Archive | July 27th, 2020

Gimme Shelter: the Brief And Strange History of CHOP (AKA CHAZ)


Photograph Source: Derek Simeone – CC BY 2.0

“Rape, murder—it’s just a shot away, it’s just a shot away”
–“Gimme Shelter” the Rolling Stones

The end has come for CHOP—or CHAZ. At first the six-block area just east of downtown Seattle was called CHAZ. The area was occupied by protesters on June 8th after it was reluctantly ceded to them by Seattle Mayor Jennie Durkan and the police. That was the day that the Seattle Police Department vacated and locked up its East Precinct building on 12th Avenue. When the police left, the occupiers painted “People” over the “Police” in the sign, “Seattle Police Department, East Precinct.” Then they declared the surrounding area the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, soon referred to simply as CHAZ. Whatever exactly it was, it had a name. Then some black community leaders suggested it be called Capitol Hill Organize Protest. Hence, CHOP, although CHAZ was still being used. Whatever you call it, as of the First of July it was no more.

In general, I’m against renaming things. Why rename the West Indies? It will forever remind us of Columbus pulling up in front of the wrong address. As my nephew said, “He get lost and he gets a holiday named after him. I get lost all the time.” My nephew lives a short walk from the area that briefly was known as CHOP or CHAZ.

In any event, the lack of agreement as to what to call themselves was not a good sign—it seemed to suggest the lack of a clear idea among the protesters as to what they were doing. And finally the protesters’ confusion was just about the only thing clear about the entire exercise. That confusion is the subject of this essay.

The next day June 9th one of the protesters posted on a blog a list of thirty demands. That’s a lot of demands. Soon four more would be added. For a nation used to the brevity of text messages and tweets even reading them was demanding. Among the demands foremost were the defunding or possibly the abolition of the Seattle Police Department and even the court system, the release of all protesters who had been arrested. then things followed like free health care, free college, free housing—I’ll stop there. The shopping list of demand is really only germane to this essay as an indication of the confusion that was to follow.

The reaction of the right wing to all of this was predictably hysterical. Trump tweeted that “Domestic Terrorists” had “taken over Seattle.” A bit of overstatement there. Since the six blocks under terrorist control lay in the middle of an urban area stretching more than 90 miles from Everett in the north to the state capital Olympia in the south. Of course, Trump’s grasp of geography is none too sure and his love of hyperbole is well known. The president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild Michael Solan actually outdid Trump in his geographical magnification of CHOP. Solan told Fox News, “This is the closest I’ve ever seen our country, let alone the city here, to becoming a lawless state.” The day after that on “Cavuto Live,” Solan said, “This could metastasize across the country.”

Solan need not have worried. There was—at that point—nothing going on in CHOP that would’ve upset his Aunt Bea.

The Guardian’s lead story on Friday, June 12th provided the best description of it in its youthful exuberance:

The space has both a protest and street fair vibe, with a small garden, medic station, smoking area, and a “No Cop Co-op”, where people can get supplies and food at no cost. There’s also a trio of shrine-like areas filled with candles, flowers and images of George Floyd and many others who have been killed by police…

For days, the area has been filled with all manner of speeches, concerts and movie nights, including “13th,” the Ava DuVernay documentary about racial inequality

Protesters have described the site as a safe and peaceful place, where the vast majority of people wear masks to protect each other against coronavirus and offer whatever skills or supplies they have. On Wednesday, people could be seen handing out masks, hand sanitizers, snacks and water.

Designated smoking areas and movie nights aside, most of the description of the scene in CHOP made me think of the Sixties, especially of Woodstock in August of 1969. One statement of a CHOP protester in particular stood out. The protester, Dae Shik Kim Jr., said, “I think what we’re seeing in CHAZ (sic) is just a snippet of a reality that the people can have.” [1]

Kim’s words reminded me at once of something Mick Jagger said during the Rolling Stones tour of the States in the fall of 69 after Woodstock. Jagger was answering a question at a press conference not about Woodstock, but about a free concert the Stones had proposed to be held at the end of their tour. Of the concert, then still in its planning stages—‘planning’ is a misnomer—Jagger said, “It’s creating a sort of microcosmic society, you know, which sets an example to the rest of America…” Well, it did that.

That concert was Altamont, a name known by anyone who is a Stones fan or has some knowledge of the history of rock ‘n’ roll. When the Altamont concert is mentioned fifty years later terms like “disastrous,” “notorious” and “infamous” still precede it. Hells Angels were at the concert either hired or not hired to provide security. They sat on the edge of the stage with their bikes parked in front of them, and from almost the beginning began to scuffle with the part of the crowd of 300,000 closest to the low stage. Shortly musicians were also fighting with the Angels. Four people died at the concert, three by various misadventures. The fourth, a black man named Meredith Hunter, pulled out a pistol in a melee while the Stones were playing and was stabbed to death by a Hells Angel.[2]

Woodstock and Altamont took place in an era of mass protests like CHOP, though neither as part of a mass protest as CHOP is—though they were not unrelated to the protests of that era by any means. They could be thought of as sort of contrapuntal events.

I went to mass demonstrations against the Viet Nam War in the late 60s and early 70s. I was then in my teens and lived in Seattle. The biggest demonstration was in 1970 after Kent State and Jackson State. The participants in the anti-war demonstrations reflected the various other causes that after 1967 were part of the anti-war movement, black civil rights, the Chicano movement, women’s rights, the environment—there were more—so that soon one spoke of The Movement whose goal was social change well beyond simply ending the Viet Nam War.

When Nixon campaigned for president in 1968, he said he had a “secret plan” to end the war in Viet Nam. The secret turned out to be that he shifted the war in Viet Nam from the ground to the air, thus reducing the number of ground troops—and casualties—and at the same time he replaced the draft with the lottery. The result was a large reduction the war casualties among American forces and also in the number of draftees. The net effect of these moves was seen by 1972.

The last mass demonstration I went to was in 1972 and it was the smallest. They had been growing smaller. Young white males, no longer threatened by the draft, stopped protesting. I remember one of speakers at that protest was a man named Roberto Maestas the leader of a Chicano group called, I think, La Raza. His speech was somber. Maestas began, “I’ve been coming to these demonstrations for years. The war is still going on and these demonstrations are getting smaller.” Then he talked about needing to find another way forward.

By 1974 no one any longer spoke of The Movement except in the past tense. Eventually we all found our several ways forward. By the Eighties Jerry Rubin of the Chicago Seven and Dennis Hopper of “Easy Rider” fame were Reagan supporters. And there followed the long domination of the right. We are still living with the way Nixon reshaped American politics.

CHOP is about half a mile from Swedish hospital where I was born. My sister lives now about twelve blocks southwest of CHOP. One of her two sons—the one who gets lost—lives a short walk north of it, the other a similar distance east of it. While they’re all sympathetic to the BLM protests both in Seattle and across the nation, CHOP seemed to them a more motley and less focused group than the larger mass of BLM protestors.

While all of the protesters agreed about the cause of Black Lives Matter, many people in CHOP brought with them many other causes that were not embraced by the larger mass of BLM protesters. There was also, more critically, a difference between the organization of the larger BLM protests and CHOP. Black civil rights groups and community groups provided some organization and cohesion to the larger protests—which was seen in how the initial instances of looting soon diminished. CHOP on the other hand really had no organization whatsoever. I read of a protester at CHOP saying its organization would grow “organically”—another Sixties buzzword that after 1972 was mostly used with regard to tomatoes.

Initially some of CHOP’s neighbors were enthusiastic. Lisa McCallister, a thirty-year-old case worker in Seattle who had attended the protests, described CHOP as “…amazing. It’s the retaking of a space that was covered in violence for no reason. They were teargassing and flash-banging at 12:30 at night for hours. And then to kind of completely retake this space with peace and love.”[3]

The Woodstock peace and love ambience was to last twelve days at CHOP. It took four months for the Woodstock peace and love thing to crash to the ground at Altamont. But things happen faster these days.

The first week of CHOP’s existence my sister complained of the disruption even in her neighborhood. Her younger son visited CHOP and he told her, “It’s like a poorly organized street fair.”

But even before CHOP came into being there were bad signs of things to come. The first took place not in the neighborhood where CHOP would be located, but across Lake Washington in the wealthy suburb of Bellevue.

On May 31st, somewhere between 1000 and 2000 people raced passed the security guards at the upscale suburban Bellevue Mall, smashed through plate glass doors and windows and looted the stores. Some of the looters had guns which they used to shoot out the windows of shops. While some headlines mistakenly linked it to the George Floyd protest, the event was nothing of the sort. Bellevue Police Chief Steve Mylett said that it was the work of gangs. He had evidence in the form of cellphone conversations that gangs, whose main line of business was drugs, coordinated and timed the raid so as to be camouflaged under the George Floyd protests. Mylett said, “I can’t emphasize enough how repulsive it is that people would take and exploit the homicide of George Floyd to further their criminal intention.”[4]

Then in the week after the birth of CHOP, my sister’s youngest son heard on the street where he lives the sounds of intermittent gunfire for a few nights. Likely it was the sound of a gun or guns being fired in the air by someone who wanted to make his presence in the area known to those who lived there. But who would that be? The most likely suspects were either rightwing militia members or gang members. The gangs as we’ve seen had already exploited the general confusion for their own ends. At the same time that my nephew heard gunshots in his street at night, rightwing militias made their presence known.

On June 15th and 16th a probation officer in Portland, Oregon received calls that a man in her charge had been in Seattle in CHOP and the area around it—simply being of the Portland area was a violation of his probation. The man, Tusitala “Tiny” Toese, a resident of Vancouver, Washington across the Columbia River from Portland, was associated with the rightwing group the Proud Boys and had been convicted of 4th degree assault for an incident in Portland in the summer of 2018. Video shot near CHOP surfaced showing Toese with a group of men getting out of an SUV and confronting a protester. Toese throws the man on the pavement and then Toese and his fellow thugs kick and beat him.

A few days later on the afternoon of Thursday June 18th, a 37-year-old protester lured a 25-year-old deaf woman into his tent with a promise of free food and tried to rape her. A passing medic heard commotion in the tent, wrested the woman away from the man and got her out of his tent. After the medic got her out of the tent, the man tried to pull her back in.

Then, two days later on Saturday June 20th, two men were shot in two different locations though both were in or near Cal Anderson Park that was part of CHOP. Some of the confusion was caught on City security cameras that monitor the park. When the police responded they were met by a crowd. The police said the crowd argued among themselves about letting them in. But finally would not let them get to the sites of the shootings.

Omari Salisbury, a freelance journalist, had shot video documenting CHOP from its beginning. His video shot in the early hours of Saturday morning shows a tumultuous scene as he describes how one of the victims was receiving CPR by CHOP volunteer medics. An article by Seattle Times journalist Mike Carter was based on Salisbury’s video and what Salisbury told him. The following is excerpted from Carter’s article:

Salisbury described a scene of “pandemonium” at the medic tent when one of the victims was being treated there, as the medics and others argued over whether they should call Medic One or transport the victims themselves. “There was a lot of confusion,” he says on the video. Salisbury said the CHOP area “emptied out pretty quickly” after the shooting. “The population got real small, real quick,” he said.

Former nurse Alex Bennett said she was walking her dog with a friend when a passerby told her about a shooting. She was leaving, she said, when she turned the corner at 11th Avenue and Pike Street and came across the second victim on the hood of a car, bleeding from a wound in his arm. Bennett said she used her sweatshirt as a tourniquet to try to stanch the bleeding and asked someone to call 911. When a volunteer CHOP medic came by with a first aid kit, Bennett said they examined the man and found another wound in his chest. The man’s skin was turning clammy and his breathing was shallow, she said, and when it became clear an ambulance wasn’t coming — or wouldn’t be there fast enough — she and others loaded him into a van and raced to the hospital, where a medical team was waiting outside. They found at least one wound on the man’s chest. Afterward, she said, she was questioned by a police officer, who she said “told me that when they responded to the first victim they were chased out of there, which is why they didn’t come for the second one.”[5]

The hospital where the victims were taken was Harborview, about a five-minute drive from CHOP. How long it was exactly from the time the second victim with the chest wound was shot until the CHOP medics got him to Harborview is difficult to determine, but it seems it took at least twenty minutes. In any event, by the time he got to Harborview ER he’d lost too much blood to be saved and he died minutes later.

The next two nights there were two more shootings in or near CHOP. The victims were only wounded.

Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat dropped by CHOP on the 23rd, the day after the last of the three shootings. Westneat wrote: “We can police ourselves!” a man was still insisting in one of the CHOP’s intersections on Tuesday when I stopped by. “The hell we can,” a woman responded under her breath.[6]

Whether the perpetrators of the shootings on Saturday and Sunday were gang members or rightwing militia members is unknown. The first night June 20th it appears there were actually two separate shootings that happened close together. The first victim of the first shooting, DeJuan Young, who was wounded, was shot by different people and a block away from where Lorenzo Anderson was shot and mortally wounded only minutes later. Young said his shooting was motivated by racism. “So basically I was shot by, I’m not sure if they’re Proud Boys or KKK,” said Young from his hospital bed. “But the verbiage that they said was hold this ‘N—–’and shot me.”[7]

The end of CHOP seemed in sight. On Monday June 22nd, Seattle Mayor Jennie Durkan said, “It’s time for people to go home.” To finally help CHOP go gentle into that good night, the mayor called for help from leaders of the black community in Seattle. Early the next morning June 23rd, another man was shot and wounded near the northeast corner of Cal Anderson Park.

The next day, Wednesday June 24th, a tweet from a group called “Capitol Hill Occupied Protest Solidarity Committee” said, “Few people remain in our beloved CHOP…The CHOP project is now concluded.” That same day some Capitol Hill residents and businesses filed a class-action suit against the City of Seattle for damages caused by CHOP. By Friday June 26th, probably less than a hundred people remained in CHOP.

In the meantime, Seattle City Council member Sawant, a socialist and member of the Seattle City Council had issued a new demand. Of the homicide she said, “Our movement should demand and insist that the Seattle Police fully investigate this attack and be held accountable to bring the killer(s) to justice.”[8] Since CHOP was a “police-free zone” the police would presumably in her view need to obtain a special dispensation from people in CHOP to conduct an investigation in it—and that might have to await the “organic” development of some organization. Once they have permission they will need to speed up their investigation before they are defunded. It begins look like “Duck Soup” with real bullets.

Over the weekend of June 27th and 28th, city crews began removing some of the “Jersey barriers” that the mayor had ordered set up when the occupation began, and the mayor announced the streets in CHOP would soon be reopened. But as soon as the crews removed the jersey barriers, protesters threw up new barriers made of more homely materials—sheets of plywood, trash cans and old sofas. Some of the press thought the City might somehow finally clear CHOP of the remaining protesters over the weekend, but it didn’t happen.

What did happen was that on Sunday June 28th, hundreds of the protesters who had left CHOP gathered at Warren G. Magnuson Park on Lake Washington, and marched from there past the house where in 2017 a black woman, Charleena Lyles, called 911 to report a burglary and she ended up being shot dead by the two police who responded to her call. The two policemen claimed they found no evidence of a burglary and that Lyles suddenly turned on them with a kitchen knife. Lyles had a history of mental illness and that case is still under investigation. From there the protesters marched to the wealthy district called Windermere where Mayor Jenny Durkan lives. How they learned of Durkan’s address would become a sub-plot in the CHOP story since Durkan’s address is protected under the state confidentiality program because of her law enforcement background as a US attorney.

The next day Monday June 29th in the early hours of the morning, there was yet another shooting in CHOP, the fourth and final one. This time the shooting apparently culminated in front of the still vacant police precinct building. Two young black men in a Jeep Cherokee were shot and were taken to Harborview Hospital where one man died. It seems that armed members of an Antifa group in CHOP shot them. There is video showing the vehicle driving wildly around in Cal Anderson Park and someone in it apparently shoots at people in the park or houses next to it. Then there is more video showing what are apparently the Antifa people running towards gunfire, possibly on 12th Avenue where the precinct building is located, and someone can be heard to shout, “Anyone without a gun, hit the ground!” By the time the police reached the bullet-riddled vehicle, homicide detectives said it was clear the vehicle had been cleaned of evidence, presumably by the armed Antifa group.

The mayor’s patience with CHOP was inexplicable to some or written off as weak-kneed liberal appeasement by others. But my sister told me of rumors that the FBI told the mayor that they had an informant in CHOP, and, on the basis of what their informant told them, she should not do anything about CHOP because it was so disorganized and so many of its factions were at odds with one another that it would disintegrate all on its own.

The mayor’s call for help from black community leaders to help end CHOP seems significant. It points to a difference between some of the black leaders and many white protesters. At some point if all of the protests across the country are to become an organized political movement that can bring about real change, the white protesters who are not organized will need to follow the lead of black organizers and leaders.

Regarding all the chaos, the violence and deaths Kshama Sawant issued a Trump-like statement. She said the violence was due to capitalism. Therefore, she and the protesters at CHOP bore no responsibility.

It’s true that Seattle shows some of the most egregious features of capitalism per Marx. It is the city of Jeff Bezos’ global colossus Amazon and it is also a city where a full-time employee of the US Postal Service lives in a tent under a freeway ramp because she can no longer afford the lease on her apartment. But Sawant cannot blame capitalism for the naiveté of many in CHOP who were oblivious to the possibility that criminal gangs and rightwing militias might exploit their social experiment with fatal consequences, nor can she blame capitalism for the attempted rape of the deaf woman by one of her confederates. That they are still debating what to call themselves as CHOP was disintegrating and being dismantled speaks to how ill-suited most of the protesters were to organize anything. Even movie night. The first film they should have screened is the Maysles Brothers documentary “Gimme Shelter.” That might have given them pause. Or maybe not.

The police chief, Carmen Best, at a press conference in CHAZ on Monday June 29th said, “Enough is enough.” Kshama Sawant has called for the mayor to resign or be impeached. Mayor Jenny Durkan has called on the Seattle City Council to investigate Sawant, noting the City Council may “punish or expel a member for disorderly or otherwise contemptuous behavior.”[9] Durkan is said to suspect that it was Sawant who leaked her address to the protesters who marched to her residence Sunday. Durkan also wants Sawant investigated for letting protesters into City Hall when it was closed due to the pandemic and for encouraging the illegal occupation of the police precinct building.

On July 1st, Seattle Police in riot gear cleared CHOP with the help of the Bellevue Police. At 4:58 am Mayor Durkan issued an order to clear the area. At 5 am the police entered CHOP and ordered everyone to leave within eight minutes or they would be arrested. They arrested at least 32 people. Policemen also reentered the precinct building though they did not move back in. City workers at the same time began to clear the last few barricades. Police also began investigating several vehicles without license plates that had been observed circling CHOP while the police were clearing it. The people in the vehicles had firearms and were wearing body armor.

That morning my sister flew to Palm Springs. There had been barely any police presence on her street the last few days. Junkies shoot up on her street now during the day, and the night before she left she could hear the shootings in CHOP. Last week a gang managed to distract the guard downstairs and break through all the high-tech security to get into the building where she lives. Residents can only use the elevator to go to the floor they live on, the business center, and the gym. The gang unlocked the apartment next to her and took everything, even the appliances.

My sister went to Palm Springs to look at a condo in a gated community. She and her husband who died last fall swore they would never live in a gated community. But she lives alone now and times have changed.’


1) Kim’s remark and all the preceding excerpts are in the same article For the sake of clarity with one or two exceptions I have changed CHAZ to CHOP in the quotes that follow. 

2) Mick Jagger, an intelligent man, no doubt regretted his fatuous words soon after the concert. Jagger is also filmed in the documentary watching the Maysles brothers edit the footage of the interview. To his credit he didn’t ask the Maysles to cut his foolish remark. 



5) All of the following material is taken from an article written by a Seattle Times journalist, Mike Carter. I have altered the wording of his article in places. Where there are direct quotes, they are in Carter’s article which may be found at 


7) Horne, Deborah (June 23, 2020). “Man critically injured in CHOP shooting says he was the victim of a racial attack”. KIRO-TV Retrieved June 23, 2020



Posted in USAComments Off on Gimme Shelter: the Brief And Strange History of CHOP (AKA CHAZ)

Trump’s War


Photograph Source: Winkelvi – CC BY 4.0

President Donald Trump chose a national holiday traditionally intended for joy and unity to deliver dark, combative harangues against a “radical ideology” that is no more than “violent mayhem” designed to overthrow law and order.

In speeches at Mount Rushmore on Friday evening and on the South Lawn of the White House Saturday to commemorate America’s 244th birthday, Trump minced no words and stayed true to form in appealing to his conservative and white supremacist base by making clear he was taking sides in a burgeoning culture war between honoring a past scarred with racism and civil war and a “new far-left fascism” that seeks a future of social justice free of inequality. He couldn’t have been more divisive.

“Their goal is not a better America. Their goal is the end of America,” he said of demonstrators demanding social justice reforms of police departments nationwide, among them the Black Lives Matter movement.

Trump appealed to his few thousand admirers Friday in an amphitheater beneath the carved busts of four presidents in the Black Hills of South Dakota to honor the monuments and statues saluting America’s past, shunning the fervor of the present in which millions of Americans have marched for their country to bring alive the ideals invoked in sacred documents that have guided American jurisprudence and for which Americans have died from the green fields of Lexington and Concord to the bloodied sands of Iraq and Afghanistan.

“The radical ideology attacking our country advances under the banner of social justice,” Trump said. “But in truth, it would abolish both justice and society. It would transform justice into an instrument of division and vengeance and turn our free society into a place of repression, domination and exclusion. They want to silence us, but we will not be silenced.”

That’s most of what Trump has been doing for 3 ½ years.

He is seeking reelection against a growing tide of what Trump branded a “left-wing cultural revolution” that has toppled statues of Confederate generals, slave owners and even of Columbus in a quest for recognition of the need for racial justice. He condemned a social movement that since the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis May 25 has pushed for an end to police brutality against Blacks and other minorities.

Most of the demonstrations have been peaceful but Trump inflated their impact, making it sound as if protesters were rampaging through cities on a wave of destruction that he characterized as “violent mayhem.”

“Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values and indoctrinate our children,” he told the crowd in which few wore masks or practiced social distancing. “Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of violent crime in our cities.”

Trump recently signed an executive order to punish people who destroy monuments on federal property.

His racism is well known by now, from his saying there are “very fine people on both sides” at the white supremacist demonstration in Charlottesville in 2017 in which one woman was killed to his condemnation of Black football players for kneeling during the national anthem that cost one his career.

But the protests for change may be inspiring Americans more than Trump and his fellow Republicans may realize, creating more of a backlash to the president’s policies, including his refusal to take charge of the pandemic, leaving it to governors and mayors, and calling on the military to suppress demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere.

Civics Analytics, a data company whose clients include Democratic campaigns, released four recent polls that indicate between 15 million to 26 million Americans have participated in demonstrations over Floyd’s killing, The New York Times reported Saturday. Further, 500,000 people staged protests in nearly 550 locations countrywide June 6.

There have been more than 4,700 demonstrations since the first of them erupted in Minneapolis May 26, according to a Times analysis. It quoted Kenneth Andrews, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, as saying the widespread nature of the protests are “a really important characteristic and helps signal the depth and breadth of a movement’s support.”

Significantly, the Times reported that there have been demonstrations in at least 1,360 counties – more than 40 percent of counties in the country — and that, unlike past Black Lives Matter protests, nearly 95 percent of counties in which there were demonstrations are majority white and more than three-fourths of the counties are more than 75 percent white.

“It looks, for all the world, like these protests are achieving what very few do: setting in motion a period of significant, sustained, and widespread social, political change,” Emeritus Professor Douglas McAdam at Stanford University, who studies social movements, told the Times. “We appear to be experiencing a social change tipping point – that is as rare in society as it is potentially consequential.”

Posted in USA, C.I.AComments Off on Trump’s War

On Disposability and Rebellion: Insights From a Rank-and-File Insurgency


Image Source: Cover of the book Homstead Steel Mill – The Final Ten Years by Mike Stout

Unfolding in the pages of Mike Stout’s new political memoir, Homestead Steel Mill: The Final Ten Years, is the radical history of a people too commonly believed to have none. It is a history largely absent from popular records of the political tumult of the 1960s and ’70s, though its energy, militance and imagination grew out of that era and extended, like so many fierce but near-forgotten political projects, into the 1980s. It is a story of class struggle in a society whose official scribes are mostly stupid about class when they aren’t willfully deceptive. It is a story of the built world – of some of the men and women who made it, and who, in one extraordinary moment in time, strove not just to halt their own unmaking but to dream something different and beautiful.

The title reveals this to be a tale of defeat. There would hardly be a history of workers under capitalism without that; violence, it must be remembered, is the nature of the beast. ‘Homestead’ – like ‘Haymarket’ and ‘Ludlow’ and countless other signifiers of workers’ challenge to the power of money over their bodies and their minds – was shorthand for bloody murder a century before Stout appeared on the scene. The last years of the steel works in Homestead, Pennsylvania, involved murder of another sort, more lethal than gunfire because it happened slowly, by memoranda from company suites, by lying language and the subterfuges of finance. When it was over, the bodies weren’t lying around to count. Homestead wasn’t alone in the raking. Where US Steel had employed 30,000 workers in seven mills in the Monongahela Valley in 1977, only 3,000 remained ten years later. By a standard calculus, each lost industrial job sunk five support jobs with it. Multiply that many times over, beyond the Mon Valley and the steel sector, beyond the 1980s, which set the pattern for mass layoffs and taught the country to live with insecurity, homelessness and household debt. What was left of the land, the communities, was euphemized as the Rust Belt, as if everything that had transpired there, the rise and decline of an industrial economy and every decision taken, had been a process of nature. The euphemism erases the workers’ defeat, which means it also erases their victories, their craft, the product of their hours and their sweat; in a sense, their life. It signals to children that their parents and grandparents had no power in the world, no art, no pluck, and that there are no alternatives.

Mike Stout recovers complex experience here, and reminds a new generation (and some of the old) that providing alternatives is the art of politics, that people provided some at Homestead and absorbed some lessons for the future. It is necessary to recognize the violence of the context, violence that was physical, psychological, economic; but what Stout lived and what he tells is not a sob story, nor is it romantic. The workers’ effort to control their own union, to make democracy real in Steel Workers Local 1397, to practice solidarity before and after the boom came down, to advocate for eminent domain and collective ownership in a Steel Valley Authority, is a study in human creativity, by turns thrilling and messy. It is an epic of political courage, and weakness, humor, intelligence, sometimes guile; of flawed and brilliant people acting together, thinking together, making mistakes, discovering skills they didn’t know they had, leaning on their strengths, paying for their blind spots, changing their circumstances. The book is, first, their record.

Back in the 1970s Studs Terkel’s magnificent oral history Working revealed the quality of time on the job and the inner life of workers. Mike LeFevre, a steel worker, probably from Chicago, where Studs lived and worked, told him then:

Somebody built the pyramids. Somebody’s going to build something. Pyramids, Empire State Building – these things don’t just happen. There’s hard work behind it. I would like to see a building, say the Empire State, I would like to see on one side of it a foot-wide strip from top to bottom with the names of every bricklayer, the names of every electrician, with all the names. So when a guy walked by, he could take his son and say, “See, that’s me over there on the forty-fifth floor. I put the steel beam in.” … Everybody should have something to point to.

Homestead workers made beams for the Empire State Building. Their collective hand is embedded in the structures that millions encounter, unthinking, every day. Cross the Verrazano Narrows or the Golden Gate, that hand is there. Pose for a photograph at Rockefeller Center or the St. Louis Arch, it is there. Enter the United Nations building, curse the traffic on the Oakland Bay Bridge, depend on the Hoover Dam, it is there. Visit Carnegie Hall or the Frick Museum in New York, and the amassed wealth they represent is the surplus labor of Homestead workers, whose union Andrew Carnegie and his plant manager, Henry Clay Frick, decided to break by armed force in 1892, aided by the state. Of the Homestead works themselves, which had sprawled for four miles, almost nothing remains. A few brick smoke stacks tower above a grassy slope near a shopping center and parking lots.

When Stout hired in as a utility crane operator in 1977, none of the mill’s 7,000 workers would have fathomed that within a few years they’d have nothing to point to. People were hired as lifers. The book brims with their names. Jimmy Cook, Ed Salaj, Bobby Pratt, Harry Brennan, Michele McMills, Ron Weisen, John Ingersoll, John Balint, Brian “Red” Durkin, Joe Stanton, Ed “King” Hamlin, George Tallon, Elmer Shaffo, Al Paisley, Rick Kornish, Norm Ostoff, Elmer Delledonne, “Twiggy,” John O’Toole, Tom Jugan, Ron Funk, Paul Glunt, Dave Horgan, Ron Mamula, Pat Halbeib, Tommy Allen, Jim Ridley, Gary Kasper, Jim Kooser, Frank Domagala, Nat King, John Pressley, Joe Nestico, Ronnie Pristas, John Deffenbaugh, Jack Blair, Joe Parkinson, Terry Bernh, “Indian” Joe Diaz… and that’s only to page 40. Many more follow, and more are unnamed. Crane operators and welders, riggers and hookers, boilermakers, motor inspectors and other maintenance workers, people from Open Hearth and the Forge Division, from the plate and slab mills, the machine shop and so on.

Some appear only briefly, deftly executing operations that would seem impossible with good machinery, let alone with the faulty equipment with which workers had to improvise. There is invention here, and cooperation – often required by the work itself, or necessitated by corporate negligence, or generated by the workers’ own creative will. Pride mingles with anger over the conditions of work; mixes with bluster, with alcohol and pot, with attention. There is danger here. Men suffer or thrive, sometimes both. And there is the terrible beauty of the forge:

When we rolled pipe, the pipe steel let off this red dust that hung in the air. It was mystical, wild, especially during daylight, when the dust was going up and the sunlight was coming through the cracks in the roof. It was like you were in a theater watching a play, and the play was industrial production.

The setting was the thing. This play had been running for a hundred years. Mike Stout first glimpsed it toward the end of a volatile period in national and world history, and that made the difference. They called him “Kentucky” in the plant, for his family roots and accent, but, like so many young people then, he had traveled what seemed lifetimes from the hidebound assumptions of his youth. He had got a social and political education as a hopeful troubadour in Greenwich Village, an antiwar activist, a yippie witness to the police riot at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, a denizen of San Francisco, a fundraiser for jailed Black Panthers, a worker in a hot shop at the Grand Central Station Post Office in New York, a participant in an SDS offshoot with a brief, sour acquaintance to left sectarian politics. Those experiences changed him, forced him to confront his prejudices and wowed him with the adventure of really seeing other people and living by his own lights. He did not go to Homestead to “organize the workers,” as some leftists were doing around the country. The mill was hiring, and the pay was good. Upon discovering the place was “a hotbed of union militants,” he writes, “I thought I hit the double jackpot lottery.” His book is thus, also, a contribution to the record of a time.

By the late 1960s, Vietnam veterans distrustful of authority began hiring into the plant. In 1974, black Homestead workers joined Alabama steel workers in suing US Steel for discrimination, the result being a federal Consent Decree that would bring more blacks, women and latinx into steel making, with equal hiring and promotional rights, at least on paper. Not all women entering factories at this time were liberationists – just as not all veterans, minorities or counterculture youth, also among the thousand-plus new hires at Homestead beginning in the mid-1970s, were political radicals. Their entry into the ranks, though, embodied a Zeitgeist, a spirit of the time that had diffuse effects throughout society. Everyone had breathed what was blowing in the wind since the 1960s, and if it turned some people off it also made a critical mass less inclined to shut up because union bosses told them to, or to answer, “How high?” when a company foreman said, “Jump.”

The Homestead democracy movement ought to be seen within this era of rebellion.

Internationally, the workers revolt is famously pegged to Paris, May 1968; in the US, it is infamously connected to Memphis, though the sanitation strike recedes as backdrop to the assassination of Dr. King. For the corporate class, the rank-and-file revolt struck most acutely in Detroit, when, also in May ’68, 4,000 autoworkers walked off the job at Dodge Main, stopping the basic assembly plant for Chrysler operations nationwide. A protest as much against an insular, co-opted United Auto Workers leadership as against brutal factory conditions, the wildcat was led by a disciplined group of black workers who had been organizing since the 1967 Detroit riots. The League of Revolutionary Black Workers would challenge company-union collusion on the shop floor, contest in union elections, use walkouts, the courts, local politics and culture in an ambitious project until it fractured in 1972.

In 1965, the United Farm Workers entered the national consciousness with the grape strike and boycott, but its real exercise of worker power came in 1970/71, when California lettuce and vegetable workers executed and won the largest agricultural strike in US history. Their power grew, and in 1978/79, over the objection of Cesar Chavez, they orchestrated another sweeping strike victory. Chavez then purged the leaders from the union and blacklisted them with the growers.

Throughout the 1960s, miners in Appalachia had been wildcatting over safety, black lung disease and a corrupt United Mine Workers leadership. As explosions at ROTC centers, military labs and draft offices elsewhere in the country got the headlines, hillbilly saboteurs used the same tactic against exploitation and what miners called “environmental mayhem” by big coal and its political pawns. The summer of ’68 four men broke into the office of a strip-mining operation in Middleboro, Kentucky, hustled away the night watchman and destroyed a million dollars’ worth of equipment with the company’s own dynamite. “Appalachian guerrillas” (to their detractors, but actually union men, townspeople, small farmers and rural folk driven off their land by the devastation of strip mining) roamed the region the rest of that summer blowing up mining equipment wherever they could. In 1969, more than one-third of all miners in coal country participated in wildcats. Insurgent leader Jock Yablonski spoke of the union’s duty to secure the future, meaning a livelihood as well as the health of their communities and environment. As the year closed, 20,000 in West Virginia walked off the job following the assassination of Yablonski, his wife and daughter. Union president Tony Boyle was convicted of murder and conspiracy in 1974, by which point Miners for Democracy had overtaken the union. In steel, Ed Sadlowski challenged the United Steel Workers’ president for leadership in 1976, riding the wave of rank-and-file insurgency; he lost the election, but reformers who’d backed him, including those at Homestead, carried the democracy movement forward.

Underground newspapers, small magazines, mimeographed pamphlets – traditional media of rebellion, which proliferated in the 1960s and ’70s – had their equivalent in the publications of these workers’ movements. In Detroit, the League had Inner City Voice and the South End. California farm workers had El Malcriado until it became the voice box of Chavez alone. The coal fields had Miners Voice. Homestead had 1397 Rank and File, which “with a mill nearly four miles long and having four major entrances (including Carrie Furnace across the river in Rankin), … would serve to both inform and unite workers, who otherwise would never see or know each other. It was democracy in action.”

Through the paper, those same welders and maintenance workers etc. found themselves to be researchers, reporters, editors and paste-up artists; they had a new “something to point to” as editorialists, cartoonists, poets, songwriters. Workers wrote letters, debated issues and embarrassed foremen and superintendents in a feature called “Plant Plague,” exposing harassment or mismanagement. The invention and cooperation they exercised in the mill now had an additional use: expressing their own ideas, charting a course for their own organization, taking responsibility for a collective destiny. Stout had prior experience producing antiwar flyers and newsletters, and also put his love for songwriting to the service of the movement (his text is punctuated by lyrics). After the reformers won control of the local and he became an elected grievanceman, he surprised himself with his skill as an investigator, evidence gatherer and de facto lawyer. At arbitration hearings before a judge, company lawyers regularly underestimated the guy in the sleeveless shirt, jeans and rocker boots, and almost always paid for it.

‘Democracy,’ thus, meant more than being able to vote on your union contract and have accountable leadership, vital as those were. It meant creating the conditions in which people might be their full selves. It meant betting on the class. It signified the aspiration for a social movement: as the reform effort became an occasion for enjoyment as well as organizing; as the campaign to save Homestead adopted a regional cooperative vision; as the question of jobs interlaced with the question of the environment; as workers began to connect government indifference toward unraveling US communities with its simultaneous dismemberment of Central America; as the fight against plant shutdowns implied a larger political fight in the 1980s, represented by Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition, against the privatized, financialized, militarized values of Reaganism, which were fast becoming bipartisan. (The upper photo on the book’s cover depicts a 1983 protest against President Reagan in Pittsburgh by 4,000 angry Mon Valley workers and unemployed.)

An obvious question at this point is What happened? The book is, finally, not just an account, but an accounting. Stout conveys the euphoria of militancy, when time seemed to compress and so much flourished so quickly that anything felt possible. He is astute, throughout, to pitfalls as well. The short answer to what happened is that capital went on strike, with the full support of the state, minus a conscious politician here or there. (In fact, before capital struck it went on a decades-long slowdown in the form of disinvestment and disinnovation.) But Stout has written this book for today’s activists as well as for those who lived this history, so the union militants’ failings matter as much as their hopes and successes. They may not have won their fight even in the best of circumstances, but it matters that they were susceptible to division, that Red-baiting still had kick, that racism and sexism persisted under the scrim of camaraderie, that leadership neglected what should have been obvious priorities (aggressively enforcing the Consent Decree and fighting continuing discrimination against union members) and later stuck with a community alliance despite its ruinous tactics. It matters that flattery had force, that rumor could become a weapon. Solidarity, like democracy, is a practice. The members of 1397, flush with their swift victory over the union old guard, did not have enough practice time before crisis hit. But Stout’s eye is on the principle; he doesn’t let anyone, including himself, off the hook.

There is a contemporary import to the question What happened? It is writ large in current media and politics, and it affects us all. We have been living, since the late 1970s, in an extended period of backlash. The ’60s dreams of peace, love and freedom, themselves dramatic expressions of yearnings that have carried through history, have been absorbed by capitalism and sold back to us in the form of T-shirts, nostalgia and televised anniversary specials. That is the soft attack. The hard attack came on many fronts in different guises: assassination and COINTELPRO against the black freedom movement; formation of the Christian right and demonizing of the Equal Rights Amendment against the women’s movement; police repression and discriminatory legislation campaigns against the gay movement; organized hysteria over sex education and corrupting commodification against the sexual freedom movement; proxy wars and the New Cold War against the peace movement. To those should be added the regime of mass layoffs, mergers and acquisitions, antilabor policy, deindustrialization, community disinvestment (until areas laid waste became attractive for gentrification, corporate welfare or both) and kneecapping of the working class.

That last front of the backlash touched people in every other movement, and generations unborn. It is typically not included in rundowns of the anti-’60s backlash, in the same way that worker revolts are generally subtracted from the story of the movements for people’s power and authentic life. This is partly because the New Left of the 1960s distinguished itself from the Old Left of the 1930s in identifying the battlefield for change as primarily cultural, not industrial. It is partly because union radicals mostly didn’t win; because institutional labor saw itself as a partner with business, was committed to war production and held to the prejudices and parochialism that unions are paying for to this day.

But there are reasons that are harder to summarize so succinctly. In the corporate media’s compartmentalization of the era of upheaval, the working class was washed white, male, straight, old, conservative. White workers attracted rapt attention from reporters when they supported George Wallace in 1968, not so much when they were wildcatting in the hills and hollows of Appalachia the same year. Black radicals got headlines when they donned berets and posed with guns, not so much when, like General Baker of the League of Revolutionary Black Workers, they expounded on in-plant organizing, or, like the Combahee River Collective, they conceptualized identity politics as both an anti-capitalist struggle and a struggle for emancipation from sexism, racism and homophobia – or, like the Black Panthers in Chicago in the late ’60s/early ’70s, they allied with the Puerto Rican Young Lords and the hillbilly Young Patriots in the first Rainbow Coalition, which one member of the group called “a code word for class struggle.” Vietnam veterans were caricatured as victims of the counterculture, erasing their central role in the antiwar movement and their leadership in labor fights as late as the 1994-95 Staley lockout in Decatur, Illinois. Women were welded to abortion and other discretely gendered issues. Environmentalists were characterized in irreconcilable battle with workers. Homosexuals were imagined to inhabit some alternate universe that was either frightening or fabulous.

Much of this has to do with the biases of who was telling the story, but it reflects as well the success of the project of the New Right, which also emerged in the early 1970s (and is the source of the political stream that would eventually carry Donald Trump to the White House). Its goal was the same as the Old Right: to shovel as much wealth as possible to the ruling class, to crush or at least confuse opposition, and to exert US economic and military power unhindered anywhere in the world. Its exponents and political candidates could hardly say they wanted to destroy communities and redistribute people’s money upward to their real constituency; instead, they said, The libbers will destroy your family, the queers will recruit your children, the blacks will steal your money, the greens will steal your job. Whether Ronald Reagan believed any of that is secondary to the fear-based organizing strategy of the grassroots movement that helped bring him to power by 1980.

When, in August of 1981, he fired 11,345 striking air traffic controllers, signaling to business that it should feel free to replace strikers permanently for discipline and profit, he revealed the primary agenda shrouded by the Culture War campaign. The result was, precisely, weakened families, hungry children, ill health, vanished jobs, embattled minority populations, giddy wealth at the top. Succeeding Democratic administrations played around the edges of compartmentalized identity, wielding sticks or carrots to various constituencies for political advantage, but sacrificing the common welfare to the goals of finance capital. The “Disposable American,” as Louis Uchitelle argued in his compelling book on mass layoffs, would become, like the Rust Belt, an accepted, seemingly unalterable feature of the landscape.

In a full accounting, there would be responsibility enough to spread around. That real conflicts and divisions existed, and still do, is unarguable. What the political and economic trajectory of this country shows, however, is that there is one fight, with many fronts. What the Rainbow Coalition campaigns of the 1980s strove to demonstrate is the tactical, not simply moral or sentimental, significance of “An injury to one is an injury to all.” Mike Stout does the same here. His history makes a political necessity of remembering. The cost of forgetting is too high.

With minor changes, this is the introduction to Homestead Steel Mill: The Final Ten Years.

And to PM’s,

Posted in USAComments Off on On Disposability and Rebellion: Insights From a Rank-and-File Insurgency

Kidnapping Kids: As American as the Fourth of July


Cover art for the book Taking Children by Laura Briggs

It’s been two hundred forty-four years since the declaration of independence was sent by horseback to the peasants, city dwellers and plantation owners in the colonies on North America’s eastern coast. Britain’s subjects across the ocean took up their cry.  “Damn the English and their East Indies Tea Company and damn their taxes, too.” The colonists’ determination to take the mountains, valleys, swamps and beaches from the British crown was now a war. A war between white skinned folks over lands robbed from humans considered savages with no right to anything, not even their children.

Although Africans stolen from their homes were enslaved in both the northern and southern colonies, it’s clear from history that the southern slavers who signed on to the declaration did so primarily to keep their slaves. Forever. The humans they worked and traded were more than labor. They were also accumulated wealth and investment property. The latter was especially true if one owned “good breeding stock” capable of producing lots of offspring. A mortgage could be had by a slaver with such collateral. The children birthed by these women rarely got to watch their children age. Instead, they were taken from their mothers and sold to another slaver or slave owning institution.

Today, families hoping to gain asylum, work or safety flee the lands to the US south. Escaping societies broken by US funded wars, unfair and exploitive trade agreements, corruption and bloodshed stemming from the racist war on drugs, these families languish separately and together in camps and detention facilities across the United States. The facilities are part of a policy of punishment founded in a denial of the families’ humanity. As Laura Briggs makes very clear in her book Taking Children: A History of American Terror, the policy is a bipartisan policy, its basic tenet of using children as chips in a negotiation where the State holds most the odds.

As the title states, Briggs’ text is a history of officially sanctioned kidnapping in the new world. Although focused primarily on the United States, she does discuss the Argentinian children stolen by the ultra-right regime in that country during the 1970s and early 1980s. Many of those children were taken after their leftist parents were killed or imprisoned. In a similar, but less documented, manner, many indigenous families had their children stolen by the authoritarian regimes governing Guatemala. These are the children who became known as los desaparecidos.

Without missing a beat, Taking Children brings the reader back to the US and its decades long policy of kidnapping native American children and forcing them to attend schools set up by the military and different Christian churches.  The point of said schools was to destroy indigenous culture and replace it with a rather extreme Christian capitalist ideology. Given that this was done in the name of Christianity, there was little outcry from any US citizens. Indeed, it was considered to be the white person’s Christian duty as surely as killing those indigenous who resisted was.  This is why many native children were adopted by white folks without the birth mother’s knowledge.  The fact that First Nations people continue to be treated as heathens and savages by too many elements of the state says a lot about the deep-rootedness of an Indian-hating ideology.  As Briggs points out, the removal of native peoples from their lands is often related to the desire to extract resources from those lands.  Obviously, that is more than just a coincidence.

If ripping infants from their mothers is considered an effective way to discourage asylum seekers from entering the US, many US citizens say let them rip. It’s clear from the news coverage of the immigration patrols that there always seems to be enough uniformed sadists willing to carry out such deeds. When asked how they can participate in such an endeavor, those with something of a heart seem to always respond with the line made famous by Nazis in Nuremburg: “I was just following orders.”  Those who delight in ripping infants from their mother’s arms or forcing young children to sleep on concrete and testify by themselves as to why they should be allowed in the US say little, but enjoy it the most.  Beyond the emotional element lies something more insidious, and even more brutal.  It is a philosophy based in white supremacist and imperial ideology, which in turn stems from and strengthens the essence of capitalism.  That is, how can one extract wealth from this person?  If there is no way to do so, then this person is expendable.  Let them rot in the poverty capitalism has created.  The ultimate outcome of such a mindset is extermination, but that would require taking responsibility for the deaths and misery these policies create.  Instead, it is easier to cast those considered expendable to the wayside and let the market take the blame for the death almost certain to occur.

Taking Children is an incisive history of kidnapping as American policy. The author has composed a litany of historical moments of child snatching that would shame Leopold and Loeb.  Furthermore, author Briggs connects these into a seamless tale of torment, torture and arrogance; a description of US history if there ever was one.  It is a history that demands a reckoning.  I, for one, hope to be alive when the time of reckoning comes.

Posted in USA, Human RightsComments Off on Kidnapping Kids: As American as the Fourth of July

Rothschild-Funded ‘Israeli’ Researchers Claim COVID-19 Is ‘Here To Stay’ — Only Defense Will Be A Vaccine

Posted by: Sami Ibrahim,Sr

Despite the mounting evidence that COVID-19 is not much different from the seasonal flu, Israeli ‘researchers’, funded by the Rothschilds, are telling Big Pharma exactly what it wants to hear: COVID-19 is ‘unique’ and isn’t going anywhere, and the only way to avoid getting infected is to submit to their experimental vaccines:

The novel coronavirus is not going anywhere anytime soon, suggests new research conducted by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which centered on the study of the new virus’ structure.

Prof. Michal Linial, professor of biological chemistry at the university, together with Dr. Dina Schneidman from the Department of Biological Chemistry and the School of Computer Science at the Hebrew University and Postdoctoral Intern Ester Brail, said that each strain of the virus holds different “offensive capabilities” used to bind itself with human receptors, while the method of binding varies from virus to virus.

The researchers claim that this new virus strain, named COVID-19, bears a striking 72.8% resemblance in structure to the SARS strain, and so the researchers tested the way in which COVID-19 attaches itself to the ACE2 enzyme, which is part of almost every cell in the human body and is known to serve as an entry point for the SARS virus.

According to the research, SARS attaches itself to human cells in such a way that researchers found easy to break using medicine.

Unlike SARS, the COVID-19 strain attaches itself to human cells in a much more aggressive manner, meaning that its removal from a cell is much harder when compared to SARS.

Due to that fact, researchers and doctors will find it substantially more difficult to develop a cure for this latest coronavirus strain, meaning that a cure could still be a ways off.

Furthermore, the researchers believe that even after a vaccine is developed, COVID-19 will still be a part of our everyday life.

Once a vaccination is found, those who will vaccinate themselves will be immune to the disease, while those who won’t, will continue to spread it,” said Prof. Linial. “I assume that in the future when we will understand the virus’ effects on our immune system better, a vaccination will be given at schools or in any other way in order to protect us from our new ‘friend’.”

Isn’t it interesting that one of the ‘researchers’ who made this spurious claim works at Hebrew University, which just received a huge grant from the Rothschilds to ‘study’ COVID-19.

The media, from the beginning of this manufactured ‘pandemic’, have been very careful to constantly remind the gullible public that this virus is ‘novel’ or unique, a one-of-a-kind, something we’ve never seen before.

All coronaviruses are unique — they constantly mutate, which is why the flu vaccines never work.

But the CDC and the media want everyone to think that if you are merely exposed to this ‘deadly’ virus, you will get the disease and die without a vaccine — which is why the media has buried the story that everyone in a homeless shelter in Boston tested positive for the virus but none of them showed any symptoms of the disease.

Yet we know that COVID-19 destroys hemoglobin in the red blood cells, which causes oxygen deprivation and difficulty breathing, which is why a common, cheap, and widely available anti-malarial drug is so effective against COVID-19.

These Israeli ‘researchers’ obviously didn’t bother to consult with the Australian researchers who, well over a month ago, announced that hydroxychloroquine ‘cured’ COVID-19 infections.

People in malaria-stricken regions of Asia and Africa have been taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventative for the last 50 years with minimal side effects, but the FDA just got around to approving a study to test its ‘safety’ to treat COVID-19.  What a crock.

But if this cheap drug works as both a preventative and a ‘cure’ for COVID-19, how will Big Brother and Big Pharma convince the public to take their dangerous and experimental mRNA vaccines grown on cell lines of aborted human fetuses?

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Rothschild-Funded ‘Israeli’ Researchers Claim COVID-19 Is ‘Here To Stay’ — Only Defense Will Be A Vaccine

Zionist Biowarfare Institute Seeks FDA Approval For COVID-19 Vaccine For U.S. Market

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

David Friedman, the U.S. ambassador to ‘Israel’, visited ‘Israel’s’ bio-warfare “defense” laboratory and was briefed on a coronavirus vaccine prototype for which it is seeking U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, a US official said on Wednesday:

The vaccine being developed at the Israel Institute for Biological Research (IIBR), in rural Ness Ziona, began animal trials in March. A source familiar with IIBR activities said human trials were expected before year’s end.

A US official described Ambassador David Friedman’s visit to the IIBR on Monday as part of the two allies’ “robust fight against the coronavirus.” Israel’s Defense Ministry, which oversees the IIBR, had no immediate comment.

The IIBR is seeking FDA vaccine regulation, the US official added. Asked whether Friedman would help in this regard, the official said only that the envoy “is working tirelessly to ensure that things that (can) help the American people can get to them in the most effective and efficient way.”

The FDA website says its “regulations for the development of vaccines ensure their safety, purity, potency and effectiveness” and could pave the way for a vaccine’s use in the United States.

We reported last year how David Friedman along with U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, (((Steve Mnuchin))), were pushing to have a ‘satellite’ office of the FDA opened in Israel to allegedly help get Israeli drugs on the U.S. market faster.

Now we perhaps know why.

The Israel Institute for Biological Research was founded as the biological warfare department of the Haganah, the Jewish-Israeli terrorist group that had planned to poison the water supply in Germany at the end of World War II to murder millions of  Germans in retaliation for the alleged “Holocaust”.

And, yes, they have been known to develop vaccines for the purposes of waging biochemical warfare.  To quote Wiki:

The institute is widely suspected of being involved in developing chemical and biological weapons. It is also assumed that the Institute develops vaccines and antidotes for such weapons. While refusing to confirm it, Israel is widely suspected of having developed offensive biological and chemical weapons capabilities, and the Israeli intelligence service Mossad is known to have used biological weapons in assassination missions. Israel has not signed the Biological Weapons Convention and has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The idea that the United States is even considering approving an experimental coronavirus vaccine created by the Israeli biowarfare institute should be front page news worldwide —  but that might raise a few troublesome eyebrows.

After all, only an antisemite wouldn’t trust the Israelis to have our best interests at heart.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zionist Biowarfare Institute Seeks FDA Approval For COVID-19 Vaccine For U.S. Market

Jews Enraged When George Soros Admitted In 2003 That Jews Like Himself Cause Antisemitism

Posted by: Sammi IBrahem,Sr

On November 5, 2003 billionaire financier and ‘philanthropist’ George Soros, during a live interview at a conference of the Jewish Funders Network, enraged many of the Jews in attendance when he claimed that Jews themselves were responsible for the rise of antisemitism:

When asked about anti-Semitism in Europe, Soros, who is Jewish, said European anti-Semitism is the result of the policies of Israel and the United States.

“There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that,” Soros said. “It’s not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti- Semitism as well. I’m critical of those policies.”

If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish,” he said. “I can’t see how one could confront it directly.”

That is a point made by Israel’s most vociferous critics, whom some Jewish activists charge with using anti-Zionism as a guise for anti-Semitism.

The billionaire financier said he, too, bears some responsibility for the new anti-Semitism, citing last month’s speech by Malaysia’s outgoing prime minister, Mahathir Mohammad, who said, “Jews rule the world by proxy.”

I’m also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world,” said Soros, whose projects and funding have influenced governments and promoted various political causes around the world.

“As an unintended consequence of my actions,” he said, “I also contribute to that image.”

In the past, Mahathir has singled out Soros and other “Jewish financiers” for financial pressure that Mahathir said has harmed Malaysia’s economy.

After the conference, some Jewish leaders who heard about the speech reacted angrily to Soros’ remarks.

Let’s understand things clearly: Anti-Semitism is not caused by Jews; it’s caused by anti-Semites,” said Elan Steinberg, senior adviser at the World Jewish Congress. “One can certainly be critical of Bush policy or Sharon policy, but any deviation from the understanding of the real cause of anti-Semitism is not merely a disservice, but a historic lie.”

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, called Soros’ comments “absolutely obscene.”

“He buys into the stereotype,” Foxman said. “It’s a simplistic, counterproductive, biased and bigoted perception of what’s out there. It’s blaming the victim for all of Israel’s and the Jewish people’s ills.”

Furthermore, Foxman said, “If he sees that his position of being who he is may contribute to the perception of anti-Semitism, what’s his solution to himself — that he give up his money? That he close his mouth?”

Associates said Soros’ appearance Nov. 5 was the first they could ever recall in which the billionaire, a Hungarian- born U.S. Jew who escaped the Holocaust by fleeing to London as a child, had spoken in front of a Jewish group or attended a Jewish function.

The one-day meeting on funding in Israel, which took place at the Harvard Club in New York, was limited mostly to representatives of Jewish philanthropic foundations.

After Soros’ speech, Michael Steinhardt, the real-estate magnate and Jewish philanthropist who arranged for Soros to address the group, said in an interview that Soros’ views do not reflect those of most Jewish millionaires or philanthropists.

He also pointed out that this was Soros’ first speech to a Jewish audience.

Steinhardt approached the lectern and interrupted Soros immediately after his remarks on anti-Semitism.

George Soros does not think Jews should be hated any more than they deserve to be,” Steinhardt said by way of clarification, eliciting chuckles from the audience…

Regardless of what they think of his politics, most Jewish activists likely would welcome Soros’ participation in the world of Jewish philanthropy.

Though he’s ranked as the 28th richest person in the United States by Forbes magazine — with a fortune valued at $7 billion — Soros has given relatively little money to Jewish causes…

Soros said he has not given much to Jewish or Israel-related causes because Jews take care of their own, so that his financial clout is better directed elsewhere.

This 2003 interview took place at a time when disinformation was still strong about the 9-11 attacks being ‘blowback’ against U.S.-Israeli policies in the Middle East — and Soros here is reaffirming that lie.

Israel and its Zionist lackeys in the U.S. and elsewhere were responsible for planning and executing the 9-11 attacks — and Soros of all people surely knows this.

Say what you want about George Soros, but one thing you can’t accuse him of is being naive — of course, he’s aware that his behavior is going to elicit an antisemitic response.

Such powerful Jews are well aware that when they push the goyim too hard, the goyim will push back, and that push back is always labeled as ‘antisemitism’ by Jews who fear another pogrom.

But it’s disingenuous to claim that Soros doesn’t donate his money to “Jewish causes” when in reality everything he sinks his money into — open borders and radical socialism — is a “Jewish cause”.

Wrecking White Christian nations is a Jewish cause — as is remaking them in a Jewish image — tikkun olam.

But until they attain their goal of a world Jewish Utopia, they will NEVER admit anything they do is the cause of antisemitism.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, CampaignsComments Off on Jews Enraged When George Soros Admitted In 2003 That Jews Like Himself Cause Antisemitism

Acknowledging The Suffering Of Others “Denies Jews Their True Status As The World’s Ultimate Victims”

Posted by: Sammi Ibrahem,Sr

One of the unintended consequences of their incessant promotion of anti-White ‘multiculturalism’ is that Jews now have to endure sharing their ultimate pity party with the suffering and victimization of other people — which they fear will erase the ‘uniqueness’ and supremacy of Jewish suffering:

…Renowned scholars have also stated in the past that the Holocaust was an event without parallel. The philosopher Emil Fackenheim said that, while it belonged to the category of “genocide,” the planned and largely executed borderless extermination of the Jews was “unique.”

Another Jewish philosopher, David Patterson, went further and said that the Holocaust couldn’t be reduced to a case of genocide.

“The Nazis set out to annihilate more than a people. … They set out to annihilate a fundamental principle; to obliterate millennia of Jewish teaching and testimony; to destroy the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; to eradicate a way of understanding God, world, and humanity embodied by the Jews in particular.

The main driver of the Holocaust was not racism, nor hatred of “the other,” nor a dehumanizing view of certain groups—a view the Nazis shared with much progressive Western opinion in the 19th and early-20th centuries.

It was instead a paranoid and deranged view of the Jewish people as an evil conspiracy of positively supernatural proportions, and who therefore had to be wiped off the face of the earth. This is not recognizable in any other prejudice, bigotry or hatred directed at any other people or group.

But for some, the uniqueness of Jewish suffering is an intolerable fact that must be suppressed. Progressive “post-colonial” scholarship holds—preposterously—that emphasizing the singularity of the Holocaust diminishes and squeezes out other suffering and victimization.

Many Diaspora Jews, moreover, run a mile from any suggestion that the Jews are fundamentally different. They believe their safety and security rest upon not standing out from their surrounding societies.

Which is why they are so anxious to claim that their historic persecution is on the same level as the suffering of others, and that anti-Semitism is just another form of “racism” or “othering.”

They thus join forces with those who want to deny Jews their true status as the world’s ultimate victims.

And it’s been but a short step from that to the false and malevolent view that the Jews of Israel have ended up doing to the Palestinians what was done to them.

As Baroness Deech observed: “The more the national Holocaust remembrance day events are packed out, the more the calls for sanctions on Israel that would result in her destruction, and the more the Holocaust is turned against the Jews. I hear it in parliament—‘after all you people went through, look what you are doing to the Palestinians; have you learned nothing.’ ”

Many peoples and groups in the world suffer untold horrors at the hands of brutal regimes. Jews and others have a duty to speak out against the persecution of the Uighurs and all who are being victimized by the Chinese Communist Party.

But there is also a duty to speak up for the uniqueness of the Holocaust: a duty not to betray the facts of Jewish history by minimizing the particular evil of Europe’s darkest moment, a madness that singled out the Jewish people for a fate reserved for them alone.

What is unique about Jewish suffering during World War II is that it is based on an event that did not take place — the so-called “Holocaust”, which was a psy-op created by the Jews to ultimately justify the foundation of the state of Israel and silence anyone who objected.

Since Jews were never really victims of any real genocide in WWII, they certainly didn’t learn any sympathy for the suffering of others — as their critics would suggest.

Rather Israelis are so efficient at ethnically cleansing the Palestinians because Israel was founded largely by Russian Jews who murdered 60 million White Christians in communist Russia — then invented the Holocaust to distract the world away from their crimes against humanity by casting themselves as the ultimate victims without parallel.

Yes, the apt Polish proverb about Jews is based on centuries of living with them and understanding them better than any other European people: “The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.”

But the Jews aren’t done with milking their imagined Holocaust — they intend to use it to justify their morbid desire to destroy their ultimate ‘tormentors’ — people of White Christian descent whose God rejected the Jews’ false claim of being the “living embodiment of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.” (John 8:44)

They are rather the embodiment of Esau/Edom — and the prophet Obadiah foretold the real Holocaust that ultimately awaits them — at God’s discretion. (Obadiah 1:18)

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, PoliticsComments Off on Acknowledging The Suffering Of Others “Denies Jews Their True Status As The World’s Ultimate Victims”

Congress Votes To Double Spending On Programs To Silence Critics of Jews And ‘Israel’

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on Friday that rubber stamped the continuation of American assistance to Israel and the doubled of funding for the U.S. State Department’s office that allegedly combats global antisemitism:

The vote tally was 224-189.

The annual State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations bill for 2021 would allocate $3.3 billion in annual U.S. security aid to Israel in accordance with the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, between the United States and Israel worth $38 billion over a decade (the remaining $500 million, which goes towards missile-defense systems in Israel, such as the Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow 3, is part of the U.S. Defense Department appropriations bill).

The State Department appropriations bill would include $5 million for refugees resettling in Israel, administered by the U.S. State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.

It would also allocate $50 million annually for the next five years in a newly established “People-to-People Partnership for Peace Fund.”

Additionally, it will provide funding for joint projects between the United States and Israel related to fighting COVID-19.

Finally, the appropriations measure includes $225 million for development and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza, despite the Trump administration slashing funding in that category to virtually zero.

“Given the increasingly aggressive actions by extremist regimes and their terrorist clients, the close U.S.-Israel cooperation and coordination in security, defense intelligence and other areas are of even greater significance,” said the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in a statement.

International Jewry is going to get twice as much money to silence their critics, which includes the U.S. taxpayers who are providing them with the money.

As Jewish shenanigans increase, so does antisemitism™ — that is, any opposition to these Jewish shenanigans.

And if you don’t go along with the Jewish plans to recreate the world into a Jewish “utopia” like we saw in Bolshevik Russia, then you are probably an antisemite who needs to sit down with a rabbi and learn about how the Jews have “suffered” for thousands of years.

Etan Carr, the so-called “Antisemitism Czar” at the State Department who will oversee this huge new infusion of cash, is on record that he doesn’t just want to eliminate antisemitism — he also wants people worldwide to learn to love Jews — the right way.

Talk about chasing windmills…

There isn’t enough money in the world to make that happen.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Congress Votes To Double Spending On Programs To Silence Critics of Jews And ‘Israel’

Zionist puppet Rejects Trump’s Invitation to the US

Palestine's President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Deal of the Century was announced by Trump and Nazi PM Naziyahu on January 27.

Zionist puppet Mahmoud Ab-Aa$$ declined U.S. President Donald Trump’s invitation to visit the White House and discuss the Deal of the Century, which aims to annex to ‘Israel’ up to 30 percent of the occupied West Bank.

Ab-Aa$$ declined the invitation out of respect for the Palestinian people so that they would not think that their president was legitimizing the Deal.

In the face of the annexation threat, leaders from around the world have united their voices to stop Israel from taking over a large part of  West Bank territory, including the Jordan Valley.

“U.S., Nazi plan violates peace and security in this land,” Shorashim-Judah Movement (Roots, in Hebrew and Arabic) leaders Khaled Abu Awad and Shaul Judelman said.

teleSUR English@telesurenglish#Israel and the State of #Palestine have the right to exist and to live in peace and security, within internationally recognized borders,” the #Vatican said.

Palestine interrupted diplomatic contacts with the United States in 2017, following Trump’s order to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The Deal of the Century was announced by Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington on January 27.

According to the agreement, as of July 1, the Nazi regime was supposed to decide on the Nazi Jewish settlements and the Jordan Valley’s annexing implementation.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, USAComments Off on Zionist puppet Rejects Trump’s Invitation to the US

Shoah’s pages