Category Archives: Government Oppression

In a upcoming Critical Conversation, faculty members will explore how our self-identity is challenged by works of art.

Who am I?

It's a three-word question to which there are almost an infinite number of answers.

But one place to start is art.

"Art can be a powerful tool for interrogating ideas about identity that are put forward by mainstream society," says assistant professor of theater arts Isaiah Wooden.

In March, Wooden and professors Sheida Soleimani and lauren woods will participate in an hour-long forum for first-year students entitled "Art and the Politics of Representation."

They will discuss questions like these: How does art represent and express identity? How do artists complicate our understanding of identity? And how do such artistic mediums as theater and photography force us to reevaluate who we are?

The event is part of "Critical Conversations," a series of talks held during the academic year that invites students to think about issues central to the world around them. The discussions feature professors discussing a subject from the perspective of their field of research as well as talkbacks and a question-and-answer session with students.

At the Critical Conversation on art and identity, Wooden will speak about how drama can transform how we think about gender, class, race and sexuality.

"One of the things that is unique about theater is that we get to see things represented before us live and in action, but with enough critical distance to assess them," he says. "We get to decide whether we want to participate in society's definitions of identity or if we want to subvert or transgress them."

In addition to teaching at Brandeis, Soleimani is a photographer and multimedia artist. Her parents are political refugees who were persecuted by the Iranian government in the early 1980s during the Iranian Revolution. Her work, exhibited worldwide, has explored war, the oppression of women and even the power of oil in shaping the world economy.

"Photographs have been used historically to oppress and marginalize individuals but have also been used to create discussions around identity and power," she says. "Through this Critical Conversation, I hope that students will consider how their camera can be both a tool and a weapon."

Read this article:

Can art tell us who we really are? | BrandeisNOW - Brandeis University

Last week, MSNBC host JoyReid caught some flak for thisTwitter post:

I'll say it again: people on the right would trade all the tax cuts for the ability to openly say the n-word like in 'the good old days. To them, not being able to be openly racist and discriminatory without consequence is oppression. Trump is the avatar for this "freedom."

For the most part, she is correct.White victimology is cacophonous. The usual suspects across the right-wing echo chamber responded to Reid's observationwith the howls of the guilty, much the same way that a criminal pleads his or her innocence while being arrested, or before the judge.

Beyond the predictable and distracting outrage, what did Reid really mean?

White supremacy is a deep compulsion. It isseductive. At least since the 1960s and the "Southern strategy," it has beencentral to theRepublican Party and the"conservative" movement. For 21st-century Republicans, conservatism and racism are ultimatelyone and the same thing.

The evidence for this fact is overwhelming: Opinion polls show that Republicans (especially Trump supporters) are more likely to be racially resentful oroutright racist towards Black and brown people thanare whiteDemocrats. Racism and overall hostility towards nonwhites was the most powerful variable driving support for Donald Trump. Republicanpolicies causedisproportionateharm to Black and brown people. NowRepublicans are activelytrying to stop nonwhite people from voting, and to a large degree haveembracedterrorism and other political violence as legitimatemeans of taking and holding power. Neo-Nazis, Klan members and other white supremacists, hate-group members and forcesof the global righthave embracedDonald Trumpas theirnatural leader and symbolic figurehead.

As to the "N-word" I would prefer to print it in full, but will respect editorial conventions here. It is more than just six letters thatcan be used as a noun, an adjective, an adverbor a verb. As one of the ugliest words in the English language, it represents a formof violence aimed at robbing Black people of their humanity as a way of legitimating oppression and death. By debasing Black people and their lives, humanity, dignityand fundamental right to exist, such language locates whiteness (and white people) as something inherently superior.

White people who wield that word or who wish they could, as in Reid's scenario are using it as a cudgel, but also as an instrument that pays white peoplea type of psychological wage,even if their material circumstances are often pitiable and the unseen costsof whiteness have drained them of moralityand virtue. (Although this is not my subject here, it must be remembered that racism also hurts white people.)

Because ofthe bloody and tragic weight of its history,the N-word is highly malleable, almostsemiotic shape shifter. Arguably,the "birtherism" conspiracy theory directed againstBarack Obama was a way of calling him and his followers the N-word. When the right wing targets prominent Black women for harassment they are combining sexism and racism in a gendered version of the N-word. White America's hostility to the Black Lives Matter movementand reflexive invocation of "AllLives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" is another way to summonthe wordin today's supposedly "post-racial" public discourse. When Trump's followers launched their attack on the Capitol carrying Confederate flags, Christian nationalist banners and symbols, and a whole range of neo-Nazi andwhite supremacist regalia,in some cases chasingand attacking Black police officers, they too were channeling the logic and energy of the N-word.

And when Republicans in Congress continued their attemptto overturn the 2020 election even after the deadly coup attack they were showing their support for the white terrorists who attacked the Capitol in order to symbolically overthrow America's multiracial democracy. In that moment, the Republican Party was calling tens of millions of Black Americans the N-word.

Would Republicans and other members of the right wing actually trade trillions of dollars for the "privilege" of calling Black people the N-word without consequence? Honestly, here Reid is actually being overly hopefuland generous.

Yes, many Republicans and"conservatives" likely would do that but they do not actually need to.

Manymembers of the White Right would welcomethe "freedom"to use racial slurs in public, without consequence, because such a world is whatthey yearn for:making America "great again."That imaginary freedom, in their dreamworld, would also signify that the"oppressive" bogeyman of"political correctness" had been slain.

Queens College professorJeff Maskovsky exploredthis in an important2017 article in HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory on what he termed"white nationalist postracialism":

Trump's excoriation of political correctness is the centerpiece to his political worldview and a cornerstone of his populist appeal. With it, he stokes white nationalist sentiments, mobilizing supporters to be outraged by PC-induced free speech violations and in defense of white cultural worlds that, in this formulation, are perceived to be under constant attack by liberal accusations of racial insensitivity. Freighted to his anti-PC stance is a politics of nostalgia for a fictitious industrial heyday when Americans were purportedly better off. Indeed, the solution for the precarious status of many Americans today is, for Trump, a return not to the 1970s and 80s, when white ethnicity was celebrated across the political spectrum, or to the 1990s, when the culture wars were at their peak, but to the mid-twentieth century, and to the industrial economy and welfare statism of that era. And this is an explicit desire to return to that era,as it actually existed, with its racist and sexist hierarchies wholly intact.

There is also substantial research which shows that many white Americans frequently use anti-Black and other racist slurs in private, among their peers. In public, such slursare processed through a kindof narrative laundering, in whichovert white supremacist language is replaced with verbiage where the speaker says such things like, "Not to be racist, but ..." or "It might not be politically correct, but ..." or insists they are simplyexercising their "freedom"or "telling the truth."

In fact, a 2008 public opinion poll conducted by The Economist and YouGov showed that almost 80 percent of Trump's voters would continue to support him if he used the N-word. A large percentage of Trump's supporters also admitted to pollsters that they often use such language themselves.

As for Reid's crudeequation of trading tax cuts for the N-word,political scientists and other researchershave actually shown that the Republican Party and other right-wing elites have used white racism and other forms of anti-Black and racial animus to advance a plutocratic agenda. This strategy goes at least as far back as the Reagan era,with talk about Black "welfare queens,"brown "illegal aliens" and the dangers of "big government."Such language focuses the ire of racially resentful or overtly racist whites againstnonwhite people ("the takers")instead of on the ways right-wing elites are using racism and"culture war" appeals as camouflage whilesystematically dismantling the social safety net and then transferring billions of dollars upwardto the richest and most powerful.

Reid's commentsabout white supremacy and the right wing arean example of what the ancient Greeks described as "parrhesia": at personal and professional risk she told an uncomfortable truth. Reid is standing on a knife while balancing on a tightrope. Such truth-telling, particularlyby a Black womanwho hosts aprogram on amajor cable news network, is very brave. Viewers should enjoy Reid's testimony while theycan, because the real "cancel culture" in America is not targeting conservatives.In the world as it actually exists, Black and brown people who speaktoo much truth about race and white supremacy in America are at grave risk of being silenced or literally "canceled."

More here:

Joy Reid's truth-telling: The hidden wages of white supremacy and the N-word - Salon

The following is a press release from the office of Kate Brown, Governor of Oregon.

SALEM, Ore. - Governor Kate Brown today [3/12/21] announced a settlement agreement in the primary lawsuit challenging the Oregon Cares Fund, the innovative program crafted by community members and funded by the legislature that directs a portion of the states CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act funding to address the disparate impacts of COVID-19 faced by Black Oregonians.

Governor Brown also committed to increasing state agency data collection efforts, which will facilitate further investments targeted for communities of color and vulnerable populations.

In July 2020, the state legislature directed federal CARES Act funding to a range of communities and local industries. Those efforts included a partnership with Black leadership across Oregon to stand up the Oregon Cares Fund, in collaboration with The Contingent (an Oregon nonprofit organization) and the Black United Fund of Oregon. To date, the fund has distributed more than $50 million in timely, targeted relief to Black-owned businesses, Black-led nonprofits, and Black families in Oregon that demonstrate financial adversity due to COVID-19.

As a state, we have a duty to aid those in need, particularly Oregonians who suffer from systemic racism and are disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, said Governor Brown. The Oregon Cares Fund has been an enormous success, and has provided urgent relief to Black Oregonians, Black-led nonprofits, and Black-owned businesses, which are less likely to have access to federal aid.

Last October, the state was named in a lawsuit challenging the fund. That lawsuit, Great Northern Resources, Inc. v. Coba, held up distribution of approximately $9 million remaining in the Oregon Cares Fund, even though the funds application deadline had passed and applicants had an immediate need for relief. There are two components to the settlement. Under one component, the parties would ask the court to immediately release $5.3 million, which would be immediately distributed to Black-identifying and Black-owned applicants. Under the other component, the remainder of the fund would be released for those applicants if the court approves a class-action settlement.

Going forward, Governor Brown committed to working with legislators, agency directors, and stakeholders to increase the states collection of disaggregated data on race and ethnicity. That data will allow the legislature to make additional targeted investments to populations most impacted and in need of state resources.

"Rather than spending taxpayer money on years of litigation in this lawsuit, we need to focus on increasing the states data collection efforts so we have the information we need to invest in the communities that have faced ongoing systemic oppression and exclusion, said Governor Brown. I look forward to working with legislators, agency directors, and key community partners, to carry out this important work.

The resounding success of the Oregon Cares Fund demonstrates the impact of state government when it appropriately responds to the needs of community members," said one of the funds architects, Nkenge Harmon Johnson, chief executive of the Urban League of Portland."I am pleased to continue organizing with community leaders across Oregon and collaborating with state officials so that future relief funds will be prioritized for communities with the greatest needs. Grants from the Oregon Cares Fund saved Oregon jobs and small businesses. In nearly every county in Oregon, the fund helped children and families who are struggling to survive the pandemic. The fund also illustrated the wisdom of addressing disproportionate impacts on the Black Oregonians through narrowly tailored remedies.

The Oregon Cares Act settlement agreement complements the states work on racial justice and equity initiatives. The Governor remains committed to putting Oregon's underserved and under-resourced communities at the forefront of recovery plans and believes state government must take proactive and anti-racist measures to build a more equitable Oregon. Additionally, during the coming legislative session, the Legislature will consider several pieces of legislation that will benefit communities of color and vulnerable populations, such as addressing current discrimination in rental criteria, criminal justice reform, diversifying our educator workforce while better serving children and students of color in our education system, environmental justice and other key priorities centered in and around racial justice.

Here is the original post:

Governor Kate Brown on the Oregon Cares Fund settlement - Klamath Falls News

On February 26th, a group of Cuban artists and activists gave a talk over Zoom to the European Parliament as part of the third E.U.-Cuba Human Rights Dialogues. During the conference, these speakers expressed their fears about the level of repression Cubans are facing and asked the Parliament for its full and continued support in bringing democracy to the island.

Cuba needs a transition process towards democracy, said Alexis Valds, a Cuban actor and comedian. For this we need support. The world cannot continue to turn a blind eye to what is happening in Cuba.

The conference was named after the viral song Patria y Vida, Homeland and Life. Recently released by Yotuel Romero (member of the hip-hop group The Orishas), the song, which features some of the most famous Cuban artists both living on the island and abroad, has gone viral, reaching 2.3 million views on YouTube as of last week. The songs lyrics and music video critique the current government and call for democracy. The title itself brazenly subverts Castros revolutionary slogan, Patria o Muerte (Homeland or Death). While Cubans have historically used music and art as a medium to express their political dissatisfaction, this songs power has been particularly amplified by social media and growing internet access in Cuba itself. The EPs international and political platform is an important step for the social movement.

The collaboration between musicians inside and outside the island is a powerful message for Cubans and also for the Cuban state, said artist, writer, and art professor Coco Fusco. It overcomes the official discourse that always seeks to divide Cubans into good and bad, revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries, islanders and exiles. United we win.

In response, the government-run state media in Cuba has launched a campaign to combat the songs message and discredit the artists. In a newscast, Cubans were summoned to sing and applaud in a campaign called Dying for the Homeland is Living. One contributor to Granma, the official media instrument of the Cuban communist party, wrote, This song full of hate that tries to exchange Cuba for 1 million YouTube views Its hate doesnt represent me. Its horrible lyrics dont represent me. Other pro-government media outlets called Romero, who is married to a Spanish actress, a jinetero, a term coined in the 1990s used to describe Cubans who engaged in prostitution, often with foreigners.

The oppressed have used art for centuries to express their pain and call for change. Now, the disseminating powers of social media can bring that art to wider audiences and help it to gain traction. The Cuban government has done its best to limit and control this powerful means of communication, but can no longer effectively smother the voices that critique it. In the face of damning evidence and direct pleas for help, the rest of world can no longer turn a blind eye to the oppression and human rights abuses inflicted on the Cuban people.

Link:

Patria Y Vida: Cuban Artists And Activists Give Talk To European Parliament - The Organization for World Peace

A year into the COVID-19 pandemic and things are still looking bleak for Canadas restaurant industry. The financial relief provided to restaurant owners, especially by provincial governments, has been largely ineffective. Guidelines for opening and closing are ad hoc and sudden. Proactive solutions like loosening liquor laws to create even a sliver of extra income for businesses still remains to be seen in some places. For the workers of this industry, who were already precarious pre-pandemic, this has been a time of unparalleled instability.

In numbers alone, Canadas 1.2 million restaurant workers, who represent 7 percent of the countrys workforce, are significant. They are a large enough demographic that they have the potential to affect virus contagion nationally, and yet, support for them and their industry has been waning at best. Of those who have remained employed throughout the pandemic, most are still without paid sick leave, even amid this global health crisis. And as dining rooms begin to open in parts of the country, owners and workers are once again being tasked to act as pseudo epidemiologists, running through symptoms, risks, and recourse should there be a COVID-19 scare or, worse, an active case within their workplace. In the face of rapidly advancing new virus variants, even the governments personal protective equipment and contact-tracing guidelines seem impotent in regards to ensuring safety. The situation feels just as untenable and directionless for all involved today as it did back in March 2020.

One thing has changed since the pandemics onset, though: Mutual aid groups with robust programs designed to respond to the cracks in a leaky, unregulated industry abound. As it turns out, if you leave a group of mostly under- and unemployed, well-informed industry professionals in the midst of a crisis and with insufficient government support, a vibrant network of grassroots organizations will emerge. Among them are mental health resources Not 9 to 5 and Kitchens 4 Missions; wellness initiatives like Mise en Health; the wealth redistribution programs of the Bartenders Benevolent Fund, the Montreal Restaurant Workers Relief Fund (which I co-founded), and the Toronto Restaurant Workers Relief Fund; BIPOC-led wine mentorship and education program Vinequity; and the Full Plate, which offers free social services tailored to the community. These are all led by workers trying to do it for themselves.

Despite the beauty inherent in this solidarity in action, theres one thing I hear often from fellow restaurant workers-cum-community organizers, and thats a hope that their services will someday be rendered obsolete that the need for them will cease to exist, not because the vaccine is in sight, but because reforms to social programs, labour laws, and regulations that provide greater fairness across the board are. Mutual aid and community care are providing an ongoing balm to the industry, but they cannot do all the work, nor can they subsist on solidarity and independent action alone.

2020 was the year New Orleans-based activist and chef Tunde Wey said that we should let the industry die. Many of us who have experienced the problems of restaurants have likely at one moment or another held this belief whole-heartedly. From top-down hierarchies and wealth concentration, restaurants magnify the problems of capitalism. The crisis has only exacerbated these pre-existing systemic faults. Though restaurant workers often feel the weight of these problems, we arent alone in seeing them.

Over the course of the past few years, coverage in food media has allowed us to peek behind the veil of the inner workings of restaurants. The prevalence of wage theft, lack of health care, underpayment, and overwork are no longer solely the fodder of whisper networks. Stories of abuse and reform (often self-authored) are churned out by the media, evoking collective shock that seems to be swiftly followed by collective amnesia. Weve seen how the proverbial sausage is made, and we dont like it.

The word rough has been so permanently affixed to this industry that we yawn at its overuse, its meaning having been completely hollowed. We know that fast-paced and intense work environments, deep hierarchical structures, and problematic wage practices such as sub-minimum wage standards, tipping, and unpaid overtime are engrained in the business model, yet we continuously fail to tie them to systems of oppression. If youve worked in a restaurant, you will be shown, time and time again, just how citizen status, able-bodiedness, sexuality, race, class, gender, and education impact treatment within the industry. Restaurants are so entangled in narratives of exceptionalism the story of the archetypal chef who worked their way up the ladder comes to mind that many fail to realize that for the majority of workers, conditions are not decent or dignified. Even though theyve been occurring within the workforce for a long time now, conversations recognizing the legacy of harm embedded within the intersections of identity and food service seem to have only just begun to make some form of impact.

Ive heard the words unimaginable, radical, or even impossible used to describe the just, sustainable, and equitable future that restaurant-workers-turned-activists are working toward. Existing labour law, when it comes to restaurant work, is toothless and patchwork at best, with little real recourse for workers in compromised, exploitative, or abusive situations, even in the so-called normal times. The option of wide-scale reform which would benefit owners as well, with greater employee retention and industry longevity is too easily discounted. I will likely die on the hill of not understanding how basic labour standards can be called a uniquely impossible proposition for our industry.

Some restaurant workers choose this profession despite knowing its flaws. Many others come to it not by choice but by necessity. For those of us attempting to change the structure of restaurant work, it is a loving protest. Even in their current incarnations, restaurants can be places of romance, of care, of leisure, and, most importantly, of generosity. For many communities, they are places of refuge, crucial third spaces. In rare examples, they can even be places where we can try to reduce systemic harm: Ownership can be community-oriented; labour structures more fair and shared. Restaurants are places where many single moms, like my own, have been able to work in order to make ends meet. But the opportunities they have provided to some do not absolve them of their duty to repair.

The radicalism of our acts is in asking for a change and in working toward better, more comprehensively decent treatment for all restaurant workers. After a year of black squares on social media, public professions about the need for change, and a pandemic that peeled away any sense of stability in restaurant work, you would think moving social justice work beyond performance wouldnt be so radical anymore. Community organizers have managed to yield some measure of fruit in a field of blight, but their efforts are neither exhaustive nor permanent. Nor can they fix a broken industry on their own. They shouldnt have to.

Kaitlin Doucette is a sommelier, and the co-founder of the Montreal Restaurant Workers Relief Fund and the Canadian Restaurant Worker Coalition.

Read more here:

Canadian Restaurant Workers Resort to Mutual Aid Where the Government Has Failed Them - Eater Montreal

opinion

Hank Cetola| The Daily Telegram

In our representative democracy, in the formation of laws and policies, officials are elected to represent the citizens of our country. However, the essence of democracy is majority rule.

Consequently, our elected officials should represent what the majority of all citizens want. It is this concept, majority rules, upon which our country was founded. The decisions of the majority are binding on all, even the minority. But there is a caveat. Our constitutional democracy requires a majority rule with minority rights, a concept first expressed by our third president, Thomas Jefferson:

"All will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression (John J. Patrick, Understanding Democracy: A Hip Pocket Guide, 2006).

What Jefferson meant was that while the majority sets the rules, it must consider the impact on the minority. As Patrick stated:

Majority rule is limited in order to protect minority rights, because if it were unchecked it probably would be used to oppress persons holding unpopular views. Unlimited majority rule in a democracy is potentially just as despotic as the unchecked rule of an autocrat.

But Jefferson also stated, … the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail. Again, Patrick, Both majority rule and minority rights must be safeguarded to sustain justice in a constitutional democracy. Butcould justice be sustained if the minority, rather than the majority, prevailed? Could our country survive if the desires of the majority are ignored? No. The democracy concept would be negated; democracy would become extinct. I fear that is what is happening in the United States today.

The Senate is split 50-50 but does not represent the vast majority of the citizens in the country. Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent for Vox, analyzed the 2020 Senate election to see how representative it was. He found that the Democratic half of the Senate represents 184,541,791 people but the Republican half represents only 142,991,983 people, a difference of 41,549,808 people! If the Senate composition reflected the will of the country there would be 56 Democrats in the Senate, a number that reflects the Democratic vote. The Senate, although its vote impacts all of us, does not represent the majority of the country. We are very close to minority rule, if not already there.

According to Trinity College political scientist Kevin McMahon regarding the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch,

…the United States Senate confirmed a nominee for the High Court appointed by a President who had failed to win the popular vote with the support of a majority of senators who had garnered fewer votes indeed far fewer votes in their most recent elections than their colleagues in opposition.

This confirmation was followed by that of Brett Kavanaugh and then Amy Coney Barrett. In the case of Barrett, senators who voted against her represent 13,524,906 more people. Clearly the voice of the majority was not considered. We now have three justices who are in office for life only because of a flawed system.

Remember Jeffersons words, the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail. If the will of the minority prevails, it can impose that will on the rest of the nation even if the vast majority of the citizens are opposed. That is quite like what an autocratic, despotic government can do. Democracy will die.

What can be done? One of the tools of the minority is the filibuster. Using that tool, senators in a malapportioned Senate can block the will of the majority and impose the will of the minority. It needs to end. Another anachronistic system is the Electoral College. It served its purpose in the past, but it no longer serves the democratic process. It also needs to be eliminated. To preserve our democracy, both need to be gone now.

Hank Cetola is a professor emeritus at Adrian College and the founder of Lenawee Indivisible. He can be reached at lenaweeindivisible3@gmail.com.

Read the original:

The Senate does not represent the majority of the country - Monroe Evening News

Sinpharm vaccine. Photo: Wikimedia

Ugandas Gen. Yoweri Museveni recently tweeted: In the meantime, I am going to make some money from Daily Monitor. They lied that I had been vaccinated together with my wife. I am going to make them bankrupt unless they apologize and lie down. I've already filed a case in court".

Of course we wouldve sympathized with him, if only for two realities:

One, the Daily Monitor story which Gen. Museveni alludes to was published on Feb. 23, based on a Feb. 18 article in a U.S. newspaper, The Wall Street Journal.

TheJournal under the headline Chinese Covid Vaccine Secretly Given to VIPs, reported that And in Uganda, members of President Yoweri Musevenis inner circle were offered vaccines. In Uganda as in Peru, the vaccines werefrom China state-owned drugmakerSinopharm.

This begs the question: if The Daily Monitor was merely offering secondhand information, why doesnt Gen. Museveni take it up with the primary source of the information? Why not sue The Wall Street Journal? My guess is that it would be tricky to take on the Journal, a leading publication in the country that funds and thus could collapse his regime; in other words, theres a risk to getting smart with the hand that feeds him.

Moreover, this is not the first time Museveni has failed to take on The Wall Street Journal. After the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found Uganda liable for war crimes in the Congo, The Wall Street Journal reported that Museveni contacted then U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and asked him to block a separate investigation by the ICC, which could have resulted in the Ugandan rulers indictment for war crimes in the Congo.

The second reason why our sympathies cant lie with Gen. Museveni dates back to something he said a few years ago while celebrating NRM Day in Masindi. NRM is the National Resistance Movement ruling party. I am not an employee. I hear some people saying that I am their servant; I am not a servant of anybody. I am a freedom fighter; that is why I do what I do. I dont do it because I am your servant; I am not your servant. I am just a freedom fighter; I am fighting for myself, for my belief; thats how I come in. If anybody thinks you gave me a job, he is deceiving himself. I am just a freedom fighter whom you thought could help you also, Museveni said.

It now makes perfect sense: in not being our servantwhich actually ishe could have served himself and his inner circle with a Covid-19 vaccine, as reported in the Journal and then picked up by The Monitor.

Musevenis righteous indignation, which usually comes when one is caught red-handed doing what they shouldnt be doing, does little to ameliorate his dire position. Especially when the same man told a Kenyan journalist Jeff Koinange 10 years ago, "I'm working for myself,I'mnotworkingfor other people,I'm working for mygrandchildren, formychildren."

What should worry us, however, is not Musevenis shrinking patriotic credentials. Weve always known that hes for himself, after all.

Our main worry is how he is using the courts to cement his despotic designs. Courts have been used throughout history to provide official cover and legitimacy by dictatorships throughout history, including during the Nazi era in Germany and under Apartheid South Africa. As to the latter, the judiciary in South Africa was used as a Trojan horse for Apartheid. This was later revealed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), and it happened on two levels. One, the judiciary anywhere plays the role of interpreting laws made by the legislative branch of government. These laws, just or unjust, are applied by the courts.

The courts under Apartheid upheld unjust and discriminatory laws handed by a legislative branch with no legitimacy in its own right or in terms of the norms of international and natural law. To be clear, if the law itself is unjust then there can be no just application.

However the Apartheid judges applied these laws, much in the same way many of Musevenis draconian edicts are treated as law by Ugandas courts. Secondly, the Apartheid judiciary dragooned thousands of Black South Africans into their Apartheid courts. With no legal representation or money to find any, these Africans were branded "criminals," thereby compounding racial polarization. Political leaders and freedom fighters like Winnie Mandela, Robert Sobukwe, Steve Biko, and many others could be banned and prevented from leaving their homes or regions. Their homes could be surrounded by security forces or they could be trailed. (Nelson Mandela was already serving his prison sentence).

In Uganda, the judiciary is chockfull with NRM cadres who even consider as evidence lies or admissions extracted under torture or duress. By not condemning the practices of Ugandas gung-ho security forces, the judiciary is complicit in their nefarious methods. Such methods are used to "construct" cases against innocent people.

When NRM judges try such bogus cases, they implicitly sanction the terror meted out by Musevenis oligarchy while lending its dictatorial laws a veneer of legal respectability. This amounts to a cover-up of police brutality and thereby justifies further misrule under Museveni.

If Museveni has started to use the Kangaroo courts to bleed citizens white in order to subjugate and make them lie down, then we are seeing a classic Apartheid method of financially bankrupting dissenting voices. When this method of suppressing dissent was used in South Africa, the successive Apartheid regimes all accused Nelson Mandela and his comrades of being funded by foreignersspecifically, communists.

Notice the similarity. In Uganda, Museveni accuses dissenters of being foreign-backed. Specifically, he says, by terrorists who wish to subvert the sovereignty of Uganda. Same Script,different Cast.

The outcome is likely to be the same too, with the NRM joining the Apartheid regime in the wastepaper basket of history.

The columnist can be reached via mugashop74@gmail.com

Go here to read the rest:

Uganda's Gen. Museveni turning courts into Apartheid-like instruments of oppression - Black Star News

America has entered into a new era of thought control. Back in the 1960s, there was a determined campaign by many conservatives to resist the free speech movement symbolically headquartered on the Berkeley campus of the University of California. Then, the idea was to respect peoples right to say what was on their minds, even when it was considered crude, rude and offensive. That many of the students involved in this effort were often radically inconsistent and disrespectful of others property clouded the message. But at the end of the day, freedom of speech was the underlying principle.

Many in the generation born in the 1990s and the early 21stcentury probably know little or nothing about comedians Mort Sahl and Lenny Bruce. Both broke various taboos in the arena of public standup comedy. Mort Sahl took the attitude that any political issue and every public or political figure was fair game for satire, ridicule, and debunking. It wasnt so much that listeners necessarily agreed with or shared Sahls criticisms or satires of the notable in society. Often, very much to the contrary. It was the idea that no matter what the stature of a celebrity or a politician, there was room and a reasonable need for those who will remind us that very often the emperor has no clothes. We should not be deluded into thinking that just because they might be famous or holding high government office, that made them necessarily superior to you or me, and very often they could be even more misguided and wrongheaded than many of the rest of us. It is just that their positions, especially in government, make them more dangerous due to the wider social impact of things they have the authority to do.

Part of Lenny Bruces thing was to shock an audience with the use of words and phrases that were not considered appropriate in public settings, even though these were things that people said and words used all the time in the real world of everyday life. For instance, I was recently watching on YouTube some of the Friars Club roasts of various entertainment celebrities that were regularly broadcast on network television back in the 1960s. Most of them were hilarious, in my view. But they are all PG-rated, as it used to be called. But . . . there is one for which there is only an audio recording that was clearly not shown on nor meant for television. Here were some of the biggest names in American comedy of that time using language and the resulting imagery that could easily make even the most language-hardened listener blush.

Lenny Bruces attitude was that the use of such language in his standup comedy club routines was not only to draw crowds due to the shock value, but that in a free society, no matter how offensive what may be said, it should be viewed as part of the principle of freedom of speech. He did not stop, even though he was arrested multiple times around the country at such clubs for public use of obscenities. He was even sentenced to four months in a workhouse in 1964, but while out on bail during the appeal process, he died.

Many of us may still feel uncomfortable or offended when language and various particular words are used in demeaning or humiliating or vulgar ways, and therefore in poor taste, as it used to be said. But it should not be considered the duty and responsibility of government to police our words and where and in whose company we might use them. Policing should be considered a matter of individual choice and decision-making concerning what to watch or listen to, and with whom to associate and interact.

Once government is introduced into the picture, societal conflicts and controversies are inescapably made affairs of state, with political battles over the who and the how of what people may speak or write. Better a social order in which there might be personal offense from the words of others, but with the voluntary option to not listen or read, rather than political dictates and coerced punishments for those using the wrong words at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and to the wrong person.

Today, we are faced with a new campaign of censorship, accompanied with the demand not just to ban the use of certain words or phrases but to insist that they be replaced with other words and phrases that must be accepted and used, if the potential word-criminal is not to be found guilty of racism, sexism or any other of a multitude of created groups and categories, and for which the insensitive individual may face serious life and career-affecting consequences.

On the surface, the appeal for a greater awareness and sensitivity to what and how we say things that, unintentionally, may be taken the wrong way by someone who personally has had harmful and hurtful experiences, or who comes from a family that in the past suffered from certain words and deeds in various ways, seems not unreasonable. Jews, in the past, were often called kikes or Yids, nor Christ-killers. It has generally become unacceptable to use such terms in reference to a person practicing the Jewish faith or having Jewish ancestors. And, similarly, certain words used in insulting or demeaning ways in reference to blacks in America have become unacceptable in virtually any and all social settings, both public and private. (See my article,The Case for Liberty Through Thick and Thin.)

However, languages, with their meanings, connotations, and acceptable uses of words, phrases, and terms, are always changing in every society. Sometimes a socially demeaning word can, over time, continue to be used without the negative implication. For instance, the word slave: a number of linguistic sources say that it originated from the word Slav, referring to certain groups of people living in Eastern Europe who were captured in the Middle Ages by other invading and conquering groups and forced into compulsory work; that is, made into slaves. Whether or not this long-held etymology is correct or not, to call someone, past or present, a Slav no longer implies an inferior or subservient status of those who live in that part of Europe.

It is also the case that a word that has an insulting connotation in one language may not have such a necessary negative meaning in another. For instance, it has become totally unacceptable for a white person to call a black American by what has become sanitized as the N word. Yet, the Russian version of this word, for instance, has not and for the most part still does not carry the offending sense that it does in English. It is merely the Russian word for a black person. If a Russian, who knows nothing about the historicity of that word in the American context, were to use it in the United States that person would have no idea that in using it any offense had been given.

Times change, and as attitudes, understandings, and sensitivities change through time, so do the uses and non-uses of words. But what happens when the determination of the use and meaning of words, phrases and forms of human interaction become hijacked by those who are determined to arrogate to themselves the lexicon of language? Who insist that they, above all others in society, know what should be said and should not be said, and what words shall be imposed on everyone else as near mandatory substitutes for the condemned and forbidden words?

This is the world in which we are presently existing, the woke world of political correctness, identity politics, and cancel culture. To demonstrate that this is not purely an American ideological phenomenon, just this past week, a British publication,The Spectator(March 11, 2021) reported that,Manchester University Scraps the Word Mother.We are told that this respected British university has issued a guide to inclusive language that all those affiliated with that institution of higher learning are expected to follow and practice.

Some examples. It is no longer permissible to refer to the elderly, or a pensioner or those who are members of the mature workforce. These all imply inappropriate ageisms. No, instead, you will refer to those over-65s, 75s, and so on, we are told. The word, diabetic, is prohibited as it suggests a handicap. Now the focus must be on a persons abilities, rather than limitations. A person, for instance, is not suffering from cancer, they are living with cancer.

Also, it is now necessary to use gender-neutral terms when referring to people. Thus, calling someone a man or a woman or a father or a mother is out. The preferred terms are to be individuals or guardians. The author ofThe Spectatorarticle wonders if this means that Mothers Day now is to be called Guardians Day? But, wait, does not guardian suggest a hierarchy of oppressor and oppressed? The Manchester wokers may have subliminally fallen into the very thing they say they want to eradicate. Cancel culture may have to come after some of the culture cancellers. (In an earlier time, this was said to be the revolution eating some of its own children.)

But nonetheless, following their own train of thought, at Manchester University you may no longer say that something is man-made, with, instead, artificial or synthetic as the required replacements. Mankind becomes humankind, and manpower is to be deleted and workforce is to be put in its place.

At an American institution of higher learning with which I am acquainted, I have been told that a proposal has been made for the introduction of a diversity and inclusion management certificate. It seems that learning relevant management skills in selecting and overseeing a workforce (notice, Im being politically correct, already!) for product and manufacturing and marketing efficiency, productivity, and profitability on the basis of individual employees education, skills, experience and other background qualifications to fill positions needed within the enterprise is no longer enough.

Nor is it simply a reasonable management tool to learn to treat those hired with courtesy and respect, both as a general rule of good managerial conduct, and to have employees who have a positive attitude about the place in which they are working and earning a living. And nor is it sufficient (regardless of regulatory requirements) to see the ethical rightness and practical advantages of evaluating and judging and rewarding employees in terms of their individual characteristics and merits and value-added to the private enterprise.

No, this is no longer enough. Instead, the student entering into a sequence of courses leading to such a diversity and inclusion management certificate will be informed that their tasks will be for, creating inclusive cultures, enhancing organizational effectiveness and maximizing the sense of belonging among diverse stakeholders. When completed, the certificate receiver will have demonstrated the capability in planning, executing, and assessing a small-scale inclusion, diversity, and belonging-related intervention in an organization at either the intrapersonal, interpersonal, group, or organizational level.

What will the student have learned along the way? He or she (or it) will have an historical understanding and fluent usage of contemporary terms and language used in the field of diversity, inclusion, and belonging. They will also know how to conceive of, plan, conduct, and evaluate a diversity or inclusion initiative within an organization. And they will know how to facilitate effective dialogue within a diverse group of individuals holding widely divergent views.

This will include the ability to analyze various issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion; critically examine your background and self-assessment . . . on how you see the world, and reflect on the ways other peoples backgrounds . . . [affect] their perspectives on the world and their behavior in teams.

The student taking these courses will learn how to navigate the ambiguity and complexity that comes with multiple perspectives, as well as identifying the ways that power differentials operate, are experienced and reinforced at different levels of workplace interactions. This will include knowing how to provide services to different groups, and especially non-dominant populations.

What stands out most noticeably is the repetition of words diversity, inclusiveness, belonging, and equity. But what do these terms mean, and what do they imply about human relationships, starting with how the individual person views him- or herself? For the unreflective student, the prospectus for such a certificate, therefore, can easily seem innocuous, as simply being fair and respectful in a world in which people are different.

But it all depends upon what the words mean by both definition and context. In the world of identity politics and cancel culture, the lexicon of language is mostly the transference of Marxian concepts and categories to the post-modern race and gender arena. For Marxists and their practitioners in places such as the former Soviet Union, culture and language were viewed as tools used for capitalist class oppression of the working class through control and manipulation of what was written, said, and educationally learned and believed. The purpose of language and learning under capitalism was for the constructing of a societal false consciousness that succeeds in getting the majority of the population to accept their exploited status and to believe that there is no escape from it in this life.

Or as political scientist Tony Smith summarized it in,Thinking Like a Communist(1987):

[Social] Classes therefore are groups distinguished by the specialized positions they occupy in a common economic system and by their degree of control (or ownership) of the forces of production . . . Their conflict comes from the fact that these positions are dependent upon one another but are not equal in power . . . The most advantaged class will seek to ensure its position through political means, through control, that is of the state, whose primary function, in Marxist terms, is to serve the interests of the ruling class through a stratagem that combines force, mythmaking, and co-option. (pp. 43-44)

Education and ideology were viewed as inseparable from each other in this Marxian world view, because the inherent nature of human relationships is dictated by who owns the means of production to oppress others for their benefit, and to assure active or passive acceptance of ones class-determining status and place in society. The idea that education and knowledge can be unbiased, factual, and objectively logical is alien to this worldview. For the Marxist, education was reeducation to raise the ideological consciousness of those living under or threatened by capitalism; for them to know and see the real power relationships in society.

Or as one Soviet leader expressed it in the 1970s: The Soviet school does not simply prepare educated people. It is responsible for the turning out of politically literate, ideologically convinced fighters for the communist cause. The school never stood, and it cannot stand, aside from politics, in the struggle of classes. (Quoted in, N. N. Shneidman,Literature and Ideology in Soviet Education(1973, p. 2.)

This approach to education is alive and well among the warriors of the new political correctness of identity politics. For instance, American schooling, we are told, is saturated with the ideology of race, bias and oppression. Thus, theNational Council of Teachers of Englishtells us that: We know that racism exists in our classrooms and in our communities. We feel that silence on these issues is complicity in the systemic racism that has marred our educational system . . . There is no apolitical classroom. English language arts teachers must examine the ways that racism has personally shaped their beliefs and must examine existing biases that feed systems of oppression . . .

This includes Raising Race Consciousness Children . . .The goals of these conversations [with young students] is to dismantle the color-blind framework and to prepare young people to work toward racial justice . . . A historically-grounded anti-racist pedagogy, rather than a psychologically-oriented one, allows us to see U.S. society in the act of inventing race.

We are told in a primer forCulturally Responsive Education(published by an organization affiliated with New York University), that it is essential to incorporate, the indigenous critique of colonialism and the disability rights critique of ableism in addition to the Black critique of Western imperialism for fully overlapping the position of decolonialization in education. This all leads to, Culturally responsive pedagogies, by working to decenter dominant cultures and ideologies, contest traditional ways of thinking about policy.

Dig through the linguistic gobbledygook, and what we are left with is the idea that Western society is based on racist and related oppressions of various victimized groups. That this conflict is endemic to the historical nature of white society being based on the exploitation of others. And that education in the United States is interwoven with racist, sexist and related biases and methods of indoctrination to maintain the status quo of white oppression of networks of oppressed peoples.

The hegemony of white male culture, white male economic domination, and white male social power on the basis of capitalist property relationships permeates the society against all other peoples of color, gender and disability or disadvantage. Marxism defined and identified what distinguished human beings as being based on their relationship to the ownership of the means of production this defined your social class and interests and that this relationship determined and dictated conflict in the world until the oppressed workers had successfully overthrown and replaced the private property-owning exploiters.

The identity politics warriors insist that you are your race, your gender, your sexual orientation and their various intersectional permutations. Individuals, as individuals, do not exist and cannot have a self-identifying consciousness other than with and through the racial, sexual and related tribal and group identifiers that distinguish one such collective social entity from another in all their multiples of fine gradations.

But this latest variation on the collectivist theme is even worse than the Marxian one from out of which it has grown. At least in the Marxist story of salvation for mankind, its ending is supposed to bring about a harmonious unity of all people. The workers of the world will unite, overthrow their capitalist oppressors, and then live in a common brotherhood of shared communal ownership, common effort, and collective sharing of the bounties of the world. A fantasy and fiction about man and society, of course, but one that at least promised all of mankind peace and togetherness. A communist heaven on earth.

But notice, the identity politics warriors call for an end to a color-blind framework, a rejection that society is made of individuals who should be considered the ones deserving and possessing rights. Discarded is the American idea of individualism in all of its philosophical, political, economic, and social aspects and facets. Society is viewed as divided into irreducible racial and gender collectives, each with its own sense of group identity of culture, belonging, and rights. It is the permanent Balkanization of society into hermetically sealed human group compartments whose relationships to each other must be based on collective negotiation and division of the material spoils of the general societal space.

Humanity, in other words, has no common culture, no shared civilization of science, art, literature, philosophy or economic cooperation on the basis of peaceful acts of exchange and association as the individuals making up mankind find it advantageous and mutually beneficial. You live in your tribal world and I live in my tribal world and the most that can be hoped for is for us not to go to war with each other.

Nor must we try to learn, incorporate, and benefit from the achievements of other tribal cultures, since we have been told that that is an inappropriate cultural appropriation. How fortunate the Swiss were some centuries ago in being ignorant of these postmodern notions, otherwise they might never have improperly appropriated and adapted the Swedish-invented snow ski for use in their Alpine terrain. How rude of the native American Indians to culturally appropriate the European device known as the wheel, which they had never thought of on their own as a useful tool for transportation. What a demonstration of acceptance of oppression that many of the tribes in Africa adapted European means and methods of medicine as opposed to the incantations of witchdoctors. And how culturally wrong it was for Europeans to copy Chinese invented gun-power, paper money, and spaghetti, or the Arab numerical system in place of Roman numerals.

Diversity means group identity and tribal determination of every person born into a certain identity politics category. Inclusion and equity mean numerical quotas for members of designated groups in terms of employment, income, and general social status. And belonging means viewing and treating people as deserving of their collectively determined place at the common table of distributed benefits based on political power relationships worked out by the leaders of the respective racial and gender groups.

What words we may use and to whom we may speak them. Which words are to be banned and which ones dictated as mandatory in human interaction. How we are to address others, and how they may refer to us. What ideas may be offered to others and how they may be presented or prevented from being expressed. These are not things for you to decide and act upon. No, these will be determined for you and demanded of you. Why? Because the assumption is that your mind and your words and your deeds are not your own. They are owned and dictated by the collective to which you are declared to be a member. (See my articles,Tyrants of the Mind and the New CollectivismandAn Identity Politics Victory Would Mean the End to LibertyandThe New TotalitariansandSave America from Cancel CultureandSystemic Race Theory is the New Political TribalismandSelf-Censorship and Despotism Over the Mind.)

Before this new era of postmodern identity politics, that is; in the prior modern Age of Enlightenment, when human beings foolishly believed in reason, evidence, and individual liberty, all of what is being insisted upon now used to be known as tyranny and criticized as dictatorship. How very silly of many of us to presume that each of us was a unique and distinct I separate from an imposed We. Well, we all live and learn.

[Originally posted on American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)]

View original post here:

News - Welcome to Word Tyranny and Cultural Balkanization - The Heartland Institute

I was not shocked to discover that recent research has found almost all young women in Britain have experienced sexual harassment.

I was walking home from the university library once when a group of men cat-called me from the upper storey of a building I passed.

I thought nothing more of it, until I reached my street and realised one of them was following me.

The overwhelming fear that any reaction might prompt further aggression often silences women.

It shows why street harassment cannot be passed off as misplaced compliments and must be viewed as a violent threat to womens safety.

MP Zarah Sultana recently said, Women should be able to walk home without the fear of going missing. Why in 2021 is this still a critical issue?

Why should women continue to modify their behaviour to appease a system which views their bodies as public property?

To end this oppression at an individual level, we must look towards the institutional inequality which defines women as second class citizens.

Sexual harassment is borne from capitalism, which is built on oppression and therefore justifies the abuse of women.

Women cannot come forward with their reports of sexual harassment without being subjected to scrutiny.

This scrutiny comes from an institution that does not want to believe them, support them or promote change.

We know that the police force is firmly rooted in systemic injustice and profits from the continuation of the capitalist system.

This is also why so many women simply do not come forward at all.

The trauma women carry from risking their lives every time they leave the house is curbing their freedom in insurmountable ways.

While public space remains unsafe for women, how can we expect them to thrive, when they cant even survive?

Enough is enough. We must begin dismantling the oppressive structures which work against the freedom of all.

Willow Bowen

York

This month Bee Hughes was elected higher education representative of LGBT+ members to UCU unions national executive committee.

They are only the second trans person, and the first non-binary person, to hold that seat.

This is a big step forward for trans and non-binary visibility.

But the situation at Leeds university demonstrates much more needs to be done.

Leeds unions were presented with a greatly watered down version of the previous sector-leading policy on trans equality.

One woman said, The amended policy makes me fearful for anyone following in my footsteps.

Campaigns against equality by the government, and the Alliance for Defending Freedomwhich lobbied them to the tune of 410,000put us on the defensive.

So did a legal challenge to the Census 2021 by Fair Play for Women.

But following a united campaign involving the trade unions, student union and staff LGBT+ network, Leeds vice-chancellor announced the revised policy was withdrawn.

And they also apologised for the hurt caused. We won.

UCU supports selfidentification for all members and took a motion supporting non-binary people in the workplace to the Trades Union Congress LGBT+ conference.

Megan Povey, Leeds

Bee Hughes, Liverpool

Union leaders compromises leave workers behind (Socialist Worker, 2 March) captures the frustration felt by union activists at the squandering of mandates for action by our national leaders.

This causes a gulf between the grievances and anger of workers, and the timidity and inaction of national union leaders. This gulf has grown wider during the pandemic.

The credibility of national leaderships has worn very thin, while new dynamics in working class resistance have emerged to fill the vacuum created.

Socialists are building networks that connect activists between workplaces. When workers take action, with or without official support, local networks are delivering solidarity that builds workers confidence and organisation.

Socialists and trade unionists are at the heart of these networks. Readers of Socialist Worker should get involved.

Mark OBrien

Liverpool

Piers Morgan has announced his departure from ITVs Good Morning Britain following a berating of Meghan Markle.

Morgan claimed he did not believe her statements about feeling suicidal and stormed off the set when he was confronted by a co-host.

Before celebrating his removal its worth remembering that people like Morgan have an incredible ability to fall upwards.

He knew about illegal hacking of voicemails and grovelled to Donald Trump.

If this didnt disqualify him from highly paid media gigs, you can bet that the right wing media will find another use for him.

That use might come about earlier than anticipated.

With Andrew Neils Fox News-style GB News seeking presenters, Morgan seems in for a position as a big name, loud mouth flagship host.

A cynic might suggest the episode was engineered.

Morgans name trended all day and bolstered his reputation as a renegade who the woke left want silenced.

The attention generated will give a boost to any new enterprise he joins.

Morgan and GB News want attention and clicks. I advise youdont give them any.

Liam Doherty

Northamptonshire

Our rulers love racism as it keeps us divided and focuses anger on scapegoats.

But the working class has a proud history of not being conned by this.

My union branch voted to support refugees currently being treated so badly.

Protests must be called against the governments racism and the fascists they encourage.

H Booker

Swansea

Why did so many people in Texas suffer cuts to power supplies? Decades back Texas legislators unplugged the state from the two national grids that supply electricity to the west and east sides of the US.

Private power supply businesses run ruthless, well-funded lobbying operations to water down attempts to enforce the necessary upgrades that could withstand the extreme weather.

We need democratically run, public owned systems for delivering electricity generated by sustainable methods based on need.

Mike Killian

By email

Power is in the hands of the people, not the Tories. We are the many and they are the few. If nurses go on strike, we back them to the hilt.

Jim Callaghan

On Facebook

Solidarity with each and every one of our amazing, dedicated NHS workers. We all need to support them.

Debbie Whitworth

Online

Harry marrying Meghan and the racism she has suffered is important.

At last this archaic institution has shone a light on its ugly, vile, racist, elitist bullying.

Coral Price

On Facebook

Read the original:

LETTERSSmash the capitalist system that causes women's oppression - Socialist Worker

TEHRAN - Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei on Thursday slammed the enemies, especially the U.S., for distorting the facts and presenting developments in a way that is opposite to the truth.

Addressing the Iranian nation on the occasion of Eid al-Mabath, which marks the appointment of Muhammad ibn Abdullah as the prophet of Islam in the seventh century, the Leader noted the U.S. is the possessor of the worlds largest nuclear arsenal but claims to be against such weapons.America is the only government that has used nuclear bombs, but raises its voice to say that we are against the development of nuclear arms. They claim to be against weapons of mass destruction, while they possess the worst and the most dangerous such weapons.The U.S. created Daesh (ISIS) and they themselves admitted it... Then, they create a military base under the pretext of the existence of the Daesh. They provide Daesh with modern media facilities and money and allow them to destroy and sell Syrian oil, then they say we are fighting Daesh, Ayatollah Khamenei stressed.

---------- Commotion against Iran

The Leader said the enemies have created a commotion about Irans help to Iraq and Syria in their fight against terrorists, including Daesh.They refer to Irans presence in the region with hatred and resentment. While we do not have a military presence.

The Leader indirectly noted that Iran rushed to the help of the legitimate governments in Iraq and Syria at their own request and giving military advice to them but they (Americans) themselves attack a country without permission and establish a military base there.

In some instances, the Leader noted, where there is no Iranian military advisor Irans presence is purely political.

As another case in point, Ayatollah Khamenei referred to the U.S.-backed Saudi regimes military aggression against Yemen, saying It has been six years that Americas Arab partner has been bombarding the oppressed Yemeni people in homes, hospitals and schools. It has imposed an economic siege on (the people), blocking their access to food and medicine. This has been going on for six years with Americas green light, the Leader remarked.

Ayatollah Khamenei expressed hope the talented Yemeni people have succeeded in developing the required defense equipment to retaliate against the Saudi attacks, but as soon as they began to respond, the United States, and even the United Nations, raised an outcry against Yemens campaign of self-defense.

=========Washington supports Saudi Arabia that dismembered dissident

The Leader also said U.S. claim of support for human rights is a hypocrisy, saying Washington has been supporting the Saudi regime which dismembers its opponent with a saw, an open reference to the brutal killing of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October 2018.

America defends the Saudis who dismembered a dissident with saw. Despite this move, America claims that we are defender of human rights, the Leader remarked.

Elsewhere in his remarks, the Leader said the Islamic Revolution in Iran followed the Prophets path that started with Bitha an Arabic word that means the Prophets selection by Allah for the guidance of people.It (Revolution) was against oppression, tyranny and arrogancein support of the oppressed people of any faith or religion. It stood for the deprived and the downtrodden (people) from any nation, religion or faith. Under all circumstances, this Revolution invited the entire humanity to (follow) the straight path of Islam, the Leader stressed.

Following the Revolution, which brought about the Islamic establishment in Iran, the worlds villains and criminals joined forces and lined up to confront the revolution, similar to what happened to Islams Prophet Muhammad when he began his divine mission, the Leader noted.That was, of course, not contrary to our expectations. It was crystal-clear from the start thatthe likes of America and the then Soviet Union would confront (Iran), he emphasized.

Ayatollah Khamenei named insight in addition to patience and perseverance as the two important factors required to face the enemies plots, saying, If these two elements are there, the enemies will not be ableto do any harm (to the country) and will not achieve any success.

Ayatollah Khamenei further renewed the warning against the soft war being waged by the enemies against Iran, who have targeted the nations patience and perseverance and resorted to the distortion of realities about the Islamic Republic in pursuit of their hostile goals.

In the face of the war, Irans youth have a task to fulfill, the Leader said, hailing them as the officers of the soft war.

Ayatollah Khamenei advised the youth should use cyber space as an opportunity to promote perseverance and insight among the people and prevent them from losing hope.

Read more:

Ayatollah Khamenei: Iran's presence in the region is political - Tehran Times