My Life and Faith by Ri In Mo.

It’s the memoirs of a guy who grew up in rural poverty in Korea under Japanese colonization, and from a young age was involved in resistance movements, starting communist/anti-imperialist reading groups as a child, etc., and wanted and tried to join the guerrillas. After Korea’s liberation from Japan, he lived in DPRK’s early days until 1950 when the war escalated and he went to south Korea as a war correspondant. During his activities following this, he was captured and spent almost 40 years imprisoned in south Korea, being tortured along with other political prisoners in an attempt to get them to renounce communism. Finally in 1988, he was released, and then eventually repatriated to north Korea, where he wrote this memoir of his experiences.

I am only part way through this one, but so far I have found it a very interesting first person account of the liberation struggle against Japan and the early days of DPRK’s development in the post-liberation period prior to 1950, and the mentality of someone who grew up trying to find a way to end colonization by Japan since his childhood, and saw the resistance develop and participated in it, and saw the various reforms/developments being made under DPRK. I recommend it for anyone curious about Korean history or in reading the first person experiences of someone fighting colonial rule (at least from what I have read in it so far).

Also, coincidentally I just recently added a book by Gerald Horne to my reading list, but I have a few other things to get through first. He also has been interviewed several times on this channel though I have only seen one of the interviews and don’t know much about the channel.

Man I hate this dude

The history of the Middle East since 1948 shows Israel constantly striving for peace, only to be rebuffed time and again by the Arabs.

– Antony J. Blinken, “Lebanon and the Facts”, 1982

Israel is not, has never been, nor will ever be the irreproachable, perfectly moral state some of its supporters would like to see. Israelis are, after all, only human. Still, one pedestal the Jewish state can stand on–and stand on alone in the Middle East–is that of a democracy. Yes, there are tragic excesses in the occupied territories. True, the invasion of Lebanon claimed many innocent lives. The fact remains, though, that Israelis question themselves and their government openly and honestly. Eventually, as in other democracies, those responsible for wrongdoing are held accountable.

– Antony J. Blinken, “Israel’s Saving Grace”, 1982

The summer of 1982 may be remembered in history as the time Israel passed from adolescence to adulthood. The illusions of a child are left behind. But the Jewish state remains special, an oasis in a desert. Its citizens have built a working democracy from scratch in a region that has no others. Israelis must treasure that democracy, protect it with all their will. For if they don’t, the growing pains that are Lebanon, Shatila and Sabra, the repression of Arabs and the feud between Ashkenazim and Sephardim could turn into a plague.

– Antony J. Blinken, “The Danger Within”, 1983

I recommend Geopolitical Economy Report.

Edit: Just remembered there is also People’s Dispatch, whose articles I sometimes read, but they also have a YouTube channel. I haven’t really watched their videos though. Maybe someone else can comment further about it.

Yes, that link you posted says some of the info. Additionally, the “shot in Evers’ back” refers to the killing of civil rights activist Medgar Evers by a Klansman in 1963. The Klansman went to trial twice but was not convicted, and walked free. (Though was finally convicted in a 1994 retrial.)

And as your link says, “Mr. Charlie” is an old term for referring to condescending/abusive/exploitative white people.

I just found out about this guy today, and after a cursory look into his work, I thought of your post because it seems he is potentially covering this kind of thing, Prof. Oliver Boyd-Barrett. This page lists the courses he teaches as “The Political Economy of Mass Communication”, “The Political Economy of Hollywood and the Press”, and “Media Representation and Propaganda in Times of War and Terror”. And when I looked him up he has books titled (for example) “Media Imperialism”, “Approaches to Media”, “Conflict Propaganda in Syria: Narrative Battles”, “Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda”.

Considering that I only just now found out about him, I can’t exactly vouch for his work, but he wrote this 2021 article about Ukraine which is how I found him.

Ultimately it means meet/talk with other people and engage in planning and work to accomplish something together, whether that thing is big or small.

Easiest thing to do is look around for people who are already organized, e.g., a party or other org focused on a particular issue. IMO if someone has no experience with organizing whatsoever, then they can benefit from joining almost anything, even something run by liberals, anarchists, etc., just simply to see what kind of dynamics are at play when people are trying to work together to accomplish something. A lot of orgs and such are not easy to find online. It’s better to just go to protests and demonstrations or to community projects and start meeting people and learning about what they are doing by word of mouth. People who are involved in organizing are typically going to be open to teaching/involving new people. A demonstration is the kind of place where people are purposely trying to educate and involve the public. Just don’t come across as a cop and be wary that some people trying to involve you in things might be cops themselves lol. Approach groups with a critical eye, join a small-scale/low-risk org whose goals you support to learn about the practical dynamics of how organizing works and to build up a network of acquaintances and friends, and keep learning from there. Trying to organize something from scratch with no experience is possible but if you don’t have a clear idea of what you’re doing nor have a group of other people who are keen and intrinsically motivated to work on the goal, it’s going to be pretty difficult.

Here’s a documentary about it that leaves out most of the blood and gore that you could easily find if you looked: Donbass (2016). You will see a bit of people being burned to death in this documentary and some other injuries but not to the extent you could find in other videos of the time.

Here’s a scene of the burning of the trade union building in 2014. Russian speakers were protesting regarding the repeal of a law which protected Russian as a minority language (or as the Ukrainian former soldier in the video states, they were “contesting a ban on the Russian language in Ukraine.”) The protestors hid in the trade union building when Ukrainian right wing nationalists showed up. Eventually, the Ukrainian nationalists set fire to the building and many of the protesters burned to death, with those who jumped out of the windows getting beaten to death by the Ukrainian nationalists. (See also: “Burnt Alive in Odessa”).

If you can stomach seeing bodies blown up in the streets, limbs removed, dead babies, and footage of people dying, there are other documentaries around which show it. It’s not hard to find footage like this from 2014 onwards. E.g., Result of a 2014 shelling by Ukrainian military (CW: Numerous dead bodies); More aftermath of a shelling (CW: Extremely graphic, numerous mutilated bodies, and footage of a person dying).

You can make up your own mind about the conflict’s particulars as you learn about it, but it’s a mistake to ignore events happening before 2022 or treat them as insignificant.

I’d be really interested in reading that

The New Atlas touches on and reads some quotes from this paper a bit in this video: https://www.yewtu.be/watch?v=MWzF5NvFdOs&t=2507s (@41:54)

A very normal quote from the paper:

…it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it. (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)

An example of what’s discussed in the New Atlas video:

[Brian Berletic speaking about the paper] They also laid out the the whole Iran nuclear deal, they didn’t mention it by name, but they were talking about a deal they would propose to Iran, deliberately sabotage, blame its failure on Iran, and then use that as a pretext for military aggression. So it says, “in a similar vein any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper International context both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to and minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support, however grudging or covert, is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer”–and they’re talking about a widespread conviction–not an understanding of a fact, but the belief in a US fabricated lie–so they say to “strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer, one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down” because, for the wrong reasons they admit in this paper–and many other policy papers, including from the Rand corporation–that if Iran ever did have nuclear weapons they would be used solely as a deterrent.

It says, “under those circumstances the United States or Israel could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians brought it upon themselves by refusing a very good deal.” I mean remember shortly after this paper was published, under the Obama Administration the Iran nuclear deal was proposed. Eventually it was signed, it was implemented, the Iranians adhered to it, and then under the Trump Administration it was the US unilaterally withdrew from it, blaming Iran, just as the Brookings institution spelled out. And the Biden administration was supposed to reinstate it, but of course that was never going to happen because that was not the plan as laid out by the real policy makers of US foreign policy, these unelected, corporate-funded think tanks.

These think tanks produce these policy papers, teams of lawyers craft parts of these policy papers into bills, the bills go with lobbyists to Washington to be rubber stamped–many people in Washington don’t even read them–and then the bill is sent to the corporate media to sell these policies to the public. It’s very important to understand how the US really operates where foreign and domestic policy really stem from. Not your elected representatives, unfortunately. The fact that this Brookings institution ploy to propose sabotage, unilaterally withdraw from and then use a deal with Iran as a pretext for military aggression transcended the Obama, Trump, and Biden Administration. This demonstrates the continuity of US foreign policy regardless of who sits in the White House and whoever is running Congress.

Similarly, the SS man Josef Blösche rode through the Warsaw ghetto at times on a rickshaw powered by a Jewish prisoner, on which occasions he would use the vehicle as a platform to test his marksmanship and shoot Jews either on the street or those standing at their windows.

What the goddamn fuck

Apparently the attacker was also their landlord:

According to the Will County sheriff’s office, the woman had called 911 to report that her landlord had attacked her with a knife, adding she then ran into a bathroom and continued to fight him off.

The Muslim civil liberties organization called the crime “our worst nightmare” and part of a disturbing spike in hate calls and emails since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war. The group cited text messages exchanged among family members that showed the attacker had made disparaging remarks about Muslims.

I happened to come across these articles today, linking in case you still wanted info on this topic

AP corrects story falsely claiming homosexuality is illegal for Palestinians

Why I painted a rainbow flag on Israel’s apartheid wall

The Real Oppressors of Gaza’s Gay Community: Hamas or Israel?

Transcript contains some errors, typos, and spots where I was unsure of what exactly was said, which I marked by a question mark, but should be mostly readable. Feel free to correct any problems you see.

https://paste.lcomrade.su/XVquKDWC

Edit: I’m mostly through transcribing the video, mostly just cleaning it up now. Edited since rn I don’t need what I was asking about earlier.

All this week I keep thinking about/looking up Haitian revolution images too…

I don’t know much about the subject specifically in Gaza or in Palestine in general, aside from this academic paper which is about the use of pinkwashing as a colonizer tactic. Regarding advocacy groups it mentions the group alQaws. Here is an article by alQaws: Queer Liberation & Palestine. Quote from article in which they warn about the weaponization of LGBTQ issues to further colonial agendas:

Israeli settler colonialism, and tactics such as “pinkwashing” weaponize our queer experiences to place us in opposition to our own society and communities. Pinkwashing is a form of colonial violence. It promotes harmful narratives and policies that alienate queer Palestinians from our own communities. Our answer to pinkwashing is to say that liberation is indivisible, and that there will be a place for all of us at the rendezvous of victory. The Israeli criminal government and Zionist LGBTQ movement manipulate and exploit queer Palestinians’ lived realities to advance a colonial agenda. The standards for solidarity and action cannot be set by the colonizer.

Another article from them: No Queer “Co-Resistance” with Colonizers: Confronting Normalization and Pinkwashing

In alliance with anti-colonial coalitions, alQaws developed and popularized the concept of “pinkwashing” to expose how Israel and its defenders use the language of LGBTQ rights to distract from the oppression of Palestinians. Over the years, Palestinian activists came to recognize that pinkwashing is not simply an outward-facing propaganda machine—it is a direct form of colonial violence, one that pushes Palestinians to view ourselves and our communities through the lens of colonial prejudice.

Pinkwashing relies on exploiting progressive rhetoric about “tolerance” and “gay rights,” to conceal the violent nature of the occupation and settler-colonialism in Palestine. Normalization, similarly, draws on liberal ideals of “dialogue” and “partnership.”

5 Way to Support Palestinian Queers

Perpetuating tiresome tropes of presenting Palestinians as inherently oppressive and Israel as a liberal state that protects LGBTQ rights is counter-productive and factually baseless. Israel is a settler-colonial state that offers no rights to Palestinians, queer or otherwise. Our struggle as queer Palestinians is against Israeli colonialism as much as it is against homophobia and patriarchy in Palestine. Israel uses pinkwashing tactics to lie about “saving” LGBTQ Palestinians from their society. We ask that you steer away from these lies that are intentionally used to justify their colonization of Palestine. alQaws and our allies in Palestine will continue to amplify our message as well as provide protection and a political home for LGBTQ Palestinians. Israeli LGBTQ groups do not have a say in the work that should be done to fight patriarchy and homophobia in Palestine, including the incitements led by the Palestinian police.

As I said, I don’t know much about it beyond the above, which I have not looked deeply into, so take this information with a grain of salt.

As a former senior economist of the IMF once said:

Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over twelve years, and after 1000 days of official Fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the names of your predecessors, and under your official seal.

You know, when all the evidence is in, there are two types of questions that you and me and others like us will have to answer. The first is this: - will the world be content merely to brand our institution as among the most insidious enemies of humankind? Will our fellow men condemn us thus and let the matter rest? Or will the heirs of those whom we have dismembered in our own peculiar Holocaust clamor for another Nuremberg?

(Davison Budhoo’s IMF resignation letter. PDF, archive.org)

As far as I understand, it’s subsidies in this case. US will subsidize elements of the Korean corporation’s production as long as they build factories in the US but the benefits will be taken away if they have over the specified amount of production going on in China. And the amount they specify for that basically amounts to not allowing them to make any more factories in China and not letting their existing ones be highly productive.

Here’s an older article about it: “South Korean companies that invested in the US to build semiconductor factories will have to limit their manufacturing capacity at their Chinese factories to 5 percent or less for 10 years in order to receive US subsidies. […] The excessive information demanded as a condition to receive subsidies from the US, runs the risk that South Korea’s advanced semiconductor technology and business secrets could be leaked. There is even one clause that requires the return of certain subsidies if companies earn more than a certain amount in profits.”

Paul LaCamera

(2021) Gen. Paul LaCamera takes office as new U.S. Forces Korea chief

Combined Forces Command leadership page

In America there are signs posted all over residential zones reminding citizens that they are being spied on by their neighbors who will immediately report all “suspicious persons and activities” to the authorities 😱 Some signs even mention the people have been “trained” to report/spy on each other’s family members 😢