Under Lock & Key

Despite the belligerent public tone of the U.$. government, however, its intelligence community has consistently reported to Congress that Iran's military strategy is strictly geared towards "deterrence, asymmetric retaliation, and attrition warfare" (emphasis mine).(4) Even the U.$. National Intelligence Director, James Clapper, recently admitted to Congress that "we do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons" and implicitly confirmed that Iran is not presently seeking to do so because if it were, such activities would certainly be discovered by the "international community."(5) In spite of all this, President Obama maintains that "all options are on the table" to thwart Iran's nuclear program, with a military attack on Iran taking place as early as June 2013.(6) As we shall see, the United $tates is merely using Iran's nuclear program as a pretext to justify further military intervention in the region in a larger effort to redesign the landscape of the Middle East in order to secure the continued global hegemony of the U.$. empire. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United $tates remained standing as the world's lone superpower. In 1991, President Bush declared the establishment of a "New World Order," that is, a unipolar global system completely subjected to the imperial dictates of the United $tates and its junior partners.(7) Foreign policy experts and government policy think tanks immediately began mapping out blueprints for a new century of what can be called trilateral imperialism (the United $tates, Western Europe and Japan).(8)

To this end, the Bush I administration called for "the integration of the leading democracies into a U.$.-led system of collective security, and the prospects of expanding that system, [to] significantly enhance our international position and provide a crucial legacy for future peace."(9) Within this collective framework, the United $tates would act to "preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the reemergence of a global threat to the interests of the United States and our allies."(10) In other words, the First World should unite under the leadership of the United $tates to dominate and exploit the resources of the Third World (cheap labor, oil, cobalt, etc.), while preventing any other power from emerging which could disrupt this neocolonial relationship.

At the time, Russia was deemed to be the only military power capable of potentially deterring U.$. imperialism. Thus, during the late 1990s Council on Foreign Relations member and Clinton foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski advised that Russia "ought to be isolated and picked apart" in order to extend "America's influence in the Caucasus region and Central Asia," both formerly under Russian control.(11) In doing so, the United $tates could secure its domination over Eurasia, long deemed to be the strategic "heartland" of global power.(12) The NATO-led "humanitarian intervention" in the former Yugoslavia during the late 1990s must be understood in this light.

The Middle East has long been assigned a very narrow role within the imperialist world system, being seen as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."(13) This is of course only because of the region's massive natural gas and oil reserves, which the United $tates considers to be vital to its national interests. U.$. foreign policy in the Middle East in the post-war period has been geared towards three main objectives: 1) securing and maintaining "an open door" for Western companies to the region's vast oil and gas reserves; 2) maintaining a "closed door" for potential rival powers (i.e., Russia and China) to Middle Eastern oil; and 3) preventing Middle Eastern "radical and nationalist regimes" from coming to power that might use their oil and gas resources for the "immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses" and development for domestic needs.(14)

In the bipolar world of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was able to counter U.$. ambitions in the Middle East, supporting various secular nationalist regimes relatively hostile towards U.$. imperialism. After the collapse of the USSR and the subsequent isolation of Russia, however, the United $tates was in a position to fundamentally alter the political map of the Middle East so as to "ensure that the enormous profits of the energy system flow primarily to the United States, its British client, and their energy corporations, not to the people of the region" or potential rival powers.(15) It is in this light that we must view the recent wave of "humanitarian interventions" conducted by the United States and NATO in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as the current confrontation with Iran.

In 2000, the Project for a New American Century published a report entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," which was extended and adopted as official national security policy in 2005. Drawing on the themes of the first Bush administration and Brzezinski, the report recommends that U.$. military forces become "strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States."(16) As noted above, there was nothing new in this goal of American hegemony per se, but what was new was the emphasis placed on "transforming" the political landscape of the Middle East. Due to the rise of Islamic terrorism and the stubborn existence of "rogue states," the "stability" of the Middle East, North Africa, and their oil reserves were deemed to be essential objectives of U.$. national security and foreign policy.

Using the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a pretext for this grand imperial project, the Bush administration outlined a list of seven "rogue states" targeted for regime change in order to secure de facto U.S. control over global oil supplies. Those seven countries were Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.(17) Of course, Iraq was invaded, occupied and "democratized" by the United $tates in 2003. The threat of Hezbollah in Lebanon has been satisfactorily neutralized as a result of Israel's 2006 invasion, the Jamahariya government of Libya was utterly destroyed by NATO and Al Qaeda in 2011, the Assad regime of Syria is on the verge of collapse today as it is under attack from NATO and its Islamic mercenary forces, while there are ongoing covert military operations being conducted against Somalia and the Sudan. Only Iran remains intact as a nation-state out of the seven countries targeted by the U.$. imperialists for regime change.

The current U.$. propaganda campaign would have us believe that the United $tates is targeting Iran because it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons with which it will destroy Israel. As we have seen however, U.$. intelligence — that is, the agencies responsible for obtaining such information — does not have strong evidence to prove that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. Further, in its assessment, Iran's military strategy is not geared towards aggression or the offensive, but strictly deterrence and defense. Therefore, there must be some other reasons why the United $tates is gearing up for war against Iran.

In light of U.$. policy objectives to dominate global oil supplies and to subvert or overthrow "nationalist regimes" that seek to use their natural resources to benefit their domestic populations or to promote independent development, it should be fairly obvious that Iran is a target because its oil is nationalized and it pursues a program of independent development. Indeed, when Iran first nationalized its oil in 1953 under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, the CIA and British MI6 quickly organized a coup d'etat to overthrow Mosaddegh and reprivatize Iranian oil.(18) The oil industry wasn't nationalized again until the 1979 Islamic revolution, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, which quickly set Iran on a path of independent nationalist development.

Also of grave concern to the United $tates is Iran's growing commercial and economic relations with Russia and China. Iran exports 22% of its oil exports to China,(19) while it has cultivated a strong economic relationship with Russia on various fronts, especially in military equipment and nuclear infrastructure.(20) The Iranian regime's independence from Washington has afforded Russia and China a foot in the door of the Middle East, which hinders the ability of the United $tates to completely dominate the region and prevent the rise of potential rival hegemons in the world system, perhaps the greatest threat posed by Iran.

Iran itself is deemed as a threat to U.$. interests in the Middle East, as it is devoted to "countering U.S. influence" and becoming a regional dominator.(21) To this end, Iran has been fostering political, economic and security ties with other actors in the region, appealing to Islamic solidarity and resistance to imperialism. Iran has become influential in both Iraq and Afghanistan, undermining U.$. objectives in those countries, and has maintained its support for the Assad regime in Syria, thwarting NATO's efforts there.(22) All of these factors make Iran a formidable obstacle to U.$. objectives in the Middle East, halting Washington's ability to totally redesign the political landscape of the region.

Iran also gives financial and military support to various politico-military organizations in the region. As the United $tates considers many of these organizations "terrorists," Iran is then a "state sponsor of terrorism." Most of its support is channeled to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Both of these groups are opposed to the Zionist colonization of Palestine and to U.$. imperialism in the region more generally. Through Hezbollah and Hamas, Iran is able to exert its influence in the Middle East, creating political "destabilization" in Lebanon and Palestine.(23) The continued existence of such armed groups is considered a threat to U.$. objectives in the region and is another main reason why the United $tates is seeking to attack Iran.

When we place the current threats towards Iran in their proper geopolitical and historical context, it becomes clear that Iran's nuclear program is not the real reason why the imperialists are gearing up to attack it. In fact, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the alleged threat posed by Iran's nuclear program is merely a propaganda fabrication designed to garner popular support for the immanent invasion of Iran, similar to the lie that Saddam Hussein possessed "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. In truth, Iran was targeted for regime change at least ten years ago, but because of its resistance to the "Washington Consensus," its economic nationalism, its growing commercial and economic ties to Russia and China, its potential to become a regional authority, and its support of politico-military organizations opposed to the United $tates and Israel, not because of its nuclear program.

The drums of war are now beating in the United $tates as Washington prepares to launch the final phase of its grand strategy to remake the Middle East. This plan is merely one component of a much larger plan to maintain the world system of trilateral imperialism. In order to maintain the global supremacy of the West, the United $tates and its junior partners are determined to prevent the rise of Russia and China to hegemonic status. Thus, an attack on Iran will surely be viewed as an indirect attack on both Russia and China. A war on Iran may very well quickly escalate into a global military conflagration, consuming other states in the region, as well as Russia and China. To prevent such a scenario from unfolding, academics and intellectuals must dispel the propaganda about Iran's nuclear program and expose the imperialist ambitions behind the U.$. government's agenda to the Amerikan people.

This movie claims to chronicle the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden after the September 2001 attack, culminating in his death in May 2011. This is a hollywood film, so we can't expect an accurate documentary. But that doesn't really matter since the movie will represent what Amerikans think of when they picture the CIA's work in the Middle East. And what they get is a propaganda film glorifying Amerikan torture of prisoners, and depicting Pakistani people as violent and generally pretty stupid. From start to finish there is nothing of value in this movie, and a lot of harmful and misleading propaganda. The main message that revolutionaries should take from it revolves around government information gathering. From tracking phones to networks of people watching and following individuals, the government has extensive and sophisticated techniques at their disposal, and even the most cautious will have a very hard time avoiding even a small amount of government surveillance.

The plot focuses almost exclusively on a CIA agent, "Maya," who devoted her career to finding clues to Osama bin Laden's whereabouts. Early in the film there are a lot of graphic scenes of prisoners being tortured to get information, including waterboarding, beatings, cages, and food and sleep deprivation. Maya is bothered by the torture initially, but quickly adapts and joins in the interrogations. The movie is very pro-torture, showing critical information coming from every single tortured prisoner, ignoring the fact that so many prisoners held in Amerikan detention facilities after 9/11 were never charged, committed no crimes, and had no information. Throughout the film there are constant digs against Obama's ban on torture as a method of extracting information in 2009. Ironically, in the movie the CIA still found Osama bin Laden, using no torture after the ban. But we're left understanding that it would have been much easier if the CIA still had free reign with prisoners.

Although Zero Dark Thirty portrays Obama as soft on terror and a hindrance to the CIA's work, we should not be fooled into thinking that the U.$. government has really ended the use of torture. While we have no clear information about what goes on in interrogation cells in other countries, we know that right here in U.$. prisons, torture is used daily. And this domestic torture is usually not even focused on getting information, it's either sadistic entertainment for prison staff or punishment for political organizing. In one example of this, a USW comrade who wrote about Amerikan prison control units died shortly after his article was printed, under suspicious circumstances in Attica Correctional Facility.

Banning certain interrogation techniques, even if that ban is actually enforced in the Third World, is just an attempt to put makeup on the hideous face of imperialism. Even if no Amerikan citizen ever practices torture on Third World peoples (something we know isn't true), the fact is that the United $tates prefers to pay proxies to carry out its dirty work anyway. Torture, military actions, rape, theft, etc., can all be done at a safe distance by paying neo-colonial armies and groups to work on behalf of the Amerikan government.

Whether actions are carried out by Navy SEALs, CIA agents, or proxy armies and individuals, Amerikan imperialism is working hard to keep the majority of the world's people under control and available for exploitation. The death of bin Laden is portrayed as a big victory in Zero Dark Thirty, but for the majority of the world's people this was just one more example of Amerikan militarism, a system that works against the material interests of most people in the world.

Background

Without getting too deep into the origins of Barrio 18 and Mara Salvacrucha-13 (MS-13), it is significant to note that they both originated in Los Angeles, California (Barrio 18 in the 1950s-60s, MS-13 in the 1980s). Barrio 18 was originally made up of Mexican nationals but adapted its recruiting base as Latinos of other backgrounds migrated to southern California. MS-13 emerged from refugees of the civil war in El Salvador who had congregated in Los Angeles. In the 1990s, policy changes in the U.$. government led to the deportation of thousands of LO members back to their home countries, where their respective LOs were not yet established. In El Salvador, both groups took off.

The political climate in the 1990s in El Salvador was marked by an end to the civil war in 1992. Not surprisingly, the local conditions contributed to the ease of recruitment for these LOs. One of the Barrio 18 members who participated in the peace talks, Carlos Mojica, told the Christian Science Monitor "the streets were left filled with weapons, orphaned children, conditions of extreme poverty, disintegrated households."(2) These are ripe conditions for the proliferation of street organizations. When youth have no support and adults have no jobs, they must turn to other means for survival.

Change of Heart

Some cite an incident in June 2011 as a peak in the violence of these two organizations, which was a reality check for many. Barrio 18 has been blamed by the Salvadoran government and many citizens for a bus burning which killed at least 14 people in Mejicanos, San Salvador. This bus burning received media attention worldwide, and was accompanied by a bus shooting the same evening which killed 3 people. All the targets of this violence were reported to be unaffiliated citizens and travelers.

Others cite time and persynal experience as what changed their minds about violence. In the United $tates, many, if not most, LO members age out into the labor aristocracy or petty-bourgeoisie. But this isn't an option in El Salvador which is not an exploiter country with a bought-off labor aristocracy. Members who would otherwise be aging out of the LO if they were U.$. citizens, instead see an imperative need to change the conditions for themselves and younger generations.(2) MS-13 member Dany Mendez told BBC News "I have lost too many friends and relatives in the violence. We don't want another war because we are thinking about our children."(3)

Of course many activists in the United $tates, including MIM(Prisons) and signatories of the United Front for Peace in Prisons, see a need to end lumpen-on-lumpen violence in this country. But it's clear that conditions here are much better than in El Salvador in that a significant portion of people can leave their days of wylin' out in their past and move on to join the oppressor classes. The material conditions which lead to movement of the lumpen class in the United $tates is explored in our forthcoming book. How much these differences in material conditions affects the movement in this country toward peace between lumpen organizations will be determined by those of us working for this peace.

Moving Forward

The peace agreement between MS-13 and Barrio 18 has not been touted as an end to the violence forever, but instead is framed as "a break in the violence so the various stakeholders can work out long-term solutions."(4) Since the beginning, the peacemakers have been calling on the Salvadoran government to generate jobs and work with former and current LO members on developing skills that will help them make a living without relying on violence.

Last month, a program was initiated by U.$. Agency for International Development (USAID), in partnership with Salvadoran businesses and non-governmental organizations, in a purported effort to prevent youth from joining LOs in the first place. They claim this program has nothing to do with the truce, and have no intention of helping people who have already chosen or been forced to join a lumpen organization.(5) Considering the long history of U.$. neocolonialism in Central America, it is not surprising that U$AID is putting their 2 cents in. Time will tell the long-term effects of this $42 million investment, but we can safely assume it will amount to manipulation of the Salvadoran people by the United $tates government.(6)

After one solid year, the truce has withstood everyone's doubts and has not been broken. If the government is not going to step up to help prevent the violence, then the LOs will have to organize to do it themselves. One of the principles of the United Front for Peace in Prisons is Independence, which is just as important in El Salvador where the United $tates has dominated politics and the economy. We see today where U.$. intervention has gotten them thus far. MS-13 and Barrio 18 members know what their communities need better than U.$. investors do, and they should be supported in their efforts to change. It is our strong suspicion that those looking to change the conditions in which they live in any substantive way will eventually find that an end to capitalism itself is the order of the day.

One such organization which is supporting the peace treaty in El Salvador is Homies Unidos, which has chapters in Los Angeles and El Salvador. Alex Sanchez is the director of Homies Unidos in LA, and in recent history has been targeted by the FBI for harassment and detainment.(7) The bogus charges were finally dropped last month after restricting his ability to work for years. We tried to get in touch with Homies Unidos to gather more information on the real effects of the peace treaty on the ground, and what more is needed to maintain and advance the peace, but unfortunately we have not heard back.

In August 2012, thirty-four South African miners were murdered by the police at the Maricana Platinum mine owned by Amplats (Anglo Material Platinum). These humyn beings were attempting to convince Amplats to pay them a livable wage. This is a serious "crime" to the money hungry Anglo who still looks upon the South African as a farm animal or dog.

We refer to ourselves as internationalists. However, many times we get so caught up in our own local struggles in these slave pens of oppression, we forget that there are comrades world wide who want and need a dictatorship of the proletariat. Our international outlook teaches us to keep a trained eye on the geo-political, social, economic, and fascist military climate across the globe.

In November 2012 nearly 120 Bangladeshi textile workers were burned alive. These human beings were working at the Tazreen Textile Factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Labor activists took pictures of the various clothing labels being worked on at the Bangladeshi garment factory. It was prominent throughout the debris. Walmart immediately feigned ignorance claiming the factory was a third party and they were unaware of any dealings with the factory. This was discovered to be a lie. In June of 2012 the factory had asked Walmart for money in order to improve safety conditions at the factory. It was found that there were not any fire exits, and the most shocking fact, other than the deaths, is that Bangladeshi textile workers are paid 18 to 20 cents an hour.

Let's take a look at MIM Theory 10. The labor aristocracy article entitled: The White Working Class: Gross Parasitism, by MC12, pg 48:

"Defining the value of labor power is difficult. It has to be at least a subsistence wage in order to reproduce the working class so that capitalists have more workers. But in the era of imperialism, things have changed. On the one hand, in many oppressed nations we find that the proletariat is paid less than the value of their labor power, measured as a bare subsistence. That is, in many countries the wages paid to workers are not enough to sustain them physically, so that they rely on other means of subsistence, such as family farming or other informal economic systems - and they die or are sick more. For that reason, imperialist multinational corporations (IMCs) never employ all the potential workers in a poor country. Those who are not employed by the imperialists need to work to supplement the wages of the paid workers. This is the system of super exploitation, and it generates superprofits, as Lenin described in Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism."

Walmart is establishing a pattern of deceptive and unethical business practices and for some reason the department of injustice has been turning a blind eye to their blatantly criminal behavior. In December 2012 journalist David Barstow of the New York Times wrote a piece entitled "Walmart, Bribes and Mexico." The piece detailed Walmart's conspiracy to bribe the mayor of Teotihuacán, Mexico. Teotihuacán is the site of some ancient pyramids, a bona fide cultural historical place. But Walmart wanted to expand by any means necessary even if it meant violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. However, there has been evidence that shows FBI investigators never notified the Injustice Department. Oh, the cat is out of the bag now but Walmart is doing everything possible to hush up the vast Mexican bribery scheme.

Environmental Destruction

February 18, 2013 on the Washington mall in Washington D.C., the largest climate change rally ever in U.S. history was staged. The main focus was convincing President Barack Obama to stop the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone Pipeline would run from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico and it would transport a product known as tar sands oil. Tar sands is one of the most volatile, noxious, toxic, and environmentally damaging oil products known to man. Greenhouse gases are doubled, sometimes tripled, in reference to the production of this volatile product. Chemicals like Benzene, a known carcinogenic, must be mixed with tar sands so that it may move through the pipeline. I don't even want to begin to describe the natural disaster or threat to the environment that will occur if one of these pipes were to rupture.

Imperialist multinational corporations that deal in fossil fuels (i.e. oil and gas) have conspired to create an entity that funds the denial of global warming. In mid-February 2013 journalist Suzanne Goldberg of the Guardian did an exposé on Donors Trust, a right wing fund raising monster which specializes in funding groups which publish information denying global climate change. The key to the deception is this: Donors Trust right wing financial backers remain anonymous.

Comrades this is why I refer to these IMCs as our most formidable enemy and greatest threat. When you have the money and power as well as the intent to engage in a misinformation and disinformation campaign that has the potential of contributing largely to the destruction of our planet, you are the greatest enemy to Maoism. Without a planet there will be no revolution. This all ties into our anti-imperialist struggle. So now we must apply historical dialectical materialism and figure out who is behind this conspiracy. Once we identify the threat, we must make plans to disarm, disable, and eradicate the threat.

Since Donors Trust keeps their donation rosters secret we must ask ourselves what group of individuals or state would benefit the most by disseminating quack science information which discounts global warming or denies climate change? The state of Texas is #1 in oil production in the United $nakes. Activists in east Texas have been engaged in a long-standing fight to stop the Keystone Pipeline from passing through a private citizen's property who was not told that tar sands would be the product transported across his land. Keystone offered the citizen a "sweet cream puff" deal: "We will pay you half of what your property is worth. Or if you say no we will pay you nothing, take your shit, and claim imminent domain!" So not only do they think of sinister ways to shape and mold your thinking, if you say "no," they just take what they want anyway.

Comrades, my days of idealism and romanticism are long gone! President Barack Hussein Obama will not stop the Keystone Pipeline. Activists in Oklahoma, Texas, and all over the U.S. and Canada better prepare for a dramatic increase in fascist repression and oppressive tactics by the state which is working hand in glove with the imperialist multinational corporations.

It is time for us to educate and organize like never before. Answering comrade Ehecatl's, call to study Maoism seriously (ULK 30 Jan/Feb 2013), we must think of innovative means and strategies to reach out to our comrades in Bangladesh, South Africa, Greece, and Europe who are sick and tired of having the boot of imperialism on the back of their neck.

MIM(Prisons) adds: Overall, the environmental threats of imperialism, especially those like the Keystone Pipeline that really hit home, will make greater inroads with the labor aristocracy than issues of labor repression in the Third World. While it is true that people in the First World will suffer from environmental destruction along with the rest of the world, we should keep in mind that even with environmental destruction the suffering is pushed on the Third World as much as possible. As described in MIM Theory 12: Environment, Society, Revolution, in the article "On Capitalism and the Environment", "Pollution, like all else under capitalism, is unequally distributed. On a world scale, waste from the imperialist countries is dumped in the neocolonies." This is all part of why we say the national contradiction is principal, and why we see majorities of people in the First World allying with imperialist interests overall. As such, we disagree with USW88 that the people of Europe have the boot of imperialism on their neck. The white nationalists, from the social democrats to the fascists, portray the principal contradiction as the people versus the corporations. This line leads to a focus on local interests, which in the First World are the interests of the oppressor nation.

So when we promote internationalism, we are talking about proletarian internationalism, that is anti-revisionist in that it draws clear lines between our friends and our enemies and whose interests are being served. Opposition to the Keystone Pipeline must include this internationalist perspective, or the opposition movement will consider it success when the crude oil extraction moves from their own back yard, literally, to the Third World.

The first protest that got the world's attention was in Libya, where U.$.-backed forces recently overthrew the decades-old government there. Timed to occur on the anniversary of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United $tates by Al Qaeda, rebels grabbed headlines by laying siege to the embassy, killing as many as a dozen people, including the new U.$. ambassador. Since then protestors have attacked imperialist embassies in Tunisia, Yemen and Sudan without firearms.

While incumbent U.$. President Barack Obama has been making plenty of mention of his role in the assassination of Al-Qaeda's former leader Osama bin Laden in campaign speeches, hundreds of protestors in Kuwait chanted outside the U.$. embassy, "Obama, we are all Osama." Osama's vision of a Pan-Islamic resistance to U.$. occupations and economic interference in the Muslim world has reached new heights this week.

The Amerikan media has tried to play it off as a small group of trouble makers protesting, while Amerikans are shocked that they can be blamed for a fringe movie they have never seen and think is a piece of crap. At the same time, Amerikans seem very willing to condemn the protestors as ignorant, violent, low-lifes — just as the movie in question portrayed Muslims. But the trigger of these protests is far less important than the history of U.$. relations to the people involved. The most violent reactions occurred in countries that have all been under recent bombing attacks by the U.$. military, two of them for many years now, and the other had their whole government overthrown. Cocky Amerikans won't recognize that the ambassador was targeted as the highest level representative of the U.$. puppet master in Libya.

MIM has held for some time that Muslim organizations have done more to fight imperialism in recent years in most of the world than communists have.(2) And while there are plenty of ways communists could theoretically be doing a better job, they are not. As materialists we must accept and work with the people and conditions we are given. And we do not hesitate to recognize that Islam has brought us the biggest internationalist demonstration of anti-imperialism we've seen in some time.

The neo-colonial nations contend they need a greater voice in the World Bank.(1) This is evidence that the UN dominated bureaucracy does not take these "Developing" countries interests seriously. Underdeveloped nations struggle for positions of power within these agencies to better influence the policies which are geared to (under)develop their economies. They are bureaucratically smothered by the developed nations (led by the UN) because more developed nations equals less super profits for the imperialists. Hence, the World Bank is founded on the need for underdeveloped countries. In reality, these other countries are only given a voice in the UN to the extent that they can't use it to change the status quo.

The associated press reports: "The World Bank raises money from its member nations and borrows from investors to provide low cost loans to developing countries."(1) This bourgeoisified spin of propaganda purposely hides the fact these loans to the "developing" countries intensify under-development by systematically refusing to fund serious industrialization programs.(2) Instead, these loans are granted for purchase of surplus food from the imperialist nations home markets attached with obligations to pay the money back with interest. If the U.$. controlled World Bank was truly interested in providing "aid" to underdeveloped countries they would grant loans that are geared towards developing agricultural industry which is aimed at consumption needs for the population and to establishing institutions within these countries that produce native modern technicians and engineers who were free to use their expertise within their own respective nations.

Without programs like these, "aid" to a neo-colonized state is merely a revolving credit, paid by the neocolonial master, passing through the neo-colonized state and returning the the neocolonial master in the form of increased profits.(3) Over half the century of the World Bank developmental "aid" to the Third World has accomplished nothing more than creating a comprador class of native exploiters who rely on imperialist agencies and forces to keep the oppressed nations in their place while robbing the national treasuries for their own wealth and privilege. Together the comprador class and imperialists work to exploit the oppressed nations with institutions such as the U.$. run World Bank which in its pure form is an imperialist front to finance oppression in the Third World.

MIM(Prisons) adds: For an example of World Bank economic practices that keep countries under the imperialist thumb, see our article on the Middle East and North Africa.

The date of the MOVE massacre was May 13, 1985. The original article (Assassination Nation) printed the date of the massacre to be May 17, 1985. The author and MIM(Prisons) apologize for this oversight.

I just received my ULK24 with the article Overcoming Release Challenges. I have 67 months until I am released. For me education, experience and pain/love for the proletariat is my driving force. Chairman Mao stated about political work "ideological education is the key link to be grasped in uniting the whole party for great political struggles. Unless this is done the party cannot accomplish any of its political tasks." (April 24, 1945) Mao's Little Red Book, The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital Vol 1, and What is to be Done? by Lenin are just a few works that we should be intimate with.

A revolutionary is more than anti-imperialist/anti-establishment. Comrade Ernesto "Che" Guevara said "the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." So if we truly tremble with indignation at every injustice and believe in what we together can change through scientific socialism and faith in MLM then why or how would I choose to not continue once released? We can't depend on the parasitic, sadistic bourgeois.

Now I would like to say that the UnUnited $nakes of Amerikkka is the aggressor toward Iran. History has shown that the U.$. does not invade unless it can capitalize from the invasion. Iran has a hold on the Strait of Hormuz, where a nice percentage of oil comes through.

Further, nuclear bombs currently held by many countries including: U.$.A. 8,500, France 300, Russia 11,000, China 240, U.K. 225 and the imperialists known as the Zionists 80. It's alright for these countries to possess nukes but not Iran. President Obama stated in his State of the Union address, "let there be no doubt, Amerikkka is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal." Rick Santorum in his foreign policy statement said, "first and foremost publicly embrace the opposition and call for regime change." Who's really the threat? Hasta la victoria siempre!

MIM(Prisons) responds: We urge all comrades behind bars to let us know your release date and work with us towards a practical plan for staying active after release. As this prisoner points out, there are many important reasons to continue the fight on the streets, but desire is not enough to ensure your success. It will take hard work and planning, along with a strong dedication, to stay political once you get out of prison. Work with us to put together a release plan when your date is getting close.

U.$. citizens are said to comprise a nation which embraces freedom. Freedom is said to be such a fundamental element of our nation that we insist on forcing our concepts of it upon other countries. The government coined a military mission "Operation Enduring Freedom." The colonists declared war on the British in the interests of freedom; freedom was a major element in the fuel for the civil war; and the U.S. invaded Iraq to "secure" Iraqi freedom. Freedom seems to be the fuel to the fire of many struggles over the centuries in U.S. related matters.

Justice is also something that's supposedly held dear in this nation. This Justice Department, along with its affiliates, is among the biggest governmental agencies in the nation. Our courts supposedly produce justice. People are murdered by the government, via capital punishment, in the name of justice. People are killed on the battlefield in the name of justice. Unarmed men are shot down in the streets by police, in the name of justice. Justice, as we know it here in the U.S., seems to be a grim reaper with a thirst for blood.

Sometimes what one says about their character is not always in harmony with their actions; the same is applicable to a nation. As the old saying goes, "Actions speak louder than words," and I believe that the actions carried out by a nation's government are the true indicator of what that nation's principles and values are. Governmental action here in the U.S comes in the form of legislation, policy, enforcement, and rulings.

So despite what we say as a nation regarding how important freedom is, the question becomes: Are our actions in line with what we say? I think not and here's why. We say that we cherish freedom. In fact our Declaration of Independence says that man's freedom is an unalienable right, yet we have a larger number of people incarcerated than any other nation in the world. People will have many rationalizations as to why this is so, but from a purely objective analysis none hold up. Being the number one wielder of human captivity, while supposedly holding man's freedom in the highest regard, are two totally irreconcilable positions.

Additionally, even as the Declaration was written and for years afterward, slavery was an accepted institution in this country. So while freedom was being formally recognized as a man's inalienable right, certain men were being denied that very right. How can those two positions be reconciled?

Freedom, as defined by the Black's Law Dictionary is: Quality or state of being free; liberty; independence

And Free is defined as: Not in bondage to another; enjoying liberty; independent.

Prisoners, slavery, excessive laws, our government seems to be the personification of the anti-freedom. Surprisingly many citizens seem oblivious to this paradox.

And who defines justice, being that it's such a fluid concept. I mean, one person's justice can be another's injustice. In the interest of having a formal gauge, I'll refer to the "Webster's" dictionary for definition. Justice is defined: Uprightness; equitableness; fairness.

Now consider some of the actions committed by our government.

During the westward expansion of this nation, the government continuously laid claim to lands that they had previously agreed to leave to the First Nations. The First Nations were, for the most part, patient as Buddhist monks when facing these recurring betrayals. But even a priest can reach his boiling point, and when the First Nations reached theirs, the government resorted to forcefully taking the land. To take the property of another by means of force or fear is robbery. Robbery is a crime punishable by imprisonment/fine. This is not very much in line with justice is it?

Then think of the governmental approval of slavery in this nation. Not in regard to the actual practice of slavery but the fact that our government once deemed it acceptable and now denounces it. The key here is that despite the reversal, the government has made no restitution for this crime. No formal apology, no monetary compensation, or any "peace offering" to the New Afrikan nation.

In contrast, the German government has formally apologized and committed monetary compensation to the Jews for the Holocaust. And even in the United Snakes of Amerika, the government has started providing compensation to the First Nations. But I suppose that the decision makers in the government feel that Amerika is above any measures to make amends to mere "niggers." (No offense to anyone in the New Afrikan nation, to which I belong. I simply use the word that the imperialists would in their reasoning). Yet they still boast Amerika as a justice loving nation.

And moving right along into more modern times, a focal point relevant to this subject is Amerika's criminal justice system, which is contrary to the meaning of justice. For starters, studies have shown that Black nations and Latino nations receive harsher sentences and more severe charges in comparison with their caucasian counterparts. This is in regards to the very same or similar criminal acts.

A good example of this is the sentencing disparities between crack cocaine (mostly found in inner city, oppressed nations, neighborhoods) offenses and powder cocaine (generally associated with suburban, caucasian, neighborhoods). Despite the fact that the powder form of the drug has more of it than crack, five grams of crack will get one the same amount of time as about one hundred grams of powder cocaine. How absurd is that? There's nothing just about a system that harbors racial disparity.

In the interests of promoting a safe and healthy society, the government has instituted the position of prosecutor. In their prosecutorial duties, the prosecutor is supposed to be bound by moral, ethical, and legal restraints. One of the main legal restraints supposedly binding the actions of a prosecutor is the constitutional "guarantees" that every defendant is supposed to have. In theory, a prosecutor must respect a defendant's constitutional rights.

In reality, Amerika's Supreme Court has deemed a prosecutor's violation of certain constitutional "guarantees" acceptable. Therefore prosecutors don't feel very obligated to respect a defendant's constitutional rights. Add to this the fact that prosecutors have been granted immunity from civil liability in relation to their on the job misconduct. This basically give them license to disregard the law, having nothing upright, fair, or equitable about it.

There are plenty of instances which can illustrate precisely how unjust the so-called justice system is. Biased/racist judges and prosecutors, intentionally ineffective defense attorneys, discriminatory laws, all of these things help shatter the facade of legitimacy and justness of what is called the justice system. And ironically New Afrikans, the same people who were subjected to the inhumanity of slavery, are disproportionately targeted by the criminal "justice" system. It appears that the main facet of justice in Amerika is overt oppression. Amerika is the enemy of both freedom and justice.

MIM(Prisons) adds: A recent book review further highlights the true injustice of the prison system in Amerika. And overall this comrade makes a very important point about the hypocrisy of the U.$. claim to support freedom and justice. We will, however, point out that in order to achieve a society that truly affords everyone freedom and justice, we must first dismantle capitalism. And that will not happen overnight. For this reason, we support an explicitly repressive society called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which is a transition period between capitalism and communism where the government is run by the people and actively represses the freedom of the former bourgeoisie. We can not be idealists and think that it is possible to just magically conjure up a society where all are equal when those in power will fight to retain their power, and our culture teaches people to work first for individualist selfish goals. We will need years of retraining and re-education for people to truly work in cooperation for the common good.

America is delusional. One need look no further than the Disney Corporation's attempt to trademark "SEAL Team 6," in order to market the image of paid killers as toys for children. How is this acceptable on any level? It's not, it's insane. In fact, a reasonable psychological diagnosis of the American state would conclude that it is severely schizophrenic.

Americans are indoctrinated since childhood to believe that America is a bastion of freedom, equality, and law; a bulwark against the lawlessness, murder, mayhem and terrorism that is rampant in the world today. Nevertheless, the reality is that America is the number one source of lawlessness and terrorism in the world today and has been for quite some time. Moreover, when America isn't committing acts of terrorism, it is abetting those that do, such as the European settler state in Palestine known as Israel.

America has many fine-sounding laws against assassination, hostage-taking, and torture (in a word "terrorism") but follows none of them. See the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 USC §1602 et seq.; Civil Liability for Acts of State Sponsored Terrorism Act of 1996, 28 USC §1605 (i.e., the Flatow Amendment); Antiterrorism Act of 1990, 18 USC §2331, et seq.; and Torture Victims Protection Act of 1991, 28 USC §1350 (i.e., the Alien Tort Statute). Further, America is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and the International Convention Against Taking Hostages, codified at 18 USC §1203.

All the foregoing laws and conventions expressly forbid the majority of acts taken by the American military in the world, but America ignores them all when it comes to its actions and only applies them to other countries when they dare try to emulate America's propensity for murder and mayhem. Long ago America's rulers chose to follow the old Spanish Colonial aphorism that "the law is to be obeyed but not followed."

For example, in Elahi v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 124 F. Supp. 2d 97, 107 (D.D.C. 2000), the court found Iran's murder of an American citizen fit the definition of an extra-judicial killing, as follows:

First, ...the assassination was a deliberate act. Second, Cyrus Elahi was not afforded the judicial process contemplated by the statute. Third, as this Court stated over twenty years ago, assassination is "clearly contrary to the precepts of humanity as recognized in both national and international law."[citation omitted.]

The American government admitted bin Laden was unarmed and surrounded by his children, who had to be cleared out of the way, and at least one of his wives, who was shot in the leg, so as not to interfere in the U.S. Navy SEALs' hit. And hit it was, as bin Laden was shot once in the chest and once in the head in the classic assassination style known as the double-tap. No doubt there were powder burns surrounding his head wound, where the coup de grace was administered by these cold-blooded killers as he lay on the floor of his home, but we will never know as his body was promptly disposed of as is common in many professional hits.

Earlier the same day, it was reported that Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi's youngest son and three grandchildren were murdered by NATO bombs dropped on their home. Whether it was done by American planes or not is of little matter, as we all know if the American government didn't support this bombing it wouldn't have happened. This was nothing less than an assassination attempt, that included the intentional bombing of civilians in their home, which was done in direct violation of the UN mandate to protect civilians in Libya via a no-fly zone and the laws and conventions cited above.

It should come as no surprise that the assassination target was Qadhafi, who was said to have been at the home and narrowly escaped along with his wife, as the American government has been trying to murder him for years. President Reagan had Qadhafi's home bombed on April 14, 1986, successfully murdering women and children but failing in his attempt to murder Qadhafi. President Obama has proclaimed his authority to assassinate anyone overseas, including American citizens, without a trial, so murdering Qadhafi would be no problem for him. Wives, daughters and sons are all just collateral damage.

America has never hesitated to murder civilians, men, women and children, in their homes. In WWII, America fire-bombed civilian targets in Germany and Japan's cities and used nuclear weapons on Japanese civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as the Japanese government tried to surrender. Post-WWII, the American government has targeted the people of Korea, the Congo, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and, now, Libya. My apologies if I left anyone out.

This campaign of control through terror is by no means limited to the rest of the world. Here in the good ol' USA, on May 13, 1985, the infamous "Mothers' Day Massacre" occurred, perpetrated by the police, who murdered 11 MOVE organization members, including children, in their home and incinerated an entire neighborhood in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with the full cooperation of the American government, who supplied the explosives used in the massacre.

Not to be outdone, the FBI murdered 76 people, including children, in Waco, Texas, by blowing up their home and burning them alive on April 19, 1993. The FBI has proven time and again that it is willing to murder whoever, wherever, whenever, from Fred Hampton and Mark Clark in Chicago, Illinois, on December 4, 1969, to Randall Weaver's wife and son at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in August 1992. "No crime too foul" ought to be the FBI motto.

Speaking of mottos, the infamous mass-murderer and war criminal Harry S. Truman had a motto: "the buck stops here." No doubt, the buck should stop with the American presidents, but it also reaches back into the cesspools known as corporate boardrooms. Consequently, it is time to end this criminal reign of terror. Every single one of these criminals in high office, national or corporate, should be tried and hung as the murderers they are. To continue to allow them to run free, let alone run the country, makes us all complicit in their assassination nation. It is high time we, as Americans, put an end to our complicity and our complacency once and for all!