12 Oct 2018

Hitler’s resurrection in Germany

Peter Schwarz

Seventy-three years after Germany’s Nazi Führer ended his life in a Berlin bunker, the words and ideas of Adolf Hitler have been resurrected in one of Germany’s most prominent daily newspapers.
Such was the unprecedented scale of the crimes committed by Hitler’s regime that for decades, his fascist and anti-Semitic rantings were banned in Germany. Publication of his noxious manifesto Mein Kampf was prohibited by the German government for 70 years, reappearing in an annotated edition only in 2016.
Now, however, it has emerged that an October 6 guest column written by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party chairman Alexander Gauland and published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ)—the German newspaper with the widest international circulation—is largely based on a November 1933 speech delivered by Hitler to Siemens workers in Berlin.
“Gauland’s text is obviously closely tied to Hitler’s,” commented historian Wolfgang Benz in the Tagesspiegel. “It is a paraphrase that looks as if the AfD chief had laid the 1933 speech of the Führer on his desk when he wrote his guest column for the FAZ.”
Benz, an authority on Nazism and anti-Semitism, commented on the column that “one probably suspects that the same spirit is blowing as in 1933”. It would appear, he said, that the AfD is offering “warmed-up leftovers” from the Nazi era, “with the nationalist movement, the NSDAP [Nazi party] and its epigones as a blueprint.”
In the FAZ, Gauland justifies the “populism” of his party on the grounds that the AfD defends the interests of the “conventional middle class” and ‘”so-called ordinary people” against “a new urban elite.” The members of this “globalized class,” says Gauland, “live almost exclusively in big cities, speak fluent English, and when they change jobs and move from Berlin to London or Singapore, they find similar apartments, houses, restaurants, shops, and private schools everywhere. ... As a result, the bond of this new elite to their respective homeland is weak. In a detached parallel society, they feel they are world citizens.”
In 1933, Hitler had used similar words to vilify a “small, rootless international clique”, which whipped up the peoples against each other: “These are the people who are everywhere and nowhere at home, but who live in Berlin today, tomorrow in Brussels, the day after tomorrow in Paris and then again in Prague or Vienna or in London, and feel at home everywhere.” he told his audience [interrupted with shouts of “the Jews!”) “They are the only ones that really have to be considered international elements because they can do business anywhere.”
Hitler counterpoised the “people”, as a national element, to this “international clique”: “... the people are chained to their soil, chained to their homeland, bound to the life possibilities of their state, the nation. The people cannot follow them.” Gauland’s “warmed-over” version refers to: “... those for whom homeland is still a value in itself and who are the first to lose their homeland because it is their milieu, into which the immigrants pour. They cannot just move away and play golf elsewhere.”
The anti-Semitic undertone of these lines is obvious. The image of uprooted, “cosmopolitan” Jews runs like a red thread through Nazi propaganda. But Gauland’s borrowings from Hitler go further than that. The deification of nation and homeland—blood and soil—formed the core of the ideology of fascism and Nazism.
The fanatical nationalism of the Nazis protected neither the German middle class nor the working class from the blows of the capitalist global economy; it sent them to the slaughter on the battlefields of the Second World War in the interests of German imperialism. At the same time, this fanatical nationalism was opposed to the revolutionary workers’ movement, which was internationalist ever since Marx and Engels published the "Communist Manifesto" in 1848 with the battle cry, “proletarians of all countries, unite!”
As long as bourgeois nationalism was directed against feudal fragmentation and tyranny, it was associated with progressive and democratic tendencies. But this era ended in the 19th century. The nation-state became too constricting for the international growth and integration of capitalist economy. Germany and the other imperialist powers were seeking to forcibly re-divide the world at the expense of their rivals. That was the cause of the First and Second World Wars.
“Attempts to save economic life by inoculating it with virus from the corpse of nationalism result in blood poisoning which bears the name of fascism,” wrote Leon Trotsky in November 1933, the same month that Hitler delivered his speech at Siemens. “Fascist nationalism, preparing volcanic explosions and grandiose clashes in the world arena, bears nothing except ruin.” (“Nationalism and Economic Life”) Seven years later, Hitler invaded Poland and started World War II.
The fact that a leading German newspaper has opened its pages to the AfD chairman to regurgitate Hitler’s blood-and-soil ideology shows just how far the return of the extreme right in Germany has progressed. Faced with growing international tensions, trade war and social conflicts, Germany’s ruling class is returning to its criminal traditions.
The publishers of FAZ knew exactly to whom they were offering a forum. Gauland, who had spent 40 years of his political career in the so-called Stahlhelm [Steel helmet] wing of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) before he joined the AfD, has opened up the party’s leadership to extreme right-wing and fascistic forces, such as Bernd Höcke. Where he stands politically himself, was demonstrated in his statement from June of this year that Hitler and the Nazis were “just so much bird shit in over a thousand years of successful German history.”
Although the AfD received only 12.6 of the votes in the general election, it now sets the tone in federal politics. The refugee policy of the grand coalition of the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats bears its signature, as well as the increased powers for the police and the secret service and the hike in spending on the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces).
Unlike the Nazis in the 1930s, however, the AfD does not head a fascist mass movement. It is rejected by broad sections of the population. In many cities, there are frequent mass demonstrations against the right-wing danger. In Munich alone, tens of thousands have protested against increased state powers, social inequality and militarism three times this year, and in Berlin 40,000 are expected to protest against racism on Saturday.
But this opposition, like the massive social dissatisfaction among the German population, finds no political expression in official politics. The parties represented in the Bundestag (federal parliament), along with the corporate media, are openly adapting themselves to the politics of the AfD. Within the framework of the grand coalition, the SPD follows the right-wing policy of the AfD. The Left Party also advocates a nationalist course; Gauland himself explicitly praised Left Party leader Sahra Wagenknecht in his FAZ column.
Many previously liberal representatives of the affluent middle class are flat on their backs before the AfD. Typical examples include the Green politician Boris Palmer and the Spiegel columnist and Freitag editor Jakob Augstein, who declared that Gauland had written “a clever text”, and called for “the AfD to co-govern.”
The Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (Socialist Equality Party, SGP) has just published the book “Why are they back?" by Christoph Vandreier, which shows how the rise of the AfD was systematically prepared for years by a shift to the right in the universities, in the media and in politics.
As early as 2014, the media had sparked a furious witch-hunt against the SGP and its youth organization, the IYSSE, because they had criticized the right-wing extremist historian Jörg Baberowski, who had claimed in the weekly magazine Der Spiegel that Hitler was “not cruel.”
The leading role in this attack was played by the FAZ; Jürgen Kaube, now co-editor of the paper, defended Baberowski against alleged “Trotskyist bullying.” As the SGP predicted, trivializing the crimes of the Nazis paved the way to the resurgence of right-wing, militaristic and authoritarian politics in Germany.
This development is not limited to Germany. In the US and throughout Europe, capitalist rulers are turning to authoritarianism and the revival of fascism.
There is only one way to stop the revival of militarism and fascism in Germany: the mobilization of the international working class on the basis of a revolutionary program and the building of the SGP and the Fourth International as a mass socialist party.

11 Oct 2018

UNICEF New and Emerging Talent Initiative (NETI) 2018 for Young Professionals

Application Deadline: 22nd October 2018 GMT+0100 (West Africa Standard Time)

Eligible Countries: International

About the Award: NETI Recruitment in 2018 focuses on two functional areas: Operations and Emergency
The New and Emerging Talent Initiative is an entry point for dynamic professionals interested in an international career with UNICEF. As part of UNICEF’s global talent management strategy, the Programme focuses on attracting, selecting, developing and retaining experienced professionals at mid-career level. NETI participants work actively in multicultural environments within the development and humanitarian arenas to contribute to delivering results for children.
The New and Emerging Talent Initiative (NETI) is a two-year career support programme for high-caliber candidates who have successfully passed the NETI recruitment process and have been selected for a regular P-3 fixed-term position.
Performance management is a key feature of the Programme. All participants go through continuous performance assessments and are evaluated systematically throughout their assignments. At the end of their first year and based on performance review outcomes, NETI participants can be extended for a second year in their specific duty stations.

Type: Job/Internship

Eligibility: The Programme has lanched the 2018 recruitment campaign in the areas of Emergency and Operations at the P-3 level..

The Programme is open for internal and external candidates irrespective of category and level, provided they meet the following minimum requirements.
  • Completion of an advanced university degree (master’s degree or equivalent*) at the time of application.
  • Proficiency in English and working knowledge (B2) of another official language of the United Nations (i.e. Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian or Spanish).
  • Readiness to be assigned to any UNICEF office worldwide, including hardship duty stations, non-family duty stations, and complex emergency operation duty stations
  • A minimum of five years of progressively responsible professional experience. Relevant experience should include, but not limit to, work in developing countries and multicultural environments.
  • University degrees presented by applicants must satisfy the required level of education and come from accredited academic institutions.
Preference will be given to candidates under 38 years of age.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award:
  • Participants have the opportunity to undertake a unique learning and career development path, including a two-week orientation at UNICEF’s New York Headquarters (NYHQ). As part of the orientation, participants attend learning sessions and workshops that are designed to help them acclimate to their new roles and increase their familiarity with the processes of the organization. During the orientation, participants get an overview of the organization’s strategies, initiatives and challenges.
  • Participants will also have networking opportunities with NETI fellows around the globe and New York Headquarters’ staff.
  • Participants are entitled to the same benefits and allowances as United Nations staff members with regular Fixed-Term Appointments.
Duration of Programme: 2 years

How to Apply: Apply Here

Visit Programme Webpage for Details

Novo Nordisk International Talent Programme 2019/2020 (Funded to Study at University of Copenhagen)

Application Deadlines:
  • 25th October, 2018
  • 1st April, 2019
Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Universities: The International Alliance of Research Universities are:
  • University of Cape Town 
Others are:
  • Australian National University
  • ETH, Zürich
  • National University of Singapore
  • Peking University
  • University of California, Berkeley
  • University of Cambridge
  • University of Oxford
  • The University of Tokyo
  • Yale University
Harvard University is also included in the Novo Nordisk International Talent Program.

To be taken at (country): University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Eligible Field of Study: Bioinformatics, Biochemistry, Biology, Biology-Biotechnology, Public Health, Food Innovation and Health, Global Health, Human Nutrition, Human Biology, Human Physiology, Immunology and Inflammation, Health Informatics, Chemistry, Medicine, Medicine and Technology, Molecular Biomedicine, Nanoscience and Pharmaceutical Sciences.

About the Award: Novo Nordisk International Talent Programme is a scholarship programme set up to assist students from the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU) in a range of select academic fields seeking to study abroad at the University of Copenhagen.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: To be eligible to apply, candidate must:
  • be enrolled in a degree programme at a IARU university or Harvard University
  • apply for admission to UCPH as an exchange or guest student
  • study at third year Bachelor’s level or Master’s level while at UCPH in one of the following programmes:
    Bioinformatics, Biochemistry, Biology, Biology-Biotechnology, Public Health, Food Innovation and Health, Global Health, Human Nutrition, Human Biology, Human Physiology, Immunology and Inflammation, Health Informatics, Chemistry, Medicine, Medicine and Technology, Molecular Biomedicine, Nanoscience and Pharmaceutical Sciences
  • meet a GPA requirement of minimum 3
  • engage in study activities pertaining to metabolism, insulin, haemoglobin and obesity
Selection Criteria: The programme gives priority to applicants who display a strong academic background and have submitted an ambitious study plan for their stay at the University of Copenhagen.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: 
  • The scholarship may be spent towards the cost of tuition fees, travel costs, insurance, and other expenses incurred in connection with studying abroad at UCPH.
  • The scholarship will typically amount to approximately EURO € 1200 a month. Depending on the costs and length of the study abroad at UCPH, it may increase up to EURO € 26000 in total.
Duration of Scholarship: Scholarships are awarded for up to one academic year.

How to Apply: To submit an application, you will be required to prepare following documents:
  • Application form
  • A copy of your transcript of records in English, including both Bachelor’s and Master’s grades
The application comprises of an application form, containing a motivated study plan and a list of the courses you plan to attend during your studies abroad as well ad enclosed transcripts of records, including both Bachelor’s and Matser’s grades (if applicable). The application and requested documents are submitted through this link.
You will be requested to submit your GPA, including both Bachelor’s and Master’s grades – if you have Master’s grades.

Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Novo Nordisk International Talent Programme

Important Notes: Candidates may expect to hear about the outcome of their application 4-8 weeks after the application deadline.

Sciences Po Eiffel Scholarship 2019/2020 for International Masters and Undergraduate Students

Application Deadline: 6th November 2018

To Be Taken At (Country): France

About the Award: Sciences Po only presents applications from candidates with profiles that match the priorities of the Eiffel scholarship. If you are offered a place to study at Sciences Po, we will inform you whether your application will be proposed to Campus France (the organisation in charge of this scholarship).
Applications received from students currently studying abroad are prioritised over those from students already living in France.
Students cannot apply directly for the Sciences Po Eiffel Scholarship. Applications must be made through a higher education institution.  If you are studying in two higher education institutions, you can only submit a single application. In order to apply, you must have already been accepted to a program at Sciences Po. For your application to be successful, it is essential that you respect our deadlines.
The Eiffel scholarship program, launched in January 1999 by the French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, is aimed at foreign students whose outstanding ability has been recognised by French institutions of higher education who wish to sponsor these students for the rest of their studies.
The programme is primarily designed to provide an education in France to future decision makers in both the private sector and in the national administrations of emerging countries.

Type: Masters, Undergraduate

Eligibility: Candidates must be under 30 years old.

  • Applicants for our graduate programmes
  • Applicants for the dual degree in Journalism / Columbia (BAMA) (who are already first year students at Columbia’s university School of Journalism)

Sciences Po students

  • Third year Sciences Po students
  • Second year undergraduate students in one of our partnership programmes at Poitiers campus
  • First year graduate student at Science Po
  • Students admitted last year in their first year as a graduate student who requested a deferral
  • Students admitted last year who have received a conditional offer of admission if they submit an English test before the scholarship application deadline.
  • PhD students who are co-supervised or presenting a joint thesis with a partner university
  • Students admitted to the following dual degree programme (other Sciences Po dual degree programme are not eligible for this scholarship):
    • Journalism Sciences Po/Columbia University (candidates for this programme are eligible)
    • Sciences et Politiques de l’Environnement Sciences Po/Université Pierre et Marie Curie (only first year students are eligible)
    • Quantitative Economics Sciences Po/Panthéon Sorbonne Paris I (only first year students are eligible)
    • The Eiffel laureates who graduated in June 2018 and wish to submit an Eiffel application for the PhD.

Not eligible to the Eiffel Scholarship

  • Students who already received a grant or scholarship from the French government
  • Students who have previously applied for an Eiffel scholarship and who have been unsuccessful, even if they change their field of studies.
  • Candidates for the 1year Master’s programmes
  • Candidates for the Joint Master in Journalism and International Affairs (Except candidates in their first year)
  • Students admitted to a Sciences Po dual degree programme (except for the 3 dual degrees mentioned above)
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Monthly grant. The Eiffel Scholarship does not cover tuition fees.  Students offered a place to study at Sciences Po who receive the scholarship are therefore responsible for paying the annual tuition fees.

How to Apply: 
  • Students cannot apply directly for the Eiffel Scholarship. Applications must be made through a higher education institution.  If you are studying in two higher education institutions, you can only submit a single application.
  • First time applicants who wish to be presented for the Eiffel scholarship by Sciences Po must indicate so in the “Financial Information” section of their Sciences Po application form and must provide the required documents. Please note that your scholarship request will be taken into account only in case of admission.
  • Students already admitted at Sciences Po, students admitted last year who have received a conditional offer of admission or students admitted last year in their first graduate year who requested a deferral have to send their Eiffel Scholarship application by email to the Admissions office by attaching the required documents : Admissions contact form 
  • Sciences Po will select the applications that it wishes to present to Campus France. Please note that applying for the Eiffel grant does not guarantee the presentation of your application to Campus France.
All candidates must attach the following documents to their scholarship application :
  • CV, including information on the applicant’s level (distinction/honours, ranking or position in the promotion, number of students in the promotion, diploma with information on specialisation, date of the diploma, final grades)
  • professional project, one or two pages. The applicant must explain the reasons for studying in France as opposed to their home country, their interest for the selected programme and how this will help them achieve their career goals and objectives.
  • academic transcripts all of the years of higher education (including periods spent abroad on exchange programmes)
  • ID/passport.
  • Language test certificates (french and/or english) if necessary
Visit the Program Webpage for Details

MIT Enterprise Forum (MITEF) Startup Competition for MENA Countries 2019

Application Deadline: 10th December, 2018.

To be taken at (country): Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

About the Award: The Arab Startup Competition is a yearly competition run by the MIT Enterprise Forum Pan Arab that pits entrepreneurs in 3 different tracks: Ideas Track, Startups Track and Social Entrepreneurship Track. The winning entrepreneurs are awarded prizes worth more than USD 160K and benefit from a range of other activities, including top tier training, mentorship, coaching, media exposure, and great networking opportunities.

Eligible Fields: As with last year’s edition, this year’s competition includes three different tracks: Ideas, Startups, and Social Entrepreneurship,

Type: Entrepreneurship

Eligibility: 
  1. The “MIT Enterprise Forum Arab Startup Competition” (Competition) is run by the MIT Enterprise Forum for the Pan Arab Region (MIT EF Pan Arab).
  2. By entering the competition, you hereby warrant that all of the information that you submit is accurate and complete in every respect.
  3. Each team is allowed only one entry.
  4. Every competing entry must comprise at least one Arab national. Additional eligibility criteria are listed for each of the 4 tracks (Ideas, Startups, Social Entrepreneurship, and The Silicon Valley Program).
  5. If you are selected as a semi-finalist, you will be notified of your selection via an email. If you fail to respond within 48 hours of being notified, you will automatically forfeit your right to compete in the second round. If you do not provide the required information needed for the next phase of the competition within the deadline specified by the management team, you will also forfeit your right to compete in the second round.
  6. Any changes to the team must be communicated with our management for approval.
  7. Semi-finalist teams must attend the workshop, conference & the final award ceremony in person. These events are held each year in a different Arab capital. At least one member per team must attend the workshop.
  8. Teams are expected to work on and submit specific deliverables prior to the workshop and conference. Qualified teams are not required to pay a participation fee for any of the workshop or conference. Each of the participants is expected to pay for their own flight ticket. The MIT Enterprise Forum Pan Arab will be paying all other expenses for up to two members per team, including accomodation, lunch and coffee breaks, ground transportation to and from the event venue. Other members attending the event can benefit from our special rates.
  9. The calendar of the competition will be posted on our website, and we reserve the right to change any date at any time.
  10. Personal information collected about you is used for the purpose of the competition, and will not be distributed to third parties without your consent.
Value of Programme: up to USD $160,000.  Each of the three tracks will award the first three ranked winners with cash prizes in addition to many other benefits including: top tier training, mentorship, coaching, media exposure, and great networking opportunities.

How to Apply: apply here

Visit Programme Webpage for details

Award Provider: The “MIT Enterprise Forum Arab Startup Competition” (Competition) is run by the MIT Enterprise Forum for the Pan Arab Region (MIT EF Pan Arab).

Heinz-Kühn-Foundation Journalism Scholarships for Junior Journalists in Developing Countries 2019/2020 – Germany

Application Deadline: 30th November, 2018

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries and Germany

To be taken at (country): Various countries

About the Award: The foundation awards Journalism Scholarships to young journalists from North-Rhine-Westphalia for six-week or three-month reporting trips in developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The foundation also provides funds to enable candidates from developing countries to gain professional journalism experience in North-Rhine-Westphalia for up to three months.
The aim of the Heinz-Kühn-Foundation is to support the training and professional development of junior journalists.

Type: Training

Eligibility: Young journalists from North-Rhine-Westphalia and developing countries are eligible for a scholarship if they satisfy the following requirements:
  • have a keen interest in development issues;
  • have already gained substantial professional experience in journalism (a completed college education is desirable);
  • are not older than 35 years of age; and,
  • have a good command of the official language of their host country (candidates from abroad must at least have a basic knowledge of the German language).
Selection: Decisions are taken by the board of trustees of the Heinz-Kühn-Foundation on the recommendation of the selection committee.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Scholarship holders get
  • a lump-sum contribution towards living expenses in the host country (with scholarship payments covering training and living expenses in the host country);
  • a lump-sum allowance for flight and travelling expenses (the foundation pays a return air ticket for candidates from abroad);
  • an allowance to cover costs of research materials (e.g. literature);
  • an allowance for trips within the host country; and,
  • (if neccessary, for scholarship holders from abroad) a German language course of up to four months at the Düsseldorf or Bonn based Goethe-Institut.
Duration of Scholarship: In the lead up to the scholarship and throughout the duration of the Journalism Scholarships, the Heinz-Kühn-Foundation will provide support.

How to Apply: Journalists who meet the requirements for a scholarship should first contact the foundation to discuss possible host countries and their topics of interest.
The foundation’s postal address is:
Ministerpräsidentin des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen
Heinz-Kühn-Stiftung
Fürstenwall 25
40219 Düsseldorf

The following documents should be enclosed with the application:
  • curriculum vitae in tabular form and a photograph;
  • certificates of vocational training and present occupation;
  • foreign languages certificates;
  • German candidates should provide a detailed statement explaining their reasons for applying, their choice of host country and proposed topic of research.
  • Candidates from abroad should provide a letter of motivation in German.
Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Heinz-Kühn-Foundation

Unleashing My Inner Jihadi

Geoff Dutton

For a big, strapping nation like the United States of America to be obsessively fixated on foreign-born evildoers is really quite strange, especially given that it has so many of its own. Other than 9/11, all terror attacks in the US since 2000 that weren’t thwarted or aborted involved firearms. Even if you include mass shootings that didn’t receive the Government’s Terrorism imprimatur, how many mass killings can you cite that were committed by undocumented aliens or foreign infiltrators?
Not that there aren’t foreigners who have bones to pick with America. According to Statista, nearly 200,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives due to the US invasion, the ensuing resistance, and subsequent conflicts with ISIS invaders. From the start of the Iraq War in 2003 under GW Bush to his exit from office in 2009, 105,000 Iraqi civilians were killed, peaking at nearly 30,000 in 2006. During Obama’s first term, civilian deaths totaled 93,300, hovering at less than 5000 per year.
When ISIS stormed into Iraq in 2012, deaths escalated; 20,000 in 2014, remaining above 13,000 until steeply declining to 2500 in 2017. US Military deaths for those 15 years totaled 4541, peaking at 904 in 2007. Overall, 44 Iraqi noncombatants fell for every American soldier who died there. This is the so-called Price of Liberty, paid by innocent Iraqis, traumatized veterans, bereaved military families, and American taxpayers, at the further cost of eternal vigilance over everyone by our intelligence agencies.
Due to foreign forces and internal conflicts, by 2016 5.5 million Syrians had fled their homes, as did 2.5M Afghani citizens. As of 2017, Turkey had admitted 3.4M Syrians. By 2016 Germany had received 100,500 Syrian asylum seekers, while only 1540 were admitted into the US. Within Syria, by 2017, 23% of the housing stock had been damaged and more than half of working age adults were unemployed (source: Statista). Although the US did not cause this situation, it certainly intensified it, having motivated assorted foreign jihadis to coalesce there in expectation of creating a caliphate.
* * *
It’s hard to deny that America is a violent nation. Glossing over that inconvenient truth are official and self-appointed apologists, eager to point fingers at criminal elements and foreign evildoers. But the sad fact they belie is that the perps of the vast majority of shootings are homegrown resentful gun-happy white men, most without criminal records.
Know that the United States enjoys a near-monopoly in gun violence. Constituting 4.4% of the world’s population, its residents own 42% of all civilian-owned guns (of 644 M worldwide). In 2012, the US enjoyed 29.6 homicides from firearms per million people. The closest runner-up, Switzerland, had 7.7 per M, while our Canadian cousins had a rate of 5.1.
Also know that since 9/11, there has been only one case of mass murder in the US that officially bears the label of terrorism—the 2016 massacre at a Christmas party at a social service agency in San Bernardino, CA that left 14 dead and 22 injured. Both suspects, one of whom was a native US citizen and the other a legal alien, died in a shootout with police the same day. (source: Vox)
That this couple, along with Nidal Hasan and Omar Mateen, the 2009 Fort Hood Texas shooter and the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooter, respectively, were Muslims with Middle Eastern roots only served to fan the flames of Islamophobia, even though the US Government declined to designate either Hasan or Mateen as terrorists. (Hasan couldn’t be tried by a military tribunal for terrorism, while Mateen’s actions were attributed to homophobia.)
They were all loonies, right? Yet, a study in the American Journal of Public Health found that databases that track gun homicides show that people with a diagnosed mental illness committed less than 5 percent of 120,000 gun-related killings in America from 2001 to 2010. In any event, that mass shootings are rare events makes coming up with effective mental health regulations challenging. Gun violence research shows that the strongest predictors of violence in general include alcohol and drug abuse and a history of domestic violence. Many such incidents may involve undiagnosed mental disturbances that regulators would be unable to screen for.
After a spate of other tragic shootings, especially in public schools, politicians appeared to lean toward denying gun permits to psychologically impaired individuals, not that such regulations are likely. The National Rifle Association has spent $203.2 million on political activities since 1998. Close to 90% of that was direct spending, while the remainder went to campaign committees, all of it aimed at forestalling any and all gun regulation and weeding out legislators and candidates whom the NRA believes lack sufficient Second Amendment fervor.
Take assault rifles. American civilians collectively own and actively trade between 6 to 10 million AR-15-type semi-automatic rifles. The NRA routinely refers to this style of weapon as “modern sporting rifles” and resists all efforts to rein them in (Politifact). Besides the gun lobby’s resistance, any regulations aimed at suppressing ownership of these weapons would be doomed by the black market—smuggling, Dark Web trading, and 3D printing of increasingly sophisticated firearms, abetted by a lack of enthusiasm on the part of gun-loving law enforcement officers to enforce them.
* * *
So here we have a superpower with its military and its citizenry armed to the teeth, a nation that commits and abets more violent acts than any since WWII (or during it, if we count the firebombing of German and Japanese cities), fearful of terrorism. A nation that defends freedom by arming unsavory autocrats. A nation that has created more terrorists than have ever beset its citizens, with an “intelligence community” that routinely and in some ways unconstitutionally spies on them, all in the name of combatting an exaggerated menace that US military adventures and foreign policies have conjured up.
They all are drunk with power and continue to cow Congress to give them greater resource to expand their capabilities. And now they want to take hegemony into orbit with a Space Force, for crying out loud. What for? To defend our spy Satellites? To block Iran or ISIS from landing on the Moon or Russia from colonizing Mars? And nothing that the American people can say in protest will stop them.
After a decade or more of witnessing gratuitous carnage perpetrated in my name at home and abroad, unchecked lust for military and economic supremacy around the globe, and collateral damages at a scale hard to comprehend, I lost it. I considered most terrorist acts—especially those committed by Islamic jihadists—as blowback, pure and simple, events that wouldn’t have taken place but for cruel and unusual punishments visited on Muslim-majority nations with the temerity to reject the decadent imperialism of America and its western allies.
Now, I’m sure there are jihadis who consider all infidels to be fair game, no matter whose flag they live under. Even so, I’m equally sure that America’s actions must have strengthened their resolve. Realizing that made me feel both contrite and complicit, and I vowed to take action to purify my soul.
What I did not do was to contact ISIS on Facebook, buy a gun, or round up bomb-making supplies. What I did do was to invent a fictional God-fearing Islamic jihadi, a young Iraqi man cast straight out of Blowback Central. Between what the US-led coalition and then ISIS did to him in Iraq, he has a lot of anger to blow back. To be clear, I wasn’t calling for America’s destruction; I just wanted my compatriots to get comfortable with the idea that decimating civilians and their infrastructure might just breed a bit of resentment that certain people might act out.
Mahmoud (that’s the protagonist’s name) understands he can’t directly retaliate against the US, but is enticed to join a terrorist conspiracy in Piraeus led by a mysterious Turk. And so, he projects himself across Anatolia to the Aegean coast to float to Greece to partake in a plot that he learns upon arrival will send him back to Turkey. He comes mentally unprepared for such a mission or for the steaming cauldron of chaos that was greater Athens in 2015, where a bitching brew of leftists and ultranationalists pit themselves against the callow Greek government and each other. The more extreme among them plot institutional destruction. The extremist Mahmoud hooks up with has no small plan; he’s targeting the upcoming G-20 meeting in Turkey.
So, let’s talk Turkey, which features prominently in the plot. Despite their recent bickering, there’s a weird parallel between our current president and theirs, involving power-lust, side deals with cronies, and advancing radically conservative and anti-secularist agendas. Both are happy to help industrialists, moneymen, and the religious right to do what they will; in both lands we see foxes guarding henhouses and dominant religions enforcing their articles of faith. Too, both leaders are truculent, bombastic, and thin-skinned; one takes refuge in his luxurious palace, the other behind a symbolic wall. But, while the US is folding itself into fetal position with regard to alliances, treaties, and trade, Turkey is building bridges to nations the US condemns, like Russia, Iran, and now even Syria. Is Venezuela its next best friend?
Although the novel doesn’t dwell on these similarities, many readers will pick up that subtext as Mahmoud and his comrades reshape their mission to Turkey. They pick a new target to dispatch. They eschew firearms and explosives, having decided that the way to his heart is intravenous.
After all is said and done and destinies revealed, the reader may still not be sure whom to root for, the state or the terrorists. It’s a tougher choice than one might think, and causes one to ponder what it might take to wrest remnants of democracy from the clenched jaws of tyranny. How, for instance, would you feel about a foreign power that turned its firepower on your community and you had to flee, perhaps never to return, and what might you do about it?

What is the United States of America?

Sameer Dossani

Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court despite being creditably accused of multiple sexual assaults and appearing to commit perjury. He will almost definitely make a number of decisions that serve to erode the accountability of big business in general and our Molester-In-Chief in particular.
All of this is deeply troubling and it’s been reassuring to see the level of outrage across the country. But there’s a deeper conflict going on here, one over a simple question: What is the United States of America?
Is the USA the home of the free? A settler colonial state? A country of equality? Or a place where Latina women earn only 54% of what white men do, where the state smiles on police killings of black people, and where a handful of billionaires control the majority of resources and poor people scrounge to survive?
Socialist organizers like myself have a set of answers to these questions. The USA is a patriarchal, colonial, oligarchic state built on dispossession of native peoples, on slavery, continuing exclusion of people of color, and on undervaluing, objectifying and profiting from women’s bodies. Gender privilege, race privilege and class privilege are the remnants of systems that were designed to enrich the very few. In meaningful ways, those systems have not ended.
Up until now, those answers were in opposition to the answers of the people in charge. Those people (almost all of them rich white men of both major political parties) looked at the same set of data and came to different conclusions.
“Colonialism committed many crimes, but that’s all in the past,” they might say. “And besides, Native people and the descendants of slaves have access to modern comforts now, that they wouldn’t have had otherwise. Capitalist economics may not be great, but it’s doing much better than the Soviet Union did. Yes there are problems, but things are in general trending up. We have equality of opportunity if not outcome. Yes there are centuries of discrimination to overcome but we’re moving towards a more just and multicultural future. Maybe not as fast as you socialists would like.” (At this point in the discussion I’d usually feel a little condescending pat on the head.) “Women are already in the boardroom and other places of power. Free trade and globalization will make these divisions meaningless in the log run.”
My debates with neoliberal elites are not about values. We all agree (or pretend to agree) that liberty, equality and justice are worthy ideals. We also agree on the data – they are intent on spinning the facts, not denying them. But where I see a need for radical social transformation, they at most see a need for minor adjustments to a status quo that works pretty well. (For them at least.)
The Trump era – and this Kavanaugh moment – is in some ways similar. We don’t disagree on the facts. No one who saw Kavanaugh’s performance on October 4 should doubt that this person is capable of belligerence and using violence to get what he wants. In addition to the allegations of sexual assault, his own friends and colleagues say that this guy should not be anywhere near the Supreme Court. And Trump himself has bragged about sexual assaultLindsey Graham Susan Collins and others are simply lying when they say that there’s no credible evidence against Kavanaugh. And they know it.
And therein lies the difference between Trumpist leaders and those of an earlier era. We don’t disagree on the facts and we don’t even disagree on the spin. Kavanaugh got away with it; they believe he has the right to. As does Trump. The USA means rich white men in charge – they should be; it’s their birthright. History has winners and losers. They are the winners. Trump avoided or evaded taxes? Of course he did, taxes are for chumps. What are you gonna do about it?
The arrogance and bravado is the same whether they are talking about sexual assault, tax avoidance or global warming.
When faced with this attitude, it is tempting to join the chorus from the centre decrying the evil men who don’t even aspire to democracy and equality. But did we really have more democracy and equality when those in the political center paid lip service to it?
Instead of joining the mainstream, the socialist left should be following grassroots movements who have long been calling for transformational change. That means challenging the system where it matters – minimum wages, maximum wages, worker-owned businesses, universal good quality free healthcare and education, cracking down on the tax avoiders who should be paying for these policies, and ending mass incarceration, the military-industrial complex, and corporate welfare. There’s no shortage of transformative policy proposals; there is a shortage of political will on all sides to take these projects forward.
Politics in the age of Trump means supporting movements that are building a new set of institutions within which transparency, accountability, democracy and justice are more important than the “rights” of the few to rule over the many. Those institutions need to be asshole-proof. Over-privileged men should not be able to co-opt and control those new institutions. Those working within and outside of the left of the Democratic party – like the Democratic Socialists of America – have their work cut out for them. Transformation needs to go mainstream and fast. As does accountability for the rich and powerful.
If other Democrats – those who occupy the current mainstream and see themselves as guardians of the status quo – are willing to be allies in that process they are more than welcome to pick up a picket sign, send emails to their lists and make phone calls like the rest of us.

India alarmed at Saudi oil refinery project in strategic Gawadar port

Abdus Sattar Ghazali

Pakistan’s latest announcement about Saudi Arabia’s investment in an oil refinery at the strategic port of  Gwadar has set alarm bells ringing in India.
James M. Dorsey, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University, says that Saudi’ oil refinery in Gwadar Port could threaten Iran’s India-backed Chabahar Port.
The deal could additionally involve deferred payments on Saudi oil supplies which will firstly, create a strategic oil reserve close to Iran, and secondly, help cash-strapped Pakistan in payments, Dorsey said.
Gwadar Port was built mainly by Chinese assistance. It is now operated by the Chinese.
A refinery and strategic oil reserve in Gwadar would serve Saudi Arabia’s goal of preventing Chabahar, the Indian-backed Iranian port, from emerging as a powerful Arabian Sea hub at a time that the United States is imposing sanctions designed to choke off Iranian oil exports, Dorsey said adding:
A Saudi think tank, the International Institute for Iranian Studies, previously known as the Arabian Gulf Centre for Iranian Studies (AGCIS) that is believed to be backed by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, argued last year in a study that Chabahar posed “a direct threat to the Arab Gulf states” that called for “immediate counter measures.”
Written by Mohammed Hassan Husseinbor, an Iranian political researcher of Baloch origin, the study warned that Chabahar would enable Iran to increase its oil market share in India at the expense of Saudi Arabia, raise foreign investment in the Islamic republic, increase government revenues, and allow Iran to project power in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean.
Husseinbor suggested that Saudi support for a low-level Baloch insurgency in Iran could serve as a countermeasure. “Saudis could persuade Pakistan to soften its opposition to any potential Saudi support for the Iranian Baluch… The Arab-Baluch alliance is deeply rooted in the history of the Gulf region and their opposition to Persian domination,” Husseinbor said.
Noting the vast expanses of Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan Province, Husseinbor went on to say that “it would be a formidable challenge, if not impossible, for the Iranian government to protect such long distances and secure Chabahar in the face of widespread Baluch opposition, particularly if this opposition is supported by Iran’s regional adversaries and world powers.”
Saudi militants reported at the time the study was published that funds from the kingdom were flowing into anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian Sunni Muslim ultra-conservative madrassas or religious seminaries in Balochistan.
Dorsey recalled that President Donald J. Trump’s national security advisor, John Bolton, last year before assuming office, drafted at the request of Trump’s then strategic advisor, Steve Bannon, a plan that envisioned US support “for the democratic Iranian opposition,” including in Balochistan and Iran’s Sistan and Balochistan province.
China building military base in Pakistan
In another development, China is reportedly constructing a military base in Pakistan’s port of Jiwani, close to the Iranian border on the Gulf of Oman.
The Jiwani base, a joint naval and air facility for Chinese forces, is located a short distance up the coast from the Chinese-built commercial port facility at Gwadar, Pakistan.
The Chinese have asked the Pakistanis to undertake a major upgrade of Jiwani airport so the facility will be able to handle large Chinese military aircraft.
Jiwani will be China’s second major overseas military base. In August, the PLA opened its first foreign base in Djibouti, a small African nation on the Horn of Africa.
Not surprisingly, India has secured access to the key Port of Duqm in Oman for military use and logistical support to counter Chinese influence and activities in the region.
In February last, a Memorandum of Understanding on Military Cooperation was signed by the two countries during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Oman. 
According to Indian Express, following this pact, the services of Duqm port and dry dock will be available for maintenance of Indian military vessels.
The Port of Duqm is situated on the southeastern seaboard of Oman, overlooking the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. It is strategically located, in close proximity to the Chabahar port in Iran.

New Zealand government bans “foreigners” from buying houses

Sam Price

On August 15, the New Zealand parliament passed the Labour Party-led government’s Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, banning purchases of houses by non-citizens and non-residents. To buy an existing house, individuals must have New Zealand citizenship or residency and have lived in the country for at least a year.
The government of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern falsely claims the ban will address the housing market bubble that has driven up prices and rents. In fact, it is aimed at scapegoating so-called foreigners, especially Chinese people, for the increasingly severe housing crisis.
An Oxford Economics report recently identified New Zealand as having the second-most overvalued housing in the world, behind only Hong Kong. As a result, around 40,000 people, or nearly 1 percent of the population, live without adequate housing. Last year, a Yale University study found that this is the highest level of homelessness in the OECD.
Like governments in the US, Europe, Australia and throughout the world, the Labour-New Zealand First-Greens coalition is seeking to divert working class anger over social inequality, including the lack of affordable housing, into the most reactionary channels. The aim is to whip up nationalism and xenophobia to divert attention away from the government’s own responsibility for the worsening social crisis.
At the same time, the promotion of anti-Chinese chauvinism in particular is aimed at aligning New Zealand with the growing US-led military build-up and threats of war against China.
In a speech to parliament last December, Finance Minister David Parker declared that New Zealanders “should not be tenants in our own land.” House prices should be “set by local buyers, not by the wealthy 1 percent from international markets.” Greens MP Eugenie Sage supported the ban, accusing “offshore property speculators” of “pushing Kiwi [New Zealand] homebuyers out of the market.” The right-wing nationalist NZ First Party strongly endorsed the bill.
In fact, it is primarily local investors who have driven housing costs to grotesquely unaffordable levels for the vast majority of workers. Writing on the Radio NZ website, economist Shamubeel Eaqub said the new law would have an “imperceptible” impact on housing costs, as foreign buyers “accounted for 4 percent of house sales.”
The ban is part of a broader campaign to scapegoat foreigners and immigrants, especially those from Asia, for the social crisis. This includes changes designed to cut thousands of places for international students and restrict their right to work. During last year’s election, Labour promised to cut overall immigration by almost half.
The new law further underscores the nationalist character of the government’s supporters, including the liberal “left” media and the trade union bureaucracy. On June 26, the day the foreign buyer ban law received its second reading in parliament, the trade union-funded Daily Blog posted an emphatic demand from its editor Martyn Bradbury to “PASS THE BLOODY LAW NOW!”
The unions are similarly seeking to scapegoat migrant workers for low wages. The Unite union, which is among the Daily Blog’s backers, recently celebrated the government’s decision to ban the Burger King chain from hiring migrant workers for 12 months, which could result in dozens of workers being unable to stay in the country.
The government has done nothing to address the housing shortage or reduce the cost of housing. Labour’s Kiwibuild scheme, which aims to build 100,000 new homes over 10 years is woefully inadequate and does not take into account a rapidly growing population. The houses will be sold mostly for more than half-a-million dollars.
There is an urgent need to spend billions of dollars to create genuinely affordable housing. The Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment reported last November that the country has a shortage of over 71,000 homes. The crisis is particularly sharp in Auckland, the country’s most populous city, which was short of 44,000 homes.
Since the formation of the current government last September, median house prices nationally have increased 3.6 percent to $549,000. In Auckland, the largest city, the median has increased 75 percent over four years. Although this has slowed down in the past year, the median is now $852,000, and modest homes frequently sell for over $1 million. This property bubble, created by intense speculation by property investors, will likely trigger a major financial crisis if it bursts.
Rents have also soared. According to a nationwide housing stocktake commissioned by the government early this year, between 2012 and 2017 rents for a three-bedroom house rose 25 percent, while wages rose just 14 percent.
The same report, published in February, revealed that emergency housing is under immense strain, with 80 to 90 percent of homeless people turned away by emergency housing providers last year.
In August, Auckland City Mission reported than in the last year it had distributed 15,879 food parcels, up 22 percent from the previous year, and the highest amount since it was founded 98 years ago.
New Zealand Herald investigation into conditions facing homeless people found they “are dying about 36 years earlier than the general population.” Out of 45 who died in the past seven years, the average age was 45.6.
The lack of affordable housing, stagnant wages and degrading working and living conditions, has triggered an international resurgence of working class strike activity. This year has seen more strikes in New Zealand than in the past 30 years. In July and August, nurses and teachers held nationwide strikes. The cost of housing relative to income was a major factor in the disputes.
Workers must reject the efforts of the ruling elite to derail their struggles by deflecting anger onto immigrants and foreigners, who make up 20 percent of New Zealand’s population. This requires a decisive break from all the established political organisations, including the trade unions, which are seeking to divide workers along nationalist lines.
There is an urgent need for workers, facing the same attacks in every part of the world, to coordinate internationally in a conscious fight to abolish the capitalist system. The demand must be raised for high-quality housing for all, as a fundamental social right. This requires the reorganisation of society along socialist lines, including the nationalisation of the banks and investment giants that have profited from the housing boom.

British royals spend millions on palace improvements

Laura Tiernan

The World Socialist Web Site has drawn attention to the recent publication of a cookbook framed around Meghan Markle’s charitable efforts with local residents impacted by the Grenfell fire and Prince William’s guest appearance on BBC One’s DIY SOS: Grenfell. We described these initiatives as part of a broader charm offensive aimed at suppressing the social anger generated by the June 14, 2017, inferno that claimed 72 lives and occurred less than four miles from Kensington Palace.
On October 5 the Daily Mirror published a report that sheds additional light on the cynical calculations involved in these efforts. “Meghan Markle and [Prince] Harry can finally move into Kensington Palace apartment next door to Kate and William,” the Mirror states, thanks to renovations at Kensington Palace underway since last year, with more than £1.4 million spent on repairs to the roof and new windows.
A major refurb of the palace was announced on June 27, 2017—just two weeks after the Grenfell fire, accompanying remodelling of Buckingham Palace—initially costed at £396 million. The Kensington Palace renovation started amid revelations that the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) authorised the use of flammable external cladding on Grenfell Tower to save £293,000—a decision that amounted to a death sentence for residents.
William’s two visits to the DIY SOS site along with Meghan’s “secret” visits to the Community Hubb Kitchen, will have been carefully managed by the royal family’s PR team as part of efforts to ensure a smooth transition into apartment 1, and prevent public anger from spilling over.
For 12 months the royal family refused to confirm that Harry would be moving into the palace. The couple would, it was reported, remain in Nottingham Lodge—described by the media as a “cosy” two-bedroom cottage on the grounds of the palace. This was all part of cringeworthy media efforts to present the royal couple as everyday people. The story of their engagement over a home-cooked roast chicken was endlessly recycled.
Five months later, and in the aftermath of Markle’s cookbook and William’s DIY:SOS appearance, the press has announced that Harry and Meghan will in fact be moving next door to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The £1.4 million renovations for Harry and Meghan follow a £4.5 million renovation for William and Kate’s apartment in 2014. It has 22 rooms, including two nurseries, three kitchens and three bathrooms.
Alongside this, the £2 million spent on the Grenfell DIY:SOS community centre and boxing gym is chicken feed. But there is more to come. Friday will see Princess Eugenie, ninth in line to the throne and who carries out no official functions, marry (baronet) Jack Brooksbank at St George’s Chapel, Windsor. A modest affair compared with the £38 million squandered on Harry and Meghan’s nuptials at the same venue in May, it will nevertheless cost the taxpayer over £2 million for security (in part because the couple insisted on a carriage ride through the streets) and £250,000 to clean up afterwards. The proud parents will spend an additional £2.8 million for the ceremony’s two days of celebrations.
Homeless people have told the Daily Mirror that Windsor’s Conservative council have told them to clear their belongings from the streets on the wedding day, just as it did for Harry and Meghan’s.
At Buckingham Palace, the ten-year renovation project is now costed at £500 million and rising. According to a report in the Daily Mail, “The Buckingham Palace revamp will see 3,000 metres of dangerous vulcanised rubber cabling ripped up.”
While a half a billion pounds are spent to ensure the safety of the monarchy, for Grenfell residents it was a very different story. They were subjected to a regime of “managed decline” and neglect that saw the RBKC council and its Tenant Management Organisation create a death trap. Cheap flammable material, faulty electrical wiring, no sprinklers or central fire alarm—a program of social cleansing and “regeneration” in the interests of the rich.