Citizenry, Inc.: The Ambiguous, Euphemistic Language of Corporate America and its Impact on Democracy

By Jesse Hamilton

Ambiguous, euphemistic language is common in corporate, bureaucratic environments and is used for a variety of rational reasons. This type of language may lead to ignorance among those who use it and those who consume it. As it becomes more prevalent in American society, ambiguous, euphemistic language is leading to a state where the lines between knowledge and ignorance are blurred. This paper explores how ambiguous, euphemistic language: 1) is used in corporate, bureaucratic settings and why it is accepted; 2) could be a cause of ignorance among those who create and consume it; and 3) has implications for the acquisition and transfer of knowledge in broader society.

Ignorance is often thought of as a barrier to the consolidation of power, so it would stand to reason that organizations, especially those with profit motives, are incentivized to avoid ignorance and pursue knowledge. However, as Linsey McCoy explains, "Ignorance serves as a productive asset, helping individuals and institutions to command resources, deny liability in the aftermath of crises, and to assert expertise in the face of unpredictable outcomes" (McGoey, 553).

In the 19th and 20th centuries, as the United States shifted from an agrarian society to an industrialized society, Americans have not only become more exposed to business culture and its language, but have also become dependent on it for their livelihood. Additionally, individuals are directly and indirectly exposed to the sort of ambiguous, euphemistic language commonly used in business settings in a variety of ways - at work, within social circles, through advertising, from public statements issued from business leaders to media organizations, and from public relations teams. Finally, as business leaders begin to assume more prominent roles in public office within federal, state, and local governments, the ambiguous, euphemistic language which comes naturally to them has begun to change the way elected and appointed officials communicate with the public. Put simply, the language of corporations seems to have permeated broader society, and this has implications for knowledge and ignorance in American society.

What is ambiguous, euphemistic language?

The language of business which will be addressed in this paper consists of two distinct parts which can be used independently or in combination: ambiguity and euphemisms. Ambiguous language is a powerful tool in business because it has the advantage of being interpreted in different ways, by different individuals/groups, at different times, both in the present and in the future. As Jackall notes, "The indirect and ambiguous linguistic frameworks that managers employ in public situations typify the symbolic complexity of the corporation" and serves as "a tentative way of communicating that reflects the peculiarly chancy and fluid character of their world." Basically, managers have learned that the best way to deal with the volatile nature of business, which is mainly driven by exogenous economic factors, is to communicate with ambiguity.

Euphemisms - "the substitution of an agreeable or inoffensive expression for one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant" - are used as well, for reasons that will be discussed in-depth in Section IV.

Why is ambiguity used?

Ambiguity is a powerful tool that is used to manage and/or avoid different types of risks inherent with a career at large, American corporations, and family businesses (Carmon, 87). All of the risks discussed in this section are related to uncertainty about the future. How ambiguity is used in corporate settings is important as it has implications for how it can be successfully applied in other American institutions; for example, in government and politics.

Avoidance of decision making

The future is uncertain, therefore managers are inclined to hedge their statements and actions against unforeseen events and outcomes. The simplest way to achieve this is through the use of ambiguous language and avoidance of making decisions. A manager interviewed by Jackall describes the avoidance of decision making: "The basic principles of decision making in this organization and probably any organization are: (1) avoid making any decision if at all possible; (2) if a decision has to be made, involve as many people as you can so that, if things go south, you're able to point in as many directions as possible" (Jackall). Given that the goals of a business are often very ambiguous and amorphous, by not committing to specific details, managers can pass responsibility (and therefore accountability) to subordinates, so that if goals are not achieved or laws are broken, managers reduce the risk that they themselves will be held accountable by their superiors and/or courts.

Organizational Contingency

Power within the hierarchy of a corporation is volatile, with managers regularly falling in and out of favor. As Jackall notes, "First of all, at the psychological level, managers have an acute sense of organizational contingency. Because of the interlocking ties between people, they know that a shake-up at or near the top of a hierarchy can trigger a widespread upheaval, bringing in its wake startling reversals of fortune, good and bad, throughout the structure" (Jackall). Therefore, it is rational for those who aspire to move up in the ranks to create allies and avoid creating enemies. After all, one never knows who will be handed a position of authority next. One way to achieve this is through providing ambiguous feedback (perhaps laced with euphemisms to soften the message) to superiors, peers, and subordinates alike. When feedback is provided in this way, the interpretation is left to the receiver, a strategy which will be discussed again in Section VII.

Finally, it should be noted that in an age where everything is filmed or recorded, and where bits can be combined and commingled (Negroponte, 18), ambiguity is an important defense against being undeniably connected to concrete statements and/or positions.

Why are euphemisms used?

Jackall notes that "managers' public language is, more than anything else, euphemistic" however "for the most part, euphemistic language is not used with the intent to deceive. Managers past a certain point, as suggested earlier, are assumed to be "maze-bright" and able to "read between the lines" of a conversation or a memorandum and to distinguish accurately suggestions from directives, inquiries from investigations, and bluffs from threats" (Jackall). Additionally, Jackall points out that euphemistic language is used internally for purposes of deniability and externally when dealing with the public.

An example from business

In 2006, Jeff Skilling was convicted on federal felony charges for his involvement in the collapse of Enron Corporation, where he served as CEO during the time in which fraudulent activity occurred. As documented by the New York Times, during the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearings in 2002, when questioned by Representative James Greenwood as to whether or not he was aware of any wrongdoing at the company during his time as CEO, Skilling stated:

"I do not believe -- I did not do anything that was not in the interest, in all of the time I worked for Enron Corporation, that wasn't in the interest of the shareholders of the company."

Skilling's response offers nothing more than his belief, thus positioning himself to plausibly deny any future evidence of wrongdoing. Interestingly, due to the clever wording, his statement might actually be true. During the time Skilling was CEO, Enron used deceptive accounting (among other fraudulent practices) to artificially inflate their earnings. During the time of the fraud, Enron's stock skyrocketed, often outperforming the broad market by a wide margin. This is, of course, good for the current shareholders in the short-term. However, it was not in the best interest of Enron's long-term shareholders, employees, and lenders, as the company declared bankruptcy in 2001. In short, Skilling's statement is disingenuous at best, but serves as an example of the malleability of ambiguously-worded statement.

When are individuals exposed to ambiguous, euphemistic language?

Individuals are exposed to ambiguous, euphemistic language in a few ways: internally through company communications, and externally through statements to the public.

Internal business communications

Internal company communications are often rife with ambiguity and euphemisms. In this capacity, the language can serve different purposes. For example, it is used to rally employees around core missions, especially if the mission is under public attack. Also, cleverly worded communications can be used to soften harsh messages/actions that employees might not find appealing. For example, instead of stating "we plan on firing people because we need to increase our profits," a typical communication may describe "a strategic, systematic restructuring and reallocation of resources to address ongoing shareholder interests at this point in the business cycle." Employees are more likely to be accepting of, or indifferent to, the latter; whereas the former would likely cause discomfort, anxiety, and anger.

External business communications

Public relations teams play a large role in the conveyance of messages to the public. Jackall sums up the subtleties of public relations best:

"…the essential task of public relations…is to transform expediency into altruism or even statesmanship. Second, the genius of public relations…consists to a great extent in its dexterity at inverting symbols and images. Whether it is hyping products, influencing legislation, transforming reputations, or erasing stigma, public relations tries to transform actually or potentially perceived weaknesses into strengths and subvert or at least call into question the strengths or particularly the credibility of opponents."

It should be noted that public relations tactics and strategies are not strictly confined to businesses - they can be applied to communications from government, academic institutions, and scientific research organizations when those institutions desire to transform weakness into strength and negativity into positivity.

What are the broad, societal implications associated with the increasing use of ambiguous language?

Individuals' exposure to ambiguous, euphemistic language has implications for how they think, speak, and interpret reality.

The effect of ambiguous language on how individuals think

The language we use shapes the way we think. According to Lera Boroditsky, "Language can be a powerful tool for shaping abstract thought. When sensory information is scarce or inconclusive, languages may play the most important role in shaping how their speakers think" (Boroditsky, 1). This may have important implications as we continue to be exposed to ambiguous, euphemistic language because we may begin viewing the world as a place with less certainty, where the lines of knowledge and ignorance are naturally blurred.

The effect of ambiguous language on ontological security, lay theories, and ignorant othering

To understand how ambiguous language affects broader society, it is important to understand how individuals establish a sense of what is real and true. Giddens' concept of ontological security is described as "a sense of continuity and order in events, including those not directly within the perceptual environment of the individual" (Giddens, 243). Ostertag builds on this further with the development of two other concepts: lay theories and ignorant othering (Ostertag, 828). Lay theories "serve as vital tools in developing social realities" and "allow people to ground and justify a sense of reality that they can trust as correct and true" (Ostertag, 828). When ambiguous language is used, knowledge may not be communicated with the same degree of fidelity as when clear, concise language is used. Therefore, the ambiguity is removed at the level of the receiver, as opposed to being removed at the level of the communicator. In this way, ambiguous statements have the potential to become personalized in the same way that advertising has become personalized (Baudrillard). By increasing the scope of what can be true, ambiguous language potentially increases the number different senses of reality, or lay theories, that exist in a given population. A wider variety of lay theories may, in turn, exacerbate the phenomena of ignorant othering, which Ostertag describes as when "people construct an image of the 'average' American whom they claim is often less informed of the news, less aware of the problems of the news, and therefore less aware of and knowledgeable about the world than they themselves are" (Ostertag, 828).

The effect of ambiguous language on conspiracy theories

Using the same rationale described above, ambiguous language may also be used to support and increase belief in conspiracy theories because it is malleable enough to fit into the conspiracy narrative. This might strengthen current and future conspiracy theories by making them more persuasive. Kay states that "the only characteristic that strongly correlates with belief in any conspiracy theory is a belief in other conspiracy theories" (Kay, 150). If individual conspiracy theories are made more persuasive by ambiguous language and thereby increase the number of individuals who believe any one conspiracy theory, this might lead to a cascading effect where belief in conspiracy theories becomes more prevalent. In order to support this hypothesis, more research is needed on why belief in any conspiracy is correlated to belief in others.

The effect of ambiguous language on fake news and alternative facts

Given the similarities between conspiracy theories and fake news, individuals who are more prone to believe in conspiracy theories may also be more prone to believe fake news. This may make fake news more influential. Also, individuals may be more prone to accept "alternative facts," not just due to the clever euphemism, but because they're more inclined to believe in conspiracy. More research is needed to understand the relationship between belief in any one conspiracy theory, piece of fake news, and "alternative fact" and belief in others.

Examples of ambiguous language in politics

Donald Trump

Donald Trump, a businessman turned politician, is a unique case study. Consider Trump's statement about his opponents' position on gun control:

"Hillary wants to abolish - essentially abolish - the Second Amendment. If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know."

Trump's ambiguous, and seemingly persuasive, language here is based in a false premise that Hillary Clinton would (1) have the power to abolish the Second Amendment, and (2) want to abolish the Second Amendment. Both are equally absurd on their own merit, with the latter relying on the reactionary conflation of gun-control laws with some mythological government confiscation of over 300 million guns. There are two different ways to interpret the purpose of Trump's statement. Proponents of the Second Amendment will either use votes or violence (which are wildly different mechanisms for change) to prevent his political opponent from taking away their gun rights. In this case, since the ambiguity of the statement is removed in the mind of the listener, there are two (or more) versions of reality.

According to NPR, Trump's use of ambiguous language follows a predictable pattern. He makes an ambiguous statement which is subsequently criticized by opponents, incessantly covered by the media. Trump then claims to be a victim of the "liberal media" claiming that his words were taken out of context (McCammon). The foundation of his strategy is ambiguity.

Hillary Clinton

During a 2016 Democratic Primary debate, Hillary Clinton and her opponent, Bernie Sanders were each asked by the moderator if they support fracking. Clinton's response displayed ambiguity and "talking in circles" when she stated:

"By the time we get through all my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place."

Although not as egregious as Trump, Clinton's choice of wording and syntax indicate a propensity for unnecessarily complex language, something her opponent was quick to point out. Sanders stated, "My answer is a lot shorter. No, I do not support fracking."

Recent examples of euphemisms in American politics

Just as in business, euphemisms also prove useful in the realm of politics. For example, the Trump administration regularly uses euphemisms to downplay the negativity associated with its policies and/or past statements. The euphemisms "extreme vetting" and "locker room talk" provide useful examples. Many Americans can accept a policy of "extreme vetting," but some would be hesitant to accept it if it were stated for what it truly is - racial and religious discrimination. Additionally, some citizens might not be dissuaded from voting for a presidential candidate that uses "locker room talk," but might draw the line over a candidate who "[grabs women] by the pussy."

A cautionary warning from George Orwell

Given that individuals are becoming desensitized to ambiguous, euphemistic language, there is a greater likelihood that politicians can successfully employ Orwellian doublespeak, or "language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth." In Politics and the English Language, George Orwell describes how politics may inevitably reach a point where it must serve this very purpose of shielding citizens from ugly truths by avoiding any clear "defense of the indefensible:"

"…political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them."

Political statements, like those used as examples by Orwell, are unnecessarily wordy, confusing, take time and effort to interpret, and do not overtly communicate the harsh nature of the message. While this paper is not proposing the inevitability of a totalitarian state due to corporate America's language and culture, it suggests that a population that has been desensitized to ambiguity may be more susceptible to being influenced by disingenuous language.

Conclusion

The use of ambiguous, euphemistic language, stemming from practical use within American corporations, may have implications for knowledge and ignorance in broader society. Most notably, ambiguous language is interpretable at the personal level, which may result in numerous individuals having personalized versions of reality. These versions of reality may be incompatible, leading to a state where no one knows what is really true.

Works cited

"Ambiguity." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 4 Aug. 2017.

Beauregard, Jean. The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures. London: SAGE Publications, Print.

Boroditsky, Lera. "Does Language Shape Thought?: Mandarin and English Speakers' Conceptions of Time." Cognitive Psychology, 43 (2001): 1-22. PDF.

Cameron, Anna F. "Is It Necessary to be Clear? An Examination of Strategic Ambiguity in Family Business Mission Statements." Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 14:1, (2013): 87-96. PDF.

"Doublespeak." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 4 Aug. 2017.

"ENRON'S MANY STRANDS; Excerpts From the House Subcommittee Hearings on the Enron Collapse." New York Times February 9, 2002: Web.

"Euphemism." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 4 Aug. 2017.

Frizell, Sam. "Why Clinton and Sanders Answer Questions So Differently ." Time May 5, 2016: Web.

Giddens, Anthony. Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 1991, Print.

Jackall, Robert. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. Oxford University Press, 1988, E-Book.

Kay, Jonathan. Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America's Growing Conspiracist Underground. Harper Collins, 2011, Print.

McGoey, Linsey. "The logic of strategic ignorance." The British Journal of Sociology Volume 63, Issue 3 (2012): 553-576. PDF.

McCammon, Sarah. "Donald Trump's Controversial Speech Often Walks the Line." NPR August 10, 2016: Web.

Negroponte, Nicholas P. Being Digital. New York: Vintage Books, 1995, Print.

Orwell, George. Politics and the English Language. London: Horizon, 1946, Web.

Ostertag, Stephen F. "Processing Culture: Cognition, Ontology, and the News Media."

Sociological Forum

, Vol. 25, No. 4 (December 2010): PDF.

The Nature of the Reactionary: A Polemic

By Ben Harney

When I ask you why justice and equality will never be embraced by humanity, you respond with an answer that sounds as if it has been rehearsed in your head one thousand times:

"Human nature, of course. It is evil, it is greedy."

And now a sly smile creeps onto your face, you have just won the debate of the millenia. A tidal wave of release has swept through your soul; this response is almost a confession, but an easy one for you at that! To you, this nature is an infallible god. Think on what you have done, friend! Somehow, you have just redeemed the suffering of billions with one fell sweep from this Nature; and with its omnipotence comes your own liberation. Anything is justified with this Nature on your side. Somewhere, in one of the deepest caverns of your mind, one demon sighs with relief upon hearing your message from this new deity. He thought his work would have to be done in the dark recesses of your soul, but now, he knows, he is free!

The speed of your answer to my question betrays the intensity of how desperately you hold onto it. Why? I suppose there might exist some dragons within you which truly revel in this nature of yours. Or is it yours? Maybe it belongs to the others, just not you, O virtuous one! No, these dragons remain a part of you, they grew up with you; in your bed, at your dinner table, in your Church, in the yacht club, in Prep school. They whispered fire into your mind when you strolled by some fellow brother or sister sleeping in waste on the soulless concrete. They clawed and lashed at your eyes when you saw a cousin with a darker complexion. These dragons took a hold of your throat and cackled when you glared at that worn traveler or worker. The beasts within now have made you their own; your society nurtured them, and you never fought them.

I can only assume you to be a genius! Alas, you know the nature of all humankind! I wonder who told you, whoever has that kind of wisdom; I should like to talk with them.

In this answer, you have confessed not the nature of humankind, but yourself, my friend. Human nature is evil? It is selfish? No. You are evil, you are selfish. From that tower of yours, you look down on the stalwart people who carry on, and you spit. You look to your father, some banker perhaps, and orgasm to his success. Do you call him evil, is he selfish? Your eyes say no. Ah, I forgot, the nature you speak of applies only to the unwashed rabble, not your high kin! But wait, you do embrace it. The grin you don when such a question comes up is the real horror, but, evidently, you delight in this. The chains are broken, and you are let loose; make those millions, ignore everything else.

It seems that your own self, under the watchful guise of the wretched system which planted seeds in your psyche, has gorged on the pleasures of fear and laziness, of apathy and greed. You bow to one thousand generations of tradition. You bow to things as they are, you bow to suffering. Pathetic submission is your roll call, and this false creation you call 'innate Nature' commands you. Instead of seizing your sword, pushing forward with all your might, and ascending the summits of yourself in order to confront the dragons which now call your own mind their dominion, you act as their humble servant. But this is the rule, not the exception. The articulated and painted social existence which you were immersed in, one which if the surface is scratched at only slightly the rotten and tortured flesh below is revealed, has created a perfect mind for this kind of disease to flourish in. You and your neighbors all pat each other on the back in celebration of the evilness of humankind!

Do you say it is human nature for billions to endure exploitation, to endure a constant war for their dignity, because you, yourself, have become a slave to cruelty, to laziness, to the filthy heads of this hydra? But do you know that starving goes against human nature? Do you know that dying from black lung is in direct opposition to human nature? In the least, the nature of humanity is to live and thrive, just like any other species. Equality, freedom, now these are the philosophical pinnacles of human nature, you and your system has made it so. There is nothing more true than the rage and pain a mother may feel when her child is hungry. And there is nothing more unnatural than being relegated to a certain life because of the amount of a certain compound in one's skin. You say our present system is in harmony with human nature. I say this system makes billions cry out against it in one billion different ways for one billion different reasons, but all of these tears and fists can be traced back to the root, to the foundation. The coming revolution will be the culmination of five hundred years of pain and suffering and hope and unity, what do you have, what will you have, and where will you hide? Your nature prevents you from realizing a new society where the masses of humanity hold the torch of power in their own coarse hands.

But it must be known, to everyone, that your nature, the nature of the Reactionary, is the nature of the coward. There is no courage, or fire, in that soul of yours. All I can see is a fat and bloated devil which scrambles to bow the lowest when his master comes to him. It takes no strength to justify the pain and rape of one million souls, no bravery to be settled with the current state of things, when the 'current state of things' means no pain, and only pleasure, for you. But perhaps you do need some strength, I grant you, which you must use to hold up the unbelievable quantity of unseen cruelty within your heart. That must be a heavy weight.

To revolt means to first hunt down the socially implanted demons which lurk in one's own heart. If you confess that your own nature is to submit to these demons, to greed and evil, then you have already lost that battle. The beasts have slain you before the hunt even began.

So be it, you cannot accept justice and equality. But Humanity's nature is not yours to brand.

The Dialectic of Tolerance

By Bryant William Sculos

Until the Right-and liberals-are going to defend the free speech rights of everyone, until they are going to put themselves on the line to promote solidaristic tolerance of others whom they "disagree with," they do not deserve to utter the words free speech, tolerance, or persecution (but sure, they have "the right to"). And the Left must continue to refuse to let them get away with it.

We cannot be afraid of being perceived as intolerant. We are intolerant. We do not tolerate hatred. We do not tolerate repression or oppression. We do not tolerate bigotry, racism, or cisheterosexism. We are also aware that letting any government or unaccountable body like a university board of trustees-never mind obscenely corrupt, undemocratic ones-determine what is tolerable and what is not, is extremely problematic-and as of now must also be resisted. It is a tight rope to walk, but it is one we must walk.

This is the internal contradictory nature of universal tolerance. It is impossible to defend universal, emancipatory tolerance without asserting directly that whatsoever undermines tolerance must not be tolerates. What form this intolerance takes should and must be democratically debated and contested.

Counterrevolutionary (In)Tolerance

I am not talking about legality here though. I am talking about the relationship between the principles of free speech and tolerance, which should (and are) central to any notion of socialism from below, and the contemporary reactionary practices covered in the so-called debates around free speech and tolerance in the US (and somewhat in the UK and Europe, specifically around the "no-platform" policies pursued in many universities).

Defending a white supremacist's right to speak at a university while decrying protesters of that speech is a hypocrisy so ripe that it is literally rotten. That is, it is no defense of tolerance nor is it a defense of free speech. It is a reactionary silencing portrayed as a neutral defense of freedom and toleration. "Of course I don't agree with the white supremacist, but those protesters are hypocritical and violating the free speech of others. The protesters are the ones being intolerant of views they disagree with!" Then when controversial professors on the left are targeted for their speech, surely the outrage is the same, right? Right? Righ....Wrong.

Protesting is a form of free speech. Opposing intolerance is rooted in tolerance. In fact, tolerance would be incomprehensible without this element. Actively battling against the comprehensively intolerable, actions and kinds of speech that directly threaten vulnerable peoples' lives, is a virtuous, solidaristic defense of freedom. Openly advocating exclusionary, bigoted politics and repressive structural (and inevitably direct) violence might be legal, but it is certainly not any kind of freedom worthy of the name, and it is certainly not something worthy of toleration-at least so long as those who are targets of such speech are not guaranteed the right to openly oppose that exclusionary bigotry and violence-advocacy.

This is what my co-author Prof. Sean Noah Walsh and I were getting at in our 2016 New Political Science article "The Counterrevolutionary Campus" applying philosopher and social critic Herbert Marcuse's concepts of repressive tolerance and liberating tolerance to the student protest movements (primarily on college campuses and associated with Black Lives Matter and Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Against Israel [BDS]). [1]

Here, put very simply, we argued that right-wing claims of having had their right to free speech violated or that they are experiencing intolerance at the hands of activists who were organizing and protesting against intolerance, exclusion, inequality, and oppression, were not actually attempting to defend the principles of free speech and tolerance. The counterrevolutionary Right was deploying these claims to silence those they didn't want to hear from, those whom they want(ed) society to remain intolerant of. We argued that Marcuse was right in the 60s and his argument is still applicable today: the most prominent arguments about free speech and tolerance, predominantly by the Right, are exemplary forms of repression and oppression-not freedom.

In his March 2016 National Review article, Fred Bauer took umbrage with our argument, which he seemingly willfully misinterpreted (as he has done of Marcuse's work in the past) in his article condemning the Middlebury College protests against racist pseudo-intellectual Charles Murray. Bauer writes:

"Sculos and Walsh try to discount the anti-liberal implications of this viewpoint by arguing that Marcuse here is calling for the repression only of 'those thoughts and words that promote destruction, bigotry, racism and deprivation. Any science repressed is that which is geared toward developing technologies of war, environmental catastrophe and human exploitation.' However, Marcuse's criteria for repression may be far broader, and far more open to abuse, than Sculos and Walsh might think. After all, the question of which 'thoughts and words' really promote 'destruction, bigotry, racism and deprivation' is itself a topic for debate."

Bauer is not wrong that there are certain aspects of discussions about free speech and tolerance that are genuinely up for debate, but just because there is some room for debate does not mean that all sides of the debate are equally viable or worth seriously considering. Furthermore, Bauer refuses to take the central aspect of our argument seriously: that the Right deploys free speech and tolerance claims in order to silence those groups who are most often targeted by their vitriol and discriminatory policy agenda; that they have very little interest in defending the free speech of those they disagree with.

The beauty of Marcuse's work on repressive tolerance [2], that those like Bauer so often overlook or perhaps just politically disagree with, is its admittedly controversial conclusion that in situations where 'tolerance' produces more intolerance, we need a new notion of tolerance that refuses to tolerate the silencing of systematically oppressed peoples and views.

It is not a neutral conception of tolerance at all, and even a superficial reading of Mill's On Liberty actually supports our position (and Marcuse's). Mill's liberal understanding of tolerance is justified based on the results of tolerance--that in tolerating all view points the more tolerant views will eventually win, and society will progress. In our and Marcuse's evaluation, that progress is not occurring, and therefore the notion of tolerance lacks a coherent justification-under these specific circumstances. To put it very simply, we are defending a position that says: We value tolerance, and until society is systematically tolerant, we need a different conception of tolerance in-place that prevents the spread-and dominance-of intolerant ideas.

It is not, as Bauer suggests, that I am unaware of the potential for abuse of this position by so-called "mandarins" (and if such abuse occurred, I would be among the first to speak out against it), but instead I am willing to risk the abuse of our position, in principle, to argue against the existing abuse by the Right of the liberal notion of tolerance-seemingly deployed only when it supports their desire to defend their own intolerance. The abuse of tolerance (by the Right) is already occurring, so, there is not much in the application of the liberal position to defend at the moment (besides Mill's initial argument that tolerance should serve Progress-which, it is worth noting, led him to defend socialism towards the end of his life).[3]

Towards a Socialist Tolerance

Again, legal interpretations aside, we must look at the hypocrisy of claiming to defend free speech and tolerance while actively defending the rights and freedoms of those who want more and greater exclusion and repression in our world. We must be willing to accept the very real possibility that hypocritical defenses of free speech and tolerance are actually more dangerous to these concepts and the oppressed peoples these principles are supposed to protect, than a curtailment of the "freedoms" of others that are called precisely that.

It is not just the Right that has a problem with Marcuse's approach to tolerance though. Renowned socialist Hal Draper, writing in 1968 for the Independent Socialist, excoriated Marcuse's supposed anti-democratic elitism, imploring the radical left to avoid following Marcuse's guidance:

"Revolutionary socialists…want to push to the limit all the presuppositions and practices of the fullest democratic involvement of the greatest mass of people. To the limit: that is, all the way. No progressive social transformation is possible except insofar as the largest mass of plain people from way below in society start moving. And this movement both requires, and also helps to bring about, the fullest opening-up of society to democratic controls from below not their further restriction. It means the breaking up of anti-democratic limitations and restrictions. It means the greater unleashing of new initiatives from below. In other words, it means the exact opposite of Marcuseism." [4]

Draper's point here is only wrong insofar as he perceived that Marcuse would have fundamentally disagreed with him. Against Draper's suggestion that Marcuse desired some kind of elitist group to determine what should be tolerable and what should not be, Marcuse states quite clearly that he has little faith that there is an existing institution or coterie that could do so effectively, justly, and democratically. [5] This takes nothing away from his point about the general tendency of demands for tolerance and free speech to be deployed in defense of intolerable, counterrevolutionary positions-and the importance for the Left to take this reality seriously.

My goal here is not mainly to defend Marcuse from misreadings, but instead to mobilize the core of his argument for what I perceive to be its original purpose and contemporary value: we must comprehensively refuse to concede ground to the right-wing establishment when it comes to defending the best versions of free speech and democratic tolerance. We must be clear-eyed, nuanced realists whilst also promoting a radically reimagined future for ourselves and future generations. Idealist notions of the purity of free speech and tolerance have yet to provide an adequate basis for radical Left politics, and there is little reason to think this is going to change anytime soon.

What I am not advocating here is that the Left abandon its defense of free speech or tolerance. In fact, I am arguing the opposite. However, history has shown us often enough that liberal and right-wing defenses of free speech and tolerance effectively protect the most reactionary forces in our societies, not the people who are fighting to overcome those forces. The Left needs to be strategically clearer and more open about this fact in order to insulate the principles of freedom of speech and tolerance from their abusers. In other words, the Left must aggressively defend democratized, emancipatory conceptions of tolerance and free speech-before these ideas have lost all practical meaning.

Bryant William Sculos, Ph.D. is a postdoctoral fellow at The Amherst Program in Critical Theory, adjunct professor at Florida International University, contributing writer for the Hampton Institute, and Politics of Culture section editor for Class, Race and Corporate Power.

Notes

[1] B.W. Sculos & S.N. Walsh, "The Counterrevolution Campus: Herbert Marcuse and the Suppression of Student Protest Movements," New Political Science (Dec. 2016), pp. 516-532.

[2] Herbert Marcuse, "Repressive Tolerance," in Robert Paul Wolff, Barrington Moore, and Herbert Marcuse (eds),A Critique of Pure Tolerance (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969).

[3] See John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, pp. 1-115 and Mill's Chapters on Socialism, pp. 221-279 in Stefan Collini (ed.), On Liberty and Other Writings (Cambridge University Press, 1989).

[4] Hal Draper, "Free Speech and Political Struggle" in Independent Socialist (April 1969), pp. 12-16.

[5] Marcuse, "Repressive Tolerance," pp. 81-83.

Reflections on Charlottesville, Political Violence, and False Equivalencies

By Zack Ford

The violence in Charlottesville Virginia at a "unite the right" rally that resulted in one death is being condemned across the political spectrum. Very few are willing to do anything but denounce violence that results in death. Perhaps this is our "default" moral position. It is easy to say that such violence is stupid and has no place in America today. It is much more difficult to understand why people put their lives on the line for such "stupid" things in the first place.

An outright denunciation of violence implies that all violence is preventable. The common belief is that if we understand what the "cause" of the violence was, we can prevent it from occurring in the future. Regarding Charlottesville, the cause was a "unite the right" rally, which, at least in theory, attempted to unite different right-wing factions and preserve the monuments that constantly remind us of the history of subjugation of black and brown people upon which this country is built and of their continuing second-class citizenship. In practice, this was carried out by flying Neo-nazi flags and propaganda and obsessively performing the "Heil Hitler" salute, all while provoking physical violence. Violence erupted when students and residents decided this type of behavior was not welcome in their community. So, if the racist rally never was allowed to occur, the violence would have never erupted and the loss of life could have potentially been prevented. Anyone who wishes to prevent this type of violence from unfolding in the future must recognize that the racist slurs and hateful sentiments which are inextricably linked with such groups are the catalyst of the violence that occurred, and that such forms of expression must be silenced to prevent future violence.

Of course, the counter point is that if alt-right, neo-nazi groups are to be silenced then groups such as Black Lives Matter must also be silenced. Unfortunately, it is difficult for many so-called defenders of equality to recognize the conflict between this position and the notion of equality itself. It is somehow controversial to many defenders of human life to argue that Black Lives Matter should be allowed to march, protest, and rally, while groups such as the KKK should be silenced and suppressed. While the equivocation of Black Lives Matter and the alt-right is proven false by historical and social conditions, the fact that it continues to surface among large parts of the white population when events like this occur, it is worth returning to -- even if it requires beating a dead horse.

White people struggle to see beyond the notion that both Black lives Matter and the Klan are "violent" because they commit acts of violence. While this might be true according to a very narrow and particular standard of the term "violence" itself, we must consider the different types of violence each group commits. First off, is it worth pointing out that it is perfectly legitimate for members of the Klan to march as they did today in Charlottesville with loaded assault rifles without being hassled by police, or should I say, while the police allowed them to march with such weapons? It is unquestionable what would happen if the movement for Black Lives showed up with guns. Furthermore, after the civil war, the Klan was declared a terrorist organization and the state governments called out the militia when the Klan surfaced. Klan speech was not permitted as "free speech" since the limitations of free speech prevent direct threats of violence, which the Klan has always issued. Beyond the unequal power dynamic is the fact that the Klan aims to commit violence towards any non-European or non-white "other" while Black lives matter aims to correct the injustices of the structures and institutions that perpetuate oppression -- towards the police that target them for looking like "thugs" as if thugs look a certain way, towards the economy that deprives them of living a decent life, towards the laws and regulations that do not grant them the same rights, and towards the entire system under which they find no representation. Considering the history of America, can such actions be considered violence? Is breaking a window or burning a car the same as public hangings and slavery? If violence is the intention to harm someone, then these actions are not "violent" but are merely attempts to correct prior injustices. Insofar as they do not cause physical harm, but instead bring more freedom and equality, they cannot be considered violent.

The so-called "violence" of the movement for Black Lives is nothing more than a rejection of the willful ignorance towards the ways in which the mechanisms of the state function to perpetuate white supremacy. It is an attempt to correct the ignorant beliefs that do not simply remain beliefs, but are rather transformed into policies which have real material consequences for marginalized people. In other words, it is directed not towards people who do not look like them, but to people who hold these beliefs without recognizing their material impact. Of course, to white consciousness it will feel as though the movement for Black Lives is perpetuating violence against them for being white. The point is that America is a country built on the enslavement and oppression of black people, and this bloody history conditions the way we experience the world. The feeling of exclusion that pervades white consciousness when facing movements such as Black Lives Matter is also a product of that same history. For white people, it might feel as though Black Lives Matter is perpetuating violence towards them as individuals, but the point is that it is impossible to make a judgment about violence without taking the history of conquest and enslavement into account. Such a judgment would presuppose that experience is "neutral" and untainted by historical conditions. We know, however, that individuals experience the world in fundamentally different ways and to project some external standpoint is not only intellectually dishonest, but shows the unwillingness of white people in certain circles to think outside of themselves in attempt to absolve them of any culpability. When history is taken into account, the label of "violence" pasted to the actions taken by the movement for Black Lives simply disintegrates.

Many are comfortable condemning violence outright, but this position is in contradiction with equality. To condemn violence outright, one must either deny that structural racism exists or equivocate Black Lives Matter with the alt-right on the basis that both are groups attempting to secure racial supremacy. The implication is that the existing society is equal, and that any attempt to disrupt this equality from either group should be condemned outright. Along with historical injustice, the social scientific consensus is that deep structural inequalities - along racial lines - pervade contemporary society. It is therefore clear that Black Lives Matter and the alt-right are not operating in a "neutral" dynamic. The existing power relations are conditioned by history and the alt-right is clearly starting from a historically advantaged position. Thus, to advocate equality, the rational solution is to denounce the alt-right and support the movement for black lives.

Roy Brooks describes this situation as a poker game. Two players at the table, one white and one black, have been playing a single poker for four hundred years. The entire time the white player has been cheating and has acquired a substantial amount of chips that allows him to push the black player around, despite having poor cards. One day the white player admits that he has been cheating and decides that he is no longer going to do so. From here on out he wants the game to be fair. Astonished, the black player asks, "Well, what are you doing to do with all those chips?" The white player responds, "Keep them for the next generation, of course!" Although the white player claims he wants the game to be played fairly from here on out, he is unwilling to distribute his chips equally to the other player and thus is unwilling to relinquish the power dynamic that plays in his favor. While the white player seems to be advocating for a fair and equal poker game, his unwillingness to split the chips shows that he is merely paying lip service to the notion of fairness. For the game to be played fairly, both players have to start from a neutral position which is undermined by the white player maintaining possession of his chips (Roy Brooks, Atonement and Forgiveness p. 36).

Many white people would consider redistributing the chips an act of violence. After all, they are not responsible for their ancestors cheating, so they should be able to keep the chips that have been acquired throughout history. They should not pay the price if they themselves did not commit the action. To hold them responsible for something they didn't do is perceived as an act of violence in itself. Of course, the redistribution of power (through reparations) will appear as an act of violence only because the power structures do not affect white people in the same way as it does minorities. White people are ignorant of the empirical fact that the existing power structure disproportionally impacts minorities not merely in terms of beliefs, but in terms of material consequences. Furthermore, this position is fundamentally incompatible with fairness and equality and glaringly ahistorical.

That the existing power structures function to maintain white supremacy is not a belief or an idea, but is rather an empirical fact about our social and political reality. It is the duty of white people to not only grasp this reality but to fight against it in the name of equality, or to accept being labeled a fascist. Part of this struggle is suppressing the very hate groups and their rhetoric that led to this un-level playing field in the first place. It is simply impossible to refrain from denouncing white supremacist groups while defending equality. If one truly hopes to achieve a social reality where all people are equal, then it is our duty not to allow such hate in our communities and to actively fight against it. If this results in broken windows and burning cars, it is the responsibility of the defenders of equality to understand that such actions are not "violent" insofar as they are not directed at sentient beings, but the power structures that suppress the freedom of sentient beings who have historically been marginalized. These structures are the original purveyors of violence and continuously impede the advance toward equality.

Eyewitness North Korea: An American's Journey to the DPRK before the Travel Ban

By Derek R. Ford

On August 1, Rex Tillerson announced that beginning in one month the U.S. government would be banning its citizens from traveling to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North Korea). A few days later, I boarded an Air Koryo plane and landed in that country for a fact-finding and peace delegation. There were a total of five of us, all traveling on U.S. passports. Call us skeptical, but we didn't buy that the Trump administration was acting in our best interests, let alone acting in the name of peace and justice. Indeed, as soon as we landed the hegemonic U.S. narrative about the country began to crumble. Even though I had previously been highly critical of the presentation of the country we have been exposed to our entire lives, I couldn't quite anticipate just how different the reality actually is. And it wasn't only life in the country that was radically different, but also my experience as U.S. citizen traveling there.

I have to begin with this latter aspect, because the propaganda against the DPRK is so total, so all-encompassing, that it can make one's actual experience be dismissed in advance. If one's on-the-ground observations differ in any way from the dominant narrative, then it is because one only observed a highly orchestrated and carefully curated propaganda show.

Tourism in the DPRK is a regulated industry, and there are two very good reasons for this. For one, the U.S. has for decades tried to send spies and agitators into the country to organize destabilization campaigns. The National Endowment for Democracy has a public policy of trying to push propaganda into the country and foster a dissident movement. For two, given the destruction wrought by Western tourists throughout the world, there is a good argument to be had that Westerners should be carefully policed and monitored on their visits. As a sovereign and indigenous nation, the DPRK has a right to control who enters its country and on what conditions, and this should be respected.

This, however, wasn't my experience at all. Not once did I ever feel restricted or policed. During my time there I was free to speak with anyone and to go anywhere. I engaged in numerous spontaneous conversations with people while eating in restaurants, hiking in the wilderness, and walking on the streets. Even passing through immigration and customs was a breeze-much easier than the U.S. They didn't search our phones or laptops. (Upon return, however, one member of our delegation was detained by U.S. customs agents for three hours, and had his phone and computer searched).

Nor was I only shown the best and brightest spots of the country. I spent about as much time in Pyongyang as I did in the countryside, and over the trip we spent hours driving around the country. My Korean friends were very proud of everything in their country, from the new high rises in cities to the old housing structures in the countryside. Our main hotel, the Raknang Guesthouse, had all the amenities of a five-star hotel in any U.S. city, but at another hotel we only had a few hours of hot water each day, and the air conditioning cut in and out. It's true that there is a marked difference between the city and countryside, but that isn't unique to the DPRK. That's true for everywhere, including here in the U.S. I live in rural Indiana, and there is a huge contrast between the infrastructure in my town and that of Indianapolis.

At no point in our trip did we feel unsafe or threatened. As it turns out, if you don't maliciously break any laws, the DPRK is a nice place to visit.

"Just try to understand where we are coming from, and make up your own mind"

We were hosted by Dawn Media, a new media group in the country that is separate from both the state and the ruling party. They aren't a tour company, so the only official tour guides we interacted with were at museums, special events, and the demilitarized zone.

If the official tours in the country are intended to be propaganda shows, then the tour industry is doing a terrible job. And here I have to admit my own prejudices as I embarked on my trip, for I was surprised at how objective and reasonable the tour guides were.

When we approached the final checkpoint before the demilitarized zone we met a soldier who would escort us to the border. Before we left, he told us: "What I am going to show you and tell you is what happened to us. I am going to tell you our perspective. Just try to understand where we are coming from, and make up your own mind."

It was the same at the Sinchon Museum of American War Atrocities. There, our guide said, "We ask that you try to put yourself in our shoes."

Having arrived in the country just days after the travel ban was announced, many people were surprised to learn we were from the U.S. And when one young woman who had recently graduated from the foreign language university found out where we were from, she told us why she was upset about the ban. "It is important for people to see so that they know," she said. "They can make up their own minds about our country."

Not once on our trip did anyone-a tour guide, our hosts, our friends-tell us that we had to agree with what we were told.

And not once were we treated with any disrespect or hostility. And this was truly remarkable. Even when we met Jong Gun-Song, a 72-year-old survivor of the Sinchon massacre. He was just three when U.S. soldiers threw him and about 400 other children into a warehouse, where they were left in the cold without food or water for one week before the soldiers poured gasoline through the vents and started a fire. Jong was tucked away in a corner, and although he fell into a coma from the smoke, he awoke days later. It would have been quite understandable if this man refused to speak with us or spoke to us with bitterness and anger. Instead, he approached us with humility and respect.

The media and educational systems in the country make a clear distinction between the people of the U.S. and our government. And they make a radically sharper distinction between the people of the U.S. who want peace and our government.

The DPRK: Another Country

U.S. scholar Bruce Cumings titled his popular 2004 book, North Korea: Another Country. The subtitle works on two different levels. For one, North Korea truly is another country in that it is a very different kind of country, especially when compared to the U.S. There are no corporate billboards or advertisements, no McDonald's restaurants or Starbucks coffee shops. Women and children walk the streets alone and confidently at any hour of the day. In the countryside hitch hikers are everywhere. There are few police on the streets. The military is present, but you see them doings things like picking up trash or working on construction projects, and you don't see them carrying assault rifles, or any weapons for that matter (we even saw a citizen playfully hitting a soldier). You also don't see many surveillance cameras. Most people are atheists (although we met some Buddhists).

Yet North Korea is also another country in the sense that it is just another country. People go to work, date, get married, have children, play sports and exercise, go shopping, talk on cell phones, ride bikes, read books in parks (sometimes on benches, but oftentimes in a squatting position), play music, and sing and dance (and they sing and dance a lot-and they will make you do it, too). They have agreements and disagreements, smile and cry. They go to plays and concerts, take vacations, swim in rivers. They get frustrated with and yell at each other, and they joke and laugh with each other. They are human beings. It's just another country.

Hard Truths

This was my first trip, but I know people who have made other trips, and many trips. One of my friends who accompanied me there had been literally hundreds of times over the past 30 or so years. He had been there during the 1990s, during the worst years in the country's history. The overthrow and dissolution of the Soviet Union brought economic crisis, which was exacerbated by severe floods and droughts. Rather than send aid, the U.S. tightened sanctions against the country (just like it did to Cuba). Life was intensely difficult.

The sanctions against the country are criminal and must come to an end. But they have had the adverse effect of diversifying and strengthening the DPRK's economy. Unable to trade openly on the global market, the DPRK has become self-sufficient in many areas, including in food production.

Since 2006, they have invested heavily in light industry. All over, you see all kinds of goods made in the DPRK: silverware, chips and snacks, bottled water, purses and backpacks, clothes and shoes, medicines, solar panels (which are everywhere), and fishing nets. They are building new streets with new high-rise apartments, shops, restaurants, and entertainment venues every year. They have their own internet and cell phone network (and 4.5 million cell phones). Everywhere you go, you see construction. In many buildings you can see evidence of recent renovations. While the DPRK doesn't release its economic data, the Hyundai Research Group estimated that the GDP grew by an astronomic 9 percent in 2015.

To be sure, if we are comparing it to the richest parts of the U.S. or Europe it won't hold up much. But the DPRK didn't benefit from centuries of colonizing and enslaving the world. On the contrary, they were the victims of colonialism, and were enslaved by the Japanese.

The hard truth is that the DPRK isn't crumbling from sanctions. And the people there aren't cowering at Trump's incendiary rhetoric.

The 1950-1953 U.S. war against Korea, which they call the Fatherland Liberation War, was absolutely devastating. Three consecutive years of U.S. carpet bombing had totally levelled the country. But even without an air force, the Korean People's Army emerged victorious. They dealt U.S. imperialism its first blow, and forced an armistice on July 27, 1953.

They then completely rebuilt their country. They did it largely on their own, and they did it while navigating constant U.S. aggression. That's part of the reason they were so proud to show us everything, even that which didn't hold up to Western standards.

And that's the reason they aren't backing down. Since their founding in 1948, the DPRK has maintained its independence. It has never been occupied by another country. It has never become a junior partner of any country-not even the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China. Of this independence they are fiercely proud.

The U.S. has always maintained that the country is on the verge of collapse. This may have been an understandable position in the mid 1990s, when the aforementioned economic and natural tragedies struck, and when their founding leader Kim Il Sung died. But they persevered even then.

The DPRK doesn't want to be locked in an eternal struggle with the U.S. What they want is to be able to determine their destiny and to be able to develop in peace. But this isn't want we are told here in the U.S. We are told they want nothing but our destruction. And in order to uphold this false narrative, our government is preventing us from traveling to the country to see it for ourselves.

Everyone I spoke with in the DPRK wanted me to make up my own mind about their country. Meanwhile, the U.S. government wants to make up my mind for me.

You can see pictures and videos from Derek's trip on his facebook page here , and you can e-mail him at derek.ford@hamptoninstitution.org

California Values Bill SB-54: What It Is About and Why It is Important to Women

By Cherise Charleswell

California Legislation, particularly health policy and those dealing with public safety, is of great importance to the United States as a whole; and this is because California has always stood out as a leader and innovator. Other states, and even the Federal government, often look to the precedents set by California, and subsequently go on to pass the same or similar policies. As stated in a 2012 article , California sets trends in health regulation , "Some advocates tout the state as a forward-thinking vanguard in which its health and safety laws are routinely emulated by other states".

In short, California's laws shape and set standards for the rest of the country.

The California Values Bill SB-54 is often incorrectly referred to as the Sanctuary City Bill. The phrase "sanctuary city bill" is inaccurate because there is unfortunately no guarantee of sanctuary in the U.S. City officials do not have the power to outright stop the federal government from deporting people in their communities. Cities and States could merely choose to carry out a symbolic policy - which includes having local police abstain from helping federal authorities identify, detain, or deport any immigrants that entered the U.S. illegally.

What exactly is a Sanctuary City?

In 1996, the 104th U.S. Congress passed Pub. L. 104-208, also known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA ). The IIRIRA requires local governments to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency. Despite the IIRIRA, hundreds of urban, suburban, and rural communities have resisted and outright ignored the law, instead choosing to adopt and enact sanctuary policies.

A sanctuary city is a city that limits its cooperation with the national government effort to enforce immigration law. Essentially, sanctuary cities act as a protective shield, standing in the way of federal efforts to pinpoint and deport people at random.

According to recent reports from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, California has the fourth most counties and second most cities considered to have adopted laws, policies or practices that may impede some immigration enforcement efforts. The state of Oregon has the most, with 31 counties, followed by Washington (18), Pennsylvania (16) and California (15). Massachusetts has the most cities considered to be "sanctuary," and California follows with three. However, The Los Angeles Times reported that ICE suspended the recently adopted practice of reporting cities that don't comply with federal detention efforts following error-ridden reports.

The California Values Bill entails the following:

• Prohibit state or local resources from being used to investigate, detain, detect, report or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes.

• Ban state and local resources from being used to facilitate the creation of a national registry based on religion.

• Prevent state agencies from collecting or sharing immigration information from individuals unless necessary to perform agency duties.

• Ensure that California schools, hospitals and courthouses remain safe and accessible to all California residents regardless of immigration status.

Why this Legislation and Protection of Sanctuary Cities Is Important to Public Health & Safety

Consider a scenario where there is a serial rapist, but his initial victims were all undocumented and thus unwilling to contact police to report the crime, and this rapist then goes on to harm others - legal citizens.

Would we now find his crime egregious? Would we now want to remove this guy off of the streets so he can no longer harm others?

The logical answer would be yes, but it does not dismiss the fact that all other subsequent rapes could have been prevented if the first victim felt safe enough to come forward. This scenario describes the importance of sanctuary cities and the California Values Bill, in terms of public health and safety. It would help to ensure that those residing in the state of California, regardless of documented status, can come forward to report crimes committed against themselves and others to law enforcement.

Why this Legislation and Protection of Sanctuary Cities Is Important to Victims of Intimate Partner Violence

For the same reasons as described as above. Furthermore, abusers use the threat of reporting undocumented victims or even members of their families who may be undocumented, as a means to (1) ensure that they conceal the abuse and not report them to the police, (2) force them to return to abusive situations. And the end result of this may be continued abuse and even death at the hands of their abusers.

A civilized society should simply not allow members of their communities to be forced to remain in abusive situations.

Why this Legislation and Protection of Sanctuary Cities Is Important to Victims of Human Sex Trafficking

For transnational victims of sex traffickers (including those who were trafficked here against their own will), the threat of deportation and/or criminalization is used as a tool to keep them silent, subservient, and in bondage. Traffickers make every effort to discourage them from contacting law enforcement, who along with other first responders are among the people who are the first to come in contact with victims of trafficking, while they are still in captivity. Having this population live in fear of exposing their undocumented status simply helps to perpetuate human trafficking.

The following testimony and passage was included in the 2009 US Department of Health's Study of HHS Programs Serving Human Trafficking Victims:

"Fear of law enforcement and fear of retaliation. Next, respondents noted that fear is a significant deterrent to foreign-born victims coming forward and being identified, specifically fear of law enforcement and fear of retaliation from the trafficker. In most cases, it was reported that victims were taught to fear law enforcement, either as a result of experiences with corrupt governments and law enforcement in their countries of origin or as a result of the traffickers telling the victims that if they are caught, law enforcement will arrest them and deport them. The trafficker paints a picture of the victim as the criminal in the eyes of law enforcement. Additionally, the trafficker uses the threat of harm against the victim and/or his or her family as a means of control and a compelling reason for the victim to remain hidden. In some cases, these fears were in fact the ultimate reality for the victim. Service providers gave several examples of clients being placed into deportation hearings after coming forward to law enforcement."

So, why do we say "victims" of sex trafficking?

Well this has to do with various factors, including the fact that the domestic entry age is 12-14 years. When one is that young, surely they are unable to consent or engage in any decision-making regarding sexual activity. Further, no one is granted their freedom simply because they have had an 18th birthday. For this reason, victims can be held in captivity and exploited for many years, well into adulthood.

And each year involved in trafficking makes it more difficult to get out. These victims are dealing with stunted development, lack of education and job skills training, drug abuse and mental illness related to the complex trauma that they have endured, and threats of violence and death for even trying to escape. There is nothing sex positive about these circumstances, and those who are the most vulnerable are people of color, LGBTQ folks (especially transgender women who engage in survival sex), low-income individuals, and of course immigrants. The "Pretty Woman" fantasy does not apply here.

One has to keep in mind that, due to socio-cultural reasons and the effects of exploitation, victims of all forms of human trafficking do not readily identify as victims.

Traffickers use the following methods to recruit:

Traffickers and/or pimps rely on various methods of recruitment, and they include:

• Psychological manipulation - making a woman/girl fall in love

• Debt

• Drugs and drug addiction

• "Gorilla" Pimping - utilization of force, kidnapping, and physical harm to achieve a victim's submission

• Working with Those in Positions of Authority - parents, guardian, older siblings, foster parent, or an authoritarian figure who forces a victim into bondage.

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 actually defines severe forms of trafficking in persons as that which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age; or the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery (22 U.S.C. § 7102).

What Next?

Whether you are a resident of California or not, you should contact California legislators and encourage them to support this Bill.

A list of California legislators can be found here .

For more insights and tips, see the guide H ow To Lobby The California State Legislature: A Guide To Participation .

Progress and Making the Native Disappear in South Africa

By Richard Raber

In the name of modernity and capital expansion, indigenous peoples across the globe have been slaughtered, dispossessed and made to be invisible. Through the writing out of history or blotting out of popular culture, indigenous people are often relegated to a state of pre-modernity or tradition; this continues to underpin policy.

We have seen this narrative countless times as manifest destiny, the empty-land myth and the like; gross human rights violations justified as the price of Progress. In this way, Progress is considered through the lens of the inevitability of capital. Some proponents of this notion of Progress may claim to lament the cultural, familial and economic attack on local communities. If taken at face value, such sentiments speak less to personal immorality but rather point to a crisis of imagination. Progress is bestowed with inevitability, simply pitted against Tradition, leaving little room for intellectual alternatives. Lacking options, proponents remedy Progress by painting it as ethical advancement while distancing it from its colonial origins. Extraction industry apologetics demonstrate this trend through buzzwords such as energy independence or exaggerated claims of job creation.

In an act of colonial continuity, the government of South Africa is incessantly trying to put forward the Traditional Khoi-San Leadership Bill. Amongst other issues, the Bill would increase the authority of Traditional Leadership in the nation's former Bantustans including the ability to unilaterally enter their communities into agreements with third parties. This would sanction an existing reality in many communities wherein Traditional Leadership personally benefits from extorting or at least preventing community resistance against the arrival of extraction or tourism industries. As I have covered before, Traditional Leadership has sold land that is not theirs to sell, while others have acquiesced to the intimidation of their community members. In this way, the Bill would further institutionalize Traditional Leadership and rural patronage as a fulcrum for capitalist exploitation.

The proposed legislation is the next descendent in a long line of rural patronage used to manage and exploit the nation's black majority. The Bill would directly affect roughly 18 million people . While it would be unfair to paint every Traditional Leader with the same brush, we must question their histories and relationship to the title. Many contemporary Traditional Leaders do not fit into the great lineage of anti-colonial resistance embodied by Chief Albert Luthuli or King Langalibelele but rather fall into a line of collaboration. For instance, Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini legitimized Mangosuthu Buthelezi and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), armed by the regime, the IFP engaged in a ravenous civil war with the African National Congress across today's KwaZulu-Natal and the townships of Gauteng. It should be noted that Zwelithini also faces accusations of stoking the xenophobic violence plaguing the nation.

During the transition process, the IFP harnessed its ability to withhold peace by threatening to boycott the 1994 election. In exchange for their participation, the IFP was awarded a major concession and pre-cursor to the TKLB, the Ingonyama Trust Act. Passed days before the historic election, the Act stipulates that much of the land belonging to the former KwaZulu homeland is to be administered by the Zulu King. As I have argued before, the nature of the relationship between the national state and citizens on this land has remained largely unchanged since the colonial era. The Traditional Khoi-San Leadership Bill would further reify these borders and this relationship.

Considering the magnitude in terms of those directly affected by the Bill, there has been relatively little coverage of it. This falls into a long pattern of externalizing the experiences as well as plight of rural communities. Further, as I have noted before, much of the popular discourse surrounding rural people taking place outside of rural areas often frames these folks and by extension their communities within two stereotypes. The first label is stupid or lazy while the second is rural people as the proverbial gate-keepers of tradition, seemingly left-behind by modernity. A consultation process mired in inadequacies speaks to the first perception as rural people are to be spoken to, never heard, to be led rather than to lead. The relative silence in major English language media speaks to the perceived irrelevance of rural matters.

Much like its colonial forbearers, the Traditional Khoisan Leadership Bill is a tool to overlook the experiences, ambitions, opinions and indeed, dignity, of rural black South Africans. If enacted, this Bill will further empower corrupted Traditional Leadership while capital freely exploits the local soil. Progress is often understood as innovation, the easing of life. For capital this Bill effectively solves the problem or removes the barrier of rural people and their ability to politically participate, resist exploitation and direct their own destiny.

Raised in Canada, Richard Raber is a writer and researcher presently based in Luxembourg. His current research centres around social memory in contemporary South Africa. His writing has previously been featured by Open Democracy, Daily Maverick, New Politics and Thought Leader as well as other platforms. He can be found on Twitter at @RaberRichard.

A Resistance in Name Only: On the Trickery and Complicity of the Democratic Party

By Brenan Daniels

"We're soon going to have a one party system."

- Donald J. Trump

The 'Resistance', as opponents to President Trump call themselves, have been busy fighting back against the President's policies, having recently kicked off a ' Resistance Summer ' in order to "[counter] the agenda of President Trump and the GOP-led Congress." However, while they are fighting back, they are having some serious problems information-wise, such as propagating false stories like the House Republicans celebrating the passing of a bill to repeal Obamacare with beer or that rape would be a pre-existing condition under this new healthcare bill. There are larger problems, though, primarily with the party they are supporting (the Democrats), and it very well may come back to haunt them in the near future.

Young people who would generally vote Democrat overwhelmingly favored Bernie Sanders , coalescing around his promises to break up the big banks, Medicare for all, and free public college. Despite this, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said of her party : "I have to say we're capitalist and that's just the way it is." This is a major problem when the majority of young Democrats see themselves as socialists .

There is also the problem of the Dems having shown themselves to be a group of liars and cheaters. Currently, the Democratic National Committee is under a class action lawsuit alleging that they stole the Democratic Presidential nomination from Bernie Sanders. Some rather telling information came out, such as the fact that the DNC's legal representation said that the case should be thrown out on the grounds that "the Party has the freedom to determine its nominees by 'internal rule,' not voter interests, and thus the party could have favored a candidate" without breaking any laws. This was later stated more explicitly :

"We could have voluntarily decided that, ' Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way ,'" Bruce Spiva, lawyer for the DNC, said during a court hearing in Carol Wilding, et al. v. DNC Services Corp. (emphasis added)

This is undeniable evidence that there are deep-seated problems in the DNC, but there are further problems for the Democratic party itself: Russia.

Democrats seem to be obsessed with accusations of Russia-Trump collusion. This obsession has been reflected by MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who spent the majority of her time earlier this year focusing on Russia, as well as a recent protest that took place in which people demanded that Trump's ties to Russia be investigated. This line of thinking continues despite the fact that a number of high level individuals on their own team have flatly denied any such claim. One of these individuals, former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell stated that "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all;" and "There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark." Meanwhile, another of these individuals, Dianne Feinstein, had the following exchange with CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: The last time we spoke, Senator, I asked you if you had actually seen evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and you said to me -- and I am quoting you now -- you said, 'not at this time.' Has anything changed since we spoke last?

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, no -- no, it hasn't...

BLITZER: But, I just want to be precise, Senator. In all of the -- you have had access from the Intelligence Committee, from the Judiciary Committee, all of the access you have had to very sensitive information, so far you have not seen any evidence of collusion, is that right?

SEN. FEINSTEIN: Well, evidence that would establish that there's collusion. There are all kinds of rumors around, there are newspaper stories, but that's not necessarily evidence. (emphasis added)

There is such a dearth of evidence that mainstream organizations such as Bloomberg and even MSNBC's Chris Hayes are questioning the entire narrative in an attempt to move on.

While the Democratic Party is obsessed with thoughts of Russians, the Republicans are doing actual damage. Case in point: while everyone was obsessing over the recent Comey hearing, the Republicans went and gutted the Dodd Frank Act which "was designed to protect taxpayers by ending wholesale government bailouts of banks and non-bank financial institutions that encouraged indiscriminate lending." Furthermore, the Democrats have also been on the side of Trump, with many Dems praising him for his airstrike on a Syrian government air base over a questionable chemical weapons attack. (This shouldn't be surprising given the fact that Hillary Clinton argued for a no fly zone over Syria, which had she been elected could very well have caused a major military engagement with Russia .)

So, why does any of this matter? It is important because it shows that the Democrats are completely fine with, and work to uphold, the status quo. The same status quo that has led us to war and put us on the brink of war numerous times; and the same status quo that seems to have no qualms with engaging in activities that could very well lead to a world war scenario. The ground supporters of the 'Resistance' for the Democrats have yet to notice this glaring problem: they are supporting a party that isn't going to actually do much of anything to combat the major problems that are facing us, and in many cases have pushed to exacerbate them.

On a structural level, both parties are loyal to their corporate owners and push a foreign policy that seeks to confront any nation it sees as a threat to US global hegemony. Both parties also adhere to pro-capitalist neoliberal economic policy that continues to harm the working-class majority, gut the middle class, and enrich the 1%.

If "The Resistance" were real, it would be pushing the Democrats to actually propose policies designed to help working-class people in our daily struggle for living-wage jobs, adequate education, basic necessities, and accessible healthcare. Instead, it has chosen to obsess over Russia and support war, which is why they will likely find themselves "resisting" for another four years.

Explaining the Dollar: How it Became the Global Currency and What it Means For You

By Megan Cornish

Most working people think of the buck as the way they pay their bills. But its use goes far beyond the USA's borders. The greenback is the major world currency for trade and finance. This international role bestows vast power on the U.S. government and the rich. But its status doesn't help ordinary people much.

Fundamentally, the exchange of commodities and investments under global capitalism requires generally accepted forms of money to buy and sell them with. And the notes issued by the largest and richest economies tend to be employed the most. Today, the dollar is the most widely used, followed by the euro, the British pound, the Japanese yen, and since 2015, the Chinese yuan.

These world currencies have many uses. Besides international trade in commodities, there is foreign exchange, which is the buying and selling of the legal tender of different countries. Governments must hold foreign currency reserves to back up their money in case of economic crises, especially massive speculation in their own notes that can cause their value to collapse. In weaker and smaller economies, many everyday transactions take place in dollars or other international bills rather than the official local money. Some countries, like Panama, don't have their own currency, and instead use the dollar.

How the greenback became king.

Dollars backed by the government began (except for a brief unsuccessful run during the Civil War) with the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank in 1913. Government-backed notes allowed the USA to compete with Britain and its pound for economic dominance. In World War I, and later World War II, U.S. businesses profited mightily from supplying the combatants, and the country became the center of global finance. In 1944, representatives from over 40 countries met in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and signed an agreement that the dollar would be the world currency, convertible to gold by central banks at fixed exchange rates.

That arrangement lasted until 1971, when massive deficit spending on the war in Vietnam inflated the greenback and caused other countries to demand its exchange for gold. President Nixon ended this international convertibility, effectively devaluing the dollar.

The other result was that all currencies floated in value relative to each other, and there was no longer one official world paper money. The chaotic capitalist market prevailed, and a whole new arena of finance flourished - currency speculation.

But since the U.S. economy still dominated world finance and trade, the buck retained much of its international financial role. For instance, at the end of 2016, almost 64 percent of known foreign exchange reserves were held in dollars. They still predominate - so far - because of the size and relative strength of the economy of the USA and the dominance of its financial markets.

Who does a strong buck benefit?

To listen to the financial press,workers and business have the same interests. When governments, institutions and rich individuals are buying U.S. securities, stocks and real estate, interest rates tend to stay low and Wall Street booms. But that mainly benefits the rich who live off investments.

A rising greenback is a danger to workers and the overall economy. In this time of economic stagnation, when wealth is flowing almost exclusively to those at the top, the demand to buy dollars as an investment has soared, and so has its value. Between mid-2014 and 2016, the dollar appreciated 20 percent in relation to other main currencies.

This in turn has made the U.S. trade deficit explode. That is because as the buck rises, imports become cheaper to buy (in dollars) and exports to other countries become more expensive. Not only do exports fall, but production for the home market does too, as it becomes cheaper for consumers to buy foreign products.

This results in job cuts. Domestic production shrinks and national businesses try to reduce their costs by increasing automation. The high value of the greenback becomes a drag on the whole economy.

Calls for protectionism tend to increase, often along with xenophobic and racist movements. Witness the Trump phenomenon, and fascist-based movements in Europe. But neither protectionism nor "free" trade is good for workers anywhere. Capitalism is all about pitting working people against each other.

Feeding the war machine

One of the major ways governments and institutions hold dollars is in the form of U.S. Treasury securities. The buyer is lending their money to the government. The buck's high value helps Uncle Sam to sell ever more bonds. Unfortunately, much of the proceeds are plowed into military spending. This process has been funding the war industry since WWII. It has pushed the explosion of military actions that are devastating the Middle East and destabilizing many countries. It has cemented U.S. imperialism and world dominance at the cost of mayhem and misery.

Military spending plays a significant role in the economy of the USA, making large parts of the country's production not for human use, but for destruction. However, it props up the economy only so long as the greenback is an attractive investment. The United States can't maintain this house of cards forever, and it behooves workers here to remember that their interests remain with all the world's workers, not with "our" ruling class.

This was originally published in Freedom Socialist newspaper, Vol. 38, No. 3, June-July 2017 ( www.socialism.com)

Send feedback to author Megan Cornish at fsnews@mindspring.com.

Give us Liberty, or Give us Death: A Review of Phillip Nelson's "Remember the Liberty!"

By Greg Maybury

With the anniversary of the enormously consequential 1967 Six-Day War (SDW) between Israel and the Arab states (Egypt, Syria, Jordan) upon us, Phil Nelson's book is a timely and welcome addition to the literature of that event and the key people involved, and indeed, the era. Although on its face about the deliberate attack by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) during that conflict on the U.S. naval 'sig-int' ship the USS Liberty, with the loss of 34 lives and over 170 casualties, it's much more than that.

Along with showcasing one of the most disgraceful episodes in U.S. military history -- to say little of the self-serving, hypocritical and callous manner in which the political and military establishment treats its service personnel -- "Remember the Liberty!" presents us an opportunity to place into broader, more urgent relief, the history of America's increasingly dangerous -- some might say existentially so -- relationship with Israel, in addition to probing the role of both nations in past events and those unfolding as we speak in and across the Greater Middle East.

His just released tome moreover, crucially invites us to reexamine the virtually unexplored, indeed, wilfully neglected role played in these events by arguably America's most psychologically unhinged and criminally 'sectionable' of Oval Officeholders, one whose political ascendancy and White House tenure may have been the most consequential of all. We're talking here the then president of the U.S., Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), he of the Gulf of Tonkin fame. As the author reveals, had things gone the way as LBJ had planned, it almost certainly would've triggered the most cataclysmic consequences of all for humanity. Suffice to say that to the extent there might have been anyone around to write about it after, by way of comparison, the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis would've ended up a mere footnote in history.

On all counts then, Nelson's book provides us ample context and perspective within which to contemplate all of this and more. The truly astonishing story in this new book then is about one of the most explosive and hidden secrets in U.S. history - one that has never been previously told in such a transformative way. It is made all the more explosive because it involves Israel. Based on all available evidence, this is the most authentic, complete, up to date -- and it has to be said, disturbing -- account of the Liberty tragedy and its subsequent cover-up; the war in which it took place and that war's own hidden backstory; and the real perpetrators behind both of these, along with revelations about their motivations and intrigues. No matter what you read elsewhere, I can pretty much guarantee you're not getting the 'full monty' . And for those looking to write about the Liberty going forward, don't put pen to paper without it. Whether you're in the mainstream or alternative media camps, you'll just look like you've not done your homework!

"Remember the Liberty!" explores how a sitting U.S. president collaborated with Israeli leaders in the fomentation of what became known as the Six-Day War between them and their Arab neighbors. The so-called "spontaneous war" had been planned for months -- possibly even as early as two years before -- to be a war that would ensure a victory for Israel; the weakening of her enemies in neighboring Arab nations; and the acquisition of additional territories for Israel. These were all incentives to create 'buy-in' from Israeli leaders to this diabolical quid pro quo between them and LBJ, which might not otherwise have been forthcoming.

But the man known as "Landslide Lyndon" had his own ulterior motives in facilitating the Six-Day War: For the estimable LBJ, his highest priority was always about the ruthless accumulation of power, and in this case, it was about holding onto said power by ensuring his re-election the following year. Upset by his loss of popularity generally and with Jewish voters in particular, he wanted to give Israel as much covert - and ultimately, had the plan succeeded, overt - support as possible in the plan to engage their neighbors in that war, including the creation of a pretext to join them in attacking Egypt.

After the botched plan was implemented, the ship refused to sink even after being hit by a torpedo (more on this shortly), leading the attack to be abandoned and a massive cover-up set in motion, which included serious threats to the crewmembers to "keep their lips sealed." As ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern put it in the book's Foreword (see Consortium News "Not Remembering the Liberty") , those orders "put steroids to the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) suffered by many of the survivors." That cover-up is still in place (barely), but now completely exposed. Indeed, we can now say with certainty it is the worst best-kept secret in the history of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

Written in conjunction with three of the remaining survivors, Ernie Gallo, Ron Kukal and Phil Tourney, the book includes harrowing first-hand accounts from them. It's perhaps apposite to cite just one account of the numerous disturbing, poignant of those written for the book, this one by Tourney. With his shipmate Rick Aimetti helping him, they,

'….found some fire hoses and began hosing off the deck with a "suicide nozzle" on it that sprayed water in a very concentrated, high-pressure stream. It took both of us to handle this hose, because it was like a giant python and one man could not do it alone. It was the most gruesome, heartbreaking task we've ever done because every piece of flesh was the remains of one of our fellow sailors, many of whom were friends. As [we] went about this ungodly task, tears streamed down our faces and I prayed to God for forgiveness in how we were forced to treat the remains of these men so sacrilegiously. In the gun-tubs we found a shoe with a foot still in it, which we put aside for collection. Many of the bloodstains would not come off, even with that special hose, because of the previous day's heat - not just baking under the sun's heat, but from the rockets and napalm that had be dropped on the ship by the attacking [planes]. We found out the hard way how hot our government's most brutal weapon can burn: It can get as hot as 2,200°F, which explains why that blood could not be completely cleansed from the steel decks.'

"Remember the Liberty!" places much more focus on the brutality and ruthlessness with which the Johnson administration and the U.S. Navy brass treated the sailors themselves, not only then, but, significantly, continuing even now. It began immediately after the attack but - because of the threats of prison "or worse" if they ever uttered a word about it, even to their wives or parents - it festered for decades, while they and their families had to live with the trauma they experienced. This meant keeping their horrific memories to themselves for 15-20 years before they felt safe enough to even discuss it with anyone. Their stories recount how they've continued to be marginalized, dismissed - even ridiculed -- by the MSM and accused of anti-Semitism by Israel's defenders in knee-jerk fashion. In fact, the book contains an entire chapter dedicated to this point.

Another brutally shocking revelation -- one hitherto virtually ignored or neglected, even apparently by some of the survivors, and one likely to induce cognitive dissonance even in those folks who might imagine themselves immune to the discomforts of this most curious of psychological conditions -- is the following: After the IDF motor torpedo boats (MTB) had fired four torpedoes and all had missed the target (this may or may not have been deliberate upon the part of the MTB commanders; we can only surmise), the fifth torpedo which did hit the ship was fired, according to one sailor's account, by the Liberty's escort submarine the USSAmberjack, the result of a direct order from President Johnson. (My emphasis)

The grievously wounded sailor - Richard Larry Weaver - who only relatively recently revealed publicly this part of the story (and further claimed the Amberjack filmed the assault through its periscope), was nearly killed, only saved by one of his shipmates who came to his rescue and helped him to the medics, the then 21 year old literally holding his intestines inside his abdomen until his fellow sailor delivered what was left of him to the ship's only doctor. The most severely wounded of all of the remaining survivors, even for those who aren't especially God-fearing would have to concede some kind of miracle occurred that day to save Weaver. But well might we say, that day June 8, 1967, was remarkable for its many "miracles", and Nelson's narrative is littered with them.

A Few Dead Sailors (And the Some)

When he was finally released from hospital and returned Stateside, Weaver then discovered that his Navy records had been doctored to hide the fact he was even assigned to the Liberty. He was then forced to hire a private investigator to prove it just to get his disability service pension acknowledged. His investigator reportedly had "high-level Pentagon contacts" who revealed many of the secrets to him, and that's how Weaver found out about that "fifth torpedo" and who had fired it. I'm given to understand that this investigator has since denied he made this revelation, but to this day Weaver - a man who has undergone more than 35 major operations since that day -- is adamant his account is true. The YouTube video in the link above is a must watch, but folks should prep themselves for a singularly distressing account of his experience. Those who do watch it can then make up their own minds as to whether the man's account is credible.

But for those folks who've read Nelson's earlier books on LBJ (see here and here ), they'll know such a monumental act of treachery and treason was not beyond this president. By Nelson's reckoning (and numerous others it needs be said), [LBJ] "wanted that ship sunk!" Johnson - interestingly, a former, albeit less than distinguished , Navy man himself -- was not prepped to allow a "few dead sailors" to cause "embarrassment" to an important ally like Israel. We might readily assume the president had in mind avoiding same (and more) for himself. The very fact that Johnson - via Robert McNamara , his then Defense Secretary, a man who was as complicit as his boss in this unmitigated act of treason and the travesty of the cover-up and who later denied being able to recall anything significant about the Liberty attack -- stopped in their tracks not one but two separate attempts by Sixth Fleet Commanders to come to the ship's rescue is sufficient to underscore this.

There has been of course no shortage of books written about the attack on the Liberty. Some of those present the case put forth by the U.S. and Israeli governments' "official story" (e.g. Judge AJ Cristol , or self-styled Six-Day War "expert" Michael Oren ), concocted to perpetuate the cover-up narrative (not unlike the contrived narrative Israel has clung to about why it went to war in the first instance), hiding the incriminating facts and essentially writing it off as a freak "accident." You know, the "Fog of War" thing!

But that was never the reaction of the State Department officials of the time, or certain members the Navy brass who weren't under orders to conduct a phony investigation designed to cover it up. One of the latter, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff no less Admiral Thomas Moorer , observed that the president's handling of the Liberty attack was "…the most disgraceful act I witnessed in my entire military career." By the same token, one of the Admirals who did his best to keep a lid on the real facts of the attack was none other than Admiral John ("Mr. Seapower") McCain Jr., which if the name doesn't ring any bells for folks, was the father of the estimable Arizona Senator John McCain III , not coincidentally one of the most ardent of the Beltway's apologists for Israel.

Tellingly, the man who wrote the original fabricated Navy "Court of Inquiry" report on the incident - the report used by those same authors as the basis for their books - eventually retracted all of it: Former Navy Captain Ward Boston Jr., JAGC, in 2004 penned a scathing denunciation of the book by Judge Cristol, admitting that the original Navy report was designed to cover up the truths and replace them with bald-faced lies. And interestingly, one of Australia's former Prime Ministers Malcolm Fraser in 2014 declared unequivocally the attack on the Liberty by Israel was deliberate. As a senior cabinet minister at the time -- and later Defence Minister -- few could argue Fraser didn't know what he was talking about, even if he barely knew the half of it.

These earlier books which have attempted to lay out the real facts behind the attack all come to the conclusion that the brutal two hour attack was an intentional, well co-ordinated assault, designed not to just put the ship out of commission and prevent it from sending or receiving real-time 'intel' about unfolding events, but to ensure that it sank to the bottom of the Mediterranean. These books (e.g. by James Ennes , Peter Hounam, and James Scott ) do not mention the key factor that actually caused the attack in the first place, and which then necessitated the massive cover-up. One book ( Hounam's Operation Cyanide ) did suggest something strange was going on at the White House, and posited that Johnson's political travails -- of which there were plenty -- might have something to do with the chain of events.

"Remember the Liberty!" though is the first book to factor LBJ's psychopathological issues - again of which like his "political travails", there were many -- into the calculus. Only by understanding his obsession with winning back the political support of Jewish people who'd abandoned him because of his shambolic Vietnam policies -- along with the monomaniacal nature of Number 36 -- can one understand what really happened. Like his previous "false flag" 'op' mentioned earlier - the phantom 'attack' at the Gulf of Tonkin by North Vietnamese gunboats on two U.S. Navy destroyers, conveniently occurring just three months before the 1964 elections, which helped him win his landslide election - he calculated this attack would secure his re-election the following year.

Yet the opposite happened: when the Liberty didn't sink -- and his devious "false flag" plan to use it as a pretext for blaming the attack on Egypt and join Israel in their victorious "Six-Day War" collapsed - it was his re-election chances that were deep-sixed. Nine months laterhe reluctantly pulled the pin on seeking reelection to the very office he'd lusted for his entire life. And as they say, the rest is history. Except that with these things, it never is of course! By this time, LBJ was a broken man. But by then so was pretty much everything else in the Home of the Brave.

Of the two principals involved, the conflicted -- in both cases ulterior -- goals of the Six-Day War are the root cause of the turbulence in the Middle East which the world has both witnessed and endured for the past five decades. Numerous ironies abound, such as the fact that over half of the U.S. foreign aid budget goes to Israel, a well-developed, prosperous economic power set amidst some of the most poverty-ridden nations in the world. And Israel has for fifty years been dining out on the myths associated with the Six-Day War.

Moreover, it was through the paradox of Johnson's most sordid, devious manipulations that the U.S.-Israel relationship became so entwined in the aftermath of the Liberty attack: Virtually overnight, U.S. policy was transformed from being "neutral" towards all countries in the area - as earlier administrations had tried to remain, to avoid being seen as partial to either side - to that of openly and aggressively backing Israel in all possible ways, including its acquisition of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, an ambition which LBJ's predecessor JFK had adamantly opposed.

My Country, Right or Wrong

Doubtless this book will cop plenty of flak for its controversial assertions, even from some prominent, purportedly progressive/liberal/left-wing quarters, with many therein resisting any embrace of the real truth about Johnson the man, the consequential nature and character of both his presidential tenure and his political career overall, and his overarching position in the historical firmament. Bizarrely, Number 36 still seems to be regarded as some kind of "liberal" icon (check everyone from Jimmy Carter to Bill Moyers), largely due one supposes to the so-called "Great Society", a busted flush by any measure when one considers the individual state today of most of the key areas where the program was supposed to improve the socio-economic lives of Americans. These 'improvements' included ambitious reforms in everything from immigration, health, civil rights, consumer protection, housing and urban development, education, along with addressing major issues of economic inequality and racial injustice, to name the key areas.

And although Johnson can't be blamed for all of the failures of these reform measures, still well might we ask, what does America have to show for the much-touted Great Society today, 50 years on? Or well might we ask, how much more successful might they have been had LBJ not blown the budget in -- and equally as important, not allowed himself and his administration to so distracted by -- the Vietnam debacle, one for which he was totally responsible, and for which he can and should rightly be blamed?

For their part, the formidable Israel Lobby -- which ironically went on to become even more powerful and influential in Washington after the Liberty attack, and is as entrenched today as it ever was -- and the uber-partisan "Friends of Israel" will attack this book and its author with a vengeance likely to metaphorically match the attack on the Liberty itself, with the same 'terminate with extreme prejudice' mindset.

But any criticisms of it being biased against Israel will be misplaced. If anything, "Remember the Liberty!" finally places the principal blame for the attack right where it has always belonged: upon the man also known as "Lyin' Lyndon". By Nelson's reckoning, Israeli leaders at the time were only taking such actions because Johnson had insisted on them doing so as a pre-condition for his assistance in their plans for extending Israeli borders into Palestine, thus acquiring the extra territory theyd coveted ever since 1948. The Israelis simply would've had no real motive for attacking the ship, if only because by that time, the war was over and they'd already achieved their objectives.

None of this of course absolves Israel of culpability in this war crime -- not by a long shot from the Texas Schoolbook Depository Building -- nor does it let the country off the hook for taking full and unconditional responsibility for it now, this especially given its abject refusal to admit to this day it was indeed a deliberate, unprovoked and unjustified attack on its most important ally. Their propensity to attack those who might suggest otherwise only adds insult to 50-year-old injuries.

But for those folks with a more (ahem), nuanced view of the 36th POTUS there may or may not be any surprises herein. He was as some folks were wont to say, a man to see with the bark off! The fact that LBJ's diabolical plan failed, and the Liberty did not sink thanks to the heroic efforts of the survivors, undoubtedly saved the world from the nuclear conflagration which might have otherwise occurred, with Jerusalem - the "city of peace" - at ground zero. They say Americans don't do irony. This writer once again begs to differ.

"Remember the Liberty!" is then both a tale of abandonment, betrayal, and justice denied, and truth ruthlessly suppressed. It is also one of great courage and determination, and what we might term here Down Under, 'mateship forged under fire'. Moreover, it is one of authentic patriotism, not the dodgy variety that passes for such in and around the rarefied environs of the Beltway and which might be defined as such by feckless mainstream media pundits. For their efforts in saving the ship, they helped avert the unthinkable, an achievement for which we all must be forever truly grateful. But the price they have paid must have left many of those remaining wishing they had not survived the attack, with presumably quite a few also calling into question the whole "Truth, Justice and the American Way/My Country Right or Wrong" Thing!

I trust readers are all able to see their way clear of keeping this story alive by buying a copy of the book and alerting interested friends, family and acquaintances to this very important -- if shameful -- piece of hidden American history. This will be the 'last shot in the locker' as it were these veterans and their families have to obtain some critical mass public recognition, accompanied by some measure of justice and redress for what they've been put through, and continue to go through. To say nothing of the all-important, much sought after closure.

After all, we'd all want that for ourselves and our own families, wouldn't we? And if America can't do that after all this time, we'd have to say it truly has lost its way!

Greg Maybury is a Perth, Australia-based writer and blogger. Separate to this review, he has published an in-depth, lengthy analysis and commentary of the people and events covered by Nelson's book. This analysis is in two parts, and can be found on his blog .