De VS is
het land dat: -heeft geprobeerd meer dan 50 regeringen omver te
werpen (en dat is in veel gevallen gelukt), -heeft een geheime dienst
opgezet die in de eerste 40 jaar van haar bestaan minstens 6 miljoen
mensen heeft vermoord, -heeft een keihard
politie-vrijwilligersnetwerk opgezet dat elke binnenlandse politieke
beweging heeft vernietigd die 'een bedreiging vormde' voor de bestaande
overheersing (of die overheersing nu werd uitgevoerd door de Democraten of de Republikeinen,
Ap), -heeft een gevangenissysteem op poten gezet, waarin een groter
percentage van de bevolking werd en wordt vastgezet dan waar ook ter wereld en
dat tevens een wereldwijd geheim gevangeniswezen heeft opgezet waar wordt
gemarteld...... (en waarschijnlijk ook gemoord....)
Het
voorgaande heeft Gabriel Rockhill laten volgen op een uitspraak van
Vicente Navarro, die erop neer komt dat we moeten begrijpen dat in
tegenstelling tot wat ons wordt voorgehouden door de massamedia in de
VS, fascisme geen extreme ontwikkeling is, die gelimiteerd voorkwam
in de geschiedenis, integendeel fascisme heeft zich uitgebreid, is
genormaliseerd en bestaat overal..... (wat mij betreft is Nederland
daar 'een mooi voorbeeld van': fascisten als Wilders [PVV] en Baudet [FVD] spreken grote bevolkingsgroepen aan, zoals fascisme voor WOII door de
meeste Nederlanders als een vrij normale politieke stroming werd
gezien, waar de aanhangers dit uiteraard volkomen terecht vonden)
Rockhill
houdt een betoog over democratie, geboren in het Griekenland van
2.500 jaar geleden en dat dit systeem wordt gezien als leidend in de
huidige VS (en de rest van het westen, Ap), fascisme wordt volgens
hem gezien als een ideologie die eens aan de macht kwam en dat in
Europa, ofwel een beperkt deel van de wereld. Dat fascisme werd met
succes door democratische krachten verslagen. Echter daar gaat
Rockhill niet mee akkoord, hij betoogt dat fascisme voor velen andere
waarden vertegenwoordigd en dat het onderdeel is van de
klassenstrijd.
Rockhill
gebruikt m.i. te veel woorden, maar dat is mijn zienswijze en die is
uiteraard niet leidend, vandaar ook dat ik het hele artikel heb
overgenomen. Fascisme is van alle tijden, je kan zelfs een aantal van
de Romeinse dictators uit de oudheid aanwijzen als fascisten, waar
eigen volk altijd voor ging op andere culturen van buiten het
Romeinse rijk, beter gezegd buiten het Italiaanse deel van het
Romeinse rijk.
Vergeet
niet dat antisemitisme (wat mij betreft een vorm van fascisme) al in
de middeleeuwen bestond en zelfs voor WOII was het alom tegenwoordig
in Europa, of dat nu wel of niet gepaard ging met pogroms. Eén van
de bewijzen daarvoor zijn wel gezegden waarin Joden werden afgedaan
als gierige vrekken die iedereen het vel over de oren trokken,
gelukkig gezegden die heden ten dage niet meer of nog amper worden
gebruikt (en dat meestal door fascisten/neonazi's). Ook in Nederland
was voor WOII het antisemitisme alom aanwezig..... Het is dan ook een
gotspe dat Israël zich toont als een fascistische apartheidsstaat,
in feite gegrondvest en 'gelegitimeerd' over de rug van de
holocaustslachtoffers en van de Palestijnen die door Israël worden
behandeld als onmensen..... Misschien is het nog wel erger dat de
westerse landen die de grote fout maakten te helpen aan die holocaust
nu weer partij kiezen voor de onderdrukker in deze: Israël......
De
belangrijkste conclusie uit het schrijven van Rockhill is wel dat
fascisme alom tegenwoordig is, waarbij hij George Jackson aanhaalt,
die stelt dat kapitalisme de bron
is van fascisme (en neoliberalisme, een nog
hardere en nog meer inhumane vorm van het kapitalisme, Ap). Fascisme beoordelen aan de hand van de geschiedenis
in Duitsland, Italië en Japan (waaraan je ook Turkije kan
toevoegen), werkt niet, fascisme is wel degelijk aanwezig, zoals het
altijd aanwezig was, in de oudheid, het kolonialisme en zoals gezegd
in het kapitalisme/neoliberalisme...... Wat betreft het kolonialisme:
in 'Nederlands Indië' was de NSB de grootste partij voor WOII en
niet voor niets...... (waar de gewone bevolking van Indonesië
overigens niet mocht stemmen, maar dat is 'logisch' immers anders was
de NSB bij lange na niet de grootste partij geweest)
En ja de
VS kan je wat mij betreft zonder meer aanmerken als een fascistische
politiestaat, die alle kenmerken van fascisme toont (als aanvulling [met één dubbele] op de genoemde zaken in de eerste alinea):
- de VS is een grote 'neokolonisator', dit middels de illegale grondstoffenoorlogen die de VS keer op keer
voert.....
- de VS is een land dat meer geheime diensten kent dan ooit eerder
vertoond (meer dan 25!!), diensten die niet alleen de VS als Vierde
Rijk dienen in het buitenland, maar zeker ook in eigen land (zo gaf
een hooggeplaatste FBI beambte onlangs toe dat elke ideologische
politieke organisatie die 'te links' was, met alle macht werd
bestreden om te voorkomen dat deze in de politiek een factor van
betekenis kon worden...)
- de VS is een land waar racisme welig tiert
en waar de politie en FBI de bewaarder zijn van de witte status quo
- de VS
is een land waar zoals gezegd meer mensen gevangen zitten dan waar ook
ter wereld, waar het gevangenissysteem voor het overgrote deel een
commercieel bedrijf is geworden, waar de gevangenen in feite
slavenarbeid verrichten......
- De VS een land dat meer dan 800 militaire bases heeft over de wereld.......
Mensen
er zijn nog veel meer voorbeelden te bedenken neem de zogenaamde
democratische verkiezingen, waar burgers willens en wetens worden
tegengewerkt om ter stembus te gaan en waar in feite het kapitaal
in de vorm van grote bedrijven uitmaakt wie er wel of niet president mag worden...... Grote bedrijven die
deels de regering manipuleren en met kapitalen de kandidaat van hun
keus aan de macht brengen, waarbij niet vergeten moet worden dat er
amper verschil is tussen Democratische en Republikeinse regeringen,
beiden dienen ze de god van het kapitalisme en daarmee in feite een
fascistische maatschappij.......
Tot slot nog dit: het zal een ieder intussen wel duidelijk zijn dat VS president Trump een fascist is en dat geldt tevens voor de rest van zijn administratie.......
Het
artikel van Rockhill werd eerder gepubliceerd op CounterPunch en werd
door mij overgenomen van Information Clearing House (onder het
artikel kan je klikken voor een 'Dutch vertaling', dit kost enkele
tientallen seconden tijd):
Fascism:
Now You See It, Now You Don’t!
By
Gabriel Rockhill
“We need
to understand that, contrary to what we are told by the U.S. media,
fascism is not an extreme development, limited in time and place,
that occurred a long time ago. Quite the contrary. Fascism is
extended, generalized, and exists everywhere.” – Vicente
Navarro
October 12, 2020
"Information
Clearing House"
- Only one country in the world has, in recent history:
+ endeavored
to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments
+ established
an intelligence agency that killed at least 6 million people in the
first 40 years of its existence
+ developed a
draconian police-vigilante network to destroy any domestic political
movements that challenged its dominion
+ constructed
a mass incarceration system that cages a greater percentage of the
population than any other country in the world, and which is embedded
within a global secret prison network and torture regime.
Whereas democracy
is the
common term used to describe this country, we learn that fascism
only occurred once in history, in one place, and that it was defeated
by the aforementioned democracy.
The expansiveness and
elasticity of the notion of democracy
could
not contrast more starkly with the narrowness and rigidity of the
concept of fascism.
After all, we are told that democracy was born some 2500 years ago
and that it is a defining feature of European civilization, and even
one of its unique cultural contributions to world history. Fascism,
by contrast, purportedly erupted in Western Europe in the interwar
period as an aberrant anomaly, temporarily interrupting the
progressive march of history, right after a war had been fought to
make the world ‘safe for democracy.’ Once a second world war
destroyed it, or so the narrative goes, the forces of good then set
about taming its evil ‘totalitarian’ twin in the East in the name
of democratic globalization.
As value-concepts
whose substantive content is much less important than their normative
charge, democracy has been perpetually expanded, whereas fascism is
constantly constricted. The Holocaust industry has played no small
part in this process through its endeavors to singularize the Nazi
war atrocities to such an extent that they literally become
incomparable or even ‘unrepresentable,’ while the purportedly
democratic forces of good in the world are repeatedly held up for
emulation as the model for global governance.
Concepts-in-Class-Struggle
The ongoing debate
over the precise definition of fascism has frequently obscured the
fact that the nature and function of definitions differ significantly
depending on the epistemology employed, meaning the overall framework
of knowledge and truth. For historical materialists, concepts like
fascism are sites of class struggle rather than quasi metaphysical
entities with fixed properties. The search for a universally
acceptable definition of a generic concept of fascism is therefore
quixotic. This is not, however, because concepts are relative in a
purely subjectivist sense, meaning that everyone simply has their
own, idiosyncratic definition of such notions. It is that they are
relational in a concrete, material sense: they are objectively
situated in class struggles.
It is bourgeois
ideology that presumes the existence of a universal epistemology
outside of class struggle. It acts as if there was only one concept
of each social phenomenon, which corresponds of course to the
bourgeois understanding of the phenomenon in question. What this
ultimately means, from a materialist perspective, is that the
bourgeois ideology inherent in the very idea of a universal
epistemology is itself part of class struggle insofar as it
surreptitiously endeavors to disappear all rival epistemologies.
If we dig deeper into
the differences between these two epistemologies, which are rival
accounts of the very function of concepts and their definitions, we
see that materialists—in stark contrast to the idealism of
bourgeois ideology—understand ideas to be practical tools of
analysis that allow for different levels of abstraction, and whose
use-value depends on their ability to map material situations whose
complexity surpasses their own. Within this framework, the goal is
not to define the essence of a social phenomenon like fascism in a
manner that could be universally accepted by bourgeois social
science, but rather to develop a working definition in two senses. On
the one hand, this is a definition that works because it has a
practical use-value: it provides a coherent outline of a complex
field of material forces and can help orient us in a world of
struggle. On the other hand, such a definition is understood to be
heuristic and open to further elaboration because Marxists recognize
that they are subjectively situated in objective sociohistorical
processes, and that changes in perspective and scale might require
modifying it. This can be clearly seen in the three different scales
that I will use for developing a working definition of fascism: the
conjunctural, the structural and the systemic.
Multi-Scalar
Analysis
The historical
materialist approach to fascism accords a primacy to practices, and
it situates them in relationship to the social totality, which itself
is analyzed through heuristically distinct but interlocking scales.
The conjunctural, to begin with, is the social totality of a specific
place and time, such as Italy or Germany in the interwar period.
Historically speaking, we know that the term fascism (fascismo)
emerged as a description of Benito Mussolini’s particular brand of
organizing, but that it was only theorized gradually, in fits and
starts. In other words, it did not appear as a doctrine or coherent
political ideology that was then implemented, but rather as a rough
and loose description of a dynamic set of practices that changed over
time (early on, unlike later, fascism in Italy was reformist and
republican, advocated for women’s suffrage, supported some limited
pro-labor reforms, feuded with the Catholic Church, and was not
openly racist).
It was only after the
fascist movement had evolved and began to gain power that attempts
were made by Mussolini and others to retroactively consolidate their
disparate and shifting practices in such a way that they could be
presented as fitting within a coherent doctrine. On numerous
occasions, Mussolini himself insisted on this point, writing
for instance: “Fascism was not the nursling of a doctrine
previously drafted at a desk; it was born of the need of action, and
was action; it was not a party but, in the first two years, an
anti-party and a movement.” José Carlos Mariátegui has provided
an
insightful, fine-grained analysis of the internal struggles
operative early on in the Italian fascist movement, which was
polarized between an extremist faction and a reformist camp with
liberal leanings. Mussolini, according to Mariátegui, occupied a
centrist position and avoided unduly favoring one group over the
other until 1924, when the socialist politician Giacomo Matteotti was
assassinated by fascists. This brought the battle between the two
fascist cliques to a fever pitch, and Mussolini was ultimately forced
to choose. After making an unsuccessful overture to the liberal wing,
he sided with the reactionaries.
Since its inception,
then, the concept of fascism has been a site of social and
ideological struggle, if it be the clash between extremists and
reformists within the fascist camp, or more generally between
fascists and liberals within the capitalist camp. These conflicts
were themselves ultimately nested within the overall conflict between
capitalists and anti-capitalists. It is from this vantage point of
interlocking levels of struggle that we can establish a first working
definition of fascism, once it came to be more or less consolidated,
by identifying how it emerged within a very specific conjuncture and
stage of global class warfare. In the threatening wake of the Russian
Revolution (which was followed by failed revolutions in Europe and
later the Great Depression in the capitalist world), Mussolini and
his ilk used mass communications and propaganda to slowly but surely
mobilize sectors of civil society—and particularly the
petty-bourgeoisie—with the backing of big industrial capitalists,
around a nationalist and colonial ideology of ‘radical’
transformation in order to crush the workers movement and launch wars
of conquest. At this level of analysis, fascism is practically
speaking, in the words
of Michael Parenti, “nothing more than a final solution to the
class struggle, the totalistic submergence and exploitation of
democratic forces for the benefit and profit of higher financial
circles. Fascism is a false revolution.”
This conjunctural
analysis is, of course, markedly distinct from liberal accounts of
fascism, which tend to focus on surface phenomena and superstructural
elements that are severed from any scientific consideration of
international political economy and class warfare. If it be a
politics of hate, a logic of ‘us and them,’ a rejection of
parliamentary democracy, a question of aberrant personalities, a
dismissal of science, or other such characteristics, the liberal
approach to fascism is preoccupied with epiphenomenal traits at the
expense of the social totality. It is the latter, however, that gives
these traits—when they do in fact exist in some form or other—their
precise meaning and function. It is worth recalling, in this regard,
as Martin Kitchen pointed
out, that “all capitalist-countries produced fascist movements
after the crash in 1929.”
If the bourgeois
concept of fascism obscures the social totality of the conjuncture
within which European fascism historically emerged under that name,
it casts an even longer shadow over the structural and the systemic
dimensions of fascism as a practice. As we shall see in the case of
George Jackson, Marxists have insisted on the importance of
inscribing the conjunctural analysis of European fascism within a
structural framework in order to reveal the forms of fascism
operative within conjunctures where liberal theorists often claim
they either do not exist at all or they are somehow less severe. The
interwar period in the United States, for instance, when compared to
what was going on in Italy and Germany, reveals striking structural
similarities.
Finally, the broadest
scale of analysis, which appears to be invisible to liberals, is the
capitalist world system. As historical materialists like Aimé
Césaire and Domenico Losurdo have argued, the barbarism of the Nazis
should be understood as a specific manifestation of the long and deep
history of colonial butchery, which has brought capitalism to every
corner of the globe. If there is something exceptional about Nazism,
Césaire
claimed, it is that concentration camps were being built in
Europe instead of in the colonies. In this way, he invites us to
situate the conjunctural and structural scales of analysis within a
systemic framework, meaning one that accounts for the entire global
history of capitalism.
The bourgeois concept
of fascism seeks to singularize it as an idiosyncratic phenomenon,
which is largely or entirely superstructural, in order to foreclose
any examination of its ubiquitous presence within the history of the
capitalist world order. In contrast, the historical materialist
approach proposes a multi-scalar analysis of the social totality in
order to demonstrate how the conjunctural specificity of interwar
European fascism can best be understood as nested within a structural
phase of capitalist class warfare, and ultimately within the systemic
history of capital, which came into the world—in the
words used by Karl Marx to describe primitive
accumulation—“dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with
blood and dirt.” As one scales out or in, the precise account and
operative definition of fascism can change because of the material
variables involved, and some have therefore preferred to restrict the
term fascism
to its conjunctural manifestations (which can, at times, be useful
for the sake of clarity). However, even if the latter tactic is used,
a full analysis of fascism within the social totality ultimately
requires an integrated account in which it is recognized that the
conjunctural is situated within the structural, which is in turn
embedded within the systemic. Fascism, as a practice, is a product of
the capitalist system, whose precise forms vary depending on the
structural phase of capitalist development and the specific
sociohistorical conjuncture.
The Ideology
of Fascist Exceptionalism
Simone de Beauvoir
once
quipped that “in bourgeois language, the word man
means a bourgeois.” Indeed, when the members of the colonial ruling
class known as the American founding fathers sent forth their solemn
declaration to the world that “all men are created equal,” they
did not mean that all human beings were actually equal. It is only by
understanding their unstated premise—that man
means bourgeois—that
we can fully comprehend their intent: the non-humans of the world can
be subjected to the most brutal forms of dispossession, enslavement
and colonial carnage.
This duplicitous
operation, by which a particular (the bourgeoisie) attempts to pass
itself off as the universal (humanity), is a well-known
characteristic of bourgeois ideology. Its inverted form, however, is
perhaps even more deceptive and insidious, because it has not—to my
knowledge—been widely diagnosed. Rather than universalizing the
particular, this ideological operation transforms the systemic into
the sporadic, the structural into the singular, the conjunctural into
the idiosyncratic.
The case of fascism is
exemplary. Whenever its name is invoked, we are ritualistically
redirected by the dominant ideology to the same set of specific
historical examples in Italy and Germany, which are supposed to serve
as the general standards by which to judge any other possible
manifestations of fascism. According to the most un-scientific of
methodologies, it is the particular that governs the universal,
rather than the other way around. In its most extreme ideological
form, this means that if there are no jackboots, Sieg
Heil
salutes and goose-stepping soldiers, then we cannot possibly be
within what is commonly known as fascism.
This ideology of
fascist exceptionalism is a natural outgrowth of the bourgeois notion
of fascism. By conceptualizing Germano-Italian fascism as sui generis
and defining it primarily in terms of its epiphenomenal
characteristics, it severs it from its deep roots in the capitalist
system, and it obfuscates structural parallels with other forms of
repressive governance around the world. This ideology thus plays a
crucial role in class struggle: it takes a general feature of life
under capital and it transforms it into an anomaly, which some have
even sought to elevate, in the case of Nazism, to the metaphysical
status of being incomparable in its irreducible singularity. The
particular thereby serves to conceal the general.
A Dragon in
the Belly of the Beast
George Jackson
stalwartly rejected the ideological particularization of fascism and
pointed out all of the structural similarities between European
fascism and repression in the United States. Unsurprisingly, a
liberal critic once proclaimed that the U.S. was not fascist simply
because Jackson said it was, thereby dismissing out of hand his
structural analysis as simply a subjective opinion (a classic case of
liberal projection). Jackson’s argument, however, was not reducible
to an ex cathedra pronouncement but was instead based on a careful,
materialist comparison between the situation in the United States and
the one in Europe. “We are being repressed now,” he
wrote. “Courts that dispense no justice and concentration camps
are already in existence. There are more secret police in this
country than in all others combined—so many that they constitute a
whole new class that has attached itself to the power complex.
Repression is here.”
When Jackson refers to
the U.S. as “the Fourth Reich” and compares American prisons to
Dachau and Buchenwald, he is obviously breaking with the
exceptionalist protocol that drives the Holocaust industry by
elevating European fascism to the singular status of the
incomparable. And yet, what he is in effect doing in his analyses of
the U.S. is that he is simply rejecting the a-scientific approach to
fascism described above, which emphasizes idiosyncrasies in order to
obscure structural relations. Instead, he begins the other way
around, with a materialist analysis of the modes of governance
operative in America, and here’s
what he found:
The new corporate
state [in the U.S.] has fought its way through crisis after crisis,
established its ruling elites in every important institution, formed
its partnership with labor through its elites, erected the most
massive network of protective agencies replete with spies, technical
and animal, to be found in any police state in the world. The
violence of the ruling class of this country in the long process of
its trend toward authoritarianism and its last and highest stage,
fascism, cannot be rivaled in its excesses by any other nation on
earth today or in history.
Those who would
dismiss this as hyperbole, thereby refusing to even engage in
historical comparisons, simply reveal one of the most insidious
consequences of the ideology of fascist exceptionalism: any
materialist analysis of comparable situations is a priori verboten.
Rather than recoiling
in horror from the term fascism,
which has been ideologically reserved for a few, now distant,
historical anomalies, or what George Seldes called
“faraway fascism,” Jackson draws the most logical conclusion from
the point of view of historical materialist analysis: what’s
happening before his eyes in the United States is an intensification
and globalization of what transpired, under slightly different
conditions, in Italy and Germany. In fact, he
directly identifies the driving forces behind the perception
management that attempts to blind us to American fascism as
themselves being a cultural product of this very same fascism:
Right behind the
expeditionary forces (the pigs) come the missionaries, and the
colonial effect is complete. The missionaries, with the benefits of
Christendom, school us on the value of symbolism, dead presidents,
and the rediscount rate. […] In the area of culture […] we are
bonded to the fascist society by chains that have strangled our
intellect, scrambled our wits, and sent us stumbling backward in a
wild, disorganized retreat from reality.
Moreover, Jackson,
like other Marxist-Leninists, identifies
the nucleus of fascism in “an economic rearrangement”: “It is
international capitalism’s response to the challenge of
international scientific socialism.” Its nationalistic garb, he
rightly insists, should not distract us from its international
ambitions and its colonial drive: “At its core, fascism is
capitalistic and capitalism is international. Beneath its nationalist
ideological trappings, fascism is always ultimately an international
movement.” Jackson thereby responds to the ideological
over-inflation of the concept of democracy by extending the notion of
fascism to include all of the violence, repression and control
operative in the imposition, maintenance and intensification of
capitalist social relations (including the reformist welfare state).
Some might prefer to distinguish between this form of general
fascism, which would include authoritarian and liberal rule, and a
more specific definition of fascism as the extensive use of state and
para-state repression for the ultimate purpose of increasing
capitalist accumulation. These are not, however, necessarily mutually
exclusive definitions since the violence of capitalist social
relations takes many different forms—direct repression, economic
exploitation, social degradation, hegemonic subjection, etc.—and
this
is what Jackson brings to the fore.
Seeing through
the Bourgeois Concept of Fascism
The bourgeois concept
of fascism aims at dissimulating its structural and systemic
character, as well as the deep material causes driving its
conjunctural emergence, in order to present it as absolutely
exceptional, by cordoning it off in a specific time and place. It
seeks to convince us, at all costs, that fascism is not
an essential aspect of capitalist rule, but rather an anomaly or an
exceptional break with its normal functioning. Moreover, it presents
it as far away, burying it in a past that has been overcome by
democratic progress, brandishing it as a future threat if people do
not conform to the dictates of liberal rule, or sometimes locating it
in distant lands that are still too ‘backward’ for democracy.
The materialist
approach to fascism refuses the blinders imposed by the perception
management inherent in the bourgeois concept, and it clearly
identifies the ideological double gesture of capitalist rule: it
overinflates and even universalizes its purportedly positive traits,
constructing a
mythological history of so-called Western democracy, and it
erases or particularizes its negative characteristics by making
fascism into an idiosyncratic anomaly. By beginning the other way
around, historical materialism examines how actually existing
capitalism relies on two modes of governance that function according
to the deceptive logic of the good cop / bad cop interrogation
tactic: wherever and whenever the good cop is not able to inveigle
people into playing by the rules of the capitalist game, the bad cop
of fascism is always lurking in the shadows to get the job done by
any means necessary. If the latter’s stick appears to be an
aberration when compared to the carrot of the good cop, this is only
because one has been hoodwinked into believing in the false
antagonism between them, which dissimulates the fundamental fact that
they are working together toward a common goal. While it is certainly
true, from a tactical organizing perspective, that dealing with the
histrionics of the good cop is usually far preferable to the
barefaced barbarism of the bad cop, it is strategically of the upmost
importance to identify them for what they are: partners in capitalist
crime.
Gabriel
Rockhill is
a Franco-American philosopher, cultural critic and activist. He the
founding Director of the Critical
Theory Workshop
and
Professor of Philosophy at Villanova University. His
books include Counter-History
of the Present: Untimely Interrogations into Globalization,
Technology, Democracy (2017), Interventions
in Contemporary Thought: History, Politics,
Aesthetics (2016), Radical
History & the Politics of Art (2014)
and Logique
de l’histoire (2010).
In addition to his scholarly work, he has been actively engaged in
extra-academic activities in the art and activist worlds, as well as
a regular contributor to public intellectual debate. Follow on
twitter: @GabrielRockhill - -
"Source"-
Click
for
Spanish,
German,
Dutch,
Danish,
French,
translation- Note- Translation
may take a moment to load.
============================================
Voor wereldwijde VS terreur zie: 'VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII........'
'VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen..........'
'List of wars involving the United States'
'CIA 70 jaar: 70 jaar moorden, martelen, coups plegen, nazi's beschermen, media manipulatie enz. enz.........'
Voor meer berichten over fascisten, neokolonialisme, democratie, communisme, politiestaat, antisemitisme en/of Israël, klik op het desbetreffende label, direct onder dit bericht.
