The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with Andrew Gavin Marshall

I sit down with Andrew Gavin Marshall and discuss the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

The article that was discussed can be found here: http://tinyurl.com/olrw6b7

A Global Campaign to Call for a Peace Treaty

Editor's Note: As we all know, the developments are the Korean peninsula are quite worrying as the Koreas seem to edge closer to war and those of us who want peace are quite worried as the prospects for such an outcome seem to be dimming.


I received an email just two weeks ago and was asked to share the following document with my audience to hopefully encourage support for this movement that calls for peace between the two Koreas. It was launched by Professor Kiyul Chung, a visiting professor at the School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University in Beijing and the editor of 4th Media.

The email stated that the following document "calls for Peace not for War in Korean peninsula and the Northeast Asia region" and "The 4th Media, with the support and solidarity from other global alternative, independent medias around the world, would like to launch a collective Global Campaign in order to support those tens of millions of Koreans who call for Peace." Thus, I encourage everyone to share this document far and wide to show that there are people around the world who not only support peace, but support the Korean people, no matter if they be in the North or the South.


The latest updates can be found here and here.

- Devon DB

A Global Campaign to Call for a Peace Treaty:

No to War on Korean Peninsula and in the whole Northeast Asian Region

by Prof. Kiyul Chung

May 18, 2013

On July 27, 1953, Korean War hostilities were ended only temporarily by introducing the fragile Armistice Agreement which was signed by DRPK, China and USA/UN. However, that “temporary cessation” of the deadly military conflicts has not put an end to all hostilities as it was supposed to and as was clearly stated as its intent in the 1953 document. Instead, a situation has continued of the peaceful reunification of Korean peninsula being serially obstructed and with the DPRK put under continual siege and even serial threats of nuclear annihilation by the U.S. since November 1950.

The result has been that critical and scarce resources in both the southern and northern regions of Korea, resources needed to lift millions out of poverty in both the north and south, have been diverted from development into military and defense. This dangerous, unstable and development-damaging situation has been forcibly continued against the will of the great majority of over 80 million Korean populations in north, south and overseas.

The hostilities, past, present and intended for the future have been purposefully maintained on the Korean peninsula for several reasons: the military-industrial-complex interests of the U.S. and its allies; the prevention of the self-determined peaceful reunification of Korea under terms and conditions not dictated by the U.S.; the use of portions of Korea for bases and staging areas for imperial adventures with specific targets in mind such as China, Russia and other potential rivals both in Northeast Asia and the Eurasian continent; and so on.

Therefore, countless “manufactured crises” have purposefully maintained the DPRK-USA “semi-war status”. The crises have been unilaterally imposed against the much weaker party by the much stronger. The “crises made by U.S.” have fundamentally defined and maintained and structured a “forcibly divided” Korean Peninsula over the last 60 some years.

The unilaterally-imposed military confrontations have continued between the two most incomparable parties: the DPRK and the U.S. There can be no comparison. One side incomparably outweighs the other in everything in number, quality, quantity, and size of the territory and the population, especially the military continuing until this very day.

There has been also a unilaterally-employed global demonization campaign as “war propaganda” or “psychological warfare,” by “the only global superpower” against the incomparably much weaker side for several decades.

The human suffering that has resulted from the forceful division of the Korean people and from the continued economic blockade, military threats, political isolation, financial sanctions and siege against the DPRK cannot be easily measured or described. It is simply beyond description. Beyond imagination! The waste of human resources, ecological-environmental devastation by the over 60 years of ongoing US-led (so-called) “military drills” and the continued “nuclear war games,” and the Korean national wealth by the forcibly imposed division cannot be easily described or measured either.

Today, along with those numerous manufactured crises, the immeasurable sufferings, and the life of already-disrespected, -discarded and –dismantled fragile Armistice Agreement seems to be coming to an end.

In the last 4 months, the Korean peninsula, the Northeast Asia region and the whole world seem to have been thrown into a new reality, i.e., a real possibility of the first-ever, Nuclear War.

Such a war is now again deemed, as it was during the 1950-53 Korean War, a real possibility to most, if not all, Koreans in north, south and overseas. It must also seem so to many Japanese and US military troops stationed in Korea, Japan, Guam, Hawaii, and other US military bases.

This is the very reason why tens of millions of Koreans from all ends in north, south and overseas, together with tens of millions of peace-loving peoples from around the world, in unison and in solidarity, call for peace on the Korean peninsula and the region and not for wars not only in the region but also anywhere around the world.

Therefore, WE the undersigned PEOPLE, from all ends, not only in the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia region but also in the whole globe, join with the tens of millions of Korean peoples in north, south and overseas to solemnly call for the following demands:

I.          The Armistice Agreement must be replaced by a Permanent Peace Treaty signed by those responsible parties such as DPRK, China and the US/UN-South Korea.

II.        All those deadly destructive Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) must be removed from the Korean peninsula and the Northeast Asia region once for all.

III.       The Asia-Pacific region must remain and be saved for a new future of a peacefully-coexisting and mutually co-prosperous region.

IV.       The Korean Peninsula, the Asia-Pacific region and indeed the whole world must not be manipulatively used for the sake of global warmongers, military industrial complexes and/or hegemonic muscle –wielding powers that are eager to continuously raise military tensions at the expense of peace, security and prosperity for all.

Victory to Peace not for War by Ending the Already Dismantled Armistice Agreement to Be Replaced by a Permanent Peace Treaty for the Korean Peninsula!

On behalf of the tens of millions of peace-loving Koreans in north, south and overseas, Mr. Oh, Jong Ryul and Mr. Lee, Chang Bok, the two Standing Senior Chairs of the largest-ever nationwide Anti-war Coalition in Seoul, Korea present this document on the day of May 18.

Race, Queerphobia, and America

The oppression and problems that LGBT people face on a regular basis is gaining more and more exposure in the news on both a national and international level. Yet, while the main focus seems to be on same-sex marriage, there is also something that is ignored, namely the issue of race in regards to who is in and who is prejudiced against the LGBT community.

Earlier this year, Time Magazine ran a cover in which ran a headline that gay marriage had already won.[1] On the cover were either two gay men or two lesbian women kissing. While this is just a magazine cover, it epitomizes the general American view of lesbians and gays: middle-class, white individuals. It also reveals just how little attention LGBT people of color receive, with our communities consistently being labeled homo- or trans- phobic.

This manner of thinking is quite dangerous on a number of levels. For one, it implies that prejudice against LGBT people specifically lies with people of color when this ignores the fact that 1) there are homophobic white people- just look at the Westboro Baptist Church and 2) there are, in fact, LGBT people of color.

On another level, it implies that white people can’t possibly be anti-LGBT because of their very whiteness. This can be linked to the general idea of white supremacy in America where there are subtle “manifestations of white supremacy that are woven into the fabric of American culture”[2] and white people not being considered anti-LGBT is one of these manifestations in which whites are considered morally superior to people of color.  The fact of the matter is that most anti-LGBT prejudice that whites display is often ignored and paid no notice, with one example being the case of Cece McDonald, in which she was assaulted by white transphobes[3] and received little to no mainstream media coverage.

There are those who may argue that they are correct in painting people of color as anti-LGBT by pointing to certain articles such as Bill Maxwell’s Homophobia: It’s A Black Thing, in which we see a black author stating that “Several studies and polls show that homophobia is a major part of African-American culture, enabled by religious and political nonsense and emotional and intellectual immaturity.”[4] Yet, this ignores that soon after Mr. Maxwell’s article was published, information came out stating that blacks are more likely to identify as LGBT[5], the majority of blacks support same-sex marriage[6], and there are a number of influential LGBT blacks[7]. If this homophobia had been linked to the “religious and political nonsense” and the “emotional and intellectual immaturity” of the black community, how could any of this have happened? It is quite obvious that homophobia is not as prevalent in the black community as Mr. Maxwell had thought.

By buying into the idea that all people of color are anti-LGBT, one is only stereotyping and perpetuating a myth that is completely false and not only allows whites to continue to ignore their own shortcomings in regards to LGBT people, but on a larger scale, ignore the unique challenges that LGBT people of color face.[8]

Rather than quibble about who is more or less prejudiced, it is time that we actually realize that anyone, no matter their skin color, can be prejudiced against LGBT individuals and to fight that prejudice on both an individual and national level, from talking to anti-LGBT individuals we know to fighting for federal and state laws that end discrimination against trans* individuals. Only in that way will we be able to create a society that is more just, not just for LGBT people, but for everyone.


Endnotes


[1] Jake Merkinson, “Time Gay Marriage Cover: 'Gay Marriage Already Won' (PHOTO),” Huffington Post, March 28, 2013 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/time-gay-marriage-cover_n_2970561.html)

[2] Anthony Mustacich, “White Supremacy: Exploring the Contours of Race and Power in America,” Global Research, May 11, 2013 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/white-supremacy-exploring-the-contours-of-race-and-power-in-america/5334690)

[3] Jay Michaelson, Media Ignores Rash of Assaults on Transgender Women,” The Daily Beast, June 6, 2012 (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/06/media-ignores-rash-of-assaults-on-transgender-women.html)

[4] Bill Maxwell, “Homophobia: It’s A Black Thing,” Tampa Bay Times, June 17, 2011 (http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/homophobia-its-a-black-thing/1175642)

[5] Huffington Post, Black Gays Make Up Largest Share Of LGBT Community, Survey Shows, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/black-gays-lgbt-community_n_1989859.html, October 19, 2012

[6] Hannah Morgan, “Blacks’ support a surprise on same-sex marriage,” Washington Times, December 9, 2012 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/9/blacks-support-a-surprise-on-same-sex-marriage/?page=all)

[7] Lawrence Feber, “Eight LGBT African-Americans Who Changed the Gay Community,” Queerty, February 4, 2013 (http://www.queerty.com/eight-lgbt-african-americans-who-changed-the-gay-community-20130204/)

[8] Advocates for Youth, The Impact of Homophobia and Racism on GLBTQ Youth of Color, http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/425?task=view, June 2007

Why We Must Fight

Even doing so much as glancing at the occasional headline or ticker feed can make one feel as if the world is going to hell in a handbasket. From the economic crisis in Europe to the bombings in Boston, to the continuing news about the false economic recovery, the world can seem like a dangerous and terrifying place, yet we must realize that the people and forces behind these problems and realize that solutions are in fact possible.

Children are starving in Greece due to the fact that Greece’s economy “is in free fall, having shrunk by 20 percent in the past five years” and in the United States, the amount of suburban poverty is increasing, with neither situation seeming to change anytime soon. The entire global economy looks like it may come apart at the seams. Governments from the US to China are engaging in a massive currency war which is backed by the G20 and will hurt the average person.  

The governments of the world are hiding the economic downturns by fiddling with the indicators, such as the levels of unemployment and inflation. Generally, “the way these numbers are calculated sometimes doesn’t reflect the true economic landscape at all,” however this is unsurprising when we realize that the market has been manipulated time and again.

Due to these economic problems, one would think that many nations would be busy attempting to fix their wrecked economies, yet Western nations such as France have found the time to fund and arm radical Islamists in an attempt to overthrow Assad, the Chinese government is making “increased military spending a top priority,” and  the threat of regional wars from Israel-Iran to North and South Korea.

The corruption of governments around the world and how they do not care for their people has been shown time and time again. The fact that the Greek government is allowing for austerity to occur even if it means children starve is a crime in and of itself. What is occurring is the bastardization of the so-called First World countries by their own governments and in the case of Europe, the IMF and World Bank are helping in cannibalizing Europe, allowing for poor euro countries such as Greece to essentially become a corporate colony for the major EU countries like Germany. What has happened to the so-called Third World countries is now happening to the ‘First World,’ where “areas of education and health care as well as other public enterprises are dismantled, privatized and sold off to mega corporations and banks for pennies on the dollar,” resulting in a type of neo-feudalism where corporations are in control of our entire society, from the government to the very food that you eat.

While the situation may seem dismal and it seems as if all hope is gone, we must fight. People have been fighting all over the globe, from anti-austerity protests in Europe to the number of protests planned for this month across the US to labor strikes and social protests being on the rise in Egypt.

These protests are a sign that people are realizing that the power to change their reality doesn’t like in the halls of government nor in the offices of a corporate office, the power is- and always has- been inside of them. If we are to stop this madness, we must fight and not just for our own sake, but for the sake of those who have yet to be born.

The Hampton Institute

The following is a transcript of a recent email interview I had with Colin Jenkins, the founder of the newly created and soon-to-be-launched Hampton Institute about the think tank’s creation.

1. Tell us a little about yourself.

I was born and raised in Saratoga Springs, NY, a small city of about 25,000 people located roughly 30 miles north of Albany.   Saratoga is an intense contrast of affluence and poverty, with multi-million dollar summer mansions located within a few miles of sprawling (yet hidden) mobile home parks.  I was raised in a family of four (parents and older brother), and we resided in one half of a home owned by my grandmother.  My parents, neither of whom had college degrees, both worked long hours to support us.   

I attended college after serving four years in the Army, and eventually earned my BA and MA.  I played Division III football in college.  I was a competitive powerlifter from 2000-2006, during which time I earned multiple amateur records in the bench press.  I still enjoy strength training and playing recreational sports (particularly softball, basketball and flag football).  I have worked in the social services field, at both the County and State levels, for the past 9 years.  I am a proud member of the IWW and currently reside in Albany, NY.

2. What are your political views and how did you come to them?

Though I try to avoid “labels” as much as possible (due to ambiguous and conflicting perceptions of such), I am considered a Leftist by most accounts.  At my core, I am anti-authoritarian.  My quest for knowledge has led me to become anti-capitalist.  Essentially, I believe in individual liberty, free association and autonomy, and have come to the realization that these things are not possible without a firm societal foundation of mutual aid, solidarity, cooperation and common good.   I challenge the notion that “collectivism” and “individualism” are mutually exclusive ideals.  In fact, I believe their pairing is not only compatible, but necessary.  I am fascinated with the intellectual roots of Anarchism, and have accepted much of Marx’s analysis of capitalism as being accurate.  I am anti-sectarian and opposed to all forms of “identity politics,” which I view as self-serving and egotistical.  I recognize the existence of class war and, though its complexities are obvious, do not shy away from this basic premise.  When analyzing matters of importance, I believe the only useful criteria are race, class, gender and privilege.  All other considerations (nationalism, for example) are nothing more than smokescreens.  Regarding the current political landscape in the United States, I view both parties (Democrats and Republicans) as (like Noam Chomsky once put it) “two wings of the same (corporate) business party.”  Both represent moneyed interest, and not the interests of the large majority.

I developed strong anti-racist views due to some traumatic experiences as a child.  I was also lucky enough to learn compassion from my mother.  Other than those particulars, I was relatively apolitical through my teenage and young adult years.  My “politicization” really began in the Army, where I first became conscious of the class structure that dominates our society.  This occurred to me over time after recognizing a common trait with “enlisted” soldiers – all of whom had poor and working class backgrounds; and with officers – all of whom had middle class to semi-affluent backgrounds.   Not to mention, the realization that most of those who make decisions on where and who we “fight” have never served and typically have interests beyond their bullshit patriotic rhetoric (namely monetary). This led me to examine power structures beyond race.  The rest is history.

3. How did the Hampton Institute come to be created?

The Hampton Institute has roots almost a decade old.  During my time in graduate school, I became intensely politicized and “obsessed” with reading, learning and acquiring knowledge.  During this time, I developed aspirations of writing.   Eventually, this personal aspiration evolved into a desire to create a collective outlet of radical inquiry.  As with such ambitions, this embryo was constantly overridden by the demands of life.  Now, some ten years later, I am ready to give it a go.

4. How’d you go about creating the current team that you have now?

The current team was gathered through roughly three years of networking, mostly on social media.  Facebook, for all of its potential downfalls and criticism, was an incredibly valuable tool in this process.  It allowed me to meet a diverse group of intelligent, inquisitive and passionate folks – the very folks who are now the Hampton Institute.

5. What do you think makes the Hampton unique and different from other think tanks?

In terms of organization, its operational structure is collective, cooperative, non-hierarchical/horizontal.  Essentially, I wish for it to be run as a microcosm of the society we strive for.  It is also strictly independent and without ties to special interests.

In terms of approach, the HI attempts to begin to fill the historical void of which Gramsci once termed, “Organic Intellectualism” – the collective politicization and critical analysis of the working-class itself.  The HI is indifferent to traditional structures dominated by the pedigreed and privileged “intelligentsia.”  Our members are passionate and probing members of the common.  If there is one thing I have learned over the course of my life, it is that intelligent analysis exists throughout the socioeconomic spectrum, and the only thing that separates those who own a public voice and those who do not is varying degrees of privilege.  “Credentials” essentially mean nothing because they are typically nothing more than products of privilege; and for that reason alone, perspectives and analyses coming from those credentials/privilege are often presented in a way that opposes the public-at-large (the working class).  The HI seeks to challenge this embedded, highly-controlled and top-down mode of inquiry by offering an alternative, organic and bottom-up viewpoint.

6. What are your goals for The HI?

First and foremost, as a think tank, we want to generate ideas and cultivate dialogue.  We want to do this in a way that relates to the interests of the public-at-large by providing class analyses which run contrary to the talking heads of corporate-dominated media.  We want to help contribute to the shaping of a new paradigm of collective and critical thinking - one that is based on foundational issues of class, race, gender and privilege.  There is an ongoing battle for consciousness - particularly that which deals with our position in a class-based world - and the other side (1% of the global population) is winning handily.  During the age of neoliberalism, private corporate interests have gained complete control of governments around the world, including here in the United States.  The result: A global economic system that has enriched a handful of people while leaving most behind.  We have working class folks killing other working class folks, whether here in the U.S. or abroad, at a pace and frequency previously untouched.  Racism and bigotry still rule the day, and corporate propaganda has us blaming the victims of this global structure while pointing the accusatory finger at the most vulnerable of our class - the poor and impoverished.  It’s time to put an end to that.  

Bolivia’s President, Evo Morales, while addressing the famed Mayan calendar recently, described the 2012 Winter Solstice as marking “the end of hatred and the beginning of love, the end of lies and the beginning of truth - the start of an age in which community and collectivity will prevail over capitalism and individuality.”  This transition is long overdue and welcome, but it will not happen without a tremendous amount of work (generating ideas, cultivating dialogue, promoting class consciousness, activism, direct action, etc..) Our orientation is “radical” and “revolutionary.” We are here to challenge the entrenched and mostly-reactionary culture that has become pervasive and acutely dangerous for a large majority.  We believe this battle is won through knowledge and consciousness.  We hope to assist in this transition. 

The Myth of Regime Apologists

Given the current conflict in Syria, there are many in the alternative media whose main focus when reporting on the fighting is the actions of the rebels. This has earned such media outlets and writers the taunts and attacks of others who label them “regime apologists.” I have personally had such labels thrown at me when I’ve posted work in other places. Yet, such accusations are quite untrue and the reasons for such baseless accusations must be explored.

Generally speaking, the media has portrayed the Syrian conflict (as well as the Libyan conflict and many others) in stark, almost comic book-esque terms where the side of the US and its allies are portrayed as the ‘good guys’ and whoever is the enemy at the moment, portrayed as a ‘bad guy.’ This can lead to a situation where one immediately thinks in absolutist terms and assumes that anything that isn’t criticism of the ‘bad’ side is actually support of it. On a somewhat deeper level, this shows just how much power the mainstream media has in shaping the opinions of people, rather than the ‘objective’ journalism that is supposed to occur where simply the facts are presented and people are left to look more into the situation and make up their own minds.

While people and sites that are accused of being ‘regime apologists,’ the fact of the matter is that what they are doing is actually quite logical and helpful. For example, during the war in Libya, the mainstream media was reporting stories such as that Gaddafi was giving his soldiers Viagra to engage in mass rape and more recently with regards to Syria, the mainstream media has been reporting that there is a “high probability” that Assad used chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. However, the Viagra story turned out to be false and there is no conclusive evidence that Assad or the rebels used chemical weapons.

In this context, it is important to realize that these so-called regime apologists are actually providing the reader with more information and aiding to show a more balanced view of current events. Articles focusing solely on the atrocities that rebels have committed is positive as the crimes that despotic regimes commit can be found rather easily as they are reported on exhaustively, whereas the war crimes of rebels are often ignored.

There are those that argue that sites such as Global Research, which published articles discussing Gaddafi’s social programs and questioning such incidents as the Houla massacre, support the dictatorial regimes of Gaddafi and Assad. Yet, this ignores the fact that such outlets are rightfully questioning these events as the mainstream media has been shown to get such stories quite wrong. In addition to this, outlets that question the general narrative are needed as many times they analyze the situation within a much larger framework, allowing for a more complete understanding of a conflict. Essentially what such outlets do is ask questions that others won’t or can’t ask, even if they do seem extreme.

We must always ask questions, for that is the only we will get to the truth.

In the Arms of Dictators

In the Arms of Dictators: America the Great… Global Arms Dealer

By: Andrew Gavin Marshall


The American imperial system incorporates much more than supporting the occasional coup or undertaking the occasional war. Coups, wars, assassinations and other forms of overt and covert violence and destabilization, while relatively common and consistent for the United States – compared to other major powers – are secondary to the general maintenance of a system of imperial patronage. A “stable” system is what is desired most by strategic planners and policy-makers, but this has a technical definition. Stability means that the populations of subject nations and regions are under “control” – whether crushed by force or made passive by consent, while Western corporate and financial interests have and maintain unhindered access to the “markets” and resources of those nations and regions. Since the 19^th century development of America’s overseas empire, this has been referred to as the “Open Door” policy: as in, the door opens for American and other Western economic interests to have access to and undertake exploitation of resources and labour.