ian – Radio Free

Death by Fungi: Cashing in on Erin Patterson

Binoy Kampmark — Wed, 09 Jul 2025 14:42:58 +0000

She has become a notorious figure of international interest, shamelessly exploited for news cycles, commercial worth, and career advancement. After a trial lasting nine weeks, conducted at the Latrobe Valley Law Courts in Morwell, Victoria, Erin Patterson, a stocky, thick-set mother of two, was found guilty of three murders and an attempted murder. Date: July 29, 2023, in the town of Leongatha. Her weapon in executing her plot of Sophoclean extravagance: death cap mushrooms (Amanita phalloides) served in a beef Wellington. Her targets: in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, and Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson. Of the four, only Ian survived the culinary killings – barely. Prudently, estranged husband Simon chose not to attend.

News outlets thought it useful to produce graphics about this Australian’s terminating exploits. CNN produced one with voyeuristic relish, making it appear much like a Midsomer Murders episode. Details aplenty are provided, including the gruesome end for the victims. “Gail and Heather died on August 4 [2023] from multiorgan failure, followed by Don on August 5 after he failed to respond to a liver transplant.” Fortunately, Ian Wilkinson survived, but the rumour-mongering hack journalist can barely take it, almost regretful of that fact: “after almost two months of intensive treatment”, he was discharged.

Having an opinion on this case has become standard fare, amassing on a turd heap of supposition, second guessing and wonder. The range is positively Chaucerian in its village variety. The former court official interviewed about the killer’s guilty mind and poisoning stratagems, stating the obvious and dulling. The criminologist, keen on career advancement and pseudo-psychology, attempted to gain insight into Patterson’s mind, commenting on her apparent ordinariness.

One example of the latter is to be found in The Conversation, where we are told by Xanthe Mallett with platitudinous and forced certainty how Patterson, speaking days after the incident, “presented as your typical, average woman of 50.” If attempting to kill four people using fungi is a symptom of average, female ordinariness of a certain age, we all best start making our own meals. But Mallett thinks it is precisely that sense of the ordinary that led to a public obsession, a mania with crime and motivation. “The juxtaposition between the normality of a family lunch (and the sheer vanilla-ness of the accused) and the seriousness of the situation sent the media into overdrive.”

This is certainly not the view of Dr. Chris Webster, who answered the Leongatha Hospital doorbell when Patterson first presented. Realising her link to the other four victims suffering symptoms of fungal poisoning, Webster explained that death cap mushrooms were suspected. Asking Patterson where she got them, she replied with one word: “Woolworths.” This was enough for the doctor to presume guilt, an attitude which certainly gave one of Australia’s most ruthless supermarket chains a graceful pardon. “She was evil and very smart to have planned it all and carried out but didn’t quite dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’.”

The marketer, thrilled with branding and promotion, suggests how Patterson Inc. can become an ongoing concern of merchandise, plays, and scripts. (Think of a shirt sporting the following: “I ate beef Wellington and survived”.) The ABC did not waste much time commissioning Toxic, a show created by Elise McCredie and Tony Ayres, aided by ABC podcaster Rachel Brown. Ayres hams it up by saying that, “True stories ask storytellers to probe the complexities of human behaviour. What really lies beneath the headlines? It’s both a challenge and a responsibility to go beyond the surface – to reveal, not just to sensationalise.” Given that this project is a child of frothy publicity born from sensationalism and hysteria, the comment is almost touching.

The media prompts and updates, mischaracterising Patterson as “The Mushroom Murderer”, leave the impression that she really did like killing fungi. But an absolute monster must be found, and the press hounds duly found it. Papers like the Herald Sun preferred the old Rupert Murdoch tactic: till the soil to surface level to find requisite dirt. According to a grimy bit of reporting from that most distinguished of Melbourne rags, “the callous murderer, whose maiden name was Scutter before marrying Simon Patterson in 2007, was secretly dubbed ‘Scutter the Nutter’ among her training group.” The Australian was in a didactic mood, unhappy that the judge did not make it even more obvious that a crime, committed by a woman involving poison and “not a gun or a knife”, was equally grave.

To complete the matter was an aggrieved home cook, Nagi Maehashi, who also rode the wave of publicity by expressing sadness that her recipe had become a lethal weapon. (Presumably, Maehashi did not have lethal mushrooms in her original recipe, but precision slides in publicity.) Overcome with false modesty in this glare of publicity, Maehashi did not wish to take interviews, but felt her misused work deserved a statement. “It is, of course, upsetting to learn that one of my recipes – possibly the one I’ve spent more hours perfecting than any other – something I created to bring joy and happiness, is entangled in a tragic situation,” she moaned on Instagram. Those familiar with Maehashi will note her tendency to megalomania in the kitchen, especially given recipes that have been created long before she turned to knife and spatula.

The ones forgotten will be those victims who died excruciatingly before their loved ones in a richly sadistic exercise. At the end of it all, the entire ensemble of babblers, hucksters, and chancers so utterly obsessed with what took place in Leongatha should thank Patterson. Her murders have excited, enthralled, and given people purpose. She will start conversations, fill pockets, extend careers, and, if we are to believe some recent reporting, make meals for her fellow inmates in prison.

The post Death by Fungi: Cashing in on Erin Patterson first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Binoy Kampmark.

The Fraudulence of Economic Theory

Eric Zuesse — Mon, 09 Jun 2025 14:25:01 +0000

Ever since the economic crash in 2008, it has been clear that the foundation of standard or “neoclassical” economic theory — which extends the standard microeconomic theory into national economies (macroeconomics) — fails at the macroeconomic level, and therefore that in both the microeconomic and macroeconomic domains, economic theory, or the standard or “neoclassical” economic theory, is factually false. Nonetheless, the world’s economists did nothing to replace that theory — the standard theory of economics — and they continue on as before, as-if the disproof of a theory in economics does NOT mean that that false theory needs to be replaced. The profession of economics is, therefore, definitely NOT a scientific field; it is a field of philosophy instead.

On 2 November 2008, the New York Times Magazine headlined “Questions for James K. Galbraith: The Populist,” which was an “Interview by Deborah Solomon” of the prominent liberal economist and son of John Kenneth Galbraith. She asked him, “There are at least 15,000 professional economists in this country, and you’re saying only two or three of them foresaw the mortgage crisis” which had brought on the second Great Depression?

He answered: “Ten or twelve would be closer than two or three.”

She very appropriately followed up immediately with “What does this say about the field of economics, which claims to be a science?”

He didn’t answer by straight-out saying that economics isn’t any more of a science than physics was before Galileo, or than biology was before Darwin. He didn’t proceed to explain that the very idea of a Nobel Prize in Economics was based upon a lie which alleged that economics was the first field to become scientific within all of the “social sciences,” when, in fact, there weren’t yet any social sciences, none yet at all. But he came close to admitting these things, when he said: “It’s an enormous blot on the reputation of the profession. There are thousands of economists. Most of them teach. And most of them teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless.” His term “useless” was a euphemism for false. His term “blot” was a euphemism for “nullification.”

On 9 January 2009, economist Jeff Madrick headlined at The Daily Beast, “How the Entire Economics Profession Failed,” and he opened:

At the annual meeting of American Economists, most everyone refused to admit their failures to prepare or warn about the second worst crisis of the century.

I could find no shame in the halls of the San Francisco Hilton, the location at the annual meeting of American economists. Mainstream economists from major universities dominate the meetings, and some of them are the anointed cream of the crop, including former Clinton, Bush and even Reagan advisers.

There was no session on the schedule about how the vast majority of economists should deal with their failure to anticipate or even seriously warn about the possibility that the second worst economic crisis of the last hundred years was imminent.

I heard no calls to reform educational curricula because of a crisis so threatening and surprising that it undermines, at least if the academicians were honest, the key assumptions of the economic theory currently being taught. …

I found no one fundamentally changing his or her mind about the value of economics, economists, or their work.”

He observed a scandalous profession of quacks who are satisfied to remain quacks. The public possesses faith in them because it possesses faith in the “invisible hand” of God, and everyone is taught to believe in that from the crib. In no way is it science.

In a science, when facts prove that the theory is false, the theory gets replaced, it’s no longer taught. In a scholarly field, however, that’s not so — proven-false theory continues being taught. In economics, the proven-false theory continued being taught, and still continues today to be taught. This demonstrates that economics is still a religion or some other type of philosophy, not yet any sort of science.

Mankind is still coming out of the Dark Ages. The Bible is still being viewed as history, not as myth (which it is), not as some sort of religious or even political propaganda. It makes a difference — a huge difference: the difference between truth and falsehood.

The Dutch economist Dirk J. Bezemer, at Groningen University, posted on 16 June 2009 a soon-classic paper, “‘No One Saw This Coming’: Understanding Financial Crisis Through Accounting Models,” in which he surveyed the work of 12 economists who did see it (the economic collapse of 2008) coming; and he found there that they had all used accounting or “Flow of Funds” models, instead of the standard microeconomic theory. (In other words: they accounted for, instead of ignored, debts.) From 2005 through 2007, these accounting-based economists had published specific and accurate predictions of what would happen: Dean Baker, Wynne Godley, Fred Harrison, Michael Hudson, Eric Janszen, Stephen (“Steve”) Keen, Jakob B. Madsen, Jens K. Sorensen, Kurt Richebaecher, Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, and Robert Shiller.

He should have added several others. Paul Krugman, wrote a NYT column on 12 August 2005 headlined “Safe as Houses” and he said “Houses aren’t safe at all” and that they would likely decline in price. On 25 August 2006, he bannered “Housing Gets Ugly” and concluded “It’s hard to see how we can avoid a serious slowdown.” Bezemer should also have included Merrill Lynch’s Chief North American Economist, David A. Rosenberg, whose The Market Economist article “Rosie’s Housing Call August 2004” on 6 August 2004 already concluded, “The housing sector has entered a ‘bubble’ phase,” and who presented a series of graphs showing it. Bezemer should also have included Satyajit Das, about whom TheStreet had headlined on 21 September 21 2007, “The Credit Crisis Could Be Just Beginning.” He should certainly have included Ann Pettifor, whose 2003 The Real World Economic Outlook, and her masterpiece the 2006 The Coming First World Debt Crisis, predicted exactly what happened and why. Her next book, the 2009 The Production of Money: How to Break the Power of Bankers, was almost a masterpiece, but it failed to present any alternative to the existing microeconomic theory — as if microeconomic theory isn’t a necessary part of economic theory. Another great economist he should have mentioned was Charles Hugh Smith, who had been accurately predicting since at least 2005 the sequence of events that culminated in the 2008 collapse. And Bezemer should especially have listed the BIS’s chief economist, William White, regarding whom Germany’s Spiegel headlined on 8 July 2009, “Global Banking Economist Warned of Coming Crisis.” (It is about but doesn’t mention nor link to https://www.bis.org/publ/work147.pdf.) White had been at war against the policies of America’s Fed chief Alan Greenspan ever since 1998, and especially since 2003, but the world’s aristocrats muzzled White’s view and promoted Greenspan’s instead. (The economics profession have always been propagandists for the super-rich.) Bezemer should also have listed Charles R. Morris, who in 2007 told his publisher Peter Osnos that the crash would start in Summer 2008, which was basically correct. Moreover, James K. Galbraith had written for years saying that a demand-led depression would result, such as in his American Prospect “How the Economists Got It Wrong,” 30 November 2002; and “Bankers Versus Base,” 15 April 2004, and culminating finally in his 2008 The Predator State, which blamed the aristocracy in the strongest possible terms for the maelstrom to come. Bezemer should also have listed Barry Ritholtz, who, in his “Recession Predictor,” on 18 August 2005, noted the optimistic view of establishment economists and then said, “I disagree … due to Psychology of consumers.” He noted “consumer debt, not as a percentage of GDP, but relative to net asset wealth,” and also declining “median personal income,” as pointing toward a crash from this mounting debt-overload. Then, on 31 May 2006, he headlined “Recent Housing Data: Charts & Analysis,” and opened: “It has long been our view that Real Estate is the prime driver of this economy, and its eventual cooling will be a major crimp in GDP, durable goods, and consumer spending.” Bezemer should also have listed both Paul Kasriel and Asha Bangalore at Northern Trust. Kasriel headlined on 22 May 2007, “US Economy May Wake Up Without Consumers’ Prodding?” and said it wouldn’t happen – and consumers were too much in debt. Then on 8 August 2007, he bannered: “US Economic Growth in Domestic Final Demand,” and said that “the housing recession is … spreading to other parts of the economy.” On 25 May 2006, Bangalore headlined “Housing Market Is Cooling Down, No Doubts About It.” and that was one of two Asha Bangalore articles which were central to Ritholtz’s 31 May 2006 article showing that all of the main indicators pointed to a plunge in house-prices that had started in March 2005; so, by May 2006, it was already clear from the relevant data, that a huge economic crash was comning soon. Another whom Bezemer should have listed was L. Randall Wray, whose 2005 Levy Economics Institute article, “The Ownership Society: Social Security Is Only the Beginning” asserted that it was being published “at the peak of what appears to be a real estate bubble.” Bezemer should also have listed Paul B. Farrell, columnist at marketwatch.com, who saw practically all the correct signs, in his 26 June 2005 “Global Megabubble? You Decide. Real Estate Is Only Tip of Iceberg; or Is It?”; and his 17 July 2005 “Best Strategies to Beat the Megabubble: Real Estate Bubble Could Trigger Global Economic Meltdown”; and his 9 January 2006 “Meltdown in 2006? Cast Your Vote”; and 15 May 2006 “Party Time (Until Real Estate Collapses)”; and his 21 August 2006 “Tipping Point Pops Bubble, Triggers Bear: Ten Warnings the Economy, Markets Have Pushed into Danger Zone”; and his 30 July 2007 “You Pick: Which of 20 Tipping Points Ignites Long Bear Market?” Farrell’s commentaries also highlighted the same reform-recommendations that most of the others did, such as Baker, Keen, Pettifor, Galbraith, Ritholtz, and Wray; such as break up the mega-banks, and stiffen regulation of financial institutions. However, the vast majority of academically respected economists disagreed with all of this and were wildly wrong in their predictions, and in their analyses. The Nobel Committee should have withdrawn their previous awards in economics to still-practicing economists (except to Krugman who did win a Nobel) and re-assigned them to these 25 economists, who showed that they had really deserved it.

And there was another: economicpredictions.org tracked four economists who predicted correctly the 2008 crash: Dean Baker, Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, and Med Jones, the latter of whom had actually the best overall record regarding the predictions that were tracked there.

And still others should also be on the list: for example, Joe Weisenthal at Business Insider headlined on 21 November 2012, “The Genius Who Invented Economics Blogging Reveals How He Got Everything Right And What’s Coming Next” and he interviewed Bill McBride, who had started his calculated riskblog in January 2005. So I looked in the archives there at December 2005, and noticed December 28th, “Looking Forward: 2006 Top Economic Stories.” He started there with four trends that he expected everyone to think of, and then listed another five that weren’t so easy, including “Housing Slowdown. In my opinion, the Housing Bubble was the top economic story of 2005, but I expect the slowdown to be a form of Chinese water torture. Sales for both existing and new homes will probably fall next year from the records set in 2005. And median prices will probably increase slightly, with declines in the more ‘heated markets.’” McBride also had predicted that the economic rebound would start in 2009, and he was now, in 2012, predicting a strong 2013. Probably Joe Weisenthal was right in calling McBride a “Genius.”

And also, Mike Whitney at InformationClearinghouse.info and other sites, headlined on 20 November 2006, “Housing Bubble Smack-Down,” and he nailed the credit-boom and Fed easy-money policy as the cause of the housing bubble and the source of an imminent crash.

Furthermore, Ian Welsh headlined on 28 November 2007, “Looking Forward At the Consequences of This Bubble Bursting,” and listed 10 features of the crash to come, of which 7 actually happened.

In addition, Gail Tverberg, an actuary, headlined on 9 January 2008 “Peak Oil and the Financial Markets: A Forecast for 2008,” and provided the most detailed of all the prescient descriptions of the collapse that would happen that year.

Furthermore, Gary Shilling’s January 2007 Insight newsletter listed “12 investment themes” which described perfectly what subsequently happened, starting with “The housing bubble has burst.”

And the individual investing blogger Jesse Colombo started noticing the housing bubble even as early as 6 September 2004, blogging at his stock-market-crash.net “The Housing Bubble” and documenting that it would happen (“Here is the evidence that we are in a massive housing bubble:”) and what the economic impact was going to be. Then on 7 February 2006 he headlined “The Coming Crash!” and said “Based on today’s overvalued housing prices, a 20 percent crash is certainly in the cards.”

Also: Stephanie Pomboy of MacroMavens issued an analysis and appropriate graphs on 7 December 2007, headlined “When Animals Attack” and predicting imminently a huge economic crash.

In alphabetical order, they are: Dean Baker, Asha Bangalore, Jesse Colombo, Satyajit Das, Paul B. Farrell, James K. Galbraith, Wynne Godley, Fred Harrison, Michael Hudson, Eric Janszen, Med Jones, Paul Kasriel, Steve Keen, Paul Krugman, Jakob B. Madsen, Bill McBride, Charles R. Morris, Ann Pettifor, Stehanie Pomboy, Kurt Richebaeker, Barry Ritholtz, David A. Rosenberg, Nouriel Roubini, Peter Schiff, Robert Shiller, Gary Shilling, Charles Hugh Smith, Jens K. Sorensen, Gail Tverberg, Ian Welsh, William White, Mike Whitney, L. Randall Wray.

Thus, at least 33 economists were contenders as having been worth their salt as economic professionals. One can say that only 33 economists predicted the 2008 collapse, or that only 33 economists predicted accurately or reasonably accurately the collapse. However, some of those 33 were’t actually professional economists. So, some of the world’s 33 best economists aren’t even professional economists, as accepted in that rotten profession.

So, the few honest and open-eyed economists (these 33, at least) tried to warn the world. Did the economics profession honor them for their having foretold the 2008 collapse? Did President Barack Obama hire them, and fire the incompetents he had previously hired for his Council of Economic Advisers? Did the Nobel Committee acknowledge that it had given Nobel Economics Prizes to the wrong people, including people such as the conservative Milton Friedman whose works were instrumental in causing the 2008 crash? Also complicit in causing the 2008 crash was the multiple-award-winning liberal economist Lawrence Summers, who largely agreed with Friedman but was nonetheless called a liberal. Evidently, the world was too corrupt for any of these 33 to reach such heights of power or of authority. Like Galbraith had said at the close of his 2002 “How the Economists Got It Wrong“: “Being right doesn’t count for much in this club.” If anything, being right means being excluded from such posts. In an authentically scientific field, the performance of one’s predictions (their accuracy) is the chief (if not SOLE) determinant of one’s reputation and honor amongst the profession, but that’s actually not the way things yet are in any of the social “sciences,” including economics; they’re all just witch-doctory, not yet real science. The fraudulence of these fields is just ghastly. In fact, as Steve Keen scandalously noted in Chapter 7 of his 2001 Debunking Economics: “As this book shows, economics [theory] is replete with logical inconsistencies.” In any science, illogic is the surest sign of non-science, but it is common and accepted in the social ‘sciences’, including economics. The economics profession itself is garbage, a bad joke, instead of any science at all.

These 33 were actually only candidates for being scientific economists, but I have found the predictions of some of them to have been very wrong on some subsequent matters of economic performance. For example, the best-known of the 33, Paul Krugman, is a “military Keynesian” — a liberal neoconservative (and military Keynesianism is empirically VERY discredited: false worldwide, and false even in the country that champions it, the U.S.) — and he is unfavorable toward the poor, and favorable toward the rich; so, he is acceptable to the Establishment.) Perhaps a few of these 33 economists (perhaps half of whom aren’t even members of the economics profession) ARE scientific (in their underlying economic beliefs — their operating economic theory) if a scientific economics means that it’s based upon a scientific theory of economics — a theory that is derived not from any opinions but only from the relevant empirical data. Although virtually all of the 33 are basically some sort of Keynesian, even that (Keynes’s theory) isn’t a full-fledged theory of economics (it has many vagaries, and it has no microeconomics). The economics profession is still a field of philosophy, instead of a field of science.

The last chapter of my America’s Empire of Evil presents what I believe to be the first-ever scientific theory of economics, a theory that replaces all of microeconomic theory (including a micro that’s integrated with its macro) and is consistent with Keynes in macroeconomic theory; and all of which theory is derived and documented from only the relevant empirical economic data — NOT from anyone’s opinions. The economics profession think that replacing existing economic theory isn’t necessary after the crash of 2008, but I think it clearly IS necessary (because — as that chapter of my book shows — all of the relevant empirical economic data CONTRADICT the existing economic theory, ESPECIALLY the existing microeconomic theory).

The post The Fraudulence of Economic Theory first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Eric Zuesse.

Health chief ‘conductor of an orchestra who’s never played an instrument’

APR editor — Tue, 20 May 2025 09:42:13 +0000

ANALYSIS: By Ian Powell

In February 2025, Dr Diana Sarfati resigned, not unexpectedly, as Director-General of Health after only two years into her five-year term.

As a medical specialist, and in her role as developing the successful cancer control agency, she had extensive experience in New Zealand’s health system.

However, she did not conform to the privately expressed view of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon: That the problem with the health system is that it is led by health.

Responsibility for the appointment of public service chief executives rests with the Public Service Commissioner.

In carrying out this function, Brian Roche had two choices for the process of selecting Sarfati’s replacement — run a contestable hiring process (the usual method) or appoint someone without this process.

With the required approval of Attorney-General Judith Collins and Health Minister Simeon Brown, Roche opted for the exception rather than the rule.

This suggests a degree of pre-determination to appoint someone without the “hindrance” of health system experience, consistent with Luxon’s view.

An appointment from outside health
Consequently, on April 1, Audrey Sonerson was appointed the new Director-General of Health for a five-year term.

She had been the Ministry of Transport chief executive (including when Brown was transport minister). She also had senior positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and in the Police and Treasury.

Though she had been part of the Treasury’s health team and has a master’s in health economics, her only health system experience was in the brief hiatus between Sarfati’s resignation when acting director-general and becoming the confirmed replacement.

‘For a minister with no experience of the complexity of health care delivery to choose a director-general who herself has no health experience is extremely concerning.’

— Dr David Galler, former intensive care specialist

This is unprecedented for the director-general position. Sonerson is the 18th person to hold this position. The first 10 had been medical doctors. In 1992, the first non-doctor holder was appointed (a Canadian with some health management experience).

The subsequent six appointees all had extensive health system experience. Three were medical doctors (two in population health), two had been district health board chief executives, and one had been the director-general in Scotland and a medical geographer.

Dr David Galler is well-placed to comment on the significance of this extraordinary change of direction. He is a retired intensive care specialist and former President of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists.

He held the unique position of principal medical adviser to the health minister, the ‘eyes and ears’ of the health system for three health ministers in the mid to late 2000s. He also worked closely with two director-generals.

Drawing on this experience, Galler observes that: “Director-generals of health must be respected, influential, knowledgeable, connected and trusted, to ensure that good policy goes into practice and good practice informs policy . . . For a minister with no experience of the complexity of health care delivery to choose a director-general who herself has no health experience is extremely concerning.”

Breadth of the health system
As the director-general heads up the Health Ministry, she is responsible for being the “steward” of our health system. In this context she is the lead adviser to the government on health. In the context of seeking to improve and protect the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders, the organisation Sonerson now leads is responsible for:

the stewardship and leadership of the health system; and
advising her minister and government on health and disability matters.

These responsibilities have to be considered in the context of how extensive the health system is beginning with its complexity, highly specialised range of health professional occupational groups, and its breadth.

This breadth ranges from community healthcare (predominantly general practices), local 24/7 acute hospitals, tertiary hospitals (lower volume, high complexity) and quaternary care services (national services for very uncommon or highly complex even lower volume procedures and treatments, including experimental medicine, uncommon surgical procedures, and advanced trauma care).

Another way of looking at this breadth is that it ranges in treatment from medical to surgical to mental health to diagnostic. And then there is population health such as epidemiology.

Population health and the Health Act
However, responsibility extends further to specific obligations under the Health Act 1956, many of which are operational. Although it is nearly 60 years old, this act has been updated by legislative amendments many times and as recently as 2022 with the passing of the Pae Ora Act that disestablished district health boards and established Health New Zealand.

The Health Act gives Sonerson’s health ministry the function of improving, promoting and protecting public health (as distinct from personal diagnostic and treatment health). Public health is legislatively defined as meaning either the health of all New Zealanders or a population group, community, or section of people within New Zealand.

A critical part of this role is the responsibility for ensuring that local government authorities improve, promote, and protect public health within their districts in appointing key positions (such as medical officers of health, environmental health officers and health protection officers); food and water safety; regular inspections for any nuisances, or any conditions likely to be injurious to health or offensive and, where necessary, secure their abatement or removal; make bylaws for the protection of public health; and provide reports on diseases and sanitary conditions within each district.

The population function under the Health Act of improving, promoting, and protecting public health means that how well the health ministry under Sonerson’s leadership performs directly affects the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders.

This is an immense responsibility that cannot be minimised.

Understanding universal health systems
Universal health systems such as ours are characterised by being highly complex, adaptive and labour intensive and innovative (innovation primarily comes from its workforce). They provide a public good (rather than commodities) and their breadth is considerable.

But, despite appearances to the contrary, the different parts of this breadth don’t function separately from each other. They are not just interconnected; they are interdependent.

As a result, each part makes up a highly integrated system. Consequently, relationships are critical. The more relational the culture, the better the system will perform; the more contractual the culture, the poorer it will perform.

Galler’s experience-based above-mentioned observation needs to be seen in the context of the challenging nature of universal health systems.

In a wider discussion on health system leadership, Auckland surgeon Dr Erica Whineray Kelly got to the core of the issue very well: “You’d never have a conductor of an orchestra who’d never played an instrument.”

Audrey Sonerson comes into the director-general position with a deficit. It will help her performance if she first recognises that there are many unknowns for her and then proceeds to listen to those within the system who possess the experience of knowing well these unknowns.

It might go some way to alleviating the legitimate concerns of Galler and Whineray Kelly and many others.

Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes. This article was first published by Newsroom and is republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Comic book artist Ian Bertram on encouraging your inner artist

Sam Kusek — Thu, 08 May 2025 07:00:00 +0000

You’ve previously said, “I feel like it would be better for the world if we could all be more encouraging to our inner artists.” How do you go about encouraging your inner artist?

That is a very loving way to talk about artwork. I can embrace that sometimes, and it’s very difficult other times. Embracing or encouraging your inner artist is difficult sometimes. I think that probably the best way to do it is to just make a space for yourself, time-wise, to sit, or stand, or however you make art, and just have that be your goal—and hopefully, something happens. But encouraging it or letting it blossom, however you want to say it, just making time if you can, if you have the time. For me, the process is very much letting things work their way out of me. It’s not so much I sit down with an idea and I’m like, “You know what? I would really love to encourage this aspect.” It’s like I sit down and I find myself drawing something, so making the time allows that subconscious aspect to work maybe through me.

Your work has been described as “mystical,” “grotesque,” and “primal” portraits of the “strange.” What led you to want to emphasize these aspects of life?

I like the “description of my work has been described” as those things. I described it as those things. I’m going to be totally honest, writing an artist’s bio is one of the worst things that any artist has to do. It always feels like you’re lying. It always feels like you’re making this up for someone else, and you have to sit with it for a sec. Hopefully, you dig deep and you find something that feels true, but those words are inadequate to describe the work. They’re always going to be inadequate. I’m making visual images that are supposed to speak for themselves so that’s more of maybe an introduction, some words that might intrigue people if they end up visiting my site or whatever and seeing that as a description. I forgot the question, but I focused on that part specifically.

Thinking about you putting that initial statement together, what led you to want to emphasize those aspects of life? What drew you to that wanting to emphasize the grotesque nature, wanting to emphasize the primal nature? What made those three things stand out initially?

I think the primal nature is what I was talking about earlier, where it comes from the subconscious. I mean, the primal aspect is the cave painting thing, where it’s like you’ve made an image, you’re not entirely sure why you made it, but it felt vital and it felt like you needed to depict something. They’re more nuanced than cave paintings, but it still comes from the same initial inspiration, maybe, which is something that’s beyond you that drives you to make a thing like that. Why put those on a wall? It just felt like it had to be done, depicting the human experience. That’s maybe the primal. The grotesque is the viewing of my work after I’ve made it. I feel like there’s no better word, so I would say that there’s no intention behind that. That is me witnessing it and being like, “Oh, that is a great word for it.” Strange, strange is very subjective obviously. I find it strange for a lot of reasons, I guess. I wonder if other people do as well. Other people might not, but I certainly do.

Strange implies a sense of mystery. You’ll finish a piece, look at it, feel that strangeness. Does that elicit a sense of mystery of where that came from? Or is it more the self-reflection of what you’re processing as a part of that? It’s an interesting cycle, creating strange things.

Yeah, certainly interesting for me. I hope it’s interesting for other people as well. The mysterious aspect is the fundamental me not really knowing or, in that moment, caring where the artwork comes from. Afterwards, if someone asks me to describe it, I can. It doesn’t interest me to speak about it in a larger sense. I know for myself, having looked back where a lot of those things come from, it’s like this strange, hidden language that I know because there’s certain aspects in the sketchbooks that I look back on and will be like, “Oh, I was absolutely dealing with this at this point.” I didn’t realize it at the time, when I was working through it. But I look back and it’s like, “Oh, that is so clear what that is.”

The mystery, the strangeness, is maybe in the process, and then you look back and you attribute meaning to it. I think it’s probably fundamentally mysterious to people viewing it, because I’m not giving a lot of context for the sketchbooks [I’m publishing]. I’m going to be writing a bit of an intro or an outro. I’m not sure where it’ll sit, but it’ll give some context. For the most part, though, I want it to stand and have people view it however they want. I don’t necessarily want give them meaning to view it with.

In that way, you don’t want to take the agency out of the artwork for the viewer, right?

Right.

Outside of your comics work, you train in Muay Thai. Does your process for approaching training differ from your artistic process at all?

That’s a great question. I haven’t really thought about the process. I thought about the differences in the approach. The work that I do, it’s very meticulous in terms of the mark making. There’s a lot of time put into it. It has a delicacy, maybe a sensitivity to it, and there’s certainly a harshness, but I also feel like there’s a softness. I think with Muay Thai, it is an incredibly violent sport, and the act of hitting pads as hard as I can, releases a different thing. There’s a rage there that I’m able to exercise. There’s a kinetic velocity behind things that feels important at that moment. The sparring has an artistic quality to it. Obviously, it all does, but the sparring has…

It’s hopefully, not always, but hopefully more relaxed, more playful. You learn things, you adapt, you figure things out about yourself, what works for you, what doesn’t. But I’d say that the Muay Thai has an aspect of conquering, maybe fear conquering. Maybe conquering is the wrong word for this part, but understanding your physicality better, and the artwork has very similar aspects. It’s just displayed in a different way. Yeah, so very similar, very different. It’s a great balance. Obviously, it’s a perfect balance. There’s no wonder why a lot of artists also do martial arts of some kind. There’s a lot of people who do jiu-jitsu. I know a lot of people who do Muay Thai who are comic artists, artists in general. It just has a good balance to it.

I’m sure it’s fun too in some cases, depending on the artist and the thing that they write. There’s an element of thinking physically about certain movements or maybe acting out and feeling the dynamism of things you may draw. Yeah, there’s a nice connection there too. One thing that I thought was really interesting that you touched on, there’s the aspect of exercising rage, and anger, and the violent nature of martial arts. Would you say that that emotion for you is pretty specific to martial arts training, or is that something that’s shared within your artistic process as well? How does that emotion blend over, if at all?

Well, I think, first of all, I want to maybe correct a little bit of what I was saying, just for context about martial arts. There is absolutely a violence to it, but it is about control. It’s about, if you’re going to fight, definitely having a violence, you need it but you need to be calm. You need to control it. You need to be playful in certain ways. It is the balance within one type. There’s the balance within art. I want to make sure that it isn’t just violent. There is an aspect to that that I really enjoy, but there’s also the other aspects that I just talked about.

I guess, is there a violence in the artwork? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, if you look at it, there’s a lot of viscera, a lot of intestines, a lot of bodies distorted, broken, a lot of blood, a lot of people not having the best day. Hopefully, there’s also a balance where it isn’t just that, that there’s also a weird serenity to it. There’s a hopefulness. That’s maybe another part where the strangeness comes in, trying to balance those things.

Ian Bertram Recommends:

One Championship Muay Thai

P-Valley

Kneecap

China Meiville

Anohni and The Johnsons

This content originally appeared on The Creative Independent and was authored by Sam Kusek.

2 Macao journalists detained, risk prosecution after seeking to cover parliament

CPJ Staff — Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:44:44 +0000

New York, April 28, 2025—The Committee to Protect Journalists decries the 11-hour detention and potential prosecution of two journalists for disruption after they were barred from a parliamentary session in China’s special administrative region of Macao.

“There has been a systematic erosion of press freedom in Macao, with the denial of entry to journalists and restricted access to public events. The detention of two reporters simply for attempting to cover a legislative session marks a disturbing escalation in the suppression of independent journalism,” said CPJ Asia Program Coordinator Beh Lih Yi. “Authorities must drop any potential charges against All About Macau’s reporters and allow journalists to work without interference.”

Macao, or Macau, is a former Portuguese colony, which reverted to Chinese rule in 1999 under a “One Country, Two Systems” framework that promised a high degree of autonomy and wider civil liberties than the Chinese mainland.

On April 17, All About Macau’s editor-in-chief Ian Sio Tou and another reporter were barred from entering the Legislative Assembly chamber to cover a debate on the government’s annual Policy Address. Ian is also president of the Macau Journalists Association.

Police said the case would be transferred to the Public Prosecutions Office for investigation as the journalists were suspected of violating Article 304 of the Penal Code relating to “disrupting the operation” of government institutions, for which the penalty is up to three years in prison.

All About Macau is recognized for its critical and in-depth reporting on political and social issues.

Two days earlier, three All About Macau reporters were barred from entering the chamber to hear Macao Chief Executive Sam Hou Fai’s Policy Address, outlining government proposals for the year.

In a video posted by All About Macau, which quickly went viral online, Ian Sio Tou displayed her Legislative Assembly-issued press card to numerous officials who physically blocked the journalists from the hall.

Police did not immediately respond to CPJ’s emailed request for comment.

This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by CPJ Staff.

Meet the DC Think Tanks Impoverishing Masses of Latin Americans

John Perry — Tue, 08 Apr 2025 14:59:08 +0000

These top Washington think tanks are lobbying lawmakers for sadistic sanctions on some of the hemisphere’s poorest countries while raking in millions from corporations and arms makers.

Sanctions are a form of hybrid warfare that harms or even kills the target populations at little cost to the country imposing them. In Latin America alone, US sanctions (correctly known as “unilateral coercive measures”) have killed at least 100,000 Venezuelans. The US blockade of Cuba has been so destructive that one in ten Cubans have left the country. Sanctions have similarly deprived Nicaraguans of development aid worth an estimated $3 billion since 2018, hitting projects such as new water supplies for rural areas.

Who formulates these devastating sanctions, covers up their real effects, works with politicians to put them into operation and promotes them in corporate media? In a perverse contrast with the poor communities hit by these policies, those doing the targeting are often well-paid employees of multi-million-dollar think tanks, heavily funded by the US or other Western-aligned governments and in many cases by arms manufacturers.

A study in corruption: top think tank lobbyists and their funders

Chief among these groups is the Wilson Center, which claims to simply provide policymakers with “nonpartisan counsel and insights on global affairs.” Boasting a $40-million budget, a third of which comes from the US government, the organization is headed by the former Administrator of USAID, Amb. Mark Green.

In 2024, the Wilson Center boosted its efforts to meddle in Latin America with the creation of the “Iván Duque Center for Prosperity and Freedom,” naming its newest initiative for the wildly unpopular former Colombian president largely remembered for his violent crackdown on students protests, his obsessive focus on regime change in Venezuela, and intentionally crippling the 2016 peace deal meant to end decades of civil war in Colombia.

While Duque has not produced much in the way of scholarship since joining the Wilson Center, he is living his best life at Miami nightclubs, where he’s frequently seen in as a guest DJ or regaling partiers with renditions of Spanish language rock hits.

Ivan Duque, the chair of the Wilson Center’s newest Latin America initiative

" data-medium-file="https://i0.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CEU6QDW64JB2DHDR7JDINZ5ZGQ-3482720825.jpg?fit=300%2C169&ssl=1" data-large-file="https://i0.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/CEU6QDW64JB2DHDR7JDINZ5ZGQ-3482720825.jpg?fit=1024%2C576&ssl=1" />

Ivan Duque, chair of the Wilson Center’s newest Latin America initiative, at a Miami nightclub

As Mark Green explained, the Iván Duque Center “is a way for us to reaffirm both the importance of the Western Hemisphere in American foreign policy and the promise that democracy and market-centered economics must play in the region’s future.” When it comes to nations that oppose US foreign policy in the region, it’s also a way to fund their most vocal critics, who receive a stipend of $10,000/month upon being named Wilson Center fellows.

Other Duque fellows include right-wing Venezuelan putschist Leopoldo López, who graduated from Kenyon College and Harvard Kennedy School, two schools closely linked to the CIA, before attempting to orchestrate coups against the Venezuelan government in 2002, 2014, and 2019.

Also on the Wilson Center payroll is former US ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield, another regime change fanatic. Six years ago, when Caracas was undergoing its heaviest assault from US sanctions, Brownfield called for the US government to go even further, claiming that because Venezuelans “already suffer so much… that at this point maybe the best resolution would be to accelerate the collapse” of their country, while freely admitting that his preferred outcome would likely “produce a period of suffering of months or perhaps years.”

The Wilson Center is far from alone in seeking to depose the authorities in Caracas. Another think tank, the Atlantic Council – which receives around $2 million annually from the US government and a similar amount from Pentagon contractors – has assembled a 24 member-strong Venezuela Working Group featuring a former State Department officials, a former member of the CITGO board, and multiple members of the so-called “interim Venezuelan government” which has been accused of stealing over $100 million in USAID funds.

While the group ostensibly “informs policymakers in the United States, Europe, and Latin America on how to advance a long-term vision and action-oriented policies to foster democratic stability in Venezuela” and “promotes the restoration of democratic institutions in Venezuela,” in practice this means it’s fundamentally dedicated to ending the Maduro government.

The Atlantic Council – a de facto influence peddling operation that functions as the unofficial think tank of NATO in Washington – aims for a similar result in Nicaragua. In an 2024 article titled, “Nicaragua is consolidating an authoritarian dynasty – Here’s how US economic pressure can counter it,” Atlantic Council researcher Brennan Rhodes called for “new punitive economic measures” on the Sandinista government which would heavily damage Nicaragua’s trade with the US, its main export market. The article betrayed no concern for the inevitable effects on hundreds of thousands of Nicaraguans who rely on this trade, and whose earnings are likely a fraction of the average Atlantic Council employee.

Among the oldest think tanks dedicated to US global dominance is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which boasts a 100-year “independent, nonpartisan” history of interfering in other countries. A review of its regularly-posted updates on Cuba shows the CFR well aware that the country’s economy, hammered by six decades of economic blockade by the US, had reached a new crisis point after Biden broke his promises to relieve intensified Trump-era sanctions. Yet in a 2021 CFR forum on how to bring down the Cuban government, US-based lawyer Jason Ian Poblete argued that the screw should be twisted still further: “We should bring all tools of state, every single one, to bear on this – not just sanctions.”

Joining the Atlantic Council and the CFR in meddling in the affairs of the US’ southern neighbors is the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which claims it’s “dedicated to advancing practical ideas to address the world’s greatest challenges.” All three groups are listed on the Quincy Institute’s page showing the “Top 10 Think Tanks That Receive Funding from Pentagon Contractors.” Led by its Americas director, Ryan Berg, CSIS maintains active programs calling for sanctions in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua. The group regularly holds events featuring US-backed opposition figures such as Venezuelan María Corina Machado and Nicaraguans Félix Maradiaga and Juan Sebastián Chamorro.

Collectively, these groups dominate the US information sphere, saturating mainstream airwaves with complaints about the “authoritarian” socialist-leaning governments and demands for their ouster. On the off-chance that an official from one of the major think tanks is unavailable to comment, there are a number of smaller organizations ready to plug the gap.

Enduring demand for deprivation

One of the most vocal Beltway think tanks on Latin American affairs is the Inter-American Dialogue (“leadership for the Americas”), which works alongside CSIS and which is also heavily funded by arms contractors and the US government. Recently, as The Grayzone reported, CSIS’s Berg collaborated with the Dialogue’s Manuel Orozco – who moonlights as the Central America and the Caribbean chair of the US government’s Foreign Service Institute – to try to cut Nicaragua’s access to one of its only remaining sources of development loans.

The Dialogue was assisted in this by two more think tanks. One is the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), which bills itself as “one of the largest investigative journalism organizations in the world,” and which receives a full half of its budget from the US government. OCCRP works with similarly-funded Transparency International to engage in regime change operations by digging up dirt on foreign administrations targeted by Washington.

Another group heavily involved in the sanctions industry is the Center for Global Development, whose name might seem ironic given that it provides a platform for those promoting deadly economic coercion. Its $25 million annual budget is funded mainly from sources such as the Gates Foundation, as well as several European governments. One of its directors, Dany Bahar, recently called for intensified sanctions against the Venezuelan government to stamp out the “temporary economic improvements” that the country is currently enjoying.

Not all of the shady organizations seeking to impoverish Latin Americans in the name of hegemony are based in the US, however. Britain’s Chatham House, which relies heavily on the UK and US governments as well as arms manufacturers for its £20 million annual budget, also calls for the “restoring of democracy” in Venezuela, and often gives platforms to opponents of the governments in Caracas and Managua. Though skeptical of the efficacy of sanctions on Venezuela, it nevertheless concluded in Jan. 2025 that “restoring oil and gas sanctions” would be “logical” as long as the bans were part of “a broader diplomatic, coordinated multinational policy with specifically defined objectives.” The few criticisms it’s produced of the US embargo on Cuba have centered largely on its failure to affect regime change.

Only one longstanding Beltway think tank, the Brookings Institution, has been willing to platform a slightly more skeptical view of sanctions. A 2018 op-ed from a Venezuelan economist published by Brookings explicitly counseled that sanctions on Venezuela “must be precise in order to spare innocent Venezuelans.” The year prior, Brookings argued that Trump’s sanctions against Cuba were unlikely to “put much of a near-term dent in the Cuban economy… [nor] reduce the influence of the armed forces,” but would have “a disproportionately negative impact on Cuba’s emerging private sector and on non-military employment in linkage industries—not to mention restricting Americans’ right to travel.” Broadly speaking, however, Brookings largely adheres to the trans-Atlantic consensus which demands the overthrow of the countries that former Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton once smeared as the “troika of tyranny.”

Lobbyists by another name

Think tanks operate in a privileged space, gaining credibility from their links with the academic world while ensuring that their policymaking is closely geared to imperial needs. In the US alone there are more than 2,200 such organizations, some 400 of which specialize in foreign affairs. In recent years, they’ve become ubiquitous, with one-third of witnesses to the House Foreign Affairs Committee coming from think tanks – 80% of whom are paid by what Responsible Statecraft labels defense contractor “dark money.”

These organizations’ collective groupthink on sanctions – particularly on those targeting Venezuela – give the lie to the “independence” they all claim. Political scientist Glenn Diesen opens his recent book, The Think Tank Racket, by noting that these institutions’ “job is to manufacture consent for the goals of their paymasters.” He says that these “policymaking elites… confirm their own biases rather than conduct real debates.” Once their work is done, they “retire to expensive restaurants where they slap each other on the back.”

In an unusually self-critical piece explaining “Why Everyone Hates Think Tanks,” the Wilson Center’s Matthew Rojansky and the European Council on Foreign Relations’ Jeremy Shapiro explain that these organizations have become lobbyists by another name, whose donors simply want “veteran sharpshooters to fire their policy bullets.” As far back as 2006, journalist Thomas Frank observed that think tanks have “grown into a powerful quasi-academy with seven-figure budgets and phalanxes of ‘senior fellows’ and ‘distinguished chairs’.”

This business model is only one aspect of the “racket.” As Diesen points out, and as Colombia’s Iván Duque center proves, think tanks provide a revolving door where out-of-office or failed politicians and their advisers can continue to influence public policy – while collecting a fat paycheck, too.

The post Meet the DC Think Tanks Impoverishing Masses of Latin Americans first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John Perry.

Ian Powell: When apartheid met Zionism – the case for NZ recognising Palestine as a state

APR editor — Sun, 06 Apr 2025 07:29:51 +0000

COMMENTARY: By Ian Powell

The 1981 Springbok Tour was one of the most controversial events in Aotearoa New Zealand’s history. For 56 days, between July and September, more than 150,000 people took part in more than 200 demonstrations in 28 centres.

It was the largest protest in the country’s history.

It caused social ruptures within communities and families across the country. With the National government backing the tour, protests against apartheid sport turned into confrontations with both police and pro-tour rugby fans — on marches and at matches.

The success of these mass protests was that this was the last tour in either country between the two teams with the strongest rivalry among rugby playing nations.

This deeply rooted antipathy towards the racism of apartheid helps provide context to today’s growing opposition by New Zealanders to the horrific actions of another apartheid state.

Depuis la révolte de 1976, le nom de ce township noir symbolise la lutte de la population noire contre le système d’apartheid. Les habitants mènent leur vie quotidienne au milieu des conflits et manifestations, le 15 juin 1980. (Photo by William Campbell/Sygma via Getty Images)

" data-medium-file="https://politicalbytes.blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/apartheid-in-south-africa.jpg?w=300" data-large-file="https://politicalbytes.blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/apartheid-in-south-africa.jpg?w=612" />

A township protest against apartheid in South Africa in 1980. Image: politicalbytes.blog

Understanding apartheid
Apartheid is a humiliating, repressive and brutal legislated segregation through separation of social groups. In South Africa, this segregation was based on racism (white supremacy over non-whites; predominantly Black Africans but also Asians).

For nearly three centuries before 1948, Africans had been dispossessed and exploited by Dutch and British colonists. In 1948, this oppression was upgraded to an official legal policy of apartheid.

Apartheid does not have to be necessarily by race. It could also be religious based. An earlier example was when Christians separated Jews into ghettos on the false claim of inferiority.

In August 2024, Le Monde Diplomatic published article (paywalled) by German prize-winning journalist and author Charlotte Wiedemann on apartheid in both Israel and South Africa under the heading “When Apartheid met Zionism”:

She asked the pointed question of what did it mean to be Jewish in a country that saw Israel through the lens of its own experience of apartheid?

It is a fascinating question making her article an excellent read. Le Monde Diplomatic is a quality progressive magazine, well worth the subscription to read many articles as interesting as this one.

Relevant Wiedemann observations
Wiedemann’s scope is wider than that of this blog but many of her observations are still pertinent to my analysis of the relationship between the two apartheid states.

Most early Jewish immigrants to South Africa fled pogroms and poverty in tsarist Lithuania. This context encouraged many to believe that every human being deserved equal respect, regardless of skin colour or origin.

Blatant widespread white-supremacist racism had been central to South Africa’s history of earlier Dutch and English colonialism. But this shifted to a further higher level in May 1948 when apartheid formally became central to South Africa’s legal and political system.

Although many Jews were actively opposed to apartheid it was not until 1985, 37 years later, that Jewish community leaders condemned it outright. In the words of Chief Rabbi Cyril Harris to the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission:

“The Jewish community benefited from apartheid and an apology must be given … We ask forgiveness.”

On the one hand, Jewish lawyers defended Black activists, But, on the other hand, it was a Jewish prosecutor who pursued Nelson Mandela with “extraordinary zeal” in the case that led to his long imprisonment.

Israel became one of apartheid South Africa’s strongest allies, including militarily, even when it had become internationally isolated, including through sporting and economic boycotts. Israel’s support for the increasingly isolated apartheid state was unfailing.

Jewish immigration to South Africa from the late 19th century brought two powerful competing ideas from Eastern Europe. One was Zionism while the other was the Bundists with a strong radical commitment to justice.

But it was Zionism that grew stronger under apartheid. Prior to 1948 it was a nationalist movement advocating for a homeland for Jewish people in the “biblical land of Israel”.

Zionism provided the rationale for the ideas that actively sought and achieved the existence of the Israeli state. This, and consequential forced removal of so many Palestinians from their homeland, made Zionism a “natural fit” in apartheid South Africa.

Nelson Mandela and post-apartheid South Africa
Although strongly pro-Palestinian, post-apartheid South Africa has never engaged in Holocaust denial. In fact, Holocaust history is compulsory in its secondary schools.

Its first president, Nelson Mandela, was very clear about the importance of recognising the reality of the Holocaust. As Charlotte Wiedemann observes:

“Quite the reverse . . . In 1994 Mandela symbolically marked the end of apartheid at an exhibition about Anne Frank. ‘By honouring her memory as we do today’ he said at its opening, ‘we are saying with one voice: never and never again!’”

In a 1997 speech, on the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, Mandela also reaffirmed his support for Palestinian rights:

“We know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”

There is a useful account of Mandela’s relationship with and support for Palestinians published by Middle East Eye.

Mandela’s identification with Palestine was recognised by Palestinians themselves. This included the construction of an impressive statue of him on what remains of their West Bank homeland.

Palestinians stand next to a giant statue of Nelson Mandela following its inauguration ceremony in the West Bank city of Ramallah on April 26, 2016. – Palestinians inaugurated the statue of Mandela donated by the South African city of Johannesburg to their political capital. The six-metre (20-foot) two-tonne bronze statue was a gift from Johannesburg with which Ramallah is twinned. (Photo by ABBAS MOMANI / AFP)

" data-medium-file="https://politicalbytes.blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/mandela-statue-in-west-bank-city-of-ramallah.jpg?w=300" data-large-file="https://politicalbytes.blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/mandela-statue-in-west-bank-city-of-ramallah.jpg?w=750" />

Palestinians stand next to a 6 metre high statue of Nelson Mandela following its inauguration ceremony in the West Bank city of Ramallah in 2016. It was donated by the South African city of Johannesburg, which is twinned with Ramallah. Image: politicalbytes.blog

Comparing apartheid in South Africa and Israel
So how did apartheid in South Africa compare with apartheid in Israel. To begin with, while both coincidentally began in May 1948, in South Africa this horrendous system ended over 30 years ago. But in Israel it not only continues, it intensifies.

Broadly speaking, this included Israel adapting the infamously cruel “Bantustan system” of South Africa which was designed to maintain white supremacy and strengthen the government’s apartheid policy. It involved an area set aside for Black Africans, purportedly for notional self-government.

In South Africa, apartheid lasted until the early 1990s culminating in South Africa’s first democratic election in 1994.

Tragically, for Palestinians in their homeland, apartheid not only continues but is intensified by ethnic cleansing delivered by genocide, both incrementally and in surges.

Apartheid Plus: ethnic cleansing and genocide
Israel has gone further than its former southern racist counterpart. Whereas South Africa’s economy depended on the labour exploitation of its much larger African workforce, this was relatively much less so for Israel.

As much as possible Israel’s focus was, and still is, instead on the forcible removal of Palestinians from their homeland.

This began in 1948 with what is known by Palestinians as the Nakba (“the catastrophe”) when many were physically displaced by the creation of the Israeli state. Genocide is the increasing means of delivering ethnic cleansing.

Ethnic cleansing is an attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas by deporting or forcibly displacing people belonging to particular ethnic groups.

It can also include the removal of all physical vestiges of the victims of this cleansing through the destruction of monuments, cemeteries, and houses of worship.

This destructive removal has been the unfortunate Palestinian experience in much of today’s Israel and its occupied or controlled territories. It is continuing in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Genocide involves actions intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

In contrast with civil war, genocide usually involves deaths on a much larger scale with civilians invariably and deliberately the targets. Genocide is an international crime, according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948).

Today the Israeli slaughter and destruction in Gaza is a huge genocidal surge with the objective of being the “final solution” while incremental genocide of Palestinians speeds up in the occupied West Bank.

Notwithstanding the benefits of the recent ceasefire, it freed up Israel to militarily focus on repressing West Bank Palestinians.

Meanwhile, Israel’s genocide in Gaza during the current vulnerable hiatus of the ceasefire has shifted from military action to starvation.

The final word
One of the encouraging features has been the massive protests against the genocide throughout the world. In a relative context, and while not on the same scale as the mass protests against the racist South African rugby tour in 1981, this includes New Zealand.

Many Jews, including in New Zealand and in the international protests such as at American universities, have been among the strongest critics of the ethnic cleansing through genocide of the apartheid Israeli state.

They have much in common with the above-mentioned Bundist focus on social justice in contrast to the dogmatic biblical extremism of Zionism.

Amos Goldberg, professor of genocidal studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem is one such Jew. Let’s leave the final word to him:

“It’s so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion. Jewish history will henceforth be stained.”

This is a compelling case for the New Zealand government to join the many other countries in formally recognising the state of Palestine.

Ian Powell is a progressive health, labour market and political “no-frills” forensic commentator in New Zealand. A former senior doctors union leader for more than 30 years, he blogs at Second Opinion and Political Bytes, where this article was first published. Republished with the author’s permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

Trump’s $1.7 Trillion Stock Loss ft. Ian Bremmer & Larry H Summers | Shane Has Questions | Vice News

VICE News — Sat, 15 Mar 2025 13:00:53 +0000

This content originally appeared on VICE News and was authored by VICE News.

RNZ Pacific – 35 years of broadcasting trusted news to the region

Pacific Media Watch — Fri, 24 Jan 2025 23:27:02 +0000

By Moera Tuilaepa-Taylor, RNZ Pacific manager

RNZ International (RNZI) began broadcasting to the Pacific region 35 years ago — on 24 January 1990, the same day the Auckland Commonwealth Games opened.

Its news bulletins and programmes were carried by a brand new 100kW transmitter.

The service was rebranded as RNZ Pacific in 2017. However its mission remains unchanged, to provide news of the highest quality and be a trusted service to local broadcasters in the Pacific region.

READ MORE: Other RNZ Pacific reports

Although RNZ had been broadcasting to the Pacific since 1948, in the late 1980s the New Zealand government saw the benefit of upgrading the service. Thus RNZI was born, with a small dedicated team.

The first RNZI manager was Ian Johnstone. He believed that the service should have a strong cultural connection to the people of the Pacific. To that end, it was important that some of the staff reflected parts of the region where RNZ Pacific broadcasted.

He hired the first Pacific woman sports reporter at RNZ, the late Elma Ma’ua.

Linden Clark (from left) and Ian Johnstone, former managers of RNZ International now known as RNZ Pacific, and Moera Tuilaepa-Taylor, current manager of RNZ Pacific . . . strong cultural connection to the people of the Pacific. Image: RNZ

The Pacific region is one of the most vital areas of the earth, but it is not always the safest, particularly from natural disasters.

Disaster coverage
RNZ Pacific covered events such as the 2009 Samoan tsunami, and during the devastating 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai eruption, it was the only news service that could be heard in the kingdom.

More recently, it supported Vanuatu’s public broadcaster during the December 17 earthquake by providing extra bulletin updates for listeners when VBTC services were temporarily out of action.

Cyclones have become more frequent in the region, and RNZ Pacific provides vital weather updates, as the late Linden Clark, RNZI’s second manager, explained: “Many times, we have been broadcasting warnings on analogue shortwave to listeners when their local station has had to go off air or has been forced off air.”

RNZ Pacific’s cyclone watch service continues to operate during the cyclone season in the South Pacific.

As well as natural disasters, the Pacific can also be politically volatile. Since its inception RNZ Pacific has reported on elections and political events in the region.

Some of the more recent events include the 2000 and 2006 coups in Fiji, the Samoan Constitutional Crisis of 2021, the 2006 pro-democracy riots in Nuku’alofa, the revolving door leadership changes in Vanuatu, and the 2022 security agreement that Solomon Islands signed with China.

Human interest, culture
Human interest and cultural stories are also a key part of RNZ Pacific’s programming.

The service regularly covers cultural events and festivals within New Zealand, such as Polyfest. This was part of Linden Clark’s vision, in her role as RNZI manager, that the service would be a link for the Pacific diaspora in New Zealand to their homelands.

Today, RNZ Pacific continues that work. Currently its programmes are carried on two transmitters — one installed in 2008 and a much more modern facility, installed in 2024 following a funding boost.

Around 20 Pacific region radio stations relay RNZP’s material daily. Individual short-wave listeners and internet users around the world tune in directly to RNZ Pacific content which can be received as far away as Japan, North America, the Middle East and Europe.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by Pacific Media Watch.

Politico’s Ian Ward on the Thinkers and Groups Who Have Shaped JD Vance’s Unusual Worldview

Democracy Now! — Mon, 29 Jul 2024 14:32:14 +0000

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

Politico’s Ian Ward on the Thinkers and Groups Who Have Shaped JD Vance’s Unusual Worldview

Democracy Now! — Mon, 29 Jul 2024 12:35:28 +0000

We speak with Politico reporter Ian Ward about JD Vance, who has become a lightning rod for controversy since being picked by former President Donald Trump to be his running mate. Ward spent months with Vance earlier this year for a profile about the freshman Ohio senator and his political evolution from a “Never Trump” Republican to one of the MAGA movement’s most prominent voices. He recently wrote a new piece about Vance headlined “The Seven Thinkers and Groups That Have Shaped JD Vance’s Unusual Worldview.”

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

"More Radical Than MAGA"? Politico’s Ian Ward on J.D. Vance & the Future of the Republican Party

Democracy Now! — Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:09:22 +0000

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

“More Radical Than MAGA”? Politico’s Ian Ward on J.D. Vance & the Future of the Republican Party

Democracy Now! — Thu, 18 Jul 2024 13:13:29 +0000

Politico reporter Ian Ward interviewed Ohio Senator J.D. Vance at length for a recent profile and joins us to discuss Vance’s biography and ideology after he formally accepted the Republican vice-presidential nomination to run with Donald Trump, whom he once staunchly opposed.

This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

‘There’s a Uniquely American Way of Running Politics With Private Donors’CounterSpin interview with Ian Vandewalker on small donors

Janine Jackson — Thu, 23 May 2024 20:44:58 +0000

Janine Jackson interviewed Voting Booth‘s Ian Vandewalker about small donors for the May 17, 2024, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin240517Vandewalker.mp3

Janine Jackson: If you ask people to boil down what “democracy” means, many will say, “One person, one vote.” If powerful people, rich people, get more voice, it’s not democracy. Even as practices and policies have moved us materially further from that reality, that’s still the selling point. Even the reason the US can invade other places is they “don’t believe in democracy like we do.”

Now we see more and more people saying, “Well, democracy shouldn’t actually mean everyone gets equal voice (but we would like to keep using the label).” You can forgive a person for being a bit confused. And since courts have declared that money is speech, you can forgive a person for being more confused. That’s the landscape in which the latest fillip seems to be that people who give small amounts of money to political campaigns somehow have outsized voice?

Here to help us make sense of that is Ian Vandewalker. He’s senior counsel of the Elections and Government Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. He joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Ian Vandewalker.

Ian Vandewalker: Thank you. Good to be here.

Brennan Center (5/8/24)

JJ: I will say, when I first saw the headline of your report, “Do Small Donors Cause Political Dysfunction?,” I thought, “Huh? Who would say that?” It turns out it’s a number of folks, including author and New York Times writer Thomas Edsall, who wrote, “For $200, a Person Can Fuel the Decline of Our Major Parties.” And then David Byler at the Washington Post wrote, “Small-Dollar Donors Didn’t Save Democracy. They Made It Worse.” So this is not like a subreddit, obscure line of thought. Before I ask you to engage it, putting the best face on it, what is the argument here?

IV: The argument is this contrarian line that you think small donors are democratizing, because anybody can be one. But if you look at who gets a lot of small money, it tends to be people who engage in disruptive antics, like Marjorie Taylor Greene or Matt Gaetz—people who try to attract a lot of attention with extremist or polarizing rhetoric. And so the argument is, what small donors are really doing is encouraging these people who are showboating, and not engaged in serious moderation or governance.

New York Times (8/30/23)

JJ: So the idea, though, is it that these small donors aren’t real, that they’re kind of orchestrated? That these folks are trying to get folks to just give $12 to make some kind of point? And it’s not that actually it’s people who can only give $12?

IV: Right, I mean, I think there’s something here in that the media ecosystem that we live in, both the mainstream media and social media clickbait, does gravitate towards outrage and controversy and people screaming at each other. We all get these fundraising emails with all caps: “The world’s going to come crashing down if you don’t send me $12.”

So I think there are incentives in the media system that say to certain people, “I can engage a national small-donor fundraising base by saying crazy things.” That exists. Now, one of the critiques is that most small donors don’t actually respond to that. Small donors tend to give to competitive races where they think they can help their party win control of a chamber of Congress or the White House.

JJ: So first of all, I like how you go right to the media ecosystem. I think a lot of folks go, “Well, there’s a political system and there’s a media system, and they’re different.” You’re already saying, “No, these things are intimately integrated.”

IV: Yes, campaign fundraising doesn’t happen in a vacuum. And, look, the internet has been a huge beneficial force for fundraising and allows people to connect across the nation to things that they believe in. But one of the other effects of that has been this clickbait world of, say the most outrageous thing in order to get the clicks and get the small-dollar fundraising.

There’s a question whether these candidates that engage in this kind of extremist rhetoric, are they doing it for the small-dollar fundraising, or would they be doing it anyway, given who votes in their district?—I think is a question we should also look into.

JJ: There is a reality, there is a foot we can keep on base. And so what do you say in this piece about, when you actually investigate, are small donors causing political dysfunction? What did you find?

Ian Vandewalker: “Even though the amount of small money in the system has dramatically increased, the money from the biggest donors…has increased even faster.”

IV: So first of all, there’s lots of reasons for polarization, people moving farther to the right and left and other kinds of dysfunction. They have to do with gerrymandering and the media ecosystem and the parties making strategic choices about how they’re going to engage their voter bases, and things that have nothing to do with campaign finance.

As I said, small donors, they give to people they’ve heard of, so one way to get heard of is to say crazy things, but it’s certainly not the only way. Some candidates are trying to find policy solutions to the problems that face us. And the other thing we haven’t mentioned yet is big donors. Even though the amount of small money in the system has dramatically increased, the money from the biggest donors, people who give millions, 10 millions, has increased even faster. So that’s actually the biggest part of the campaign finance system, is the big money, and those people give to extremists as well.

So it’s hard to say, when you look at all those facts together, that small donors are causing dysfunction or polarization, even though there are these notorious examples of extremists who raise lots of small money.

JJ: It just sounds weird to say that people who can give less, people who don’t have a million dollars, their throwing in their money wherever they throw it is throwing off the system. It makes you ask, “Well, what’s the system?” Is the system that only people who can afford to give tens of thousands of dollars should be included? It just sounds weird.

IV: Yeah, that’s right. I think one of the things, the sort of thought experiments I like to do with these arguments is, well, replace small donor with voter, right? If small donors give a lot of money to a candidate because they believe in that candidate, OK, that’s just like voters voting for a candidate because they believe in that candidate. And it’s hard to say that that’s, as you say, a problem with the system itself.

JJ: Obviously, every election year is important, but hoo boy, 2024. Thoughts for reporters who are going to be engaging this?

IV: Yeah, I think for reporters it’s important to get away from the high profile anecdotes. It’s easy to say, “Oh, Marjorie Taylor Green raised a bunch of small money,” but there’s data out there that can show you, what are small donors actually doing across the entire system. And that’s a very different story.

And as for reforms, the Brennan Center supports a small-donor public financing system that matches small donations. So it amplifies those amounts from regular people, to make them competitive with the big donors. And that changes the way the candidates fundraise, and makes them fundraise by essentially asking people in their communities for votes. And so it amplifies those regular people’s voices, and engages a kind of connection between elected representative and constituent that’s good for representative democracy, because politicians are listening to the voters in another way.

JJ: All right, then, and we’ll have another conversation about the role of money in politics generally, and why do you have to have money to participate? That’s a whole bigger conversation.

IV: Yes, definitely. There’s a lot to say about the uniquely American way of running politics with private dollars and the biggest donors calling the tune.

JJ: All right, then. Well, for now, we’ve been speaking with Ian Vandewalker. He’s senior counsel of the Elections and Government Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Thank you so much, Ian Vandewalker, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

IV: Thank you. Good to be here.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

Steven Rosenfeld on Election Transparency, Ian Vandewalker on Small Donors

Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting — Fri, 17 May 2024 16:10:48 +0000

https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin240517.mp3

(image: Voting Booth)

This week on CounterSpin: You and I may know that the 2020 election was not stolen from Donald Trump through various mysterious sorts of skullduggery. That does not mean that we can whistle past the fact that many people who vote do believe that. Many of those people are activated in a way that goes beyond easily ignorable segments on OAN, and has meaning for November. Steven Rosenfeld reports on transparency, among other electoral issues, for Voting Booth. We’ll hear from him about kinds of election interference we ignore at our peril.

https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin240517Rosenfeld.mp3

(image: Brennan Center)

Also on the show: You and I may believe that democracy means, at its core, something like “one person, one vote.” That doesn’t mean we can whistle past the fact that many voting people do not believe that. Indeed, some elite media–designated smart people have determined: “Citizens United, what? It’s folks who give ten bucks to a candidate that are really messing up the system.” We’ll explore that notion with Ian Vandewalker, senior counsel for the Elections & Government Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin240517Vandewalker.mp3

The post Steven Rosenfeld on Election Transparency, Ian Vandewalker on Small Donors appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.

The Rebirth of Bangladesh

Iftekhar Sayeed — Sat, 30 Mar 2024 18:04:51 +0000

The physical organisation of the Bengalee is feeble even to effeminacy. He lives in a constant vapour bath. His pursuits are sedentary, his limbs delicate, his movements languid. During many ages he has been trampled upon by men of bolder and more hardy breeds. Courage, independence, veracity, are qualities to which his constitution and his situation are equally unfavourable. His mind bears a singular analogy to his body. It is weak even to helplessness for purposes of manly resistance…

— Macaulay (1841)

Chhayanaut, the premier cultural institution of the country, employs what one scholar of fascism, Roger Griffin, has termed palingenesis, “a framing device to emphasise cultural and national renewal” (Zac Gershbergh and Sean Illing. The Paradox of Democracy: Free Speech, Open Media and Perilous Persuasion, (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2022), p 126). Gershberg and Illing cite D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation, the modern medium of the cinema for a mass audience: the Lost Cause of a heroic South, reinvigorated by the Ku Klux Klan.

“Pakistan’s rulers, since its inception in 1947, tried to use religion to rupture the plural cultural identity of Muslim Bengalis; this was reflected in their onslaught on Bangla language and culture,” announces the Chhayanaut website. We will see below that this does not fact-check. “Chhayanaut created a landmark national tradition by launching the celebration of Bengali seasons. The musical welcome on the first dawn of Baisakh [the opening month of the Bengali year] under the banyan tree in Ramna, begun in 1967, brought back the Bengali new year into the consciousness of city dwellers. Thus, Chhayanaut has become a partner in the glory of the Bengali passage that began with a cultural renaissance and led to the war for independence. During the liberation war, Chhayanaut singers organised performances to inspire freedom fighters and refugees. After independence, Chhayanaut has been involved in seeking creative ways to broaden and intensify the practice of music and, more broadly, the celebration of Bangla culture…Chhayanaut believes the nation will find its path to development through this cultural renaissance (italics added).” In fact, the “Bengali calendar” issued from the court of the Mughal Emperor Akbar. “Celebrations of Pahela Baishakh started from Akbar’s reign (1556 – 1605).”

Needless to add, Bengali consciousness played no role in these celebrations. An imperial edict, for purposes of tax collection, constituted the new calendar: such top-down, supine payment of taxes prompted the expression for Asians as a whole: “born taxpayers”: “The nascent absolutist states of Europe had to struggle long and hard before they established fiscal absolutism; of the Asian populations it can fairly be said, in the light of their 2,000-year-old histories, that they were “born taxpayers” (S. E. Finer, The History of Government from the Earliest Times, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p 1303)”.

According to a former student, Chhayanaut begins its Victory Day musical at precisely 3:45 pm – when the Pakistan army surrendered to the Indian army on December 16 1971. Apart from the singing and dancing, “Chhayanaut has a dress code for people who want to sit in the audience. The audience must wear something in green or red”, the colours of the flag — reminding one of the indoctrination scene in Stalag 17 (1953).

Whatever their goals, their one achievement stands out: subordinating the individual to the group. And this group, far from including all Bengalis actually excludes most: the illiterate, and their taste in music and dance. When the author questioned three exponents of Bengali culture, they were unanimous in condemning the movie item dances of Naila Nayem, a sex symbol in Bangladesh (pictured). “Indecency” must be ruled out, commented one of the trio. The puritanism of the Bengali middle class appears unclothed.

We are not surprised: the imperative of cohesion trumps all others. As history has shown, the boot-in-the-face is a Freudian need of the herd:

Since a group is in no doubt as to what constitutes truth or error, and is conscious, moreover, of its own great strength, it is as intolerant as it is obedient to authority. It respects force and can only be slightly influenced by kindness, which it regards merely as a form of weakness. What it demands of its heroes is strength, or even violence. It wants to be ruled and oppressed and to fear its masters. Fundamentally it is entirely conservative, and it has a deep aversion from all innovations and advances and an unbounded respect for tradition…

And so Chhayanaut believes “that if people come together in singing songs of loving the motherland and its people, those divisions will dissolve. Chhayanaut believes that Bangalees can be united once again through culture…Chhayanaut hopes that their new initiative to bring people together in the spirit of patriotism will be successful (italics supplied).”

Patriotism: the last refuge?

The Soft Power

Chhayanaut promotes the arts on behalf of the ruling party. Its founders earned their nationalist spurs by singing songs – discouraged by the Pakistan government before and during the second Indo-Pak war over Kashmir – by Rabindranath Tagore, the Indian Nobel laureate, on his hundredth birth anniversary, a lot like the Boston Symphony Orchestra not playing Beethoven on the eve of the Great War. By cocking a snook at the authorities of a country founded on Islamic unity, Chhayanaut’s defiance earned merit for heroic anti-Islamism.

Which brings us to Rabindranath Tagore and his songs.

The songs of Nobel-Prize-winning Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) — one of which constitutes the national anthem of Bangladesh — betrays the elitism of our nationalism. Demotic Bengali is sharply different from hieratic Bengali — the latter only spoken by the uber-elite, the self-consciously nationalist. Education is the national cosmetic, concealing all wrinkles of the particular. Rabindranath belongs among the educated.

Rabindranath Tagore symbolised anti-Islamism, Bengalism and pan-Bengalism, all of which makes him a prophet-like personality in the salons of Dhaka, Bangladesh. None of this would have been possible but for the Nobel Prize in literature. Sanjida Khatun observes that his protean output “has made Tagore songs an essential part of life of the Bengalis who sing them in happiness, in distress, and at work”. The mythology around Rabindranath’s songs suggests a less innocent explanation.

Ian Jack, writing on the god-man’s hundred-and-fiftieth birth anniversary, observes: “Then again, love of literature can slide into fetishism, and from there, obscenity. When Tagore died in 1941, the huge crowd around his funeral cortege plucked hairs from his head. At the cremation pyre, mourners burst through the cordon before the body had been completely consumed by fire, searching for bones and keepsakes.” That’s not love of literature; that’s love of divinity. And godmen tend to proliferate in the “mystical” Orient: recall the Beatles’ guru, Maharishi Maheshi Yogi, father of Transcendental Meditation (TM), in whose dishonour a disillusioned John Lennon composed Sexy Sadie. His genuflecting devotees must be reciting mantras to avert a similar fate for god-man Tagore (although a highly popular lampoon of one of the guru’s songs by Roddur Roy on YouTube manages to shock and amuse) .

Art has long been co-opted here for the purpose of propaganda. After the division of Bengal in 1905, the Hindu Bengali elite agitated for restored unity. One of these agitators was Rabindranath Tagore. He composed Banglar mati Banglar jal (“The soil of Bengal, the water of Bengal”). Dwijendralal wrote Banga amar janani amar (“Bengal is my land and my mother”); Atulprasad wrote Balo balo balo sabe (“Say, say, say everyone”). “Among others who contributed to the nationalistic movement was Mukundas, whose jatras [village plays], Desher Gan (patriotic song) and Matrpuja (Worship of the Mother), motivated the Bangalis to fight for their rights and against the despotic rule of the English.” These worked: As Percival Spear remarks, “It had been shown that the despised bourgeois might on occasion get a popular backing” (A History of India, Volume 2 (New Delhi: Penguin Books, 1990), p 177).

“Bande Mataram” (“Hail to Thee Mother”) became the Congress’s national anthem, its words taken from Anandamath, a popular – and “virulently anti-Muslim” – Bengali novel by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, and its music composed by Rabindranath Tagore (the observation on the nature of the novel comes from Ian Stephens, Pakistan: Old Country/New Nation (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1964), p 86).

Chaterjee’s slogans – bande mataram, matribhumi (motherland), janmabhumi (birth land), swaraj (self rule), mantra, and so on – were used by militant Hindu nationalists, mostly from Bengal, and many of these words continue to resonate powerfully in Bangladesh today. Moderate leaders of the Indian National Congress did not take immediately to Chaterjee’s Hindu nationalist slogans, but were won over by their appeal to the youth during the swadeshi movement. Fuller, the Lieutenant-Governor of East Bengal and Assam, forbade the chanting of bande mataram in public. Congress’s continued emphasis on aspects of militant Hindu nationalism – such as the replacement of Urdu by Hindi, and the singing of bande mataram in schools and on public occasions – was resented by Muslims (Hugh Tinker, South Asia: A Short History (London: Pall Mall Press, 1966), pp 195, 220).

“Mother-goddess-worshipping Bengali Hindus believed that partition was nothing less than the vivisection of their ‘mother province’, and mass protest rallies before and after Bengal’s division on October 16, 1905, attracted millions of people theretofore untouched by politics of any variety,” according to the Britannica. The swadeshi movement, as it was known, inspired terrorists who believed it a sacred duty to offer human sacrifices to the goddess Kali (Spear, p 176). What in actuality had been a purely administrative measure served to catapult national consciousness among the Hindu Bengalis. However, British officials made it clear that one consequence of the partition would be to give Muslims of Bengal a province where they would be dominant: it was a forerunner of Pakistan (Tinker, p 195). According to the Banglapedia article on the swadeshi movement, “The Swadeshi movement indirectly alienated the general Muslim public from national politics. They followed a separate course that culminated in the formation of the Muslim League (1906) in Dacca.” During the first meeting of the Muslim League, convened in Dacca in December 1906, the Agha Khan’s deputation issued a call “to protect and advance the political rights and interests of Mussalmans of India.” Other resolutions moved at the meeting expressed Muslim “loyalty to the British government,” support for the Bengal partition, and condemnation of the boycott movement.

Thus, an all-too-frequently heard Bengali song here goes: “The queen of all countries is my birth land (janmabhumi)”. The land figures prominently in the superabundance of deshattobodhok — patriotic — songs. “O the land of my country, my head touches you/You have commingled with my body….” Again: “You [martyrs] will be the beacon for the new swadesh….” While bhumi unequivocally means land, desh is more ambiguous: it can mean village or country. Since the transition from the former to the latter is far from complete, the word attempts to transfer emotions from the particular to the general, from the concrete to the abstract, mirroring inadequately the (far more successful) transition from pays to patrie, from Gesselschaft to Gemeinschaft (Finer, pp 143-4). The pejorative chasha (literally, farmer, but connotes the gauche, the uncultivated) tars all rural inhabitants (and even more in its stronger version, chasha-bhusha), and thereby the entire country, with the same brush. Patriotic songs may be seen as an heroic effort at restoration of self-esteem through imagined restoration of the physical unity of the two Bengals. The portability of song makes it a potent cultural artefact: emigres sing and hear these jingoistic songs in their new countries (typically America, Canada or Australia) where faux nationalism survives in the first generation, fortunately endowed with considerable human capital, the highly literate and numerate. The less fortunate are exhorted to love the motherland (matribhumi/janmabhumi) instead of voting with their feet. A single Youtube video, for instance, plays fifteen chauvinistic lays.

Mother, hail!…

Though seventy million voices through thy mouth sonorous shout,

Though twice seventy million hands hold trenchant sword-blades out,

Yet with all this power now,

Mother, wherefore powerless thou?

According to Bengali writer Nirad C. Chaudhury, “It was not the liberal political thought of the organisers of the Indian National Congress, but the Hindu revivalism of the last quarter of the nineteenth century — a movement which previously had been wholly confined to the field of religion — which was the driving force behind the anti-partition agitation of 1905 and subsequent years.” (Bande Mattaram lines, and Chaudhury, quoted, Tinker, pp 192-3). Rabindranath must be regarded as a pioneer of pan-Bengalism, and the successful reunion of Bengal as our Anschluss.

After Sheikh Hasina and her Awami League came to power in 1996, the state comfortably — and permanently — ensconced Chhayanaut headquarters in a tony part of town, “in recognition of it’s (sic) significant contributions for [the] last four decades to the Bangali cultural development”. “Virtually, the Chhayanaut operates unofficially as the apex body in the realm of music and dance.” The organisation, and others like it, provide psychic ammo for the government’s more muscular anti-Islamism – the soft power behind the hard power.

Death by a Thousand Mudras

The hard power went on display when, in 2021, Sheikh Hasina’s government invited Narendra Modi to the hundredth birth anniversary of her father Sheikh Mujib, the pater patriae and fifty years of national independence, announced by said pater on 26 March, 1971. The Islamist group, Hefazat–e-Islami, asked the government to cancel the invitation, thereby ‘showing respect to the sentiment of [the[ majority [of] people in Bangladesh”. In a written statement, they labeled Modi, not inaccurately, as ‘anti-Muslim and a butcher of Gujarat”. Members of the ruling party, and, predictably enough, its student wing, the Chatra League, attacked worshippers at the national mosque on 26 March after the Friday prayer to stymie the planned protest, leading to a nationwide fracas the next two days. At least fourteen Hefazat members were shot dead by police. “The Bangladeshi authorities must conduct prompt, thorough, impartial, and independent investigations into the death of at least 14 protesters across the country between 26 and 28 March,” insisted Amnesty International, “and respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, said 11 human rights organisations in a joint statement today. The organisations also called on the international community to urge Bangladeshi authorities to put an end to the practice of torturing and forcibly disappearing opposition activists.”

The Bangladesh Nrityashilpi Sangstha, “a welfare organisation of dance artistes” established in 1978, similarly serves up propaganda as dance. According to noted dance-teacher and impresario Laila Hassan: “It [Bangladesh Nrityashilpi Sangstha] believes that dance not only provides entertainment, it also speaks about the life, society, and culture of the country and its people, and that the liberation war and the country’s history and tradition can be presented through it”.

The Bulbul Lalitakala Academy serves a similar function: in addition to ministering to Terpsichore, the academy “plays a pivotal role in the cultural field through its regular observances of shaheed dibash [literally, “martyr’s day”, February 21, when young people were gunned down in a language protest in 1952] and independence day and celebrations of pahela baishakh and the spring festival….” On February 1 2024, a mega cultural event across the nation commemorated the shaheed dibash. The chief of the government-run cultural organisation, Bangladesh Shilpakala Academy mused: ‘We need culture-friendly political parties in the country in order to further the nation”. “Over 300 troupes are staging street plays at 21 venues in eight divisions at the festival,” announced the newspaper. “Twenty eight Dhaka-based troupes will stage plays at the Central Shaheed Minar till February 7.”

Gershberg and Illing note how the proto-fascist D’Aunzia, Commandante of Fiume and the first Il Duce, “established music as the state’s central purpose” (p 134). The authors quote Robert A. Paxton: fascism is “full of exciting political festival and clever publicity techniques” as well as “the propagandist manipulation of public opinion [to] replace debate about complicated issues” (p 136). Song-and-dance takes the place of tepid discussions of inflation and the current account deficit – although inflation eats away at the welfare of the poor. Hardly noticed, the Left Democratic Alliance, a group of left-leaning parties, held a protest rally on 20 March accusing the government of sponsoring “syndicates” that manipulate prices: “They said that the Awami League government had failed to control the price hike of essential commodities which increased sufferings of the common people of the country.” Not surprisingly, the only party to use the F-word is the socialist Jatiya Samajtantrk Dal (JSD) who observe “anti-fascism democracy day” on March 18 when several members were killed by the private army of Sheikh Mujb in 1974.

In the article “Dance Groups” of the Banglapedia, the writer observes, “Dance as an art form was seldom practised by Muslims before Gauhar Jamil set up a dance institution called Shilpakala Bhaban in 1948. After partition in 1947, despite the conservative tradition of the Bavgali (sic) society, a number of performers…contributed to removing old ways of thinking and entertainment.” The article on Bulbul Lalitakala Academy mentions “conservative Bengali Muslims”; and Chayyanaut “encountered many obstacles from [the] government of the time, because music and dance, especially of secular genre, were not much in consistence with the ideology of the Pakistani regime”. (Never mind that Ayub Khan removed Islam from the constitution (Ayesha Jalal, Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia, A Comparative and Historical Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), p 58) and passed the Muslim Family Law Ordinance, that the government set up the East Pakistan Film Development Corporation in 1957, that the Iranian singer Googoosh appeared regularly on TV in West Pakistan in the ‘60s, that the dance program Nritter Tale Tale aired every week, as the author recalls….) However, the article on “Classical Dance” observes: “…it appears that, like other classical dances, Kathak developed in the courtyards of Hindu temples and got a fresh lease of life under the patronage of the Mughal rulers”. The Britannnica concurs: Kathak, born of the marriage of Hindu and Muslim cultures, flourished in North India under Mughal influence.

“Classical Dance” also states: “During British rule, Indian classical dancing was patronised by the ruling classes, such as, rajas, maharajas, nawabs and zamindars as well as by British high officials who held ‘nautches’ in their private chambers.” And Bulbul Chowdhury, according to the same encyclopaedia, succeeded with dance precisely “by showing that dance was part of the Muslim-Mughal tradition”. Disinformation, or, not to put too fine a point on it, lying, conduces to incoherence. Another article in the Banglapedia observes that Khaleda Manzoor-e Khuda, a regular singer on Dacca Radio from 1951 to 1955, sang Tagore songs. “At that time as a Rabindra singer she was popularly known as Khaleda Fency Khanam.”

In an interview with the author, Benazir Salam, an expert in Indian classical dance with an MA from Rabindra Bharati, Kolkata and a teacher of dance at Dhaka University, observed of Kathak that it developed under Muslim rule, and, precisely for that reason, Chhayanaut allows its performance only at festivals, and relegates it to the tail-end.

The Men of Words, the Women of Song

We would do well to tarry a while and take note of Erich Hoffer on the subject, which will recur: “It is the deep-seated craving of the man of words for an exalted status which makes him oversensitive to any humiliation imposed on the class or community (racial, lingual or religious) to which he belongs however loosely. It was Napoleon’s humiliation of the Germans, particularly the Prussians, which drove Fichte and the German intellectuals to call on the German masses to unite into a mighty nation which would dominate Europe (The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements (New York: Perennial Classics, 2002), p 138)”. Hoffer uses the expression “the unwanted self” (p12). Macaulay’s attitude seems to have penetrated generations of this Delta, so much so that in Sheikh Mujb’s battle cry Joy Bangla [Long live Bengal/Bengali language] they feel wanted again.

Hoffer explains the intelligentsia’s solid support for the despotic dynasty of Bangladesh: During the upheavals of 2018, when student thugs of the ruling party beat up harmless child protesters demanding safer roads, Mehdi Hasan went head to head with a former Harvard professor, Gawhar Rizvi, who shamelessly defended every criminality perpetrated by the government; this author has spoken with men (and women) of words, and found the same resistance to criticism. When a bridge opened recently, the men and women of words and song galvanised themselves to create musical paeans to the dynasty (click here for the album Bangladesh: Despotic Dynasty, pictures taken by the author of the images of the ruling family plastered throughout the capital, a superb example of persuasive advertising designed to perpetuate our founding myth of the Father of the Nation). Intellectuals, “ a herd of independent minds”, in Chomsky’s words, appease our collective self-loathing by glorifying and exonerating thuggery.

In all fairness, it must be conceded that Bangladeshis are not uniquely prone to assuaging collective self-loathing through megaprojects: According to development economists Hla Myint and Anne O. Krueger, less developed countries’ resentment of developed economies stem, not only from measurable differences in income, but from less rational factors such as a reaction against the colonial past and their complex drives to achieve parity. “Thus, it is not uncommon to find their governments using a considerable proportion of their resources in prestige projects, ranging from steel mills, hydroelectric dams, universities, and defence expenditure to international athletics. These symbols of modernization may contribute a nationally shared satisfaction and pride but may or may not contribute to an increase in the measurable national income.” A picture of the Aswan Dam accompanies their article.

Peace is War

In 1928, Arthur Ponsonby, a British Member of Parliament, published his tell-all book on British propaganda which he called Falsehood in War-time: Containing An Assortment Of Lies Circulated Throughout The Nations During The Great War. In time of war, he observes with acerbity, “the stimulus of indignation, horror, and hatred must be assiduously and continuously pumped into the public mind by means of ‘propaganda’.

“A good deal depends on the quality of the lie. You must have intellectual lies for intellectual people and crude lies for popular consumption….

“Perhaps nothing did more to impress the public mind – and this is true in all countries – than the assistance given in propaganda by intellectuals and literary notables.” In short, the men of words.

The items italicised by the present author could be supplemented with and at all times. In Bangladesh today, the intelligentsia provides the context for a mindset suitable to a wartime situation: Fifty-two years after the third Indo-Pak war, seventy-two after Ekushey February Pakistan is still the enemy, and Islamists are fair game. George Orwell appreciated well the need for a state of permanent hostility against a fictive enemy to keep the citizenry loyal to the Party – a world dominated by three perpetually warring totalitarian police states. Emmanuel Goldstein, however, stars in the daily Two-Minute Hate – the equivalent of the propaganda by scribes, terpsichores and thespians in our country against the minuscule mullahs.

“He [Goldstein] was an object of hatred more constant than either Eurasia or Eastasia, since when Oceania was at war with one of these Powers it was generally at peace with the other. But what was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculed, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were—in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less.” How like the Islamsts of Bangladesh he sounds.

As Gershberg and Illing observe: “Fascism also promulgates the myth of sinister internal enemies that are simultaneously weak and devious (p 126)”.

“Nothing to report,” the lieutenant said with contempt.

“The Governor was at me again today,” the chief complained.

“Liquor?”

“No, a priest.”

“The last was shot weeks ago.”

“He doesn’t think so.”

“In the world of Graham Greene’s 1940 novel, The Power and the Glory,” muses a reviewer, “it’s a bad time to be a Catholic.” In the 2020s Bangladesh, it’s a bad time to be an Islamist, or even quasi-Islamist. (The quoted lines are from Vintage Books, London, 2002, p 32).

In 2017, Hafez (an Islamic scholar, not his real name) was, along with other religious students at Dhaka University dorms, beaten within an inch of their lives for being alleged Islamists. This routine torture of perceived “traitors” finally resulted two years later in the murder of Abrar Fahad, a straight-A student at the elite Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) by his classmates who beat him for hours for his Facebook post criticising the prime minister: automatically, this made him an enemy, an Islamist (the BBC report leaves something to be desired: the murderous students belonged to the student wing of the ruling Awami League, the Bangladesh Chatra League (BCL), not the youth wing as reported; this is significant.). The second event caused a firestorm, the first, that of Hafez, went ignored: it’s open season on Islamists.

A highly abridged interview of Hafez conducted by this author several weeks ago appears below (this sort of news, being par for the course, hardly travels; hence, the delay in interviewing Hafez. Indeed, had Abrar Fahad not been an engineering student of elite stock, his murder, like that of the tailor, Biswajit Das (pictured), though highly publicised on TV channels and newspapers in his blood-stained shirt, vainly warding blows from the ruling party student thugs, might as well have been invisible. For the author’s observations on this selective attention, please click on What George Floyd’s Death Means – Or Should Mean – In Bangladesh ).

2017 August 13 11:30 pm

Interrogations begin – he’s forced to talk. It’s all pre-planned: the hall president and sidekicks are present

“Got him, Bhai [brother].”

Hafeez kneeled, salaamed.

The president is on the bed. The president’s room is on the 2nd floor; Hafez’s on the 5th floor

“Do you do Shibir [Islamist student wing of the main Islamist party]?”

Hafez is astounded. “No, Bhaiya [brother], I don’t.”

(Louder) “Do you do Shibir? Why do you do Shibir?”

“Bhaiya, I don’t.”

Slapping begins.

A friend who was an Islamic scholar, and similarly attired, is later brought in.

Heavier beating, kicking, ensue. A wooden stick is produced: they start hitting him on the back. Rods and water pipes are brought out from inside the president’s room. The hall secretary hits him on the thigh, right above the knee with pipes. The slaps are mostly on the eyes, ears and front face.

“Confess; we can burst your nose. Hey, who’s good at bursting noses?”

Bestiality of the above variety stems from nationalism, as documented by John Keane: “At the heart of nationalism – and among the most peculiar feature of its ‘grammar’ – is its simultaneous treatment of the Other as everything and nothing. The Other is seen as the knife at the throat of the nation. Nationalists are panicky and driven by friend-foe calculations; they suffer from a judgement disorder that convinces them that the Other nation lives at its own expense (Civil Society, (London: Polity Press, 1998), p. 96).” “…sinister internal enemies that are simultaneously weak and devious,” according to Gershberg and Illing.

A characteristic of collectivist organisations involves the use of children, such as the Chatra League of the ruling party. Interest in the child, and youth in general, arose in the early twentieth century, with such innocent bodies as the Boy Scouts. But it was followed by the “much more sinister and deliberately exploitative youth organisations of the totalitarian states of the 1920s and 1930s”, according to J.M. Roberts (Twentieth Century: A History of the World, 1901 to the Present (London: Penguin, 1999, p 642). “Young Pioneers in the USSR, the Hitler Youth in Germany, the balilla, Picolli Italiani and Figli della Lupa in Italy.” These countries vigorously excluded the Boy Scouts. The post-war youth market and culture never emerged in the east, where Mao’s Red Guards wreaked havoc in the 1960s. “Young Stalinists worshipped Stalin as an individual,” observes Richard Vinen. “Teenagers swelled the ranks of the party’s youth organisations….” They formed the most committed warriors against imperialism. “Astonishing as it seems in retrospect, the period when communist rule in Eastern Europe was at its most brutal was also the period during which many intelligent and well-meaning individuals thought it was a good thing” (A History in Fragments: Europe in the Twentieth Century (Da Capo Press, 2001), p 339, 344). Astonishing, indeed, except to someone domiciled in Bangladesh today. And Chhayanaut works its spell on children.

A Disappearing Act

When all eyes — those of the young and the old — are focussed on events several decades ago, thanks to Chhayanaut and the men of words, contemporary evils, as noted by Robert Paxton, such as the hounding of the Chief Justice, or the burning alive of innocent bystanders, enforced disappearances, state thuggery, extrajudicial killings, rapes by student politicians, appear remote and ephemeral. The stimulus of indignation, horror, and hatred is assiduously and continuously pumped into the public mind by means of “propaganda” — by the government and its handmaidens, the intelligentsia, “the men of words”, “the women of song and dance”.

Dhaka University, the quondam Oxford of the East, where alleged Islamists, as we have seen, receive considerable corporal suffering, earns the infamy of “concentration camp” , from the victims of its illustrious sons, mindful, no doubt, of the spirit of learning, albeit delivered, not in lectures, but in more tactile form. “It (Chhayanaut) believes that our celebration of fraternity and creativity under the broad rubric of an inclusive humanist culture will triumph, leaving behind religious bigotry, fundamentalism and xenophobia.” Read: getting rid of the Islamists, “simultaneously devious and weak”, by whatever means available to the state.

“Against this, there are other competing conceptions of art that are never fully suppressed, such as the archaic view that places art in the same general sphere of activity as ritual (a view with which I acknowledge considerable sympathy), and the conception of art as a vehicle of moral uplift or social progress, as is common in totalitarian societies where the creation of art becomes co-opted for the purpose of propaganda (for which, by contrast, I avow a proportional antipathy).” Most of us would go along with Justin E. H. Smith in his aptly-titled book Irrationality: A History of the Dark Side of Reason, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017), pp 22-23); we share his conceptions of art, and our sympathies lie with him. The Russian love story, “Boy meets tractor”, finds a creepy analogy: “Men and women meet bridge”.

The conception of Muslim civilisation as hopelessly philistine, if not proto-Khomeinist, persists in Bangladesh (as elsewhere). The following from Ronald Segal’s Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora would come as a shock to teenagers and adults alike: “Female slaves were required in considerable numbers, for a variety of purposes. Some were musicians, singers and dancers – neither the status nor the style of a great house could do without a sitara, or chamber-orchestra – reciters and even composers of poetry. There were celebrated schools in Baghdad, Cordoba, and Medina that supplied tuition and training in both musical and literary skills. Such slaves were highly prized and costly (London: Atlantic Books, 2002, p 38).”

Show Me the Money

The above description of our cultural hanky panky may not appear more than children on a playful rampage, or inmates running the asylum (not counting the dead and disappeared for now). But the twang of the sitar and the thump of the tabla conceal the tinkle of coins and the thud of dosh. Gunnar Myrdal observed of South Asia in The Challenge of World Poverty: A World Anti-Poverty Programme in Outline: “…changes of government, or even of form of government, occur high over the heads of the masses of people and mainly imply merely a shift of the groups of persons in the upper strata who monopolise power (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971), p 212).” The transition from East Pakistan to Bangladesh, from military rule to democracy, occasioned changes of personnel at the top.

Albert Reynolds’ figures tell a disquieting story: “For countries at the early stages of development, primary education has the lowest unit costs and highest rates of economic return….Most South Asian governments (backed by self-interested elites) invested disproportionately in higher education: India had one of the highest growth rates in Asia for university students and the lowest for primary enrollments. In the 1970s, Bangladesh and Pakistan were increasing spending on higher education at the expense of primary schools, whose share in Bangladesh fell from 60 percent in 1973 to 44 percent in 1981 (One World Divisible: A Global History Since 1945 (New York: W.W.Norton and Co., 2000), p 302, 307, emphases added).” We see these statistics clearly bearing out Myrdal’s observation regarding elite-churning.

For what prevails in the political economy of Bangladesh is an oligarchy in cahoots with the ruling party; the Center for Policy Dialogue, a think tank, went on record as saying: “The current practice of recruiting Board of Directors [to state-owned commercial banks, or SCBs] on political grounds has to be discontinued. Studies have shown that financial reporting fraud in banks is more likely if the Board of Directors is dominated by insiders”. The level of non-performing loans (NPLs) has increased steadily since 2008, when the current government returned to power: between 2008 and 2018, the level of dud loans soared 297%. Syed Yusuf Saadat, research associate of the think-tank, observed, “In 2017, a single business group gained control of more than seven private banks.” The IMF observed that “important and connected borrowers default because they can”.

The case study of Islami Bank provides a detailed picture, not only of the government’s anti-Islamism, but also the paw-in-the-public-till syndrome that promotes loyalty to the dynasty. “Established in 1983 as Bangladesh’s first bank run on Islamic principles, Islami thrived by handling a large share of remittances from emigrant workers and by lending to the booming garment industry. Its troubles stem from its links with Jamaat-e-Islami, Bangladesh’s largest Islamist party, which allied with Pakistan during the war of succession of 1971.” One of the first acts by the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, on coming to power in 2009 was to try “war criminals” in kangaroo courts. “Leading figures from the Jamaat were sentenced to imprisonment or hanging.” Then came the asset-seizure. In 2017, the prime minister sent government intelligence operatives to oust senior executives and put in place her cronies: a boardroom coup. The cronies swiftly turned a healthy bank sick.

While Chhayanaut greets the new Bengali year under a banyan, and grandmothers in the vernacular, its members and devotees don colour-coded sarees (white with a red border for Baisakh, yellow for Falgun, blue for Ashar, red and gold for Victory Day), hog watered rice rural-style, sing Tagore in soirees…the wonga wends its way….

As Don Fabrizio’s nephew observes in Giuseppe Di Lampedusa’s The Leopard, “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change. D’you understand (trans. Archibald Colquhoun, (New York:Random House, 1960), p 40)?”

The post The Rebirth of Bangladesh first appeared on Dissident Voice.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Iftekhar Sayeed.

‘This Court Is Not Going to Protect Us From Donald Trump’CounterSpin interview with Ian Millhiser on Trump and Supreme Court

Janine Jackson — Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:54:09 +0000

Janine Jackson interviewed Vox‘s Ian Millhiser about the Supreme Court’s protection of Donald Trump for the March 8, 2024, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin240308Millhiser.mp3

Janine Jackson: The Supreme Court ruled this week that states can’t keep Donald Trump off of presidential ballots, despite his myriad crimes and active legal entanglements. But as New York Times columnist Thomas Edsall noted, the more politically consequential decision came on February 28, when the court set a hearing on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity for his role in fomenting the violent January 6, 2021, effort to overturn the election, for the week of April 22.

Edsall suggests the delay is a gift to Trump and a blow to Biden, because a failure to hold a trial means Democrats won’t be able to “expand voters’ awareness of the dangers posed by a second Trump term.” A trial, you see, would produce a lot of reporting about Trump’s role in the insurrection that could inform and presumably sway voters.

New York Times (3/6/24)

I think it’s fair to ask ourselves why journalists couldn’t do that reporting anyway, whether the “surprisingly large segment of the electorate” that Edsall says has “either no idea or slight knowledge of the charges against Trump” couldn’t just possibly learn about those things from the press corps, even without the shiny object of a trial to focus on.

Ian Millhiser reports on the Supreme Court and the Constitution, even when former presidents are not in the dock, as a senior correspondent at Vox. He’s author of, most recently, The Agenda: How a Republican Supreme Court Is Reshaping America, and also, relevantly, 2015’s Injustices: The Supreme Court’s History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted. He joins us now by phone from Virginia. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Ian Millhiser.

Ian Millhiser: Good to be here. Thanks so much.

JJ: Your February 28 report is headlined “The Supreme Court Just Handed Trump an Astonishing Victory.” So please spell it out for us why it’s a victory, and why it’s astonishing to a longtime court watcher such as yourself.

Vox (2/28/24)

IM: I had assumed that the courts were going to try to stay neutral on Donald Trump, and neutral on the election, and so what neutrality means is, we knew from the oral argument in the ballot disqualification case that the courts weren’t going to remove Donald Trump from the ballot. We already knew that wasn’t going to happen. But I thought the flip side of it was that the Supreme Court wasn’t going to actively try to boost Trump’s candidacy by delaying his trial, by pushing it until after the election, but that’s what they did.

By scheduling this hearing in April, the trial can’t happen until after the Supreme Court resolves this immunity appeal, and so they made the decision to, the practical implication of this is, that the trial almost certainly will not happen until after the election, if it happens at all.

When the Supreme Court hands down such a consequential decision, it’s supposed to explain itself. The way the Supreme Court works is that when it does something, the majority of the justices who agree with one outcome write an opinion explaining why they did what they did, and then the justices who dissent write a dissenting opinion explaining why they disagree. And the court didn’t even have the decency here to explain why.

I mean, maybe there’s some possible justification for pushing Trump’s trial until after the election, but at the very least, they owed us an explanation for why they handed down this extraordinarily consequential decision. And the fact that they thought that they could do this without explaining themselves, I think raises very serious questions about whether the Supreme Court will be neutral on the question of whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden should win the 2024 election.

JJ: Well, I think people understand that the law does not equal justice in the way that we might understand it, but it sounds like you’re saying this is messed up on the level of law itself.

Vox (4/12/23)

IM: When you look at the long arc of US history, the law doesn’t always resemble the law. In 1870, we ratified the 15th Amendment. That’s the amendment which says the government is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race when deciding who was allowed to vote. And that amendment was in effect for maybe five years during Reconstruction, and then it just evaporated.

For 90 years, the Supreme Court did not enforce that. We had 90 years of Jim Crow, 90 years of Black people being told they did not have their equal citizenship rights, even though it’s right there in the Constitution, saying explicitly that they’re supposed to have it. Because politically there wasn’t enough support for giving Black people the right to vote, and the Supreme Court just went with those political winds.

If you look at the history of the First Amendment, during war time, people were thrown in jail during World War II because they opposed the draft, because they gave a speech opposing the draft. For most of the late 19th and early 20th century, there was very aggressive enforcement of something called the Comstock Act—which is still on the books; this could come back at any time—which bans pretty much any kind of art or literature or anything that in any way involves sex. People were tried and convicted for selling the famous portrait The Birth of Venus. It’s a nude portrait. People were convicted of crimes because they sold reproductions of famous works of nude art, despite the fact that we have the First Amendment.

So the reason I’m describing this long history here is, I think we Americans need to have a realistic sense of what we can expect from the courts. The courts don’t always ignore the law. They don’t always follow the political winds. I can point you to plenty of examples of the Supreme Court being courageous against powerful political—I mean, the reason why Nixon had to resign is because the Supreme Court ordered him to turn over incriminating evidence.

So the Supreme Court sometimes follows the law. It sometimes does the right thing. But if you look at the long arc of American history, all I can say about the Supreme Court is “sometimes.” And apparently sometimes is not now. Sometimes is not now.

This court is not going to do anything to protect us from Donald Trump. It has made that perfectly clear. It doesn’t matter what the Constitution says. It doesn’t matter that there’s an entire provision of the 14th Amendment saying that if you are in high office, and you engage in an insurrection, you can’t hold office again—doesn’t matter. Supreme Court’s not going to enforce that provision.

And that doesn’t mean that we should all abandon hope, but it does mean we cannot rely on the courts at all. Donald Trump will be defeated at the ballot box if he’s defeated anywhere.

JJ: I’m going to bring you back to hope in just a second, but I just felt a need to intercede. My ninth grade government teacher was convinced, and not without cause, that we really weren’t going to retain very much from his class. And he had one thing, which was that every now and again he would just randomly holler out, “What’s the law of the land?” And we would yell back, “The Constitution!” That seems more painful than quaint right now.

Ian Millhiser: “When the chips are down, the Constitution is only as good as the worst five people who sit on the Supreme Court.”

IM: Yeah, we like to tell ourselves a good story about the United States. One of the purposes of public schools is to inculcate enough a certain sense of what our values should be. The nation we aspire to be is a nation where the Constitution matters. The nation that we aspire to be is one where somebody who tries to overthrow our government does not get to serve in government ever again. That is who we hope to be.

I think it is right that our public schools try to inculcate those values in us, because the way that you get Supreme Court justices who will actually share those values is by having this massive civic effort to teach us all that the Constitution matters and that we should enforce it.

But when the chips are down, the Constitution is only as good as the worst five people who sit on the Supreme Court. If those people did not internalize the lesson that you and I learned in the ninth grade, there’s nothing we can do about it.

JJ: And I’ll just bring you back: You’ve said it before, when I spoke to you last time, you said it doesn’t surprise you that this institution that’s always been controlled by elites has not been a particularly beneficent organization in American history. That’s before Clarence Thomas. That’s before the guy who likes beer. This is the history of this Supreme Court.

And so while we can and should be outraged and worried and more, what we can’t be is surprised that the Supreme Court is not swooping in now to save us from Donald Trump and whatever, heaven help us, a second Trump presidency might usher in. So let me just ask you again, finally, what is to be done? Because giving up is not an option.

IM: I think a lot about a line from President Obama’s first inaugural address, where he said, “We must choose our better history.” The United States has always had two histories. We have always, always, aspired to be a nation where we have political equality, where we can follow the rules of the road, where we have a Constitution. “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal”: Those are the words that created our nation. That has always been one of our histories.

And the other history is that we enslaved people. The other history is Jim Crow. The other history is Jim Crow–like treatment of Asian Americans out on the West Coast. The other history is Korematsu. The other history is Clarence Thomas flying around on all these billionaires’ jets.

And that has always been our history too. We have always faced a choice between, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal,” and the other thing. And sometimes we have elections where that choice isn’t as readily apparent. This is an election where that choice is immediately apparent.

JJ: All right, then. We’ve been speaking with reporter and author Ian Millhiser. You can find his work on the Supreme Court and other issues on Vox.com. Ian Millhiser, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

IM: Thank you.

The post ‘This Court Is Not Going to Protect Us From Donald Trump’
CounterSpin interview with Ian Millhiser on Trump and Supreme Court appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.

Ian Millhiser on Supreme Court Trump Protection, Alfredo Lopez on Radical Elders

CounterSpin — Fri, 08 Mar 2024 16:40:34 +0000

https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin240308.mp3

Vox (3/4/24)

This week on CounterSpin: Among the multitude of harms that could rain on this country should Donald Trump become president again, he could order the Department of Justice to drop any charges against him stemming from his fomenting of an insurrection aimed at overturning by violence the results of the 2020 election. Not to put too fine a point on it, Trump could declare himself above the law—and that’s just been enabled by the Supreme Court, which put off until April the legal case wherein Trump declares himself immune to criminal prosecution. The Court can move quickly; they hopped right to the decision that Trump can’t be removed from presidential ballots in the states. But this, we’re to understand, will take, huh, maybe until after the election, to mull. Vox Court-watcher Ian Millhiser says he tries to reserve his “this is an exceptionally alarming decision” voice, but this occasion calls for it. We hear from him this week.

https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin240308Millhiser.mp3

Also on the show: Corporate news media have an anti-elder narrative that’s as stupid as it is cruel. “Keep up or you’re in the way,” the line goes, “if you aren’t working 40 to 60 hours a week, you’re a societal drain.” It’s a weird position, erasing and marginalizing elderly people, given that the elderly are a sizable portion of the population, and a community we all get to join if we’re lucky. Alfredo Lopez is a longtime organizer and activist, and a founder of the new group Radical Elders. We talk with him about the space the group seeks to fill.

https://media.blubrry.com/counterspin/content.blubrry.com/counterspin/CounterSpin240308Lopez.mp3

The post Ian Millhiser on Supreme Court Trump Protection, Alfredo Lopez on Radical Elders appeared first on FAIR.

This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by CounterSpin.

PNG Prime Minister Marape confident his coalition will stay intact

APR editor — Tue, 23 Jan 2024 03:18:09 +0000

RNZ Pacific

Papua New Guinea’s prime minister says he is confident he can retain power in the wake of the recent riots.

Prime Minister James Marape claims he has the direct support of more than 50 MPs from his own party as well as coalition partners in the 111-seat Parliament.

The Black Wednesday riot claimed the lives of more than 20 people and the Chamber of Commerce is estimating the cost to businesses at more than one billion kina mark (NZ$ 440 million).

LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: ‘We want to see tangible changes, we want to see actual improvements happening in the economy’ – PNG correspondent Scott Waide

But despite the departure of several back benchers from the government’s ranks, Marape has been seen busy working to strengthen his coalition support and placate the public.

RNZ Pacific PNG correspondent Scott Waide said the deadly riots could not have come at a worse time for Marape, with the protection of new governments in PNG against leadership challenges coming to an end next month.

“A lot of people feel that he’s being supported, with the government ranks there’s not enough people talking about his removal. That’s the general sentiment that many people have expressed,” Waide said.

“He’s articulated a figure between 51 and 54. He’s basically satisfying coalition members so the defence minister has been changed, he’s tried to appease the public by removing Ian Ling-Stuckey as treasury minister and taken over.

“The United Resource Party that belongs to William Duma has been given a few portfolios, so a lot of political movement to shore up the numbers to satisfying the coalition partners and appease the public.”

Significant losses
The Port Moresby Chamber of Commerce said losses reported by business after the unrest two weeks ago now stands at 1.27 billion kina.

Chamber president Ian Tarutia said this figure could increase.

The National newspaper reports that the business group has compared the impact of the rioting and looting to a natural disaster and they want the government to respond with that in mind.

They have already sought an immediate capital injection of up to one billion kina.

Marape has promised a relief package for businesses, which would include a loan scheme, tax holiday and start-up capital.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

PNG Prime Minister Marape confident his coalition will stay intact

APR editor — Tue, 23 Jan 2024 03:18:09 +0000

RNZ Pacific

Papua New Guinea’s prime minister says he is confident he can retain power in the wake of the recent riots.

Prime Minister James Marape claims he has the direct support of more than 50 MPs from his own party as well as coalition partners in the 111-seat Parliament.

The Black Wednesday riot claimed the lives of more than 20 people and the Chamber of Commerce is estimating the cost to businesses at more than one billion kina mark (NZ$ 440 million).

LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: ‘We want to see tangible changes, we want to see actual improvements happening in the economy’ – PNG correspondent Scott Waide