• We are all punished for one thing — for taking a civic stance.

• The headline over the story didn’t mince words: “Here are the people Trump doesn’t want to exist.” 

   

• Identified from a database obtained by the Associated Press, the targeted subjects included Brooklyn Dodgers baseball star Jackie Robinson, pictured during his Army service before becoming the first Black to reach the major leagues in 1947; the Tuskegee Airmen, who were the nation’s first Black military pilots during World War II; and the Navajo Code Talkers, a Native American Marine Corps unit who used their tribal language on the radio for top-secret communications during the war against Japan. Other banned photos showed women who broke significant gender barriers like Major Lisa Jaster, the first woman to graduate from the Army’s Ranger School, and Colonel Jeannie Leavitt, the Air Force’s first female fighter pilot.

   

• Also deleted were multiple pictures of the Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber (named for the pilot’s mother) that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. That was thanks to an artificial intelligence technique in which computers searched government websites for a list of keywords indicating possibly unacceptable content and inserted “DEI” into the web addresses where any of those words were found, flagging them for removal. For obvious reasons, “gay” was on the banned-word list and, with no human eyes to spot the context, the Enola Gay photos were excised. Some of those photos were fairly quickly reposted, along with other images whose removal had drawn criticism — photographs of the Code Talkers, for example. But thousands of photos were kept offline, making it clear that the basic goal of that purge, the intent to revise history and erase truths and realities that the Trumpists believe challenge their ideology, remains unchanged.

   

• Only weeks earlier, hundreds of millions of Chinese and other readers around the world had seen photographs in the Chinese communist newspaper, the People’s Daily, and other official media showing all four sitting in the front row of mourners at Mao’s funeral. After they were arrested, Chinese publications continued to carry those photos — but with Jiang and her three allies, now labeled the “Gang of Four,” airbrushed out. The editing was anything but subtle: blurred smudges or blank spots appeared where they had been in the originals, while their names in the captions were blotted out by vertical rows of X’s.

   
• Both intended to wipe out any evidence that conflicted with the preferred (and often wildly false) historical narratives propagated by their rulers. Both sought to obliterate visual records that might have raised uncomfortable questions about the political messaging of their leaders and the policies and underlying values they reflected. Both were entirely ready and willing to disregard truth and deny reality in order to protect falsehoods their bosses wanted people to believe.

• Svetlana looked at me in surprise. “I’ve never seen a photograph of Trotsky!” she said. I was startled — and puzzled. If Stalin’s other high-ranking victims had indeed been officially rehabilitated and their images restored to public view, why, I wondered, was Trotsky still a non-person? 

   

4 more annotations...

• Even putative rivals of the Islamic Republic, like Saudi Arabia, have temporarily cast aside their tensions with Iran, and have (at least publicly) condemned the US-led attacks on Iranian sovereignty, calling instead for de-escalation.
• With one exception, that is: much of the Syrian public has been outright ambivalent about Iran’s latest woes

• Interim Syrian president Ahmad al-Sharaa has been conspicuously silent about the broader conflict between Israel and Iran, even before America formally intervened. This is perhaps understandable, given that his state was demilitarized overnight by Israel immediately after the fall of the Assad regime in December. Being unable at present to protect Syrian sovereignty from increasing Israeli incursions, the transitional Syrian government is in no position to flex diplomatic muscle against its neighbor’s turf wars with Iran.

   

• But the position of the transitional government aside, a flood of Syrian commentators on social media have been demonstrably not on Iran’s side in light of these latest aggressions.

   

• Many are on the fence, while some have gone as far as to cheer Iran getting a bloody nose. As one commentator put it, Iran is now getting its just comeuppance for its destruction of Syria.

   

• To be clear, Syrian ire at the Islamic Republic of Iran is wholly legitimate and warranted. Iran played a devastating role in providing military and economic support to the Assad regime. Deliberately weaponizing the Shia sect of Islam, Iran sent foreign Shia fighters from all over the world as cannon fodder for the Assad regime. This policy included the neighboring Lebanese Shia armed group Hezbollah, but also included fighters from venues such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, which have no palpable stake in Syrian affairs.

   

• These Shia militias did not merely offer military support: they engaged in sectarian reengineering, deliberately undermining Syria’s pluralistic religious landscape. The Syrian Sunni town of Al-Qusayr is a case in point; following its ethnic cleansing by Hezbollah forces, the town was repopulated with foreign (primarily Iranian) Shia, exacerbating hitherto nonexistent sectarian tensions.

   

• It is unsurprising, then, that while the Israeli assassination of Hassan Nasrallah last year was met with anger and sorrow by much of the region, Syrians in Idlib cheered his passing.

   

• Nader Hashemi, an Iran expert at Georgetown University, puts it in starker terms. “The people of Syria have suffered the most from the regional intervention of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he says. “But anyone who cheers on the Trump-Netanyahu war machine against Iran must recognize that Syria could just as easily be next.”

   

7 more annotations...

• Gilbert Achcar
• it is worth asking what is driving neofascist movements to question, to varying degrees, the reality of climate change, or at least its connection to human behaviour. We have previously noted that “Neofascism is pushing the world towards the abyss with the blatant hostility of most of its factions to indispensable environmental measures, thus exacerbating the environmental peril, especially when neofascism has taken over the reins of power over the most polluting people in the world proportionally to its number, namely the people of the United States.” (“The Age of Neofascism and Its Distinctive Features”, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, 4 February 2025).
• Researchers have identified three main factors that explain this pattern. One relates to the far right’s traditional ideological arsenal, while the other two relate to the two class poles that determine neofascist behaviour: the broad social base and the narrow economic elite, whose support they seek to garner.

• The first factor is based on ultranationalism, which is often reflected in “sovereigntist” and “isolationist” policies that reject any international agreements limiting the freedom of the nation-state to determine its economic and other policies. This behaviour reaches its most absurd level when it comes from the country with the greatest influence in shaping international agreements and policies, namely the United States. We have seen how Donald Trump justified Washington’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords, as if they stemmed from some collusion of the rest of the world to limit America’s freedom to develop its economy, particularly in exploiting its natural resources of fossil fuels, i.e. coal, oil, and gas. The neofascist rejection of international environmental agreements thus falls within a comprehensive rejection of any rules that, from the ultranationalist perspective, limit national sovereignty.

• The second factor consists in tickling the feelings of the social base whose electoral support neofascists seek to gain. They exploit the discontent of some lower-income categories with the lifestyle changes and cost required in fighting climate change. This discontent is certainly magnified when neoliberal governments seek to make categories with modest incomes bear the cost of the fight, rather than imposing this cost on big capital, the primary culprit behind environmentally harmful pollution. A striking example of such an endeavour is the additional tax that French President Emmanuel Macron’s government attempted to impose in 2018 on vehicle fuel, a measure that would have mostly impacted the lower categories of car users. This attempt sparked one of the largest waves of popular protest in France this century, known as the Yellow Vests movement. One of the movement’s demands against the government was to impose a tax on the largest fortunes, rather than an additional burden on a large segment of the population.

• Today, however, with the labour movement significantly weakened by the neoliberal onslaught and technological change, big capital’s motivation for colluding with neofascist movements is not defensive, but offensive. We are faced with a type of big capital that seeks to shield its monopolistic growth at the expense of small and medium capital. To do so, it needs to get rid of the restrictions previously imposed to limit monopolies, inspired by an economic liberalism committed to preserving competition as the primary driver of capitalist development. From this perspective, environmental policies are seen as restrictions imposed on the freedom of capital, a freedom involving an intrinsic contradiction, as complete, unrestricted freedom inevitably leads to the emergence of monopolies that undermine that same freedom.
• and is also known to be the political godfather of Vice President J.D. Vance, the quasi-official spokesperson of neofascist ideology in the Trump administration. Thiel shamelessly declares his preference for monopolies, arguing that they allow for unfettered technological progress through unlimited enrichment, while opposing environmental policies on the grounds that they limit international competition! He shares this view with holders of US monopolies in advanced technologies and their applications in commerce and social media, who supported Trump’s recent campaign and are betting on him to combat the restrictions and taxes that European governments seek to impose on them. Trump has placed this task at the top of his agenda in the trade war that he has declared against the rest of the world

5 more annotations...

• At the conclusion of the10th Quad Foreign Ministers in Washington
• which has been widely reported in the Indian print and electronic media as the reaffirmation India’s status as a strategic partner of the US led west to check the growing influence of China in the Indo-Pacific region. The statement on Pahalgam has been highlighted as the coming of age of Indian diplomacy. Reportage on the 10^th meeting of Quad foreign ministers is, however, silent on the unique geopolitical context of the meeting; that the Quad meeting was held in the backdrop of increasing pressure on India, both by Russia and USA to firm up its relation with their respective block. The joint statement gives the first decisive indication of India preferring the Western alliance over the Russia proposed Russia-India-China troika.

• The pressure on India from the rival block gathered momentum since Russian army entered Ukraine on 24 February 2022, it reached a crescendo in 2025. In June 2025, US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said that certain Indian policies rubbed US the wrong way. “For instance, you generally buy your military gear from Russia. That’s a way to kind of get under the skin of America… Being a part of BRICS, which is, oh, let’s move to not support the dollar and dollar hegemony — that’s not really the way to make friends and influence people in America.” In contrast Russia was insisting on Indian participation in Russia-India-China troika and critiqued the western policies, including Quad, as an attempt to drive a wedge in this troika. Sergey Lavrov stated during a summit,”What is happening right now in Asia-Pacific region, the West has begun to call it the Indo-Pacific region in order to give its policy a clear anti-Chinese direction. Hoping to thereby additionally gain the opportunity to pit the great friends and neighbors India and China against each other.” He further added, “Recently, President (Vladimir) Putin said it’s simply a divide and rule policy.”

      
• External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has repeatedly stated Indian opposition on de-dollarization and a common BRICS currency. In this light Indian signature on a statement criticizing North Korea and its allies underscores Indian preference for western alliance on significant economic and political concerns

• Paragraph on N Korea states, “We condemn North Korea’s destabilizing launches using ballistic missile technology and its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs). We reaffirm our commitment to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula consistent with relevant UNSCRs, and we urge North Korea to abide by all its obligations under the UNSCRs. We also express grave concern over North Korea’s malicious cyber activity, including cryptocurrency theft and use of workers abroad to fund North Korea’s unlawful weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.” India has consistently criticised Korean nuclear programme as it is beyond the oversight of IAEA, yet it has never become a party to the US led effort to diplomatically isolate North Korea. In spite of its reservations on North Korean nuclear programme India and North Korea have had a full diplomatic relationship stretching over half a century. Both the countries are members of NAM. They have embassies in Delhi and Pyongyang. The two countries have had science and technology co-operation agreements. North Korean diplomats have attended courses for foreign diplomats in Delhi. India has sent food supplies to Pyongyang and North Korea donated $30,000 when the tsunami struck India in 2004. In the aftermath of North Korean nuclear test in September 2017, India resisted the pressure by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to diplomatically isolate North Korea by withdrawing staff from Indian embassy. This is a far cry from the current identification of Indian foreign policy to the American interest of bolstering its allies South Korea and Japan, who are in conflict with North Korea.

      

• Identification with American diplomatic goals reacts on the Russia proposed Russia-India-China troika. The paragraph on North Korea also targets its allies, stating, “We urge all UN Member States to abide by their international obligations under the UNSCRs to implement sanctions, including the prohibition on the transfer to North Korea or procurement from North Korea of all arms and related materiel. We express deep concern about countries that are deepening military cooperation with North Korea…” This is an obvious reference to China and Russia. That China has been the principal benefactor of North Korea is well known and need not detain us here. Importantly, economic and military alliance between North Korea and Russia have been witnessing a significant upswing. The warming of ties can be traced back to 1996 under President Boris Yeltsin. However, Ukraine conflict boosted their political and military alliance. Media has been rife on supply of missiles, artillery shells and troops to aid Russian military operations in Ukraine. However, US led collective west is most concerned at what North Korea will get in return. It is being speculated that North Korea may acquire military technology, ranging from surveillance satellites to submarines, plus possible security guarantees from Moscow. This concern is singled out for criticism in the joint statement of Quad. Evidently, India has forsaken its ‘strategic neutrality’ on North Korea and its allies (esp., Russia), that it cherished as recently as the Ukraine crisis and purchase of Russian oil despite sanctions.

      
• Indo-Chinese land dispute along the LAC has not been mentioned. Nor is increased Chinese presence in Indian Ocean, Bay of Bengal and the Arabian sea that has led to security concerns in India.
• The joint statement criticises the imposition on control of exports on processed REE, stating, “We are deeply concerned about the abrupt constriction and future reliability of key supply chains, specifically for critical minerals. This includes the use of non-market policies and practices for critical minerals, certain derivative products, and mineral processing technology.” It seeks to remedy it by, “We underscore the importance of diversified and reliable global supply chains… We are launching today the Quad Critical Minerals Initiative, an ambitious expansion of our partnership to strengthen economic security and collective resilience by collaborating to secure and diversify critical minerals supply chains.” The statement is woefully short on details.
• However, its sole REE processing facility, Vietnam Rare Earth JSC has been closed since 2024. This has given a near monopoly to China over global supplies of REE. China mines 60% of world’s REE and processes almost 90% of the REE. Chinese advantage in processing is a result of technological developments in electrokinetic mining which revolutionized both the extraction and processing of REE. This technology achieves almost 95% recovery of REE, while reducing mining time by 70% and electricity by 60%. Chinese dominance is a result of these cost cutting innovations which has enabled them to lower the price of REE and outcompeting other producers. Out competing China will, therefore, require much more than ensuring diversified supply chains. The joint statement, however, spells nothing on the technological aspects of processing of REE. Evidently, it will require years of investments in improving mining and processing technologies to catch up with China, thus questioning the wisdom of signing this statement even as India and China are involved in trade negotiations
• In sum by signing on this joint statement India has sacrificed much more by diluting its ‘strategic neutrality’ while gaining nothing tangible in return. By identifying with the US led global west, India faces the possibility of isolation in the global south.

8 more annotations...