Tuesday, 31 July 2018


Why would people rather believe in lies than the truth, especially when it's about their own country ? The answer is relatively simple. It's easier and more comfortable to believe the lies you were brought with rather than face the cold truth . The problem with that is, it will lead to nowhere good. Read about kkkanada's contributions to the nuclear arms race. And racism, for that matter.

Despite mythology Canada has long been a player in nuclear arms race

A house built on an imaginary foundation may be a “dream home” but it can never be lived in. The same holds true in politics.
One need not mythologize Canadian foreign policy history to oppose the Trudeau government’s egregious position on nuclear arms. In fact, “benevolent Canada” dogma weakens the critical consciousness needed to reject the policies of our foreign policy establishment.
In “Canada abandons proud history as ‘nuclear nag’ when most needed” prominent leftist author Linda McQuaig writes, “there have been impressive moments in our history when Canada, under previous Liberal governments, asserted itself as a feisty middle power by supporting, even occasionally leading, the push to get nuclear disarmament onto the global agenda.”
Nonsense. If one were to rank the world’s 200 countries in order of their contribution to the nuclear arms race Canada would fall just behind the nine nuclear armed states.
Uranium from Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories was used in the only two nuclear bombs ever dropped on a human population. In Northern Approaches: Canada and the Search for Peace James Eayrs notes, “the maiming of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a byproduct of Canadian uranium.”
Canada spent millions of dollars (tens of millions in today’s money) to help research the bombs’ development. Immediately after successfully developing the technology, the U.S. submitted its proposal to drop the bomb on Japan to the tri-state World War II Combined Policy Committee meeting, which included powerful Canadian minister C.D. Howe and a British official. Though there is no record of his comments at the July 4, 1945 meeting, apparently Howe supported the U.S. proposal. (Reflecting the racism in Canadian governing circles, in his (uncensored) diary King wrote: “It is fortunate that the use of the bomb should have been upon the Japanese rather than upon the white races of Europe.”)
Only a few years after the first one was built Ottawa allowed the U.S. to station nuclear weapons in Canada. According to John Clearwater in Canadian Nuclear Weapons: The Untold Story of Canada’s Cold War Arsenal, the first “nuclearweapons came to Canada as early as September 1950, when the USAF [US Air Force] temporarily stationed eleven ‘Fat Man’- style atomic bombs at Goose Bay Newfoundland.”
Canadian territory has also been used to test U.S. nuclear weapons. Beginning in 1952 Ottawa agreed to let the U.S. Strategic Air Command use Canadian air space for training flights of nuclear-armed aircraft. At the same time, reports Ron Finch in Exporting Danger: A History of the Canadian Nuclear Energy Export Programme, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission conducted military tests in Canada to circumvent oversight by American “watchdog committees.” As part of the agreement Ottawa committed to prevent any investigation into the military aspects of nuclear research in Canada.
Canadian Forces also carried nukes on foreign-stationed aircraft. At the height of Canadian nuclear deployments in the late 1960s the government had between 250 and 450 atomic bombs at its disposal in Europe. Based in Germany, the CF-104 Starfighter, for instance, operated without a gun and carried nothing but a thermal nuclear weapon.
During the past 70 years Canada has often been the world’s largest producer of uranium. According to Finch, by 1959 Canada had sold $1.5 billion worth of uranium to the U.S. bomb program (uranium was then Canada’s fourth biggest export). Ottawa has sold at least 29 nuclear reactors to foreign countries, which have often been financed with aid dollars. In the 1950s, for instance, Atomic Energy Canada Limited received large sums of money through the Colombo Aid Plan to help India set up a nuclear reactor.
Canada provided the reactor (called Cyrus) that India used to develop the bomb. Canada proceeded with its nuclear commitment to India despite signals from New Delhi that it was going to detonate a nuclear device. In The Politics of CANDU Exports Duane Bratt writes, “the Indians chose to use Cyrus for their supply of plutonium and not one of their other reactors, because Cyrus was not governed by any nuclear safeguards.”
On the diplomatic front, Ottawa has long supported its allies’ nuclear weapons. In August 1948 Canada voted against a UN call to ban nuclear weapons and in December 1954 voted to allow NATO forces to accept tactical nuclear weapons through the alliance’s policy called MC 48, “The Most Effective Pattern of NATO Military Strength for the Next Few Years.” According to Canada and UN Peacekeeping: Cold War by Other Means, 1945-1970, external minister Lester Pearson “was integral to the process by which MC 48 was accepted by NATO.”
In his 2006 book Just Dummies“: Cruise Missile Testing in Canada Clearwater writes, “the record clearly shows that Canada refuses to support any resolution that specifies immediate action on a comprehensive approach to ridding the world of nuclear weapons.” Since then the Harper/Trudeau regimes’ have not changed direction. The Harper government opposed a variety of initiatives to curtail nuclear weapons and, as McQuaig points out, the Trudeau government recently boycotted a UN effort to sign a treaty, supported by two thirds of 192 member states, to rid the world of nuclear weapons and prohibit the creation of new ones.
But, it’s not only nuclear policy. The Trudeau government’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia, attacks on Venezuela’s elected government, support for Rwanda’s brutal dictatorship, empowerment of international investors, indifference to miningcompanies abuses, military deployment on Russia’s border, support for Israel’sillegal occupation etc. reflect this country’s longstanding corporate-military-Western centric foreign policy. While Harper’s foreign policy was disastrous on many fronts, it was a previous Liberal government that instigated violence in Afghanistan and the most flagrant Canadian crime of this century by planningexecuting and consolidating the overthrow of democracy in Haiti.
Leftists need to stop seeking to ingratiate themselves with the liberal end of the foreign policy establishment by exaggerating rare historical moments when Ottawa apparently did right. Power relations — not morality — determine international policy and the benevolent Canada myth obscures the corporate and geostrategic interests that overwhelmingly drive policy. Progressive writers should focus on developing the critical consciousness needed to rein in the foreign policy establishment.
Only the truth will set us free to make this country a force for good in the world.

Monday, 30 July 2018


Just look at how wonderfully countries do when they are allies of the u.s. This is just fucking ideal, isn't it ?

HAITI: Five Days of Inspiring Rebellion Against Imperialist-Imposed Price Hikes... and the Crying Need for Revolution

 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

In early July, Haiti was rocked by five inspiring days of rebellion—the most powerful in decades—against the deadly stranglehold of imperialism, in league with the corrupt and subservient Haitian government, which are making life increasingly unbearable for the great majority of Haiti’s 10 million people.
The trigger was the decision of the government of President Jovenel Moïse to carry out the demands of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to withdraw government subsidies for fuel prices, which would drastically raise those prices. (The IMF is a U.S.-dominated political/financial institution that plays a key role in “managing” the economies of poor countries in the service of the big imperialist powers.) The IMF threatened to cut off $96 million in promised loans and grants if subsidies were not withdrawn. When they were, the cost of gas, diesel, and kerosene jumped by as much as 50 percent, gas prices went up to $4.75 a gallon, and at the same time the government increased the cost of public transportation by a similar amount.
Haiti’s people were already in a desperate situation, as a direct result of over 500 years of relentless plunder, exploitation, intervention, and invasion, first by European powers, and for the last 100 years, by the U.S. The minimum wage is $5 a day—or the cost of about a gallon of gas—and most people live on $3 a day or less. Haiti’s official unemployment rate is 14 percent, and youth unemployment is at least 36 percent. Millions are stalked by hunger and malnutrition and are now fighting for their very survival. In this context, the fuel hikes were the straw that broke the camel’s back.
The government arrogantly tried to get over by making the announcement on Friday, July 6, while the popular Brazilian soccer team was playing in the World Cup—they even purchased 3,000 big-screen televisions (which cost millions of dollars) and set up public viewings in the hope this would distract people.
It didn’t work; the viewing sites became focal points of boiling anger, and thousands took to the streets in neighborhoods around the capital and in cities, suburbs, and towns across Haiti. In Petionville, Jérémie, Petit-Goâve, Cap-Haïtien, Jacmel, Gonaïves, and in the agricultural Artibonite Valley, burning barricades went up in the streets, blocking roads to airports and upscale neighborhoods. Symbols of wealth and power were attacked—luxury hotels, car dealerships, and tax offices—while small businesses were spared. In Gonaïves and in the capital’s huge working-class Carrefour area, two police stations were burned to the ground. Many protesters were armed with machetes; in some cities shots were fired.
As this volcano of outrage erupted, the government tried to retreat, announcing the—temporary—withdrawal of the rate increases just 14 hours after they were declared. It did no good. Protests continued on Saturday, now calling for the fall of the government. U.S. airlines canceled all flights to Haiti, the U.S. embassy ordered “non-essential” employees to leave, and the reactionary government of the neighboring Dominican Republic—which has a large population of Haitian and Haitian-Dominican people who came there to cut sugar cane—mobilized 5,000 troops to the border, fearful that the contagion would spread.
On Sunday, unions and popular organizations called for a general strike, and on Monday and Tuesday the capital and much of the rest of the country were shut down. Only on Wednesday—after five days of upheaval—did protests ebb, while the tension and anger remained. On Saturday, July 14, Prime Minister Guy Lafontant was forced to resign, in an effort to stabilize the crisis and save the Moïse government as a whole. However, strikingly, the IMF is continuing to insist that the government go ahead with the price increases, but do it in a more gradual way, and combine it with transportation vouchers for the poor in hopes of preventing further rebellions.
Given Haiti’s history of resistance and rebellion, its potential to be a tinderbox, and its proximity to U.S. shores, the U.S., in concert with international institutions like the IMF, has acted to ensure a measure of stability in Haiti within an overall context of subordination to the U.S. and imperialism. At times this has meant military invasions and support of brutal dictatorships, and at other times, emergency loans and concessions. These larger geostrategic interests and needs overall influence their response to events in Haiti.

IMF “Model” of Development

In the eyes of the IMF, Haiti must implement the price hikes in order to show itself to be a “reliable partner” to international capital, “fiscally responsible,” willing and able to properly handle and make payments on the loans and investments that keep it afloat.
But it is the IMF that has played the dominant role for decades in shaping a Haitian economy that is completely dependent on international capital and addicted to loans in order for the government and economy to even function. (Major natural disasters like the earthquake of 2010 and the hurricanes of 2016 and 2017 have also contributed to this.)
Through the 1970s, Haiti, though poor, produced 80 percent of its own food, with farms marketing staple foods like rice, as well as corn and sorghum. This self-sufficiency was made possible by high tariffs on imported food; the tariffs provided a limited measure of protection against foreign competition. But in 1995, under tremendous pressure, Haiti implemented the IMF’s “structural adjustment program,” which all but eliminated the tariffs. At the same time, the U.S. flooded Haitian markets with U.S.-grown rice that could be sold cheaply because its production was subsidized by the U.S. government.
The rationale was “the international market will provide cheap rice for Haiti’s people,” which in the short term was true. But the overall result was the devastation of Haiti’s agricultural economy, which at that time employed the majority of Haitians. Haitian rice could not compete with the cheap imports, and large numbers of farmers were bankrupted, lost their land, and flooded into the cities seeking work. Unemployment was driven up, poverty deepened, and Haiti now imports 80 percent of its food, which means it must have foreign currency in order for its population to have food.
And the influx of displaced peasants into the cities was in turn fuel for anotherIMF/U.S. “solution”—setting up garment factories and other manufacturing plants that were subsidiaries to and fed into international production chains. Haiti’s “draw” for such investment was the poverty and desperation of its workers who were willing to work like slaves for a few dollars a day, with which they must feed not only themselves but other people close to them who are unemployed. But for decades the U.S. has opposed any increase in the minimum wage, arguing that if workers were paid even six dollars a day, manufacturers would close up shop and go elsewhere. So while on the one hand, these factories produce goods to be sold abroad, and profits for their owners, the main thing they “produce” for Haiti is... more poverty!
Yet to the imperialists and the IMF, the road forward is to draw yet more such foreign investment, in industry, in agriculture, in tourism.
But for Haiti to develop in this way, to be “inviting” and “a good investment,” certain things have to be done—ports and roads have to be built; enclave neighborhoods and business districts have to be built up to provide “First World” amenities to foreign and Haitian elites running all this; reliable electricity and water must be provided; political and economic stability must be maintained.
And these things in turn require large amounts of capital outlay that have to be covered through loans—loans to build infrastructure; loans to maintain the police and army to repress the people; loans to pay for schools and other social services to prepare, sustain, and pacify the workforce. And to get those loans, the government has to prove to those who provide them—international banks, investors, imperialist governments, and “donor” organizations like the World Bank—that it will do whatever it takes to pay them back, no matter how much suffering this may entail, and that it can “handle” the political blowback.
And that brings us back to the fuel price hikes. The IMF is demanding that the population be squeezed in order to improve the government’s financial stability so that more loans can be made, more debt incurred and the population squeezed even further. As Haiti’s minister of finance put it after the rebellion broke out, “It’s difficult for you to be asking your international partners to give you budgetary assistance or support and at the same time you have revenue that you are not capturing.”

Another Model

There is no way around this within the framework of capitalism and imperialism. As Philip Alston, a UN official who is somewhat sympathetic to the suffering of the impoverished masses, put it: “The one thing that is not a real option for a relatively powerless country like Haiti is to say ‘IMF go to hell.’ The IMF remains the single most powerful player in all of these negotiations. It sends the signals to all the others in the international community.” In other words, if an oppressed country doesn’t meet the IMF’s demands, no loans, no grants, no investments... and no way for a capitalist economy to function.
This is why revolution—and specifically, communist-led revolution (which in today’s world means revolution based on the new synthesis of communism developed by Bob Avakian, BA)—is the only way out of the hell that the imperialists have created in Haiti, breaking imperialism's shackles on Haiti and opening the possibility of a radically different society and system aiming towards a world free of all exploitation and oppression, and all the other needless horrors caused by the capitalist-imperialist system.
In 2011, BA issued a statement on the mass uprising in Egypt (also available in French) that had brought down the hated Mubarak dictatorship there. In this statement, while Avakian extended “heartfelt support and encouragement to the millions who have risen up,” he drew on the crucial historical experience of the Russian Revolution—the first communist revolution, which took place in 1917 and established a liberating power that lasted for almost 40 years. He pointed out that what was new and world-historic about that revolution was:
[T]here was a core of leadership, communist leadership, that had a clear, scientifically grounded, understanding of the nature of not just this or that ruthless despot but of the whole oppressive system—and of the need to continue the revolutionary struggle not just to force a particular ruler from office but to abolish that whole system and replace it with one that would really embody and give life to the freedom and the most fundamental interests of the people, in striving to abolish all oppression and exploitation.
And BA pointed out that even though that revolution was ultimately reversed and Russia is now a capitalist and imperialist power, this crucial lesson remains valid:
When people in their masses, in their millions, finally break free of the constraints that have kept them from rising up against their oppressors and tormentors, then whether or not their heroic struggle and sacrifice will really lead to a fundamental change, moving toward the abolition of all exploitation and oppression, depends on whether or not there is a leadership, communist leadership, that has the necessary scientific understanding and method, and on that basis can develop the necessary strategic approach and the influence and organized ties among growing numbers of the people, in order to lead the uprising of the people, through all the twists and turns, to the goal of a real, revolutionary transformation of society, in accordance with the fundamental interests of the people.
Given this, BA stressed:
[W]hen people massively break with the “normal routine” and the tightly woven chains of oppressive relations in which they are usually entrapped and by which they are heavily weighed down—when they break through and rise up in their millions—that is a crucial time for communist organization to further develop its ties with those masses, strengthening its ranks and its ability to lead. Or, if such communist organization does not yet exist, or exists only in isolated fragments, this is a crucial time for communist organization to be forged and developed, to take up the challenge of studying and applying communist theory, in a living way, in the midst of this tumultuous situation, and to strive to continually develop ties with, to influence and to ultimately lead growing numbers of the masses in the direction of the revolution that represents their fundamental and highest interests, the communist revolution.
Crucially, he goes on to say:
In my writings and talks, in Communism: The Beginning of a New Stage, a Manifesto from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, and in other major documents of our Party, we have striven to draw as deeply and fully as possible the critical lessons from the historical experience of the communist revolution and the socialist societies it has brought into being—the very real and great achievements, and the serious errors and setbacks—and to learn from the broader experience of human society and its historical development, in order to contribute all we can to the advance of the revolutionary struggle and the emancipation of oppressed people throughout the world. As the Constitution of our Party states:
The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA has taken the responsibility to lead revolution in the U.S., the belly of the imperialist beast, as its principal share of the world revolution and the ultimate aim of communism....
The emancipation of all humanity: this, and nothing less than this, is our goal. There is no greater cause, no greater purpose to which to dedicate our lives.
The July uprising in Haiti was heroic and determined, and it won a significant victory. But its greatest importance is that it shows both the potential and the necessity for a powerful revolutionary force to arise in and utterly transform Haiti... if and as the necessary communist leadership emerges to forge and guide that revolutionary process. Forging that leadership is the most essential task of all those who yearn and dream of an end to the life-stealing oppression of the Haitian people, and of people all over the world.

Thousands in Haiti took to the streets to protest the enormous jump in the cost of gas when Haiti’s president decided to meet the demands of the IMF to withdraw government subsidies for fuel. (Photo: AP)
Imperialism means huge monopolies and financial institutions controlling the economies and the political systems—and the lives of people—not just in one country but all over the world. Imperialism means parasitic exploiters who oppress hundreds of millions of people and condemn them to untold misery; parasitic financiers who can cause millions to starve just by pressing a computer key and thereby shifting vast amounts of wealth from one place to another. Imperialism means war—war to put down the resistance and rebellion of the oppressed, and war between rival imperialist states—it means the leaders of these states can condemn humanity to unbelievable devastation, perhaps even total annihilation, with the push of a button.
Imperialism is capitalism at the stage where its basic contradictions have been raised to tremendously explosive levels. But imperialism also means that there will be revolution—the oppressed rising up to overthrow their exploiters and tormentors—and that this revolution will be a worldwide struggle to sweep away the global monster, imperialism.
Bob Avakian, BAsics 1:6
Let’s get down to basics: We need a revolution. Anything else, in the final analysis, is bullshit.
Now, that doesn’t mean we don’t unite with people in all sorts of struggles short of revolution. We definitely need to do that. But the proffering of any other solution to these monumental and monstrous problems and outrages is ridiculous, frankly. And we need to be taking the offensive and mobilizing increasing numbers of masses to cut through this shit and bring to the fore what really is the solution to this, and to answer the questions and, yes, the accusations that come forth in response to this, while deepening our scientific basis for being able to do this. And the point is: not only do we need to be doing this, but we need to be bringing forward, unleashing and leading, and enabling increasing numbers of the masses to do this. They need to be inspired, not just with a general idea of revolution, but with a deepening understanding, a scientific grounding, as to why and how revolution really is the answer to all of this.
Bob Avakian, BAsics 3:1

Sunday, 29 July 2018


This is how the u.s.a. became such a leader for human rights, freedom and democracy, and also shows what a great liberator abraham lincoln was.

American Crime

Case #37: December 26, 1862: The Lynching of 38 Dakota Men―The Largest Mass Execution in U.S. History

 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

Bob Avakian has written that one of three things that has "to happen in order for there to be real and lasting change for the better: People have to fully confront the actual history of this country and its role in the world up to today, and the terrible consequences of this." (See "3 Things that have to happen in order for there to be real and lasting change for the better.")
In that light, and in that spirit, "American Crime" is a regular feature of revcom.us. Each installment will focus on one of the 100 worst crimes committed by the U.S. rulers—out of countless bloody crimes they have carried out against people around the world, from the founding of the U.S. to the present day.
American Crime

See all the articles in this series.


On December 26, 1862, in the midst of the U.S. Civil War (April 1861-May 1865), and in the same week that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, President Abraham Lincoln ordered 38 Dakota Santee Sioux men sent to the gallows in Mankato, Minnesota. They were hooded and hanged simultaneously from a single scaffold, surrounded by 1,500 Union troops and a howling lynch mob of 4,000 white settlers. It was the largest mass execution in U.S. history.
The 38 had been taken prisoner after the Dakota people rose up against the U.S. government on August 17 in the Dakota Uprising of 1862. The Dakota people had been under relentless assault for 10 years—with deceitful and broken treaties, their reservations encroached on, their annuities unpaid, promised goods late or never delivered, price gouging and other abuses by the U.S. government and their agents. In 1858, the government took half the Dakota people’s reservation and opened it to white settlement. During the 1850s, over 160,000 settlers flooded the area, seizing and clearing the Native Dakota people’s lands to the point where their hunting and fishing virtually ended and starvation loomed.
On August 15, when half-starved Dakota people asked for food from a well-stocked warehouse, the government food trader Andrew Jackson Myrick replied: “[I]f they are hungry, let them eat grass or their own dung,” which was cited by Dakota Chief Little Crow as the last straw in provoking the Dakota to revolt. Myrick was one of the first killed and his body found with his mouth stuffed with grass. The uprising was sparked off when four starving Dakota youths, on an egg-stealing foray, impulsively killed five white settlers.
The 38 condemned men were told of their impending deaths on December 22 while shackled in pairs and bolted to the prison floor. They were among the 303 condemned to die in a mass trial of 392 Dakota men. Each defendant had five to 10 minutes in which to defend himself before a military court. On one day alone, 40 were tried, charged, and convicted for “murder and outrages.” A law professor later noted: “Most of them did not speak English. They did not even know they were being tried for crimes. Most also did not have counsel defending them.” Little evidence of their “crimes” existed. So the U.S. government used some defendants, who faced charges and execution themselves, to testify against other Dakotas in multiple trials. One such defendant-turned-witness provided evidence in 55 cases.
After the mass lynching, the bodies of the Dakotas were thrown into a mass grave. It was dug up that night, and the bodies were distributed to doctors for use as medical cadavers. Later, small boxes supposedly containing skin removed from the bodies were sold in Mankato.
There was never an official count of the settlers killed in this war. Accounts of the death toll in the 37 days of fighting vary widely, from 77 U.S. government troops, 29 citizen-soldiers or militia, and 300-800 settlers as well as some 29-150 Dakota warriors. After the uprising, more than 1,600 Dakota men, women, and children were exiled to a concentration camp on Pike Island, Minnesota, where living conditions were so bad that infections killed more than 300. In April 1863, the U.S. Congress abolished the Dakota reservation, declared all prior treaties with the Dakota null and void, and expelled the Dakota people completely from Minnesota. To this end, a $25 bounty was put on any Dakota found free within the boundaries of the state. U.S. General Oscar Malmros offered a bounty of $200 to independent scouts for each Dakota Sioux scalp.
Little Crow escaped capture until July 3, 1863, when he and his son left their hidden camping spot to pick raspberries. Two settlers shot and killed Little Crow. His body was dragged down the main street of Hutchinson and firecrackers were put in his nose and ears. His scalp, skull, and remains were put on display in St. Paul, Minnesota, until 1971. Two other Dakota leaders, Little Six and Medicine Bottle, had escaped to Canada but were captured, drugged, returned to the U.S., and hung in 1865.


President Abraham Lincoln (March 1861-April 1865). Lincoln oversaw the breaking of treaties and the robbing of the Dakotas and other Native peoples of their land, livelihood, and often their lives. And he sent troops to crush their resistance. Lincoln made clear his white supremacist views. Speaking in February 1860, he asked “[W]hy did Yankees almost instantly discover gold in California, which had been trodden upon and overlooked by Indians and Mexican greasers for centuries?” He also argued that phonetic writing was what separated whites from “savages,” and that this ability had given rise to the fruits of civilization—government, culture, etc. In 1863, Lincoln said: “Although we are now engaged in a great war between one another, we are not, as a race, so much disposed to fight and kill one another as our red brethren.”
U.S. troops and their commanders who were sent to put down the Dakota uprising. Companies led by Capt. Joseph F. Bean, Capt. David D. Lloyd, Capt. Calvin Potter, Capt. Mark Hendrickand elements of the 5th and 6th Iowa Militia. Col. Henry Sibley played a pivotal role in the 1851 treaty negotiations that cheated the Dakota of their land, and then led U.S. troops to suppress their 1862 uprising. Sibley also oversaw the military tribunal that convicted the 38 as well as the punitive expeditions against the Dakota of 1863. Gen. John Pope was sent by Lincoln to command the 3rd, 4th, 9th, and 10th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Regiments and openly stated: “It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. They are to be treated as maniacs and wild beasts.”
Minnesota Governor Alexander Ramsey exiled the entire Dakota Santee people, offered bounty for their scalps, and said: “The Sioux Indian must be exterminated or driven forever beyond the borders of the State. The public safety imperatively requires it. Justice calls for it. The blood of the murdered cries to heaven for vengeance.”
Thomas Galbraith, Andrew Myrick, and other traders who withheld cash payments, food, and other trade goods owed to the Dakota people causing their increasing hunger, hardship, and anger.
The New York Times sensationalized stories of how settlers died and wrote racist depictions of the Dakota prisoners, fueling mass hysteria and bloodlust: “It was a sad, a sickening sight, to see that group of miserable dirty savages, chained to the floor, and awaiting with apparent unconcern for the terrible fate....”


The Dakota men were executed for the killing of innocent white settlers, and Lincoln was being lenient by hanging only 38 of the 303 who were tried and condemned to death by the military court.


The Dakota Uprising was a just uprising and one of many by various Native tribes throughout the U.S. against the genocide being committed against them by the U.S. government and white settlers. During the 1860s, many Native peoples like the Dakotas were compelled to rise up by years of exploitation and oppression, including imminent starvation.
Lincoln explained to the U.S. Senate: “Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I ordered a careful examination of the records of the trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guilty of violating females.” Given only two men were found guilty of rape, he expanded the criteria to include those who had taken part in “massacres” of civilians rather than just “battles.” In contrast, Lincoln did not indict or execute any Confederate soldiers for such crimes.
It also may have been important to make an example of the Dakota people and their uprising because, despite having few fighting forces, little equipment like canons, and being outmatched in guns and ammunition, they fought very effectively against the U.S. military. For example, U.S. forces suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Birch Coulee on September 2, 1862, where a three-hour firefight ended with 13 U.S. soldiers dead and 47 wounded, while only two Dakota warriors were killed.
During this period, the Union, representing the interests of the capitalist class centered in the North, was waging the Civil War. At the same time, railroads were being built across the country and settlements vastly expanded. The robbery of the huge land mass from coast to coast occupied by the many Native tribes, the defeat of any resistance to this historic colonial expansion, and the outright genocide carried out against Native peoples were foundational to the growth and development of U.S. capitalism and the later rise of the U.S. empire.

Bury My Heat at Wounded Knee, An Indian History of the American West by Dee Brown, Chapter 3, “Little Crow’s War,” Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970
Dakota War of 1862, Wikipedia
Sham Trials: The Traumatic Truth of What Happened to the Dakota 38,” by Konnie LeMay, Indian Country Today, December 26, 2015
The Dakota Conflict, documentary aired January 27, 1993, produced by KTCA, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Wednesday, 25 July 2018


If you think kkkanada is soooo different than the u.s., just check the foreign policy. Smarmy little fuck trudeau will follow trump and the amerikkkans, no matter how much he pretends to not want to.

Trudeau’s broken promise part of build-up to war against Iran

Another Liberal broken promise. Before becoming prime minister, Justin Trudeau promised to re-engage with Iran. His government has failed to do so and is beginning to echo the warmongers in Washington and Tel Aviv.
I would hope that Canada would be able to reopen its mission [in Tehran],” Trudeau told the CBC in June 2015. “I’m fairly certain that there are ways to re-engage [Iran],” he said.
Nearly three years into their mandate the Liberals haven’t restarted diplomatic relations with Iran. Nor has Trudeau removed that country from Canada’s state sponsor of terrorism list (Syria is the only other country on the list).
Numerous Canadian sanctions targeting Iran remain and Ottawa continues to present a yearly UN resolution critical of the human rights situation in Iran. Similarly, Liberal MPs participate in the annual “Iran Accountability Week” on Parliament Hill, which showcases individuals such as Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which helped kill the nucleardeal and is pushing harsh sanctions against any country doing business with Iran.
Dubowitz is a senior research fellow at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs. In 2015 Global Affairs Canada gave the Munk School’s Digital Public Square $9 million to expand an anti-Iranian initiative, which the Trudeau government appears to have maintained.
Trudeau has continued important components of the Stephen Harper government’s “low-level war against Iran”. One major exception had been on the rhetorical front, but that’s changing. In January foreign minister Chrystia Freeland put out a statement saying, “Canada is deeply troubled by the recent deaths and detentions of protesters in Iran” and two months ago tweeted, “Our government is committed to holding Iran to account for its violations of human and democratic rights.” Last month Liberal parliamentarians supported a Conservative MP’s private member’s motion that “strongly condemns the current regime in Iran for its ongoing sponsorship of terrorism around the world, including instigating violent attacks on the Gaza border.” In effect, the resolution makes Iran responsible for Israel killing Palestinians peacefully protesting the US Jerusalem embassy move, siege of Gaza and historic theft of their land. The motion also called on Canada to “immediately cease any and all negotiations or discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran to restore diplomatic relations” and to make the highly provocative move of listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity.
The Liberals hardline on Iran coincides with Trump withdrawing from the “p5+1 nuclear deal” with Iran and re-imposing tough new sanctions. Now, Washington is threatening to sanction any country that buys Iranian oil. (If the US succeeds Tehran says it will seek to block oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz.)
The US and Israel recently created a “working group” to foment internal protests in Iran. (Demonstrating once again the hypocrisy of US complaints about other countries interfering in its elections.) According to Axios, “Israel and the United States formed a joint working group a few months ago that is focused on internal efforts to encourage protests within Iran and pressure the country’s government.” In May the Washington Free Beacon reported on a three-page paper discussed by the US National Security Council to spark regime change in Iran.
Three weeks ago Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, called for regime change at a National Council of Resistance of Iran conference in Paris. (Harperalso spoke at an event led by the Mujahedin-e Khalq, a cultish groupthat was previously deemed to be a terrorist organization.) Previously Giuliani said, “we got a president who is tough, who does not listen to the people who are naysayers, and a president who is committed to regime change [in Iran].” (In “Follow The Money: Three Billionaires Paved Way For Trump’s Iran Deal Withdrawal” Eli Clifton describes the role of arch Zionist donors, notably casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, in shaping US Iran policy.)
In April Trump appointed John Bolton as his national security advisor. An important proponent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bolton has called for bombing Iran, penning an op-ed in the New York Times headlined “To StopIran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran”.
By breaking his promise to restart diplomatic relations with Iran Trudeau has enabled US-Israeli hawks. In taking up their rhetoric the Liberal Party is further empowering those hurtling towards a major conflict. Shame.
Comments Offon Trudeau’s broken promise part of build-up to war against Iran
Filed under Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy

Tuesday, 24 July 2018


  The imperialists will never stop their warmongering and invasions of other countries until their doom.   How much longer will people keep buying their " good guys bad guys " rhetoric and bullshit ? They are lying to you.  Wake the fuck up.


Alert: U.S. Ratchets Up War Threats Against Iran

 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

On Sunday night, July 22, the Trump/Pence regime ratcheted up its gangster threats against Iran to new, even more dangerous levels. In response to the Iranian regime’s warning against the U.S.’s moves toward war, Trump tweeted out that Iran would “SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE.” Trump was threatening Iran and its 80 million people with war and mass murder. This came hours after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo compared Iran’s Islamic Republic to the “Mafia” and threatened a “pressure campaign” against it.
Iran’s regime is repressive and reactionary. But who has been—and is—the world’s number one oppressor, its biggest war monger, mass murderer, and promoter of ignorance and repression? Who is the number one threat to the future of humanity? The United States of America!
The U.S. imperialists have oceans of Iranian blood on their hands. In 1953, the CIA overthrew Iran’s nationalist government and installed a barbaric puppet—the Shah—who ruled with an iron fist for two and a half decades, arresting, murdering, and torturing opponents. From 1980-88, America fueled a war of bloody slaughter between Iran and Iraq—to weaken both—which left a million dead or wounded. This included tens of thousands of Iranians killed by Iraqi gas attacks that the U.S. directed. In 1988, the U.S. warship Vincennes “accidentally” shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing all 290 passengers and crew on board.
And now, once again America is threatening to unleash war and spill even more blood. In May, the Trump/Pence regime took the belligerent step of unilaterally pulling out of the nuclear deal that the U.S. (and other world powers) negotiated with Iran in 2015. Since then, the Trump/Pence regime has been moving to strangle Iran’s economy with tighter sanctions—bringing great hardship to the masses of people in Iran—and launched a campaign to foment “unrest” in Iran. In the face of this, Iran’s president warned the U.S. against starting a war—and Trump with his all-caps tweet, claimed it was Iran that was threatening the U.S.!
No! U.S. imperialism is the most aggressive, predatory “Mafia” power on the face of the Earth. The U.S.—with a monstrous fascist regime at the helm—isn’t targeting Iran to liberate anyone; it’s targeting Iran to strengthen its own gangster death grip on the Middle East and the planet. As Bob Avakian has said, “These imperialists make the Godfather look like Mary Poppins.” (BAsics 1:7)
What we pointed out in the wake of Trump’s summit with Putin also applies to ramped-up threats against Iran: “These actions of Trump are in fact extremely dangerous for the masses of people, here and worldwide. The logic of Trump’s foreign policy increases the likelihood of war, including catastrophic nuclear war.”
The U.S. war threats against Iran must be broadly condemned and actively resisted, as part of a movement to actually drive out the Trump/Pence regime through massive, sustained, nonviolent political protest before they can carry out even greater horrors against humanity than they already have. The heightened possibility of a U.S. war on Iran also underscores, once again, the urgency of organizing for an actual revolution aimed at overthrowing this capitalist-imperialist system, which spawns endless wars and carries out towering crimes against humanity—when the necessary conditions (a revolutionary situation and a revolutionary people in the millions) have been brought into being, as set forth in HOW WE CAN WIN—How We Can Really Make Revolution.
STOP Wars of Empire, Armies of Occupation, and Crimes Against Humanity!

Monday, 23 July 2018


It's time to take a stand. Either you're with the motherfuckers doing the oppressing and killing, both domestically and internationally, or you're against slavery in all if it's forms. Read this.

In the Week Since Chicago Police Killed Harith “Snoop” Augustus:

Defiance Against the Pigs…and People Drawn to the Revolution Club Organizing Center

From the Revolution Club:

 | Revolution Newspaper | revcom.us

Saturday, July 14, Chicago pigs gun down another Black brother, Harith Augustus, known by many as Snoop. Snoop was murdered in a South Side neighborhood, three blocks from the Revolution Club Organizing Center, and he worked at a barber shop three buildings down from the center.
The Revolution Club had, earlier in the day, been at that intersection organizing and recruiting people into the revolution. As the club was en route to another event, we immediately turned around and headed to the scene, where the masses had already gathered in anger of the murder.
In front of the organizing center, we put out an A-frame with HWCW (HOW WE CAN WIN—How We Can Really Make Revolution) on one side and the poster for Bob Avakian’s talk (THE TRUMP/PENCE REGIME MUST GO! In The Name of Humanity, We REFUSE To Accept a Fascist America, A Better World IS Possible) on the other, as well as a poster of Pigs Kill Again! How Many More Lives Will Be Taken By This System? We Need REVOLUTION—NOTHING LESS! with the pictures of Korryn Gaines and Paul O’Neal on it, two young people killed by police within days of each other in 2016. Paul O’Neal was murdered just blocks away from where Snoop was killed. The role of the police poster (BAsics 1:24) was posted on a window and a table with a stack of HOW WE CAN WIN pamphlets.
The murder of Snoop was on everyone’s lips. You could hear people passing by talking about having just got a haircut by him, and having been his customer. People spoke in outrage. Youth who normally hang outside the center, expressed outrage and being tired of it all and were open to discussion, even with disagreement of the solution. One male youth was so infuriated, he was putting forward revenge as the solution. A challenge was put forward about the need to overthrow the system but he was clearly too enraged for an ideological struggle... right then. This was the mood of people—a visceral anger!
As the protest erupted, most of the club went out to join; a few of us stayed back to keep organizing. Passersby expressed anger, despair, disbelief, and a sense of “this has to stop.” A couple who weren’t aware of the center even though they had lived in the area for years were attracted by the signs outside. They were welcomed inside and a discussion about HWCW ensued. Conversation with the masses was mostly outside due to the hot weather and people didn’t want to just sit down and talk. It was a different mood where the masses had enough. People were in and out of the protest.
In the week after the police killed Snoop on July 14 on the South Side of Chicago, the Revolution Club has continued to get out in the neighborhood with the banner “This System Cannot Be REFORMED, It Needs to Be OVERTHROWN” and a bullhorn to organize people into the revolution. The people hanging out in the street, who sometimes put forward that they need to take care of themselves first, are now more open to talking about revolution, even if in brief conversations. People continue to express anger over the shooting. The defiance that you saw in the streets right after the pigs shot Snoop dead hasn’t gone away. There are people walking down the street playing Public Enemy’s cover of “Fuck the Police” out of their speakers—other people playing it out of their cars.
There’s been different demonstrations by different forces, some in the neighborhood, some outside of the neighborhood. There was one march that went to Mayor Emanuel’s house on Thursday, around 200 people according to news reports, demanding answers about the police killing of Snoop.
A vigil for Snoop was held on Wednesday in front of the barber shop where he worked. The Revolution Club attended the vigil and presented a bouquet of flowers with a poster card of BAsics 1:13 inside the card. A group of people then headed to the intersection where Snoop was gunned down to protest with linked arms.
The day after the vigil, Maya from the Revolution Club had a court hearing on her case, stemming from her totally unjust arrest in March at the University of Chicago for participating in 11 minutes of silence in support of the 11 million undocumented immigrants. The judge threatened to revoke the bail and held her in custody. The bond was reinstated due to the persistence of the attorneys.
That same day, three people were arrested at the intersection close to the scene of where the pigs murdered Snoop. The pigs were fucking with people and ended up jumping on somebody and beating them. The people in the neighborhood were in the face of the police, yelling at them—like, “we’re not letting this happen again.” The pigs got in the paddy wagons and got out of there pretty quickly.
The Revolution Club Organizing Center continues to draw people. People stop by the center or call club members to find out about future plans. Youth and adults have come in the office wanting to know the solution to police murdering Black people, and engaging in serious conversations about what is the problem and what is the actual solution. People are confronted with the seriousness of the fact that we do have a plan and the leadership for a revolution to overthrow the system—and are confronted with what will they do with their life.
There are people who are more consciously stepping in with the movement for revolution, but then there’s a broader sense that “the neighborhood is with you.” Obviously it’s not that literally everyone in the neighborhood is with this—but there’s a sense of more people seeing the center as “their place.” People are getting introduced to Bob Avakian, the leader of the revolution, through clips from the film of BA’s talk REVOLUTION—NOTHING LESS! and the “BA through the years” clip and, of course, discussion off of the pamphlet How We Can Win—How We Can Really Make Revolution. One young woman who put on the BA Speaks: REVOLUTION—NOTHING LESS! T-shirt during the first day of protest after Snoop’s murder was invited to the center and saw a clip from the film (“This System Has No Future for the Youth... But the Revolution Does“). She had a visceral, emotional reaction to the clip. She poured out her own experience with being a female, about oppressive family relations, and police brutality.
There has been heavy presence of pigs in the community harassing the masses—while at the same time Black cops are out there trying to play “Officer Friendly.” Pig cars have parked in front or by the center, and when Club members have been out organizing, there has been constant presence of pig vehicles.
As people begin to check out the solution for an actual revolution and raising their heads, some people, and other forces, don’t want the upheaval of revolution. Some people have made unprincipled bullshit attacks and slanders against the revolution. In response to these attacks and slanders, the Club put out “A message from the Revolution Club Chicago: It was right to stand up to the murdering pigs—What we need to do now is build the revolution we need to put an END to this shit.” The Club has been taking this message out and also postering it on poles and on bus stops. Pigs were seen tearing the flyer immediately afterwards. People came by to let the Club know about what the pigs had done and to find out more about the revolution.