jazeera during 2016 and was completed in October 2017. > But it was censored after Qatar, the gas-rich Gulf emirate that funds Al Jazeera, came under intense Israel lobby pressure not to air the film. > Now The Electronic Intifada can reveal for the first time that it has obtained all four parts of the film. > To get unprecedented access to the Israel lobby’s inner workings, undercover reporter “Tony” posed as a pro-Israel volunteer in Washington. > The resulting film exposes the efforts of Israel and its lobbyists to spy on, smear and intimidate US citizens who support Palestinian human rights, especially BDS – the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
> On episode 63, we speak to Refaat Alareer, a professor, writer and father in Gaza, about the latest Israeli military assault on Gaza that killed nearly 50 Palestinians, including 17 children, in early August [2022]. "But for Palestinians who’ve been suffering for decades under this military, brutal military regime, military rule, whether there are elections or not, we’re exposed to Israeli killing machines, we’re killed day and night, we’re being suffocated. Even if Israel is not killing us, shedding our blood or being suffocated. When you can’t travel, when somebody – I know people in Gaza who, people who died because they can’t go to the West Bank or to Jerusalem because they will get arrested at Erez because 30 years ago, they threw stones at Israeli military jeeps, or because a family member was a freedom fighter. So the reality on the ground that sadly not many people see is that the 24/7 Israelis are killing us, suffocating us, shedding our blood. And for many people, this slow death that happens is even worse in so many ways. At least, when Israel starts a war, many people start paying attention. And even when we talk about truce, or a lull or a ceasefire, it never stops" Video, audio, and transcript available on the linked page.
> On episode 68, we speak with activist and blogger Tony Greenstein, a veteran of the Palestine solidarity movement in the UK, about his new book Zionism During the Holocaust: The Weaponization of Memory in the Service of State and Nation. Video, audio, and transcript available on the linked page.
www.youtube.com
> The Ukraine crisis has laid bare the deep divisions between great powers and cast doubt on the "rule-based order" built by the West. What should a multipolar world look like? What can be done to make sure that the world is not divided between "first-class" and "second-class" countries and peoples? > > For this edition of Leaders Talk, CMG's Wang Guan traveled to Moscow and sat down with Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of his visit to China to attend the 3rd Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation. President Putin spoke about Russia-China relations and how they have nurtured and developed in the last two decades, not only on the energy front but also in other areas of mutual interest. He told Wang how the Russian vision of an Eurasian Economic Union aligns with China's Belt and Road Initiative and why President Xi's concept of "building a global community of shared future" is realistic and coherent. President Putin also expressed at length his position on the conflict in Ukraine and drew another parallel with Iran, saying that "the West keeps adding fuel to the fire."
www.youtube.com
Note: This video is from January (uploaded 01/13/23). > BT’s Rania Khalek sat down with Sheikh Naim Qassem, deputy secretary-general of Hezbollah, in Beirut, Lebanon. Hezbollah began as a resistance movement against Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon and has since grown to become a regional player across the Middle East. > > They discussed Hezbollah’s role in Lebanon and the region as well as the group’s view on global developments. This is Qassem’s first interview with an English-language outlet based in the West since the BBC sat down with him in 2019.
DPRK, along with Iraq and Iran, was declared part of the "Axis of Evil" in 2002 by the US's George W. Bush administration. This 2008 book recounts and analyzes the "war on terror" and the U.S. bid for unipolar hegemony up to the time of its writing. It provides details about that time period, as well as other historical background information, delivered with DPRK's anti-imperialist perspective. Overall, I think it's an interesting and relatively quick read (81 pages) covering mainly the 1990s-mid 2000s and tracing the emergence of multipolarity and the US's attempt to stop that emergence around the world, with attention given specifically to its attempts to gain control over countries in which oil and natural gas pipelines run through in order to circumvent Russia and "seize the lifeline of the European economy." Beginning with the fall of the Soviet Union and thus the ending of NATO's reason for existence, it follows the US's unpopular attempts during the 1990's to manufacture a new world enemy, until the 9/11 attack created its perfect excuse to permanently wage war on any region unfavorable to US interests, with the main conclusion of the book being that although this project by the US is intended to drag on indefinitely, it will eventually end in failure due to its unilateralism and infringement upon sovereignty of nation-states, "illogicality combined with a childish attempt at division of the international political forces, and anachronism." Below I will share some excerpts from the book. ::: spoiler several excerpts > [With the collapse of the Soviet Union] NATO forfeited its raison d’etre, and the United States was deprived of any justification for its pursuit of world supremacy. The stick which the US had been wielding on the excuse of “protecting the free world” from the “threat” of the Soviet Union and communism, lost its authority, and the focal point that had supported the pyramid of the US-led alliance diminished considerably. The Iron Curtain was lifted, widely opening the sphere of influence under the former Soviet Union, a much coveted region. The United States, however, lacked a specific justification to fill the “power vacuum” until September 11, 2001. > In order to reverse the world trend towards multipolarization and allay the spiraling anti-Americanism across the world, the United States needed an event by which it could mislead opinion at home and abroad as in the days of the Cold War and bring about a radical change in the world political sphere. > The objective of the war [in Afghanistan] was not the capture of bin Laden or retaliation for terrorist attacks, but to exert a long-term influence on Afghanistan to secure a foothold in Central Asia, a region with abundant strategic resources: First, to secure a strategic foothold for containing Russia and China and encircling Iran; second, to secure military means for winning firm control over the two major oil regions in the world-the Caspian Sea area and the Middle East; and third, to secure a centre of operations and advanced base needed for expanding and prolonging the “war against terrorism.” > The ulterior motives [of the Iraq war] were, first, to overthrow the Saddam regime, which had openly held up the anti-US banner in the Arab world for over ten years, thus realigning the political force in the Middle East in its favour, second, to win exclusive control over the strategic region with energy resources and the world oil market, and third, to create an environment favourable for Bush’s second term of office and the Republicans’ prolonged stay in power. > Military blockades, a link in the whole chain of the “war against terrorism,” are effected through the Proliferation Security Initiative, which Bush proposed in Krakow, Poland, in late May 2003 and explained in detail at the G-8 summit held in Evian-les-Baines, France. It aims at enforcing economic blockades on the countries that possess, develop and export weapons of mass destruction and searches of their vessels at sea, and further building an international cooperation system for preemptive strike. The targets are Korea and Iran, two of the three countries Bush claimed to be constituting an “Axis of Evil.” > The countries and regions where the flames of the “war against terrorism” are raging are, without exception, those that have oil resources or where oil pipelines pass through. The Afghan war was directly related to oil and its transport in the Caspian, the third-biggest oil region in the world. Samuel R. Berger, national security adviser to former President Bill Clinton, confessed that America’s vital interests in Central Asia, including Afghanistan, are to safely transport oil and natural gas at any cost. > The existing pipelines in Central Asia, from which the United States imports oil, pass through Russia. So the United States had to find another transport channel for Caspian oil to avoid Russia’s monopoly of the pipelines. The southward channel passing through Iran was ideal, but America’s relations with the country were a stumbling block. > Iraq has oil deposits of 112 billion barrels, the next-biggest oilfield after that of Saudi Arabia, and the cost of drilling one barrel was 50 cents before the war, the cheapest in the world. If the United States brought this oil country under its control, it would prove favourable for it to relieve its burden of oil imports, which was estimated to spiral 90 percent till 2020. Moreover, this would deal a telling blow to OPEC, restrict the influence of Russia and other oil suppliers, and seize the lifeline of the European economy. > Entering 2002, the United States took the lead in inducing early membership for Romania and Bulgaria, countries that have ports on the Black Sea, of NATO, and intensified its military advance into Georgia and other Transcaucasian countries. These actions promoted a plan for laying an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Turkey, by-passing Russia. > Availing themselves of the “war against terrorism,” the US military-industry complexes, which had been eclipsed after the Gulf War, bounced back. US munitions enterprises, including the four major corporations-Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and TRW-are enjoying a wartime boom. > After 9/11 the United States did its best to involve as many countries as possible in its own “war against terrorism.” [...] On September 18, 2001, Secretary of Commerce Don Evans warned that such sanctions as blocking access to the American market and reconsidering food assistance would be imposed against those countries that were unwilling to cooperate with the United States in the campaign. This led many countries to donate troops and help with logistics in the “war against terrorism,” and to allow US-led forces to pass over their territorial airspace or use bases in their territories during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, or promise cooperation or express understanding-overt or covert cooperation with the United States. > Bush divided the world into those on the US side and those on the “terrorist” side, through childish logic. Labelling the countries that pursue anti-US independence, that are not obedient to it and that are situated in regions of strategic importance as siding with the “enemy,” he resorted to unprecedented pressure and military blackmail. If the United States could find a “reasonable excuse,” it immediately and unhesitatingly committed military aggression. > The Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the Saddam Hussein government of Iraq became miserable victims of the “war against terrorism.” The next targets of the “war,” which is continuing in line with Bush’s “ripples” strategy, are the DPRK, Iran and Cuba. These countries, though small, stick to the principle of independence, and reject the American view on values. [...] The US attempt to crush the DPRK and realize domination over the whole Korean peninsula constitutes the core of its policy towards the DPRK and the key to its building of a foundation on which to achieve world hegemony. > The Songun politics the DPRK now pursues acts as a deterrent to the “war against terrorism” and safeguards peace in Northeast Asia as well as on the Korean peninsula. > To cope with a possible military strike by the United States, Cuba put all its people under arms and fortified the whole country. In December 2004, four million civilians joined the soldiers and reserve forces in the last stage of Bastion 2004, a military exercise aimed at perfecting the principles of “all-people war” against possible US aggression. Cuba’s firm anti-US stand and strong countermeasures will inevitably foil any US attempt to stifle it. > If the United States continues the “war against terrorism” with the logic that any country that is not on its side is on the enemy’s side, it will inevitably meet self-destruction. > Bush submitted the Nuclear Posture Review to Congress in January 2002. Outlining the orientation of the nuclear policy the United States should pursue in the forthcoming five to ten years in the report. Bush insisted on changing the strategy of nuclear deterrence. In the part not made public, the report pinpointed the DPRK, along with China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, as targets of nuclear attack, and further expanded the scope and methods of the use of nuclear weapons. [...] The document also advocated nuclear preemptive strike against nonnuclear states by defining five nonnuclear states as targets of nuclear attack. > In the United States some advocate a theory of “cultural conflict,” which alleges that Islamic culture is fundamentally contradictory to Christian culture. Neocons view that 9/11 proved this conflict and the only way to eliminate it is to reform the entire Islamic world and lead it to Western-style democracy. > Since 9/11 the United States has claimed that, as the “failed states,” serving as a source of or shelter for terrorism, pose a great threat to global security, the countries that sponsor international terrorism or allow the free activities of terrorists in their territories should also be viewed as “failed states.” Alleging that these countries are deprived of their raison d’etre, it insists that the international community, or some countries, or one country, has a right to take action with regard to such countries, and further to change their regimes to root out terrorism, which threatens the international community. The concept of “bankrupt states” (“rogue states” and “Axis of Evil” included) much touted by the Bush administration serves, in practice, US military intervention in other countries. > The “war against terrorism” pursued by the Bush administration will eventually end in failure due to its unilateralism that infringes upon the sovereignty of nation-states, illogicality combined with a childish attempt at division of the international political forces, and anachronism. :::
