Friday, August 28, 2026

Clownish Start For Trump Puppet In Colombia

 Michael K. Smith

www.legalienate.blogspot.com

First published by Counterpunch on August 18, 2026

If Abelardo de la Espriella’s first four days are any indication of what his entire term will be like, we are in for some very dark comedy over the next four years. Here are eight highlights from his inauspicious beginning.

(1) On Inauguration Day a clip of him looking like a fool marching in place and saluting during military honors went viral after it was seen to have his own military officers looking at him with a look of bewilderment as to what on earth he thought he was doing. Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department revealed that Colombia will receive a $1 billion support package for its participation in Trump’s Shield of the Americas project, which uses the drug war as a pretext to attack political enemies. A car bomb exploding the same day seemed to highlight the renewed chaos such policies are sinking the country into.

(2) President de la Espriella showed up hours late to announce Colombia’s 7.4 earthquake on August 10, smiling and blowing kisses to his supporters while offering them a “Look at me! Look at me! How ya doin?” greeting, apparently oblivious to the buckled roads, crashed vehicles, and collapsed buildings devastating half the country. A Latin American mini-Trump, he has captured the required spirit of buffoonery well.

(3) His first press conference was a video of himself talking about freedom of expression.

(4) With the country reeling from the earthquake, he took time to re-establish relations with Israel, broken off due to Tel Aviv’s mass extermination in Palestine, and recognize the Holy State’s sovereignty over Syria’s Golan Heights. Making Colombia great again.

(5) He also recognized Morocco’s colonial claim to the Western Sahara.

(6) He backed Colombia out of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which the country had spent over a decade trying to get into. The U.S. ambassador-designate to Colombia made the announcement, not De la Espriella.

(7) He talked up Plan Patriot 2, which aims to re-start the country’s militarized coca eradication program, though it had devastating social and environmental consequences the first time around, and is opposed by anti-government parties and environmental, peasant, and indigenous organizations this time. A form of chemical and biological warfare, its goal is to clear undesired populations off rural lands desired by transnational corporations – de la Espriella’s constituency – in favor of cattle ranching, oil extraction, and vast plantations.

(8) With lives hanging in the balance in the early aftermath of the earthquake, he refused international earthquake aid. We don’t need no stinking welfare!

Even before being sworn in, De la Espriella met with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, a higher priority than doing anything to help ordinary Colombians. He also met with Javier Milei, telling the Argentine president that the policies he is implementing served as inspiration for his own proposed economic policy, a strange confession given that Milei’s policies have plunged Argentina’s currency to its lowest value in history and provoked massive protests, occasioning frequent street brawls outside Congress, which are forcibly broken up with water cannons, rubber bullets, and tear gas.

Or perhaps it’s not so strange. After all, De la Espriella is only tangentially related to Colombia. A U.S. citizen who until recently lived in Italy, his constituents are the owners of massive private wealth, their professional servants, and Israel fanatics. Struggling Colombians are for him no more than a minor irritant to be quickly brushed aside, like ants at a picnic.

His career focus has been as a lawyer for the AUC, a paramilitary conglomerate that sowed terror and massacre in Colombia for decades, a war on the poor that painstakingly evolved into a peace and reconciliation process in 2016, which De la Espriella now eagerly seeks to unravel. The negotiations ended Colombia’s forty-year civil war, disarmed over 11,000 combatants, transformed the rebel group into the Comunes political party, and established the Special Jurisdiction for Peace to deliver transitional justice and landmark restorative sentences for victims while reintegrating thousands of ex-combatants into civilian life through community and cooperative projects. For many of those who laid down their arms, however, their reward has been getting assassinated or disappeared by death squads.

In the recent elections, outgoing Gustavo Petro and his would-be successor Ivan Cepeda represented the path of continuing the peace process in order to complete a social transformation that would eliminate the mass poverty and injustice that are the driving force behind political violence, which the right seeks to repress, not resolve. In short, the choice Colombian voters faced at the ballot box was between striving for social peace nonviolently or taking a giant step towards unrestrained state warfare against the common people, a policy that cannot bring social peace short of complete extermination. The overwhelming majority of Colombians didn’t endorse De le Espriella’s iron fist agenda, either by staying home or voting for other candidates.

Unpopular though it may be, De la Espriella honed that agenda for years as a lawyer helping figures like Jorge Caballero, Rocio Arias, and Eleonora Pineda, spokespersons for the paramilitary AUC in Congress who were convicted of parapolitics, as well as Juan Carlos, “El Tuso Sierra,” a former drug-trafficker and also a member of the AUC. But his most prominent client was ex-president Álvaro Uribe, whom he has advised regarding the judicial process opened by former House representative for Bogotá, Iván Cepeda. Today Cepeda says, “Paramilitarism created an apparatus of death that erected an immense mountain of corpses upon which the pinnacle of power in Colombia was reached.” His recent presidential candidacy sought justice against the narco-paramilitary Uribe and his most ardent defender–De la Espriella–who as a U.S. citizen had to swear absolute loyalty to Washington, effectively an oath of patriotic loyalty to the empire that sponsors all the political violence.

Uribe’s election in 2002 inaugurated one of the bloodiest campaigns of state terror in Colombia’s history, with Colombian state and paramilitary forces committing about 80% of the country’s human rights crimes, compared to 16% by guerrillas. The death squads were not independent of the Colombian state, as was frequently declared by Washington, but an outgrowth of it: police even patrolled alongside the paramilitaries.

Not surprisingly, Uribe’s name turned up in the files of the U.S. DEA and the CIA as a narcotrafficker, one of the most wanted international drug traffickers, in fact. A declassified National Security Agency report dated September 23, 1991 described him as a collaborator of the Medellin cartel and a personal friend of the notorious Pablo Escobar, who former Colombian presidential candidate and one-time FARC hostage Ingrid Betancourt described as a “monster who had shown his fourteen-year-old son how to dig out a victim’s eyeball with a red-hot spoon.” Such are the realities of iron-fist politics in Colombia. The DEA report states that Uribe was one of the “more important Colombian narco-terrorists contracted by the Colombian narcotics cartels for security, transportation, distribution, collection, and enforcement of narcotics operations in both the United States and Colombia. These individuals were also contracted as ‘hit men’ to assassinate individuals . . . . and to perform terrorist attacks against Colombian officials, other government officials, law enforcement agencies, and groups of other political persuasions.”

A key feature of the vicious class warfare of those years was the funding of a 31,000-member-strong death squad that sowed terror throughout the country, killing thousands of peasants wherever the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) guerrillas were influential. Hundreds of trade union activists were assassinated by hit men in broad daylight in towns and cities occupied by the army. Human rights workers, as well as journalists and professors who dared to report on military massacres, were kidnapped, tortured, and killed, some beheaded or disemboweled.

Millions of peasants were driven off their land and herded into wretched urban slums, the land taken over by prominent paramilitary chiefs or large landowners. This purging of political undesirables was strictly in accordance with Pentagon counter-insurgency training, which counseled the Colombian military to destroy the “social infrastructure” of the FARC, including its longstanding and extensive family, community, and social ties with the peasantry. The goal was to annihilate the social support the guerrillas depended on to survive, not negotiate a way for them to survive differently. Not without reason was Colombia called “the genocidal democracy.”*  Virtually all of its human rights abuses went unpunished.

Instead of addressing the savage poverty that was the root of the war, Uribe perpetuated it while viciously attacking the inevitable guerrilla response. In a country of 45 million people, about 11 million could not afford even one nutritious meal a day and close to two-thirds of the population could not afford to meet its most basic subsistence needs. In rural areas, there were virtually no decent roads, schools, or hospitals, and the poverty rate rose as high as 85%. Such a status quo could only be maintained by major applications of state violence, which is to say, death squads.

A complete bill of indictment against Uribe would take considerable time to draw up. He openly collaborated in the crimes of the death squads; caused massive forced displacement – over four million Colombians were uprooted from the land; ignored structural problems in the economy perpetuating massive unemployment and under-employment; allowed funds for the poor and social sectors to be systematically transferred to drug lords, paramilitaries, rich industrialists, and personal friends; denationalized companies in the telecommunications, oil, and mining sectors; closed down some of Colombia’s biggest hospitals, eliminating over four thousand medical jobs; systematically murdered union organizers, illegally invaded Ecuador; used the judicial system to attack civilians and political opponents; illegally assigned contracts to personal relatives; violated Colombian sovereignty by permitting seven U.S. military bases in Colombia (the Colombian Constitution does not allow the stationing of foreign troops on Colombian soil). In short, he worked long and diligently to convert the Colombian state into a major criminal enterprise.

De la Espriella differs from Uribe in depending more on personal charisma than traditional party structures, but he clearly builds on Uribe’s hardline security legacy while only superficially breaking with the Colombian establishment. According to Mexican journalist Sasi Alejandre, De la Espriella, who ran for president as a political “outsider,” is possibly the most well-connected “outsider” that Colombia has ever had. He comes from a wealthy family close to Álvaro Uribe in the department of Cordoba. In his youth, he founded a “peace foundation,” FIPAZ, which was actually funded by the paramilitaries themselves, specifically by Salvatore Mancuso, the historic and bloodthirsty commander of the paramilitary AUC, who promoted candidates close to the paramilitaries, including Uribe, and dedicated the organization to making public speeches on university campuses promoting the paramilitaries.

Espriella focuses on the “free market” and “merit,” and has promised to reduce the size of the Colombian state by up to 40% in order to provide what the late Edward Herman called a “favorable investment climate.” That’s a climate where taxes are low, profit repatriation allowances generous, poor people too terrified to lift their heads, independent journalists dead or in jail, and workplace and environmental regulations weak or non-existent. This is practically a description of utopia from De la Espriella’s point of view (right-wing libertarianism), and he’s eagerly pursuing the capitalist promised land. He favors “flexible” labor (subordinate to capital) and “productive” environmental regulation (pro-growth), and since taking office on August 7, has announced the repeal of the wealth tax, a levy applied only to those holding liquid assets in excess of 20 million pesos, a tiny minority of Colombians. Meanwhile, his Finance Minister Miguel Gomez Martinez plans a budget cut of at least 20 trillion Colombian pesos, approximately six billion U.S. dollars, which would require a halt to almost all government spending to implement.

In short, the DOGE plan. What could go wrong?

Note.

*Geraldo Javier, S. J. “Colombia: The Genocidal Democracy” Common Courage Press, 1996

Sources.

Kurt Hackbarth, “Soberanía, The Mexican Politics Podcast,” You Tube, August 12, 2026. (Segment two of this episode deals with De la Espriella)

“Cuba: breaking with the island shows ‘clear subordination’ of Abelardo de la Espriella to the U.S.” La Jornada, (Spanish) July 28, 2026″

“De La Espriella: The Candidate of the Establishment,” Sasi Alejandre, La Otra Voz (The Other Voice), June 19, 2026

“A Razor-Thin Victory for the Colombian Right,” Sandra Rátiva Gaona,” ZNET, June 27, 2026

James Petras, “Colombia: State Terror in the Name of Peace,” www.petras.lahaine.org, May 4, 2010

Hans Bennett, “Neo-liberalism Needs Death Squads in Colombia,” http://upsidedownworld.org , September 3, 2009

Manuel Rozental, “The Circle Opens Out: New Evidence of Criminality in Colombian Regime,” http://upsidedownworld.org, May 25, 2010

Laura Violeta Davia Lopez, “A Government Opposed to Peace is a Government Opposed to Life,” ZNET, July 20, 2026.

Description of Pablo Escobar is from Ingrid Betancourt, “Until Death Do Us Part – My Struggle Tp Reclaim Colombia,” (Harper Collins, 2002)

Israel's Crimes Against Humanity In The Americas

  • by Michael K. Smith
  • www.legalienate.blogspot.com 
  • (This article was published previously in Counterpunch, July 17, 2026)


"They will try to tell us that democracy, international law, human rights, and human dignity exist and are alive and well; that the genocide against the Palestinian people was merely an aberration, an exception within the global democratic oasis . . . 

-----Mexican journalist Sasi Alejandre


"Latin America has experienced the same tactics of state terrorism that Palestine faces at the hands of regimes armed, trained and advised by Israel."

-----Jack McGrath, Washington Report On Middle East Affairs


A greatly under-appreciated aspect of Zionist murder and dispossession is how truly international the policy has been from the beginning.

There might never even have been an Israel without arms shipments from the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua to the Zionist paramilitary Haganah in 1939 during the British Mandate over Palestine. Nine years after that helping hand was extended, the Haganah, with assistance from the Irgun and Lehi, erased Palestine from the map on orders of U.S. and British authorities (along with banking dynasties like the Rothschilds), building the state of Israel literally on top of where Palestine had been while recruiting Nazis from Europe to help the fledgling Jewish state build up enough weapons. Not long after that, Israel took charge of assisting bloody repression in Latin America.

Israel actually trained the army of Castillo Armas that overthrew Guatemalan democracy in 1954, later shoring up repression across the entire Southern Cone by providing the same training and arms to the military dictatorships of Chile, Argentina, and Paraguay. It also financed Colombian paramilitaries and developed the tactics and weapons used in Mexico's "Dirty War," which included forced disappearances, torture, and extrajudicial killings, carried out against student protesters, political dissidents and campesinos.

The Central America connection was established early on. Israel started sending automatic weapons, tanks, and military planes to the Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua in the 1950s, later increasing its support when the dictatorship faced an ultimately successful popular revolution in the 1970s. Israel was Nicaragua's sole source of arms after Jimmy Carter belatedly cut off military aid to Somoza in 1978, who killed tens of thousands of people in his last two years in power, ultimately using Israeli planes to bomb Managua in a final paroxysm of futile violence. After the Sandinista revolution took power, Israel acted as a conduit to arm and train cocaine-trafficking mercenaries (the Contras) attacking schools, farming cooperatives, and medical clinics throughout Nicaragua in an attempt to destroy the popular achievements of the revolution.

By far the bloodiest Israeli policy in the region was directed against Guatemala from the 1970s to the 1990s, when indigenous Mayans rose up against European-descended oligarchs defended by a brutal Mestizo Army. Tel Aviv's arms, intelligence, advisors, surveillance technology, and torture tactics helped kill two hundred thousand people and displace a million more in what the Catholic Church and Guatemalan courts determined to be genocide. Guatemalan army officers credited Israel with turning the tide against the popular uprising via mass extermination in the countryside and counter-insurgency techniques that wiped out guerrilla networks in the cities. 

Such repression was by then a well-established Israeli policy in the region. In 1972, Tel Aviv had put itself at the service of the Salvadorean army, secret police, and death squads, and the following year El Salvador became the first country to receive a major shipment of Israeli military aircraft. From 1975 to 1979, the last years before El Salvador erupted in civil war, Israel provided 83% of Salvadorean military imports, and agreements between the two states continued throughout the war years, including deals for napalm, armaments, and military technology and training.

The scorched earth campaigns that Israel repeatedly relied on were deliberately focused on destroying Central America's resources and crops in order to deprive popular guerrilla movements of the means to sustain themselves, thus forcing displaced populations into small, controlled spaces, which were easily subjected to targeted repression. 

Civilian slaughters were a key feature of these efforts, and they occurred with mind-numbing regularity throughout the Cold War, the more famous among them being the Rio Sumpul massacre, where hundreds of civilians were mutilated and killed trapped between the Salvadorean and Honduran armies, Operation Scorched Earth (El Salvador), during which bodies were partially dissolved in acid and then dumped in a river, and the El Mozote massacre of 1981, when nearly one thousand Salvadoreans were variously shot, raped, beheaded, and burned alive in Church. There were also assassinations of priests and liberation theologians like Archbishop Oscar Romero and Ignacio Ellacuria, the former ordered by Israel-trained Roberto D'Aubuisson and the latter one of six Jesuit priests murdered by the U.S.-trained Atlacatl Battalion along with their housekeeper in 1989.

These were not episodes of merely gratuitous violence, but rational repression that successfully crushed the threat of popular democracy posed by labor organizers, peasant associations, cooperatives, unions, and church-based Bible study groups "infected" by liberation theology's preferential option for the poor, along with others working to improve the lives of ordinary people. A negotiated end to the Salvadorean civil war was finally signed in 1992, but the underlying class conflict remained unresolved, with land and other crucial resources concentrated in the hands of a microscopic minority, which is what produced the civil war in the first place.

Almost three decades of severe gang violence then ensued, after which Nayib Bukele was elected president promising to solve the nation's crime problem. Descended from Christian Palestinians on his father's side, Bukele believes the problem in Gaza is Hamas, not Israel, and is part of a group that makes up one percent of the Salvadorean population. Many members of this group fought on revolutionary fronts during the civil war, such as Schafik Handal, one of the general commanders of the FMLN guerrilla forces. In fact, Bukele's own family collaborated with the FMLN after it became a political party, managing its communications for years through the family's marketing firms, opening the way for Mauricio Funes to win the presidency in 2009. The FMLN later recruited Nayib for a political career, and he became mayor of San Salvador in 2012, and president seven years later. 

Having crafted an anti-Marxist, anti-establishment, "cool" dictator image for himself, Bukele today upholds the legacy of the military dictatorship the FMLN fought against, relying on Washington's counsel and Israel's weapons. "To achieve good results in the war against gangs, it has been necessary to equip our institution. Today we are handing over 800 Arad rifles to Armed Forces units," said Bukele's Defense Minister René Merino in 2022, during a $1.2 million re-armament effort involving Israeli equipment. As a direct result of Bukele's policies, one out of forty Salvadorean adults is now in jail, the highest incarceration rate in the world, many held at CECOT, a massively over-crowded mega-prison notorious for beating and starving prisoners who have have been granted no rights, no trial, and no visitors. 

CECOT actually fits the definition of a concentration camp more than a jail, as prisoners are locked up there not for individual offenses they have been proven to have committed, but because they allegedly fit certain characteristics associated with gang membership. They are dissidents, the abysmally poor, and now even Venezuelans abducted from U.S. soil and trafficked to El Salvador. 

In this incarceration model El Salvador receives $20,000 for each prisoner, a highly lucrative arrangement with prospects for limitless growth, since the ultimate target is not crime per se, but anyone who fails to comply with the aims and practices of the Bukele dictatorship. According to internal Salvadorean intelligence documents, 36% of those Bukele has jailed have no prior criminal history. Data from the National Civil Police originally claimed there were 58,270 gang members outstanding, but as of the end of March 2026, 91,000 gang arrests had been made. Meanwhile, Bukele's "state of exception" suspending constitutional guarantees continues into its fifth year on the pretext of needing to arrest even more. 

The lawless Bukele model has won the admiration of aspiring dictators throughout Latin America, which finds itself in the midst of an accelerating campaign to replace constitutional crime fighting with institutionalized state violence. In Chile, the Pinochet-aligned Jose Antonio Kast ran for president on a promise to suspend constitutional guarantees. In Ecuador, Daniel Noboa is replicating the state of permanent emergency and moving ahead with plans to construct Bukele-inspired mega-prisons. In Costa Rica and Paraguay, preventive detention and harsh criminal penalties are increasingly entrenched. In Argentina, Javier Milei openly champions fascist Israel while his "zero tolerance" crime policy includes ritual public display of prisoners in degrading conditions. Niceties like the presumption of innocence are reserved for white collar cases.

At the other end of the spectrum are vast Latin American protest movements that know from bitter experience that some of the fiercest partisans of "never again" are actually committed to a policy of "over and over again" at their expense, having perfected extermination in Palestine and then exported it throughout Latin America.

It can't be long before Bukele's dungeons include dissidents trafficked from the U.S. for acting on the conviction that "we are all Palestinians." 


Sources:

Salvadorean Defense Minister Rene Merino quoted by Sasi Alejandre, "Palestine and The Global State of Exception," (Spanish), https://www.naiz.eus/es

"The Dangerous Expansion of Bukele-ism," La Jornada (Spanish), March 29, 2026

Isabel Rikkers and Noeli Brigden, "Christian Zionism in Bukele's El Salvador," NACLA, October 9, 2024

"Israel's Role in the Guatemalan Genocide," Middle East Monitor, October 5, 2015

"Israel's Bloodstained Legacy in Latin America," Jack McGrath, Washington Report On Middle East Affairs, March 24, 2025

"Israel's Latin American Trail of Terror," Al Jazeera, June 5, 2003

On Israel's recruitment of Nazis to build up its base of weapons, see Trita Parsi interview on Breaking Points, "Israel's Puppet Plan: Recruited 'Terrorist' To Run Iran," July 14, 2026



The 250 Year Pregnancy: Will U.S. Democracy Ever Be Born?

 

“Those who own the country ought to govern it.”
First Chief Justice of the United States John Jay

“We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” 
Thomas Paine, Common Sense

 

As we contemplate the majesty of our 250 years as a democratic republic, with our glorious president recently threatening to murder his negotiating counterparts on their way back to Iran, an ancient civilization he threatened to exterminate to the last man, woman, and child, let us pause to consider that perhaps the “Miracle in Philadelphia,” as we modestly call the pact that barely holds us together, was something more than a noble experiment to bring democracy to a fallen world. 

Although by our own telling the Founding Fathers (a term better suited to a nursery story than an account of political history) were free of any taint of the extremes of wealth and poverty that characterized the “Old World,” in actual fact they were part of a circle of men that had received vast land grants from the British crown from the very earliest English settlements. By 1700, three-fourths of the acreage in New York State belonged to fewer than a dozen people, and by 1750, fewer than five hundred men in five colonial cities owned most of the land and controlled most of the commerce, banking, mining, and manufacturing, as well as a majority of the newspapers and journals on the eastern seaboard. 

This makes it rather problematic to characterize the emerging United States as an egalitarian, middle-class society in any politically substantive sense. By 1787, the year of the Constitutional Convention, property qualifications left about one-third of the white male population disenfranchised, and more than a majority permanently excluded from running for office. Women, Indians, and Africans – whether slaves or “free” – were completely excluded as well. Finally, there were no secret ballots at the time, which meant that even those who were qualified to vote could not cast their ballots free of promised rewards or threatened punishments put forth by the wealthy.

As for the men who drew up the Constitution, it should come as no surprise to learn that there were no dirt farmers or indentured servants at Philadelphia. People who have only their labor with which to pay bills cannot take four months off to discuss their views on political and economic arrangements, much as they might like to. Those who did enjoy such luxuries dominated the events at Philadelphia, consisting almost exclusively of financially successful planters, slaveholders, merchants, creditors, bankers, and manufacturers. Their concerns were overwhelmingly property-related, and they wrote farmers, artisans, and workers out of the Constitution.

What they wanted was not an inclusive democracy, but a strong central government to deal with three prominent challenges: (1) better management of conditions in trade and industry, (2) better handling of relations with rival states internationally, and (3) a cure for the chronic rebelliousness and “insurgent spirit” of the mass of common people, who were engaged in broad political agitation to the point of having taken over a number of state governments. Strong popular resistance dated back thirteen years, in fact, having been particularly fierce in the lead-up to the Declaration of Independence, when British rule was routed throughout the colonies. In 1774, for example, in every county seat in rural Massachusetts thousands of farmers had dragged British officials into the streets and made them repeatedly run a gauntlet, removing their hats and writing and announcing their resignations again and again before thousands of commoners thronging them on both sides. 

Initially conceived to amend the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention evolved into a forum on establishing a unified nation out of the thirteen states. Waves of popular protest succeeding those that had replaced British rule with local democracy before the battles of Lexington and Concord were regarded by the Founders as a threat to be subdued, not a stimulus to establishing full democracy. No matter that an overwhelming majority of the “free” population – about 85% of Americans – then lived in the agrarian sector, most of them small farmers, tenants, or indentured servants, with interests quite distinct from those of wealthy elites. 

These people were burdened by high rents, low incomes, and a series of ruinous taxes stemming from the Seven Years War. To survive, they often had to borrow money at very high interest rates. Desperate to pay off their debts, they then had to mortgage their future crops, which only deepened their indebtedness. In those days debtors’ prison was a fixture of American life, and jails were crowded with economic prisoners, the overwhelming majority of them poor and working class. Given this situation, many felt that the American Revolution had been fought in vain, leading to violent uprisings in a number of states. 

Perhaps the best known such revolt occurred in 1787 when debtor farmers in Western Massachusetts led by Daniel Shays took up arms. Their rebellion was crushed by state militias after skirmishes that claimed eleven lives and left scores wounded. Shays was not an advocate of “free trade” as a solution to common economic woes. On the contrary, he wanted relief from oppressive debt, taxes, and rigid adherence to paying debts in hard currency. He desired not “limited government,” but more state intervention to protect against waves of speculation that bankrupted commoners. More specifically, he supported court shut-downs to impede debt collection that was ruining farmers. 

The causes that animated revolts like Shays Rebellion were suppressed, not rationally debated and resolved in Philadelphia, where the Founding Fathers acted on their belief that persons of good breeding and ample fortune should dominate the affairs of state and check the leveling impulses of the fickle and unruly masses, ever prone to irrational passions and wicked projects (like debt relief). James Madison, who played the most crucial role among the Founders, focused on how to construct a government that would win some popular support while conceding only a minimum of democratic substance, so as to preserve the existing class structure favoring the wealthy.

It had to be a government strong enough to serve the expanding needs of an entrepreneurial class while holding off the democratic, egalitarian demands of the common people. The way to do that, Madison thought, was by excluding commoners from most points where power was exercised. Madison correctly noted that “the various and unequal distribution of property” was what fueled class conflict, although he called it “faction.”

“Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society,” said Madison in Federalist Paper #10, sounding a lot like Karl Marx. “The first object of government is the protection of different and unequal faculties for acquiring property,” he went on, without noting that inheritance, a primary method of “acquiring” property, cannot plausibly be described as being the result of exercising a human faculty.

Roger Sherman, a delegate to the convention from Connecticut, expressed a common sentiment among the fifty-five assembled dignitaries, saying that “the people should have as little to do as may be about the government.” Alexander Hamilton agreed, arguing that the people “seldom judge or determine right.” Another delegate, Elbridge Gerry, a wealthy, Harvard-educated merchant from Massachusetts who died in office as Vice President to Madison, felt conceding any power at all to commoners constituted an “excess of democracy,” calling such a system the worst of all evils because of its “leveling spirit.”* He even opposed popular elections for the House of Representatives.

Ultimately, the House of Representatives was subject to direct election by the people, but even that concession required an argument to get it established, which shouldn’t have been the case if Jefferson’s high-minded reference to “we the people” eleven years before actually referred to national independence instead of merely class interest.

But in the delegates’ view “the people” referred only to a very select portion of the population. It didn’t mean the half of the population that was female, the hundreds of thousands of slaves or even “free” Africans in the north, or the hundreds of indigenous peoples who Thomas Jefferson referred to as “merciless Indian savages” in the Declaration of Independence. It also didn’t mean the poorest of white males, who were disqualified by property qualifications, nor those who were barred from the polls by literacy tests. As for the rest, though not formally excluded, many simply could not manage a ten or fifteen mile horse-and-buggy ride over muddy roads to the county seat to cast a ballot, a typical practical obstacle to voting.

Such were the political realities at the dawn of the self-proclaimed greatest democracy in world history.

Fifty-nine years later the “empire of liberty” (Thomas Jefferson) invaded and later annexed over half of Mexico in the name of its civilized master race, and then commenced to finishing off  indigenous peoples in the West through disease, deliberate starvation, and war. In the midst of that campaign the contradiction of a free and democratic society rooted in slavery erupted in a civil war that butchered hundreds of thousands of Americans and nearly destroyed the “democratic experiment” altogether.

Then followed twelve years of “reconstruction,” during which time ex-slaves proved themselves remarkably adept at lifting themselves up by their bootstraps, a practical necessity given that a briefly instituted policy of “40 acres and a mule” given to freed slaves reached perhaps one percent of the ex-slaves who desperately needed it. Tragically, the brief progress that was made during Reconstruction was brutally cut short when federal troops occupying the south were withdrawn in 1877, leaving ex-slaves to the mercy of white supremacist terror that continued into the civil rights era, including thousands of lynchings, often in front of cheering throngs who considered such wholesale degradation a form of entertainment.

It would be gratifying to report that with the (in principle) enfranchisement of the entire adult population, unrestrained democracy finally flourished in the U.S., replacing the horrors of our anti-democratic past. Alas, such was not the case. The successors to the “rich and well born” at Philadelphia in 1787 created the modern public relations industry during WWI to destroy the labor movement by drafting its members into what was then the bloodiest war in history. This initial success at “manufacturing consent” to crush the main threat to capitalism encouraged further development of the industry, leading to an utterly debased form of political “democracy” that shattered the merest hint of working class unity into a galaxy of market niches along racial, ethnic, religious, gender, age, and even dietary lines, among others. “Democracy” was reduced to selling identity cliques to the highest bidder, an electoral circus that was finally taken over by a complete clown, an outcome that should have surprised no one.

Because whatever else may be said about him, Donald Trump is the most representative president the U.S. has ever had, in that his absolute shamelessness embodies our collective narcissism to near perfection. He appears fully capable of passing off a noisy flatulence attack at the presidential podium as the introduction of a new line of White House perfume while denouncing reporters fleeing the scene with burning eyes for delivering “fake news.” It is easy enough to condemn those who still believe the barrage of idiotic claims issuing forth from our Dear Leader, but the fact remains that – politically speaking – he, and we, are the product of a specialized class of media mind managers which has convinced us that we are the greatest democracy in history, immaculately conceived by philosopher kings in Philadelphia, and utterly incapable of criminality, though not of an occasional inadvertent atrocity,** and that any opposition to what we like to call “the American way of life” represents irrational hatred on the part of those who just have to be in league with the Devil (Evil Empire, Axis of Evil, etc).

In other words, reports of an Age of Reason having woven Enlightenment values deep into the fabric of “our democracy” are greatly exaggerated. Though the “alternative media” can and do spew out many a myth-making minnow, we-the-people collectively swallowed an ideological whale long before Donald Trump appeared on the scene. In fact, that’s why he appeared on the scene.

There simply is no getting around the fact that ideological absurdity forms the political bedrock of team USA. Our freedom-loving forebears rescued Africans from savagery and gave them civilization? Check. The Indians they exterminated were savages? Check. Capitalism working people to death in mines and factories built character? Check. Communism is satanic? Check. Women factory workers didn’t need their wages? Check. Chinese workers spread leprosy? Check. God gave Palestine to Israel? Check. Arabs are terrorists? Check. Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Check. Attacking and destroying Vietnam was an act of self-defense? Check. Normandy was the key battle of WWII? Check. There is no alternative to capitalism? Check.

The way out is the way forward, and even the way back, for there was a path not taken advocated by the likes of Thomas Paine, who regarded the American revolution as not just a tax revolt, but a global fight to establish human rights and liberty, including freeing and retroactively compensating slaves, a truly revolutionary stance. He was struck by the mobilization of mechanics and laborers, and the formation of committees to enforce colonial resolutions, and felt that the American Revolution was for all people, not just the rich and well-born.

The law itself should be “King,” he thought, accountable to democracy, not a monarch. He believed legitimacy – the right to rule – could only be granted by the people, and rejected unchecked elite privilege and hereditary monarchy. In Common Sense, he argued that ordinary people were capable of governing themselves and should have sole authority to form their own government and write a constitution. That did not happen in Philadelphia in 1787.

Crucially for his descendants today, Paine argued that political democracy required a certain level of economic equality to function properly. He was an early advocate of social welfare provisions, such as pensions and direct inheritance rights for young people, the latter a lump-sum cash payment he advocated be given to every citizen on reaching adulthood, to be funded by a tax on inherited property. 

Paine did not believe that the earth was a commodity to be monopolized by the few. Private property was necessary for its cultivation, but concentrated in few hands it deprived the community of its “natural inheritance.” Paine favored compensation to make sure no citizen was worse off under civilization than prior to its establishment, arguing that over-concentration of wealth led directly to despotism. The rich end up buying “democracy” and destroying people’s rights in the process, as financial precarity breeds political submission. Progressive taxation and redistribution of wealth were the antidote, he argued, without which the poor could have no meaningful liberty. 

Paine did believe the American Revolution was unique, but not because of the brilliance of U.S. elites, but because of the common understanding of freedom and self-government held by ordinary Americans. In contrast to revolutions elsewhere, Paine thought, “here the value and quality of liberty, the nature of government, and the dignity of man, were known and understood, and the attachment of the Americans to these principles produced the Revolution, as a natural and almost unavoidable consequence.” 

Although Paine has been criticized for not living up to his radical democratic ideals, they are  our true and honorable revolutionary heritage. We can either reclaim them, or continue to watch the pathetic attempts to create a trillionaire class, which might inspire a Democratic Party hack to hail billionaires as “the new middle class.”

The choice is ours.


The Second Coming of Manifest Destiny

The Second Coming of Manifest Destiny

No one with the slightest respect for diplomacy would ever name Ronald Johnson ambassador to anyplace but Hell. Hiring him to be top diplomat is like hiring Jeffrey Epstein to be the recreation director at a girls high school. His appointment as ambassador to Mexico indicates a hard-line policy of force over diplomacy towards Claudia Sheinbaum and the Fourth Transformation.

Johnson is a retired Colonel, a “former” CIA agent, a super-hawk, an expert in undercover psychological operations and asymmetric irregular warfare, and a seasoned ex-Green Beret with extensive tours of duty in three imperial slaughterhouses – El Salvador, Afghanistan, and Iraq. His current role is to impose Trump’s national security agenda on Mexico, reducing it to a U.S. protectorate, which is what the U.S. means by “partnership.” He has vast experience in dissimulation and deception, espionage and counterespionage, otherwise known as systematic lying, as well as military intervention, which is the U.S. “solution” to drug-trafficking.

He graduated as a Green Beret with a master’s in strategic intelligence, and specializes in undercover operations and unconventional warfare. In the 1990s, he was dispatched to the Balkans as a senior military officer in charge of a team made up of personnel from the CIA, the NSA, and Special Missions Unit to arrest people accused of “war crimes,” which conveniently excluded U.S. and NATO officials committing large scale atrocities in the region at the time.

Johnson was appointed to get Mexico back in line with Washington’s to-hell-with-the-people agenda. Days after he arrived in the Mexican capital he was guest-of-honor at a far-right dinner hosted by Eduardo Verástegui, a wealthy far-right actor aligned with Bolsonaro, Milei, and Trump. He was also at another gala welcome with members of the American Society, an “independent” business group of which Johnson is the honorary leader, and which dedicates itself to blaming Mexico for drug-trafficking while ignoring massive U.S. involvement in the same trade, as though drug-kingpins weren’t well stocked with U.S. military grade weapons and nourished by its recreational drug culture, money laundering, distribution gangs, and CIA drug-running going back many decades.

Since his appointment, Johnson has been turning the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City into a C.I.A. operations center. Obviously uninterested in strengthening trade, investment for development, or even intelligence for legitimate security purposes, his priority is to prevent Mexico’s Morena party from remaining in power. For Donald Trump, allowing Washington’s “back yard” to be governed by a reformist government outside established imperial guidelines is an invitation to popular rebellion that must be crushed lest it ignite a regional conflagration. Morena’s slogan alone is deeply offensive: “for the good of all, poor people first,” which flies directly in the face of capitalist dogma putting rich investors first, last, and always, with trickle-down pieties for the poor and vanishing middle class.

Obviously, Johnson’s background and abilities go directly against the staples of diplomacy, which are courtesy, non-judgmental dialogue, and negotiation, all of them indispensable to sane international relations but useless for capitalist plundering. Thus, Johnson has to follow an imperial policy of pressure and destabilizing force, in order to deepen Mexican dependence on the U.S. and undermine the once defensive containment policy of the Mexican Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of National Defense, an effort primarily focused on reducing immigration through the use of productive investment at the most common migration origin points.

Johnson has a deep understanding of Latin America and the Caribbean (but not Mexico), because of a career spent in the area of responsibility of the Pentagon’s Southern Command, until 1999 at the network of U.S. bases in the Panama Canal Zone. In the 1980s, he served as military advisor to the Salvadorean army during its war of virtual extermination against the FMLN.

The Salvadorean military officials carrying that policy out had been indoctrinated at the U.S. School of the Americas (also known as the school of coups) in fanatical anti-Communism, then went out and tortured and massacred civilians to the tune of 70,000 killed from the late seventies to the early nineties, most of them peasants and indigenous peoples.

Johnson retired as a colonel in 1998 and joined the CIA, where he participated in world-wide combat operations including counterinsurgency, state terrorism, espionage, “scientific” torture, and unconventional warfare, among other responsibilities. He led air, land, and sea deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq, and was in charge of CIA paratrooper operations.

From 2019 to 2021 Johnson was ambassador to El Salvador, during which time Nayib Bukele laid the foundations for repressive dictatorship, featuring arbitrary mass incarceration, concentration of executive power, imprisonment of journalists, closing down of human rights groups, and digital spying on journalists and the public.

Johnson works closely with Marco Rubio, who accused ex-president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrabor (AMLO) of handing  Mexico over to drug cartels, a routine smear applied to unsubmissive Mexican governments. During his term in office (2018-2024) AMLO had the nerve to impose the National Security Law on the U.S., which has limited the covert activities of foreign agents like those of the DEA, FBI, NSA, DIA, and CIA, who since December 2020 have been required to inform the Mexican government about their operations inside Mexico, an intolerable affront to American imperial marauders who consider the entire world a U.S. trophy.

This past April 19 Johnson announced the deaths of two U.S. agents in a car accident in Chihuahua, alerting the world to CIA involvement in dismantling a drug lab in Sierra Tarahumara, which put Chihuahuan governor Maru Campos of the National Action Party (PAN) under fire from the Mexican federal government and the Morena party for authorizing foreign agents to operate without permission on Mexican territory. Morena initially threatened to impeach Campos, but later declined to pursue the option.

On April 29 Johnson posted in his social media the U.S. filing of criminal charges against Sinaloa governor Ruben Rocha and nine others by the U.S. federal prosecutor’s office in the Southern District of New York. In ensuing days President Claudia Sheinbaum rebuked the United States for abruptly making the Rocha case public, and questioned the legitimacy of implicating Rocha and other Morena officials without demonstrating clear evidence of their supposed guilt.

The Ruben Rocha extradition request may have been a Hail Mary to rescue Maru Campos from the political consequences of her collaboration with the CIA. If Morena can be put on the political defensive with drug trafficking charges it might not be able to pull off an aggressive full court press against U.S. intervention. Or so Washington may be thinking. Whatever the strategy, the complete lack of reciprocity in extradition requests between the two “partners” demonstrates that it is a political one, not a neutral law-enforcement initiative undertaken in a spirit of fraternal cooperation.

Since Morena came to power in 2018 Mexico has made 269 extradition requests of the U.S., but none have been granted. Thirty-six were rejected outright and 233 are still pending. Some of the requests have to do with the 43 disappeared students at Ayotzinapa in 2014, but the gravity of this crime has not induced U.S. cooperation. Another request involves Thomas Aron, who tortured kidnapped students at Ayotzinapa, and is now comfortably living in Israel where the Holy State widens its genocidal operations and refuses to extradite him.

Ignoring all of this, the U.S. demands instant extradition of Morena officials based on accusation alone. Even if a given accusation is shown to have merit, the U.S. is fully capable of offering a pardon in exchange for a corrupt deal, as it did with Juan Orlando Hernandez in Honduras. It’s not exactly news that pardons and everything else are permanently for sale in the current White House. But the issue goes beyond government relations, as the Mexican people recognize the stakes and have begun to take action.

To protest Maru Campos’s collaboration with the CIA, Morena supporters carried out a protest march on May 16. The march took place in the scorching Chihuahuan heat with local PAN supporters (Governor Campos’s party) doing everything they could to discourage turnout: blocking and tearing-up roads, closing bridges, putting up toll booths, shutting down public transport, and dispatching party thugs to intimidate marchers and attack journalists. Still, 20,000 protesters turned out, replete with Mexican flags and anti-CIA signs to make it known that the Mexican people will not consent to clandestine U.S. operations inside Mexico. For them, Campos’s collaboration effectively ceded authority to the United States, a treasonous act that effectively terminated her right to continue as governor in their view.

Campos brazenly defended her collaboration as a “successful operation,” and clumsily strove to turn it into a presidential bid. Why should I have to answer to the Mexican Senate, she wanted to know, when Senators are being accused of ties to organized crime? Her abject servility and yearning for impunity couldn’t have been more starkly demonstrated.

In her June 2 address to the nation commemorating two years since being elected to power, President Sheinbaum called out U.S. intervention in her strongest terms to date, saying that it was legitimate to question U.S. intentions when it makes extradition requests without offering evidence, and stating that the U.S. may be planning to meddle in Mexican elections. A day later Ambassador Johnson publicly responded with the usual fake neutrality, stating that “the struggle against the cartels should unite us, not divide us,” adding that we should never allow politics to divide us. “Every time we try to convert this shared security challenge into a political discussion, it’s a missed opportunity to strengthen our cooperation and protect the people we serve,” he claimed.

As though it were possible to serve the rich and the poor at the same time.

That the U.S. seeks to destroy Mexican sovereignty couldn’t be more obvious. Early in his second term, President Trump declared the cartels foreign terrorist organizations, and the U.S is now using that designation to target Mexican officials whose political ideology it loathes but cannot debate. It intends to inflict defeat without having to debate, but it can only do this if Mexico cooperates in its own degradation and refuses to publicly state that the Emperor has no clothes, which appears unlikely.

The announced crusade to rescue Mexico from corruption, after all, comes from a government whose president makes millions of dollars off of illegal stock transactions using insider information, then plugs the companies involved during his public speeches, this while the U.S. supports genocidal Israel to the hilt, kidnaps a foreign head of state (Maduro), and launches an unprovoked war of aggression with Iran, pushing the world economy to the brink of another Great Depression.

It should be recalled that General Santa Ana’s slow response to the Texas border crisis 180 years ago resulted in the dismemberment of Mexico and the loss of half its territory. Now the gringo imperialists are coming for the other half. If U.S. intervention is not promptly shut-down, low-grade secession movements could emerge in the border states.

Washington’s goal is to get Mexico to abort its solidarity with Cuba, let the U.S. extract rare earth elements and lithium, and prevent a collapse of the discredited PRI/PAN in real time in hopes of reviving Mexican subservience to the civilized master race in Washington. Call it the second coming of Manifest Destiny.

But this time, the Mexican people are awake, and aware of what happened last time. They’re not likely to surrender the other half of their territory to a fading U.S. empire with a mentally unstable president who is the envy of no sane person in the world.

Sources.

Ernesto Nuñez, “US Ambassador Ronald Johnson, an uncomfortable voice amid Mexico’s defense of sovereignty,” El Pais International, June 3, 2026

“Lost City,” Miguel Angel Velazquez, La Jornada, (Spanish) May 26, 2026

“CIA Out of Chihuahua,” Soberanía: The Mexican Politics podcast, Episode 107, You Tube, May 20, 2026

“The CIA in Chihuahua and the U.S. Counterattack: They didn’t come to train, they came to destabilize,” Soberanía: The Mexican Politics podcast, You Tube, May 1, 2026

C. Fazio, “Trump and Johnson: Bad Omen,” La Jornada (Spanish), December 23, 2024

C. Fazio, “The Johnson Factor,” La Jornada (Spanish), December 22, 2025

“From Cooperation to Intervention,” La Jornada (Spanish), June 1, 2026

Michael K. Smith is the author of  The Madness of King George, and Portraits of Empire

Friday, May 22, 2026

Evo Morales Calls Out U.S. Imperialism

From Julio Hernandez Lopez in La Jornada, May 21, 2026:

Evo Morales, former President of Bolivia, stated yesterday - amidst the intense social mobilization against the government of right-winger Rodrigo Paz, the repression of protests, and overt United States interference - the following: "The DEA is operating here. There is overt interference by the United States government. . . Israel, the United States, and right wing governments like (Javier) Milei's are engaging in overt interference to support and consolidate privatizations in Bolivia . . . .To me Operation Condor remains in effect.*  

Previously, it was executed by colonels and generals of the armed forces of Latin America; now, however, it is executed by prosecutors and judges (from the United States). They use the fight against drug trafficking - which is a false pretext for the geopolitical control of Latin America." He also proposed: "If I were Rodrigo Paz, I would publicly summon the COB (Bolivian Workers' Central), all social sectors, and the political parties - including Evo Pueblo (and I would say): 'I pledge not to privatize basic services; I will not hand over lithium or rare earth elements to transnational corporations; I will not privatize healthcare or education; and I will not amend the Constitutions without the people, without a referendum.' And the tension would subside.

In Bolivia, much as in Cuba, with the demand for the extradition of Raul Castro; as has occurred in other Latin American nations; and as is now being attempted in Mexico - Washington seeks to brandish a sword of justice. It does do by unilaterally weaponizing the issue of drug trafficking, relying on a legal framework tailored to the interest of the dominant power, in order to entrap, undermine, and - if possible - control or replace progressive governments." 

 

*"In 1976 six National Security States of Latin America - Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay - entered into a system for the joint monitoring and assassinating of dissident refugees in member countries. The program was directly initiated under the sponsorship of Chile and its head of the secret police (DINA), Manuel Contreras. Chile provided the initial funding, organized a series of meetings in Santiago, and provided the computer capacity and centralized services. However, the United States deserves a great deal of credit for this important development, partly as the sponsor and advisor to DINA and other participating security services, but also because Operation Condor represented a culmination of a long sought U.S. objective - coordination of the struggle against 'Communism' and 'subversion.'" --- Edward S. Herman, The Real Terror Network - Terrorism in Fact and Propaganda, pps. 69-70 

Monday, May 18, 2026

Moral Advance vs. Moral Retreat: Mexico and the U.S.

As President Trump refuses any federal role in delivering health care to the American people (we've got endless wars to pay for) Mexico remains on course to deliver a system of universal health care as a matter of right by 2030.

Almost two weeks ago, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum pointed out an important difference between the two countries that helps account for the ironic discrepancy: "The United States values material things; Mexico its indigenous peoples." The occasion was Sheinbaum's visit to the indigenous Seri community in Sonora to officially open an aqueduct to provide the people with daily access to water for the first time in their history (following centuries of colonial repression, including open attempts at extermination), a material benefit of far greater importance than the consumer trophies that regularly provoke shopper stampedes in the United States.

After highlighting the legacy and values that the indigenous peoples have handed down to the entire country, Sheinbaum contrasted it with U.S. ideology, which, she affirmed, grants more importance to material things and the accumulation of wealth.

"Mexico has that great fortune, that immense privilege to descend from those indigenous peoples. Some people think that Mexican history began when the Spaniards arrived to invade the territory. But no, the history of this land spans thousands of years," she stressed. 

And to illustrate that privilege, she compared it with that of "our neighbor to the North: they principally value material things. They decided that happiness has to do with what is accumulated, with the amount of wealth one has. According to this idea, the more wealth one has, the happier one is. But that's false, because happiness comes from values, from community."

More recently, during the inauguration of the new Rosario Castellanos University campus in the Yucatan, Sheinbaum criticized the "excesses" of the neo-liberal period, promising that the corrupt officials of that era will not be able to steal the political transformation of recent years from the Mexican people. (In Mexico, the political transformation underway since Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was elected in 2018 is known as "the Fourth Transformation," the first three having been, in order, independence from Spain, the War of Reform (over the 1857 Constitution), and the Mexican Revolution of 1910.)

Speaking before the assembled students, whom she reminded that this year marks forty years since the student struggles that achieved free tuition at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, which Sheinbaum herself participated in, and in the midst of tensions the country faces with the United States, the president emphasized that "nothing is going to steal transformation from the Mexican people, which belongs to the people. No foreign government is going to steal transformation from the Mexican people."

Sheinbaum went on to condemn neo-liberalism for having reduced social guarantees to commodities, which resulted in education, for one, being given only to those who had the means to pay for it. Under the pretext of their having failed the admissions exam, the rights of all the students who had completed middle school and high school were revoked.

President Sheinbaum went on to emphasize how different Mexico's current education policy is from this, with the number of student scholarships increasing annually since the Morena party came to power in 2018. "Why can we do this?" she asked rhetorically. "Why couldn't we do it before? For one simple reason: we aren't corrupt, we don't steal the people's money."

Later, on social media, the president re-affirmed the message about continuing Morena's political transformation of Mexico: "Today, the people are awake, aware, and organized. And because of that we say to you firmly: neither the corrupt old guard that wants to return to power, nor those who seek to use this movement to protect their personal interests, nor any foreign government that wants to impose conditions on our nation, are going to break the dignity of the Mexican people."

Sheinbaum asserted that Mexico's political transformation sustains itself on the force of its popular movement, that in these times decisions are not made by elites, nor in conformity with foreign economic interests. "As long as that unity for justice, democracy, and dignity exists, the transformation will continue."

In inaugurating the new Rosario Castellanos university campus, the president underscored the social vision of Morena, not only in the education sphere, but also with respect to other rights like access to health care and housing. "It's not, if you have the money, go get your medicine, nor is it, if you have money, pay up, and if not, then what?" It may be an uphill battle, but we're insistent: access to health care is a right of the Mexican people and we're going to honor it fully."

Meanwhile, in the United States, people have the right to prostitute themselves to massive centers of private wealth (directly or indirectly), if they are able to, and receive health "benefits" at the discretion of their employer, for whom they are a cost to be minimized, not a fundamental right to be honored.



Sources:

Nestor Jimenez, "Sheinbaum Inaugurates Aqueduct For Seri Community in Sonora," La Jornada (Spanish), May 8, 2026

Alonso Urrutia,"No Foreign Government Will Snatch The Transformation Away From Mexico: Sheinbaum," La Jornada (Spanish), May 17, 2026

Thursday, May 14, 2026

Legalienate Special: Israel Birthday Edition*

The Holocaust, Palestine, and Israel: Revision, Denial, and Myth

 

 "It is in the serious questioning of rigidly held belief systems that humanity – sometimes – advances beyond simple duality, arriving at a relatively reasoned interpretation based on objective study of material evidence . . ."


by Frank Scott

 

The murderous treatment of European Jews during the Second World War has become almost legendary in its depiction as a unique and singularly important example of bigoted inhumanity, carried to barbarous extremes. No other experience from among the overwhelming number of historic cases of mass brutality has ever achieved such status in Western consciousness, partly because most of the other slaughters were of Third World, non–white people. But despite this specific outrage being portrayed as an unparalleled tragedy, injustice, bigotry and mass murder have been practiced and gone relatively unquestioned since its occurrence, contrary to the lessons supposedly learned from its example. Given this contradictory impact, it should be permissible to look, as clearly as evidence will allow, at exactly what took place, what its moral lesson could be, what its political use has been, and how it has helped perpetuate rather than end notions of racial superiority and division that have dogged the world for millennia.

 

The patriarchal belief systems on which Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all based depend on faith, far more than material evidence. What historic evidence exists is subject to human interpretation, and as an example of how varied that interpretation can be, we have these three religions. All are founded on the same original story, with similar scriptures, prophets, and the alleged word of God. God's words apparently say different things to different people at different times. Religious history, in which faith and interpretation loom large, is really not that different from secular history.

 

The original story of the United States, for instance, was one of European discovery, heroic conquest, incredible development and national triumph. That was from the standpoint of the official historians, before the revisionists had their say. A more modern interpretation of that story includes the near physical and cultural genocide of the native populations of the continents which Europe discovered, even though people had been living on them for thousands of years. A newer view of American history also saw chattel slavery as something beyond an unfortunate economic arrangement which led to civil war and racial misunderstanding, and more as an experience of murderous human degradation carried to inhuman marketing extremes, with social repercussions still apparent and still not fully understood.

 

Historic views and re-views of the past are taken by those with possible preconceptions based on their education, training and belief systems; historians can find selective truth in the material evidence at hand, while creating immaterial evidence as well, often doing so unconsciously, without any balance, and even stressing extremes. In doing this they are not substantially different from religious believers who pick and choose from what material evidence exists, if any, to fit into the belief system. God and the accepted prophets are cited to back up whatever is seen as good, righteous and just, and a Satan, with demonic assistants, is created to account for the evil, craven brutality that is the darker side of human development. Substitute us for God, and them for Satan, and we have much secular history.

 

The religious or scientific system produces its historians, who are responsible not only for interpreting the evidence according to the preconceived rules of faith and politics, but in many cases, for the creation of evidence to fit within the mental structure that thereby strengthens and reinforces the system's foundation.

 

This is not unique to one religious or national group, but is common to all which have an established story of origin, and a following interpretation of history to neatly fit into the original premise. Given the dualism of Western religious science, logical materialists who claim physical objectivity as their basis supposedly have nothing in common with the magical immaterialism of religion. But despite age old battles between secularists and deists, neither side in this either-or conflict really knows any more than what is believed, accepted, and verified by the evidence that solidifies the foundation of its system of belief. Anyone who contradicts that evidence is either disregarded, or tossed out of the realm of accepted reality. In the most extreme cases, the contradictor is either imprisoned, or burned at the stake.

 

It is in the serious questioning of rigidly held belief systems that humanity – sometimes – advances beyond simple duality, arriving at a relatively reasoned interpretation based on objective study of material evidence, free of previously learned bias. In these cases, divine good and demonic evil are left to the immaterialist community, and the attempt is made to learn from previous experience and hope for a better future that does not repeat past mistakes. That hope is nonexistent when free thought and critical appraisal are denied. It is in particular danger today, more so than in the darkest ages of our past, when wanton slaughter may have been the order of the day, but the weapons to affect it were infinitely more primitive.

 

In the aftermath of the Nazi assault on European Judaism, we have seen a modern form of biblical interpretation evolve out of an historic event. This interpretation is based almost as much on faith as on verifiable fact. What should be at least fairly conclusive according to examined evidence has become a religious belief system in which no examination or question of evidence is allowed unless it strengthens the already existing and accepted story. The event is not only treated as unquestioned as the word of God, but if dared to be questioned at all, punishable as blasphemy. Such is the modern burden of what is called The Holocaust, having even its name reflect a biblical sounding event, like The Creation.

 

A terrible price was paid by the Jews of Europe in the experience of this awful episode of history, but a heavy price is still being paid, in some sense by the whole world, but mostly by Palestinians, who played no role in these atrocities, though they have paid dearly, and unconscionably, in their aftermath.

 

The effect of the Holocaust on 21st century life continues to be as profound, and dangerous, as its impact on the previous century. What is euphemistically called "The Middle East Problem" was really created by the Western holocaust, and dumped on the people of the Middle East. The solution to this problem involves the West confronting its own responsibility, and ending its punishment of the Arab world, especially the Palestinians, who have absorbed generations of abuse and had a horrific, biblical vengeance visited upon them for something they never did. Further, the accepted story of the event, seemingly free of any material forces or consequences save depravity and hatred of age old origin, invites a fatalism which accepts ancient beliefs in a natural evil at the core of humanity. Or at least, a majority of humanity, which seems historically predisposed to persecute and murder a specific minority.

 

There might be no better place to begin seeking a solution than at the very event that has served to help create the problem. But any attempt at reconsideration of this particular tragedy in a way that questions some of the accepted story is treated as sacrilegious, insane, unthinkable anti-Semitism, and in the most extreme cases, as a crime punishable by jail or deportation. This was the case with Ernest Zündel, one among many Holocaust Revisionists who dare to challenge religious and political orthodoxy by questioning our understanding of a human disaster which has helped perpetuate human disaster.

 

Zündel and other revisionists are called "holocaust deniers" by those who label them in discriminatory fashion in order to remove them from any serious consideration. The denigrating label makes it seem as though they deny that any Jews were murdered, or that Jews did not suffer terribly at the hands of Nazis and their supporters. Calling these people names in order to reduce them as beings is a bigotry no different, in essence, from using derogatory labels like nigger, spic, kike or redneck. The label's purpose is to belittle and deform, reducing people to caricatures and worse; beings outside the realm of acceptability and not worthy of consideration by "normal" people.

 

There may be unsavory and bigoted types among those who call themselves holocaust revisionists, but such people exist in business, government and religion; do we entirely dismiss those worlds because some of their practitioners may not meet our standards for acceptability? Some who claim to be revisionists simply change the pejorative "Nazi" to the pejorative "Communist" and charge the same wholesale slaughters and incredible death tolls, only with different victims and different murderers. Far more important are the revisionists unmotivated by anything more than a sense of human inquiry, who simply attempt to confront and question accepted history with as much or as little bias as the official historians.

 

Zündel should be free to present his viewpoint and entertain his beliefs, however unpopular they may be to those who often know nothing more than what they have been told. This biased telling of the story of individuals and events is a problem not only of the historic past, but one we experience in everyday life. We are fed tales which provoke bloody warfare and are devoutly believed and supported by some, and just as devoutly disbelieved and opposed by others. But neither school of thought is, as yet, proposing that all opposition to its belief system be completely silenced, totally disregarded or jailed. Some have indeed suffered such a fate, but they are still the exception and not the rule. Unfortunately, among holocaust revisionists, the rule is persecution; first, of the very idea, and next, of the person expressing the very idea.

 

Our political economy of religious science depends on the double standards of dualism, but the issue of free speech tends to be revered by people from all sides of the political and social spectrum. It would be better for us all if we were less selective about where, when, and on what subjects such freedom could be exercised.

 

Revisionists try to make the murderous history of the Holocaust an aspect of reality, rather than a religious experience of unquestioned worship and sorrow. This is their sin, but it is not only they who suffer; all who profess a belief in freedom of expression, speech and thought pay a price. Yet, the attack on Zündel's free speech was barely noticed by the general public. Even though it took place in Canada, it received no criticism from an American civil liberties community which would be totally aroused if such blatant suppression occurred in almost any other area of life, and in any country. But that is not the case in the area dubbed "holocaust denial", where any outrage against free speech and free thought is not only allowed, but righteously supported and even vindictively applauded, wherever it occurs.

 

The double standard regarding this issue is among the most troubling of our social hypocrisies. One can easily imagine those depicted as demons, like Saddam Hussein or Slobodan Milosevic, being regarded as heroes, had they persecuted alleged holocaust deniers instead of operating against Israeli and American interests, for which they now face trial as war criminals.

 

Zündel may be the best known among many who are critical of the holocaust story, but who hardly deny that Jews were viciously persecuted and murdered by the Nazis. He has been dogged for years because of his expressed doubts regarding many aspects of the accepted history, and as a result suffered physical attacks, the firebombing of his home, and costly court cases finally leading to his imprisonment. Among his blasphemous thought crimes he dares to believe that all Germans were not uniquely evil, inhuman monsters, as they are depicted in much of the holocaust story. Germany has been the main financial backer of Israel, contributing billions of dollars in retribution payments, and has been most fierce in smothering free speech when it comes to this issue. But there are still many who believe that Germans should be judged as unparalleled among humans for their collective sin, and this has been internalized by their government. In keeping with its guilt driven policies, Germany locked Zündel in jail as soon as Canada expelled him for his crime. And what was this offense? Under cover of visa problems and alleged influence on potentially violent groups, Zündel was really guilty of daring to express doubt in the official story of the Holocaust, that doubt usually being not only about the number of dead, but also concerning the plan and method of carrying out mass murder. His is only the most serious and recent attack on a revisionist. Many others have suffered loss of jobs, physical attacks, and been imprisoned. In several nations, it is a punishable, criminal offense to dare question the Holocaust in any ways that displease the keepers of its official history.

 

The horrendous treatment of European Jews, their forced exodus from national homelands to concentration and slave labor camps, and their further brutalization and murders, are believed part of a centrally planned process of annihilation. This historically unique crime was industrialized, with an around-the-clock production line of transport, gas chambers, crematoria and almost unimaginable cruelty. That is the brief outline generally accepted by most of the world, or at least the Western world, which might as well be the whole world given the power balance. Of course, gas chambers were not alleged to be the only method employed for these mass murders, and the basic crimes were known of before that aspect of the story was established. But though official records and scholarship account for many deaths attributable to other causes and methods, the popular acceptance of the phrase "six million died in the gas chambers" is hardly ever discussed as being impossible. In fact, there is almost as much use of the dreadful sounding "six million died in the ovens", with many believing that six million living human beings were actually thrown into mass fiery pits. The world was witness to the awful films of the liberated camps, the emaciated survivors, and the piles of skin and bone corpses. It is as if these sickening images were not enough, and even more ghastly ones have to be created in order to identify this as history's most terrible crime.

 

That such an incredible murderous deed, of such massive proportions, was concealed from the world until long after it took place is barely acknowledged as worthy of any question. Several histories of the war were written at its end which made no mention of this particular horrendous crime. Some survivors of the concentration camps wrote of their terrible experiences, with no mention of gas chambers. Are we to believe that all these writers, including Eisenhower and Churchill, were simply anti-Semites?

 

This awful scheme for exterminating an entire people was ordered by passionate zealots who were motivated by irrational hatred. Yet, conversely, it was organized by a core of dispassionate, bureaucratic clones, and then carried out by a stoic force of robotic killers. And this hideous production was performed while Germany suffered devastation in the war, with many of its people going hungry, its economy sorely lacking industrial supplies and its imminent defeat looming. Might there be legitimate cause for questioning at least some parts of the generally accepted story? Should critical reappraisal be completely forbidden, given that this insane act of collective murder was the major rationale for the displacement and destruction of another people, the Palestinians, far removed from any connection to Europe save for their domination by its colonial power?

 

And considering the depiction of Germans as a collection of homicidal monsters, couldn't one of these satanic sadists have considered a photograph of his, and their, horrendous work with gas chambers? Is there any wonder that the same bureaucratic number crunchers who tabulated every single person rounded up and sent to a camp, were unable to tabulate the actual murders? And since all gas chambers were allegedly destroyed by the Germans – who seemed anxious to get rid of all evidence of the crime, but were extremely careless about leaving alive participants in committing the crime – isn't it worthy of question that their existence is based on stories and confessions after the fact, with no one actually witnessing these mass murder machines in action?

 

It should not be a crime to wonder why not one actual photo of a gas chamber exists, that all were destroyed and only reproductions of them are offered as evidence. The only photos are of doors or passages leading to such chambers, and showers said to have served as gas chambers, but these all defy logic and only serve belief. Would we accept explanation for the atomic bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki by being presented with photos of roads leading into town? Or the testimony of survivors and participants in the bombings, but with no other evidence except their testimony that the cities were devastated by such a weapon?

 

Given the overwhelming evidence that clearly verifies the persecution and murder of so many, why is it that this major part of the story is so reliant on after the fact memories or detective work? That several million people were killed this way and that not one photo exists is certainly worthy of questioning, given that so much else was recorded in photos and film. We have abundant pictorial evidence of the dreadful conditions of the camps, the horrible images that have been imprinted on us over the years. Yet, none of these showed a gas chamber, its ruins, or recorded comments about its existence. How can it be a sin and why should it be a crime to question this story? Is it odd that some might see the denial of that freedom as part of a political program to insure that Israel is above any criticism and kept a safe place for world Jewry, even though its reality has been quite the opposite? The record of an earlier episode of inhuman brutality in the United States offers an uncomfortable contrast.

 

During the wretched era of American lynching, more than two thousand blacks were dragged from their homes or prison cells and publicly hanged, often having their bodies literally torn apart after killing. These bestial events were sometimes viewed by hundreds of people in an often festive atmosphere of collective madness. Countless photographs exist of these bizarre, barbaric affairs, with families proudly posing, even smiling, in front of a brutalized black body hanging from a tree. There may be legend and myth surrounding much of this period, but there is undeniable evidence of the bloody deeds in these photos, some of which were made into postcards and mailed to friends and families, later becoming exhibits at museums and galleries.

 

Should this terrible episode of American history be offered as proof that we were the most beastly race on earth? Far worse than later Germans, who didn't gleefully photograph their atrocities and happily share those photos with friends? Why not try to learn more about this sordid past, rather than simply see the atrocities as acts of a deranged people, having no basis in material history save as a description of mass psychosis, based on age old biblical hatred of...Africans? After all, we have no historic verification for how many Africans were murdered during what was called, less biblically, "the passages", when slaves were stuffed onto ships like animals, and beaten, starved and drowned while crossing the Atlantic Ocean, with death toll estimates ranging from a few to many millions. Has it been blasphemy to examine that history, as closely as evidence will allow, in order to arrive at something approximating what actually took place? Does any reexamination of this brutal period, including a revisionist pointing out that some slaves lived in more material security than some workers, indicate a form of "slavery denial"?

 

We certainly cannot change the fact of inhuman chattel slavery in our past, nor the tremendous impact it has had on our national development. But confronting our past might help us change the present. Nearly half the prison population of the USA is black, and ghettos and poverty-wracked communities still number black residents in the hundreds of thousands. That should be reason enough to want to learn more about that past and how it affects our society today. Really confronting such questions and seeking answers based on social justice and humanitarian values could mean social revolution, but even if we don't go that far, knowing more can at least help us mythologize less.

 

We would not make the crimes committed by the Nazis any less horrid by removing myths, legends and emotional slander from the very real pain and suffering they caused. What of the many alleged tales of their ghastly practices, like making soap from the body fat of dead Jews, stuffing pillows with their hair or making lamp shades from their skin? Some of these are still repeated by those who simply accepted any tale of German degeneracy, no matter how mindless sounding or lacking any basis in fact. The generally accepted and horrendous enough toll of a million deaths at Auschwitz was once believed to be more than four million. These inflated death toll figures and tales of bizarre brutality are no longer tolerated by anyone with claims to serious scholarship, with agreement here between revisionists and the official historians of Holocaust studies.

 

Survivors are no less cursed with memories of an awful reality when these kinds of exaggerations are faced as fabrications born of panic, gullibility, and retaliatory hatred. This at one time unquestioned parade of inhuman horrors became part of accepted history and helped lead to the birth of a new nation, Israel, established as a haven for the persecuted survivors of this bloodcurdling, genocidal campaign conducted by the Nazis.

 

Israel's existence since its origin in 1948 has remained critically unquestioned by the mainstream West and its officially sanctioned political opposition, mainly because of the horrors the world learned about the Holocaust. And learned, and learned, and relearned. Hardly a day passes that some TV program, film, workshop, museum display, lecture or school curriculum is not dealing with what took place, in horrifying detail. People are gripped and shaken by the vicarious experience of this tragedy, recreated in veritable theme parks of misery and suffering. They are compelled to wonder how people could perform such contemptible violence, and how it could have happened without outside intervention. But these same people still support doctrines of racial supremacy and the mass murder of war; they draw no connection to the lesson supposedly learned from the holocaust tragedy, since that lesson seems specific only to that single experience and its relation to the unquestioned need for Israel as a haven for Jews.

 

State organized violence, human persecution and bigotry continue, and civilized populations still tolerate racial and colonial policies that treat people and their homelands as worthless, unless owned, occupied or exploited by superior beings. These matters are relatively unquestioned by many who are moved to tears by the story of the Holocaust, since that event is treated as an almost separate reality from human history, let alone the sub-category of Jewish history, whose thousands of years seem reduced to about five during the war. And Israel is still perceived by many as a home for people rejected by the world, with no place else to go. This is a gross simplification, but so is the larger story. Israel did not just "happen" in 1948, though that might as well be the case given popular ignorance of its history.

 

In the late 19th century, when the European Zionist movement for a Jewish homeland was established, most Jews wanted no such home. They were content being citizens in the nations where they had become part of the fabric of life, having worked hard to overcome bigotry that saw them as "other". Many of them took serious issue with Zionism, which existed long before most Nazis were born, let alone in power. This historic fact is not just overlooked, but is unknown to people who think of Zionism only in its socialistic form of the kibbutz, and see Israel as something that happened purely because of the Nazi assault on European Jews.

 

Among several proposed sites, Palestine was the biblical real estate most desired by many Zionists as a national homeland, since it was believed to be their source, even by allegedly secular Jews who claimed to be atheists. That contradiction still prevails; one can strongly assert no belief in God, while accepting a homeland for Jews in Israel, because that land was promised to them by...God. The Holocaust helps make it possible to overlook this contradiction by citing the Jewish tragedy at the hands of the Nazis as verification for the need to create Israel. And even though most of the world's Jews are moved to at least psychologically support Israel's existence, they have never been there and have no plan to even visit, let alone become settlers.

 

The fact that as late as 1942, some Zionists and Nazis were discussing the island nation of Madagascar as a possible homeland for Jews – with as little concern for the native people there as in Palestine – is another little known aspect of the relationships between two groups proposing the same alienating idea, along decidedly different lines; that Jews did not belong with "others" and should be living in their own, separate country.

 

With no consideration for some of these matters, we inherit a history with little if any context, negating any awareness of events that lead to or connect from one to the other in any understandable, if occasionally mind-boggling way. Things suddenly happen, with no explanation for events other than their being caused or provoked by saintly angels or demonic monsters. Are there material, worldly reasons for these events? Where do these situations and creatures come from? We are not to ask once the story, the gods and the demons have been established. That is, if we wish to remain helpless creatures shaped by history, rather than active beings who play a conscious role in its creation.

 

The revision of all history, literally to look at it again, is necessary if we wish to create a future without repeating past mistakes. The maligned school of Holocaust Revision could make a contribution towards understanding and peace, rather than represent a criminal assault against political religious belief, as it is portrayed. Taking a new look at any part of history, recent or past, may lead to greater awareness of material forces which are controllable by humans. This contradicts the fatalistic view of humanity as inherently beastly and in need of control by elites, which are usually working for God. This biblical notion at the core of many human acts of mass murder flies in the face of real human experience and calls for more, not less questioning of what we are told about anything.

 

Whether it is fed to us as legend, myth or alleged fact, nothing should be treated as unquestionable. Facts are too often based on as little proof as the legendary and mythological. For a recent, obvious example, we need look no further than "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. Thousands of people are dead and a government was destroyed because of those alleged weapons, which do not, and did not, exist.

 

The suffering of the Jews in Europe during the Second World War would not become less tragic under critical appraisal, though its political impact might change, and this is the major reason for its being kept an untouchable topic. In order to maintain Israel's position as a special nation, the myth of the Jewish people as a forever endangered species is perpetuated. The Holocaust is seen as the culmination of a long history of murderous persecution of Jews by the rest of the Gentile world, with no allowance for anything but continued misery and eternal threat. This incredibly negative and narrow view estranges people from humanity, and in so doing helps create a warped history of isolation. A contradictory ideological need to be separate and different from "them", while humanistically desiring similarity and equality with "them", can only prolong the problem of what is called anti-Semitism, despite that language confusion which so labels Europeans who are no more Semites than are people from Finland or Nigeria.

 

Given the verifiable history of Jewish persecution in the past, can that possibly justify the persecution of Palestinians in the present? Assuming that there was indeed a plot by European Gentiles to murder all the Jews of the continent, why should people who have no real or fictional connection to such a sin be the ones to pay the awful price of its atonement? And even if it is necessary to insist that one inhuman episode was unique and different from others, that one suffering was more painful than another, how can any benefit be gained by causing still more suffering? No horror experienced in Europe should serve as rationale for punishment inflicted on people other than Europeans, if any at all are to still be paying for this experience of inhuman slaughter among, sadly, many such historic experiences. A more recent human disaster can offer several comparisons, even if only in the treatment of the story.

 

As an example of how closer examination of events which take on near legendary proportions can lead to better understanding, consider the disastrous day Americans remember as "911". It did not become less tragic when investigation revealed that the original estimated death toll of nearly 7,000 was actually just over 3,000. The bereaved were no less saddened, the nation no less shocked. Nor, unfortunately, were political forces swayed to change their policies based on this lowered figure. But history was served in moving the story from exaggeration, arrived at during chaotic moments when all matters were barely verifiable, to the actual human cost and impact of all those deaths. Lowering the death toll was not a form of 911 "denial", and it did nothing to change the essence of the event.

 

Many still believe it was the worst thing to ever happen, if limiting the area of events to the USA. But far more people have been killed in bombings in other countries than died that day in America, and to acknowledge that fact – still generally unacknowledged – might help to better understand why this act of terrorism might have taken place, rather than viewing it as a gesture of sadistic madmen who didn't like our style of dress, our democracy, or our social behavior patterns . Were they simply "anti-Americans", for some ancient, irrational biblical reason? Or were there social and political as well as religious motivations for their murderous attack? Would it hurt us to move beyond simplistic, reductionist explanations in order to arrive at some understanding of material reality that might help our relations with the rest of the world?

 

The reexamination of 911 did not overlook the enormous cost in death benefits and the number of hustlers who rushed to claim money, posing as kin of those who allegedly perished. In this, it bore a relation to what some call the "Holocaust Industry", referring to the money making aspects of that tragedy that entice scam artists as well as legitimate victims. Finding an actual, verifiable death toll saved money for insurers, but the material evidence was examined not only to save money, nor to hurt the memory of survivors, but to help see the disaster from a more reality-based perspective. We are still learning about the poorly reported and even more poorly explained 911 events, and the wars and further terrors they have unleashed in Afghanistan and especially Iraq. Many still believe that Arabs had nothing to do with them, and that they were organized and executed by the U.S. government. Others claim it was the Israeli Mossad, and some believe it was the act of a vengeful God, punishing us for whatever sins these divinely oriented conspiracy freaks perceive. But none of these theories, though they may be argued, laughed at or ridiculed, are forbidden. Nor are those who entertain them threatened with jail. This is as it should be, but isn't, where the Holocaust is concerned.

 

Israel's seemingly spontaneous "immaculate conception" in 1948 is no more materially verifiable than the older religious legend, but is as devoutly believed by a community of the faith. The Palestinian people who lived in what later became Israel were conveniently removed from material or critical consideration. They were denied as a people and never considered as humans of any importance, so it was easy to buy them out, kick them out, or wipe them out if they resisted. Their painful history of injustice has outraged most of the world, as evidenced by countless votes in the United Nations which go against continued theft of Palestinian land and brutalization of the Palestinian people. But the nature of their suffering receives hardly a blink from the center of global power in the USA, where real Palestinian Deniers are an infinitely greater problem than any alleged Holocaust Deniers.

 

The American government and major opinion shaping institutions have participated in the creation of Israel as a lily-white land of suffering inhabitants, first escaping the horror of the Nazis, and then preyed upon by the dreadful Arabs, portrayed as bloodthirsty demons anxious to "push Israel into the sea", as one of the favored slogans has it. This colorful defiance of geography and politics may have actually been expressed as a desire by some witless opponent; more likely, it came from an Israeli and has become useful to repeat in provoking fear and anxiety among Jews all over the world, as the horrible holocaust story is rerun in their imaginations each time a threat to Jews is perceived or alleged. And these threats usually seem to happen in a social vacuum, occupied by an innocent people in a rarified world befitting a fairy tale as much as a physical reality.

 

The contradictory notion of Jews as a historically blessed, special, privileged sector of humanity, and at the same time as a historically scorned, hated and brutalized group as well, is reinforced by the conflicting histories of Israel, Palestine, the Holocaust experience and the status of Judaism in the world today. To say that a people hated and persecuted by the Gentile world – which means just about everyone else – for thousands of years, and then slaughtered in the worst pogrom of them all, could become powerful enough to hold sway over governments and public opinion is dismissed as just another form of anti-Semitism. The mere mention of Jewish power, exercised in obvious fashion and so acknowledged by many Jewish groups and publications, reduces not only Zionists but large segments of the Gentile world, including its left-wing, to screeching charges of anti-Semitism at those who defiantly refer to "the power that dare not speak its name". But the U.S. government and media and their global subordinates do not hesitate to follow the story so outlined, perpetuating the myth that becomes reality when so many not only believe it, but act on that belief.

 

Jewish ethnic and cultural gifts to the arts and sciences have made incredible contributions toward making the human community whole. Biblical and ideological Judaism contradicts that wholeness by treating the rest of the world as "other" and insisting on its own uniqueness. Much of the world is drawn to the warm, humanistic culture, while it is repelled by the cold, alienating ideology. Just as mainstream science and much non-biblical religion reject difference and see humanity as one race with common origins, a biblical fundamentalist view holds to an ancient notion that divides us into a deity's less or more favored races. The political, economic and psychological burdens of maintaining such older belief systems are at the root of a global crisis. In an all too real sense, we continue struggles with believers in immaterial legend and fable, while reality demands that we wake up and face a material world threatened by our wasteful and destructive divisions. These ancient belief systems might be beneficial if their humanitarian messages of equality for all took precedence over their patriarchal teachings of the superiority of only some. We face failure the longer we continue paying halfhearted lip service to the wisdom of their most loving prophets, while we incur the cost of paying wholehearted debt service to the deceit of their most hateful profiteers.

 

Human suffering and brutality are a sad part of our history, but we needn't mythologize their experience or make them special; rather, we need to understand that they impede our development. We can learn from our most terrible mistakes, but not if we fetishize and treat them as unique, almost divorced from history rather than representing a terrible example of our worst behaviors, practiced in the selfish, short-sighted ignorance that continues to rule our relations. Our bloody past and present make it clear that it is possible to slaughter hundreds, thousands, even millions of people, without an extermination plan or gas chambers.

 

History is full of wholesale massacres, of people being regarded as worse than insects or rodents, and barbarically murdered in horrendous acts of brutality. Some of these were perpetrated over many years, some over a few weeks, some a few days, and some, instantly. During the same war that killed so many European Jews, the cities of Dresden and Tokyo, among many others, were reduced to ashes in firestorms that killed tens of thousands of people in a matter of minutes. These poor souls were indeed, burned alive, and there was no need to deliver them to death camps or crematoria; the crematoria were delivered to them. Yet these and other brutal acts of mass murder were written off as excusable acts of war that killed "the enemy", said enemy deserving such a fate for being part and parcel of the war. Had the outcome been different, how many Allied Generals would have been tried for these mass murders, and executed as war criminals?

 

Why does one horrible slaughter receive an unending stream of commemorations and reparations, while hundreds of others are barely a drip in the brain pan of humanity? Why does the Holocaust loom so large, and yet serve as a rationale for the brutalization of a people who had absolutely nothing to do with Nazis or Europe? And who can certainly not be guilty of anti-Semitism, In as much as they are, unlike the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe, Semites themselves? Could a better understanding of what happened to the Jews of Europe, and of the underlying causes that brought about fascism, help the world to better understand itself?

 

It can't possibly hurt us to learn what was at the root of the Nazis' blind hatred of communism, democracy and Judaism, and why they linked those hatreds, rather than continue accepting ridiculous notions that reduce world history to perverse psychosomatic disorders. What role did material events play in the creation of national socialism in Germany, and how widely was it supported by other nations? Contrary to simplistic belief, which has it that the world instantly opposed the demonic evil of the Nazis, many Western powers were quite fond of their rabid anti-communism and their strengthening of German finance capital. It is possible to learn more about a terrible episode of history without denigrating those who suffered, but also by not making a totally different kind of human out of them, thereby perpetuating a dangerous myth of original difference, when we most need to acknowledge that we are all members of the same human race.

 

Fear of present victimization because of past history, whether based on fact or fiction, is not healthy for any human individual or group. Rising above our past mistakes, our legends and our superstitions in order to deal with real problems can contribute to growth in knowledge and assurance of a future possibility for all of humanity. That assurance is a necessity for the success of the human race, and not just one nation, sect, religion or clan.

 

Seeing the rest of humanity as historically bent on persecuting and eventually murdering all Jews is hardly the healthiest way to sustain religious, ethnic, national or personal survival. One has to major in the inhumanities to entertain such dreadful thoughts. When carried for generations, they cannot help but lead to more suspicion, misunderstanding and divisions which help create the inhuman mental and physical horror that was the reality of the Jews in Europe, and is the reality of the Palestinian people now. Bigotry and murder do not need commemorative death tolls or special killing machine techniques to make them worse or better; they need to stop.

 

The "revisioning" of the Holocaust might help Israel, Palestine and Judaism itself by confronting contradictions based on ancient beliefs which have no place in the modern world, and which help create murderous misunderstanding the longer they are accepted. Controversies involving which war, which mass murder, or which act of totalitarian brutality was worse than another can only make it seem that some were better than others. But it is all acts of brutality that must be seen as the problem , and not just one in isolation, if we are to arrive at a solution.

 

If we do not learn from history, it is said that we are condemned to repeat it, and that has been the case with the Jewish experience of one war, and the resultant Palestinian suffering that could lead to a greater war. Coming to grips with what was called the Final Solution could bring about confrontation with what could be humanity's final problem of racial and ethnic hatreds which are used to help perpetuate ideologies of domination. We need a peaceful "final solution" in confronting the greatest problem humanity has ever faced. Nuclear and biological weapons have replaced the more primitive bloody tools of the old political testaments and while we have seen what those weapons could do, we have not yet fully realized the lesson of their creation. They are products of age old biblical inhumanity, brought to modern technological perfection in exercising mass murder in post biblical fashion. We have to become a civilized people and learn to work together, before we revert to primitive savagery and literally blow ourselves apart.

 

The Holocaust was representative of the darkest side of humanity, but unfortunately, it still covers many with its shadow. Bringing light to such darkness involves much more than rethinking one episode of history, but given its enormous impact on collective consciousness, this one issue could have an effect on many more. They may seem an unlikely source, but Holocaust Revisionists could help bring about an enlightenment that enables us to see through inherited doctrines of ignorance and bigotry, kept alive by political and biblical systems of superstition which contribute to furthering the danger to humanity.

 

Confronting the real tragedy of what was done in the past, and the role it has played in furthering human suffering and injustice in the present, will be necessary for us to end such suffering in the future. The hateful anti-Semitism that was at the core of Nazi treatment of Jews cannot be forgotten, but it shouldn't be remembered by developing a ridiculous philo-Semitism that places one event, nation or people above critical reproach. Like the Zionists and Nazis who agreed that Jews were different from everyone else, this is either/or dualism at its worst. Just as past bigotry and brutalizing of Jews has scarred humanity, so does present bigotry and brutalizing of Palestinians disfigure us all. And just as we demythologize the American story and create a more hopeful future by doing so, we need to demythologize the mass injustice in Europe, and the mass injustice it brought about in the Middle East. Two wrongs do not make a right, any more than two lies can make a truth. And while the truth may not set us absolutely free, it could certainly help us move closer to relative freedom.

 

 *May 14 is the anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel


© 2005 by Frank Scott. All rights reserved.




© 1996-2022 CODOH.com | All Rights Reserved