If you have opinions about the subject matter of posts on this blog please share them. Do you have a story about how the system affects you at work school or home, or just in general? This is a place to share it.
The U.S. military’s secretive Special Operations Command plans to establish its first-ever center for AI-driven missions like targeted assassinations.
Autonomous warfare is all the rage at the Pentagon, where computers and artificial intelligence process intelligence data, select targets and then transmit kill orders to a waiting robot, or a “loitering” missile or airplane.
The new “Special Operations Autonomous Warfare Center” is referenced in the $1.5 trillion Department of War budget request to Congress this week.
Special Operations Forces refers to commando units like Navy SEAL Team, Army Green Berets, Marine “Raiders” and others who support “unconventional” warfare, and since 9/11, targeted killing. SEAL Team 6 and Delta Force of the Army are two of the most infamous of the secret units, and have been central to capture and decapitation operations like those in Venezuela and Iran.
One can say a lot of things about the rapid and chaotic adoption of artificial intelligence in the American military. But in this context, the term “autonomous warfare” is a euphemism for automated killing. (Autonomous intrinsically means acting independently, governing internally, or operating without external control.)
An unusually frank description of the role AI will play in the future comes from former Joint Special Operations Command chief Gen. Stanley McChrystal (ret.), who compared AI to “infant Hercules,” invoking the Greek god’s own role as a killer even in infancy.
McChrystal says:
“And like the infant Hercules who strangled two snakes sent by Hera to kill him in his crib, AI will grow to be strong — and a part of almost everything we do going forward.”
What McChrystal doesn’t mention is what happened when Hercules grew up. He spent his life carrying out killings on the orders of Eurystheus — a weak, cowardly king who hid in a jar and never had to understand anything. Hercules’s overwhelming power substituted for strategy.
In the most famous of his myths, Hercules fought the Hydra, a monster that grew two heads for every one he cut off. He was strong enough to keep swinging, but sheer power alone only multiplied the problem. He had to change his approach entirely to win. It’s a useful parable for a military that has spent two decades perfecting decapitation strikes only to watch the threats multiply.
Welcome to the era of CombatGPT. The Pentagon has since 2022 used AI in quarterly exercises for “target detection” involving personnel from all six military service branches. The computers pull together the ocean of information pieces that are collected every day — every minute — and extract the most important, according to the AI program, aggregating and geolocating the blips and dots into a potential target.
During the most recent Iran War, Middle East commander Adm. Brad Cooper felt it necessary to give assurances that the use of AI still includes a “human-in-the-loop” to make decisions. “Humans will always make final decisions on what to shoot and what not to shoot, and when to shoot,” he said. That statement, of course, contradicts the very idea of “autonomous.”
Cooper’s assurance echoes a long line of similar promises. The Air Force said the same thing about drones before the unmanned kill chain was compressed to the point where the “decision” became a rubber stamp. The pattern is consistent: a new capability is introduced with human-in-the-loop safeguards, the speed and scale of operations make those safeguards a bottleneck, and the bottleneck becomes the “Agree to terms” button on your computer most people click without thinking.
(Note that the FY 2027 budget request also zeroes out funding for Pentagon work in civilian harm “mitigation,” eliminating the element that might also be able to “autonomously” warn of direct civilian casualties and damage.)
Screenshot from the Pentagon’s FY27 budget request showing empty space for “civilian harm" mitigation"
The budget document doesn’t say what the Autonomous Warfare Center’s initial budget will be, but it doesn’t need to be large. The infrastructure already exists. Two decades of decapitation strikes have produced the targeting architecture, the intelligence pipelines, the kill chains. What AI does is remove the last friction — the human time spent correlating down to attacking a target.
Much of what the Special Operations Autonomous Warfare Center will be working with is already there. Both in Ukraine and in Iran, the military sees its challenge as dealing with “swarms” of low-cost enemy weapons, from one-way attack drones to relatively rudimentary ballistic missiles.
The Miami-based Southern Command, which is responsible for the shooting part of the drug war, has also established its own autonomous command to automate the tracking and killing of drug shipments where the speedboats and mini-submarines serve as the low-cost targets.
Nobody in Congress has so far asked about the creation of “autonomous” killing commands. The budget line item will likely pass without a hearing, buried in a special operations (and mostly classified) budget that receives less oversight than virtually any other part of the Pentagon. By the time the public learns what the Autonomous Warfare Center actually does, it will have been doing it for years.
McChrystal is right that AI will be “a part of almost everything we do going forward.” What he left out — what the myth he invoked actually teaches — is that the strongest weapon in the world is only as good as the mind wielding it. Hercules eventually learned that.
Spring books: a capitalist history, a transformation; controlling or replacing capitalism?
This post reviews some recent economics books published by various authors, both Marxist and non-Marxist. Book reviews by Michael Roberts
Let me start with a magnum opus, Capitalism – a global history, by Sven Beckert. Beckert is the Laird Bell Professor of History at Harvard University, where he teaches the history of the United States in the 19th century and global history. His ‘Capitalism’ is called a ‘monumental book’ by global inequality expert, Thomas Piketty, himself an author of an eariler gargantuan publication back in 2014 called Capital in the 21stcentury (Piketty’s suggestion then was that he was ‘updating’ Marx’s Capital from the 19th century).
Beckert in contrast is not trying to update or critique Marx’s Capital. Instead, as an economic historian, he aims to paint a broad canvas of the rise of capitalism from its early embryonic origins, that he takes back to 1000 years ago. He does not provide a theoretical analysis of capitalism as Piketty tries in his book. This book is very much more descriptive than analytical. He delivers a global view of capitalism , not confined what he calls the ‘eurocentric’ approach of others. That is the book’s merit, full of anecdotes and examples of capitalists at work worldwide. But the book’s de-merit is its lack of any systematic understanding of capitalism. Indeed, it is like the work of Adam Tooze – namely, it is ‘more the how, than the why’.
As the blurb says for the book, “Sven Beckert, author of the Bancroft Prize–winning Empire of Cotton , places the story of capitalism within the largest conceivable geographical and historical framework, tracing its history during the past millennium and across the world. An epic achievement, his book takes us into merchant businesses in Aden and car factories in Turin, onto the terrifyingly violent sugar plantations in Barbados, and within the world of women workers in textile factories in today’s Cambodia”.
Capitalism, argues Beckert, was born global. Emerging from trading communities across Asia, Africa, and Europe. And capitalism can only be described as a global phenomenon. “This book understands capitalism as, above all, a global development whose local articulations can only be understood globally. The economic dynamics of a given place are inescapably shaped by its connections to the outside world. There is no “French capitalism” or “American capitalism”; rather, there is capitalism in France and America, which have contested and complicated relationships with capitalism elsewhere, indeed everywhere “
Beckert makes big claims for the revolutionary nature of capitalism. “It was a fundamental break in human history not just because it revolutionized economic affairs but because it turned human relations upside down; infiltrated our politics, societies, and cultures; altered the natural environment we inhabit; and made revolution a permanent feature of economic life. The capitalist revolution is the only revolution whose fundamental core is that it is ongoing, that it qualifies as a state of permanent revolution.”
But of course, he recognises that capitalism has its faults. “Capitalism is also distinctive for the particular kinds of social inequalities and global hierarchies it creates.” But Beckert does not want to take sides between those authors supporting and those critiquing capitalism. “On one side, Marx’s writings became sacred texts through which to filter the politics du jour; on the other side, scholars read capitalism’s history through the equally sacralizing lens of Adam Smith’s writings. This book strives to avoid either idolatrous extreme.”
Actually, it is not true that Marx did not recognise the great changes that capitalism made to human progress; or that Adam Smith saw no faultlines in market economies. But Beckert resorts to descriptive history rather than economic insight. As Beckert puts it: “this work is an effort to reclaim capitalism as a territory for historical investigation. This history will show that capitalism is neither a state of nature nor a process whose internal logic determines its eventual outcome in more than the most general way.” So the Marxist materialist conception of history and Marx’s explanation of the internal contradictions in capitalism are to be put aside; as are the views of mainstream neoclassical economists that markets and profit making are an eternal and beneficial feature of human social organisation. Instead, capitalism is a contingent history.
Beckert does not hide the brutal nature of the emergence of capitalism globally. “Although capitalism’s history is often told as a story of contracts, private property, and wage labor—that is, stylized as a history of the realization of human freedom—there is another story, equally important, about vast expropriations, huge mobilizations of coerced labor, brutality in factories and on plantations, fierce destructions of noncapitalist economies, and massive extractions of resources for private gain. Capitalism rested, as we will see in the chapters that follow, not just on productivity gains but on enormous appropriations”.
Many of the early sections of the book give the reader a panoramic view of the capitalist process at work across the world, even when other social formations like, slavery, feudalism and Asian despotism were dominant. Unfortunately, when Beckert gets into 20th century, the period when capitalism became fully dominant globally as the mode of production and social formation, Beckert’s analysis becomes weaker. He notes the post-1970s crisis of reconstructed capitalism, ie the neoliberal period, but it seems he remains confident that capitalism is here to stay despite the accumulating economic, environmental and geopolitical crises that we see accelerating in the 21stcentury. ”We can anticipate that capitalism will remain a global totality, even if the nature of that totality continues to change, perhaps in radical and surprising ways. We can expect capitalism’s enormous creativity to persist, along with its amazing adaptability.”
Or does he? “Eventually, however, there will be a moment when capitalism ends. Regardless of whether we fear or hope for that end, capitalism, like everything in human history, is finite, even if it is impossible to say when or how it will end or what will replace it.” But even if capitalism is to give way to a new stage of human social organisation, it will take a very long time and “be interwoven within capitalism itself, just as capitalism was itself embedded in noncapitalist societies for centuries.” Or maybe not – if the “ecological and social crises unfolding right now and right here become unbearable”. All these maybes are a product of his descriptive approach to the history of capitalism.
Another opus magnum is the latest book by former World Bank lead economist and global inequality expert, Branco Milanovic. I have posted several times on Milanovic’s indepth studies of global inequality, but this new book is not so much about inequality but more about what he considers is the great transformation in the world economy that is taking place –namely the movement of economic power from North America and Europe to Asia. “The first defining change is the much greater importance of, and the movement of economic activity towards, Asia and the Pacific.”
The second big change is the result of that shift. As China became richer, the Chinese people also became richer. That meant that people who were in the lower-middle class in the US, Germany, or Italy, for the first time in the last 200 years, fell behind substantial numbers of people from Asia. “At the level of the nation-state, we have had a movement towards much greater importance of Asia in economics and politics. At the level of personal incomes, we see the decline of the Western middle class.”
Milanovic argues that the Industrial Revolution transformed the countries that were leading the industrialization—the UK, France, Northern Europe, then the United States, and finally Japan—and made their people much richer than people elsewhere. But In the last 40 years, we have had, for the first time, a serious challenge to that. Countries in Asia are now not only catching up but, in some cases, even overtaking Western countries technologically.
This has led to a new cold war not now based on ideology (capitalism v communism, as with the US and the Soviet Union), but now economically between the US and China. If China continues with real GDP growth rates 2-3% points higher than the US rate, within one generation, and a maximum of two generations, you will have the same number of people in China who are above the US median income as Americans. “If one thinks that the real sign of catching up is when China becomes equally rich on a per capita basis as the United States, it will take a long time. But before that happens, China as a nation would be much more powerful than the United States simply because it is so much bigger.” But see my forthcoming paper on Catching up , to be published by the World Association of Political Economy.
Milanovic says there are three views on the benefits or otherwise of the globalisation of trade and finance in the last 40 years. The mainstream one is that trade among nations benefits all countries and so leads to peace. Adam Smith is more nuanced and argued that only ‘balanced trade’ would maintain peace. But there is the Hobson-Luxemburg-Lenin theory, which holds that the big powers would fight for control of the resources and assets of the rest of the world and that would eventually lead them to war ie imperialism. Milanovic tends to a mix of the last two views. The end of globalisation and free trade has led to a loss of living standards for many in the West and thus “a huge dissonance between different parts of the Western population.” I would add that globalisation led to a massive transfer of value and resources from the Global South to the Global North, hitting living standards not just in the Global North but also for the vast majority in the Global South..
According to Milanovic, neoliberal globalism has now been replaced by ‘national market liberalism.’ Tariffs are being imposed and immigration controls are increasing. The world has moved from option two to option three. ”We still have neoliberalism, but only at the national level. We end up with a version of neoliberalism stripped of its international component.” Milanovic concludes that “we clearly have a global disorder.” But he lays his hope on the world moving towards a multipolar system. Eventually, “we can build a more equitable international system where major powers have a greater stake than they do now.” So a new balance of trade and finance and economic power can emerge. Option three becomes option two again, hmm.
Mariana Mazzucato is another rock star economist of the ‘left’, once called the world’s scariest economist. I have reviewed many of her previous books (search my blog). But it seems she does not really scare the international powers that be. She is regularly invited to speak around the world at various mainstream economic gatherings and as an adviser to governments. Her latest book is called The Common Good Economy. This follows on from a previous book, the Mission economy. – each time a new attractive title suggesting economic innovation and insight.
Mazzucato tells us that “Our economic system is broken. The climate crisis is accelerating. Inequality is deepening. Public trust is crumbling. Wealth concentrates in fewer hands while governments scramble to fix what markets can’t do, rather than to shape them from the outset.” So what should well-meaning governments do? Instead of trying to correct these ‘market failures’ and trying to patch up problems, governments need “to proactively build the economy we need”. She offers a ‘new theory of the common good, one which allows governments and businesses to develop purposeful economic relationships, creating value and building spaces where human flourishing can happen.”
As in previous books, she starts from the premiss that what is needed is ‘partnership’ between an ‘activist’ state and capitalist businesses – ‘participation and reciprocity’. You see “capitalism and workers’ rights are not in tension — they are co-dependent. Industrial policy that includes workers in design and delivery produces better outcomes for all.” So the answer is not to replace capitalism, but to strengthen worker representation in decision-making bodies, including corporate boards.
Governments must encourage capitalist companies to invest but under what she calls “green and social conditionalities across all sectors” so “ensuring we socialize both risks and rewards through smart (??) public financing.” What is needed is not socialism, but with “strong social contracts into our industrial policies now, we can ensure this historic wave of green investment builds an economy that works for both people and planet.” We need “mission-oriented industrial policy that treats workers as co-creators of value — with conditionalities that share the rewards.” Mazzucato sort of admits that such a social contract with conditionalities placed on the big multinationals, the fossil fuel giants and the financial sector would be “a delicate task, as too much micromanaging with a shopping list of conditions can, of course,stifle innovation.” On the other hand, “close relationships with private firms could make governments prone to capture.” Indeed!
Mazzucato continues her merry way across the globe at conferences, government meetings etc to advocate ‘mission projects’; conditionalities on big business and a social contract between workers and bosses – all for the ‘common good’ economy. Dare I say it, but clever jargon and trendy titles do not make for radical change.
Ann Pettifor in her new book, Global Casino, does not even look for radical change. You see, unregulated global finance is causing the crises we see in the world economy. The global market in money – housed in the offshore ‘shadow’ banking system – holds $217 trillion in financial assets and operates beyond the reach of any nation’s taxman. Asset managers, private equity firms, and pension and sovereign wealth funds scoop up the world’s savings for investment and manage them as they choose, unaccountable to politicians or the citizens who elect them.
But it does not require socialist or very radical measures to sort this out. Pettifor: “societies and governments can take back control of the global financial system. We have done it before and can do it again. Indeed, it is imperative that we do so, if we are to manage the twin threats of climate breakdown and biosphere collapse.” Pettifor reckons that in those halcyon days after the second world war, a global financial order was established with the Bretton Woods agreement to manage ‘global imbalances’ and currency and trade flows as well as regulation of financial excesses and recklessness. But President Nixon blew all this up internationally when he took the dollar off the gold standard in the early 1970s and later government leaders deregulated the financial sector, turning the world economy into a giant casino. This was the reason for the global financial crash in 2008-9 – it has nothing to do with falling profitability of capital or any other rigid Marxist explanation. The answer now is to return to the post-war period of managed trade and financial regulation – simples. But I think not.
What is stopping a return to global regulation being implemented is the current ideology. Pettifor, in an interview on her book: “If you read the Financial Times, people who talk about managing trade are treated as mad Trotskyists. I dare not say it because I don’t want to be branded as a mad Trotskyist, I’m just a very moderate Keynesian, for God’s sake. But even my moderate views are considered extreme in the world of free markets. And how we overcome that ideology is the issue that we face.”
You see Pettifor knows what she is talking about – unlike the rest of us on the left. “What always strikes me about the great financial crisis of 2007–9 was that the Left didn’t know it was coming. I am very proud of having written The Coming First World Debt Crisis (2006), but the rest of the Left didn’t see it coming. People talked about globalization as if it was a given. And then when it blew up, there was no plan B. We didn’t even know it could happen. We were as stupid as the chair of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan. The Left was as stupid as Greenspan, who said he didn’t believe it could happen.” Actually many on the left (at least the Marxist left) did see the financial crash coming (see my paper here). And what is this plan B to replace globalisation and unregulated speculative finance? According to Pettifor, it is restoring proper regulation. But regulation always fails. Indeed, since the Great Recession, there have been several banking crises, despite increased regulation.
Mazzucato offers us capitalism with ‘conditionalities’ for the common good and Pettifor offers us capitalism ‘regulated and managed’. Only one book proposes ending the capitalist mode of production and it is not by a feted academic, but by an Irish Marxist activist. James O-Toole’s Economics for the Exploited is written from a working class point of view. He explains clearly and simply how capitalism works and why it cannot deliver the needs of humanity any more.
O’Toole covers Marx’s law of value and answers its critics clearly (he explains Marx’s law of profitability and even deals with the so-called ‘transformation problem’). He explains the cause of economic crises, inflation and the rise of imperialism. And he outlines the case for a planned economy under common ownership and democratic control as the way forward for humanity and the planet.
“Modern humans have been on Earth for around 300,000 years. Class society is a few thousands years old and capitalism only a few hundred. There’s nothing “natural” about this system. In those few hundred years capitalism has brought us to the point where corporate greed could actually destroy the natural underpinnings of any advanced social order. The clock is ticking. This system isn’t natural. We can live in other ways. We workers produce this system. It’s in our hands. Workers have to take control.”
I have not heard of this woman before but I really enjoyed this video and agreed with much of her analysis and her criticism of the elite liberals and identity politics. She’s spot on regarding the Democratic Party. She also raises the need for a working class political organization as well. It will be interesting to hear what others think.
In relation US her description of the hatred of the liberal class by working people on the one hand definitely has some basis in the support for the right. As she says, US workers know we're exploited, but if that's the case, the open naked exporter is less repulsive than the do gooders whose motives are rooted in the view that they are deserving of their higher social status as they worked hard for it and are smart. Consequently their compassion and caring for the poor and those below them is based on the view their role is to help those of us that are lacking not due to a system that is inherently unfair but due to their failings.
When she talks of care workers that are among the lowest paid of the workforce she stresses the need to organise and to recognise that they have a set of skills rather than just being a carer in the abstract. I recall a few years ago when hotel/motel maids were forming unions or attempting to form a union due to the extreme exploitation of the work but also the constant threats of sexual harassment or violence as they find themselves in the living quarters and bedrooms of many males.
Folks might remember the African hotel worker that was raped by a
Dominique Strauss-Kahn who was the head of the IMF some years ago. The hell she had to go through. I have spoken with housekeeping staff many times and they shared similar stories with me. They liked that I told them I didn’t need the sheets changed and stuff like that so they could get a break and they thanked me but reminded me not to tell the front desk otherwise they would simply give them more work to do.
There is no doubt that Identity politics has been undermined somewhat over the past few years and it’s a step in the right direction. I do not have the writing skills to articulate my objects but they go as far back as intersectionality when I was called a class reductionist by some liberal for my objecting to its origins and application. I have to say, myself and many others are relieved that the pronoun fad has subsided.
Mural commemorating the Battle of Cable Street. Source
The mural depicts the Battle of Cable Street in 1936 where 100,000 anti-fascists, Jews and their allies, blocked members of Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists from marching through London's East End which had a large Jewish community at the time.
Note: the mural and the title is not with the original commentary. R. Mellor
One of the Labour Party's missions (in the Labour Party's present form) is to try to combat the Tories and Reform by using the banner of national pride. The roots of this Labour patriotism shtick go back decades but they tend to surface most when the challenge from the Right is at its strongest. Some of this is also an attack on the Left on the grounds that the Labour Party , they claim, loses votes because it's known that in its ranks there are republicans and/or people who are so keen to not sound jingoistic they are deemed to be nigh on guilty of treason.
One reason I'm thinking about this at the moment may sound obtuse but bear with me. Because I'm Jewish, I'm appealed to by Israel itself and by those who call themselves 'non-apologetic supporters of Israel' to rally to Israel's cause. What underpins this is another form of nationalism. I should see myself as being loyal to Jews - whether that's Jews where I live (UK), and eg US, France and, of course, Israel. A memorable example of this was when the Chief Rabbi spoke to a synagogue congregation in January 2024 and talked proudly of 'our heroic soldiers'. (He was referring to Israel's soldiers.)
More or less since (but not including) the time when the Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel, killing a range of people including British and Jewish people), the Chief Rabbi's position of having two national loyalties, British and Jewish-Israeli, has not been a problem. Britain has backed Israel. Israel has backed Britain. No situation here, we might say, even faintly akin to, say, the split loyalties felt by people with a German background leading up to and including the First and Second World Wars.
But right now, there are problems. Leave aside non- or anti-zionist Jews like me. There are beginning to be problems for people who feel the loyalty-tug to the Jewish entity, whether they see it as a nation, a people, a community or an 'us'. The problem is this. On paper - and thanks to the example in the IHRA code - Jews can keep two potentially conflicting ideas in their heads. One idea is that we Jews outside of Israel cannot be held responsible for the actions of Israel. To say that we are responsible is, the code says, antisemitic. End of. However, sometimes in conflict with this - some would say in contradiction with it - is a loyalty to Israel precisely on account of the fact that Israel is a Jewish state. The people who are right now killing people in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon are either Jews or people acting on the orders of Jews in the military and/or government.
And that last sentence is where the problems are arising. So long as we here look at those planes and armies over there as 'Israeli' there's a bit of distancing going on. But If I say, those planes and soldiers are Jewish (or under orders from a Jewish high command), it starts to feel a bit worrying (not for me, I hasten to add) and 'we' can scurry off to the IHRA code and say, 'Isn't that holding us responsible for the actions of Israel?'
But that's the problem. If the claim is that 'we' are a Jewish nation (inside and outside of Israel) and that we owe this Jewish nation a loyalty at least as equivalent and as strong as the loyalty that I should show to Britain, then these are worrying times. Are liberal Jews really supposed to be loyal to the killing of tens of thousands of children in Gaza, to the daily acts of violence, thuggery and dispossession in the West Bank and to the 'clearances' and killing in Lebanon? Or put another way, when we listen to the speeches of Ben Gvir and Smotrich are we supposed to say, 'He's one of ours' (in the way that my father used to do when he saw a Jewish actor in a play on the TV!).
Maybe it helps to flip this and think of, say, Tommy Robinson, Farage, Boris Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Richard Tice, and with my British hat on, ask myself, do I owe that group of people any loyalty on account of them being, like me, British? I don't think so. And that's the problem (or at least one of the problems) with nationalism. It leaves us with utterly untrustworthy allies, who act against our interests.
Anecdote: Oswald Mosley, antisemite and fascist thought he had a trump card back in the 1930s: warn working class people about 'Jew landlords'. In other words, the Mosleyite problem wasn't landlordism - no matter who the landlords were - it was 'Jew landlords'. The appeal here was (incredibly) that non-Jewish tenants would much prefer to have a bad landlord if they were non-Jews than if they were Jews! What was the response from the Jewish left in the East End to this? To organise community-wide rent strikes. This brought together non-Jewish and Jewish tenants in opposition to landlords no matter what their background was. It cut through two 'national' appeals at the same time - the appeal to 'patriotic non-Jews' to fight against Jewish landlords, and a possible or potential appeal to Jews to defend Jewish landlords purely on account of them being Jewish! The issue was slum landlordism no matter who was the landlord and who was the tenant.
In an ideal world, this is where we could be or should be in relation to Israel (and its protector and backer, the US). What we oppose is the mass killing, the land grabbing, the clearances being carried out to further one (or is two, now) forms of imperialism - US and the local imperialism of Israel. I know and see that many of the people in Israel enacting this have a similar cultural and national background to me (Jews who formerly lived in Eastern Europe (so-called Ashkenazim or Ashkenazi Jews) but, I ask myself, I can't owe them loyalty purely because my great-grandparents came from the same place as their great-grandparents and that those great-grandparents said the same prayers, observed the same holidays and festivals, went to the same places of worship. What's going on right now (no matter how we interpret the past) is state-run criminality. That surely supersedes and overcomes any cultural or allegedly national loyalty.
Subscribed
