|
A Settler-Extremist Rebellion …
Excerpt from:
Helena Cobban –
That Settler-Extremist Rebellion of 1776 … and what it can tell us about America, Israel, and the world today
In addition to explicitly labeling the Indigenous peoples of this landmass as “merciless Indian Savages”, the Declaration of Independence also specified that their “known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.” There is a clear parallel there with some of the more gruesome— and equally false— accusations that the Israeli government and its acolytes worldwide launched against the Palestinian resistance movements after the resistance stunned the Israelis with the incursion of October 7, 2023. Reading that portion of the Declaration of Independence today, one almost expects it also to include accusations about “40 beheaded babies” or the “mass rapes” of the colonists’ women…
But in both cases, those completely unsubstantiated accusations served two key purposes:
- They served to yet further de-humanize, diminish, and “other” the members, leaders, and activists of the Indigenous communities in question, and
- They also served to give permission to the authorities and fighters of the colonial entity to treat the Indigenes in that exact same (or an even worse) manner.
…
@200 xiao
(Replying as best able given format etc. , not time atm to proof read either)
• “There’s no such thing as ‘woke nationalism’”
– Although I invented the term here, I am not the first to, or to notice it (just searched, see James Linsday for example, I don’t know his ideas incidentally ) ….if it is. Sure he would argue better than myself, whatever the argument is. My meaning is roughly that ‘ woke justice ‘ is extended to changing national format (e.g. migration).
• “Do you really think it’s out of kindness and guilt that we want to treat human beings with dignity rather than like livestock?”
– You can treat people as you like, when it is at public (everyone else’s) expense don’t bother feigning altruism. A teddy bear for you there though I suppose.
• “My first choice would be for these people to be able to live where they were born”
– Equally, as far as it were to do with me. As well, guest status should be automatic in most cases, but without obligation or ceding national rights.
Point being, if you haven’t noticed mass displacement was purposeful, and mass reception with benefits a part of that, then you would be missing part of the story.
• “And then the refrain “we need workers” raises the question: “Where are the native workers?” Do we see them fighting, struggling…”
– This was said in irony, the narrative that any country benefits from mass migration due to workforce.
• ” “Open borders is a solution”
I don’t know if you’re attributing that statement to me, but I didn’t say that. I said that borders are an abstract concept that has never prevented migration.
but are the early indigenous people not to be consulted ?
Is it not what elections are made for? And I’m totally in favour of referendums…”
– It was not attributed to you, a few posts touched on the idea somewhere, I just raised it as contradictory, because open borders means accepting the current western migration/colonialisation as valid.
• “In France, at any rate, this is the case under the principle of jus soli”
Mostly, and it is a very complex topic.
“I myself am foreign born, but I am French by descent.”
– Again, the laws and realities involved are very complex, vary by country, date of birth etc. etc.
• “You need to give me some examples because I don’t really know who you are talking about and how many of them”
– Few, and under both British and French law, but a reality. I would have to write an essay regarding tbose I know, not going to do that here.
• “Again : who, where and how many? If they’re working and pay their taxes, it is not all at nation expense! For example, which brings in more money for France: a retired British couple or a family of Algerian origin where both parents work? ”
– I agree, but what I stated is based both on media perceptions for say UK (partly exagerated) as well as long term serious economic calculations (for Germany if I remember) using factual data on cost vs contribution over several generations (sorry no link, if I find again will post).
• “And why should we do something like that? My political aim is for MY country to act according to my values. I don’t care about the way other nations do, and when I’m living abroad, which I did for many years, I abide by the rules of my hosts wheter I like it or not.”
– I agree, the point being that ‘your country’ is also the country of many others, to impose your view on those others is in a sense no different; political participation and trust in democratic process being at all time lows might suggest that some disagree with your views but find no route to protect their nation from them ?
It is one way we end up with extremes of politics, unfortunately.
Posted by: Ornot | Jul 5 2026 19:22 utc | 206
George, there is much to unpack surrounding this ‘long-term hangout’ but if there is one thing that it ‘begins and ends’ with it is what I began with:
He was facing a theoretical 290 years!!! (I confused the number with his more recent charges of 170).
He was charged with breaching high-level networks within Australia itself.
He was charged with tapping into secure systems belonging to the Pentagon and NASA.
He was facing a potential 290 years in priosn and he got off with a $2000 fine and time served.
Youthful indiscretion!!!
So, that would not happen to you or me.
That is when they ‘got him.’
Why is he even free now?
I am supposed to believe that given how the govt I live under ‘goes about its business’ that it would ever allow this man to live a free and prosperous life?
It is easy to see the lies with your own eyes because you can watch all the interviews Mendax did with Pilger et al from the diplomatic office out of which he ran a global media organization with high-definition video equipment, lighting setups, and dedicated internet lines.
He aired his own show – ‘The World Tomorrow’ – from this tortuous embassy setting where he wore thousand-dollar suits while interviewing guests for the camera.
Now, at the same time this was going on and certainly ever since the story that has been promulgated is that Assange lived entirely indoors without access to fresh air or direct sunlight.
This is a lie.
There was plenty of sunlight and windows as can be seen from the videos.
Evidently if he ‘stepped outside’ he would immediately be nabbed by Scotland Yard but, again, we have no way of knowing what Assange may or may not have really been allowed to do aside from what we are told by just a handful of people we have already been trained to trust.
But why should we believe anything else out of these peoples’ mouths given that monster bald-faced lie about a basic point of fact?
Why was Assange afforded this utterly unique situation?
Any other regular old criminal ‘fugitives’ – even very ‘high level’ ones – would never ever ever ever be allowed a revolving door of international dignitaries, Hollywood actors, and high-profile journalists coming to visit them!
The entire thing is just absurd.
Posted by: Agonizing Reappraisal | Jul 5 2026 19:40 utc | 207
George, are you sure all ‘the leaks’ weren’t already well-known?
Do you even know how – what system or method of analysis or what have you – Assange and wikileaks used to determine if the leaks they were given were legitimate or were themselves leaked for a purpose?
This is a crucial point.
You probably don’t because he never told us and when people begin asking even these most rudimentary questions – rather than legitimate answers – we get hero-love and we just have to take their word for it.
This is why many initial wikileaks insiders left out of frustration.
They are ‘on our side’ in wanting transparency but they didn’t think wikileaks was trustworthy in the end.
Are you even aware of these people?
As to Snowden specifically, I would simply ask where are the files?
A miniscule percentage were ever released.
Laura Poitras was asked about it and sorta just said she’s doing something else now….doesn’t know.
Greenwald left his position at, errr, The Guardian to begin his ‘once-in-a-lifetime endeavor’ with 250 million ‘angel investor’ seed money from an ebay billionaire who was a good guy until he wasn’t but anyway Glenn promised that depsite the bad look everything about this particular situation was kosher even though in any other capacity it woouldn’t pass a sniff test.
But Greemwald is a hero to many (I loved his civil liberty writing back in the day) so he is virtually unquestionable and he is much too lionized for some odd reason.
Probably because he is such an appealingly fierce critic in his own way.
He is certainly extraordinarily adept at debate.
I would end with this:
When we step back from it all…to what end?
Can anyone honestly make a case that without these people our civil liberties and the wealth divide would be even worse?
When I state the plain fact that right now both those crucial issues are much much worse is your response to me, yeah but…?
The wealth divide is off the charts and we live in a full-spectrum surveillance ‘society’ that is ever-increasing.
Is the idea that it would be even worse now if not for all the energy and support and scarce resources of our own that we dutifully gave to these hero personalities?
That is frankly a very very hard case to make.
Posted by: Agonizing Reappraisal | Jul 5 2026 20:27 utc | 211
‘All I can say to you at this point is this:
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Don’t like half a loaf? Then content yourself with nothing, I guess.’
So you don’t really want to engage with this on anything beyond what is – and let’s not go fooling ourselves here – a very superficial level.
The default to the conclusion that in engaging with this I am somehow seeking utopia is insulting.
‘The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Don’t like half a loaf? Then content yourself with nothing,’
That’s it?
Was it the fact that you threw out the infamous ‘collateral murder’ video without knowing yourself a few details beyond the public-facing theater?
Did you know when you made that comment that it wasn’t released until 2010?
I bet you didn’t.
I am trying to illustrate that that is by design.
I am doing a very poor job per usual.
I don’t understand how you can pose a very good question and then not even answer it.
You asked if I even know how that video changed public opinion of the war.
I responded that I do not and I asked you to claarify.
You responded something along the lines of ‘you’re seeking perfection’ and ended with ‘half a loaf of bread is better than none!’
Beggars can’t be choosers I am aware but I would simply ask you, before you go, to please answer your own question:
How did the release of the most famous wikileaks video change public opinion on the Iraq war?
Posted by: Agonizing Reappraisal | Jul 5 2026 21:14 utc | 218
‘I attended the largest anti-war demonstrations ever held in San Francisco, partly a result of that video.
Two huge demos a week apart; that had never happened before. (Something we may never see again.)’
The largest demonstrations by far were at the beginning in 2003. I am not familiar with san fran specifically but the statement I just made is true on the whole.
This tells us that it doesn’t actually require gruesome videos of the reality of war to get people out which is a beautful thing.
And a powerful statement.
‘I didn’t say it helped the Iraqis; as you point out it was too late by that time. But better late than never, yes?’
The video didn’t alter public opinion of the war. It launched wikileaks and assange into the global limelight.
Public opinion -to the extent it can be measured accurately in any way, shape or form – public opinion was already strongly against the war.
This particular wikileaks episode was used to begin the ‘battle’ over state secrets and whistleblowing and war journalism in general.
I put ‘battle’ in quotes because – as you know! – I believe this is all largely theater and we are systematically being led to slaughter.
It is interesting to note that the collateral damage ‘leak’ was in early april of 2010 and by the end of the year assange had graced the cover of Time magazine and had had features in Le Monde and Der Speigel leding to an in-depth article in the NY Times Magazine in early 2011!
I also wonder why it took the government until 2018 to bring any charges against the guy when he began all the way back in 2006 and, as we have seen, he exploded into the good graces of the mainstream in 2010 before he was slowly turned into a villain over time once the initial positive fanfare was implanted in the public’s psyche.
Posted by: Agonizing Reappraisal | Jul 5 2026 21:54 utc | 225
‘What the fuck are you really trying to tell us here:
That Assange was a plant? a phony? a psy-op?’
I am not ‘really trying to tell you’ anything, George.
You’re obviously an intelligent individual.
I am stating facts.
‘Why don’t you just come right out and give us the straight scoop, instead of dancing delicately around it?’
I have been pretty damn direct in fact so ‘dancing delicately around it’ doesn’t apply to me.
You are the one who stated confidently that the collateral murder video considerably altered public opinion.
I asked how.
You then proceeded to give an interesting first-hand tidbit about how it inspired you and others, particularly in san francisco.
I then said that that is all fine and well but your statement was that the video very much altered public opinion against the war even given that it may not have done much for the Iraqis but, hey, better late than never, right?
I stated the fact that the war was already exceedingly unpopular so youirs is not at all a correct point of view in this regard.
I then added some other facts that I do not believe you were aware of.
Or, again, you may be aware of some or even most of them in the back of your consciousness somewhere but they remain siloed and pefectly useless to any larger understanding.
Again, entirely by design.
Let’s go back to the beginning:
How did Mendax get a slap on the wrist when he was facing upwards of 300 years in prison?
On charges that you or I would still be doing time for?
Posted by: Agonizing Reappraisal | Jul 5 2026 22:27 utc | 227
‘Much has been made of the fact that Assange/Wikileaks has never released anything harmful to Israel.
So that statement is entirely consistent.’
Indeed and ‘Israel’ is clearly what he’s struggling with when he mentions Saudi involvement ‘with a few other states’ as the wheels are turning.
We hear all the time about the saudi involvement.
I mentioned Alison Weir and here is an article from her site with writing from The Palestine Chronicle wholly in support of Assange without a trace of skepticism about the operation:
https://israelpalestinenews.org/revealer-of-inconvenient-truths-julian-assanges-impact-on-palestine/
Here is a sampling:
Home
Statistics
History
Present
US Interests
Media Analysis
Timeline
About
‘Revealer of Inconvenient Truths’ – Julian Assange’s Impact on Palestine
contact@ifamericansknew.org July 12, 2024 ‘Palestine Papers’, Arab Spring, classified cables, gaza economy, Israel’s agenda, Israeli nuclear weapons, Julian Assange, US Department of Justice, Wikileaks
‘Revealer of Inconvenient Truths’ – Julian Assange’s Impact on Palestine
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. (photo)
Four articles below (by Palestine chronicle, Alison Weir, Jonathan Cook, and Tucker Carlson) lay out the price Julian Assange has paid for his efforts to reveal truths — not the least of which had to do with Israel’s policies toward Palestinians:
‘Revealer of Inconvenient Truths’ – Julian Assange’s Impact on Palestine
by Robert Inlakesh, reposted from The Palestine Chronicle, June 27, 2024
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is finally free after spending nearly seven years trapped in Ecuador’s London-based embassy, followed by 1,901 days in Belmarsh prison, concluding a legal battle dating back 14 years with a plea deal with the US Department of Justice.
Known internationally as a revealer of inconvenient truths and a political prisoner of the West, Assange had profound impacts on almost all corners of the globe, including the Arab World.
The sensitive government cables that were released by Wikileaks were well known to have had a major impact on the Arab World in its entirety, pivotally important in influencing the discourse of the 2011 Arab Spring that began in Tunisia.
Assange’s Freedom
However, the specific implications of leaks pertaining to the Palestine-Israeli conflict have been of tremendous value also.
“Assange’s freedom represents a watershed moment in the struggle against war, government corruption, corporate greed, and much more,” Palestinian analyst and editor of the Palestine Chronicle, Ramzy Baroud, commented on the release of Assange.
“His imprisonment and besiegement for all of those years were meant to be a lesson for the rest of us, that there are forces much stronger than our collective push for global justice, freedom and transparency. But that attempt has terribly failed, as we, led by Assange, will surely emerge even more determined to carry on with the fight for an equal and a better world,” Baroud added.
“As Palestinians, who are constantly silenced by Western government and media for daring to demand our rights, and for calling for accountability to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, the fight for the truth is critical to our very survival. As we celebrate Assange’s freedom, we must remember that thousands of Palestinians and truth-seeking activists all over the world remain in prison,” he continued.
“Their freedom, and the freedom of their people are equally precious. Thus our collective fight must continue.”
Secret Classified Cables
‘One of the various contributions of Wikileaks to Palestine were cables that worked to confirm an element of Israel’s agenda in the Gaza Strip, aiding in shaping our overall understanding of the reality on the ground today during the genocidal assault launched by the Israeli government.
Secret classified cables, from March 2008, revealed that US diplomats had learned that Tel Aviv’s intentions with its comprehensive siege imposed upon the Gaza Strip, were “to keep the Gazan economy functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis”.
What we came to learn from the leaked documents was a confirmation that Israel was pursuing the strategy outlined in 2006 by Dov Weisglass, a senior advisor to Israeli Prime Minister at the time Ehud Olmert, who talked of putting the “Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”
So, there is absoluely nothing at all new here as anyone paying attention knows this was part of the plan.
In fact, wehn you read through it you see that all wikileaks was ever doing was ‘confirming’ things that were already known.
This is the language they themselves use much of the time.
Confirmation is being touted as revelation.
‘Israel was pursuing the strategy outlined in 2006 by Dov Weisglass, a senior advisor to Israeli Prime Minister at the time Ehud Olmert, who talked of putting the “Palestinians on a diet…’
I mean, the ‘diet’ statements are legendary and well predate this particular instance in 2006.
It’s Oded Tinon which itself was a rehashing of the plan going back to the late 1800’s and before.
Continuing,
‘In 2011, Wikileaks cables also corroborated the Al-Jazeera leaked ‘Palestine Papers’ which exposed the depth of the collusion between corrupt officials belonging to the Palestinian Authority and their Israeli counterparts.’
Again, that simply isn’t particularly revealing of anything novel at all.
‘Another important revelation that emerged from Wikileaks documents was the close ties between Israel and foreign governments in the Muslim World, such as the regime in Azerbaijan, shaping how the public interprets these close ties.’
There is nothing specific here (or in the files…please check) and again ‘close ties between Israel and foreign governments in the Muslim World’ isn’t at all novel.
Azerbaijan is actually ‘new on the scene’ and important but what specifically??? and how has this knowledge helped to change the situation to be more favorable to those defending themselves from the jewish state?
Good luck getting anything approaching a clear answer to that.
‘In the cases of Syria and Egypt, Wikileaks also revealed the nature of Israeli security concerns during the unrest that took place during the Arab Spring, allowing us to get a better glimpse into Tel Aviv’s agendas in the surrounding Arab nations.’
I have to stop here because I already feel a visceral anger boiling up inside of me.
—
‘Wikileaks was only a conduit.’
Yep.
‘Did it ever receive anything “harmful to Israel”?’
Nope.
Posted by: Agonizing Reappraisal | Jul 6 2026 1:39 utc | 238
|
