offguardian--2020-12-08--Dissenting Voices: Finding Courage to Speak Against Your Assailant

A man in a white lab coat with advanced degrees in medicine sexually abused hundreds of young girl gymnasts in his office , sometimes while their parents stood nearby .
Michigan State University professor and USA gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar penetrated girls , most younger than 16 , some younger than 13 , with an ungloved hand , saying he was examining them internally , doing check-ups necessary for them to perform as young athletes .
This doctor continued his abuse of hundreds of girls over many years .
For years , girls told other coaches , the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly told USA gymnastics officials .
And yet , Nassar was not stopped until his arrest in 2016 .
The girls obeyed .
Hundreds of parents kept taking their daughters to see him .
Girls must have complained .
Some probably vomited quietly in the bathroom later or cried by themselves .
They kept competing in gymnastics events .
How was this doctor able to do what he did over these many years ?
Well-meaning parents , coaches , teachers , attending nurses ; hundreds of adults surrounded this man while he violated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He was able to do this because he was an “ expert ” , a “ scientist ” , someone whom others were certain knew… more than they did… what was best .
He wore a white lab coat and had diplomas on his office walls .
He had a high salary , a long career , a staff , and institutions behind him .
In this time of lockdowns , church and business restrictions and closures , immeasurable harms , pervasive losses , and debilitating fear in response to a virus with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent for most people , we have continued to hear the slogan , trust “ the Science ” or follow ( or obey ) “ the Science ” and “ the Scientists.
” Obey government controls and “ the Science ” a bit longer , and it will get better .
Further , those who question “ the Science ” and do not conform – or even merely think differently – are named and targeted as dangerous .
The virus is real , sicknesses and deaths are real , of course , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and traumas from measures thought to mitigate it .
Further , some have made huge sums of money during this time while others have lost everything – and some will make huge sums from vaccines .
When “ Science ” is funded by corporations and special interest groups , we may learn by asking , “ Who writes the checks , and who gets paid ?
” I thought science had always been about questioning , and yet lately , questioners are degraded as ignorant , superstitious , or heretical .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Science ” or “ Obey the Science ” have begun to sound more like Biblical literalists , not at all like what I have understood science to be .
We have been told that we must obey the literal last word of “ The Science ” .
But whose science ?
Funded and led by whom and to what purpose ?
Published “ science ” on this virus has changed monthly , even weekly , over many months .
Masks are ineffective ; wear masks .
Wipe surfaces ; no need to wipe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not live on surfaces .
Asymptomatic spread is common ; asymptomatic spread is rare .
In addition , many scientists have noted that the tests for the infection are often unreliable .
Confusions and contradictions have been dizzying .
Hydroxychloroquine , Zinc , and Azithromycin have been used around the world to prevent and effectively treat this virus in early stages and yet , scientists who share information on these drugs are maligned , threatened , and sometimes fired .
How is this science ?
Now , almost nine months into lockdowns , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gathering for holidays , and questioners are still being called ignorant , psychopathic , uneducated , uncaring , and are also accused of getting people killed .
How is this science ?
Science involves constant scrutiny and questioning , positing hypotheses , then continually examining and testing them in order to disprove them .
Further , a universe of hypotheses opens for our consideration .
Responsible science was never , “ This is the Science , period , now shut up.
” In the Stanley Milgram experiment in the 1960s , a man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ volunteers to administer increasing levels of electric shocks to a person on the other side of a partition , when the person gave a wrong answer to a question .
The experiment was staged , and the shocks not real , but participants did not know this .
Some administered near lethal shock levels .
Subjects thought the experiment was in learning , but experimenters were actually studying conformity and obedience to an authority figure .
When people became uncomfortable and did not want to continue administering shocks , the man in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The experiment requires that you continue.
” Lately , we may substitute the word , “ science ” for “ experiment ” as in , “ The science requires that you continue.
” Participants continued pressing a button to shock another person even while the person screamed in pain .
The screams were not real , but participants did not know this .
How did experimenters get people to comply and administer almost lethal shocks to another human being ?
They complied because the white-lab-coated man was an expert .
A scientist .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not know that .
They thought surely the scientist must know more than them .
History of science is filled with examples of scientists , especially medical doctors , who were horribly , even fatally , wrong .
Bloodletting , leeches , cauterizations of the uterus are a few of the treatments described in For Her Own Good : 150 Years of Experts Advice to Women by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English ( Anchor Books/ Doubleday , 1978 ) .
In the late 18th century , doctors , touting science , moved to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relationships and wholistic approaches .
Doctors advocated more active , quantifiable , “ heroic ” measures .
They focused on doing something .
Bloodletting was another regular remedy of the time , in addition to other “ cleansings , ” including inducing vomiting and using laxatives and enemas .
Bloodletting was used by physicians well into the 20th century for many ailments ; including accidents , malaria , childhood fevers , pregnancy discomfort , and anemia .
…according to Ehrenreich and English , who examined historical documents and biographies of the time ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was common during the yellow fever epidemic of 1873 .
Laxative purges , accomplished by the administration of calomel , a mercury salt , were considered an all-purpose remedy for everything from teething pain and diarrhea to chronic diseases .
According to historians , physicians knew of these side effects but performed these procedures anyway .
In For Her Own Good , historian Ann Douglas Wood describes treatments used in the mid-nineteenth century for almost any female complaint – manual investigation , leeching , injections , and cauterization ( without anaesthetic except a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ William Potts Dewees , an American medical professor , and Dr. Hughes Bennett , a famous English gynaecologist , widely read in the U.S. , … These men were scientists and doctors ; people listened to them and did as they directed .
Questionable , even barbaric , practices have been carried out in the name of science .
Eugenics programs advocated and performed forced sterilizations in the U.S. well into the 20th century and some in the 21st century .
Lobotomies and electroconvulsive shocks for the mentally ill were supported by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing the right thing .
Those who listened to them and submitted to their authority believed them .
Certainties may cause us to wonder .
During the run up to the U.S. war in Iraq , across almost every major media outlet , we heard over and over words like “ indisputable , ” “ irrefutable ” about the “ evidence , ” supporting the necessity of war .
We heard that war was “ inevitable , ” was “ inexorable , ” that the science was unquestionable .
Former General Colin Powell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind him while he held a vial of some substance , to demonstrate the science .
People who questioned that war ’ s absolute and immediate necessity were mocked , bullied , vilified , fired , threatened , sometimes even with death .
We learn and change and do differently .
Outliers , outsiders , and challengers often lead us to new and important discoveries .
And yet , lately our culture seems to suggest that those questioning “ the Science ” or the “ scientists ” should be condemned or not allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many scientists disagree .
Lately , we have been told , and many believe , that speaking up or stepping out of line may get us killed – or may get someone we love killed .
This strikes me as a dangerous psychological trick .
Stepping away from dominant groups or voicing alternatives to dominant narratives can be very difficult .
It can sometimes feel , or actually be , life-threatening .
And yet , once you have had to speak up , perhaps alone , against a dominant group , or a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or the life of a loved one if you speak , you are forever changed .
You may never be able to comply automatically and without question with the white-lab-coated scientist , telling you to press the button or the doctor , telling you to lie back on the table , or the scientist telling you to take the pill .
An assault survivor may be told by their assailant , “ If you speak up , or step out of line , I ’ ll kill you – or your family.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from , “ If you speak up or step out of line , it ’ ll kill you ” ( the virus ) .
Or alternatively that you ( or it ) will kill someone you love .
Those who have gathered courage to stand and speak against an assailant ; a dominant group ; an authority figure , may have a lot to teach us .
My friend , Lucy , killed herself twenty-five years ago .
Her father , a Christian missionary and leader in the church and in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ church did not believe her when she told .
They turned their backs .
Her mother did not believe her .
Lucy spoke the truth of her experience even though she thought she may die .
She stood against a church and its leaders and her own family .
Sadly , Lucy did not survive .
But I have — and can remember her and share her story .
Boys in State College , Pennsylvania were raped by Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky from 1994 – 2009 while many suspected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing .
Those boys had to speak up against Sandusky , his wife , a whole football program , an entire town and culture that revered the sport , and a university built around the famous program .
They had to tell their mothers , mothers who had believed Sandusky , a man who had started a non-profit organization to help and guide young boys .
Many sexual abuse survivors have had to stand against the Catholic Church .
You are forever changed after standing up against powerful groups , institutions , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the military , the town , the national scouting program , the department , “ the Science ” .
I admire those who have had to do so , often initially alone .
It can feel in the beginning like you may die , whether or not someone actually threatened you with death .
And yet , people trust their hearts and instincts and speak up anyway , usually at great cost .
Many , including brave children , have stood and spoken when their conscience , their instincts , their safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to do otherwise .
Once you have had to do this , it becomes much harder to believe , without question , that “ everybody ” knows better than you do , the authority figure knows better than you do , that the narrative must be swallowed whole .
You have been irrevocably changed .
You have faced death or the prospect of death .
You have faced the threat… “ Speak up or act up and I ’ ll ( it ’ ll ) kill you ” Christine E. Black ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Review , 13th Moon , American Journal of Poetry , New Millennium Writings , Nimrod International , Red Rock Review , The Virginia Journal of Education , Friends Journal , The Veteran , Sojourners Magazine , Iris Magazine , English Journal , Amethyst Review , and other publications .
Her poetry has been nominated for a Pushcart Prize and the Pablo Neruda Prize .

Christine E. Black
A man in a white lab coat with advanced degrees in medicine sexually abused hundreds of young girl gymnasts in his office, sometimes while their parents stood nearby. Michigan State University professor and USA gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar penetrated girls, most younger than 16, some younger than 13, with an ungloved hand, saying he was examining them internally, doing check-ups necessary for them to perform as young athletes. This doctor continued his abuse of hundreds of girls over many years.
For years, girls told other coaches, the police, university administrators, psychologists. They repeatedly told USA gymnastics officials. And yet, Nassar was not stopped until his arrest in 2016. The girls obeyed. Hundreds of parents kept taking their daughters to see him. Girls must have complained. Some probably vomited quietly in the bathroom later or cried by themselves. They kept competing in gymnastics events.
How was this doctor able to do what he did over these many years?
Well-meaning parents, coaches, teachers, attending nurses; hundreds of adults surrounded this man while he violated young girl athletes in plain view. He was able to do this because he was an “expert”, a “scientist”, someone whom others were certain knew… more than they did… what was best.
He wore a white lab coat and had diplomas on his office walls. He had a high salary, a long career, a staff, and institutions behind him.
*
In this time of lockdowns, church and business restrictions and closures, immeasurable harms, pervasive losses, and debilitating fear in response to a virus with a survival rate of higher than 99 percent for most people, we have continued to hear the slogan, trust “the Science” or follow (or obey) “the Science” and “the Scientists.” Obey government controls and “the Science” a bit longer, and it will get better.
Further, those who question “the Science” and do not conform – or even merely think differently – are named and targeted as dangerous.
The virus is real, sicknesses and deaths are real, of course, while also real are the harms, deaths, and traumas from measures thought to mitigate it.
Further, some have made huge sums of money during this time while others have lost everything – and some will make huge sums from vaccines.
When “Science” is funded by corporations and special interest groups, we may learn by asking, “Who writes the checks, and who gets paid?”
I thought science had always been about questioning, and yet lately, questioners are degraded as ignorant, superstitious, or heretical. Those touting the slogan, “Follow the Science” or “Obey the Science” have begun to sound more like Biblical literalists, not at all like what I have understood science to be. We have been told that we must obey the literal last word of “The Science”. But whose science? Funded and led by whom and to what purpose?
Published “science” on this virus has changed monthly, even weekly, over many months. Masks are ineffective; wear masks. Wipe surfaces; no need to wipe surfaces as it is airborne and does not live on surfaces. Asymptomatic spread is common; asymptomatic spread is rare.
In addition, many scientists have noted that the tests for the infection are often unreliable.
Confusions and contradictions have been dizzying. Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin have been used around the world to prevent and effectively treat this virus in early stages and yet, scientists who share information on these drugs are maligned, threatened, and sometimes fired. How is this science?
Now, almost nine months into lockdowns, governments threaten to fine or jail people gathering for holidays, and questioners are still being called ignorant, psychopathic, uneducated, uncaring, and are also accused of getting people killed. How is this science? Science involves constant scrutiny and questioning, positing hypotheses, then continually examining and testing them in order to disprove them.
Further, a universe of hypotheses opens for our consideration. Responsible science was never, “This is the Science, period, now shut up.”
In the Stanley Milgram experiment in the 1960s, a man in a white lab coat quietly told volunteers to administer increasing levels of electric shocks to a person on the other side of a partition, when the person gave a wrong answer to a question. The experiment was staged, and the shocks not real, but participants did not know this. Some administered near lethal shock levels. Subjects thought the experiment was in learning, but experimenters were actually studying conformity and obedience to an authority figure. When people became uncomfortable and did not want to continue administering shocks, the man in the white lab coat simply stated, “The experiment requires that you continue.”
Lately, we may substitute the word, “science” for “experiment” as in, “The science requires that you continue.”
Participants continued pressing a button to shock another person even while the person screamed in pain. The screams were not real, but participants did not know this. How did experimenters get people to comply and administer almost lethal shocks to another human being? They complied because the white-lab-coated man was an expert. A scientist. A pretend one, but participants did not know that. They thought surely the scientist must know more than them.
History of science is filled with examples of scientists, especially medical doctors, who were horribly, even fatally, wrong.
Bloodletting, leeches, cauterizations of the uterus are a few of the treatments described in For Her Own Good: 150 Years of Experts Advice to Women by Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English (Anchor Books/ Doubleday, 1978). In the late 18th century, doctors, touting science, moved to replace women healers, who had emphasized relationships and wholistic approaches. Doctors advocated more active, quantifiable, “heroic” measures. They focused on doing something.
Unfortunately for the health of the young republic, the heroic approach contained an inherent drift toward homicide,” write Ehrenreich and English. “Since the point was to prove that the treatment was more powerful than the disease, it followed that the more dangerous a drug or procedure, the more powerful a remedy it was presumed by most doctors to be. For example, blisters (induced by mustard plaster, etc.) were a common treatment for many diseases. In an 1847 paper, a physician observed that extensive blistering had a disastrous effect on children, sometimes causing convulsions, gangrene, and even death. He concluded from this that blisters ‘ought to hold a high rank’. in the treatment of diseases of childhood.’ (Ehrenreich and English, p. 46)
Bloodletting was another regular remedy of the time, in addition to other “cleansings,” including inducing vomiting and using laxatives and enemas.
Bloodletting was used by physicians well into the 20th century for many ailments; including accidents, malaria, childhood fevers, pregnancy discomfort, and anemia.
Many physicians in the early 19th century bled until the patient fainted or pulsed ceased, whichever came first,”
…according to Ehrenreich and English, who examined historical documents and biographies of the time (Ibid. p. 46).
Bloodletting was common during the yellow fever epidemic of 1873. Laxative purges, accomplished by the administration of calomel, a mercury salt, were considered an all-purpose remedy for everything from teething pain and diarrhea to chronic diseases.
Long term use caused the gums, the teeth, and eventually the tongue and the entire jaw to erode and fall off”
(Ibid. p. 47)
According to historians, physicians knew of these side effects but performed these procedures anyway.
During the cholera epidemic in St. Louis, physicians ran around with calomel loose in their pockets and simply doled it out by the teaspoonful (Ibid. p. 47)
In For Her Own Good, historian Ann Douglas Wood describes treatments used in the mid-nineteenth century for almost any female complaint – manual investigation, leeching, injections, and cauterization (without anaesthetic except a bit of opium or alcohol).
William Potts Dewees, an American medical professor, and Dr. Hughes Bennett, a famous English gynaecologist, widely read in the U.S.,…
both advocated placing leeches right on the vulva or neck of the uterus, although Bennett cautioned the doctor to count them as they dropped off when satiated and some may be lost. (Ibid. p. 123)
These men were scientists and doctors; people listened to them and did as they directed.
Questionable, even barbaric, practices have been carried out in the name of science. Eugenics programs advocated and performed forced sterilizations in the U.S. well into the 20th century and some in the 21st century.
Lobotomies and electroconvulsive shocks for the mentally ill were supported by the science. Scientists were certain they were doing the right thing.
Those who listened to them and submitted to their authority believed them.
Certainties may cause us to wonder. During the run up to the U.S. war in Iraq, across almost every major media outlet, we heard over and over words like “indisputable,” “irrefutable” about the “evidence,” supporting the necessity of war. We heard that war was “inevitable,” was “inexorable,” that the science was unquestionable. Former General Colin Powell appeared all over networks with scientific-looking charts behind him while he held a vial of some substance, to demonstrate the science. People who questioned that war’s absolute and immediate necessity were mocked, bullied, vilified, fired, threatened, sometimes even with death.
*
We learn and change and do differently. Outliers, outsiders, and challengers often lead us to new and important discoveries. And yet, lately our culture seems to suggest that those questioning “the Science” or the “scientists” should be condemned or not allowed to speak at all – even when many scientists disagree. Lately, we have been told, and many believe, that speaking up or stepping out of line may get us killed – or may get someone we love killed. This strikes me as a dangerous psychological trick.
Stepping away from dominant groups or voicing alternatives to dominant narratives can be very difficult. It can sometimes feel, or actually be, life-threatening. And yet, once you have had to speak up, perhaps alone, against a dominant group, or a domineering person, who threatens your life or the life of a loved one if you speak, you are forever changed. You may never be able to comply automatically and without question with the white-lab-coated scientist, telling you to press the button or the doctor, telling you to lie back on the table, or the scientist telling you to take the pill.
An assault survivor may be told by their assailant, “If you speak up, or step out of line, I’ll kill you – or your family.”
This statement is just a few characters away from, “If you speak up or step out of line, it’ll kill you” (the virus). Or alternatively that you (or it) will kill someone you love.
Those who have gathered courage to stand and speak against an assailant; a dominant group; an authority figure, may have a lot to teach us.
My friend, Lucy, killed herself twenty-five years ago. Her father, a Christian missionary and leader in the church and in the community, sexually abused her. The church did not believe her when she told. They turned their backs. Her mother did not believe her. Lucy spoke the truth of her experience even though she thought she may die. She stood against a church and its leaders and her own family. Sadly, Lucy did not survive. But I have — and can remember her and share her story.
Boys in State College, Pennsylvania were raped by Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky from 1994 – 2009 while many suspected or knew but looked away and did nothing. Those boys had to speak up against Sandusky, his wife, a whole football program, an entire town and culture that revered the sport, and a university built around the famous program. They had to tell their mothers, mothers who had believed Sandusky, a man who had started a non-profit organization to help and guide young boys.
Many sexual abuse survivors have had to stand against the Catholic Church. You are forever changed after standing up against powerful groups, institutions, or individuals – whether it be the church, the military, the town, the national scouting program, the department, “the Science”. I admire those who have had to do so, often initially alone. It can feel in the beginning like you may die, whether or not someone actually threatened you with death. And yet, people trust their hearts and instincts and speak up anyway, usually at great cost.
Many, including brave children, have stood and spoken when their conscience, their instincts, their safety, or their faith would not allow them to do otherwise. Once you have had to do this, it becomes much harder to believe, without question, that “everybody” knows better than you do, the authority figure knows better than you do, that the narrative must be swallowed whole.
You have been irrevocably changed. You have faced death or the prospect of death.
You have faced the threat…
“Speak up or act up and I’ll (it’ll)
kill you”
…and you have survived.
Christine E. Black’s work has been published in Antietam Review, 13th Moon, American Journal of Poetry, New Millennium Writings, Nimrod International, Red Rock Review, The Virginia Journal of Education, Friends Journal, The Veteran, Sojourners Magazine, Iris Magazine, English Journal, Amethyst Review, and other publications. Her poetry has been nominated for a Pushcart Prize and the Pablo Neruda Prize.


Where’s the Hitler?

All right , that ’ s it .
I ’ ve run out of patience .
No more excuses .
Where ’ s the Hitler ?
Yes , you heard me .
I ’ m talking to you .
You respectable journalists and political pundits .
You Intelligence officials and politicians .
You fanatical liberals .
You pseudo anti-fascists .
All you members of the GloboCap “ Resistance ” who have been hysterically shrieking that “ Trump is Hitler !
” since he won the nomination back in 2016 .
Well , OK , it ’ s November 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ do we get Hitler ?
No , do not tell me “ any day now.
” You ’ ve been telling us that for four straight years .
Do we look like a bunch of gullible idiots that you can whip up into a four-year frenzy of mindless hatred and paranoia by screaming “ Hitler !
” over and over , and then not produce an actual Hitler ?
Well , we ’ re not .
We remember what you said .
You promised us Hitler , and we want Hitler , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And don ’ t even think of trying to pretend that you didn ’ t actually promise us Hitler .
You did .
You want me to prove it ?
OK .
Remember back in 2016 , when The Wall Street Journal , The New York Times , The Guardian , the Washington Post , The Inquirer , and other such “ leading respectable broadsheets , ” and online magazines like Mother Jones , Forward , Slate , Salon , Vox , Alternet , and countless others , warned that Trump was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signals to his underground army of Nazi terrorists by talking about “ international banks , ” “ global elites , ” the “ political establishment , ” and even “ corporations ” and “ lobbyists ” … all of which was supposedly code for “ the Jews , ” who he was going to exterminate if won the election ?
How about after he won the election , when The Guardian reported that “ white supremacy ha [ d ] triumphed !
, ” and The New York Times , NPR , Keith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warned that America had descended into “ racial Orwellianism , ” or Zionist Anti-Semitism , or the “ bottomless pit of fascism , ” or whatever ?
Or when Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post confirmed that “ Donald Trump is actually a fascist ” ?
Do you remember all that ?
Because I certainly do .
Remember Aaron Sorkin ’ s letter to his daughter warning her that millions of “ Muslim-Americans , Mexican-Americans and African-Americans [ were ] shaking in their shoes ” as they waited for Trump to round them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ camps , along with the “ Jewish Coastal Elites ” ?
And how about when Stern Magazine depicted Trump wrapped in the flag and heiling Hitler ?
Or when the Philadelphia Daily News also portayed him as Hitler on its cover ?
What about when the corporate media reported that Trump had called those tiki torch Nazis in Charlottesville “ very fine people ” ( despite the fact that he demonstrably did not ) ?
Or when they caught Trump calling somebody a “ globalist ” ?
Oh , and speaking of Nazi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Department of Homeland Security embedded secret Nazi code in one of its official press releases ?
Or when that Jewish-Mexican-American law clerk signaled to Trump ’ s underground Nazi army that they had infiltrated the US Supreme Court , and thus the dreaded “ Boogaloo ” was probably imminent ?
And who could forget when The New York Times published a full-blown dystopian fantasy in which Trump , Putin , Marine Le Pen , the AfD , and other notorious “ globalist ” -hating Hitler-alikes secretly formed an Evil Axis ( the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) , dissolved the European Union and NATO , declared international martial law , and ethnically cleansed the world of immigrants ?
Or when they ran this propaganda film , “ If You ’ re Not Scared About Fascism in the U.S. , You Should Be !
” And the “ emboldening ” !
I almost left out the “ emboldening.
” Surely , you remember when the corporate media reported that Trump was emboldening white-supremacist terrorism with his Hitlerian Tweets … as if homicidal racist psychopaths had been sitting around in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rifles in one hand , smartphones tuned to Twitter in the other , just waiting to be “ emboldened ” by the president .
Oh , and the “ concentration camps.
” You know , the ones that Biden and Harris personally flew down and liberated the morning after they won the election .
The ones where they put the kids in cages and forced all the prisoners to drink out of toilets .
I couldn ’ t forgive myself if I didn ’ t mention them .
And those are just a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the point is , you “ Resistance ” people promised us Hitler for four years straight , and now you ’ re acting like you just defeated Hitler , and , I ’ m sorry , but that is not going to cut it .
We ’ re going to need some actual Hitler before we transition to the Brave New Normal , or we might start to … you know , doubt your credibility .
I mean , come on .
Lawsuits ?
Recounts ?
Audits ?
Angry tweets ?
Golf , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hitlerian behavior .
You people promised us an attempted coup , a Reichstag fire , Nazi militias occupying the halls of Congress , stadiums full of Sieg-heiling rednecks , white-supremacist terrorists terrorizing everyone … and now all we get is Rudy Giuliani sweating rivulets of hair dye , or something , on TV ?
All right , granted , that was pretty scary , but it ’ s not exactly Joseph Goebbels fanatically barking about “ total war , ” or legions of Hawaiian-shirt-wearing fascists goose-stepping up Pennsylvania Avenue .
The way I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another four or five weeks to goad Donald Trump into going full-Hitler and staging a coup , or gratuitously mass-murdering the Jews , or somebody , or the public is going to feel … well , bamboozled , and insulted , and even a little angry .
They are going to feel like you “ Resistance ” people regard them as a bunch of total morons that you can manipulate , over and over again , with blatantly ridiculous propaganda that anyone with half a brain could see through…some of which , frankly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , fascism , Hitler , the Holocaust … these are solemn , sensitive subjects .
They ’ re not just convenient emotional buttons that you can press to whip folks into a frenzy of mindless paranoia and murderous hatred whenever you feel like demonizing some foreign leader or unauthorized president .
The same goes for racism and anti-Semitism .
These are real issues , which people care about .
They ’ re not just glorified marketing buzz words that you can pull out of your bag of cheap tricks and slap onto your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything .
If you spend four years accusing someone of literally being Adolf Hitler , or the resurrection of Adolf Hitler , and brainwash millions of credulous liberals into believing that America is on the brink of fascism , you can ’ t just suddenly say , “ We were only kidding .
We didn ’ t mean that he was actually Hitler , or that fascism was really on the rise.
” People won ’ t stand for it .
They ’ ll go ballistic .
You ’ ll have some sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , all right , on second thought , maybe not .
Maybe you can get away with pointing at some billionaire ass clown and howling “ Hitler !
” over and over , on a daily basis , for years and years , without ever providing any actual evidence that the ass clown in question resembles Hitler , or has done anything comparable to Hitler , or is in any way remotely similar to Hitler .
Why not ?
You successfully Hitlerized Corbyn , not to mention Saddam , Gaddafi , and Milošević @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ threats to democracy.
” You ’ ll probably get away with Hitlerizing Trump .
After all , it appears you ’ ve convinced the public ( or at least the vast majority of the public ) that they are being attacked by an apocalyptic plague that causes mild to moderate flu-like symptoms ( or , more commonly , no symptoms at all ) in 95 % of those infected and that over 99.7 % survive , and thus we have to cancel constitutional rights , let government officials rule by decree , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small businesses ) , have global corporations censor all dissent , force everyone to wear medical-looking masks , put whole societies under house arrest , psychologically terrorize children , and otherwise transform the planet into one big paranoid , totalitarian theme park .
If you can get people to go along with that … well , they ’ ll probably go along with anything .
CJ Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright , novelist and political satirist based in Berlin .
His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is published by Snoggsworthy , Swaine & Cormorant .
Volume I of his Consent Factory Essays is published by Consent Factory Publishing , a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content , Inc .
He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

CJ Hopkins
All right, that’s it. I’ve run out of patience. No more excuses. Where’s the Hitler?
Yes, you heard me. I’m talking to you. You respectable journalists and political pundits. You Intelligence officials and politicians. You fanatical liberals. You pseudo anti-fascists.
All you members of the GloboCap “Resistance” who have been hysterically shrieking that “Trump is Hitler!” since he won the nomination back in 2016.
Well, OK, it’s November 2020. The show is almost over. When do we get Hitler?
No, do not tell me “any day now.” You’ve been telling us that for four straight years. Do we look like a bunch of gullible idiots that you can whip up into a four-year frenzy of mindless hatred and paranoia by screaming “Hitler!” over and over, and then not produce an actual Hitler?
Well, we’re not. We remember what you said. You promised us Hitler, and we want Hitler, or at least a decent facsimile of Hitler.
And don’t even think of trying to pretend that you didn’t actually promise us Hitler. You did. You want me to prove it? OK.
Remember back in 2016, when The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Guardian, the Washington Post, The Inquirer, and other such “leading respectable broadsheets,” and online magazines like Mother Jones, Forward, Slate, Salon, Vox, Alternet, and countless others, warned that Trump was sending secret anti-Semitic “dog whistle” signals to his underground army of Nazi terrorists by talking about “international banks,” “global elites,” the “political establishment,” and even “corporations” and “lobbyists” … all of which was supposedly code for “the Jews,” who he was going to exterminate if won the election?
I do. I remember that, distinctly.
How about after he won the election, when The Guardian reported that “white supremacy ha[d] triumphed!,” and The New York Times, NPR, Keith Olberman, and other verified news sources warned that America had descended into “racial Orwellianism,” or Zionist Anti-Semitism, or the “bottomless pit of fascism,” or whatever? Or when Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post confirmed that “Donald Trump is actually a fascist”?
Do you remember all that? Because I certainly do.
Remember Aaron Sorkin’s letter to his daughter warning her that millions of “Muslim-Americans, Mexican-Americans and African-Americans [were] shaking in their shoes” as they waited for Trump to round them all up and send them to the camps, along with the “Jewish Coastal Elites”?
And how about when Stern Magazine depicted Trump wrapped in the flag and heiling Hitler? Or when the Philadelphia Daily News also portayed him as Hitler on its cover?
What about when the corporate media reported that Trump had called those tiki torch Nazis in Charlottesville “very fine people” (despite the fact that he demonstrably did not)? Or when they caught Trump calling somebody a “globalist”?
(That episode was particularly disturbing to me, personally, as I had no idea that I was literally a Nazi until the corporate media and the ADL explained that talking about “global capitalism,” or “neoliberalism,” or, God help me, “banks,” was just Nazi codespeak for “Kill the Jews!”)
Oh, and speaking of Nazi “dog whistles,” remember when the Department of Homeland Security embedded secret Nazi code in one of its official press releases? Or when that Jewish-Mexican-American law clerk signaled to Trump’s underground Nazi army that they had infiltrated the US Supreme Court, and thus the dreaded “Boogaloo” was probably imminent?
And who could forget when The New York Times published a full-blown dystopian fantasy in which Trump, Putin, Marine Le Pen, the AfD, and other notorious “globalist”-hating Hitler-alikes secretly formed an Evil Axis (the “Alliance of Authoritarian and Reactionary States”), dissolved the European Union and NATO, declared international martial law, and ethnically cleansed the world of immigrants? Or when they ran this propaganda film, “If You’re Not Scared About Fascism in the U.S., You Should Be!”
And the “emboldening”! I almost left out the “emboldening.” Surely, you remember when the corporate media reported that Trump was emboldening white-supremacist terrorism with his Hitlerian Tweets … as if homicidal racist psychopaths had been sitting around in their mother’s basements, semi-automatic rifles in one hand, smartphones tuned to Twitter in the other, just waiting to be “emboldened” by the president.
Oh, and the “concentration camps.” You know, the ones that Biden and Harris personally flew down and liberated the morning after they won the election. The ones where they put the kids in cages and forced all the prisoners to drink out of toilets. I couldn’t forgive myself if I didn’t mention them.
And those are just a few of the highlights.
Look, the point is, you “Resistance” people promised us Hitler for four years straight, and now you’re acting like you just defeated Hitler, and, I’m sorry, but that is not going to cut it. We’re going to need some actual Hitler before we transition to the Brave New Normal, or we might start to … you know, doubt your credibility.
I mean, come on. Lawsuits? Recounts? Audits? Angry tweets? Golf, for Christsakes? This is not remotely Hitlerian behavior. You people promised us an attempted coup, a Reichstag fire, Nazi militias occupying the halls of Congress, stadiums full of Sieg-heiling rednecks, white-supremacist terrorists terrorizing everyone … and now all we get is Rudy Giuliani sweating rivulets of hair dye, or something, on TV?
All right, granted, that was pretty scary, but it’s not exactly Joseph Goebbels fanatically barking about “total war,” or legions of Hawaiian-shirt-wearing fascists goose-stepping up Pennsylvania Avenue.
The way I see it, you people have got another four or five weeks to goad Donald Trump into going full-Hitler and staging a coup, or gratuitously mass-murdering the Jews, or somebody, or the public is going to feel … well, bamboozled, and insulted, and even a little angry. They are going to feel like you “Resistance” people regard them as a bunch of total morons that you can manipulate, over and over again, with blatantly ridiculous propaganda that anyone with half a brain could see through…some of which, frankly, has been downright offensive.
Seriously, fascism, Hitler, the Holocaust … these are solemn, sensitive subjects. They’re not just convenient emotional buttons that you can press to whip folks into a frenzy of mindless paranoia and murderous hatred whenever you feel like demonizing some foreign leader or unauthorized president. The same goes for racism and anti-Semitism. These are real issues, which people care about. They’re not just glorified marketing buzz words that you can pull out of your bag of cheap tricks and slap onto your enemies like they don’t mean anything.
If you spend four years accusing someone of literally being Adolf Hitler, or the resurrection of Adolf Hitler, and brainwash millions of credulous liberals into believing that America is on the brink of fascism, you can’t just suddenly say, “We were only kidding. We didn’t mean that he was actually Hitler, or that fascism was really on the rise.”
People won’t stand for it. They’ll go ballistic. You’ll have some sort of revolt on your hands.
Or, all right, on second thought, maybe not. Maybe you can get away with pointing at some billionaire ass clown and howling “Hitler!” over and over, on a daily basis, for years and years, without ever providing any actual evidence that the ass clown in question resembles Hitler, or has done anything comparable to Hitler, or is in any way remotely similar to Hitler. Why not?
You successfully Hitlerized Corbyn, not to mention Saddam, Gaddafi, and Milošević, and a long list of other “threats to democracy.” You’ll probably get away with Hitlerizing Trump.
After all, it appears you’ve convinced the public (or at least the vast majority of the public) that they are being attacked by an apocalyptic plague that causes mild to moderate flu-like symptoms (or, more commonly, no symptoms at all) in 95% of those infected and that over 99.7% survive, and thus we have to cancel constitutional rights, let government officials rule by decree, devastate the economy (or at least small businesses), have global corporations censor all dissent, force everyone to wear medical-looking masks, put whole societies under house arrest, psychologically terrorize children, and otherwise transform the planet into one big paranoid, totalitarian theme park.
If you can get people to go along with that … well, they’ll probably go along with anything.
CJ Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing and Broadway Play Publishing, Inc. His dystopian novel, Zone 23, is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. Volume I of his Consent Factory Essays is published by Consent Factory Publishing, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amalgamated Content, Inc. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org.


offguardian--2020-12-09--WATCH: Ask The Experts (Covid-19 Vaccine)

Oracle Films , a Bristol-based production company , has released a video called Ask The Experts ( Covid-19 Vaccine ) , uploaded on 7 December .
The video , made in collaboration with Fiona Hine , Founder of CoviLeaks , features 33 Doctors and a few other professionals – including some names you ’ ll be familiar with and others you won ’ t – who all urge caution regarding the CV-19 vaccine .
The video , recently banned from Facebook and Youtube , has received 55k views on brandnewtube ( at the time of writing ) .
We would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , however we can ’ t reliably embeded brandnewtube on this site at this time , for unknown reasons .
We ’ ve re-uploaded to bitchute ( above ) , with the film-maker ’ s approval , but we encourage viewers to watch at the brandnewtube link , to help them climb the algorithm ladder .
The roster of experts include ( in order of appearance ) : Dr Andrew Kaufman , Dr Hilde De Smet , Dr Nils R Fosse , Dr Elizabeth Evans , Dr Mohammad Adil , Dr Vernon Coleman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zac Cox , Dr Anna Forbes , Dr Ralf ER Sundberg , Dr Johan Denis , Dr Daniel Cullum , Moritz von der Borch , Dr Anne Fierlafijn , Dr Tom Cowan , Dr Kevin P. Corbett , Dr Carrie Madej , Dr Barre Lando , Natural Nurse Kate Shemirani , Pharmacist Sandy Lunoe , Licensed Acupuncturist Boris Dragin , Dr Piotr Rubas , Dr Natalia Prego Cancelo , Dr Rashid Buttar , Dr Nour De San , Dr Kelly Brogan , Prof. Konstantin Pavlidis , Dr Sherri Tenpenny , Journalist Senta Depuydt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Griesz-Brisson , Dr Mikael Nordforsa and Dr Elke F. de Klerk These qualified and largely orthodox medical voices are posing essential questions and bringing their expertise to bear on this imminent and highly controversial vaccine .
If there are some names that cause eyes to roll for some viewers , doubtless there will be many others here to grab your attention and make you think .
Oracle has collated an accessible , sharable collection of alternative viewpoints , and we hope they can continue with their valuable work .
When we are force-fed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ behind this vaccine and this pandemic on a minute-by-minute basis , such work has never been more valuable .
Oracle Films says of the video : This video is merely a compilation of doctors , scientists and activist who are offering their opinions .
IN NO WAY do the views of any individual contributor to this video represent the views of anyone else shown .
To confirm , this video contains a wide variety of views , all of which are exclusive to the individual expressing them .
With the rollout of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask a worldwide panel of experts the question on everybody ’ s minds # asktheexperts In collaboration with Fiona Hine , Founder of CoviLeaks If you like our videos , please consider donating to help us keep producing content like this : https : //paypal.me/oraclefilms This video can be downloaded and re-uploaded on any non-monetised media channels .

Oracle Films, a Bristol-based production company, has released a video called Ask The Experts (Covid-19 Vaccine), uploaded on 7 December.
The video, made in collaboration with Fiona Hine, Founder of CoviLeaks, features 33 Doctors and a few other professionals – including some names you’ll be familiar with and others you won’t – who all urge caution regarding the CV-19 vaccine.
The video, recently banned from Facebook and Youtube, has received 55k views on brandnewtube (at the time of writing). We would have liked to embed this video here, however we can’t reliably embeded brandnewtube on this site at this time, for unknown reasons.
We’ve re-uploaded to bitchute (above), with the film-maker’s approval, but we encourage viewers to watch at the brandnewtube link, to help them climb the algorithm ladder.
The roster of experts include (in order of appearance):
Dr Andrew Kaufman,
Dr Hilde De Smet,
Dr Nils R Fosse,
Dr Elizabeth Evans,
Dr Mohammad Adil,
Dr Vernon Coleman,
Prof. Dolores Cahill,
Dr R Zac Cox,
Dr Anna Forbes,
Dr Ralf ER Sundberg,
Dr Johan Denis,
Dr Daniel Cullum,
Moritz von der Borch,
Dr Anne Fierlafijn,
Dr Tom Cowan,
Dr Kevin P. Corbett,
Dr Carrie Madej,
Dr Barre Lando,
Natural Nurse Kate Shemirani,
Pharmacist Sandy Lunoe,
Licensed Acupuncturist Boris Dragin,
Dr Piotr Rubas,
Dr Natalia Prego Cancelo,
Dr Rashid Buttar,
Dr Nour De San,
Dr Kelly Brogan,
Prof. Konstantin Pavlidis,
Dr Sherri Tenpenny,
Journalist Senta Depuydt,
Dr Heiko Santelmann,
Dr Margareta Griesz-Brisson,
Dr Mikael Nordforsa and
Dr Elke F. de Klerk
These qualified and largely orthodox medical voices are posing essential questions and bringing their expertise to bear on this imminent and highly controversial vaccine.
If there are some names that cause eyes to roll for some viewers, doubtless there will be many others here to grab your attention and make you think.
Oracle has collated an accessible, sharable collection of alternative viewpoints, and we hope they can continue with their valuable work. When we are force-fed a myth of scientific and medical consensus behind this vaccine and this pandemic on a minute-by-minute basis, such work has never been more valuable.
Oracle Films says of the video:
This video is merely a compilation of doctors, scientists and activist who are offering their opinions. IN NO WAY do the views of any individual contributor to this video represent the views of anyone else shown. To confirm, this video contains a wide variety of views, all of which are exclusive to the individual expressing them. With the rollout of the you-know-what just around the corner, we ask a worldwide panel of experts the question on everybody’s minds #asktheexperts Produced by Oracle Films In collaboration with Fiona Hine, Founder of CoviLeaks If you like our videos, please consider donating to help us keep producing content like this:
https://paypal.me/oraclefilms This video can be downloaded and re-uploaded on any non-monetised media channels.


Trump Exits Somalia

These are things that might have been done earlier .
During the last , flickering days of the Trump administration , activity is being witnessed across countries which have a US troop presence .
Numbers are being reduced .
Security wonks are getting the jitters .
Is the imperium shrinking ?
Will President elect Joe Biden wake up and reverse the trend ?
With the Beltway foreign policy Blob advising him , most likely .
In November , acting defence secretary Christopher Miller announced that the number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq would fall from 4,500 to 2,500 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been added to the list of countries which will see US withdrawals in some number .
The current troop presence stands at 700 , tasked with assisting an African Union-backed peacekeeping force combat the al-Shabaab insurgency .
A good number are also there to train and support Danab , the Somali special forces with eyes on capturing and killing leaders of the insurgent movement .
The ultimate objective of US Africa Command in East Africa , then , “ is one in which terrorist organizations are not able to threaten the US homeland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destabilize the region.
” This is a conflict that has a relentless air of eternity to it .
Al-Shabaab counts itself as yet another , albeit more formidable militant group , that has thrived in Somalia ’ s unruly environment .
Its claim to radicalised fame came with Ethiopia ’ s December 2006 invasion of the country .
It was encouraged by the Somalian transitional government , with the intention of ousting al-Shabaab and the Islamic Courts Union from Mogadishu , captured by the fundamentalist alliance that June .
According to Robert Wise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a small relatively unimportant part of a more moderate Islamic movement into the most powerful and radical armed faction in the country.
” Yet another salient lesson in the perils of foreign intervention .
US administrations might have feared the messiness of the Somali scene .
The death of 18 US soldiers in October 1993 in a failed effort to capture the warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Mogadishu stung .
Cruise-missile humanitarians and interventionists would have to wait for the republic to find its feet again .
The attacks of September 11 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment , incarnating the global terrorist phenomenon and the pretext for an international deployment of US forces , officially and covertly .
On March 19 , 2003 , the capture and interrogation of Suleiman Abdallah heralded the return of US troops to Somalia .
During the Obama administration , US drone strikes , with all the accompanying problems of legality and accountability , were the favoured weapon of choice against the group .
These were also accompanied by ground raids .
Killings , such as those of its leader , Ahmed Abdi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ celebrated as triggers for an eventual collapse that never came .
“ Godane ’ s removal is a major symbolic and operational loss to the largest al-Qaida affiliate in Africa , ” came the confident assessment from the White House , “ and reflects years of painstaking work by our intelligence , military and law enforcement officials.
” Godane ’ s slaying was a spur , rather than a deterrent , for the organisation .
Attacks on African peacekeeping forces increased ; suicide bombings were used liberally , culminating in the slaughter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ civilians dead .
In the earlier stage of his administration , President Donald Trump showed a marked interest in deepening US involvement in Somalia .
The rhetoric of disentanglement was nowhere to be found .
In March 2017 , he approved a proposal from the Pentagon to expand operations against militants in the country .
Commanders were no longer required to obtain high-level vetting of al-Shabaab targets in designated “ areas of active hostilities ” .
As General Thomas Waldhauser of US Africa Command described it , “ It allows [ us ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fashion.
” In 2018 , 47 US drone strikes were executed .
Last year , the number climbed to 63 .
This was not to last .
Trump began to cool to the US involvement .
Earlier this year , the US pulled out from the cities of Bosaso and Galkayo .
The now departed defence secretary Mark Esper was not enthused by the change of heart , and preferred continued engagement .
Trump , for his part , preferred Kenyan security forces to have a greater role .
The statement from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will affect audiences differently .
The overall theme of the exit is change without difference .
This is not the case of US soldiers returning home to celebratory fanfare for a disentangling republic .
Many will find themselves in neighbouring Kenya , which has had its fair share of problems with al-Shabaab .
Somali President Mohamed Abdullah Mohamed is none too keen on the move , suggesting that his brittle government has gotten used to a particular diet of assistance .
In October , he took to Twitter to claim that US “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to effectively combat Al-Shabaab and secure the Horn of Africa .
A victory through this journey and for Somali-US partnership can only be achieved through continuous security partnership and capacity building support.
” Senator Ayub Ismail Yusuf called the decision to remove US forces “ untimely.
” Well attuned to the language that has kept Washington engaged in foreign theatres since 2001 , the true enemy was terrorism .
Colonel Ahmed Abdullahi Sheikh , Danab ’ s commander for three years till 2019 , is convinced that making such a withdrawal permanent “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts ” .
Such comments suggest a far rosier picture of US involvement and Somali government successes .
The US Defence Department Inspector General is far more measured in the July-September 2020 report .
For the devotees of the imperial footprint , there is no way around it .
The decision to exit is poor ; the imperium ’ s interests will be harmed .
William Lawrence from the American University in Washington , DC does not even shy away from a pseudo-colonial message .
“ The blow from the US operations standpoint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lose its ability to Americanise on the ground and to have more interaction with Somali troops.
” Somalia would suffer a “ real blow ” with the departure of US personnel .
“ There is no good military or strategic reason for this move.
” Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College , Cambridge .
He lectures at RMIT University , Melbourne .
Email : .

Binoy Kampmark
These are things that might have been done earlier. During the last, flickering days of the Trump administration, activity is being witnessed across countries which have a US troop presence. Numbers are being reduced. Security wonks are getting the jitters. Is the imperium shrinking? Will President elect Joe Biden wake up and reverse the trend? With the Beltway foreign policy Blob advising him, most likely.
In November, acting defence secretary Christopher Miller announced that the number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq would fall from 4,500 to 2,500 and 3,500 to 2,500 respectively. Somalia has been added to the list of countries which will see US withdrawals in some number. The current troop presence stands at 700, tasked with assisting an African Union-backed peacekeeping force combat the al-Shabaab insurgency.
A good number are also there to train and support Danab, the Somali special forces with eyes on capturing and killing leaders of the insurgent movement.
The ultimate objective of US Africa Command in East Africa, then, “is one in which terrorist organizations are not able to threaten the US homeland, US persons, international allies or destabilize the region.”
This is a conflict that has a relentless air of eternity to it. Al-Shabaab counts itself as yet another, albeit more formidable militant group, that has thrived in Somalia’s unruly environment. Its claim to radicalised fame came with Ethiopia’s December 2006 invasion of the country. It was encouraged by the Somalian transitional government, with the intention of ousting al-Shabaab and the Islamic Courts Union from Mogadishu, captured by the fundamentalist alliance that June.
According to Robert Wise, the Ethiopian occupation transformed al-Shabaab “from a small relatively unimportant part of a more moderate Islamic movement into the most powerful and radical armed faction in the country.” Yet another salient lesson in the perils of foreign intervention.
US administrations might have feared the messiness of the Somali scene. The death of 18 US soldiers in October 1993 in a failed effort to capture the warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Mogadishu stung. Cruise-missile humanitarians and interventionists would have to wait for the republic to find its feet again.
The attacks of September 11, 2001 on the United States furnished the moment, incarnating the global terrorist phenomenon and the pretext for an international deployment of US forces, officially and covertly. On March 19, 2003, the capture and interrogation of Suleiman Abdallah heralded the return of US troops to Somalia.
During the Obama administration, US drone strikes, with all the accompanying problems of legality and accountability, were the favoured weapon of choice against the group. These were also accompanied by ground raids. Killings, such as those of its leader, Ahmed Abdi Godane, in September 2014, were celebrated as triggers for an eventual collapse that never came.
“Godane’s removal is a major symbolic and operational loss to the largest al-Qaida affiliate in Africa,” came the confident assessment from the White House, “and reflects years of painstaking work by our intelligence, military and law enforcement officials.”
Godane’s slaying was a spur, rather than a deterrent, for the organisation. Attacks on African peacekeeping forces increased; suicide bombings were used liberally, culminating in the slaughter of October 2017 in Mogadishu leaving almost 600 civilians dead.
In the earlier stage of his administration, President Donald Trump showed a marked interest in deepening US involvement in Somalia. The rhetoric of disentanglement was nowhere to be found.
In March 2017, he approved a proposal from the Pentagon to expand operations against militants in the country. Commanders were no longer required to obtain high-level vetting of al-Shabaab targets in designated “areas of active hostilities”. As General Thomas Waldhauser of US Africa Command described it, “It allows [us] to prosecute targets in a more rapid fashion.” In 2018, 47 US drone strikes were executed. Last year, the number climbed to 63.
This was not to last. Trump began to cool to the US involvement. Earlier this year, the US pulled out from the cities of Bosaso and Galkayo. The now departed defence secretary Mark Esper was not enthused by the change of heart, and preferred continued engagement. Trump, for his part, preferred Kenyan security forces to have a greater role.
The statement from the Pentagon was packed with those reassurances that will affect audiences differently. The overall theme of the exit is change without difference.
The US is not withdrawing or disengaging from Africa. We remain committed to our African partners and enduring support through a whole-of-government approach.”
This is not the case of US soldiers returning home to celebratory fanfare for a disentangling republic. Many will find themselves in neighbouring Kenya, which has had its fair share of problems with al-Shabaab.
As a result of this decision, some forces may be reassigned outside of East Africa. However, the remaining forces will be repositioned from Somalia into neighbouring countries in order to allow cross-border operations by both US and partner forces.”
Somali President Mohamed Abdullah Mohamed is none too keen on the move, suggesting that his brittle government has gotten used to a particular diet of assistance.
In October, he took to Twitter to claim that US “military support to Somalia has enabled us to effectively combat Al-Shabaab and secure the Horn of Africa. A victory through this journey and for Somali-US partnership can only be achieved through continuous security partnership and capacity building support.”
Senator Ayub Ismail Yusuf called the decision to remove US forces “untimely.” Well attuned to the language that has kept Washington engaged in foreign theatres since 2001, the true enemy was terrorism.
The fight against global terrorism is still ongoing and we must still win this battle for peace and security to prevail.”
Colonel Ahmed Abdullahi Sheikh, Danab’s commander for three years till 2019, is convinced that making such a withdrawal permanent “will have a huge toll on counterterrorism efforts”.
Such comments suggest a far rosier picture of US involvement and Somali government successes. The US Defence Department Inspector General is far more measured in the July-September 2020 report.
Despite many years of sustained Somali, US, and international counterterrorism pressure, the terrorist threat in East Africa is not degraded: al-Shabaab retains freedom of movement in many parts of southern Somalia and has demonstrated an ability and intent to attack outside of the country, including targeting US interests.”
For the devotees of the imperial footprint, there is no way around it. The decision to exit is poor; the imperium’s interests will be harmed. William Lawrence from the American University in Washington, DC does not even shy away from a pseudo-colonial message. “The blow from the US operations standpoint is that over time, it will lose its ability to Americanise on the ground and to have more interaction with Somali troops.” Somalia would suffer a “real blow” with the departure of US personnel. “There is no good military or strategic reason for this move.”
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected] .


offguardian--2020-12-11--Naomi Klein: Gatekeeper Extraordinaire

Naomi Klein: Gatekeeper Extraordinaire

With a title like The Great Reset Conspiracy Smoothie , it appears Naomi Klein is trying too hard to recapture her prowess at defining a meme .
Her buzz-concept , “ Shock Doctrine , ” is spot-on and rightfully successful .
But her “ Screen New Deal ” about Silicon Valley technocrats fizzled .
And now she puts forth “ Conspiracy Smoothie , ” declaring the multitudinous “ conspiracies ” out there are just one big bizarro mashup , an “ inchoate meta-scream.
” The word “ smoothie ” defeats her purpose , though , because smoothies are healthy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as sinister and unhealthy .
Ha !
This feckless meme won ’ t catch on with anybody .
To her credit , Klein offers a very good history and analysis of The Great Reset , as long as she stays within the precincts of critiquing Empire , such as : But once she gets near taboo topics , Naomi goes batshit mainstream .
Unlike alt “ researchers ” ( her raised-eyebrow quotes ) , these subjects are “ inchoate ” for her because , like NIST who doesn ’ t know there were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t gone looking .
She even admits , “ I ’ ve been doing my best to ignore it [ “ conspiracies ” ] for months.
” Rather than go off-reservation and investigate for herself , like a typical conspiracy denier , everything under the hood is automatically deemed “ off-the-wall.
” Alison McDowall will surely skewer Klein again as seen during this prickly exchange they had about The Great Reset .
( See video at 13:25 to 17:00 ) Klein ’ s most damning accusation is her reference to “ truly dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is Klein really this naive about the objectives and tactics of the Medical Industrial Complex ?
Her anti-vaxx slur is a defamation against vaccine-activists , most of whom actually advocate for safe and effective vaccines — the existence of which , however , are questionable .
Vaccine manufacturers have no incentive to make a safe product because they were granted legal immunity in 1986 by Congress .
Proof there exists a serious safety deficit in vaccines is the current running tab of $ 4.2 billion awarded to victims and their families in “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ injuries .
Klein ’ s political bifurcation of conspiracy theories telegraphs an utter misreading of allies and issues : After channeling Cass Sunstein in the above paragraph , she asks readers if they are confused .
No , Naomi , you are the one who is confused .
You are the one who can not recognize that most of these issues are not only scientifically legitimate , but many are important to and shared by global activists and professionals across the political spectrum .
You are the one who is out of touch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues unite many diverse communities .
Unlike the binary tribalism you attribute to the above players , their unity is transpartisan .
In Klein ’ s inventory of 2020 shock doctrines , it ’ s all the fault of the right side of the aisle .
There is not an ounce of finger-pointing , for example , that the extreme failures of the lockdowns are almost wholly the result of diktats by petty Democratic tyrants ( not to mention their over-the-top hypocrisy ) .
Shockingly , she fails to comment on the source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions Official Narratives .
To wit , Big Tech and Big Media censors are fully aligned with Democratic agendas .
As for the Left ’ s political-identity swamp , there is nary a mention of Mao ’ s Cultural Revolution USA-style that has ravaged our country .
The World According to Naomi is full of plutocrats , but they ’ re all right-wing .
She goes on and on about workers rights and all the populist issues that Democrats traditionally stood for .
Didn ’ t she get the memo that there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t she realize that the entire force of the 1 % has arrayed itself with the Democrats , a party that has now disgracefully abandoned what had been their deplorables base for decades .
If Bernie progressives , we-the-people patriots , the Yellow Vests , indigenous peoples , and all the rest of the world ’ s 99 % would just join hands , we could create a powerful transpartisan movement to abort The Great Reset ’ s dystopian agenda .
But this can ’ t happen by staying within the Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which likewise ultimately aligns her with the Establishment no matter how much she critiques them from her influential , mainstream-left perch .
Invoking an ever-reliable inference to Trump Derangement Syndrome , she writes : “ It makes no sense , ” she concludes .
Yep , Naomi , if you don ’ t investigate beyond ad hominem analysis and if you seemingly strive for a token social-responsibility seat at the Davos table , your current worldview will only ever perceive genuine opposition to The Great Reset as an indigestible smoothie .
Cat McGuire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are activists and writers .
Cat lives in New York City where she works with Break The Spell , a public outreach group raising awareness about the Covid plandemic and the Great Reset .
Colleen practiced law in New York City for 16 years and now lives in Greece .

Cat McGuire & Colleen McGuire
With a title like The Great Reset Conspiracy Smoothie, it appears Naomi Klein is trying too hard to recapture her prowess at defining a meme. Her buzz-concept, “Shock Doctrine,” is spot-on and rightfully successful. But her “Screen New Deal” about Silicon Valley technocrats fizzled.
And now she puts forth “Conspiracy Smoothie,” declaring the multitudinous “conspiracies” out there are just one big bizarro mashup, an “inchoate meta-scream.” The word “smoothie” defeats her purpose, though, because smoothies are healthy, yet she wants to brand alternative thinkers as sinister and unhealthy. Ha! This feckless meme won’t catch on with anybody.
To her credit, Klein offers a very good history and analysis of The Great Reset, as long as she stays within the precincts of critiquing Empire, such as:
…[T]he Great Reset is not a serious effort to actually solve the crises it describes. On the contrary, it is an attempt to create a plausible impression that the huge winners in this system are on the verge of voluntarily setting greed aside to get serious about solving the raging crises that are radically destabilizing our world.
But once she gets near taboo topics, Naomi goes batshit mainstream. Unlike alt “researchers” (her raised-eyebrow quotes), these subjects are “inchoate” for her because, like NIST who doesn’t know there were explosives on 9/11, she hasn’t gone looking. She even admits, “I’ve been doing my best to ignore it [“conspiracies”] for months.”
Rather than go off-reservation and investigate for herself, like a typical conspiracy denier, everything under the hood is automatically deemed “off-the-wall.” Alison McDowall will surely skewer Klein again as seen during this prickly exchange they had about The Great Reset. (See video at 13:25 to 17:00)
Klein’s most damning accusation is her reference to “truly dangerous anti-vaccination fantasies and outright coronavirus denialism.” Is Klein really this naive about the objectives and tactics of the Medical Industrial Complex?
Her anti-vaxx slur is a defamation against vaccine-activists, most of whom actually advocate for safe and effective vaccines — the existence of which, however, are questionable. Vaccine manufacturers have no incentive to make a safe product because they were granted legal immunity in 1986 by Congress.
Proof there exists a serious safety deficit in vaccines is the current running tab of $4.2 billion awarded to victims and their families in “Vaccine Court” from vaccine deaths and injuries.
Klein’s political bifurcation of conspiracy theories telegraphs an utter misreading of allies and issues:
And yet search for the term “global reset” and you will be bombarded with breathless “exposés” of a secret globalist cabal, headed by Schwab and Bill Gates, that is using the state of shock created by the coronavirus (which is probably itself a “hoax”) to turn the world into a high-tech dictatorship that will take away your freedom forever: a green/socialist/Venezuela/Soros/forced vaccine dictatorship if the Reset exposé is coming from the far right, and a Big Pharma/GMO/biometric implants/5G/robot dog/forced vaccine dictatorship if the exposé hails from the far left.
After channeling Cass Sunstein in the above paragraph, she asks readers if they are confused. No, Naomi, you are the one who is confused. You are the one who cannot recognize that most of these issues are not only scientifically legitimate, but many are important to and shared by global activists and professionals across the political spectrum. You are the one who is out of touch for not recognizing how and why these issues unite many diverse communities. Unlike the binary tribalism you attribute to the above players, their unity is transpartisan.
In Klein’s inventory of 2020 shock doctrines, it’s all the fault of the right side of the aisle. There is not an ounce of finger-pointing, for example, that the extreme failures of the lockdowns are almost wholly the result of diktats by petty Democratic tyrants (not to mention their over-the-top hypocrisy).
Shockingly, she fails to comment on the source of the epic silencing of anyone who questions Official Narratives. To wit, Big Tech and Big Media censors are fully aligned with Democratic agendas. As for the Left’s political-identity swamp, there is nary a mention of Mao’s Cultural Revolution USA-style that has ravaged our country.
The World According to Naomi is full of plutocrats, but they’re all right-wing. She goes on and on about workers rights and all the populist issues that Democrats traditionally stood for. Didn’t she get the memo that there’s been a tectonic shift? Doesn’t she realize that the entire force of the 1% has arrayed itself with the Democrats, a party that has now disgracefully abandoned what had been their deplorables base for decades.
If Bernie progressives, we-the-people patriots, the Yellow Vests, indigenous peoples, and all the rest of the world’s 99% would just join hands, we could create a powerful transpartisan movement to abort The Great Reset’s dystopian agenda. But this can’t happen by staying within the Democrats’ Big Tent as Klein does, which likewise ultimately aligns her with the Establishment no matter how much she critiques them from her influential, mainstream-left perch.
Invoking an ever-reliable inference to Trump Derangement Syndrome, she writes:
Is it all a plan, another kind of elaborate conspiracy? Nothing so elegant. As Steve Bannon kindly told us, the informational strategy of the Trump era has always been to “flood the zone with shit.” Four years later, we can see what this looks like in practice. It looks like far-left and far-right conspiracists sitting down over a tray of information-shit sandwiches to talk about how the Great Reset is Gates’s plan to use the DNA from our Covid-19 tests to turn the United States into Venezuela.
“It makes no sense,” she concludes. Yep, Naomi, if you don’t investigate beyond ad hominem analysis and if you seemingly strive for a token social-responsibility seat at the Davos table, your current worldview will only ever perceive genuine opposition to The Great Reset as an indigestible smoothie.
Cat McGuire and Colleen McGuire are twin sisters who are activists and writers. Cat lives in New York City where she works with Break The Spell, a public outreach group raising awareness about the Covid plandemic and the Great Reset. Colleen practiced law in New York City for 16 years and now lives in Greece.


offguardian--2020-12-10--Coronavirus Fact-Check #9: Is the vaccine safe?

Reports of allergic reactions , bells palsy and conflicting opinions of many experts make the question difficult to answer .
There are dozens of articles all over the mainstream reassuring us that the brand new Sars-Cov-2 vaccine is safe .
In the UK the vaccine rolled out is being hailed as “ V Day ” , in a shameless attempt to draw a parallel with World War II .
Matt Hancock went on Good Morning Britain and attempted to “ cry ” .
On the other side of that coin , many experts in the field have vociferously called for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ halt , some medical researchers are questioning the data and others counsel people to refuse the vaccine under any and all circumstances .
So – is the vaccine safe ?
The only rational answer is “ we don ’ t know ” .
It ’ s certainly true some people who have received it have experienced unexpected side effects .
It was recently revealed that 4 people involved in the US-based trial suffered partial facial paralysis .
In the UK , two NHS staff who have received the vaccine suffered allergic anaphylactoid reactions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now not recommending the vaccine for anyone who “ suffers from allergies ” .
They don ’ t know what caused the reaction , and as far as we know so far , the people involved were not allergic to anything in the vaccine .
It seems it ’ s not about being allergic to the vaccine , so much as the vaccine potentially causing problems for anyone with a sensitive or dysfunctional immune system .
It ’ s essentially recommended that no one who is allergic to anything , ie .
other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jab .
We ’ ve already had “ explainers ” appearing the media , saying vaccine allergic reactions are “ rare and shortlived ” .
To be clear , as of December 10th , the vaccine either has never been tested on , or is not recommended for : • Pregnant women ( or women intending to become pregnant in the near future ) .
So the official line already cedes that the vaccine may be harmful to some or all of those people .
Even on the fully-grown and totally healthy adults @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there has not been enough time to do any kind of long term studies on possible side-effects or complications It usually takes 5-10 years to fully develop and test a vaccine , where as this has been rushed out in less than 10 months .
On top of that , of course , we have the fact all the vaccine producers have campaigned for – and won – total legal immunity in the UK , US and other nations around the world .
In the event the vaccine does cause harm , Pfizer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , are immune from civil liability .
Which means that , just like us , the producers themselves are well-aware the new vaccines might not be safe , and don ’ t want a repeat of 2009 , when a rushed-out flu vaccine resulted in children suffering life-long complications and receiving millions in damages .
In the final analysis , you have to ask yourself a simple question : Do you feel safer taking an untested vaccine , or risking getting a virus with a survival rate of over 99 % ?

Reports of allergic reactions, bells palsy and conflicting opinions of many experts make the question difficult to answer.
Kit Knightly
There are dozens of articles all over the mainstream reassuring us that the brand new Sars-Cov-2 vaccine is safe. In the UK the vaccine rolled out is being hailed as “V Day”, in a shameless attempt to draw a parallel with World War II. Matt Hancock went on Good Morning Britain and attempted to “cry”.
On the other side of that coin, many experts in the field have vociferously called for all vaccine trials to be put on halt, some medical researchers are questioning the data and others counsel people to refuse the vaccine under any and all circumstances.
So – is the vaccine safe? The only rational answer is “we don’t know”.
It’s certainly true some people who have received it have experienced unexpected side effects.
It was recently revealed that 4 people involved in the US-based trial suffered partial facial paralysis. In the UK, two NHS staff who have received the vaccine suffered allergic anaphylactoid reactions, as a result the NHS is now not recommending the vaccine for anyone who “suffers from allergies”.
They don’t know what caused the reaction, and as far as we know so far, the people involved were not allergic to anything in the vaccine. It seems it’s not about being allergic to the vaccine, so much as the vaccine potentially causing problems for anyone with a sensitive or dysfunctional immune system.
It’s essentially recommended that no one who is allergic to anything, ie. other food or medication, should have the jab.
We’ve already had “explainers” appearing the media, saying vaccine allergic reactions are “rare and shortlived”.
To be clear, as of December 10th, the vaccine either has never been tested on, or is not recommended for:
People under sixteen years of age.
Pregnant women (or women intending to become pregnant in the near future).
People with serious co-morbidities.
People already taking other medications.
People who have allergies.
So the official line already cedes that the vaccine may be harmful to some or all of those people.
Even on the fully-grown and totally healthy adults it was tested on, obviously, there has not been enough time to do any kind of long term studies on possible side-effects or complications It usually takes 5-10 years to fully develop and test a vaccine, where as this has been rushed out in less than 10 months.
On top of that, of course, we have the fact all the vaccine producers have campaigned for – and won – total legal immunity in the UK, US and other nations around the world.
In the event the vaccine does cause harm, Pfizer (and the producers of other vaccines), are immune from civil liability.
Which means that, just like us, the producers themselves are well-aware the new vaccines might not be safe, and don’t want a repeat of 2009, when a rushed-out flu vaccine resulted in children suffering life-long complications and receiving millions in damages.
In the final analysis, you have to ask yourself a simple question: Do you feel safer taking an untested vaccine, or risking getting a virus with a survival rate of over 99%?


offguardian--2020-12-12--The Myth of Overpopulation

The Myth of Overpopulation

We ’ re constantly told there are too many of us…but is this true ?
In his latest , “ Mouse Utopia and the Blackest Pill ” , James Corbett takes aim at perhaps the most insidious propaganda narrative of all , and one that is very close to my heart : Overpopulation .
This has been a personal bugbear of mine since I grew old enough to detect subtext , but long before I could articulate exactly why : The pervasive and destructive idea that there are too many people .
A propaganda construct that seeks to create contempt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ excusing hubristic and inhumane practices by institutions and elites .
These destructive belief systems have come to the fore during this “ pandemic ” , made obvious by the fevered gleeful enthusiasm with which so many took up the narrative .
One UN representative claimed the coronavirus was Earth “ sending us a message ” .
Back in April , the South China Morning Post ran an article headlined : We ’ ve been told for nearly two centuries that the planet is overpopulated , it has never been true .
The idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soon will be ) has been around since the world ’ s population was less than 1/10th of what it is now .
The crisis – Paul Ehrlich ’ s infamous “ Population Bomb ” – is yet to materialise , but since when did failed predictions deter apocalyptic doomsaying ?
It ’ s not hard to see the appeal of the idea .
On an institutional level , overpopulation is a grand excuse .
When Thomas Malthus predicted the overpopulation crisis in the early 19th century , and claimed that mass want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ class a “ get out of jail free ” card .
As inequality spikes and living standards diminish anyone who campaigns for change , or protests outside the seats of power , can be told “ it ’ s not our fault there is suffering !
It ’ s not our fault there is poverty !
It ’ s your fault , you ’ re reproducing too fast !
There are simply too many people !
” .
In that sense , it is a lie which protects the ruling class from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it serves another purpose too .
On a personal level , “ enlightened ” members of the elite have always been keen to write-off huge swaths of the population as surplus to requirements .
The idea of overpopulation allows academics , royals and bankers – men and women who hold themselves above the common folk based on their brains , blood and gold – to preach mass-murder whilst hiding their misanthropic god-complexes behind concern for the “ common man ” , our “ future children ” , or “ the environment ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ useless eaters ” and all those evil ideas spread by technocrats and billionaires , who would never in a thousand years considers themselves part of this supposed surplus .
People who convince the world they are “ good ” by camouflaging their insidious means behind supposedly beneficent ends .
It ’ s possible – and easy – to refute these ideas intellectually .
The complete output of all the farmland we currently use is enough to feed every person on this planet , plus another 3 billion people .
There are vast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us – including people themselves .
Each new person born could be the genius who invents a way to increase crop yields or better harness geothermal energy or some other amazing step forward in societal evolution .
Even supposing we were nearing any kind of purely hypothetical population ceiling , there would be no need to do anything about it .
Nature is self-limiting .
We ’ re taught that at 12 years old , with diagrams and big green arrows .
When there are lots of rabbits , you get lots of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the rabbits decrease .
Fewer rabbits feed fewer foxes .
Fewer foxes means the rabbits grow more numerous .
And so the cycle repeats .
This cycle has maintained life on this planet for millions of years before humans , and will do so for millions of years afterward .
To seek to corral or control nature has been historically shown to be both impossible and unnecessary .
So yes , it ’ s important to oppose the pervasive myth on a purely intellectual level .
But it ’ s equally important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it on philosophical , even spiritual level .
To hold fast against the idea that human life , any life , can be reduced to a matter of cold arithmetic .
That bankers or royals or scientists have any kind of right to decide exactly which people are necessary , and which are simply taking up space .
Simply put : we need to outright , in full voice , reject the idea that some people don ’ t matter .
Or that people as a whole are an unnatural plague which needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it well near the end of the above video : But the best-expressed rejection of the Malthusian belief system is from a very appropriate source , given the time of year .
In Dickens ’ A Christmas Carol , Ebenezer Scrooge famously says that if the poor are like to die they had “ better do it , and decrease the surplus population.
” To which The Ghost of Christmas Present offers this stinging rebuke : And that , I think , is a fine place to leave you .
For links , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ embedded video click here .
Our very own Catte Black wrote a great article detailing the philosophical underpinnings of A Christmas Carol here .

We’re constantly told there are too many of us…but is this true?
Kit Knightly
In his latest, “Mouse Utopia and the Blackest Pill”, James Corbett takes aim at perhaps the most insidious propaganda narrative of all, and one that is very close to my heart: Overpopulation.
This has been a personal bugbear of mine since I grew old enough to detect subtext, but long before I could articulate exactly why: The pervasive and destructive idea that there are too many people.
A propaganda construct that seeks to create contempt for masses of ordinary people, whilst excusing hubristic and inhumane practices by institutions and elites.
These destructive belief systems have come to the fore during this “pandemic”, made obvious by the fevered gleeful enthusiasm with which so many took up the narrative. One UN representative claimed the coronavirus was Earth “sending us a message”.
Back in April, the South China Morning Post ran an article headlined:
Why Covid-19 is a human overpopulation problem – perhaps humans are the virus?
We’ve been told for nearly two centuries that the planet is overpopulated, it has never been true. The idea there are too many people (or soon will be) has been around since the world’s population was less than 1/10th of what it is now.
The crisis – Paul Ehrlich’s infamous “Population Bomb” – is yet to materialise, but since when did failed predictions deter apocalyptic doomsaying?
It’s not hard to see the appeal of the idea.
On an institutional level, overpopulation is a grand excuse. When Thomas Malthus predicted the overpopulation crisis in the early 19th century, and claimed that mass want was inevitable, he handed the ruling class a “get out of jail free” card.
As inequality spikes and living standards diminish anyone who campaigns for change, or protests outside the seats of power, can be told “it’s not our fault there is suffering! It’s not our fault there is poverty! It’s your fault, you’re reproducing too fast! There are simply too many people!”.
In that sense, it is a lie which protects the ruling class from the anger of those they control. But it serves another purpose too. On a personal level, “enlightened” members of the elite have always been keen to write-off huge swaths of the population as surplus to requirements.
The idea of overpopulation allows academics, royals and bankers – men and women who hold themselves above the common folk based on their brains, blood and gold – to preach mass-murder whilst hiding their misanthropic god-complexes behind concern for the “common man”, our “future children”, or “the environment”.
From this wellspring flows eugenics and “useless eaters” and all those evil ideas spread by technocrats and billionaires, who would never in a thousand years considers themselves part of this supposed surplus. People who convince the world they are “good” by camouflaging their insidious means behind supposedly beneficent ends.
It’s possible – and easy – to refute these ideas intellectually.
The complete output of all the farmland we currently use is enough to feed every person on this planet, plus another 3 billion people. There are vast, vast amounts of untapped resources available to us – including people themselves.
Each new person born could be the genius who invents a way to increase crop yields or better harness geothermal energy or some other amazing step forward in societal evolution.
Even supposing we were nearing any kind of purely hypothetical population ceiling, there would be no need to do anything about it. Nature is self-limiting. We’re taught that at 12 years old, with diagrams and big green arrows.
When there are lots of rabbits, you get lots of foxes. The foxes eat the rabbits, the rabbits decrease. Fewer rabbits feed fewer foxes. Fewer foxes means the rabbits grow more numerous. And so the cycle repeats.
This cycle has maintained life on this planet for millions of years before humans, and will do so for millions of years afterward. To seek to corral or control nature has been historically shown to be both impossible and unnecessary.
So yes, it’s important to oppose the pervasive myth on a purely intellectual level.
But it’s equally important – perhaps more important – to oppose it on philosophical, even spiritual level. To hold fast against the idea that human life, any life, can be reduced to a matter of cold arithmetic. That bankers or royals or scientists have any kind of right to decide exactly which people are necessary, and which are simply taking up space.
Simply put: we need to outright, in full voice, reject the idea that some people don’t matter. Or that people as a whole are an unnatural plague which needs to be cured.
James Corbett puts it well near the end of the above video:
You are not a cancer on this planet, you are not a useless eater. We do not need drastic strictures of control over the human population, both literal and metaphorical, in order to make the world better…
But the best-expressed rejection of the Malthusian belief system is from a very appropriate source, given the time of year.
In Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge famously says that if the poor are like to die they had “better do it, and decrease the surplus population.” To which The Ghost of Christmas Present offers this stinging rebuke:
Man, if man you be in heart, not adamant, forbear that wicked cant until you have discovered What the surplus is, and Where it is. Will you decide what men shall live, what men shall die? It may be, that in the sight of Heaven, you are more worthless and less fit to live than millions like this poor man’s child.
And that, I think, is a fine place to leave you.