by ALEXANDER COCKBURN

On the last Nation cruise I was on a panel about nuclear proliferation. (Yes, even afloat off Baja California, the liberal conscience is always on guard duty.) Trying to juice up the panel a bit, I remarked that there was one bit of proliferation that seemed to me indisputably okay, which was when the Soviet Union acquired the know-how to make A and H bombs, thus ending the US monopoly on Armageddon, and in my view making the world a safer place. (My position, very shocking to Jonathan Schell, is that every country should have at least one thermonuclear device, if necessary donated by the World Bank along with the “national” flag.)

Nation and MSNBC mini-pundit Eric Alterman was chairing the session. He immediately shed any pretense of neutrality. Was Cockburn, he snarled at the audience, seeing something commendable in the transfer of atomic secrets to the most evil man the world had ever known?

Which shows just how dumb Alterman is, since at least 2/3rds of the audience of Nation seniors, the only subscribers who can afford to pony up for these cruises, were either in the Communist Party or in close sympathy with it. A chill silence greeted Alterman’s ill-mannered interruption and then one old boy piped up angrily and said that it was the Red Army which saved the day for the Allies at Stalingrad. Then Jonathan Schell remarked that my position was identical to that of Sakharov.

Alterman ended up looking silly, and so I wasn’t too surprised when one of the Nation guests sitting next to me at dinner reported Alterman was going around saying I was an anti-Semite.

Now, being called an anti-Semite these days isn’t what it was. The term has got cheapened. As Michael Neumann writes in his brilliant piece on this site, anti-Semitism is “action or propaganda designed to hurt Jews, not because of anything they could avoid doing, but because they are what they are.”

But these days people don’t flourish the charge of anti-Semitism because they’ve heard someone quoting the Protocols or saying that the Jews kill Christian babies. Anti-Semitism has become like a flit gun to squirt at every inconvenient fly on the window-pane. It’s a tool of convenience, used mostly to whack critics of the disgusting conduct of successive Israeli governments and security forces and settlers towards the Palestinians.

Maybe Alterman began to think of me as an anti-Semite after, years ago, I wrote that he was three quarters brown-noser and one quarter cheeky chappie. I came to this conclusion after being invited by the spring-heeled Alterman in his Yale days to go and talk about the press. Since in those days I was the in-house critic at the Village Voice of the policies of the Begin government young Eric knew what he was getting, but nonetheless positively fell over himself with pleasantries as he led me towards the seminar.

These days, at the Nation and on MSNBC he patrols the Democratic perimeter, nipping at the heels of any view over-stepping the bounds of decorous mainstream conversation. The word “Nader” brings an angry flush to his cheeks. “Greens” make him bilious. The cheeky chappie of yesteryear is getting the sour edge that mini-pundits acquire when they realize that mini-pundits are what they are always doomed to remain. When Sharon’s F-16s blew away some kids in Gaza, collateral damage in the effort to kill a Hamas leader, Alterman had this to say on his MSNBC site,

“I don’t know if killing the military chief of Hamas, together with his family, is an effective military measure-as surely someone will rise to replace him and it will make a lot more people angry, perhaps even angry enough to become suicide bombers. It may not bring Israel and the Palestinians any closer to peace or mutual security. But I don’t have a moral problem with it.

“Hamas is clearly at war with Israel. Hamas feels empowered to strike Israeli civilians inside Israel proper and not just on the war zone of West Bank. Sheik Salah Shehada could have protected his family by keeping away from them. He didn’t and owing to his clear legitimacy as a military target, they are dead too…So tough luck, fella.”

Which is presumably what those Palestinian suicide bombers say, as they press the button on their built-in bombs amid a crowd of Jewish kids.

I guess the blatancy of the evictions of Hilliard and McKinney has people like Alterman worried. Suddenly, I’m not just an anti-Semite. I’m shackled to Louis Farrakhan. Here’s what Alterman put up on his site a couple of days ago.

“Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said that “at the grass roots” among African American voters, there is a growing perception that ‘Jewish people are attempting to pick our leaders…here is some concern about that. It’s concern about any candidate being targeted by a special-interest group for voting on any one issue.’ I think AIPAC et al are being very stupid by targeting black Congressman who don’t vote ‘right’ on Israel. Congress could not be more pro-Israeli if it were taking orders from my (late) bubbe and zeida. One vote, one voice, here or there makes no difference. Because it plays into anti-Jew stereotypes, this kind of heavy-handed financial intervention to pick the winner of a largely African American race is actually a boon to anti-Semites of the black and extremist left-wing varieties. (See under: ‘Louis Farrakhan’ and ‘ Alexander Cockburn.’) What AIPAC et al appear to be saying is ‘We will tolerate no dissent of any kind on Israel in American public life.’ They do Israel and America’s Jews no favor.”

Now, behind the colorful conjunction of “anti-Semitism” with the F word and yours truly’s name, what’s Alterman saying here? That by defeating McKinney, the Jewish lobby is providing fuel for anti-Semites? That therefore it’s a bad thing? Not that it’s bad to defeat McKinney, per se. Merely that it’s a strategical error because then the real enemy can rant and rave about it? It’s not the display of raw power so much as how flagrant the display is? What’s wrong with McKinney’s defeat (so Alterman seems to be saying) is that it reveals how much Congress is controlled by the Israeli lobby.

Sad, no? Here’s Alterman using the term Anti-Semitism to attack people outraged by the way McKinney and Hilliard were driven from Congress, and by the horrible persecution of Palestinians in Israel. It’s a debauch of a term that once meant something awful, a term that once set the milestones to Auschwitz, now bandied about on MSNBC and on a Nation cruise as Eric’s little paint brush.

A final note to Alterman and the Nation’s or MSNBC’s lawyers: Careful how you go here. I’m placing you on notice that though I think Alterman and those like him have cheapened the term almost to meaninglessness, the slur of “anti-Semitism” is still intended as a fatal charge; and so the motivation and rationales for its usage are susceptible of examination in a law court.

Alexander Cockburn’s Guillotined!, A Colossal Wreck and An Orgy of Thieves: Neoliberalism and Its Discontents are available from CounterPunch.

Counterpunch for more

by LAURI NUMMENMAA, ENRICO GLEREAN, RIITTA HARI & JARI K. HIETANEN

Fig. 1.

Significance

Emotions coordinate our behavior and physiological states during survival-salient events and pleasurable interactions. Even though we are often consciously aware of our current emotional state, such as anger or happiness, the mechanisms giving rise to these subjective sensations have remained unresolved. Here we used a topographical self-report tool to reveal that different emotional states are associated with topographically distinct and culturally universal bodily sensations; these sensations could underlie our conscious emotional experiences. Monitoring the topography of emotion-triggered bodily sensations brings forth a unique tool for emotion research and could even provide a biomarker for emotional disorders.

Abstract

Emotions are often felt in the body, and somatosensory feedback has been proposed to trigger conscious emotional experiences. Here we reveal maps of bodily sensations associated with different emotions using a unique topographical self-report method. In five experiments, participants (n = 701) were shown two silhouettes of bodies alongside emotional words, stories, movies, or facial expressions. They were asked to color the bodily regions whose activity they felt increasing or decreasing while viewing each stimulus. Different emotions were consistently associated with statistically separable bodily sensation maps across experiments. These maps were concordant across West European and East Asian samples. Statistical classifiers distinguished emotion-specific activation maps accurately, confirming independence of topographies across emotions. We propose that emotions are represented in the somatosensory system as culturally universal categorical somatotopic maps. Perception of these emotion-triggered bodily changes may play a key role in generating consciously felt emotions.

We often experience emotions directly in the body. When strolling through the park to meet with our sweetheart we walk lightly with our hearts pounding with excitement, whereas anxiety might tighten our muscles and make our hands sweat and tremble before an important job interview. Numerous studies have established that emotion systems prepare us to meet challenges encountered in the environment by adjusting the activation of the cardiovascular, skeletomuscular, neuroendocrine, and autonomic nervous system (ANS) (1). This link between emotions and bodily states is also reflected in the way we speak of emotions (2): a young bride getting married next week may suddenly have “cold feet,” severely disappointed lovers may be “heartbroken,” and our favorite song may send “a shiver down our spine.”Both classic (3) and more recent (4, 5) models of emotional processing assume that subjective emotional feelings are triggered by the perception of emotion-related bodily states that reflect changes in the skeletomuscular, neuroendocrine, and autonomic nervous systems (1). These conscious feelings help the individuals to voluntarily fine-tune their behavior to better match the challenges of the environment (6). Although emotions are associated with a broad range of physiological changes (1, 7), it is still hotly debated whether the bodily changes associated with different emotions are specific enough to serve as the basis for discrete emotional feelings, such as anger, fear, or happiness (8, 9), and the topographical distribution of the emotion-related bodily sensations has remained unknown.Here we reveal maps of bodily sensations associated with different emotions using a unique computer-based, topographical self-report method (emBODY, Fig. 1). Participants (n = 701) were shown two silhouettes of bodies alongside emotional words, stories, movies, or facial expressions, and they were asked to color the bodily regions whose activity they felt to be increased or decreased during viewing of each stimulus. Different emotions were associated with statistically clearly separable bodily sensation maps (BSMs) that were consistent across West European (Finnish and Swedish) and East Asian (Taiwanese) samples, all speaking their respective languages. Statistical classifiers discriminated emotion-specific activation maps accurately, confirming independence of bodily topographies across emotions. We propose that consciously felt emotions are associated with culturally universal, topographically distinct bodily sensations that may support the categorical experience of different emotions.

PNAS for more

by FASIL MERAWI

Riven by two competing schools of thought, the future of philosophical enquiry in Ethiopia stands at a crossroads

‘I was born in the land of the priests of Aksum,’ ZeraYacob is believed to have written in the 17th century. ‘But I am the son of a poor farmer in the district of Aksum.’ So begins the Hatata (a Ge’ez word meaning ‘enquiry’) of ZeraYacob, in which he documents his spiritual journey against a backdrop of intense religious controversy. He proceeds to reflect on the nature of God and human existence, the essence of evil and the basis of morality. A second Hatata, commonly attributed to WeldaHeywat, concentrates on issues of justice and moral truth. These two short texts are at the centre of Ethiopian philosophy. They have been generating intense controversy for generations because their authenticity and philosophical value have a crucial bearing on the very existence of Ethiopian philosophy and how it should be done.

There are, very roughly, two camps within Ethiopian philosophy today. The universalist approach to Ethiopian philosophy starts with the historical narrative that philosophy is a refined intellectual exercise that serves as a foundation for societal progress and individual enlightenment. This approach sees philosophy as one continuous dialogue, each philosopher learning from another in order to come up with new ideas. The universalist approach is founded on a cumulative and linear path that sees philosophy as starting at the time of the pre-Socratic philosophers, developing through the ideas of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the rest of the ancients, on to the medieval age, and finally into the modern era that was inaugurated by René Descartes and that is currently dominated by German and French Continental philosophy.

Other traditions of philosophy, such as the many strands of Indian philosophy, the philosophy of the Aztecs, the Japanese and the Chinese and so on, are, for the universalist, subsumed under the label of ‘comparative philosophy’. The value of non-Western philosophical traditions derives from what we might call an intercultural perspective. All philosophies are concerned with universal truths – all philosophies can be put into dialogue around this universal search for the conditions that make our existence possible and the reasons we have to live the way that we do. In general, the universalist position does not pay attention to the qualifiers of a tradition: it is not Indian or Aztec or Chinese philosophy that is at issue, but simply philosophy itself, philosophy as such.

The other camp we’ll call Africanist. For the Africanist way of doing Ethiopian philosophy, the history of philosophy is a process of deliberate exclusion that consists primarily in epistimicide – the systematic process of obliterating the knowledge system of the Other. In Africa, epistemicide was committed by colonisers in the name of disseminating the values of the Enlightenment and modernity. The Africanist approach sees itself as the saviour of, specifically, Africa and Ethiopia’s history. It is engaged in the search for a philosophy in the past that can serve as a foundation for cultural pride and recognition. Challenging the superior epistemic and cultural position that has been occupied by the West, Africanists see themselves primarily as countering the influence of Eurocentrism. In the words of Bekele Gutema, what is needed is ‘a robust understanding of philosophy that recognises the existence of philosophy in many cultures’.

Aeon for more

by TAYYABA JIWANI & AYYAZ MALLICK

In Part 1 of this two-part interview, Tariq Ali reflects on his memories of the 1968 movement in Pakistan, arguably the only unequivocal success of the wave of protests that shook the world.

Veteran activist and intellectual, Tariq Ali, generously gave his time to Jamhoor for an interview. We discussed the trajectory of the global Left since the heady days of 1968 – the year of street revolts and agitations that reverberated across the world, from the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movement in the United States, to students’ and workers’ protests in Mexico, France, and all over Europe. Having participated in these agitations across Europe, Ali was also centrally involved in the mass uprising in Pakistan, which brought an end to a decade of military dictatorship under Ayub Khan.

In this two-part conversation, we touch upon a wide range of issues – from Ali’s recollections of the ‘68-69 movements (Part I), to the trajectory of the Left ever since (Part II).

Throughout, Ali maintains a resolutely internationalist outlook, in keeping with the universalist ideals of 1968-69, the revolutionary street fighting years.

Ayyaz Mallick (AM) – This year marked the fiftieth anniversary of the 1968 protest movements. Your book on these events in Pakistan was also re-published this year – Uprising in Pakistan: How to Bring Down a Dictatorship. You have often said that Pakistan was perhaps the only unequivocal success of the ‘68 movements – the military dictatorship of Ayub Khan was toppled. But many people might not know this. Can you give us a sense of that time “from below” – through your own experience with the movement, the events, the sentiments, the structure of feeling of people on the ground?

Tariq Ali (TA) – Well I was in Britain, having left in 1963, but I’d started getting phone calls, letters, and messages saying it’s better for me to come back! And then before everything blew up, Raja Anwar, a Rawalpindi student leader, sent a telegram saying, “On behalf of the Students Action Committee in Rawalpindi, we invite you to come and give an address”. So I left and by the time I got there, in January 1969, the movement was in full flow.

It started on 7th November 1968 – the anniversary of the Russian Revolution. But no one knew that! You know, when I was a student in Pakistan, I used to travel; under restrictions sometimes, but I did travel. This time, there were no restrictions at all! So, Habib Jalib and I went all over West Pakistan. He would recite poems and I would give a speech in Urdu or Punjabi. And you got a real feeling of how political consciousness changes. I’ve never got that feeling anywhere else, never on that scale. People were incredibly radicalised, and of course they wanted to get rid of the dictatorship of Ayub Khan, but it went beyond that. All their questions came up – why do we live like this? Has God ordained that the poor should always be poor? These questions, you know, from ordinary people.

Jamhoor for more

---

1968 and ever since: An interview with Tariq Ali (Part 2)

In Part II of our interview, Tariq Ali examines the afterlives of 1968 today: global youth insurgencies, anti-imperialist movements, and the tasks of the hour for the Left.

Jamhoor interviewed renowned public intellectual and activist, Tariq Ali. We discussed the trajectory of the global Left since the heady days of 1968 – the year of street revolts and agitations that reverberated across the world, from the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movement in the United States, to students’ and workers’ protests in Mexico, France, and all over Europe. Having participated in these agitations across Europe, Ali was also centrally involved in the mass uprising in Pakistan, which brought an end to a decade of military dictatorship under Ayub Khan.

In Part I of this two-part conversation, Ali recounted the participation of workers, students, and women in the mass upheavals of the 60s. Here in Part II, Ali examines the resonances of those events today  – from generational tensions in the Left, to the changing role of intellectuals, the current nature of US imperialism, the emerging anti-war movement in Pakistan, and of course, South Asia’s favourite sport, cricket.

---

yyaz Mallick (AM) — I get the sense that the ‘68 moment was very much i) a response to the geopolitics of the time, because of Vietnam, the Tet Offensive, many national liberation movements etc., and ii) a generational revolt against the old Left. And it seems as though the moment now has some resonance with that time, in terms of both the geopolitical dynamics and a new kind of youth revolt. Is this something you have also observed or agree with?

Tariq Ali (TA) – Yes, it was a generational revolt without any doubt, and with very specific reasons and causes. But in terms of the moment now, it would be nice if this was the case. You have to understand that something happened in the 90s, a two-pronged thing – one, the complete collapse of the Soviet Union, and it was a collapse of their leadership. No one destroyed them from the outside. It was an implosion, because they couldn’t find a proper way to reform the system, though they tried twice before, and due to the naiveté of its leaders – Gorbachev in particular – who actually thought that the West would help the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet Union, regardless of what you thought about its leaders or how it functioned internally, was a huge defeat for the Left.

Jamhoor for more

by AHMAD RASHED IBN SAID

Gaza has shattered the illusion of credibility in the Arab political order, exposing its deep structural and moral bankruptcy

In a televised speech last month, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas crudely lashed out at Hamas, calling them “sons of dogs” and demanding that they disarm and release the remaining Israeli captives. 

In his speech, he seemed to forget his previous plea to the “international community” for protection from the occupiers’ aggression in May 2023, when he addressed the United Nations. 

“People of the world, protect us,” Abbas said. “Aren’t we human beings? Even animals should be protected. If you have an animal, won’t you protect it?” 

This past February, Israeli media reported that Saudi Arabia had put forward a plan for Gaza centred on disarming Hamas and removing the group from power.

Arab and American sources told the Israel Hayom newspaper that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would not participate financially or practically in the reconstruction of Gaza unless it was guaranteed that Hamas would surrender its weapons and play no role in postwar governance. 

In March, Middle East Eye reported that Jordan was proposing a plan to disarm Palestinian groups in Gaza, as well as to exile 3,000 members of Hamas, including both military and civilian leaders, from Gaza.

Then, in mid-April, just days before Abbas issued his threat to Hamas, Egypt presented a “ceasefire proposal” to a Hamas delegation in Cairo that included a demand for the group’s disarmament.

Pattern of hostility

The calls from Abbas and prominent Arab regimes for Hamas to surrender its weapons reflect a broader pattern of hostility from the Arab political order towards the resistance in Gaza. 

This raises crucial and legitimate questions about the very essence of the struggle for liberation: do the occupied have a right to resist their occupier? How can an unarmed resistance stand up to a brutal military occupation that commits genocide against defenceless people? 

What guarantees are there to end the occupation and lift the siege if Zionism continues its unchecked aggression, while Arab regimes and the world turn a blind eye?

Middle East Eye for more

by KIT KLARENBERG

Files reviewed by The Grayzone reveal a shocking foreign meddling scandal, as British state prosecutors are seen colluding with Israeli authorities to classify anti-genocide protesters as terrorists and imprison them on heavily politicized grounds.

Documents released by the British government reveal that London has been coordinating with Israeli officials to prosecute protestors associated with activist group Palestine Action for disrupting the operations of Elbit Systems, which manufactures deadly weapons being used in the genocide in Gaza.

The documents highlight a years-long Israeli influence campaign, and suggest that Tel Aviv’s meddling has prompted London to abandon well-established legal standards in order to charge anti-genocide activists under highly politicized counter-terror provisions.

One especially revealing document shows the British Attorney General’s Office (AGO) furnishing their Israeli counterparts with guidance on how to avoid an arrest warrant for war crimes, reassuring them that the Crown Prosecutorial Service (CPS) “has strengthened the procedural safeguards around the issuing of private arrest warrants in recent years.” 

The Israelis have been on edge since former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was forced to cancel a trip to London in 2009 after a UK court issued an arrest warrant for her involvement in the blood-stained assault on Gaza that year. Leaked Israeli Ministry of Justice files revealed how Tel Aviv subsequently initiated an intensive – and ultimately successful – lobbying campaign to guarantee its officials “special mission” certificates which allowed them to visit London without the fear of arrest. As Declassified UK reported, the British government has granted Israel three special mission certificates through the Gaza genocide.

Another startling file released by the British government revealed that Nicola Smith, the Head of International Law at Britain’s Attorney General’s Office, shared “contact details” for UK prosecutors and counter-terror investigators with Israel’s deputy ambassador to London. 

The email was sent to Israel’s deputy envoy, Daniela Grudsky Ekstein, with the subject line “Nicola Smith to Israelis re CPS/SO15 contact details,” indicating the UK government had referred Tel Aviv directly to the CPS, or Crown Prosecutorial Service, as well as to SO15, London’s counter-terror squad, to advance the prosecution of activists affiliated with Palestine Action.

The Gray Zone for more

by ANN GARRISON

Eritrea remains true to the revolutionary ideals forged during its 30-year War of Independence.

On May 24th, Eritrea celebrated its 34th Independence Day. From September 1, 1961, to May 24, 1991, the Eritrean people waged a 30-year war to free themselves from the Ethiopian empire, first under the control of Emperor Haile Selassie and then under the Derg regime’s Mengistu Haile Mariam.

Eritrea was the first of five African nations now refusing to collaborate with AFRICOM , the US Africa Command. It has also refused to saddle itself with IMF or World Bank debt, but the African Development Bank has praised its progress and provided funding for one of its renewable energy projects and for its education initiatives.

I spoke to Eritrean-American journalist Elias Amare , who hosts his own YouTube channel , most of which is in the Tigrinya language, about Eritrea’s hard won independence.

ANN GARRISON: Elias, I know it’s difficult to summarize 30 years, but nevertheless, can you tell us the salient points we might understand about the Eritrean independence struggle, including the process that led to UN recognition?

ELIAS AMARE: That is a tall order, but let me start with some personal connection. I was born the year the armed struggle for national liberation was launched in Eritrea, in 1961, so my entire life has been within the struggle, first to liberate the land and, secondly, to defend the Eritrean sovereignty that was won with huge sacrifices, both human and material, during the 30-year struggle.

First we must bear in mind that the armed struggle was launched by Eritreans only when all peaceful political avenues had been closed to it. Eritrean demands and protests for national self-determination had just led to more deaths and more repression. In 1961, a band of armed men led by Hamid Idris Awate and inspired by the Algerian national liberation struggle finally launched the armed struggle.

Sectarianism and division along narrow, ethnic, and religious lines haunted the early movement until a progressive vision emerged. It was established that the leadership of the armed struggle had to be within Eritrea, on the battlefield, not sitting outside in comfortable zones like Cairo or Sudan, and that religious and ethnic divides had to be set aside for the sake of the national struggle.

The movement also prioritized popular democracy emerging from feudalistic culture, with political education, eradication of illiteracy, equality among fighters, and strict egalitarianism. Leaders and the rank and file had the same living standards; they shared the same accommodations, ate the same food, and received the same medical attention as needed. Their children got the same education.

There was popular democratic debate, criticism, and self-criticism. The emancipation of women was also prioritized, and that was extremely revolutionary within the patriarchal societies of that time.

This process gave birth to the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front, and the egalitarian principles it established have carried through to this day.

On May 24, 1991, after the sacrifice of 65,000 heroic Eritrean fighters, the EPLF finally defeated the Ethiopian army, whose troops gave up and fled, with some even heading into Sudan.

The Eritreans never took any vendetta against them. They even gave them food and water along their way. All they wanted was a peaceful end to the war.

The Ethiopian Derg regime collapsed at the same time, and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) took over. Eritreans had fought with the TPLF in the interest of defeating a common enemy.

Once EPLF had established de facto control of Eritrean territory, it established a transitional government. Then, in 1993, there was a referendum on becoming an independent nation that was monitored by the United Nations and other international observers. There was no question that this was a free and fair election, and Eritreans voted for independence by 99.85%. The official declaration was delayed until May 24, 1993, because we wanted our independence to coincide with the day we defeated the Ethiopian army.

Within minutes of the declaration of independence, after the results of the referendum, five countries stepped forward– Egypt, Sudan, Italy, and the United States–to recognize Eritrea. The United States had opposed Eritrean independence since the 1940s, but it finally accepted the reality on the ground and became one of the first countries to officially recognize us. After that, the floodgates opened, and one country after another recognized.

On May 28, 1993, Eritrea was officially admitted as the 182nd UN member state. I was part of the Eritrean delegation that officially went to the United Nations when Eritrea was officially accepted as a free, independent nation, and it was the most moving experience of my life to see the Eritrean flag being raised in front of the UN after a 30-year struggle. Tears of pride, tears of joy, rushed down my face.

AG: I believe that meant that, in accordance with the UN Charter, the Security Council had passed a resolution to recommend recognition to the UN General Assembly, with at least nine votes and no vetoes from the five permanent members, and then the General Assembly had voted to recognize by at least a two-thirds majority.

EA: Yes, I believe that’s the procedure.

Black Agenda Report for more

by OWEN HATHERLY

An only slightly caricatured version of the cultural arguments of Mark Fisher could be expressed as follows: ‘the future ended in 1979’. In that year, there began a ‘slow cancellation of the future’ (a line from Raymond Williams’s novel Border Country, which Fisher attributed to Franco ‘Bifo’ Berardi, who had borrowed it without credit). It was in fact so slow that its effects weren’t fully felt until the start of the 2000s, when the formal innovations and novelties of popular music and Hollywood film finally dwindled to a trickle and then ceased entirely. This account mirrored Fisher’s wider contention about the effects of neoliberalism in smashing a ‘popular modernism’ that had productively linked aesthetics and politics for much of the twentieth century. It was an argument built largely around British and, to a lesser extent, American culture, and so it felt particularly strange hearing it discussed in Shenzhen, at the launch in January 2024 of the Chinese translation of Fisher’s first and most famous book Capitalist Realism (2009).

Shenzhen was, of course, founded in 1979, as the first of the ‘Special Economic Zones’ in which the People’s Republic of China could experiment with capitalism, built around the busiest border post between the PRC and the British colony of Hong Kong. It is, accordingly, the flagship city of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’, and today one of the biggest and richest metropolises on earth. Shenzhen has more metro lines than London and a high-speed connection to Beijing – nearly 1,500 miles to the north – that has emerged in less time than it took to plan and build Crossrail in London, or the Second Avenue subway in Manhattan. It is impossible not to use the word ‘futuristic’ in appraising its cityscape: with its nighttime play of LED slogans and images, its seemingly endless ranks of skyscrapers, its flyovers and overhead walkways, its cleaning robots sweeping and mopping vast plazas, and its unexpectedly excellent public infrastructure, it fulfils the science-fictional promises of the 20^th century with the technologies of the 21^st. It is an entire future whose creation dates from the exact moment when the future was supposedly cancelled.

NLR for more

by JOE LAURIA

Sixty-two years ago this week, John F. Kennedy broke with the Cold War in his American University speech and warned against humiliating a nuclear weapons power, words that resonate more than ever, writes Joe Lauria. 

In his momentous speech at American University in Washington 62 years ago this week, in which he controversially sought peace with Soviet Russia and an end to the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy said: 

“Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy — or of a collective death-wish for the world.”

Twenty-eight years later, the Bill Clinton administration and every U.S. administration since, culminating in perhaps the most reckless, has proven the bankruptcy of U.S. policy by doing the exact opposite of what Kennedy advised, namely displaying a determination to humiliate and bully nuclear-armed Russia.

Today that most frightening moment has arrived, one dreaded by generations. The United States, under the Biden administration, in November continued to provoke Russia with American and British missile attacks on Russian soil fired from a third country with American and British personnel, ignoring Moscow’s unequivocally clear warning  that this could lead to nuclear conflict.  

By firing directly into Russia with its ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles, the U.S. and U.K., which Russia has not attacked, have given Moscow “a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.”

And then just last week, almost certainly with U.S. and British involvement, Ukraine attacked Russian nuclear bombers in a brazen, if mostly symbolic, stab at Moscow’s nuclear deterrence.

Beginning at the End of the Cold War

The humiliation of Russia began with the end of the Cold War that Kennedy had sought, but not on the terms he envisioned. Despite George H.W. Bush’s vow not to engage in triumphalism, that was in full swing once Clinton took power.

Talk of a peace dividend and a common Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok was swept aside. The U.S. considered themselves the victors and were poised to claim their spoils.

Wall Street and U.S. corporate carpetbaggers swept into the former Soviet Union in the 1990s, eyed its enormous natural resources, asset-stripped the formerly state-owned industries, enriched themselves, gave rise to oligarchs and impoverished the Russian, Ukrainian and other former Soviet peoples.

The humiliation intensified with the decision in the nineties to expand NATO eastward despite a promise made to the last Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev in exchange for reunifying Germany.  

Consortium News for more

by SYEDA ZAHRA SHAH SUBZWARI

Every year, we mourn the tragedies of the past and the violence of now and walk in processions

Another Muharram approaches. Once again, we will gather and mourn wearing black while remembering a tyrant’s violence and a family’s sacrifice. But let this not be another year where we ritualistically grieve Karbala and then return to silencing our women. Let this not be another Muharram where we cry over Yazid’s cruelty while enabling our own.

Because if not for a woman, Islam wouldn’t have survived. Not the Quran you recite. Not the Hadith you forwarded. Not the faith you gatekeep while violating every principle it upholds. Islam would never have made it past its earliest trials, political boycotts, economic starvation and rebellions, if it weren’t carried on the backs, in the arms, and through the voices of women.

Before Islam had a following, it had Bibi Khadijah (RA), not just a supporter, but the first believer. A businesswoman. A strategist. A financier. The one who bankrolled the mission of the Prophet (PBUH) when no man dared. When Quraysh exiled him, it was her caravan, her gold, her unwavering faith that sheltered him.

It was Bibi Fatima (AS) who bore the lineage through which the Ahlul Bayt lived on. The axis of legacy. The embodiment of strength in grief. It was Aisha (RA) who brilliantly narrated over 2,000 hadith and debated scholars. Her voice helped shape the jurisprudence we now cite while refusing to let women speak in the same rooms.

And then came Bibi Zainab (AS), shattered, shackled, but unafraid. After Karbala had become a graveyard and her brother Imam Hussain (AS) lay slaughtered in the sand, it was she who rose, not with weapons, but with words. Dragged to the court of Yazid, surrounded by mockery, she did not ask for mercy. She gave a sermon. She didn’t break. She broke him. She was not just surviving. She was defying.

And yet today, in a land that recites their names in every sermon, we silence their daughters. We call it modesty when we erase them. We call it culture when we kill them. We turn their resistance into relics, then light candles at their graves. As though mourning without action ever saved anyone.

In 2024 alone, over 5,200 cases of gender-based violence were reported in Pakistan — murders, rapes, forced marriages, suicides, disappearances. We call our daughters Zainab, but fear their fire. We call them Aisha, but shush their speech. We call them Khadijah, but question their independence. We call them Fatima, but scorn their principles. We want them quiet. Covered. Passive. We fear their intellect, police their tone and question their clothing.

Every year, we mourn the tragedies of the past and the violence of now and walk in processions. We cry for Karbala and for today’s graves. And then? We go back. Back to honour killings, child brides, acid attacks. To clerics who blame women, politicians who mock abuse, courts that shame victims, and homes where daughters are silenced. We mourn the dead but never protect the living. Guilt has never been enough.

You cannot grieve Karbala and ignore the women being buried in your own neighbourhood. You cannot claim love for Imam Hussain (AS) while tolerating Yazid’s spirit in your own actions. If your grief does not make you just, then it is performance. If your rituals don’t translate into compassion, then they are empty. If you cry for the women of Islam but ignore the pain of living women, then you are the problem.

Because Karbala was not just a battlefield. It was a woman with a voice. And she didn’t whisper. Because Muharram will come and go. But the Yazid of today doesn’t need a throne; he rules from homes, offices, police stations, pulpits, parliaments, WhatsApp groups, comment sections, and benches. All he needs is a gun, a platform, and our silence.

And too many others, like the armies that watched Karbala unfold, just? looked away. Had Bibi Zainab stayed silent, you wouldn’t even have a story to tell. So tell it. Live it. Let this be the year your grief grows a spine.

Express Tribune for more