28 Aug 2019

Del Monte Foods to close plants in Illinois and Minnesota

Andy Thompson

In the latest attack on jobs, Del Monte Foods announced last Thursday that they will be closing two plants in Illinois and Minnesota, laying off at least 800 workers. Additionally, the company will sell plants in Wisconsin and Texas calling into question the employment status of another 700 workers.
In 2013, San Francisco-based Del Monte Foods, which was being held by a private equity firm, was bought out in a $1.6 billion takeover by Del Monte Pacific, a transnational corporation based in the Philippines.
Del Monte Foods claims that the closing is due to changing market circumstances and a fall in demand for their products. A representative from the company specifically stated that, “Tariffs did not factor into this decision. The decision was made in order to align production with current consumer demand.”
Still, the closing of the plant is likely at least partly due to tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. In June, Del Monte Pacific CFO Parag Sachdeva stated that the company is seeing an increase in costs due to “rising metal packaging prices and impact of tariffs imposed by the U.S. government.”
The Trump administration has imposed tariffs of 25 percent on imported steel and 10 percent on aluminum. Both materials are used in the production of cans in Del Monte plants.
In a statement after the closings were announced Del Monte said that the shutdowns are part of an “asset-light strategy” to cut costs and increase profits. In the past two years Del Monte also closed plants in Arkansas, North Carolina, Indiana and California, eliminating upwards of 400 jobs.

Anti-China witch-hunt targets Australian universities

Oscar Grenfell 

On August 21, the Australian government convened a “crisis meeting” with representatives of the universities and the intelligence agencies, as part of a hysterical campaign alleging pervasive “Chinese influence” throughout society.
Little has been revealed about what was discussed at the closed-door meeting. It was called amid demands by senior political figures and the corporate press for a crackdown on ties between Australian and Chinese research institutions, supposedly because they threaten “national security.”
The official purpose of the talks was to set “guidelines” governing collaboration with Chinese academics. As well as Education Department officials, the gathering was attended by representatives of the Home Affairs Department, which oversees the domestic spy agency, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), and the Australian Federal Police. Representatives from the Group of Eight, the country’s elite public universities, participated, along with members of university security and computer departments.
The Australian Financial Review (AFR) reported that the major universities had agreed to the meetings after briefings by Education Minister Dan Tehan earlier this month.
The article declared that the “university sector has allowed itself to become dependent on Chinese students.” It stated: “The government and its security agencies feel the sector has become compromised, and over past weeks and months the sector has been given multiple briefings by such agencies as ASIO, the Home Affairs Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Defence Signals Directorate voicing concerns about Chinese influence.”
The article said the “security agencies” were particularly concerned about research partnerships involving Australian and Chinese universities. After the meeting, Tehan insisted that universities would “likely” have to “liaise more closely with national security agencies.”
Lurid claims that such collaboration aids the Chinese military have played a central role in an anti-China campaign spearheaded over the past two years by the government, the Labor Party, the Greens and the corporate media.
These unsubstantiated assertions have been based almost entirely on the claims of the intelligence agencies. In 2017, for instance, the Guardian warned against a $100 million “innovation precinct” at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), unveiled the previous year by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang.
The Guardian trumpeted “defence fears” over the centre. It was funded, however, by private Chinese corporations, and focused on non-military research projects, including marine technologies, solar and wind power generation and the development of nanotechnologies.
Similar media campaigns have targeted other research initiatives, claiming, without any evidence, that they are of use to the Chinese military. The military and intelligence apparatus has invoked these assertions to push for unprecedented control over research, directly attacking academic freedom.
In a submission to the government in July 2018, the Australian Department of Defence requested powers to prohibit the publication of research, even for scientific purposes, and for warrantless entry, search, questioning and seizure powers to monitor compliance.
The department demanded authority to prohibit research on the virtually limitless ground that it has “reason to believe the technology is significant to developing or maintaining national defence capability or international relations of Australia.”
The request was inextricably tied to the Australia’s deepening integration into the US-led war drive against China, overseen by successive governments, Labor and Coalition alike.
The latest crackdown is also doubtless being conducted in close collaboration with the Trump administration. The AFR reported after last week’s meeting: “The university sector fears the government could be pressured by the United States to crack down even harder on its collaboration with China, following a series of measures being proposed by US Republicans, one of which directly implicates Australia.”
The Trump administration is currently pushing a series of bills targeting Chinese academics, researchers and students.

Britain sold more than £6 billion in arms for Saudi-led coalition’s deadly war in Yemen

Jean Shaoul

The British government, by supplying arms, personnel and expertise, has played a crucial role in the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.
The coalition has been accused of hundreds of indiscriminate bombing operations against civilians since the start of the war in March 2015.
Saudi Arabia assembled a coalition to reinstate President Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, whom Riyadh and Washington had installed after widespread protests forced the resignation of long-term dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh in 2011-12, after Houthi rebels drove out his corrupt government.
The coalition has the full backing of both Washington and London. In addition to Saudi Arabia it consists of Egypt, Sudan, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and the Academi corporation, formerly known as Blackwater. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Morocco were coalition members but pulled out earlier this year. The support of Qatar for the coalition was suspended in 2017.
Britain has licensed the sale of at least £6.2 billion ($7.6 billion) worth of arms to the coalition, selling £5.3 billion of arms to Saudi Arabia, including £2.7 billion ($3.4 billion) worth of aircraft and £1.9 billion ($2.4 billion) worth of missiles, bombs and grenades, £657 million to the UAE, £85 million to Egypt, £72 million to Bahrain, £40 million to Kuwait and £142 million to Qatar, before it withdrew from the coalition.
But the real level of arms sales is probably much higher, as many are transferred under the opaque system of “Open Licences” that is used to sanction arms sales to blood-soaked regimes in the Middle East, such as el-Sisi’s in Egypt and the barbaric House of Saud. According to Middle East Eye, there has been a 22 percent rise in the use of secretive open licences since ministers pledged to increase Britain’s arms exports after the Brexit vote.
As well as supplying arms, Britain has sent more than 80 Royal Air Force personnel to Saudi Arabia, some working within the command and control centre that selects targets in Yemen for bombing and others training the Saudi air force. A further 6,200 British contractors work at Saudi military bases, training pilots and maintaining aircraft.
It also emerged that—unbeknownst to the UK population—there are British troops on the ground in Yemen. The Mail on Sunday reported in March that at least five British Special Forces commandos had been wounded in gun battles as part of a top-secret UK military campaign in Yemen.
The troops from the elite Special Boat Service (SBS), whose activities are never reported to Parliament, suffered gunshot injuries in fierce clashes with Houthi forces in the Sa’dah area of northern Yemen, where up to 30 British troops are based. British Special Forces are thus fighting on the same side as jihadis and militia linked to al-Qaeda that are part of the Saudi-led coalition and use child soldiers as young as 13 and 14 years old.
Earlier this month, it was revealed that last year Prime Minister Boris Johnson—then foreign secretary—had expressed his approval of the export of weapons systems to Saudi Arabia in the expectation they would be used in Yemen. Johnson also supported sending British troops to Yemen to take control of the port of al-Hodeidah, the main entry port for food entering the war-torn country. According to government officials, now that Johnson has become prime minister, that option “remains very much on the table.”
Last week, a United Nations panel of experts reported it had found fragments of British-made laser guidance missile systems used at an air raid site in Yemen, in a strike in September 2016 that it concluded breached international humanitarian law (IHL). The panel also found missile parts from the same British factory at the Alsonidar complex following a second air strike nine days later, where a water pump factory and a former tube maker were located.
These and other British-built aircraft, bombs and missiles have been used to target civilians in breach of UK arms export law that bans the sale of arms or munitions to a state that is at “clear risk” of committing serious violations of IHL. Yet according to the Ministry of Defence’s own data, the number of alleged IHL violations by the Saudi-led coalition had reached a staggering 350 by March 2018.
The war has created the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet in what was already the poorest country in the Arab world. Air strikes and other combat operations have caused the deaths of some 80,000 people, including at least 17,700 civilians. Millions of Yemenis are dependent upon food aid programmes, with at least 3.2 million people needing treatment for acute malnutrition, including 2 million children under the age of five. According to the Save the Children charity, as many as 85,000 children under the age of five have died from hunger and disease.
Last week, the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said it would have to close its food aid programme to 12 million and health services to 19 million because both the UAE and Saudi Arabia—the main donors—had failed to honour their combined pledges of $1.5 billion, made last February, exposing yet more Yemenis to hunger and disease.
Andrew Smith of the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), speaking about Britain’s role in this catastrophe, said, “Thousands of people have been killed in the Saudi-led bombardment of Yemen, but that has done nothing to deter the arms dealers. The bombing has created the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, and it wouldn’t have been possible without the complicity and support of Downing Street. These arms sales are immoral and illegal.”

German automaker Opel to cut workers’ hours and pay

Dietmar Gaisenkersting 

Last Thursday the German business magazine WirtschaftsWoche [Business Week] reported that automaker Opel is preparing to introduce short-time work at its headquarters in Rüsselsheim.
Short-time work is defined by the European Union as "a temporary reduction in working time... It can involve either a partial reduction in the normal working week for a limited period of time – for instance a partial suspension of the employment contract – or a temporary layoff, such as a full suspension of the employment contract."
The report states that the WiWo editors read the minutes of a confidential meeting held by representatives of the IG Metall trade union.
Opel workers go to an employee meeting in Ruesselsheim, Germany on Monday [Credit: AP Photo/Michael Probst]
According to the minutes, Opel management is planning to introduce short-time work “from October for three months.” The short-time work will then be continued next spring.
The introduction of short-time work is part of a radical savings and cutback program, with which Opel’s parent company, French automaker Groupe PSA (Peugeot, Citroen), is responding to the global crisis in the auto industry. Faced with declining sales in major markets, increasing trade warfare and e-mobility, labor productivity and the exploitation of workers is set to increase dramatically.
In a previous article, the WSWS reported that 1,100 jobs at the three Opel plants in Rüsselsheim, Eisenach and Kaiserslautern are to be cut.
Opel workers, along with workers in other car factories and component suppliers, must prepare for a bitter struggle. This requires breaking the control of the corrupt factory councils and union bureaucracy and setting up independent action committees to establish contact with autoworkers in other companies and countries to organise joint resistance.
The offensive against workers will intensify following the current plant holiday shutdown. The planned short-time work will mean drastic financial losses. In the goods distribution center in Rüsselsheim, only 74 of 300 employees will remain. Some 200 are to be moved to Bochum. The rest will be stripped of their jobs via a social plan.
Opel’s European goods distribution center in Bochum, with 700 employees, supplies Opel and Vauxhall dealers throughout Europe with spare parts and accessories. The large Opel plant in Bochum—which employed 20,000 workers in the 1980s—was shut down five years ago in cooperation with IG Metall.
Now the workforce in Bochum is in the sights of CEO Carlos Tavares, who is intent on undertaking drastic restructuring and cost-cutting measures. In future, workers will no longer be paid according to the valid engineering contract. Instead they will be graded on the much lower contract for logistics workers. This means wage cuts of several hundred euros per month.
Volker Strehl from IG Metall in Bochum admitted that such measures were being negotiated. He pointed out that the union had already agreed to wage cuts in the current contract. “We have already made concessions,” he said.
Tavares and IG Metall are playing off the workforce at Opel Bochum against fellow workers in France and external service providers employed by the multi-brand manufacturer’s parts distribution company Distrigo. The PSA Group already uses Distrigo locations for spare parts and accessories. “Instead of supplying all trade outlets centrally as before from Bochum,” the Handelsblatt newspaper reported, “from January 2020 they will be increasingly supplied via the Distrigo Hubs in individual [German] federal states.”
In addition, Bochum also competes with the PSA parts warehouse in Vesoul, France, where costs are to be lowered significantly. Just recently, PSA and the French unions increased weekly working hours by about half an hour—with no additional pay.
The biggest source of contention stems from the partial takeover of Opel’s International Technical Development Center (ITEZ) by the French development service provider Segula. At the beginning of September, Segula will take over around 20 buildings, 120 engine and chassis dynamometers, and around 700 Opel employees. Segula will also take over the Opel test development area in Dudenhofen, as well as the company’s guarantee orders business.
Up to 3,000 Opel workers in Rüsselsheim are expected to lose their jobs. Originally, it was planned that 2,000 Opel workers would switch to the service provider Segula, but more than 1,300 preferred to quit Opel on the basis of severance payments, partial retirement or early retirement.

24 Aug 2019

UNESCO Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Reporting Fellowship (Funded to Paris, France) 2019

Application Deadline: 29th September 2019 (midnight, Paris time)

Eligible Countries: International. Candidates from low and middle income countries will be preferred

To Be Taken At (Country): One month in Paris, France

About the Award: The Global Education Monitoring (GEM) Report, formerly known as the Education for All Global Monitoring Report (GMR), is an editorially independent, authoritative, and evidence-based annual report that monitors progress in education in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which have been adopted as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with special focus on SDG 4 on education. Its mandate was established in the Incheon Declaration of the World Education Forum in May 2015. The Education 2030 Framework for Action defined this mandate for the GEM Report as the mechanism for monitoring and reporting on SDG 4 and on education in the other SDGs” and for reporting “on the implementation of national and international strategies to help hold all relevant partners to account for their commitments”. 

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: Applications will be opened to all nationalities, however the selection committee will look favourably at applications from individuals from low and middle income countries.
A successful proposal will
  • explain the policy areas of interest, spell out the policy questions to be addressed, and indicate how the research will promote access, equity, inclusion and quality in education systems
  • show why GEM Report resources and research areas (thematic or geographic) are particularly well suited to address those questions
  • show how the research relates to monitoring issues highlighted in past GEM reports or thematic issues of future GEM reports
Applicants will be required to provide three references to support their application. The final output will be a research report of publishable quality.
The fellowship programme will support individuals who have experience with quantitative research methods, including in the use of large-scale surveys, and a strong policy orientation, seeking to use research findings to inform policy makers and other education stakeholders. Applications are encouraged from a variety of disciplines, including, but not limited to, education, sociology, economics, political science, psychology, demography, statistics, and psychometrics. Applicants may be working at research institutions, universities, government agencies or professional organisations. A Ph.D. and a record of publications in peer-reviewed journals will be an advantage.  A commitment from the applicant to engage with diverse audiences will also be considered positively. Preference will be given to proposals with a clear comparative element.

Selection: Calls for proposals will be issued twice a year and published through all relevant UNESCO and partner networks. Applicants will apply online. The GEM Report team will aim to host an average of three fellows per year in the team.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: The GEM Report team will provide:
  • A stipend (up to US$25,000) for the duration of the fellowship (up to one year) and full travel costs for at least one month to be spent in Paris for each of the fellows;
  • A mentor from the team of GEM Report researchers. The GEM Report staff will allocate 3-5 hours per week to mentor and guide the fellows when they are in residence in Paris, and 2 hours per week while they are based in their home country;
  • A desk and computer during their stay at the GEM Report team office, in the UNESCO Headquarters in Paris.
Duration of Programme: Each fellowship will last between six months to one year, depending on the work to be carried out, with one month spent in Paris.

How to Apply: Submit applications to: l.loupis@unesco.org
It is important to go through the Application requirements on the Programme Webpage (Link below) before applying.


Visit Programme Webpage for Details 

Iso Lomso Fully-funded Fellowships 2019 for Early Career African Researchers

Application Deadline: 15th October 2019

Eligible Countries: African countries

About the Award: Iso Lomso aims to address the gap that exists between completion of the Ph.D. and becoming an established scholar in Africa. While there is increasing support for doctoral study and for post-doctoral fellowships, it is during the extended post-doctoral period that the greatest loss of talent occurs.
Fellows are expected to be present at STIAS for the duration of their STIAS residency, with no academic obligations other than pursuing the proposed research project. The only other duties are to share in the discussion over lunch which is served daily, and to participate in the Thursday STIAS fellows’ seminar where fellows in turn present their work to other fellows and invited academics from the local community.       

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility: The programme is aimed at African scholars who have obtained a doctoral degree within the preceding seven years and who hold an academic position at a university or research institution anywhere in Africa.
Candidates should have established a research programme and have completed a post-doctoral fellowship or equivalent post-PhD programme. All disciplines are considered.
To be eligible applicants must:
  • be a national of any African country;
  • be born after the 1st of January 1977;
  • have an affiliation at a research or higher education institution in an African country, and continue to do so for the foreseeable future;
  • have obtained a doctoral degree from any recognised higher education institution (worldwide) after the 1st of January 2012;
  • have completed a post-doctoral fellowship or equivalent post-PhD research programme;
  • be in a position to commence a first period of residency at STIAS during the second half of 2019 or the first half of 2020.
Selection Criteria: Applications will be evaluated and selected on the basis of the following criteria:
  • Level: the applicant’s academic excellence and the originality and scholarly strength of the proposed research project;
  • Innovation: the project’s promise of new insights and the potential to produce new knowledge;
  • Interdisciplinarity: whether the project methodology allows for drawing from different disciplines and its potential to facilitate an interdisciplinary discourse;
  • Relevance: the project’s relevance for scholarship and knowledge production in Africa;
  • Feasibility: whether the research design and the research plan are convincing and realistic.
During final selection, additional consideration will be given to:\
  • gender representation;
  • diversity of nationalities;
  • diversity of disciplines;
  • participation in previous or current research projects;
  • previous international experience.
Number of Awards: 20

Value of Award: Iso Lomso Fellows will enjoy:
  • a three-year attachment to STIAS during which time they may spend a total of ten months in residence at STIAS to develop and pursue a long-term research programme;
  • the possibility of a residency at a sister institute for advanced study in North America, Europe or elsewhere;
  • funding to attend up to three international conferences or training workshops anywhere in the world;
  • support to convene a workshop with collaborators at STIAS;
  • lecturer replacement subsidy for the fellow’s home institution during residency periods.
Duration of Program: 3 years

How to Apply: Download the applications documents of the 2019 call here:
  1. Download the Iso Lomso Call for Applications 2019 (PDF)
  2. Download the Iso Lomso Application Form 2019 (MS Word format) or the Iso Lomso Application Form 2019 (Open Document format)
Visit the Program Webpage for Details


Award Providers: Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study  (STIAS)

International PhD Program for Agricultural Economics, Bioeconomy and Rural Development (IPPAE) Scholarships 2020/2021 for Developing Countries – Germany

Application Deadline: 30th November 2019

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be Taken at (Country): Germany

About the Award: The International PhD Program for Agricultural Economics, Bioeconomy and Rural Development (IPPAE) was first accredited in 1992 by the funder, the German Academic Exchange Office (DAAD). The program is the result of a cooperation between the agricultural economics groups of the University of Hohenheim and the University of Giessen. The program is highly competitive and interdisciplinary. Its strength is that all PhD candidates have prior research or work experience in an area close to their PhD topics, which strengthens their analytical skills as well as the amount of knowledge that can be passed from peer to peer. In Giessen, the IPPAE lays its thematic focus on empirical, problem-solving research, at the crossroads between agricultural economics, agricultural sociology, farm economics and sustainable resource use. To date, more than 100 candidates received their PhD through the IPPAE Giessen.


About the Award:

Type: PhD

Eligibility: 
  • outstanding scholars from developing countries and emerging economies (DAC)
  • 2 years of work experience
  • excellent written and spoken English
  • MSc degree obtained not more than 6 years prior to application
  • MSc degree in agricultural economics or related subjects
Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: Funding for this program as well as the German language course is provided by DAAD.

Monthly Funding
  • A monthly scholarship which presently amounts to € 1.200 is paid for the time of the doctoral studies (38 months).
  • Family allowances are provided if the candidate’s family joins him/her during the time of the doctoral scholarship allocation.
Yearly Funding
  • One return flight per year for 3 years
  • Yearly research grant of € 460 to purchase items such as laptops, winter clothes, or cover the costs to participate to courses or conferences
Additional Research Funding
  • A fieldwork allowance is provided for 2 years. This allowance is of maximum € 2.500 and is not extendable at all.
  • The publication of the PhD Thesis is supported with up to € 1.200.
German Languange Course Funding
  • Allowance of € 410 per month
  • Accomodation is provided
Duration of Award: The IPPAE Giessen program lasts 42 months. It has a formalised structure which is compulsory to follow. The programme starts 1st of October each year.

How to Apply:
  • It is important to go through all application requirements in the Award Webpage (see Link below) before applying.
Visit Award Webpage for Details

CLIFF-GRADS Scholarships 2019 for PhD Students from Developing Countries

Application Deadline: 30th September, 2019

Eligible Countries: Developing countries

About the Award:  CLIFF-GRADS is a joint initiative of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change (CCAFS) Low Emissions Development Flagship and the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (GRA).
CLIFF-GRADS aims to build the capability of early career agriculture students in developing countries to conduct applied research on climate change mitigation in agriculture.
CLIFF-GRADS integrates the GRA’s new Development Scholarship and the CCAFS Climate Food and Farming Research Network with the common goal of providing grants to graduate students to expand their knowledge and experience in quantification of agricultural greenhouse gases.
Research projects are hosted by CCAFS and GRA members and partners. Funding for CLIFF-GRADS is provided by the Government of New Zealand and by the CGIAR Trust Fund and bilateral agreements in support of CCAFS.

Type: Training, Research, PhD

Eligibility: Applicants should have a background in agriculture and climate change research and be pursuing graduate research related to agricultural greenhouse gas quantification.
  • Applicants must be currently enrolled PhD students in a field related to quantification of greenhouse gas emissions or carbon sequestration in agricultural systems
  • Applicants must be students from a developing country
Selection Criteria: Applicants will be selected based on three criteria: (1) overall level of research experience, (2) relevance of thesis topic or other research experience to the research opportunity to which the student is applying, and (3) clear description of how the CLIFF-GRADS experience will improve the student’s scientific training

Number of Awards: 33

Value of Award:
  • Selected students will be sponsored in the amount of 10,00012,000 USD for short-term (4–6 month) scientific training and research stays to collaborate with projects associated with CCAFS and GRA.
  • The grants will be used to support travel to and living and research costs at the host institution. Grants may not be used for tuition or unrelated personal expenses.
Duration of Programme: 4-6 months

How to Apply:
1. The deadline for applications is September 30, 2019.
2. Applicants must complete the online CLIFF-GRADS Round 3 Survey, which can be found here.
3. Applicants must email a single PDF document containing their curriculum vitae (CV), motivation letter, and a letter of support from their current supervisor to cliffgrads@globalresearchalliance.org


Visit Programme Webpage for Details

$37,000 Facebook Fellowship Program 2020 for PhD Students

Application Deadline: 4th October 2019 11:59pm PST

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Domestic and International Students

To be taken at (country): Any country (excluding US embargoed countries)

Research Areas:
  • CommAI
  • Computational Social Science
  • Compute Storage and Efficiency
  • Computer Vision
  • Distributed Systems
  • Economics and Computation
  • Machine Learning
  • Natural Language Processing
  • Networking and Connectivity
  • Security/Privacy
  • Research Outside of the Above: relevant work in areas that may not align with the research priorities highlighted above.
About the Award: Giving people the power to share and connect requires constant innovation. At Facebook, research permeates everything we do. We believe the most interesting research questions are derived from real-world problems. Our engineers work on cutting edge research with a practical focus and push product boundaries every day. We believe that close relationships with the academic community will enable us to address many of these problems at a fundamental level and solve them.

Type: PhD, Fellowship

Selection Criteria and Eligibility
  • Full-time PhD students who are currently involved in on-going research.
  • Students work must be related to one or more relevant disciplines.
  • Students must be enrolled during the academic year(s) that the Fellowship is awarded.
  • The Fellowship Program is open to PhD students globally who are enrolled in an accredited university in any country.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Each Facebook Fellowship includes several benefits:
  • Tuition and fees will be paid for the academic year (up to two years).
  • $37K grant (one-time payment during each academic year).
  • Up to $5,000 in conference travel support.
  • Paid visit to Facebook HQ to present research.
  • Opportunity for a paid internship at Facebook.
Duration of Scholarship: Facebook Fellowship Award to cover two years!

Required application materials:
  • 1-2 page research summary which clearly identifies the area of focus, importance to the field, and applicability to Facebook of the anticipated research during the award. Please reference the topical areas below.
  • Student’s CV (with email, phone and mailing address). Please include applicable coursework.
  • 2 letters of recommendation (one must be from an academic advisor).
How to Apply: The Application is now live. Go to the Site and enter your information.

Visit scholarship webpage for details

American Apocalypse

John W. Whitehead 

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out … without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.”
— H. L. Mencken
The U.S. government is working hard to destabilize the nation.
No, this is not another conspiracy theory.
Although it is certainly not far-fetched to suggest that the government might be engaged in nefarious activities that run counter to the best interests of the American people, doing so will likely brand me a domestic terrorist under the FBI’s new classification system.
Observe for yourself what is happening right before our eyes.
Domestic terrorism fueled by government entrapment schemes. Civil unrest stoked to dangerous levels by polarizing political rhetoric. A growing intolerance for dissent that challenges the government’s power grabs. Police brutality tacitly encouraged by the executive branch, conveniently overlooked by the legislatures, and granted qualified immunity by the courts. A weakening economy exacerbated by government schemes that favor none but a select few. An overt embrace of domestic surveillance tactics if Congress goes along with the Trump Administration’s request to permanently re-authorize the NSA’s de-activated call records program. Heightened foreign tensions and blowback due to the military industrial complex’s profit-driven quest to police and occupy the globe.
The seeds of chaos are being sown, and it’s the U.S. government that will reap the harvest.
Mark my words, there’s trouble brewing.
The training video is only five minutes long, but it says a lot about the government’s mindset, the way its views the citizenry, and the so-called “problems” that the government must be prepared to address in the near future through the use of martial law.
Even more troubling, however, is what this military video doesn’t say about the Constitution, about the rights of the citizenry, and about the dangers of locking down the nation and using the military to address political and social problems.
The training video anticipates that all hell will break loose by 2030—that’s barely ten short years away—but the future is here ahead of schedule.
We’re already witnessing a breakdown of society on virtually every front.
By waging endless wars abroad, by bringing the instruments of war home, by transforming police into extensions of the military, by turning a free society into a suspect society, by treating American citizens like enemy combatants, by discouraging and criminalizing a free exchange of ideas, by making violence its calling card through SWAT team raids and militarized police, by fomenting division and strife among the citizenry, by acclimating the citizenry to the sights and sounds of war, and by generally making peaceful revolution all but impossible, the government has engineered an environment in which domestic violence is becoming almost inevitable.
The danger signs are screaming out a message
The government is anticipating trouble (read: civil unrest), which is code for anything that challenges the government’s authority, wealth and power.
According to the Pentagon training video created by the Army for U.S. Special Operations Command, the U.S. government is grooming its armed forces to solve future domestic political and social problems.
What they’re really talking about is martial law, packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security.
The chilling five-minute training video, obtained by The Intercept through a FOIA request and made available online, paints an ominous picture of the future—a future the military is preparing for—bedeviled by “criminal networks,” “substandard infrastructure,” “religious and ethnic tensions,” “impoverishment, slums,” “open landfills, over-burdened sewers,” a “growing mass of unemployed,” and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have nots.
And then comes the kicker.
Three-and-a-half minutes into the Pentagon’s dystopian vision of “a world of Robert Kaplan-esque urban hellscapes — brutal and anarchic supercities filled with gangs of youth-gone-wild, a restive underclass, criminal syndicates, and bands of malicious hackers,” the ominous voice of the narrator speaks of a need to “drain the swamps.”
Drain the swamps.
Surely, we’ve heard that phrase before?
Ah yes.
Emblazoned on t-shirts and signs, shouted at rallies, and used as a rallying cry among Trump supporters, “drain the swamp” became one of Donald Trump’s most-used campaign slogans.
Far from draining the politically corrupt swamps of Washington DC of lobbyists and special interest groups, however, the Trump Administration has further mired us in a sweltering bog of corruption and self-serving tactics.
Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Now the government has adopted its own plans for swamp-draining, only it wants to use the military to drain the swamps of futuristic urban American cities of “noncombatants and engage the remaining adversaries in high intensity conflict within.”
And who are these noncombatants, a military term that refers to civilians who are not engaged in fighting?
They are, according to the Pentagon, “adversaries.”
They are “threats.”
They are the “enemy.”
They are people who don’t support the government, people who live in fast-growing urban communities, people who may be less well-off economically than the government and corporate elite, people who engage in protests, people who are unemployed, people who engage in crime (in keeping with the government’s fast-growing, overly broad definition of what constitutes a crime).
In other words, in the eyes of the U.S. military, noncombatants are American citizens a.k.a. domestic extremists a.k.a. enemy combatants who must be identified, targeted, detained, contained and, if necessary, eliminated.
In the future imagined by the Pentagon, any walls and prisons that are built will be used to protect the societal elite—the haves—from the have-nots.
If you haven’t figured it out already, we the people are the have-nots.
Suddenly it all begins to make sense.
The events of recent years: the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers.
The government is systematically locking down the nation and shifting us into martial law.
This is how you prepare a populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.
You don’t scare them by making dramatic changes. Rather, you acclimate them slowly to their prison walls.
Persuade the citizenry that their prison walls are merely intended to keep them safe and danger out. Desensitize them to violence, acclimate them to a military presence in their communities, and persuade them that there is nothing they can do to alter the seemingly hopeless trajectory of the nation.
Before long, no one will even notice the floundering economy, the blowback arising from military occupations abroad, the police shootings, the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure and all of the other mounting concerns.
It’s happening already.
The sight of police clad in body armor and gas masks, wielding semiautomatic rifles and escorting an armored vehicle through a crowded street, a scene likened to “a military patrol through a hostile city,” no longer causes alarm among the general populace.
Few seem to care about the government’s endless wars abroad that leave communities shattered, families devastated and our national security at greater risk of blowback.
The Deep State’s tactics are working.
We’ve allowed ourselves to be acclimated to the occasional lockdown of government buildings, Jade Helm military drills in small towns so that special operations forces can get “realistic military training” in “hostile” territory, and  Live Active Shooter Drill training exercises, carried out at schools, in shopping malls, and on public transit, which can and do fool law enforcement officials, students, teachers and bystanders into thinking it’s a real crisis.
Still, you can’t say we weren’t warned about the government’s nefarious schemes to lock down the nation.
Back in 2008, an Army War College report revealed that “widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremes to defend basic domestic order and human security.” The 44-page report went on to warn that potential causes for such civil unrest could include another terrorist attack, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”
In 2009, reports by the Department of Homeland Security surfaced that labelled right-wing and left-wing activists and military veterans as extremists (a.k.a. terrorists) and called on the government to subject such targeted individuals to full-fledged pre-crime surveillance. Almost a decade later, after spending billions to fight terrorism, the DHS concluded that the greater threat is not ISIS but domestic right-wing extremism.
Meanwhile, the government has been amassing an arsenal of military weapons for use domestically and equipping and training their “troops” for war. Even government agencies with largely administrative functions such as the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Smithsonian have been acquiring body armor, riot helmets and shields, cannon launchers and police firearms and ammunition. In fact, there are now at least 120,000 armed federal agents carrying such weapons who possess the power to arrest.
Rounding out this profit-driven campaign to turn American citizens into enemy combatants (and America into a battlefield) is a technology sector that has been colluding with the government to create a Big Brother that is all-knowing, all-seeing and inescapable. It’s not just the drones, fusion centers, license plate readers, stingray devices and the NSA that you have to worry about. You’re also being tracked by the black boxes in your cars, your cell phone, smart devices in your home, grocery loyalty cards, social media accounts, credit cards, streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, and e-book reader accounts.
All of this has taken place right under our noses, funded with our taxpayer dollars and carried out in broad daylight without so much as a general outcry from the citizenry.
And then you have the government’s Machiavellian schemes for unleashing all manner of dangers on an unsuspecting populace, then demanding additional powers in order to protect “we the people” from the threats.
Seriously, think about it.
The government claims to be protecting us from cyberterrorism, but who is the biggest black market buyer and stockpiler of cyberweapons (weaponized malware that can be used to hack into computer systems, spy on citizens, and destabilize vast computer networks)? The U.S. government.
The government claims to be protecting us from weapons of mass destruction, but what country has one the deadliest arsenals of weapons of mass destruction and has a history of using them on the rest of the world? The U.S. government. Indeed, which country has a history of secretly testing out dangerous weapons and technologies on its own citizens? The U.S. government.
The government claims to be protecting us from foreign armed threats, but who is the largest weapons manufacturer and exporter in the world, such that they are literally arming the world? The U.S. government. For that matter, where did ISIS get many of their deadliest weapons, including assault rifles and tanks to anti-missile defenses? From the U.S. government.
The government claims to be protecting the world from the menace of foreign strongmen, but how did Saddam Hussein build Iraq’s massive arsenal? The U.S. government.
The government claims to be protecting us from terrorist plots, but what country has a pattern and practice of entrapment that involves targeting vulnerable individuals, feeding them with the propaganda, know-how and weapons intended to turn them into terrorists, and then arresting them as part of an elaborately orchestrated counterterrorism sting? The U.S. government.
For that matter, the government claims to be protecting us from nuclear threats, but which is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in wartime? The United States.
Are you getting the picture yet?
The U.S. government isn’t protecting us from terrorism.
The U.S. government is creating the terror. It is, in fact, the source of the terror.
Just think about it for a minute: Cyberwarfare. Terrorism. Bio-chemical attacks. The nuclear arms race. Surveillance. The drug wars.
Almost every national security threat that the government has claimed greater powers in order to fight—all the while undermining the liberties of the American citizenry—has been manufactured in one way or another by the government.
Did I say Machiavellian? This is downright evil.
We’re not dealing with a government that exists to serve its people, protect their liberties and ensure their happiness. Rather, these are the diabolical machinations of a make-works program carried out on an epic scale whose only purpose is to keep the powers-that-be permanently (and profitably) employed.
It’s time to wake up and stop being deceived by government propaganda.
Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats.
I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law.
I’m referring to the corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House.
Be warned: in the future envisioned by the government, we will not be viewed as Republicans or Democrats. Rather, “we the people” will be enemies of the state.
For years, the government has been warning against the dangers of domestic terrorism, erecting surveillance systems to monitor its own citizens, creating classification systems to label any viewpoints that challenge the status quo as extremist, and training law enforcement agencies to equate anyone possessing anti-government views as a domestic terrorist.
What the government failed to explain was that the domestic terrorists would be of the government’s own making, and that “we the people” would become enemy #1.
As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we’re already enemies of the state.
You want to change things? Start by rejecting the political labels and the polarizing rhetoric and the “us vs. them” tactics that reduce the mass power of the populace to puny, powerless factions.
Find common ground with your fellow citizens and push back against the government’s brutality, inhumanity, greed, corruption and power grabs.
Be dangerous in the best way possible: by thinking for yourself, by refusing to be silenced, by choosing sensible solutions over political expediency and bureaucracy.
When all is said and done, the solution to what ails this country is really not that complicated: decency, compassion, common sense, generosity balanced by fiscal responsibility, fairness, a commitment to freedom principles, and a firm rejection of the craven, partisan politics of the Beltway elites who have laid the groundwork for the government’s authoritarian coup d’etat.
Let the revolution begin.