At War For Zionism

 At War For Zionism

Jim Kavanagh

So this is happening—the USraeli war on Iran that, in an essay in October 2023, I saw as the inevitable denouement of Israel’s Gaza ethnic cleansing offensive. The inevitable result of this attack is going to be a regional, if not global, conflagration that will likely create economic and political upheaval around the world (including crisis in the U.S.), probably involve the use of nuclear weapons, and certainly will effect a dramatic change in the balance of geo-political power.

Everyone is aware of the enormous collection of American military assets amassed against Iran. The U.S. has drawn down military potential in other important world theaters, including warships, warplanes, and tankers. Something like 40% of the available U.S. naval fleet and 37% of the AWACS fleet are deployed for this attack. They’re taking air-defense assets from South Korea!

Some of us understand that this enormous strike force is in play because Iran itself has formidable military capabilities, and the Pentagon knows it. Many knowledgeable people have warned that Iran, a large, mountainous country of >90 million people with a strong economic and military infrastructure, is a much larger and harder target than Iraq, or Syria, or Libya. Iran has already shown, in the 12-day war, that its missile inventory can outlast initial attacks, deplete Israeli air defenses, and strike with precision. Iran is also now much better prepared, with substantial support from Russia and China, including important air defense, ISR, and global positioning assets.

The military conflict is underway, each side has the ability to inflict serious damage on the other, and the various speculations about who has what advantage will soon be resolved on the battlefield. I’ll just say, with most observers, that I think the longer the fight goes on, the worse it will get for USrael, which—politically, as least as important as militarily—does not want and cannot sustain a prolonged war.

Donald Trump is certainly counting on a quick, low-American-cost “victory.” He has initiated the kind of regime change war that he promised to end, one that >70% of the American people oppose. Any prolonged resistance, any need to deploy more (especially ground) forces, any dire economic consequences, any significant number of casualties—results that are, I think, in some combination inevitable—will be a military and political disaster for him. The Israelis have different political considerations, but they, too, cannot sustain a prolonged conventional war against a country as big and strong as Iran.

Let’s be clear about what the purpose of this war is, and what the prospects for its resolution are.

First, and most important for American opponents of this war to emphasize and repeat constantly: This is a Zionist war. It is a war for Israel and Zionism. The United States and the American people have no reason to attack Iran. There is nothing for them in it. And they know it. More than 70% of Americans oppose it. Over four election cycles, the American people have soundly rejected regime-change wars, especially in the Middle East, and that rejection was a foundational element of the Trump-MAGA campaign itself. Iran poses no threat to the United States. The various rationales—from notional nuclear weapons to monarchist “democracy”—don’t deserve a moment of consideration. They are as patently phony as Bush’s were for Iraq, and everybody knows it. Nobody wanted this war but Netanyahu and Israel.

Netanyahu explicitly thanked, “my friend, US President Donald Trump, for “allow[ing] us to do what I have yearned to do for 40 years.” Not an American project, but one Netanyahu wished for for 40 years that could not have been done unless the U.S. “allowed” it. Now the U.S. is doing it for and with him.

Marco Rubio, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, acknowledges, with full confidence that it will be accepted as a sufficient explanation, that the U.S. attacked Iran because Israel was going to, and Donald Trump, the President of the United States, said that “he had no choice but to join a strike that Israel would launch.” There are no more powerful American political leaders. For them, for the whole of the American political and media elite, Israel leads and America follows—America cannot conceive of doing anything but follow. Like a dog on a leash.

Here’s what I said in my August 2024 essay foreseeing how Israel was going to walk the U.S. into war on Iran.

Israel is acting with particular contemptuous disregard for the country on whom it most depends, the United States. Israel has only slightly less contempt for Americans than it does for Palestinians. Israel considers Palestinians needless, expendable subhumans. Israel considers Americans unfortunately necessary fools who don't, and don't want to, understand the core of the Zionist colonial project and its necessarily eliminationist policy toward the Palestinians, about whose essential savagery equality-obsessed Americans are hopelessly naive.

Israel thinks of Americans the way a supercilious avant-garde artist thinks of his/her vulgar wealthy patrons. It has to keep its indispensable supporters believing it shares their appreciation of the purely decorative prettiness of things like human rights, peace, living side by side in mutual respect with other peoples, etc., so that they will continue to subsidize the truly important and transgressive Zionist artistry, whose beauty they will never understand.

Israel has been confident of its ability to play its patron in that way, because,  as Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have said many times: “America is a thing that can be easily moved, moved in the right direction” and  “We have the Senate,  the Congress, and a strong Jewish lobby on our side.” And he is right.  (And don’t forget the Zionist-committed media.) It’s hard to find a ward more contemptuous of its patron than Israel, or a patron more submissive to its ward than the United States.

In fact, Israel is so confident of its ability to get the American government to go along with anything it wants that it has completely dispensed with any effort at prettifying its grotesqueries:

 “Look, we are, as we announced, committing genocidal ethnic cleansing with no limits, deliberately slaughtering and starving children every day, carrying out airstrikes and destructive assassinations in foreign capitals, etc. If you want to continue pretending to yourselves and your citizens that there’s such a thing as fundamentally humanitarian ‘liberal Zionism,’ that we’re interested in ‘ceasefires’ and ‘two-state solutions’ and such—anything other than getting rid of the Palestinians and consolidating Jewish supremacy throughout our promised land—-while we blatantly kill the primary negotiator you want us to talk to, you go right ahead. Keep writing your thoughtful op-eds and expressing your ‘frustration’ and ‘tension’ with us.  Just understand that we are going to continue killing anyone and any number of people, anywhere, at any time of our choosing, until we’ve put down all potential enemies of our colonial project, and we don’t give a damn about what you think about that.  Your job is to keep sending us the weapons we need and bring your soldiers and armies into a major war to protect us from the inevitable blowback from the countries we attack. Capisce?”

To which the Blue and Red bitches—-Biden, Harris, Trump, Vance, RFK, Jr.—-leading the American and Western political pack, bark, “Yes, sir. Your war is our war. We will do anything to protect the Zionist project!” Has anyone ever seen a more pathetically obsequious, self-demeaning political leadership?

So, the American polity—-its dog-trained leadership and its starting-to-yap-back but still too dog-trained populace—-is walking into war. Being walked into war on the Zionist leash. There will be a lot of yelping once their noses are rubbed in it.

Like a dog on a leash. The only revision I would make, happily, is that the populace is now not just yapping but snapping back much more widely and forcefully. Tucker Carlson sees it clearly:

Who Runs Venezuela?

 Who Runs Venezuela?

Jim Kavanagh

First and most important thing: The abduction of the head of state of Venezuela and his wife by U.S. armed forces is a crime in every sense. It flouts black-letter international law and universally held principles of international relations. It is a blatant act of imperialist arrogance, with no credible pretense of justification other than “might makes right.” It is the ethical imperative of every citizen of the world—and especially of every citizen and politician of the United States—to denounce this act and demand the immediate, unconditional release and return to their homeland of Nicolas Maduro and Cilia Flores.

Anyone—especially any politician—who claims to oppose this abduction by the Trump administration but refuses to demand the immediate, unconditional release of the two abductees is just a virtue-signalling American imperialist, complicit in the crime

https://x.com/JeffSchuhrke/status/2007648246030839878?s=20

Ditto for any politician who claims to oppose this crime, or who makes a show of proclaiming that U.S. soldiers must disobey illegal orders, but does not use all the power of his/her office to impeach and bring charges against the president and every executive officer who issued, and every service member who carried out, this illegal order.

Not gonna happen, of course, because no Republican or Democrat objects to the substantive crime, which is SOP for U.S. imperialism. (See Noriega, Aristide, etc.) Democratic Senator Jack Reed says we “have to commend” our  armed forces for conducting an operation that was "well conceived and courageously executed." They object, at most, to the procedural misdemeanor—OMG, you shot that guy without getting a permit for the gun!—and to the rhetorical transgression of not adorning the blatant, cop-of-the-world, might-makes-right thuggery in sufficient “freedom, democracy, and human rights” bling.

Peter Bagge

It’s not hard to recognize the crime that's already been committed. More difficult, at this point, Is trying to determine what the ongoing fruits of that crime are going to be for the Trump administration. What the hell have they accomplished with this abduction? What the hell do they think they've accomplished with this abduction? What the hell do they think they will accomplish with this abduction?

It's not hard to see what Donald Trump thinks he has accomplished. He thinks he has taken control of the Venezuelan oil industry and of the Venezuelan polity tout court. He thinks “we”—he, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and their minions—now “run” the country of Venezuela. He thinks operation “Absolute Resolve,” at his direction, was “one of the most stunning, effective, and powerful displays of American military might and competence in American history…an assault like people have not seen since World War II.” He thinks it thoroughly intimidated the government of Venezuela and left it and the whole of Latin America in his thrall. He thinks the world has learned the lesson that the Monroe Doctrine with Trump Corollary—per Hegseth, ridiculously renamed the Donroe Doctrine—is in force, with the United States now having final control over the resources, wealth, trade partners, and paths of development of every country in the Western Hemisphere.

Voyage of the Damned: Blowing Up Boats and Breaking Down Bullshit

Voyage of the Damned
Blowing Up Boats and Breaking Down Bullshit

Jim Kavanagh

Thug Life

The Trump administration campaign of killing boatmen in the waters near Venezuela, part of its larger project of regime change aggression against the country, breaks, and blatantly defies, the most fundamental principles of American and international law. It’s a crime, and all of its perpetrators, from the grotesque thug Hegseth, to any sub-thug Admiral, to any officer, airmen or seaman who pushes the fatal button, to the ur-thug commander-in-chief who encourages and is responsible for it, should be prosecuted and imprisoned.

Proudly exhibiting videos of small, unarmed, civilian boats far from and unable to reach American waters being blown to bits under the entirely unproven and entirely irrelevant claim that they were transporting drugs, killing at least 87 people so far, including  men who were clearly surrendering with their hands in the air and survivors clinging to wreckage, is not a good look. I hope the families of those killed, some of whose bodies have washed ashore, find a venue through which they can bring criminal charges against and/or sue the shit out of the United States Government and any and all of its personnel involved.

The thuggery here Is so blatant, and its perpetrators so stupid, that it’s elicited unwanted attention and reaction, including explicit discomfort from a Congress that’s for decades been extraordinarily and cowardly reluctant to impinge on Presidential war-making prerogatives. There’s been a congressional viewing of a double-tap video showing “two survivors, shirtless, cl[inging] to the upturned hull” of a wrecked boat before being blown up by a second strike ordered by Adm. Frank M. Bradley. According to the account of “two people with direct knowledge of the operation” cited by the Washington Post (and kinda-sorta challenged by others), Bradley was following a spoken directive by  Pete Hegseth to “kill everybody.” Predictably, Republican congressmen like Tom Cotton found the action “righteous” while Democratic congressmen found it “disturbing” and “troubling,” although they “declined to weigh in” on whether this strike actually “constituted a war crime.”

Speaking for the administration, Vice President J.D. Vance made clear the Trump administration’s contemptuous indifference to any consideration of American actions in relation to “war crime” and other such standards:

War crime, schmor crime. You can’t really think we bother about such things.

Of course, the whole debate about a double-tap second strike avoids and obscures the main point: Any strike on small, unarmed, civilian boats far from and unable to reach American waters is illegitimate on every level. It’s no more legal or ethical to blow up people in boats in the Caribbean you claim are carrying narcotics than it is to shoot down a guy on the street corner you claim has drugs in his pocket. Nobody with a brain takes this seriously. The whole blatantly deceitful boat-strike campaign is pure murder, part of a larger, blatant regime-change campaign against Venezuela that is pure imperialist aggression.

https://x.com/AdHaque110/status/1995816543884542075?s=20

Disobedient Spirits

One of the more contentious moments in all this came with the short video done by six Democratic lawmakers (Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, and Representatives Jason Crow, Chris Deluzio, Chrissy Houlahan, and Maggie Goodlander), all of whom were military or intelligence officers. Speaking “directly to members of the military and the intelligence community,” they warned them that “this administration is pitting our uniformed military intelligence community professionals against American citizens,” and reminded them that: “Our laws are clear: You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution.”

This admonition that military and intelligence personnel “can” and “must” refuse illegal order, provoked fury from Trump, who called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” although it’s a well-known, black-letter element of the Uniform Code of Military Justice—as his own Attorney General, Pam Bondi, wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court: “Military officers are required not to carry out unlawful orders, It would be a crime to do so.” (my emphasis).

Indeed, Pete Hegseth himself knows and has clearly stated this legal standard: “The military’s not gonna follow illegal orders…If you’re doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that. That’s why the military said it won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander-in-chief. There’s a standard. There’s an ethos.”

It’s just one of those standards that, once you get in power, you don’t give a shit about.

Nonetheless, we should recognize that it’s quite radical for sitting lawmakers to make such statements. When soldiers start disobeying orders en masse—which is exactly what the Democratic six are urging US soldiers and sailors to consider doing—things get seriously out of hand. Entire units and missions start to collapse under constant threat of mutiny. The last time mass refusal of orders happened seriously in the U.S. armed forces was in Vietnam, and it inevitably developed into situations where orders were refused with the toss of a grenade.

And that’s exactly the kind of thing you should expect and accept when an illegal order to commit a war crime or crime against humanity is issued, whether for a specific incident or a whole campaign—i.e., an imperialist aggression in Vietnam or Venezuela.

More pointed responses to the Democratic six are along the lines of “What illegal orders are you suggesting our troops have to disobey? Please don’t pretend you’re giving an abstract lesson in civics. You are former military and intelligence officers who obeyed every order you were given without question and have decided now to emphasize the necessity of disobeying illegal orders, in a discourse framed with urgency about what “this administration” is doing. Everybody knows you’ve got something specific in mind. Say it.

Pardon me for suspecting that these CIA and military Dems are not at all ready to accept the radical consequences of what they are advocating. Do all or any of these six want to be a little more concrete and say whether the military—every single member from the Admiral down to button pusher, the mass refusal you need to challenge a criminal military campaign—must refuse orders to blow up small, unarmed, civilian boats far from and unable to reach American waters (a more “completely unlawful and ruthless” order than which it’s hard to imagine)? Or will they continue “declining to weigh in”? Are they interested in encouraging and engaging in urgent, ethical, constitutional action that might actually disrupt a war crime in progress, or in rhetorically demonstrating how ethically, and constitutionally, and impotently cowardly concerned they are in contradistinction to their Republican colleagues? How much of a shit do they actually give?

Alumni Relations

Which brings me to another example of oh-so-concerned “oppositional” discourse that hit closer to home for me: the December 5th NYT op-ed, “What Trump Is Really Doing With His Boat Strikes,” by Phil Klay. Klay is a former Marine and the winner of the National Book Award for fiction in 2014 for his book of short stories about war, citizenship, and faith. As the LA Times puts it, he’s a Marine who’s “become more of a philosopher.” He is also an alumnus of the high school I went to, and I was alerted to his op-ed through my classmates’ mailing list.

I’ve written about Regis High School before, in my essay on Anthony Fauci, also an alumnus. I’ll repeat a bit here, because it informs Klay’s work and my response. Regis is a unique institution. It is an academically selective, full-scholarship (tuition-free), all-boys Jesuit high school on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It is widely considered the best Catholic high school (and one of the best overall) in the country. It gives a strong education, in my day literally classical—Homer and Caesar in the original Greek and Latin. It’s an education based on Catholic and Jesuit ethical values (which, of course, have changed over the years), and Klay is definitely engaged in an ongoing meditation on those values. It’s an education that, at its best, lays the foundation for logical and critical thinking, and prepares students for good liberal arts colleges and professional careers. For many middle-strata Catholic kids in New York—like this guy—it has been a life-changing experience. So, its alumni are unusually loyal, and proud and aware of each other’s accomplishments.

I caught a little more of the “critical” edge from that and subsequent education, and, as with Anthoy Fauci, my response to Klay’s column was less uncritical than the responses of my fellow alumni—such as, “Must read—not often do we get St. Augustine's advice in the New York Times!” and “Nothing less than what we should expect from a National Book Award recipient. Now if only the people reveling in Trump-sponsored gladiatorial matches would read it––and somehow internalize it.” 

Using a story from St. Augustine’s Confessions, Klay builds his essay on sharply and aptly analogizing the Trump administration’s “snuff films of alleged drug boats blowing up” to the Romans’ “cruel gladiatorial games” that made the spectators “drink in savagery” and “imbibe madness,” turning them into the moral monsters that initially repelled them. This, we must consider, is “what President Trump and his administration are doing to the soul of the nation,” how his “moral shaping of the electorate” will leave us with results “we will still have to reckon with once he is gone.” This, “the Trump administration’s celebration of death” pushes beyond legal and constitutional questions, and “even the Christian morality that would eventually push Augustine to formulate an early version of just-war theory.” It’s a “wounding of the national soul” that Klay finds “hard to watch.”

I’m right there with the “snuff film” critique of the Trump/Hegseth boat attacks; it’s the theologized fluff talk about Trump’s “wounding of the national soul” I find hard to swallow.

It’s fine and necessary to criticize the Trump administration for these crimes. It’s not fine to ignore—to deliberately and determinately fail to address and account for—the fact that, whatever “President Trump and his administration are doing to the soul of the nation,” that “soul” was ruined and damned long before Donald Trump came down the escalator.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, (both now Democratic Party favorites), Barack Obama, Hillary ”We came, we saw, he died. Ha, ha.”) and Bill Clinton, Madeline (*500,000* dead children “worth it”) Albright, Joe (“I am a Zionist”) Biden, etc. “morally shaped the electorate” and “wounded the national soul” to accept at-whim presidential assassinations, including double-taps.

What’s the point, besides demonstrating your theological-philosophical pretension finesse, of pinning the damnation of the American soul on Trump, who has yet to catch up with the body count of any of his forerunners?

I’ve characterized the present American polity a couple of times as a ship of fools. Even so, it was all-ahead-full for quite a while. But for some time now, under a succession of calamitous captains, we’ve been on a true voyage of the damned and, if we’re not blown out of the water (a real possibility), we will sink from the weight of the crimes we’ve committed against others and ourselves. If we even have time, we better figure out the personnel and baggage that got us here—all of it—and throw them overboard.

Klay makes a nice point about the result of 9/11: “Something dangerously seductive. America had found moral purpose again.  We can forget everything else, including why and how it happened, and embark on our purposeful and righteous campaign as the good guys, fighting the War on Terror.  Everyone, Phil Klay first of all, recognizes how disastrous that was. Substitute “Donald Trump” for “Terror” and you’ve got the liberal attitude since 2016, with at least the same level of righteous certitude.  How’s that working out?

Here's a couple of Obama’s extra-judicial, extra-territorial assassinations—aside from the murder of a 16-year-old American boy who “should’ve had a more responsible father”—per Amnesty International: “On a sunny afternoon in October 2012, 68-year-old Mamana Bibi was killed in a drone strike that appears to have been aimed directly at her.” And:2 “Earlier, on 6 July 2012, 18 male laborers, including at least one boy, were killed in a series of US drone strikes in the remote village of Zowi Sidgi. Missiles first struck a tent in which some men had gathered for an evening meal after a hard day’s work, and then struck those who came to help the injured from the first strike. Witnesses described a macabre scene of body parts and blood, panic and terror, as US drones continued to hover overhead.” Et. al. 

But we did not see those assassinations and double taps because, under Obama, “The USA…refuses to release detailed information about individual strikes.”  We didn’t see them because Obama and his “priest”/consigliere John Brennan were not as stupid as Trump and Hegseth to show it and boast about. Not as stupid, but no less culpable.

We didn’t see it because the Democratic-aligned media did not make sure you saw it and did not make a case out of it, but, rather, wrote positive, appreciative stories in Phil-Klay terms about the Augustinian angst of these morally complex protagonists.

The “priest” reference is not flippant. In 2012, the New York Times did a revealing  portrait of Obama and Brennan’s intimate pas de deux executing deadly extrajudicial and extraterritorial drone strikes via their Tuesday Kill List meetings. It was a relationship saturated with the same kind of theological and moral anguish, in exactly the same terms, that Phil Klay embraces. Obama was “A student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.” John Brennan was “a priest whose blessing has become indispensable to Mr. Obama, echoing the president’s attempt to apply the ‘just war’ theories of Christian philosophers to a brutal modern conflict...Guided by Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama …signs off on every [drone] strike.”

Isn’t it so much better, didn’t it leave the soul of the nation unwounded, when, unlike the crude and stupid duo of Trump and Hegseth, the educated, erudite team of Obama and Brennan conjured up a “blessing” from Christian philosophers before blowing up civilians in distant lands? That’s the kind of morally anguished and self-aware leadership we Americans, and the Mamana Bibis and Venezuelan fishermen of the world, are missing.

Of course, with the hectic pace of operations and all, the Obama-Brennan disputationes had to be rather brief, since Obama “approves lethal action without hand-wringing.” Obama, you see, is “a realist who was never carried away by his lies own rhetoric. Instead, he was already putting his lawyerly mind to carving out the maximum amount of maneuvering room to fight terrorism as he saw fit.”

“Lawyerly mind” (or perhaps “Jesuitical”), “carving out [from “just war” theories] maneuvering room.” Isn’t that precious? In other words, all the theologizing moral anguish was bullshit cover for Obama acting as the dedicated, deadly American exceptionalist and imperialist and Zionist (‘cause that’s a huge part of Iraq, et. al.) that he was, that Trump is, and that anyone whom the ruling class permits to become the American president will be. It’s not “the Trump administration” that started imperialist America’s “celebration of death.”

No Favorite

Obama’s extrajudicial, extraterritorial assassination policy indisputably paved the way for Trump’s boat attacks, just as Obama’s 2015 designation of Venezuela as an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States" paved the way for Trump’s (or whoever’s) possible military attack.

Here’s what I wrote about this, in a 2013 essay, when Jesuit Fr. Joe McShane, then president of Fordham University—John Brennan’s and my undergraduate alma mater—awarded Brennan an honorary Doctorate of Humane Letters against the protest of  otherwise “morally shaped” students and former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, also a Fordham alumnus (OMG, it is a Jesuit conspiracy!):

Because of the precedent Obama and Brennan have set, such decisions are going to continue to be made by one or two persons in a room as they see fit…These two men, that is, have taken a definitive, and probably irreversible, step in transforming the American President into an Emperor. But, of course, as long as he has a priest by his side, that’ll be OK.

Obama set the soul-wounding precedent that Trump is following. Now, the Trump administration is showing Americans their snuff videos of boats being blown up, hoping, as Klay worries, that some of its base will “imbibe the madness.” And some do, though it seems far from a net political benefit. Then, the Obama administration hid their kill shots from Americans, and its base was quite content not to see them, while blithely accepting their deadly result.

In other words, the Obamacan base was being fed not nasty snuff images but a constant stream of supercilious horseshit, and was, by that, “morally shaped” to “give the president his freedom of action…that we will still have to reckon with.” And if members of that base don’t recognize, renounce, and account for what their hero did, and what they did by cosseting that hero in their minds while limiting themselves to statements showing how culturally and morally superior they are to those in the other “base” who haven’t read Augustine and Aquinas, then they are just sad, sanctimonious, and politically debilitating hypocrites.

It's become the dominant, easy strategy of liberal commentators to pick loud, rhetorically crude reactionary targets to demonize, while explicitly or implicitly embracing the pernicious but rhetorically sophisticated liberal imperialists, who end up committing crimes both those liberal commentators and the reactionaries they disdain support.

The only thing different about the Trump administration is its crude, blatant, boasting about its imperialist violence. The Obama administration, like all U.S. imperialist administrations, was the same pig, with better lipstick, and deserves no less contempt for covering its porcine violence with deceitful moral pretensions. You will have no political credibility if you don’t acknowledge this.

Phil Klay, who I can’t say is naive, but who joined the Marine Corps in 2005, “because I thought military service would be an honorable profession,” and thinks that the Trump administration is only now “turn[ing] a noble vocation into mere thuggery” should maybe have relied less on the Christian theologians than the nation’s most-decorated marine, Smedley Butler, who knew over 90 years ago that being a marine meant being “a gangster for capitalism.”  Thinking on all that with my Jesuit training, I gotta wonder if there has been an order that more clearly called for Augustinian disobedience than the order to deploy to Iraq. Isn’t deployment the first order—in relation now to Venezuela, Iran, or Palestine—that we must call on all military personnel to disobey?

Klay is of the school that thinks Trump is “tarnishing” the uniform and “wounding the soul” of the nation by his proud broadcasting of the images of imperialist violence. I’m of the school that thinks it’s a good thing that arrogant crimes and the imperialist soul of the nation are shown to the world in all their naked glory. I think seeing that is more likely to encourage soldiers to refuse orders and the public to support that refusal. This is the beneficial Trump effect I wrote about here:

Trump is diminishing the aura of the presidency, and generally gumming up the works. As Rob Urie puts it: “The most public political tension now playing out is between those who prefer the veil of ‘system’ against the venal vulgarity of that system’s product now visible for all to see. What Mr. Trump’s political opponents appear to be demanding is a better veil.” Not I. The lipstick is off the "presidency" and the whole political beast it sits atop of. Good. Let's have no nostalgia for a time when a smooth operator was picking your pocket with a smile while you were transfixed by his mellifluous patter.

It’s not about Trump or Obama or St. Augustine. It’s about the imperatives of capitalism, imperialism, and Zionism that drive American policy. The last thing we need is theologized, morally anguished commentary that obscures those fundamental forces. The first thing we need is to drop our illusions and figure out how to fight and defeat those forces persistently attacking the citizens of the U.S. and the world from many directions and both American political parties.

Crimes of the boat-attack type have been a standard part of bipartisan American imperialism (that’s the category, not from St. Augustine) for as long as we have lived (You don’t have to go back to Smedley Butler. Has everyone forgotten Vietnam?). Until and unless oh-so-well-educated, philosophically astute Americans renounce their previous favored imperialist heroes who committed those crimes, they should not be surprised when their carefully targeted professions of moral disappointment and superiority will be widely perceived, with reason, as sanctimonious hypocrisy.

Really, please, get how much, and how many, people are put off by this. It doesn’t work!

So, let’s assume everyone’s good-faith desire to do something more than virtue signal by parsing the Constitution and/or the Church Fathers to show how much smarter and nicer one is than Donald Trump. I invite Phil Klay and the six Democratic “seditionists” who boldly and correctly denounce the Trump administration’s aggressions, to join me in explicitly calling for every American military officer or soldier to disobey any order to attack civilian boats, or to participate in any attack or invasion of Venezuela, and to accept, without reservation, whatever wounds to the soul, ego, ships, planes, or personnel of the armed forces of the United States that will necessarily inflict. While we’re at it, let’s also encourage disobedience to any order to participate in the insulting, colonialist, Trumpian ethnic cleansing plan for Gaza/Palestine or in any military action in support of Zionist colonialism.

Let’s all put ourselves on the line with the soldiers we are asking to—saying they must—disobey orders and disrupt the whole of the U.S. imperialist mission in Venezuela and Latin America (and, for good measure, the Middle East) with at least scores, preferably hundreds and thousands, of military resisters. That’s what will gum up the works which Trump, the current captain of the imperialist ship, along with a bipartisan congressional crew, is cooking up in the name of our nation, and that’s exactly what we must want to see, and help make, happen. Let’s, in other words, do what the logic of your purported ethical, constitutionalist position demands: encourage mutiny.

And, with all my Jesuit training, I don’t give a shit what St. Augustine calls it.

______________________________

Alien Agenda?

Alien Agenda?

Disclosure politics lands on the White House lawn

Jim Kavanagh

      

Yeah, I’m going there.

Here’s a little something from out of left field that I now think is worth putting on everyone’s radar: There is a lot percolating in UFO world, and, for the first time, there’s a real possibility it is going to spill into the political world in a way that cannot be ignored.

I’ve been a UFO buff since I was a kid. I’m talking Donald Keyhoe, Betty and Barney Hill, et. al. I’ve followed the subject closely and consistently. I am convinced that: 1) There are real UFOs/UAPs/USOs of non-human intelligence (NHI), and 2) The US government has NHI craft and bodies, and has had ongoing programs retrieving and attempting to back-engineer craft, at least since the 40s, including programs of disinformation and fakery. Ditto Russia, China, and maybe other governments.

The OG of UFO

Now, you may think I’m nuts. Which is OK.  I'm not interested in convincing anyone. It’s a subject that is filled with disinformation and fakery and deserves the utmost skepticism.  One needs to spend a lot of time to sort it out. I also think, when one does sort it out, there is so much evidence that it is only denied because of severe threats against disclosure, combined with rigorous siloing, epistemological anathema, and consistent ridicule, which works very well.

It’s also easily hidden and considered something not worth thinking about, because it doesn’t seem to make a difference. Indeed, even though the USG reversed decades of absolute denial and acknowledged the existence of UAP/USO of unknown, and possibly extraterrestrial, origin eight years ago, that news—which many thought would freak everyone out, or at least provoke some sharp public interest—has been absorbed and forgotten as if it were a weather report. So, though the phenomenon obviously has spectacular implications, it has had no discernible significant effect on society or people's lives, politically or economically. I’m a Marxist, and this phenomenon has had no effect on the class struggles on earth we must focus on. (Though,Yes, Virginia, there is a corpus of Marxist Ufology.)  

Even the technological advances some claim were gleaned from studying NHI craft since the 1940s—fiber optics, night vision, semiconductors, etc.—were not all that impossible within normal human science, and have not had earth-shattering effect. We’re still waiting for a good flying car. You’d think, if exponentially advanced energy and propulsion systems have been zipping around for 80 years, that would have radically upended life as we know it—or at least appeared as a super weapon to win a war. And it hasn’t. So, whether the phenomenon is real or not, it’s been irrelevant.

That may be about to change.

First of all, the phenomenon is getting more brazen. The mass wave of “drone” sightings last year over towns, beaches, and military facilities in the Northeast (and not just the NE, and not just New Jersey) was impossible to hide, or to explain. It’s clear “drones” are the new “swamp gas.” But that flap still had no dangerous effects that couldn’t be ignored. This year, the phenomenon impinged on political/military events in a way that was dangerous. The wave of "drone" sightings over European airports and military installations was likely related to the phenomenon, and it was blamed, and used to suggest an attack, on Russia. That's a kind of provocative appearance in a crisis situation that does threaten to destabilize the world.

Second, in unprecedented ways, the political and media establishments are taking the phenomenon seriously. A ripple started with the NY Times story in 2017, when the paper of record recognized the seriousness of the phenomenon and the credibility of the pilots witnessing it. It was a story that cancelled the automatic ridicule toward discussing the phenomenon. The ripple has become a flood since David Grusch came out in 2023 and testified before Congress, convincing a bipartisan group of legislators—from Rubio to Schumer to Gillibrand—of the reality of NHI craft and “biologics,” and prompting them to attempt to pass strong whistleblower and disclosure legislation on the subject. They could not, because the resistance of whatever deep-deep state element controls this was still too strong.  Two years later, there have been more congressional hearings with more credible witnesses.  There are now hundreds of people in the know—military, intelligence, scientific, and political—opening up about this in greater detail, in podcasts and in closed-door congressional meetings. If you’re on any media, you can’t escape it.

The new documentary film, Age of Disclosure, is now the leading edge of this tide of revelations. It features 34 former and current scientists and senior government, military, and intelligence officials who claim to have direct knowledge of NHI and of an 80-year craft recovery and reverse engineering program—people like Jay Stratton, former director of the Pentagon’s UAP Task Force, who says: “I have seen with my own eyes nonhuman craft and nonhuman beings.” It also claims that President George H. W. Bush knew of NHI who landed at Holloman Air Force Base in 1964, and that Presidents George W. and Donald Trump (in his first term), considered, but decided against, revealing the truth about the phenomenon.

Now, again, you may think this is all a load of bullshit, but this film, and the narrative it represents, is being taken seriously by mainstream politicians and media. At this point, there is just too much of the story out there, in too much detail, and I think there is a non-zero chance that something more is going to give, in a dramatic way. A “disclosure” is happening and being believed, and what the politicians and military/intelligence figures involved in this fear most now is what they call “Catastrophic Disclosure”—a reveal that is not managed properly enough to avoid upsetting the fundamental structures of political and economic power.

Of course, it would also provide the ultimate distraction from the crises of late capitalism and fading hegemony. The preferred spin would be to use the UAP phenomenon to gin up a New Cold War arms race—We have to figure out how to fully weaponize NHI tech before the Chinese or Russians do. ‘Cause they’re working on it, too, and may already be ahead.

Or maybe Werner Von Braun’s alleged prediction that the USG will use a false-flag alien invasion to demand the weaponization of space—a prediction recently reprised by Jeremy Corbell. Whatever gets the defense contractors fed. 

Fictional or real, there’s a UAP disclosure story waiting to be used to exacerbate “New Cold War” international tension and militarism—which is especially sad if it’s real.

So, there is now a push—based on the intense interest of administration insiders like Rubio and the fear of Catastrophic Disclosure—for Trump to announce that, Yes, we are not alone in the universe. The US has NHI craft and bodies and programs for investigating them. The pitch to him is that it would be the most important presidential speech ever, and would cement his legacy as the most important president ever. And if he doesn’t do it, Putin or Xi might. Why leave them the opportunity? ‘Cause the story is coming out, one way or another. Historical, cosmological narcissism. A pretty irresistible pitch for Donald Trump.

To be sure, this is an ultimate Black Swan warning—there is only the slightest chance of it happening and enormous, unknown consequences if it does. I say only a “non-zero” chance because, even after the NYT and David Grusch, until right now, I would have put the chance at 0—either because, if you wish, there’s nothing to disclose, or because the resistance will continue to be, as it has been, absolute for reasons we’ll never know.

One of four things will be the case:

1.      The phenomenon is not real, and there will be no “disclosure” about it.

2.       The phenomenon is not real, and there will be a fictional “disclosure” about it, as a device for manipulating the population.

3.      The phenomenon is real, and it will continue to be denied, to serve the purposes it always has.

4.      The phenomenon is real, and there will be “disclosure” about it, which you can be sure will be manipulatively limited and fictional in its own way, for its own purposes. 

I still think 3 is the most likely scenario, and five years from now, we’ll be having the same discussion. This is the most closely guarded secret. But, for the first time, 4 is possible. I put the chances at about 10%. Let’s keep the possibility in mind, and not be blindsided by it should it occur.

 If the phenomenon is real, disclosing even a bit of it will be fantastic enough to capture people’s attention, but there’s a danger that people will then demand disclosure beyond the obvious, and I’ll just say, after thinking I knew about this for decades, I’ve recently come to think it’s much weirder than we’re prepared for—an alterity,  an “other,” that we cannot have imagined. There are more things in heaven and earth… 

We live in interesting times. Live long and prosper.

____________________________

Trump-Mamdani Bromance

Trump-Mamdani Bromance

Opposites Attract

Jim Kavanagh

The Trump-Mamdani meeting in the Oval Office blew everyone’s mind. Without renouncing the “communist” and “fascist” epithets they’ve thrown at each other—indeed, with Trump good-naturedly accepting his—they had a very friendly exchange.

Islamophobic, anti-communist rightists like Laura Loomer found it “Wild to allow a jihadist communist to stand behind the President’s desk in the Oval Office."  Indeed, it drove Laura to drink—ginger ale, that is: “I had to drink a bottle of ginger ale today after seeing Mamdani in the Oval Office because it physically nauseates me seeing Islamic jihadists infiltrate our government.”

And it didn’t quite go as the rightists expected:

The Israelis also found it confusing:

Of the jihadist communist, Trump said “I feel very confident that he can do a very good job…And we're gonna be helping him, to make everybody's dream come true, having a strong and very safe New York."

Despite Zohran’s sticking to his “fascist” and “genocide” guns, leftists  found his cozying up to the fascist genocidaire billionaire hard to swallow (even with ginger ale), and found most apt Trump’s remark that "I will say there's no difference in party. There's no difference in anything.” Political theater of the capitalist and imperialist duopoly.

Centrists found it a “vision” of new political possibility::

Though somebody has to explain to me how this works. Are the young well-to-do guy and the old billionaire both on the “bottom”? Where’s the “top”? Is Trump engaging in a class-warfare solidarity fest or another kind of buddy hug? We’ll come to that.