On 9/11, Osama bin Laden Set a Trap To Lure America Into Perpetual War. Is He Winning? 1

It would certainly appear that way.

By H.A. Goodman

Huffington Post

2014-10-01-ISISTRUCK.jpg

Osama bin Laden is the reason we’re fighting ISIS today and the reason we’ve wage two wars in the Middle East. His vision for chaos in the region was clearly stated even before he murdered 3,000 Americans and long before we entered Afghanistan and invaded Iraq. Our national amnesia fueled by the righteous indignation of watching Americans murdered on ISIS video plays right into the trap bin Laden set on 9/11 and mires us further into the sectarian and religious quagmire in Iraq and Syria. Actually, to be completely accurate, bin Laden’s terror and maniacal visions were only half of the problem. The other half rests with America’s penchant for being lured into never-ending counterinsurgency wars against an enemy who wears tennis shoes, hides in apartment buildings, drives pickup trucks with gun turrets, and makes horrifying videos to frighten the average American household into blindly accepting a forever war. After 4,486 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq and 2,347 U.S. soldiers died in Afghanistan, close to 1 million U.S. soldiers wounded in both wars, and a cost that will easily exceed $6 trillion, the last thing American soldiers and their families need is an electorate who willingly accepts perpetual war. Mind you, this blind acceptance is coupled with the fact that according to Forbes, over 900,000 Americans have had their lives altered fighting terror in the Middle East:

All that can be said with any certainty is that as of last December more than 900,000 service men and women had been treated at Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics since returning from war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the monthly rate of new patients to these facilities as of the end of 2012 was around 10,000.

More…

Antifa and Neocons Unite! 2

Try Not to Vomit  remember when ANTIFA was statist and Anti-israel? Pepperridge Farm remembers
I have long suspected that “left-wing” totalitarian humanism would eventually bend into “right-wing”  neoconservatism.
After all, the neoconservatives were originally liberals or leftists (often very far leftists) who moved rightward and became “pro-American.” They did so on, first, social democratic and Trotskyist anti-Soviet  grounds, and then, after the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars, on “pro-Israel” grounds.
The two primary figures associated with the formation of neoconservatism were Irving Kristol, a former Trotskyist, and Norman Podhoretz, an early New Leftist in the 1950s and early 1960s. Then there’s the odyssey of Christopher Hitchens, a former Trotskyist turned neocon who called for bombing Afghanistan “out of the stone age.”
Also, notice the favorable views that leading neocons have expressed concerning Madame Hillary.
The more powerful the cultural Left becomes in the U.S. the more we will see the hard left calling for the use of U.S. military power to wipe out allegedly “reactionary” states and cultures around the world.

Poll: Nearly one in four in America would favor secession 3

Grey Tribe becomes a de facto political majority + Support for secession becomes a de facto majority=We Win!!

This is the most up to date data on secessionist sympathy I can find, and it looks like secessionist sympathy is up by a few percentage point. My guess is that secessionist sympathy is highest in the Southwest due to the prevalent of “reconquista” sentiments among Hispanics. Here’s hoping the folk in D.C. keeping screwing up and fueling secessionist sympathies.

Things are now moving along a lot faster than I would have ever thought.

Los Angeles Times

One in four americans in favor of state secession

More…

The State: Its Rise and Decline Reply

Read this classic lecture from 2000 by Professor Van Creveld, and then read my “Philosophical Anarchism and the Death of Empire” from 2003. Van Creveld’s lecture describes the emerging world order, and my essay outlines a new paradigm for the “worldwide Grey Tribe” as it might be called.

By Martin Van Creveld

October 16, 2000

This is an excerpt from the keynote lecture given at the Mises Institute conference on the themes in Professor van Creveld’s talk.

The background of the state as we know it today is formed by civil war, although at that time, of course, it was not yet called civil. The endless wars between the various principalities, some of them Christian and others Moslem, that took place in the Iberian Peninsula during the fifteenth century; the English Wars of the Roses; the French guerres de religion; and the Thirty Years War which devastated much of Germany and Central Europe–all these resulted in so much death and destruction that, to end them, people were even prepared to have their appetites controlled. As figures such as Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes argued, the only way to bring about peace and quiet was absolute government invested in a single person. And peace and quiet, more than anything else, was what people wanted and what history seemed to demand.

More…

The Military-Industrial Candidate Reply

By Kelley Vlahos

The American Conservative

Analysts were right to say that the Republican takeover of Congress bodes well for the war machine: already we see the levers of power slowly shifting in reverse, eager to get back to salad days of post-9/11 wartime spending.

But waiting in the wings, Hillary Clinton just may prove to be what the defense establishment has been waiting for, and more. Superior to all in money, name recognition, and influence, she is poised to compete aggressively for the Democratic nomination for president. She might just win the Oval Office. And by most measures she would be the most formidable hawk this country has seen in a generation.

“It is clear that she is behind the use of force in anything that has gone on in this cabinet. She is a Democratic hawk and that is her track record. That’s the flag she’s planted,” said Gordon Adams, a national security budget expert who was an associate director in President Bill Clinton’s Office of Management and Budget.

Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who has spent her post-service days protesting the war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, is more blunt. “Interventionism is a business and it has a constituency and she is tapping into it,” she tells TAC. “She is for the military industrial complex, and she is for the neoconservatives.”

READ MORE

Imperialist feminism and liberalism 1

A must read.

By Deepa Kumar

Open Democracy

Colonial feminism is based on the appropriation of women’s rights in the service of empire and has been widely utilised in justifying aggression in the Middle East. But is it liberal?

In a recent CNN interview, religion scholar Reza Aslan was asked by journalist Alisyn Camerota if Islam is violent given the “primitive treatment in Muslim countries of women and other minorities.” Aslan responded by stating that the conditions for women in Muslim majority countries vary. While women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia, elsewhere in various Muslim majority countries, women have been elected heads of states 7 times. But, before he could finish his sentence pointing out that the US is yet to elect a woman as president, he was interrupted by co-host Don Lemon who declared: “Be honest though, Reza, for the most part it is not a free and open society for women in those states.”

How is it that people like Camerota and Lemon, who very likely have never travelled to “free and open” Turkey, Lebanon or Bangladesh, or read the scholarship on women’s rights struggles in Morocco, Iran and Egypt, seem to know with complete certainty that women are treated “primitively” in “Muslim countries”? On what basis does Lemon believe that he has the authority to call Aslan out for supposed dishonesty? How is it that with little or no empirical evidence on women’s rights in Muslim majority countries (which vary widely based on country, regions within a country, social class, the history and nature of national liberation movements, the part played by Islam in political movements etc.) Western commentators routinely make such proclamations about women and Islam?

More…

Towards a Redefinition of Nationalism 5

Not bad. It looks like someone has been reading ATS. I certainly hope the Alternative Right/Neo-Reactionary/Dark Enlightenment evolves in this direction. I noticed in the comments threads at Radix that some of the fascists and white supremacists aren’t too happy with this piece, lol.

By Batu Caliskan

Radix Journal

The first step in initiating an ideological backswing, a reconstruction of thought necessary to challenge dominant presuppositions in which all modern political discourse is confined, is to reclaim the term “nationalism”, in both its conceptual and linguistic dimensions. By “nationalism”, I am not referring to the crass flag-and-dirt worship popularized as “patriotism”, which demands unwavering belief in the legitimacy and necessity of the state. Nationalism is allegiance and solidarity towards a respective collective or “nation”–a neology intended to subvert the notion that a nation is a state.

An important point to consider, when approaching the topic of race relations, is that the United States is a prison of nations. It is composed of loose collections of deracinated people, displaced from their native history, customs, and identity, and is a simulacrum of a pluralistic, free society. While many underscore the nation’s failure at metastasizing shallow conceptions of “pluralism” (political incoherence), “individual liberty” (atomization), “equality” (systemic assimilation of the minority into the majority’s institutional pathology), and “opportunity” (prospect of affording a lifestyle rendered possible primarily through resource extraction bonanzas and the incremental opening-up of foreign markets), few have railed against the United States as a combat zone, a stage for a soft war between nations of people.

More…

The United States is an Imperialist-Militarist-Plutocratic-Police-State and a Secular Theocracy Reply

I posted these thoughts in the comments thread in response the recent article, “The True Global Minority,” by Bay Area Guy from Alternative Right, and follow up comments by “Dota.” I’m reposting this as a main blog entry because I think it summarizes the current “state of the Union” pretty well.

Dota writes:

“I have discussed this issue with Bay Area Guy at length. Basically, most countries have moderate nationalists and fascist hawks. But Liberals in the western sense of the word simply do not exist outside the west. Even India, the world’s largest democracy, has 2 main parties: The secular Nationalist Congress and the Hindu fascist BJP. There are no liberals. Cultural Marxism represents a mental illness which causes a society to disintegrate from within.”

My response:

Well, the U.S. certainly has a hyper hawkish party in the form of the Republicans. They certainly don’t qualify as fascists in the classical sense. But they’re arguably as hawkish as any conventional right-wing militarist regime would be.

And the Democrats are just traditional Rockefeller Republicans under another name, so that would make them “moderate nationalists” with regards to foreign policy.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-is-a-republican

The present day United States is not a “liberal” state in the sense of being something that would meet with the approval of the ACLU and the Society of Friends. It’s a very militarist regime that retains a larger military budget than the next 25 nations combined, and reserves for itself the right to attack any another nation at any time and for any reason. It also maintains the world’s largest prison population, and its police forces conduct tens of thousands of paramilitary raids on private citizens over dubious matters on an annual basis.

The U.S. barely qualifies as a democratic regime at all, as this latest study from Princeton shows: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

Of course, I agree with you on the question of “cultural Marxism” which is a Western oddity that you wouldn’t find hardly anywhere outside the West. We know well what the Japanese think of immigration, or what the Muslims think of feminism, or what the Chinese think about race, or what the central Africans think of gay rights, or what the Russians think of Pussy Riot.

But I also think the “totalitarian humanism” that I am always criticizing is really more of a kind of secular theocracy than anything else, as I said in my recent talk to the H.L. Mencken Club. The idea that progressives are amoral do-your-own-thing libertine individualists is ridiculous. The central thrust of the Left-progressive outlook is a state-centric authoritarian moralism and it always has been.

Alcohol prohibition in its day had as much support from progressive do-gooders as it did from religious conservatives. While presidents like Nixon and Reagan might have spearheaded the War on Drugs, liberal Democratic politicians have been just as complicit as Republicans in the drug war.

During the 1970s, 80s, and 90s you had conservative religious do-gooders crusading against drugs, alcohol, smoking, pornography, prostitution, gambling, media personalities they found morally offensive, alleged satanic rock music, etc.

In 2014 we have left-liberal-progressive do-gooders engaging in similar crusades. They relentlessly attack public figures they find morally offensive (e.g. Phil Robertson, Alec Baldwin and more recently Joe Rogan). They crusade against smoking on therapeutic statist rather than moralistic religious grounds, and they’ve added food policing to the mix as well. Then there’s the feminists’ crusade against pornography and prostitution which is every bit a virulent as that of the religious right. The left’s more recent attacks on “payday loans” are comparable to the standard religious conservative attacks on gambling. Video games have earned the ire of the “progressives” in the same matter as “satanic rock” a few decades ago or comic books in the 1950s. Then there’s the left’s obsessive language policing which is on the level of 1940s schoolmarms admonishing the kiddies not to say bad words. Plenty of progressives have persistently called for tighter regulation of alcohol. The most generous thing that could be said about the Left’s record of offering opposition to the war on drugs is that it’s spotty at best.

The Left even has its own version of pro-life in the form of animal rights and environmental hysteria. The Left has its own version of blasphemy laws in the form of “hate speech”  (although fortunately the First Amendment has thus far prevented this from being imported in the U.S.) Not to mention the persistent progressive campaign against guns. Also, contrary to the progressive’s image as sexual libertines, we see plenty of progressives fueling the latest round of “sexual abuse” hysteria involving relationships between 17 year old students and their 20-something teachers.

The Left even manages to be moralistic about its decadence. For instance, “pride marches” are not regarded merely as a celebration of hedonism but as a profound moral statement. The transgendered and BDSM crowds are following a similar trajectory.

The progressive “social agenda” could basically be described as “theocracy without a god” although there are plenty of religious progressives and plenty of social or religious conservative allies who are in on all this as well.

Alexander Dugin on Building the International Resistance 2

“Politically, we have here an interesting basis for the conscious co-operation of the radical Left-wingers and the New Right, as well as with religious and other anti-modern movements, such as the ecologists and Green theorists, for example. The only thing that we insist on in creating such a pact of cooperation is to put aside anti-Communist, as well as anti-fascist, prejudice. These prejudices are the instruments in the hands of liberals and globalists with which they keep their enemies divided. So we should strongly reject anti-Communism as well as anti-fascism. Both of them are counter-revolutionary tools in the hands of the global liberal elite. At the same time, we should strongly oppose any kind of confrontation between the various religious beliefs – Muslims against Christians, the Jews against Muslims, the Muslims against Hindus and so on. The inter-confessional wars and tensions work for the cause of the Kingdom of the Antichrist who tries to divide all the traditional religions in order to impose its own pseudo-religion, the eschatological parody.

So we need to united the Right, the Left and the world’s traditional religions in a common struggle against the common enemy. Social Justice, national sovereignty and traditional values are the three main principles of the Fourth Political Theory. It is not easy to put together such a varied alliance. But we must try if we want to overcome the foe.”

Alexandr Dugin

The True Global Minority 2

It should be remembered that most of the world’s nations and cultures are exceedingly conservative when compared with the West. This is a fact that will have to be recognized during the course of building a global resistance to the international plutocracy and the American empire.

By Bay Area Guy

Alternative Right

Our liberal leaning mainstream media never hesitates to inform us that whites are slowly but surely becoming minorities within Western countries. Most of the time such trends are reported in a mildly enthusiastic manner, with naysayers depicted as paranoid and alarmist racists. I guess according to leftist logic, objecting to your group’s eventual extinction renders you a horrible extremist.

However, another refrain that I’ve heard from many online leftists on blogs and elsewhere is that whites are already a global minority. Therefore, recent demographic changes are only natural. When reading through Studs Terkel’s book Race, one black woman that he interviewed emphatically rejected the term “minority” in favor of “people of color,” arguing that non-whites like her are the global majority.

Putting aside the foolish notion of a united “people of color” coalition and the fact that all groups are global minorities (as once pointed out by Jared Taylor), I’ll accept the argument that whites are a global minority at face value. More…

Which Is Worse, a Libertarian or a Humanitarian-Warrior? Reply

By David Swanson

Counterpunch.Org

Is it worse to put into Congress or the White House someone who wants to end wars and dismantle much of the military but also wants to abolish Social Security and Medicare and the Department of Education and several other departments they have trouble remembering the names of, OR someone who just wants to slightly trim all of those departments around the edges while waging countless wars all over the world in the name of every heretofore imagined human right other than the right not to get blown up with a missile?

Can dismantling the military without investing in diplomacy and aid and cooperative conflict resolution actually avoid wars? Can a country that continues waging wars at every opportunity actually avoid abolishing domestic services? I would hope that everyone would be willing to reject both libertarians and humanitarian-warriors even when it means rejecting both the Republican and the Democratic Parties. I would also hope that each of those parties would begin to recognize the danger they are in and change their ways.

More…

There is only one party in the United States: The Imperialist Party Reply

By Justin Raimondo

Antiwar.Com

The Obama administration “has no foreign policy,” says Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP’s 2012 vice-presidential candidate. While we may tune out this kind of election year rhetoric, similar complaints – no matter which president is being denounced – are common on both sides of the aisle. When the Democrats are in power we hear it from Republicans, and when the GOP is in the saddle we hear similar accusations arising from the Democrats. The reality, however, is that the leaders of both parties know perfectly well that we do in fact have a remarkably consistent policy, one that has been pursued with increasing militancy ever since the end of the cold war.

Let’s step back and take a look.

More…

Afghanistan: None Dare Call it a Defeat Reply

By Eric Margolis

Ron Paul Institute

Saturday November 1, 2014

undefined

“Lord of our far-flung battle-line,
Beneath whose awful Hand we hold
Dominion over palm and pine—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!

Far-called, our navies melt away;
On dune and headland sinks the fire:
Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!”

Rudyard Kipling “Recessional”

The last British soldiers were airlifted out of Afghanistan last week, marking the sorry end of Britain’s fourth failed invasion of Afghanistan. With them went the last detachment of US Marines in Helmand.

Well has Afghanistan earned its title, “Graveyard of Empires.”

To be more precise, this honor belongs to Afghanistan’s Pashtun (or Pathan) mountain tribes, who bend their knees for no man and take pride in war.

More…

Sean Gabb on “The European Right” Reply

Dr. Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance speaks at the H.L. Mencken Club.

Listen to the audio of the speech here.

When I was invited to address this gathering on the subject of “The European Right,” I rather think I was expected to bring with me a note of cheer. The various, and mutually hostile movements that may be described as the European Right had just done well in the elections to the European Parliament, and you were living through the fifth year of what you doubtless call the Obama Tyranny. If I could be brought over, to tell you how clean and brave things were turning in the Great European Motherland, what a fine dinner this would be.

Well, that was then, and we are now. Since there are people in this room who were in Budapest earlier this month, and since you have all read at least as much about what happened there as I have, I will spend no time on the details of the conference of the National Policy Institute. I will only say that, of all the countries in Europe, Hungary seemed the most appropriate for this conference. It was still banned by a government that the mainstream media regards as semi-fascist, and disowned by a party that is regarded as fascist without qualification.

More…

Leave the Reagan Doctrine in the Past Reply

It’s good to see someone from the “conservative” end of the spectrum finally admit to this:

“The Reagan Doctrine was one of the least impressive parts of Reagan’s record, and it inflicted enormous damage on the countries where it was put into practice. Moreover, it proved to be entirely unnecessary, since the dissolution of the USSR and collapse of communism in Europe underscored just how irrelevant these interventions in Third World civil wars were to the outcome of the Cold War.”

Daniel Larison

The American Conservative

Wikimedia Commons

Free Lingít Aaní! Reply

From Lingit Latseen

Today is Free Nations Day.

Free Nations Day is an opportunity to reclaim the idea that nations are voluntary groupings of free individuals, not externally imposed political borders or states. Both geographic localities and identities that transcend space are legitimate entities with the right to decide their own ways of life.

Courtesy of Tlingit Readers Inc.; produced by the late Andrew Hope III

Courtesy of Tlingit Readers Inc.; produced by the late Andrew Hope III


More…

Was the American Revolution Secessionist? 1

Daniel McCarthy tells what is basically the truth about America’s founding. It was led by continental imperialists who resented the British for getting in the way of their own expansionist designs on the Indian lands. Leftist historians like Howard Zinn have long pointed this out.

By Daniel McCarthy

The American Conservative

Battle of Yorktown re-enactors.Visions of America / Shutterstock.com

Battle of Yorktown re-enactors.Visions of America / Shutterstock.com

A few people may be a little unclear about the argument of my last post on secession as a principle of liberty (or not, as I argue). Its inspiration was the fact that it seemed curious for Americans to long for Scottish secession when the Scots themselves had voted against it. Whatever was being expressed was not sympathy for the Scottish people, so what was it? The answer was a general case for secession as an inherently good thing, in radical libertarian theory, because it leads to smaller states, and maybe no states. I pointed out various problems with this notion, which seems to have greater emotional force than reasoning behind it.

READ MORE

Libertarians and the European Union: A Rejoinder to Petr Mach Reply

“Victory for the Eurosceptic forces would likely be a victory for protectionism, economic nationalism, immigration barriers, and Putin.”

They say that like it’s a bad thing.

I always did think Reason tended to be a bit neoconnish and this illustrates it.

Support for “free trade” (globalization) is definitely an area where I disagree with orthodox libertarians, who apparently do not realize that regional super-states (like the European Union or the apparatus of NAFTA) and a de facto global super-state (in which the American empire is senior partner and military arm) have largely been created in the interests of fostering “free trade.”

Globalization is the primary force that is causing the re-proletarianization of labor in the post-industrial countries, along with neo-liberal domestic economic policies.

Mass immigration is the “reserve army of capital,” as thinkers from Ralph Nader to Alain de Benoist have pointed out, and only serves to hasten the re-proletarianization process.

Also, it’s possible to be neither a Putin-idolator or a Putin-phobe. Contemporary Russia is not the Soviet Union, and while Russia certainly remains an imperialist country,  it is largely a backyard imperialism, comparable to American imperialism as it was during the nineteenth century. Nothing to get worked up about, from an international or geopolitical perspective.

By Dalibor Rohac

Reason.Com

There is much to agree with in Petr Mach’s response to my article about the European Union (EU). As he puts it, my defense of the EU is “utilitarian,” not a principled one, and I fully accept that it is possible to imagine alternatives to the current political arrangements in Europe that would be much friendlier to individual freedom than the status quo.

Unfortunately, Mr. Mach’s text does little to address my main concern, namely that such alternatives might not be on the menu of options available to us at the moment, and that the likely political dynamics of an EU downfall carry a big risk of making the continent, as a whole, less free.

More…

Dismantling Empires Through Devolution Reply

By Parag Khanna

The Atlantic

Last week, the world’s most globe-spanning empire until the mid-20th century let its fate be decided by 3.6 million voters in Scotland. While Great Britain narrowly salvaged its nominal unity, the episode offered an important reminder: The 21st century’s strongest political force is not democracy but devolution.

Before the vote was cast, British Prime Minister David Cameron and his team were so worried by voter sentiment swinging toward Scottish independence that they promised a raft of additional powers to Edinburgh (and Wales and Northern Ireland) such as the right to set its own tax rates—granting even more concessions than Scotland’s own parliament had demanded. Scotland won before it lost. Furthermore, what it won it will never give back, and what it lost it can try to win again later. England, meanwhile, feels ever more like the center of a Devolved Kingdom rather than a united one.
Related Story

The United States of Great Britain?

Devolution—meaning the decentralization of power—is the geopolitical equivalent of the second law of thermodynamics: inexorable, universal entropy. Today’s nationalism and tribalism across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East represent the continued push for either greater autonomy within states or total independence from what some view as legacy colonial structures. Whether these movements are for devolution, federalism, or secession, they all to varying degrees advocate the same thing: greater self-rule.

More…

Land of the Reiching Sun? A Conflict Without Heroes 1

nazi eastern girl

From the Inferno.

_____________

A few days back, I had the displeasure of reading a clickbait “article”, on the misleadingly named Dangerous Minds blog, concerning the Far Eastern fondness for Nazi aesthetics. I made the mistake of thinking I’d get something momentarily interesting out of doing so, only to have that meagre hope mangled upon reading the first fucking sentence:

The concept of “Asian Nazis” is, of course, an extremely WTF??? proposition from the very start.

Nope – that’d be your starting statement, dickhead!

Gazing upon that atrocity of an assertion, I prepared myself for a screed from the shortbus – and, boy, did the rest of the piece align with that realignment!

Other standout sentences from this point ‘n’ shriek parade included…

….how many of these self-styled Asian Nazis have even met a Jew? Even a single Jew?

…and the not-at-all Nazi-like sentiment…

These people should be strapped to chairs and forced to watch Schindler’s List with their eyes pinned open like Alex in A Clockwork Orange.

Ironically, by setting out to shame far-Eastern Nazi-cosplayers  for their “profound ignorance” and “low intelligence”, the writer only succeeds at signalling his own, mainly by way of a geo-historical myopia and a wholesale digestion of the prevalent Saturday-morning-cartoon narrative of the Second World War.

More…

Latest Gallup poll shows young Americans overwhelmingly support Palestine Reply

I’m somewhat surprised by this reaction to the Gaza situation, as things seem to be moving faster than I expected, but it looks like what I’ve been predicting for a while is starting to happen. Cultural, demographic, and generational change in the US is also creating a political paradigm shift. One manifestation of that is that public support for Israel is not nearly as solid nowadays. The Palestinians are gaining more sympathy among Americans, and people I also look for this to be another source of conflict on the US Left, between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian forces. That conflict has always been there, but it’s now moving into the cultural and political mainstream.

Middle East Monitor

Protestors at Washington DC

Large demonstrations against Israel’s assault on Palestinians in Gaza were staged across the US on Saturday. The public outpouring of support for Palestinians in US streets suggests that Washington’s pro-Israel policies are becoming increasingly unpopular, a trend supported by a recent poll on Israel’s latest aggression, which finds that young Americans are twice as likely to support Palestinian rights than Israeli occupation.

More…