OTR-Unenforceable, Life After Death, Teacher’s Telos
On The Radar—today's notices.
Uncle Sam makes the rules and gives the orders. Let's remember who's boss.
The International Criminal Court has taken a significant step by formally issuing arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. This action, for war crimes and crimes against humanity, underscores the gravity of the situation.
For those who think international law matters, it's important to remember its historical context. International legal structures and institutions were initially designed to facilitate business, not social justice, as evidenced by the activities of East India companies and the colonization of Africa and the New World. It was only after World War II and, to a degree, European guilt over the Holocaust that colonial powers began to create courts for social justice and a homeland for the Jewish people.
The International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946.
The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York (United States of America).
The Court's pivotal role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States. Additionally, it provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.
The International Criminal Court
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands).
Since 1946, the United States has had an uneasy relationship with the International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court or Court). On the one hand, the United States embraces the rule of law within its own society and, in principle, within the international system of states. The United States has been and remains an active participant in cases before the Court, appearing before it several times, more than any other state, even in recent years. On the other hand, the United States has never been willing to submit itself to the plenary authority of the Court, and has typically reacted negatively to decisions by the Court that are adverse to U.S. interests. As is well known, in reaction to decisions that were reached by the Court, the United States refused to participate in the proceedings on the merits of the case brought by Nicaragua in 1984, withdrew from the Court's compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and recently terminated its acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Now that we understand something about these institutions, it's crucial to delve into a few sources commenting on recent events in the Middle East that come from outside of the propaganda sphere. Understanding these perspectives is critical to comprehend why we witness blatant crimes against humanity daily in 2024, with seemingly no recourse.
Since the dawn of civilization thousands of years ago, the competition for power among Large Tribes, Kingdoms, Empires, Republics, and States has been fluid. The desire for status, wealth, power, and control is central to large social systems. Motivating a population requires stories that differentiate one’s own culture from those of the barbarians.
A period I’m fascinated by is the so-called Age of Discovery and, in particular, Portugal’s role. When did settler colonialism start? People have been migrating around the globe for tens of thousands of years. For that matter, when did Modernity start? Is there ever a definitive starting point for ongoing processes like these? As things evolve and change, our definitions change.
Magellan died in the Philippines, but one of his ships made it back to Spain in 1522, completing the historic effort to circumnavigate the globe and marking the beginning of the end of Portugal’s dominance of the seas.
For thousands of years, terrible actions and evil ideologies have plagued civilization. The original "exception" might be Yahweh of Biblical fame. Yahweh can get away with murder and order all manner of violence to be committed by his favored humans. Violence is endemic to human culture, and what we are experiencing today falls well into the realm of social normative behaviors. Even if we have never witnessed such horrors in our own experience, wilfully ignoring them assumes a modicum of complicity.
People are numbed by reports of daily atrocities and tune them out.
Caitlin Johnstone provides her increasingly exasperated voice to discuss Imperial Recklessness and Insanity, which begs the question, what is sanity?
What do we mean by sanity?
sanity
/ˈsanɪti/
noun
the ability to think and behave in a normal and rational manner; sound mental health.
"I began to doubt my own sanity"
reasonable and rational behaviour.
"the next few years saw several appeals for sanity from top scientists"
We often see the lack of sanity in others but rarely in ourselves. Barbarians are dirty, stinky lunatics with bad manners.
Sanity can be defined by "fitting in," "herd behavior," "group think," "motivated reasoning," or simply conforming to the behavior of whatever people you find yourself with. (e.g., a "sane" person living in a vegan community is a vegan; a "sane" person living in Germany in the mid-1900s, was a sane follower of Hitler, etc.)
We might say that sanity is an agreed-on form of insanity, which is an attempt to make life seem rational by legislating ideals and values and imposing them on others.
Where on the sanity spectrum do you fall?
Below is a clinical definition from the DSM-IV, the "Bible" of mainstream psychology:
". . . a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability, or an important loss of freedom. In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one. Whatever its original cause, it must currently be considered (by who?) a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual."
So this "thing of ours" is sane because we can't change our perspectives enough to evaluate sanity from points of view that consider the complexity of Great Nature and challenge us to question our assumptions.
Has our culture conditioned us well or poorly? How would we know?
So who are the criminals?
These two videos offer in-depth discussions of the wars supported by the United States that are supposed to increase The West’s security.
The powers that be are rife with hypocrisy and only make things worse when they invest heavily in war and nothing at all in peacemaking.
Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate discuss new ICC warrants for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and the Biden admin's decision to authorize long-range Ukrainian strikes into Russia. They will then be joined live from Beirut by Ambassador Craig Murray to cover Israel's continuing assault on Lebanon.
I've been getting many questions about what the International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant actually mean.
This discussion on one of my current favorite podcasts, Citations Needed, makes a fine point about the above views of the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East. Please listen to it.
"Salvadoran Ties Bloodshed To a 'Culture of Violence'", reported The New York Times in 1981. "The violence in Lebanon is casual, random, and probably addicting," stated the Honolulu Star-Advertiser in 1985. "Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims," wrote long-time New Republic publisher and editor-in-chief Marty Peretz in 2010.
There’s a recurring theme within media coverage of subjugated people in the US and around the world: they’re mindlessly, inherently savage. Whether the subject is immigrants from Central and South America, Black populations in major American cities, or people in Lebanon or Palestine, we’re repeatedly told that any violence they may be subjected to or carry out themselves is inevitable, purposeless, and baked into their "culture."
The pathologizing of violence in certain racialized communities is one side of the coin. The other side of the coin, which reinforces this notion, is the equally sinister concept of selective empathy. It’s a conditional sense of compassion, reserved for victims who media deem deserving—say, Ukrainian victims of Russia’s invasion—and not for those who media deem undeserving, like Palestinians under siege by Israel in Gaza. What motivates this asymmetry, and how does it shape public understandings of suffering throughout the world? How is empathy as a form of media currency central to getting the public to care about victims of certain violence, while a lack of empathy––and even worse, pathologizing violence in certain communities––conditions the public to not care about those whose deaths those in power would rather not talk about, much less humanize.
In this episode, we look at the concept of selective empathy in media coverage, examining how it continues centuries-old campaigns of dehumanization – particularly against Arab, Black, and Latino people – bifurcates victims of global violence into the deserving and the undeserving, and influences contemporary opinion on everything from pain tolerance to criminal-legal policy.
Our guest is Dr. Muhannad Ayyash.
Considering Big Nature, can we think of our civilization as sane when it seems to be self-terminating?
The Trump Problem
Mike Meyer explains Why Trump is Irrelevant in a post expressing thoughts I've written for over a decade. The Players have changed, but The Great Game hasn't. Lately, I have come to think that radical change will only happen several generations after the catastrophic collapse of our global civilization. And what comes next might rhyme with what came before.
"He now has no goals except power for himself and the ability to create chaos at any time using anyone he can find to do his will."
Mike has included some excellent links to articles he's referenced, which is always much appreciated.
Here’s one that might raise an alarm or two.
The Crisis Report — 52
We are going to have a FAST COLLAPSE.
By 2050, I think the global population will be under 1 Billion.
Richard Crim has found some good data to back that up. It's hard to imagine.
I love Richard’s quote in his bio:
My entire life can be described in one sentence: Things didn’t go as planned, and I’m OK with that.
I don't think enough people are interested in "reality" in terms of facts, good data/information, the scientific method, empiricism, epistemology, technology, and earnest philosophical inquiry.
This brings me to a post from Figs in Winter that asks:
Should academics be political activists?
Navigating the perilous waters of public intellectualism
Okay, so I'm sympathetic to both Chomsky and Haidt. Let's see how this apparently contradictory stance plays in my own classroom.
Allow me to quote a Chomsky quote Massimo quotes in his article. Quote a quoter’s quote. I want to make sure you read it.
"With respect to the responsibility of intellectuals, there are still other, equally disturbing questions. Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions. In the Western world, at least, they have the power that comes from political liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression. For a privileged minority, Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities, and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, ideology and class interest, through which the events of current history are presented to us. The responsibilities of intellectuals, then, are much deeper than what Macdonald calls the 'responsibility of people,' given the unique privileges that intellectuals enjoy." — Noam Chomsky
And this is from the conclusion of Massimo's article:
I recognize, however, that this is treacherous territory, and that I can easily slip into a sarcastic or dismissive tone if I don't watch myself. Avoiding such peril is one of the hallmarks of a good teacher. And I flatter myself to think that I belong in that category. It is, therefore, possible to successfully navigate the Scylla and Charybdis outlined by Chomsky and Haidt. But one needs to be careful in doing so: Odysseus famously lost several members of his remaining crew in accomplishing just such a feat. He did get to Ithaca, though…
As long as there are so many well-entertained, well-fed, and well-paid people in "The West," we can look forward to business as usual—whether you see that as a good or bad thing depends on your situation, circumstances, and perspectives. There will be meaningful boycotts and divestments once it becomes absolutely evident to most people in The West that The Great Game is an ongoing disaster. Will that be when our population is under a billion? We are going to find out.
