by William Skink
Anxious about the debate tomorrow? Uncertain about an economy manipulated by a one-trick-pony Fed? Scared refugees and immigrants pose a bigger threat than rampant climate change and a constitutionally perverted security state run amok?
Well, then maybe this message from Fred, from the future, will ease these simmering anxieties ready to blow:
by William Skink
The articles about the refugee crisis just keep coming. A few weeks ago Missoula Current took a look at Al Jazeera taking a look at the Missoula do-gooders crusade to bring refugees to this gentrified, economically exclusive little mountain town. From the link:
To the international news crew, the fears and offers of help found in Missoula stand as a reflection of what’s taking place nationally. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has gained a following by taking a nationalistic tone, one that critics have said represents the worst of America.
Political watchdogs have seen the rhetoric trickle down to Montana’s gubernatorial race as well, with the state’s Republican candidate issuing campaign fliers tying Islamic terrorists to Muslim refugees.
Gallacher believes Poole represents the opposite point of view.
“Here you have this woman moved tears, even as I was interviewing her, about a dead boy on the beach, and she’s trying to do something about it,” said Gallacher. “She’s almost a little naive about it and didn’t really know it was going to blow up like this. It has become much bigger than Soft Landing.”
First, I don’t think Trump’s “nationalistic tone” represents “the worst of America.” In my humble opinion, it’s the indispensable nation mentality that represents the worst and most dangerous aspect of America, because it comes with baked-in euphemisms for war, like “humanitarian intervention”, that allows liberals to remain so damn naive when it comes to the underlying factors creating refugees in the first place.
In another article at Missoula Current, there is reportedly an effort to lessen the ignorance in our community about how places like the Congo become bad enough that people flee their homes and communities to try and find a better life, but from what was reported, it sounds like the problem in the Congo was framed in the blandest of ways:
The land is rich in resources, holding half of Africa’s known resources, from diamonds to copper. The agricultural opportunities alone could feed the entire continent, he said, and its hydro-electric potential is vast.
“And yet it’s a paradox,” Robinson said. “It’s per-capita income is less than $800 a year. It’s ranked 226th out of 229 countries in the world, placing it at the bottom of the poverty index.”
For hundreds of years, Congolese have been subject to outside influences – traded as slaves and dominated by colonial European powers. More recently, Robinson said, Congo’s resources have been subject to exploitation, and the U.S. has played a part.
The U.S. has done much more than just played a part in perpetuating the misery of the Congolese people. I’ll just use wikipedia for a quick summary:
The CIA has been involved in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for several decades, especially in relation to the CIA’s considerations and plans to assassinate former Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba and accusations of CIA involvement in his eventual assassination. The CIA is also notably involved in a campaign against Lumumba’s successor, which led to his eventual imprisonment and long exile from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.[1] The CIA was also a vital part of the United States efforts to aid Joseph Mobutu who would take control of the Congo in 1965, renaming it Zaire. The CIA would work heavily with Mobutu, particularly in relation to American support for the National Liberation Front of Angola and Jonas Savimbi’s National Union for the Total Independence of Angola.
While this undoubtedly solidifies in the minds of liberal do-gooders that America must do more to help refugees, considering they are the direct result of America’s foreign policy, an article today at Counterpunch takes a critical and well-thought out look by deconstructing the question itself–can westerners help refugees from war-torn countries?
The whole article is a must-read for Missoula’s liberal do-gooders because it uncovers some very important points. I will highlight a few, starting with why the questions of can we help refugees isn’t the right questions to be asking.
After doing some preliminary work to explain the intention of the article, and juxtaposing short-term help with basic resources vs what long term help is needed, the author describes the problem with the question itself:
As we take this long-term approach to the question of “how can we help refugees,” some surprising and perhaps even disturbing things will unfold. The first problem with the “how can we help the refugees” question is the question itself. The premise of the question is flawed and problematic at two levels: first, it draws a clear boundary in power relations by assuming more power to the “we”, the Western people doing the “helping”, and therefore simultaneously grants them the power of choosing to deny refugees this “help”, if so they choose. The second problem with the question, which is directly related to its flawed premise, is that it seriously lacks any self-reflection. If we analyze some of the narratives of why many people in Western countries are either uncomfortable or outright hateful and disgusted by the influx of refugees, we will see that those narratives consistently revolve around points like: “therefugees are here to take our jobs,” “they are here to use our welfare state and benefits,” “they are here to destroy our cultures, freedoms, and values,” and so on.
When examined, it becomes clear that many of these narratives are primarily concerned with economics. The refugee is seen as somebody coming to Western countries to receive humanitarian aid at a time when many people in those countries are living precarious lives, struggling in their scarce and “at will” jobs, or simply feeling constant uncertainty in a future increasingly shaped and driven by neoliberal market policies that serve the minority elites in power. In this sense, many Westerners are right to feel angry, uncertain, and unsafe in their own societies. We need to acknowledge this.
Wait, you mean there is someone on the left capable of talking about the refugee crisis without automatically demonizing anyone critical of bringing refugees into communities where people already don’t feel economically secure? Brilliant. It’s too bad more reflection of this kind isn’t happening in Missoula, but this kind of reflection isn’t the kind partisans can translate into electoral action, so I get why it isn’t happening.
Another aspect of this article worth highlighting is what we share with refugees, specifically being trapped and powerless to stop what makes refugees in the first place: war. Again, from the link:
So, “what can we do to help refugees?” well, it seems to me that the solution starts right here in Western countries. It is in finding how this problem is caused in the first place and fixing it once and for all. It is clear that the solution lies in stopping Western governments from invading and destroying so many countries under different pretexts like spreading “freedom”, “democracy”, or “fighting terrorism”. Now, obviously some people in Western countries know this well, which is why they have strongly opposed and demonstrated against wars, signed petitions, put bumper stickers on the back of their cars to express their outrage, and so on. But their voices are totally ignored by their so-called “democratic” governments that insist on going to wars to serve the minority of the political and corporate elites in the U.S. and Western Europe. In the case of Western Europe, where there is relatively more awareness about the impacts of wars, the people were and still are unable to stop the elites in these countries from joining the U.S. in its mission of war and destruction in the Middle East and elsewhere. The structure of all these governments is so corrupt that they are in theory multi-party political systems, but in practice almost exclusively dominated by two political parties at the most, that are bought and sold by those who have the money to put them in power or remove them from it. What often happens is that these two-party systems are two sides of the same coin, especially when it comes to foreign policy dictated by those who have the money to bring them to power in the first place. Domestically, they may have different agendas and plans, hence many people’s illusion that they actually have different political options. But many people don’t realize that the domestic and the foreign policies are actually intertwined. If your government needs to spend billions on waging wars, guess where are they going to get it from? Yes, from your schools, health systems, and other essential public services and institutions. In foreign policy, Western governments rarely diverge from their foreign policies on the Middle East, Russia, or any country around the world that remotely threatens their hegemonic aspirations. For example, let us ask: Is it a coincidence that the U.S. and the EU speak in one united voice to sanction the Russian people and frame them as an enemy? Why are there not at least a few Western European countries who would decide to break the sanctions imposed on Russia? Is it a coincidence that their stance on Syria is almost identical? Is it a coincidence that most of them have participated in destroying Iraq during the first Gulf War? Is it a coincidence that most Western countries punished the Iraqi people for thirteen years with the most inhumane sanctions ever imposed in history? Is it a coincidence that none of these countries took a firm stance to prevent the second Gulf War from taking place? But more importantly, going back to the main question of “how can we help the refugees,” is it really “democratic” that the people in Western countries, no matter how much they loathe wars and the invasion of other countries are unable to stop their governments from waging these wars? Is it a coincidence that surveillance and repression of many freedoms have increased so much in the U.S. and Western Europe using “war on terror” as an excuse?
Confronting this reality requires changing the question from the imbalanced power dynamic of ‘can we help the refugees?’, to ‘how can we work together with refugees to stop the wars destroying their homes?’. That means putting aside the white savior complex and actually identifying the powerlessness of refugees with our own powerlessness to stop the wars:
As we try to honestly confront these questions, it becomes clear that most Western people are not free, and therefore unable to stop all these wars producing millions of refugees. The only people free to do whatever they please are the Western elites, not the general Western public. This means that Westerners, too, are as trapped as the refugees in changing the course of these events and actions, because their governments are simply not respecting their wishes. This means that instead of asking “how can we help the refugees,” the question must be seriously revised to become: “how can we and the refugees work together to stop this madness?” Revising the question changes the entire story. The first step to do so is to realize that one is unfree. To help refugees, it must be realized that the circumstances that led them to come to Western countries are not only beyond their powers, but apparently, they are beyond the power of most Westerners also. The few powerful Western elites, on the other hand, benefit from wars twice: first, by destroying other countries and stealing their resources under different pretexts. Second, by bringing millions of refugees to Western countries and using them as cheap labor. This is where the strong connection between the military-industrial-complex and the refugee-industrial-complex precisely lies. The elites benefit from these intertwined industries while hypocritically also paying a lip service to “inclusiveness” and “multiculturalism” in a phony way, as if they care about these now worn out terms that are becoming more harmful than useful. The outcome is that the Western elites make the majority of the disgruntled and disempowered Western populations spew their hatred on the wrong people, the refugees. In this way, the refugees and most Westerners are allies in this battle. They are both, though from different positions, fighting against the same warmongers, repressive powers, and undemocratic systems that are simply not listening and respecting their peoples’ wishes.
Again, brilliant.
I hope naive liberal do-gooders will become better educated about what is fueling this refugee crisis. Maybe they will even learn to put the anti-refugee sentiment in the context of economic disempowerment, so as to understand where the fear is actually coming from.
I don’t expect partisans to do any of this work, though, because it’s not in their interest to understand the bipartisanship of America’s disastrous foreign policy, or the economic reality that underlies the scapegoating of refugees and immigrants. Their interest is in demonizing one group to scare another group into voting for their brand of warmongers and corporate enablers. Fuck that noise, says I.
Instead, you can be better than those partisan hacks, liberal do-gooders. Don’t allow yourselves to be the pawns of the partisans who want, above all else, to elect Democrats. Right now that is what you are: pawns in an electoral charade that occludes the reality of our powerlessness to stop the wars and exploitation only the western elites benefit from.
Change that dynamic, and you will truly help the refugees.
by William Skink
The legacy Obama will pass to the next president is an executive office that has never been more lethal and dangerous for citizens and non-citizens alike. Claiming the right to execute citizens without due process (and an innocent teenager who should have had a more responsible father), not to mention that war on whistleblowers Obama has waged, dusting off the espionage act for a 21st century crackdown on honorable, courageous people trying to warn us of the corruption and criminality, the executive branch of the US government has become even more fascist-friendly and ready to roll than it was under George Bush.
Despite this legacy, Obama still stands before the world and uses his oratory skills to mesmerize people into starry-eyed complacency. On Facebook, Obama’s speech at the UN–especially the story about a refugee child–got the attention of the leadership of the Montana Human Rights Network. I couldn’t help myself, and stated that I found it difficult to take the words of a terrorist-arming war prez seriously. I got this comment in response, which I appreciate:
…yes Obama is in so many ways a President of war. He is so so so far from perfect and I have many issues with his foreign policy, neo-liberal economics, etc. And, yep thanks for the reminder of the role he directly plays in creating the situations that drive many people to fleeing- war/free-trade… It’s so hard to be pushing him from the left when we are faced with the overt racism/xenophobia of the GOP right now. Obama is a seriously amazing orator and these words and his story telling about 6 year old Alex’s compassion was powerful, but thanks for reminding me not to be blinded by his words so much that I am not critical of him. I think I will do both, which is hard- inspired and critical….
People apparently need to be reminded that the overt racism/xenophobia bubbling up in the body politic is a direct result of neoliberal economics and interventionist foreign policy. There are a few places where a reminder isn’t necessary, like Consortium News, which featured this response to Obama’s speech at the UN. From the link:
But the speech took on a surreal tone when contrasted with the reality of Obama’s eight years in office. Listening to the thoughtful elements of his address, some might have wondered why the President hadn’t acted in accord with these concerns throughout his two terms in office.
Instead, Obama was a president who bailed out the bankers and jailed the whistleblowers. While the Wall Street bankers whose reckless behavior crashed the world’s economy skated from accountability (along with Bush administration officials who rationalized torture), Obama used the Espionage Act more times than all his predecessors combined to prosecute people inside the government who tried to expose wrongdoing.
Obama was a president who upheld the neoliberal economic order; signed a bill that would allow the military to make arrests on U.S. soil; engaged in his own disastrous “regime change” in Libya; and supported the establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria that would turn into the Islamic State.
He was a president of drone strikes against civilians; and coups in Ukraine and Honduras; a president who continued NATO’s march to Russia’s borders; oversaw vast illegal surveillance of American citizens and a president who backed a global trade deal, the TPP, that will complete the corporate coup d’état (though he bizarrely said at the U.N. that it would protect workers’ rights and the environment.)
Obama’s presidency has been a disaster for this country, and for the world. Whether it’s Trump today, or Cruz tomorrow, the executive office has been firmly prepared for an authoritarian demagogue.
So here is my parting shot for the hope-killing neoliberal prez preparing to lame-duck himself into his federally protected, post-presidency life. While Obama talks pretty at the UN, this artist has the O-Bam Blues. Enjoy!
by William Skink
Why do people believe anything politicians say? Take Jon Tester for example. Yesterday our pretend populist with the flattop haircut used his weasel words to grandstand against the audacious corruption of Wells Fargo. Partisan hack Don Pogreba was quick to put up a post with the title Tester Takes Wells Fargo to Task. Here is one of the quoted excerpts from the theatrical tongue-lashing yesterday:
It was Tester who told the single biggest truths of the morning’s proceedings. First, he told Stumpf that a CEO of a major bank who cannot stop 5,300 people from committing two million acts of fraud is “giving a lot of ammunition to the people who want to break up the big banks.” Then, he pointed out that the fraud at Wells Fargo had managed to produce something rare in these politically polarized times.
“I’ve been on this committee for 10 years,” said Tester, “and you’ve done something I haven’t seen in a long while. You have managed to unite this committee, and not in a good way.”
What a fucking joke. There was an opportunity for Democrats to actually do something about the fraud and corruption that brought the global economy to its knees 8 years ago, when Obama was elected and Democrats had a congressional majority, but we know how that turned out.
And when there were other opportunities to reign in the banks, what did Tester do? He once again sided with the banks by killing the Brown-Kaufman amendment 6 years ago. Here is what that amendment would have done:
“The amendment, sponsored by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), would have required megabanks to be broken down in size and capped so that their individual failure would not bring down the entire system.
Under Brown-Kaufman, no bank could hold more than 10 percent of the total amount of insured deposits, and a limit would have been placed on liabilities of a single bank to two percent of GDP.
In practice, the amendment required the six biggest banks — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley — to significantly scale down their size. It was touted as a way to end Too Big To Fail.”
Tester voted against this amendment because he’s a tool of the banks and other corporate interests. Jon Tester isn’t going to do anything that would compromise the corporate loot from flowing to the DSCC he chairs. His job is to be a tool, and that’s what he’s going to be. Weasel words mean nothing. It’s how politicians like Tester act that exposes who they really work for.
And it’s not you, Montana. Remember that in 2018.
by William Skink
Locally there’s a gubernatorial thing happening tonight. I will save you time by reducing it to what the respective campaigns have so far been about: snakes on a plane vs. rich man’s river. Hopefully they don’t stumble on to something of substance and actually tell voters how they plan on addressing all the serious problems facing this state.
Nationally there are bombs going off and a compliant media willing to helpfully edit Hillary’s response to it. Thanks media, good work.
Globally the ceasefire in Syria is kaput. And while America helps Turkey kill Kurds (some of the best fighters against ISIS) and “accidentally” kills Syrian soldiers, some of those “vetted” moderate rebels recently chased out American special forces under threat of a slaughter (links at original post):
The deployment of some 40 U.S. special forces to Al Ra’i did not go well. The Turkish “Free Syrian Army” proxies threatened to kill the U.S. forces. They called them “unbelievers” and “crusader pigs” and the U.S. forces had to retreat under Turkish cover (video). Some FSA spokesperson later claimed that the dispute was over U.S. support for the Kurdish dominated SDF, which at times had fought against the FSA. Unconfirmed reports now say that the special forces are back in Al Ra’i after certain FSA groups were ordered out of the area. There are also reports claiming the U.S., after the special forces were chased out of town, “accidentally” bombed some FSA group in Al Ra’i. Ooops.
Personally, I’m going on a bike ride. I’ll be listening to the new Nick Cave album, Skeleton Tree. Have a nice day.