American Nazis and the Fight for US History

Erin McCarley

“Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!” Richard B. Spencer yelled in front of more than 200 attendees at his annual conference on November 19^th, in the nation’s capitol. Several of his supporters then raised their right arms to give the Nazi salute. This video, taken by a reporter for The Atlantic, features Richard Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute, a white-nationalist think-tank in Washington D.C. Spencer is known for having created the term “alt-right.” He is also known for advocating for “a peaceful ethnic cleansing” of the United States.

“America was, until this past generation, a white country designed for ourselves and for our posterity. It is our creation. It is our inheritance. And it belongs to us,” Spencer declared during his speech.

When I first watched Richard Spencer at his NPI annual conference, like many, I was horrified by Spencer’s intentional references to Nazi language, imagery and ideology. In this political moment, as President-Elect Trump appoints to his cabinet, a crew of known white supremacists: Stephen Bannon as Chief Strategist; Jeff Sessions(Attorney General); and Michael Flynn (National Security Adviser), Spencer’s Neo-Nazi D.C. conference takes on a whole new, chilling power—not of a fringe, right-wing hate group, but of a mainstream, right-wing hate group.

After absorbing the initial shock of his fascist message, what disturbed me next about Spencer’s speech caught me somewhat off guard. The philosophy he was espousing didn’t sound totally foreign. In fact, something about it felt sickeningly familiar, like a relic from childhood.

I grew up in one of the most right-wing states in the country: Oklahoma. Formerly Indian Territory, Oklahoma was first created by the US government as an official dumping grounds for indigenous nations that were standing in the way of “white progress.” Under the doctrines of Westward Expansion and Manifest Destiny, the US government removed at gunpoint, dozens of indigenous nations from all over North America. They were sent in death marches, on foot and by boat, to Indian Territory, an area the US government viewed as a wasteland, a place where no one should survive. US Explorer Stephen Long referred to this area as the “Great American Desert.”

In total, 64 nations were forcibly removed to Indian Territory between 1831-1878. After the Removals, these nations, having survived near genocide, then endured POW camps, rotten food rations, smallpox, massacres, multiple invasions, multiple land sequestrations, the Boarding School era, the Dawes Act, the Allotment era, the Curtis Act, the Land Run era, commercial oil discoveries on their lands, and finally, the complete annihilation of reservation land that remained, when Oklahoma became a state. The fact that many of these tribal nations are still here today, after all of this history, is an incredible testament to their strength, determination, spirituality and cultural resilience. These nations have been decimated since European settlers set sight on their lands over 500 years ago. And Oklahoma Native tribes have continued to survive and thrive, no thanks to the US government, who broke every single one of the more than 500 treaties it made with sovereign nations.

Today, the Oklahoma tourism industry brags about the fact that Oklahoma is currently home 39 federally recognized tribes. But how those 39 tribes got to Oklahoma is still a giant mystery for many non-Native Oklahomans, whose public school textbooks were ethnically cleansed of non-white histories a few generations ago.

Instead, the state history we were taught as kids was much more in line with the Doctrine of Discovery, Oklahoma style. We were taught that white settlers “discovered” vast open prairies when they came to settle this (presumably) uninhabited area in the late 1800s. These vacant lands were then “opened up” for (white) settlement in a series of Land Runs and Land Lotteries, which schoolchildren in Oklahoma still proudly re-enact to this day, during Western Heritage Week. The US government was giving away “free land,” our teachers said. People traveled from all over the country to grab 160 acres and “stake their claim.” We were never taught, as kids, that this land was somebody else’s. We were never taught that this land was treaty-protected Indian Territory. Nor were we taught the concept of “settler colonialism,” a distinct type of imperialism practiced in many parts of the world, where settler societies invade and replace indigenous populations.

No, we didn’t learn any of this. Instead, we were taught to embody, celebrate and emulate a “white cultural mythology” designed to elevate European colonial history above all other histories. This narrative–based on Manifest Destiny, Westward Expansion, and the Doctrine of Discovery–placed European Americans at the very center of every story, as the primary actors, agents, and engines of Western civilization, development and progress. If any non-white histories were presented at all, they were peripheral to European history and not explored in any depth.

Our public education therefore served its primary function of patriotic indoctrination, creating an inflated sense of self-importance about European American history and white culture. For young white students, US history was served up as a myopic, self-congratulating, historical fantasy.

Without any kind of outside interference, I believe this one-sided view of history, projected some 10 or 15 years out, could easily manifest itself into a deeply-rooted sense of white superiority– a cultural mythology that goes something like this:

“America was, until this past generation, a white country designed for ourselves and for our posterity. It is our creation. It is our inheritance. And it belongs to us.”

These are, again, the words of Herbert Spencer– the white supremacist, Nazi-saluting president of the National Policy Institute, and poster child for the “alt-right” movement. The fact that I recognize his origin story as the same one I was taught at a young age, is a fact that I find terrifying.

Spencer’s rhetoric, unfortunately, is not (just) the lunatic ravings of a sociopathic madman. No, this is a man who believes he has integrity, a man who bases his (fascist) conclusions on a core set of values and beliefs that he has likely embraced throughout his life, beliefs that have been supported in some large way by his community, his education, and his culture, without any major interruption. His rhetoric is also the logical result of a US history narrative that has, for generations, boldly lied about how this country was formed.

Had we all been taught in public schools that our country was founded on genocide (which is ongoing), and built on slavery (which is still legal in some states), as US schoolchildren, we might have evolved very differently, with a much more humble and critical perspective on our nation’s history of white supremacist violence, and a realistic vision for a more peaceful and just future–starting with a national truth and reconciliation process.

Imagine the possibilities for national healing, if most Americans could agree on some universal truths about our nation’s origin story—a story that recognizes the many atrocities of its founding; a story that embraces at its core human rights for all people: indigenous peoples, Africans, poor people, and immigrants from every nationality, every faith/religion, from all over the world.

This kind of democratic history education is perhaps most famously demonstrated by Howard Zinn in his seminal work, A People’s History of the United States. If a history book like this were required reading in US public schools, it would have a profound national impact. For example, it would render absolutely false any cultural narratives about white people’s entitlement to land and its fortunes. And the racist notion of all non-whites as “foreigners” and “illegal immigrants” would also be unlikely, given that we would have a shared understanding of the many thriving, non-European societies that were productively living on this continent long before Columbus, and long before US boundaries were ever formed.

There are international educational models that can guide us in an effort to address the atrocities of our nation’s history. Germany, for example, has made great strides in integrating holocaust history into its national curriculum. South Africa created, in 2000, an Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR), with came out of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Process. The IJR “works with education officials and teachers, exploring two aspects – the impact of the past on teaching and teachers, as well as on how to teach a challenging ‘past’ in classrooms.” The US could learn a lot from these efforts. But without this kind of national process, we will continue to live in a country with extreme political factionalism and ideological polarization.

Furthermore, with a rapidly changing US demographic that will soon place European Americans in the minority population, the emerging fear for many white supremacists of losing racial power and privilege is already manifesting itself in a violent death grip. “A dying mule always kicks the hardest,” and so we see that white supremacist ideology is on the rise. We cannot censor Breitbart news, Fox news, and the National Policy Institute, but we can insist on dismantling white supremacist history. And we must.

In this moment, there’s little support for progressive history education on a national level. Even under Democratic administrations, the United States has long lacked the political will to institute a national Truth and Reconciliation Process for genocide or slavery. It has failed to acknowledge, let alone apologize, for these atrocities. And given the current direction of an incoming Trump administration, this kind of national healing is not even on the horizon.

And so we must take these fights to state and local levels. Our work is cut out for us. And one thing is painfully clear: Until we stop teaching history through a lens of white supremacy, Neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and white supremacists like Richard Spencer will have a socially-sanctioned platform for a kind of fascism that should never be possible in a country that would dare to call itself a democracy.

Review: Helon Habila’s The Chibok Girls: the Boko Haram Kidnappings and Islamist Militancy in Nigeria

Charles R. Larson

There’s nothing more informative about one of Africa’s most troubled states in the past half dozen years than Helon Habila’s The Chibok Girls: The Boko Haram Kidnappings and Islamist Militancy in Nigeria. The slim little book (part of Columbia’s Global Reports) was written by the award-winning Nigerian novelist who was born in the area and—although he lives in the United States—returned to the war-torn northeastern area of his country, where he conducted interviews (including with three of the escaped abducted girls) and, then, placed his conclusions within the context of Nigeria’s post-Independence history. The result is a damning picture of Nigeria’s failed leadership, ethnic tensions, and squandered oil wealth, one of the saddest stories of post-colonialism and—in a disturbing way—a warning for other nations (including the United States) to get their act together.

Habila makes it clear that when the 276 girls were abducted, April 14, 2014, the Nigerian government, under President Goodluck Jonathan, was not concerned. I happened to be in Lagos that week and although there was TV coverage of the abductions, no response was forthcoming from the government. It took another month, of external pressure, before there was acknowledgement of the tragedy, after initially denying that the kidnappings had happened. That lackadaisical concern from the government speaks volumes and pretty much sums up Jonathan’s response to everything. If it couldn’t be converted into profit for his cronies, forget it. Obviously, the month lost before there was a response was crucial, rendering their rescue almost impossible. This is all doubly ironic because the girls were at a government school, i.e., presumably “under the care of the government.”

That care was worthless as the incivility of the Nigerian police and army had demonstrated for years. Citizens have learned that in responding to a crime or violent act, you never call the military or the police, because they will make things worse, typically by destroying or taking all of your property. Here is Habila’s bleak observation: “The ones at the top keep the door shut because they don’t want to share the spoils of office. Actual violence, or the threat of it, helps to keep the populace in check, just as poverty does. Keep the people scared and hungry, encourage them to occasionally purge their anger on each other through religiously sanctioned violence, and you can go on looting the treasury without interference.”  This is what I have been told repeatedly by Nigerians during my most recent visits to their country. The statement also becomes an explanation for the government’s tepid response to earlier violence by Boko Haram. When Habila asked locals if they thought the girls would ever be returned, the response was that “We put our trust in God.”

The entrenchment of trickle-down violence and corruption has grown out of decades of failed governments, political coups, economic breakdown, a civil war because of ethnic tensions, and the rise of earlier fanatical groups. Here’s an insight I have never previously encountered: “If one were to point to a single event in Nigeria’s history that marked the rise of this age of intolerance, it would be the Maitatsine uprising of the 1980s. Named for its sect founder Muhammadu Marwa, who was popularly known as Maitatsine, meaning ‘one who curses’ because of his penchant for shouting curses at ‘nonbelievers’ while preaching. Marwa was originally from Cameroon, but had lived in the city of Kano on and off for decades and had amassed a large following among the poor, the many unemployed immigrants from Niger, Chad, and Cameroon, and the almajirai[Koranic students]. Marwa was not only controversial but truly radical, as he denounced part of the Koran, criticized the Prophet Muhammad, and even claimed to be a prophet himself.” Boko Haram is an offshoot of this earlier fundamentalist group. We have seen similar hijackings of Islam in other parts of the world. As the Chief Imam of Chibok told Habila (who is not a Muslim), “They now even kill other Muslims, they throw bombs in mosques while people are praying. Islam doesn’t sanction that. This is just a sect with its own doctrine and its own way of thinking, but it is not Islam.”

When Habila visited the area, in the spring of this year, what he encountered was burned-out schools and ghost towns. There are also hundreds of refugee camps “all over the northeast, Yola, Bauchi, Gombe, Damaturu, Kano, and of course Maiduguri. And now that the war had spread into neighboring countries, there were camps in Chad, Nigeria, and Cameroon.” Refugees in these camps who live under Boko Haram’s rule are typically traumatized; they often cannot return to “their families, the perception being that they and the children they were forced to bear through rape [are] still brainwashed, and likely to become terrorists in the future.” One can only wonder how all of this will end for the victims themselves and their families, in spite of a recent decrease of Boko Haram violence because of the more effective policies of Nigeria’s current leader, Mahammadu Buhari.

Not all of the Chibok girls remain in captivity. About a fifth of the original number managed to escape during the abductions (jumping from trucks, fleeing into the bush.) Others escaped later and have managed to return to school; a few have even been brought to the United States for education. Yet the ramifications of the Chibok abductions have extended far beyond the girls themselves.  “Since the kidnapping in 2014, at least eighteen parents had died of stress-related illnesses like heart failure, stomach ulcers, and hypertension. Boko Haram had killed a few others.” As I write this in late-October, 21 of the kidnapped girls have been released, but it is doubtful if many of the others will ever be returned.

Helon Habila is unflinching in his view of cause and effect. Poor leadership in Nigeria has resulted in horrifying consequences for the people least likely able to take care of themselves, those at the bottom of the society. Boko Haram sprung from poverty, from poor education, from limited opportunities for young people, and religious fanatics seizing an opportunity to enhance their own power and authority.

It’s hard to see how Nigeria can ameliorate decade-long abuses of power at the top, curtail corruption, and redirect its income from oil so that its riches (especially its people themselves, their ingenuity and diversity) can become the dynamic powerhouse that for too long has been more vision than reality.

Total Surveillance: Snooping in the United Kingdom

Binoy Kampmark

The UK-based Liberty Campaign expressed it most glumly.  “The Government’s new Snoopers’ Charter (also known as the Investigatory Powers Bill) will allow the bulk collection of all our personal information.  Who we talk to; what we say; where we are; what we look at online – everything.”

Championed while she was Home Secretary, Prime Minister Theresa May has seen her wishes fulfilled. Total surveillance – and there was already a good deal of that in Britain – is coming to the country.  Late last month, the Investigatory Powers Bill, known by its faux cuddly, yet sinister term the Snoopers’ charter, received royal assent and became law.

The sense that something smelly was in the air was evident by the enthusiasm of the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd.  This nasty bit of legislation was worthy of advertisement as protective, not detrimental, to privacy. In the surveillance stakes, Britain had every reason to be proud with this bit of “world-leading legislation” that provided “unprecedented transparency and substantial privacy protection.”

After trumpeting matters of privacy and transparency, Rudd came to the essential point, using the argument that the world is a terrifying place (as it always tends to be for government): “The government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement and security and intelligence services have the power they need to keep people safe.  The internet presents new opportunities for terrorists and we must ensure we have the capabilities to confront this challenge.”

Web and phone companies will be required to store records of websites visited by every customer for 12 months for access by the security industry, be it the police or pertinent bodies, upon the issue of warrants. This tracking does not extend to VPNs.

The warrant will be all empowering, enabling relevant security personnel to bug phones and computers. Compliance and connivance from companies is also expected, thereby coopting the private sector into undermining encryption protections. That very fact should chill companies in the business of supplying communications.

The obvious rejoinder from those favouring the Snoopers’ Charter is that it is not only snooping with a purpose, but snooping with delicate, informed oversight.   As ever, the error here is to institutionalise snooping by giving some sense of sagacious self-policing.

If the intelligence services have proven one thing, the desire to overstep, and overreach in zeal, is compulsive.  Even the investigatory powers tribunal, charged with the task of hearing complaints against MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, noted in October that an illegal regime in tracking and obtaining data, including web and phone use, had been operating for over 17 years.

Such behaviour draws out nightmarish scenarios of inevitability: the security services will always be there to undermine in the name of Her Majesty’s sacred priorities, while those with data will be there for the pilfering.  “I never assumed my emails and internet activity are completely private,” mused Matthew Parris darkly. “Has anyone?”

The intercept warrants under the new regime, by way of example, require authorisation from the Home Minister prior to judicial review.  Judges, overseen by a senior judicial officer called the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, will be responsible for that task and have the power of veto.

Such padding is all well and good, but the State rarely oversees itself competently when it comes to such concepts as the greater good.  Abstracted and mysterious, that greater good trumps privacy and individual civil liberties.  The lust to gather data becomes insatiable.

The war against encryption has been the central object of the May brigade for some time.  Importantly, it suggests institutional corrosion of basic privacy.  Under Rudd’s stewardship, an attack by direct means is encouraged, despite being feather bedded by dictates of privacy.

This dysfunctional nonsense has truly given Britain a “world class” regime in surveillance that will be a model to emulate by less savoury regimes.  If the Brits do it in that fashion, then why not others?

As Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group explained, Rudd was right in one sense: the IP Act was truly revolutionary in its impact.  “The IP Act will have an impact that goes beyond the UK’s shores.  It is likely that other countries, including totalitarian regimes with poor human rights records, will use this law to justify their own intrusive surveillance powers.”

The idea that partial encryption and half-baked measures are possible is simply dismissed as wishful thinking by such industry pundits as Nic Scott, the UK and Ireland managing director of data security specialists Code42. “You either have encryption in place or you don’t.  Once you create a backdoor of law enforcement powers, you are also opening the door to other, potentially malicious parties.”

That backdoor has been well and truly opened, and the pool of communications data signal an open season for hackers of whatever persuasion.  Goodbye Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014; welcome Orwellian state-manic insecurity and data hoovering.  The only obstacle now will be the spoiling verdict of the European court of justice, if the Labour party’s Tom Watson gets his way.

Worldwide Air Pollution is Making us Ill

Graham Peebles

The man-made environmental catastrophe is the severest issue facing humanity. It should be the number one priority for governments, but despite repeated calls from scientists, environmental groups and concerned citizens for years, short-term policies and economic self-interest are consistently given priority over the integrity of the planet and the health of the population.

Environmental inequality

Contaminated air is the world’s greatest preventable environmental health risk, and, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), is responsible for the premature deaths of an estimated 6.5 million people annually (11.6% of global deaths) – an average of six every minute. And unless there is substantial reduction in the quantity of pollutants cast into the atmosphere, the death count is forecast to double by 2050. Indoor air pollution, mainly from wood or dung stoves in developing countries, accounts for a staggering three million annual deaths.

Breathing – even in one’s own home – has become more dangerous than poor diet, lack of exercise or smoking tobacco.

The problem of toxic air is a worldwide pandemic; a recent WHO air quality model reveals that, “92% of the world’s population lives in places where air quality levels exceed WHO limits”. And whilst contaminated air affects virtually everyone, almost two out of three people killed simply by breathing live in South-East Asia and the Western Pacific. This includes China, where air pollution is responsible for the deaths of around 4,000 people a day (1.6 million a year), due, a 2015 study says, to emissions generated from burning coal, for electricity and heating homes.

Humanity is overwhelmingly responsible for this global crisis, and yet despite repeated warnings little of substance has been done and it’s getting worse. Since 2011 air pollution worldwide has risen 8%, and with the current fossil fuel obsession the increase looks set to continue, and with it human fatalities and a range of chronic health issues. Most deaths are caused by microscopic particles being inhaled: these spark heart attacks and strokes, which account for 75% of annual deaths. Lung cancer and respiratory diseases take care of the rest.

Perhaps unsurprisingly it is the poorest people in the world who suffer the most severe effects of air pollution.

As well as the injustice of social and economic inequality, we live in a world of environmental inequality. If you are a poor child living in a city in a developing country, you are up to 10 times more likely to suffer long-term health issues as a result of breathing the air in which you live, than a child in a rich industrialized nation.

Regional air inequality broadly follows the same North-South hemisphere fault lines as economic inequality, and as such reveals that as well as being a global environmental issue of the utmost importance, air pollution is a geo-political matter aggravated by the neo-liberal economic system. Some of the poorest, most vulnerable members of humanity are suffering the worst effects of air pollution, people living in countries where grinding poverty is widespread, education inadequate and health care provision poor.

Poisonous air

Air pollution causes a wide range of health issues: in addition to heart disease and respiratory conditions including asthma – now the most common chronic disease in children – there is “substantial evidence concerning the adverse effects of air pollution on pregnancy outcomes and infant death”, according to research by the Medical University of Silesia in Warsaw, Poland. And, as if all this weren’t bad enough, in 2013 WHO concluded that outdoor air pollution is carcinogenic, i.e. it causes cancer.

The main pollutants that trigger all these problems are broadly three types: fine particulate matter (PM2.5), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), which is a suffocating gas, and ground level ozone. PM2.5 come from road traffic exhaust fumes and burning fuels such as wood, heating oil or coal – as well as natural phenomenon such as volcanic eruptions. PM concentrations in the air vary depending on temperature and wind speed; they particularly like cold, still conditions, which allow them to aggregate. NO2, Plume Labs relates, “comes from combustion – heating, electricity generation, (vehicle and boat engines), 50% of NO2 emissions are due to traffic.” Ground level ozone is a major component of smog and is produced when “oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) – from motor vehicle exhaust and industrial emissions, power plants, gasoline vapors, and chemical solvents – interact with sunlight.”

The way in which these poisons are produced varies somewhat from country to country, but they abound in all densely populated, built up areas, where there are large numbers of motor vehicles, as well as coal-fired power plants and refineries. Emissions from residential energy use, prevalent in India and China, Nature Magazine reports, “have the largest impact on premature mortality globally.” In eastern USA, Europe, Russia and East Asia a remarkably high number of illnesses and fatalities result from air pollution caused by agricultural emissions, mainly nitrous oxide and methane.

Children worst hit

Over 50% of the world’s population now live in cities; by 2030 this figure is expected to rise to 65%. All cities suffer from traffic congestion and all are polluted, some more, some less. The Asian mega-cities are the most contaminated, and perhaps unsurprisingly the cities of India and Pakistan are the worst, filling the top seven positions of conurbations with the highest level of PM2.5 in the world. The Indian capital (25 million population) comes in first; incidentally it’s also the noisiest place to live on the planet.

In an unprecedented study of 11,000 schoolchildren from 36 schools in Delhi, it was found that over half the children had irreversible lung damage: in addition “about 15% complained of frequent eye irritation, 27.4% of frequent headaches, 11.2% of nausea, 7.2% of palpitation and 12.9% of fatigue.” And consistent with research in Poland, it was revealed that the children’s mental health was also impacted, with large numbers suffering attention deficit and stress.

All around the world people are suffering from the impact of toxic air: in Mumbai, simply breathing on the chaotic streets is equivalent to smoking half a pack of cigarettes a day; deaths increase six-fold on heavily polluted hot days in Athens, and mega-Mexico City – one of the world’s most polluted cities – has recently been branded a ‘hardship post’ for diplomats due to unhealthy air. In Nairobi, Kenya, pollution levels are between five and 10 times WHO recommended levels – worst in the slums, home to up to three million people.

London is one of the more polluted cities in Europe, cleaner than Paris and Milan, but dirtier than Berlin and Oslo. Almost 10,000 people die each year in the city from long-term exposure to air pollution, which is now considered Britain’s most lethal environmental risk killing around 40,000 people a year.

And in America, according to a study by the American Lung Association, over 50% of the population is exposed to air pollution toxic enough to cause health problems, with Los Angeles topping the list of places to avoid.

No matter where air pollution occurs, it’s children who are the most vulnerable. This, UNICEF relates, “is because they breathe more rapidly than adults and the cell layer in their lungs is more permeable to pollutant particles.” Research by the children’s agency found that three hundred million children live in areas of South and East Asia where toxic fumes are more than six times international guidelines; another 520 million children living in Sub-Saharan Africa are exposed to air pollution levels above the WHO limit. These toxic fumes cause “enduring damage to health and the development of children’s brain”, and contributed to “600,000 child deaths a year” – more than are caused by malaria and HIV/Aids combined.

Air pollution not only results in long-term health issues, it impedes a child’s cognitive development, affecting concentration and academic progress. The Warsaw paper states that “children who live in neighbourhoods with serious air pollution problems…have lower IQ and score worse in memory tests than children from cleaner environments…The effects were roughly equivalent to those seen in children whose mothers smoked ten cigarettes per day while pregnant.”

Air pollution and deforestation

Some air pollution is the result of natural phenomena: dust storms and wildfires, animal digestion and volcanic eruptions.

However, burning fossil fuels (power plant, refinery, factory and motor vehicle emissions) are the primary culprits.

Deforestation is another cause. The great rainforests of the Earth are its lungs; they cover a mere 6% of the land, but produce around 40% of the world’s Oxygen; they also capture carbon. As the number of trees is reduced so oxygen production and carbon sequestration is diminished.

Whilst it’s true that deforestation has decreased somewhat over the last fifteen years or so, in some countries it is still occurring at an alarming rate. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate that 18 million acres (7.3 million hectares) of forest are lost each year (roughly equivalent to 20 football fields every minute), around 13 million acres (approximately the size of Greece) being tropical rainforest. Half the world’s rainforests have already been wiped out and if the current level of destruction continues, in 100 years, FAO predicts, there will be none left. Brazil, Thailand, the Congo, parts of Eastern Europe and Indonesia are where forests are being cleared most intensely, particularly Indonesia.

The major reason forests are being destroyed is to make more land available for agriculture, which is an effect of overpopulation. Clearing land to make way for housing and urbanization. (another demand of population growth), is a factor, as is Illegal deforestation – with trees being cut down and used for fuel.

Paper production is another major reason; paper that is overwhelmingly used in developed countries. Up to half the world’s timber and 70% of paper is consumed by Europe, Japan and the US. The US alone, with only 5% of the world’s population, uses 30% of all paper, relates Rainforest Action Network; a large amount of which (estimated 40lbs/19 kilos per adult per year) is junk mail, almost half of which is binned unopened.

Reduce Reuse Recycle

If we are to stop the deaths and damaging health effects resulting from breathing contaminated air, it is abundantly clear that we need to replace fossil fuels with cleaner, renewable energy sources and simplify the way we live.

In addition there are a variety of things that can be done to reduce pollutants: we need to stop the destruction of forests worldwide; install filters in every chimneystack; replace petrol and diesel powered public transport and incentivize private ownership of electric and hydrogen vehicles; create more vehicle sharing schemes – car clubs and carpools; improve public transportation and greatly reduce fares; encourage cycling.

Some steps need to be taken by governments, but a great deal can be achieved by individuals accepting greater social/environmental responsibility: a move towards simpler modes of living, in which our lives are not driven by the insatiable urge for material goods, is essential. Incorporating the three R’s into one’s life – reduce reuse recycle – would contribute greatly.

Like many of our problems sharing has a role to play in solving the problem of air pollution: sharing the resources and wealth of the world equitably to reduce poverty and inequality, as well as sharing skills, knowledge, and technologies. And information sharing: making information about air pollution, the levels, risks, causes etc., publicly available, would further raise awareness of an invisible issue. This is particularly needed in developing countries, where many of those affected have little or no information on the dire health risks. Government agencies everywhere collect data on air pollution, some publish it, many don’t all should.

“The magnitude of the danger air pollution poses is enormous,” states Anthony Lake, UNICEF’s executive director. “No society can afford to ignore air pollution”. It is a deadly issue, which is causing untold suffering to millions of people. The responsibility for the wellbeing of the planet and of one another rests with all of us. Now is the time to act and Save our Planet.

The Decline and Fall of Britain

Brian Cloughley

It is sad to have to have to acknowledge that the country of one’s birth is in decline, but there are signs that Great Britain has fallen on the slippery slope of moral deterioration.  The recent surge in nationalistic jingoism and xenophobia in Britain is lamentable and obnoxious.

In October the British Home Office reported that the number of racist hate crimes in the country had increased by 41 per cent in the month after the June referendum about UK’s membership of the European Union, the so-called ‘Brexit’ vote.  The Equality and Human Rights Commission noted that “the figures make it very clear that some people used the referendum result to justify their deplorable views and promote intolerance and hatred” and there were other expressions of regret and revulsion — but not from many of the mainstream media outlets, because several newspapers rejoiced in the rush of intolerance that they had done so much to encourage.

The reasons for lack of regret, alas, are that many Britons are inherently racist and most of the print media play on that appalling aspect of the British character in order to attract readers and make money.  In the facile and attractive guise of patriotism the papers seize on instances of supposed non-Britishness to encourage their readers to engage in hatred and contempt of foreigners.  It is unlikely that any writers of such fascist hokum are familiar with the works of one of the greatest English essayists, poets and moralists, Dr Samuel Johnson, who wrote so perceptively that “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

Britain has had a race problem for many years but of late it has become severe because of a spiteful nationalistic campaign to leave the European Union, an organization that is bureaucratically absurd but seeks to benefit Europe’s citizens by promoting free trade and freedom of movement,  protecting human rights,  encouraging harmonization of legal processes, increasing effectiveness of counter-terrorism cooperation, and promoting economic and social progress.

These objectives are considered abhorrent by a surprising number of Britons who believe that alliance with the other 27 nations of the European Union helps movement of undesirable people to their country and that European legal covenants, agreed by their own governments during the past forty years, are inimical to the British way of life.  They claim that leaving the European Union will save vast sums of money, especially in health care, while preventing abuse of ‘British Law’ by continuing to abide by European human rights standards.

It is the contention of those who wish to leave the European Union that future trading arrangements to be negotiated at an unknown date with potential but unnamed countries will be of more financial benefit than continuance of existing European Union agreements with current trading partners.  (The hastily-arranged November trade-promotion visit to India by Prime Minister Theresa May — a civilised person — was sadly barren. As reported by India’s Financial Express, she returned ‘Empty-Handed.’)

The seeming rise in anti-European fervour was taken into political account by former Prime Minister David Cameron who announced in February 2016 that a referendum would be held in June to ask the simple question: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”  It was made clear that the referendum result would not in any way oblige the country to leave the European Union, because the Parliament did not specify legal consequences of a vote either way.  It was an “advisory referendum”, and the British Parliament was and is in no way bound by any law or precedent to accept the result as mandatory for the country to ‘Brexit.’

It was intended that the referendum result would be an expression of the non-binding feelings of the British people and that the elected members of Parliament would take due notice of this when debating the complex matter in due course.

There are 46,501,241 people of voting age in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  Of these, 17,410,742 voted to leave the European Union.  Another 16,141,241 voted to remain within the European Union.  Let me repeat that in a plebiscite of 46 million people, 17 million — 37 per cent — voted to leave the EU and that their choice was in no manner or by any interpretation of law an instruction to the government to do so.

The laws of Great Britain are determined by its members of Parliament. Many of both may be stupid, but no matter : Parliament is sovereign and its decisions are binding.    Some of those who objected to the stance that the country should immediately leave the Union without Parliament discussing the matter took the matter to the High Court where three distinguished judges ruled that Parliament must vote on whether the country can begin the process.

Then Britain’s media sprang into action. The Daily Mail, whose editor, a foul-mouthed vulgarian called Paul Dacre, received “£88,000 in subsidies from the European Union for his country houses in Sussex and the Scottish Highlands in 2014” ordered his minions to produce one of the most disgusting front pages in the long history of British journalism.  It depicted the three judges with the banner caption ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE.

Even more despicably, the newspaper emphasised that one of the people who brought the High Court action was a coloured citizen of Britain (who was sent threats of rape and murder for her actions), and one of the judges was “openly gay.” It declared that two of the judges had sat on the European court of human rights, one being ‘fluent in several languages’ and the other ‘steeped in EU laws and tradition.’  One of them — shock, horror! — had ‘worked for a Hamburg law firm shortly after leaving Oxford.’

These spiteful, malevolent and thus most effective tirades were straight out of 1930s Germany, and there was not a shred of criticism of the newspapers by the government.

Other garbage newspapers, such as the formerly admirable Daily Telegraph, carried headlines such as ‘The Judges Versus The People.’   The Mail removed one abusive headline from its vulgar website, but the damage had been done and the bigots of Britain had been given yet more backing to express their hatred of foreigners, which extends to the media’s relentless anti-Russia campaign, intended to portray President Putin and the Russian people in the worst possible light.

One declaration of President Barack Obama that will be remembered is his wise warning that in the United States “we are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism, or ethnic identity or tribalism that is built around an US and a THEM.”

In Trump America it is possible that this crude nationalism might become dominant.  But in Britain it seems it already rules, as those judged (no irony intended) to be ‘different’ in any way to native Anglo-Saxons are considered to be undesirable. This has been so for very many years, unfortunately, and, as recollected by one young person so affected in the 1960s, it was insulting, when looking for lodgings, to “find notices galore that said ‘No Irish, no coloureds’.”

Although repulsive racist prejudice and casual bigotry are far from new in the United Kingdom, it had been thought that in the New Millennium there might have been some advance towards tolerance and acceptance of minorities.  The Race Relations Act was supposed to eradicate racism, and had some mild success, but its aims have been set back or even destroyed by the bigots of Brexit who won their dubious victory largely because they appealed to all that is most base in mankind : the idea that superiority depends on race and especially color.

The country is declining.  At this rate, the fall won’t be long in coming.

Home Truths About the Climate Emergency

Adam Parsons

As 2016 draws to a close, we appear to be living in a world that is increasingly defined by its illusions, where the truth is a matter of subjective interpretation or argumentative debate. Indeed, following the United States election and Brexit referendum there is much talk of a new era of post-truth politics, in which appeals to emotion count more than verifiable facts. But there are some facts that cannot be ignored for much longer, however hard we may try. And the greatest of all these facts is the escalating climate emergency that neither mainstream politicians, nor the public at large, are anywhere near to confronting on the urgent scale needed.

This was brought home once again at the latest Conference of the Parties held in Morocco last month, following the so-called ‘historic’ Paris Agreement of November 2015. Dubbed the ‘implementation’ or ‘action COP’, the main purpose of the summit was to agree the rules for implementing the new agreement, as few countries have set out concrete plans for how they will achieve future emissions reductions post-2020. Far from justifying its nickname, however, the almost 200 nations participating in COP22 decided that the overarching goals and framework for international climate action will not be completed until 2018, with a mere review of progress in 2017.

Before the talks even commenced, the latest ‘emissions gap’ report from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) highlighted the continued divergence between political and environmental/scientific reality. According to UNEP’s analysis, the non-binding pledges made by governments in Paris could see temperatures rise by 3.4°C above pre-industrial levels this century, far beyond the 2°C considered a minimally safe upper limit. To hit the more realistic 1.5°C target—which in itself will only mitigate, rather than eliminate severe climate impacts—the world must dramatically step up its ambition within the next few years before we use up the remaining carbon budget.

Yet this reality was not even a key focus of the COP22 discussions, where most delegates from developed countries spoke mainly of their post-2020 commitments, as if the deadline for an emergency mobilisation of effort can be postponed by another few years. Ironically, several developed countries have not even ratified the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, which comprises the pre-2020 period. So after 24 years of negotiations, we are still heading towards a future that is “incompatible with an organised global community”, with no sign that the mismatch between rhetoric and action is near to closing.

As always, it was left to civil society groups to uphold the real hope and vision for how nations can begin traversing a path towards 1.5°C. In an updated report for COP22, a coalition of campaigning organisations outlined the last chance we have of halting our race to environmental disaster, which will require massive emissions reductions before 2020 and major shifts in the real economy. All of these transformations are technically viable and economically practicable, despite their apparent political infeasibility—such as a fossil energy investment and development moratorium; a necessary shift to agro-ecological farming practices; and a planned global transition to 100% renewable energy.

What remains central to achieving an effective programme of action, however, is a degree of international cooperation and economic sharing that is unprecedented in human history. Such is the implicit message of both the 2016 and 2015 civil society equity reviews, which give a compelling justification for integrating the principle of ‘fair shares’ into a global effort-sharing framework. Using an equity modelling approach based on domestic mitigation pledges and indicators for capacity and historical responsibility, the reports show how developed countries are offering a share of effort that is markedly less ambitious than developing countries.

Moreover, both reports demonstrate how developed countries have fair share obligations that are too large to be fulfilled solely within their own borders, even with extremely ambitious domestic actions. So there is a moral, political and economic case for the wealthiest nations to vastly scale up their help to poorer countries in terms of international finance, technology sharing, and capacity-building support.

Put simply, campaigning organisations have used the most up-to-date scientific data to back up the argument that there cannot be hope for limiting global warming unless the principles of sharing, justice and equity are operationalised in a multilateral climate regime. But it is also an argument based on common sense and fundamental notions of fairness, given the urgency of drastically cutting global emissions within the context of interdependent nations at starkly disparate levels of economic and material development. As the civil society review for COP22 concludes, reiterating a basic truth of the climate justice movement: “Many of the changes needed to address the climate crisis are also needed to create a fairer world and better lives for us all. …Climate change affirms the urgency and necessity to shift to an equitable and just pathway of development.”

Of course, there is no sign that those countries with a higher capacity to act than others are facing up to their obligations to redistribute massive technological and financial resources to developing countries, thus enabling them to leapfrog onto rapid, low-carbon development paths. Activists at COP22 used the slogan “WTF?” to ask “Where’s The Finance?”, as only between $18 billion and $34 billion has been granted of the $100 billion per year that developed countries committed to find by 2020. A supposed “$100 Billion Roadmap” from the OECD was roundly debunked by both developing countries and civil society for using misleading numbers and various accounting tricks. All the while, new analysis shows that the true needs of the world’s poorest countries is in the realm of trillions of dollars, if they are to plausibly meet their Paris pledges by 2030 and help avoid catastrophic warming. But no increases in public financial contributions were forthcoming in Morocco, pushing any substantive decisions on the issue back for another two years.

So once again, we are left to wonder at the mismatch between illusive policymaking and the stark reality of global warming. 2016 broke all previous records for being the hottest year, while military leaders warned that climate change is already the greatest security threat of the 21st century, potentially leading to refugee problems on an unimaginable scale. Yet developed countries continue to evade and postpone their responsibilities for mobilising an appropriate response, while often making decisions on national infrastructure and energy that directly contradict their putative climate change commitments. Whether or not the United States withdraws from the Paris accords or the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) altogether, the prospect of global carbon emissions beginning to decline before 2020 currently remains dim, to say the least.

Still none of this changes the core reality, which has remained the same ever since the UNFCCC negotiations began in the early 1990s. For there can be no hope of real and meaningful progress on tackling climate change, without a major commitment to North-South cooperation based upon a fairer sharing of global resources. The simple truth is unavoidable, but time is running out before the world finally embraces its momentous implications.

Syria and the Bodyguard of Lies

John Wight

The killing and wounding of Russian medical personnel in a rocket attack on a military field hospital in Aleppo raises again the question of who is actively lending support to terrorism in Syria, people depicted in the West as ‘moderates’ in a monstrous inversion of the truth.

Such has been the Goebbelsian nature of western media coverage of the conflict in Aleppo, Nusra Front (now Jabhat Fateh al-Sham) have morphed from a terrorist organization, which in its methodology and objectives is near indistinguishable from ISIS, into a latter day version of the French resistance or Partisans of Second World War repute. In the process the only real moderates engaged in the conflict in Syria – the Syrian Arab Army, Russia, Iran, and other allies – have been demonized, accused of targeting and terrorizing civilians, including children, when they have in fact been liberating them.

History will not be kind to those who have propagated the lie that something approximating to a democratic revolution has been underway in Syria. On the contrary, the country and its people have suffered the depredations of an Islamic Khmer Rouge, intent on ‘purifying’ a multicultural and multi-religious society of minority communities that are able to trace their existence in this part of the world back over a millennia and more.

The overwhelming majority of Syrians, without whose support the government would have collapsed long before now, utterly reject the ideology of these extremists, thousands of them non-Syrians who’ve descended on the country from across the Muslim world and beyond like a plague of locusts, taking advantage of the destabilization of the region wrought by Washington and its allies in recent years.

The sinister aspect to the conflict in Syria, which the attack on the Russian military field hospital raises, is the extent to which these so-called rebels have enjoyed the support of western and regional powers. How else are we to explain the way they have been able to survive for so long? Who has been supplying them with the weaponry, money, material, intelligence, and logistics support that has allowed them to do so?

Russia in particular has been vilified in the West over its role in the conflict. Indeed a neo-McCarthyite anti-Russian propaganda offensive has been waged across Europe in response to Russia’s military mission in the country. It is a propaganda offensive that has intensified in recent in parallel with the operation to liberate Aleppo. We have seen Russian media outlets, such as RT and Sputnik International, being targeted, its representatives hauled before parliamentary select committees in the UK to ‘explain themselves’, accused of peddling pro-Russian propaganda rather than news. We have also seen US State Department spokesman, John Kirkby, refuse to take a legitimate question from an RT correspondent, attacking her credentials.

There is an insidious element to this unprecedented level of Russia-bashing in the West, wherein it is not Russia’s government that is being demonized but Russia itself – with the clear inference that the Russian character is inherently dishonest, underhand, wicked, etc.

Enough is enough.

It is no longer credible, much less ethical, to describe people engaged in acts of mass murder and slaughter in Paris, London, Brussels, or in the US, as terrorists, while at the same time describing those responsible for the same murder and slaughter in Syria as ‘rebels’. In fact it is obscene beyond measure.

Like Afghanistan, like Iraq, and like Libya, in Syria a grotesque experiment in human despair has been taking place, wherein murder and extremism has been presented as resistance and revolution, with those struggling to protect civilians from terrorism depicted as the terrorists. George Orwell himself could not have done better than produce what passes for western media coverage in this regard.

You can either stand with those who are fighting religious extremism and sectarianism or you can stand with the extremists and sectarians. What you cannot do is both – i.e. rhetorically maintain a position of being against extermism while acting against those who are risking their lives fighting it on the ground. It is why the enemy of people in Britain, France, and the US is the hypocrisy of their own governments and media acolytes.

Syria, thanks to the tenacity of its armed forces, will not go the same way as the countries already mentioned – Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya – and see its society disfigured, its development destroyed, and its culture despoiled in service to a hegemonic agenda that has been responsible for human suffering on a grand scale. While it may take years to be rebuilt, given the scale and brutal nature of the conflict that has engulfed it, rebuilt it will be.

What will never be rebuilt are the reputations and integrity of those who have written a new page in the annals of mendacity and duplicity, both of which have underpinned the West’s words and actions when it comes to Aleppo and the wider conflict in Syria.

To paraphrase none other than Winston Churchill, in the West the truth when it comes to Syria is being protected by a bodyguard of lies.

One Astronomical Step For Activists And Humankind

Rachel Olivia O’Connor & Richard Martin Oxman

“Cleopatra’s nose, had it been shorter, the whole face of the world would have been changed.” — Pascal

One year before meeting with Tycho Brahe in 1600, Johannes Kepler had determined to make use of the Danish nobleman’s highly valuable astronomical instruments. He revealed his game plan in a letter to his mentor:

“Any single instrument of his cost more than my and my whole family’s fortune put together…. My opinion of Tycho is this: he is superlatively rich, but he knows not how to make proper use of it as is the case with most rich people. Therefore, one must try to wrest his riches from him.”

The “riches” young Kepler was writing about bitterly referred to the instruments Tycho Brahe used for his heavenly observations. And had Kepler not succeeded in getting hold of Tycho’s treasure, he could never have discovered his historic planetary laws. Furthermore, Isaac Newton was born only twelve years after Kepler’s death, and without the planetary laws he could not have arrived at his monumentally important synthesis. No doubt somebody else would have done so (if Newton hadn’t), but it is at least possible that the scientific revolution would have carried different metaphysical undertones if it had been fathered  not by an English empiricist, but, say, a Frenchman with Thomist inclinations, or a German mystic.

The point of such speculation is, in part, to insert a question mark against the supposed logical inevitability and cast-iron determinism of the evolution of scientific thought… or any other kind of thought. The shape of Cleopatra’s nose influences not only wars, but ideologies. The mathematics of the Newton universe would have been the same whoever worked them out, but its metaphysical climate might have been quite different.

The point for activists today is that — at present — there is an invaluable instrument which we must secure for fighting the good fight. And that “instrument” is in the form of significant reins of decision-making power. Those at the helm in the most crucial corners do not deserve to have an exclusive hold on those reins. We must take possession of that power since “democracy” today does not permit us access to the decision-making process vis-a-vis our collective crises, except minimally (at best). It is important that well-meaning souls, such as the readers of this site be the ones who call at least some of the shots in our troubled universe.

We must put to rest the notion that such reins cannot be secured. It is true that on the federal level the doors are pretty much closed to us at present, and — in fact — have been for quite some time. But that doesn’t mean that the gubernatorial level is lost to us. Ditto for other realms. And if well-meaning, informed individuals who are not career politicians secure significant decision-making capacity, we’ll all at least have a chance at dealing with our horrid societal/environmental momentum in a new way.

Let us work for the day when we can begin to turn things around. When, like Kepler, Newton and others, we will be able to take in what’s encircling us with new eyes.

Imagine.

We don’t need money to carve out historic inroads in the electoral arena. We’re going to have to drop that notion, just like astronomers in the 16th and 17th centuries had to dispense with the lie that our planet lay in the center of our solar system.

All we need is to honor our love for doing the right thing.