Building anti-imperialist solidarity in the United States: The need for internationalism

“…the U.S. state was born in violence and maintains its existence through brute force and coercion inside the country and abroad.”
Global Research, October 25, 2016

Address delivered to the International League of Peoples Struggle (ILPS) U.S. Chapter Conference

Abayomi Azikiwe Speaks at the International League of Peoples Struggle US Chapter National Conference, Chicago Oct. 22, 2016 (Photo by Danielle Boachie)

There is a fundamental weakness in the peoples’ movement in the United States and that is the necessity for anti-imperialist internationalism.

The struggles against racism, national oppression and class exploitation cannot be separated from the need to end Washington’s and Wall Street’s interference in the internal affairs of most states throughout the world.

In order to win recognition in these monumental struggles it is heavily dependent upon the degree to which we can create widespread awareness of the plight of the people of color communities and the working class in general. There are efforts underway to achieve these objectives although much more work has to be done.

Racist State Violence

International consciousness in regard to the character of the U.S. state is growing immensely. This is in part due to the mass demonstrations and urban rebellions which have sprung up by and large spontaneously in response to the vigilante death of Trayvon Martin in 2012 and the not-guilty verdict handed down in the trial of George Zimmerman. When Zimmerman’s acquittal was announced it did more to turn public opinion domestically and internationally against institutions which devalue African American life and democratic rights. It was during this period that the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter began to trend. Since then there have been efforts to build BLM chapters across the U.S., spreading internationally into the United Kingdom and Latin America.

Later on August 9, 2014, in Ferguson, Missouri, 18-year-old Michael Brown was gunned down by a white police officer. Immediately demonstrations erupted in Ferguson both nonviolent and violent. These manifestations spread nationally bringing attention to the false notion that America had become a so-called “post-racial society” in the period following the election of President Barack Obama in 2008.

Obama, who was forced to address the problems of the “special oppression” of African Americans after the unrest in Ferguson, the situation of African Americans gained international attention prompting editorials in leading periodicals both in the U.S. and internationally questioning this false assertion of post-racialism.

The administration responded in its signature dubious fashion leaning in favor of maintaining the status-quo of national oppression. Obama, of course, gave his view of what “African Americans feel” and in the next instance denounces violence saying it will not accomplish anything. This is a blatant falsehood because the U.S. state was born in violence and maintains its existence through brute force and coercion inside the country and abroad.

What these developments further exposed was the failure of the Obama administration to not only have refused to address the special oppression of African Americans but to also advance a policy of public avoidance in the face of worsening social conditions.

It was the African American masses and other oppressed groups who suffered the brunt of the economic crisis beginning in 2007. Detroit was one of the hardest hit urban areas and when Obama came into office in 2009, there was considerable “false hope” that these difficulties would attract the attention of the White House and the-then majority Democratic House and Senate (2008-2010).

Subsequent rebellions and waves of mass demonstrations in the streets, campuses, and now athletic fields, have stripped the administration of any pretense of political legitimacy. Colin Kapernick and others within professional, college and high school sports settings illustrated that no matter how they are classified as “privileged”, the specter of racist violence remains within their purview. No matter how “privileged” these people are the threats from the armed agents of the state remains with them at all times. Racism is on the increase in the U.S. and the refusal of the ruling class and the capitalist state to advance any reforms in this regard speaks volumes about the current phases of imperialism and its public posture.

The Crisis of U.S. Capitalism and Its Global Implications

The degree to which the capitalist class can claim any semblance of a “recovery” is related to the expansion of low-wage labor and the mega-profits of transnational corporations. This is reinforced by the systematic defunding of public education, municipal services and environmental safeguards.

Continue reading

Putin’s warning to journalists at Economic Forum (VIDEO)

Global Research, October 25, 2016
Fort Russ 25 July 2016

The video below highlights President Vladimir Putin’s keynote presentation at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, June 2016, including his conversations with members of the media.

Putin reviews the confrontation between Washington and Moscow and highlights the real dangers of nuclear war.

“Today, there is no instrument in international law that prevents the possibility of mutually assured destruction. Putin has been sending out warnings for over 10 years – all of which fell on deaf ears.”

English sub-titles and analysis (below): our thanks to Fort Russ

Nobody has anything to gain from a nuclear stand-off against Russia. The power hungry decision-makers are few in number, but powerful enough to have subverted mainstream media to misrepresent Russia as the main threat to international security.

Back in 2007, Putin informed the Western world that Russia will develop its weaponry to counter US advances. This was said in response to the US missile defense system that was starting to be developed at the time (previously prohibited in international law.)

With the NATO missile defense system on Russia’s doorstep – the threat to international security is very real; not that you would know it via mainstream Murdoch media.

In 2002, the United States unilaterally and without consultation, withdrew from the landmark Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. President George W. Bush noted that the treaty is “now behind us,” describing the ABM Treaty as a Cold War relic.

Signed in 1972, the ABM Treaty barred both the US and the USSR from deploying national defenses against long-range ballistic missiles. The treaty was based on the premise that if either superpower constructed a strategic defense, the other would build up its offensive nuclear forces to offset the defense.

The superpowers would therefore quickly be put on a path toward a never-ending offensive-defensive arms race, as each tried to balance its counterpart’s actions. Until Bush took office, the Treaty was referred to as a “cornerstone of strategic stability” because it facilitated later agreements, reducing U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals.

The US, assuming that a weakened Russia will never again be in a position to counter US hegemonic power, proceeded to encroach on Russia’s borders through its manipulation of NATO objectives.

Today, there is no instrument in international law that prevents the possibility of mutually assured destruction. Putin has been sending out warnings for over 10 years – all of which fell on deaf ears.

Who will push the button first?

U.S. seeks to deploy Marines to Norway, escalating tension with Russia

Recall that U.S. officials want to keep this as an “away” game and not a “home” game. An “away” game is where the “game” is “played” on someone else’s home territory. The U.S. government uses other countries as pawns in its “game” for world domination.
It will use terrorism to encourage countries to do what it wishes. If the Norwegian Parliament acts in wisdom and to preserve its sovereignty and denies this “request”, it will be the recipient of terrorist acts or false flag attacks to get it to submit to American will and to convince Norwegians that Russia, not America, is the aggressor. Norway can appease America, or it can stand with other countries for truth. As the world found out during World War II, appeasement never works because the lust of power and acquisition is never satisfied.
Global Research, October 24, 2016
True Activist 21 October 2016
nato encirclement

Norway is debating a “long-standing US wish” to allow American marines to deploy troops in the Scandinavian nation, furthering NATO’s encirclement of Russia.

Norway may allow the United States to deploy up to 300 marines “on a rotational basis” on its soil, advancing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) long-standing goal of encircling Russia’s border with US-allied military assets.

The marines would be stationed in Vaernes, an air station just outside the Norwegian city of Trondheim – only 100 kilometers from Russia. NATO has claimed that this move is part of a long-standing effort to deter “Russian aggression” despite the fact that Russia has in no way threatened Norway or other countries on its borders. NATO ended cooperation with Russia following the Ukrainian coup of 2014, which led Russia to annex Crimea. According to Norwegian Defense Ministry spokeswoman Ann Kristin Salbuvik, “there is no question of permanent deployment” as the presence of the Marines would be temporary, though no timeline has been specified.


Credit – USMC Life

Not everyone in the Norwegian government was aware of the plan until it was publicly announced last week. Several members of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee were kept unaware of the plan, which has allegedly been in the planning stages for quite some time, according to local media. The plan, before being enacted, must first be approved by the Norwegian Parliament, where it faces opposition from several political parties. US officials, however, maintain that 300 US marines in Norway would be “beneficial.” Norway s already stockpiling NATO weapons and, according to some reports, has enough military equipment to support around 15,000 US Marines.

The move will undoubtedly further escalate tensions between Russia and Norway as any presence of US troops in the country would break Norway’s promise not to deploy foreign troops in its territory – a promise it made in 1949. However, the promise was conditional on Norway not feeling threatened. Norway has not publicly announced feeling threatened by Russia or any other country. Meanwhile, NATO has also announced plans to deploy 4,000 more troops to the Baltic region, also on Russia’s border, by next May. According to the commanding officer of NATO’s European forces, Czech Army General Petr Pavel, the troops will “serve as a deterrent and if necessary a fighting force.”

Since the Ukrainian coup of 2014, NATO has overseen a military buildup unprecedented since 1941, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Russia has been on edge regarding the buildup and has threatened to respond numerous time, but neglected to militarize its Western border until relatively recently. The buildup has also coincided with increasingly dangerous developments in US-Russian relations over the Syrian conflict, with each side accusing the other of helping ISIS and needlessly killing civilians. With US-dominated NATO rubbing salt in the wound, it is no small wonder that Russians are preparing for the worst case scenario – a full-scale, global war between NATO and those who oppose its interests.

Why the Brookings Institution and the Washington establishment love wars

Global Research, October 24, 2016

Washington’s public relations operations for the military contracting firms that surround the US Capitol aren’t by for-profit PR firms, so much as they’re by ‘non-profit’ foundations and think tanks, which present that ‘non-profit’ cover for their sales-promotion campaigns on behalf of the real beneficiaries: owners and top executives of these gigantic ‘defense’ contracting corporations, such as Lockheed Martin, and Booz Allen Hamilton.

Among the leading propagandists for invading Iraq back in 2002 were Kenn Pollack  and Michael O’Hanlon, both with the Brookings Institution; and both propagandists still are frequently interviewed by American ‘news’ media as being ‘experts’ on international relations, when all they ever really have been is salesmen for US invasions, such as that 2003 invasion, which destroyed Iraq and cost US taxpayers $3 trillion+ or $4.4 trillion – benefiting only the few beneficiaries and their agents, such as the top executives of these ‘non-profits,’ which receive a small portion of the take, as servants usually do.

More recently, Brookings’s Shadi Hamid headlined on 14 September 2013, «The US-Russian Deal on Syria: A Victory for Assad», and the PR-servant there, Dr Hamid, argued that

 «Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is effectively being rewarded for the use of chemical weapons, rather than ‘punished’ as originally planned… Assad and his Russian backers played on Obama’s most evident weakness, exploiting his desire to find a way – any way – out of military action… One might be forgiven for thinking that this was Assad’s plan all along, to use chemical weapons as bait, to agree to inspections after using them, and then to return to conventional killing».

Three weeks after that Brookings ‘expert’ had issued it, the great investigative journalist Christof Lehmann, on 7 October 2014, headlined and offered facts to the exact contrary at his nsnbc news site,

«Top US and Saudi Officials Responsible for Chemical Weapons in Syria», and he opened by summarizing his extensive case: «Evidence leads directly to the White House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi Arabia´s Interior Ministry».

Then, on 14 January 2014, the MIT professor Theodore Postal and the former UN weapons-inspector Richard Lloyd performed a detailed analysis of the rocket that had delivered the sarin, and found that it had been fired from territory controlled by the anti-Assad rebels, not by Assad’s forces. Then, yet another great investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, bannered in the London Review of Books, on 17 April 2014, «The Red Line and the Rat Line: Seymour M Hersh on Obama, Erdoğan and the Syrian rebels», and he reported that what had actually stopped Obama from invading Syria was Obama’s embarrassment at British intelligence having discovered that Obama’s case against Assad regarding the gas attack was fake.

Obama suddenly needed a face-saving way to cancel his pre-announced American bombing campaign to bring down the Assad government, since he wouldn’t have even the UK as an ally in it: 

«Obama’s change of mind [weakening his ardor against Assad] had its origins at Porton Down, the [British] defense laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn’t hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff».

Did Dr Hamid or any other Brookings ‘expert’ ever issue a correction and make note of of their earlier falsehoods, or did they all instead hide this crucially important reality – that not only was the rocket fired from rebel territory but its sarin formula was different from that in Syria’s arsenals, and the actual suppliers were the US, Sauds, Qataris, and Turks – did they not correct their prior war-mongering misrepresentations, but instead hide the fact that the Obama allegations had been exposed to have been frauds and that Obama himself had been one of the planners behind the sarin gas attack? They hid the truth.

Back on 14 June 2013, a Brookings team of Dr Hamid, with Bruce Riedel, Daniel L Byman, Michael Doran, and Tamara Cofman Wittes, had headlined, «Syria, the US, and Arming the Rebels: Assad’s Use of Chemical Weapons and Obama’s Red Line», and they alleged that, although «President Obama has been extremely reluctant to get involved in Syria», «Regime change is the only way to end this conflict», and they applauded the «confirmation that the Assad regime used chemical weapons in Syria», but doubted that Obama would bomb Syria hard enough and often enough. None of them ever subsequently acknowledged that, in fact, they had misstated (been suckered by a US government fraud, if even they had believed it), and that Obama actually drove this hoax harder than his Joint Chiefs of Staff had advised him to.

Continue reading

Is Motorola’s assassination the last straw? Zakharchenko press conference (VIDEO)

October 17th, 2016 – Fort Russ News –

Ministry of Information for DNR – Translated by Inessa Sinchougova
…Givi and Motorola have become figureheads of the conflict in the Donbass. While Western mainstream media paints a picture of “Russian Aggression” in the Ukraine, it is the Kiev US-funded Junta that is attacking the Donbass. These men have been defending their land since the start of the conflict. Poroshenko will not hold a referendum in this area because he is fully aware he will lose Novorossia (Donbass), as he did the Crimea.
On 16 October 2016, Motorola was cowardly killed with a remotely-controlled explosive device, placed in the elevator of his own home. The message delivered by the leader of the self-named Donetsk Republic is awfully chilling. It is official that the Minsk Agreement is dead. For those not in the know – the Minsk agreement provided a set of instructions, basically a ceasefire, for both sides…

DPR commander Arsen “Motorola” Pavlov assassinated

From Fort Russ

October 16, 2016 – Fort Russ News –
By J. Arnoldski – 

The commander of the Sparta battalion of the Donetsk People’s Republic and famous defender of Donbass known by his callsign “Motorola,” Arsen Pavlov, was killed today, October 16th, by a bomb in his apartment building’s elevator. The incident has been officially confirmed as an assassination carried out by Ukrainian special forces. 
Over the course of the war in Donbass, Ukrainian media claimed dozens of times that Motorola had been killed. This time, however, reliable sources have confirmed the news.
The Ministry of Defense of the DPR has officially stated that “According to preliminary information, Motorola was killed as a result of a terrorist operation of a Ukrainian sabotage and reconnaissance group. Upon returning home, a remote-detonated explosive device was set off in the elevator.” 
Interfax was similarly told by an “informed source” that “According to preliminary information, in the elevator of the house in which Arsen Pavlov lived, an improvised explosive device was detonated. The militiaman, as planned, was in the epicenter of the explosion at the moment and was fatally traumatized.” 
According to numerous news sources in Russia and Donbass, a state of emergency has been announced in Donetsk and an investigation has been launched. The DPR’s defense ministry has since announced that a tightened “anti-terrorist regime” is in effect. 

Motorola, who became an internationally recognized icon of the Donbass people’s defense forces, is famous for having participated in the most intense battles of the war since the beginning of the conflict. 
Having been subjected to numerous assassination attempts over the past two years, the last one was on August 25th, but failed. 

Motorola’s last known assignment was being sent to the Lugansk People’s Republic to provide security during the suppression of an alleged coup attempt.

Ukraine: NATO military instructors were onboard helicopter shot down attacking Donbass

Global Research, October 17, 2016
South Front 16 October 2016

Military instructors from NATO countries were onboard a combat helicopter, shot down by servicemen of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) on October 13, deputy commander of the Operational Command of the republic, Eduard Basurin, said on Friday.

“According to preliminary information, foreign mercenaries – instructors from the NATO, were in the downed helicopter. The area of the incidence [with the helicopter] is cordoned off for several days, cellular communication is disabled,” the RIA Novosti news agency quoted the words of the representative of the DPR Defense Ministry.

According to head of the DPR Alexander Zakharchenko, UAVs attempted to attack the territory of the republic under the cover of the military helicopter, which was put out of action, but managed to land on the territory of Donbass, occupied by the Kiev Forces. DPR soldiers shot the enemy’s helicopter down, while it was attacking their positions. According to the DPR intelligence, the incapacitated helicopter landed near Krasngotovka.

The use of combat aircraft and drones, with the exception of UAVs of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM), is prohibited along the entire contact line by the Minsk Agreements.

The last time, Kiev used aircraft in Donbass on January 18, 2015. On that day, several the Su-25 fighter jets were noticed in the sky near Gorlovka.