Report on the Negro Question:

Report on the Negro Question:

Speech to the 4th Congress of the Comintern, Nov. 1922.

by Claude McKay

Published in International Press Correspondence, v. 3 (Jan. 5, 1923), pp. 16-17.

Comrade McKay: Comrades, I feel that I

would rather face a lynching stake in civilized

America than try to make a speech before the most

intellectual and critical audience in the world. I

belong to a race of creators but my public speaking

has been so bad that I have been told by my

own people that I should never try to make

speeches, but stick to writing, and laughing. However,

when I heard the Negro question was going

to be brought up on the floor

of the Congress, I felt it

would be an eternal shame if

I did not say something on

behalf of the members of my

race. Especially would I be a

disgrace to the American

Negroes because, since I

published a notorious poem

in 1919 [“If We Must Die”],

I have been pushed forward

as one of the spokesmen of

Negro radicalism in America

to the detriment of my poetical

temperament. I feel

that my race is honored by this invitation to one

of its members to speak at this Fourth Congress of

the Third International. My race on this occasion

is honored, not because it is different from the

white race and the yellow race, but [because it] is

especially a race of toilers, hewers of wood and

drawers of water, that belongs to the most oppressed,

exploited, and suppressed section of the

working class of the world. The Third International

stands for the emancipation of all the workers of

the world, regardless of race or color, and this stand

of the Third International is not merely on paper

like the Fifteenth Amendment of the Constitution

of the United States of America. It is a real

thing.

The Negro race in the economic life of the

world today occupies a very peculiar position. In

every country where the Whites and Blacks must

work together the capitalists have set the one

against the other. It would seem at the present day

that the international bourgeoisie would use the

Negro race as their trump card in their fight against

the world revolution. Great Britain has her Negro

regiments in the colonies and she has demonstrated

what she can do with her Negro soldiers by the

use that she made of them during the late War.

The revolution in England is very far away be-

cause of the highly organized exploitation of the

subject peoples of the British Empire. In Europe,

we find that France had a Negro army of over

300,000 and that to carry out their policy of imperial

domination in Europe the French are going

to use their Negro minions.

In America we have the same situation. The

Northern bourgeoisie knows how well the Negro

soldiers fought for their own emancipation, although

illiterate and untrained, during the Civil

War. They also remember how well the Negro soldiers

fought in the Spanish-American War under

Theodore Roosevelt. They know that in the last

war over 400,000 Negroes who were mobilized

gave a very good account of themselves, and that,

besides fighting for the capitalists, they also put

up a very good fight for themselves on returning

to America when they fought the white mobs in

Chicago, St. Louis and Washington.

But more than the fact that the American

capitalists are using Negro soldiers in their fight

against the interests of labor is the fact that the

American capitalists are setting out to mobilize the

entire black race of America for the purpose of

fighting organized labor. The situation in America

today is terrible and fraught with grave dangers. It

is much uglier and more terrible than was the condition

of the peasants and Jews of Russia under

the Tsar. It is so ugly and terrible that very few

people in America are willing to face it. The reformist

bourgeoisie have been carrying on the

battle against discrimination and racial prejudice

in America. The Socialists and Communists have

fought very shy of it because there is a great element

of prejudice among the Socialists and Communists

of America. They are not willing to face

the Negro question. In associating with the comrades

of America I have found demonstrations of

prejudice on the various occasions when the White

and Black comrades had to get together: and this

is the greatest difficulty that the Communists of

America have got to overcome-the fact that they

first have got to emancipate themselves from the

ideas they entertain towards the Negroes before

they can be able to reach the Negroes with any

kind of radical propaganda. However, regarding

the Negroes themselves, I feel that as the subject

races of other nations have come to Moscow to

learn how to fight against their exploiters, the

Negroes will also come to Moscow. In 1918 when

the Third International published its Manifesto

and included the part referring to the exploited

colonies, there were several groups of Negro radicals

in America that sent this propaganda out

among their people. When in 1920 the American

government started to investigate and to suppress

radical propaganda among the Negroes, the small

radical groups in America retaliated by publishing

the fact that the Socialists stood for the emancipation

of the Negroes, and that reformist America

could do nothing for them. Then, I think, for the

first time in American history, the American Negroes

found that Karl Marx had been interested in

their emancipation and had fought valiantly for

it. I shall just read this extract that was taken from

Karl Marx’s writing at the time of the Civil War:

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slave holders for

the first time in the annals of the world, dared to

inscribe “Slavery” on the banner of armed revolt, on

the very spot where hardly a century ago, the idea of

one great democratic republic had first sprung up,

whence the first declaration of the Rights of Man was

issued, and the first impulse given to the European

revolution of the eighteenth- century, when on that

spot the counter-revolution cynically proclaimed

property in man to be “the cornerstone of the new

edifice” — then the working class of Europe

understood at once that the slaveholders’ rebellion

was to sound the tocsin for a general holy war of

property against labor, and that (its) hopes of the

future, even its past conquests were at stake in that

tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic.

Karl Marx who drafted the above resolution

is generally known as the father of Scientific Socialism

and also of the epoch-making volume

popularly known as the socialist bible, Capital.

During the Civil War he was correspondent of the

New York Tribune. In the company of Richard

McKay: Speech to the 4th Congress of the Communist International 3

Published by 1000 Flowers Publishing, Corvallis, OR, 2005. • Free reproduction permitted.

http://www.marxists.org/subject/usa/eam/index.html

Transcribed by William Maxwell for the Modern American Poetry website.

PDF version published here by permission.

For further information on Claude McKay and his role, see Dr. Maxwell’s book,

New Negro, Old Left: African-American Writing and Communism between the Wars.

(New York: Columbia University Press, 1999).

Cobden, Charles Bradlaugh, the atheist, and John

Bright, he toured England making speeches and

so roused up the sentiment of the workers of that

country against the Confederacy that Lord

Palmerston, [the] Prime Minister, who was about

to recognize the South, had to desist.

As Marx fought against chattel slavery in

1861, so are present-day socialists, his intellectual

descendants, fighting wage slavery.

If the Workers Party in America were really a

Workers Party that included Negroes it would, for

instance, in the South, have to be illegal, and I

would inform the American Comrades that there

is a branch of the Workers Party in the South, in

Richmond, Virginia, that is illegal — illegal because

it includes colored members. There we have

a very small group of white and colored comrades

working together, and the fact that they have laws

in Virginia and most of the Southern states discriminating

against whites and blacks assembling

together means that the Workers Party in the South

must be illegal. To get round these laws of Virginia,

the comrades have to meet separately, according

to color, and about once a month they

assemble behind closed doors.

This is just an indication of the work that

will have to be done in the South. The work among

the Negroes of the South will have to be carried

on by some legal propaganda organized in the

North, because we find at the present time in

America that the situation in the Southern States

(where nine million out of ten million of the Negro

population live), is that even the liberal bourgeoisie

and the petty bourgeoisie among the Negroes

cannot get their own papers of a reformist

propaganda type into the South on account of the

laws that there discriminate against them. The fact

is that it is really only in the Southern States that

there is any real suppression of opinion. No suppression

of opinion exists in the Northern states

in the way it exists in the S outh. In the Northern

states special laws are made for special occasionsas

those against Communists and Socialists during

the War — but in the South we find laws that

have existed for fifty years, under which the Negroes

cannot meet to talk about their grievances.

The white people who are interested in their cause

cannot go and speak to them. If we send white

comrades into the South they are generally ordered

out by the Southern oligarchy and if they do not

leave they are generally whipped, tarred and feathered;

and if we send black comrades into the South

they generally won’t be able to get out again —

they will be lynched and burned at the stake.

I hope that as a symbol that the Negroes of

the world will not be used by the international

bourgeoisie in the final conflicts against the World

Revolution, that as a challenge to the international

bourgeoisie, who have an understanding of the

Negro question, we shall soon see a few Negro

soldiers in the finest, bravest, and cleanest fighting

forces in the world — the Red Army and Navy

of Russia — fighting not only for their own emancipation,

but also for the emancipation of all the

working class of the whole world

 

DPRK will Land On the Sun In 2028 (Joke)
| September 24, 2017 | 8:23 pm | Donald Trump, DPRK, humor | No comments

The DPRK announced that they plan to land on the sun in 2028. This means that North Korea plants to land on the sun in 10 years.

Kim Jong-un was asked about this projected accomplishment. The interviewer asked him how they were going to accomplish this since the sun is so hot.

After thinking for a moment, Kim Jong-un replied that they would land at night.

His supporters responded with thunderous applause.

Donald Trump was asked about the projected accomplishment of Kim Jong un. He replied “That idiot! Everyone knows that there is no sun at night!”

His supporters responded with thunderous applause.

 

Image result for kim jong un

Michael Parenti on Bernie Sanders
| September 24, 2017 | 4:24 pm | Bernie Sanders, Michael Parenti | No comments

Washington won’t strike N. Korea as it knows Pyongyang has nukes – Lavrov
| September 24, 2017 | 3:44 pm | Analysis, DPRK | No comments

https://www.rt.com/news/404366-lavrov-washington-korea-nuclear/

Washington won’t strike N. Korea as it knows Pyongyang has nukes – Lavrov
The US will not strike North Korea because they not only suspect that Pyongyang possesses nuclear weapons, but know it for sure, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in a TV interview on Sunday.

“Americans won’t strike [North] Korea, because not only do they suspect, but know for sure that Pyongyang has nuclear weapons,” Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with NTV channel.

“Regarding this issue, President [Vladimir] Putin has repeatedly said it was impossible to imagine that the US or someone else has 100 percent information on all of the [nuclear] objects,” he added, as cited by TASS.

“I’m not defending North Korea, I’m just saying that virtually everybody agrees with such analysis,” said the minister, adding that if the US hasn’t considered this assessment yet, then “the situation could spiral out of control, so that thousands, dozens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands innocent people will suffer in South Korea, as well as in the North, certainly in Japan, with Russia and China nearby too,” Lavrov noted.

Lavrov said that most of the people he has spoken to on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session, underway in New York, agree with this logic.

READ MORE: US flew B-1B bombers just off coast of North Korea (PHOTOS)

“The US carried out strikes on Iraq solely because they were 100 percent sure there were no weapons of mass destruction,” Lavrov said, adding that a UN commission had worked there, visiting all the sites in which they were interested in “a quite intrusive way.”

When the commission in Iraq reported that Baghdad had not fulfilled all the demands, “those who took the decision to attack Iraq knew perfectly well that the conclusion was a lie,” Lavrov said.

The foreign minister reprimanded those in charge of the UN inspection, particularly mentioning “one Australian official.” Lavrov was apparently referring to UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) Chairman Richard Butler, who concluded that Iraq failed to cooperate on inspections, thus giving the green light for the US and Britain to launch military campaign ‘Operation Desert Fox.’

Earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that pressuring North Korea with sanctions and military threats is “senseless” and “a dead end.”

“They [North Koreans] will eat grass but will not stop their program as long as they do not feel safe,” and remember the fates of Iraq and Libya, he said.

Moscow and Beijing have suggested a ‘double-freeze’ initiative to cool down the Korean crisis, which would involve the North ceasing nuclear tests and missile launches in exchange for the US and South Korea halting joint military drills in the region. However, Washington opposes the plan, saying it is “allowed” to conduct exercises with its allies and “that’s just not going to change.”

North Korea is US stage-managed geopolitical theater to counter China – analyst
| September 24, 2017 | 3:40 pm | China, Donald Trump, DPRK | 1 Comment

https://www.rt.com/news/404386-north-korea-geopolitical-theater-china/

North Korea is US stage-managed geopolitical theater to counter China - analyst
The whole Pacific Rim agenda is predicated on poor relations with North Korea and being on a war footing. The only reason the US is there is to counter China, while North Korea is just theater, geopolitical analyst Patrick Henningsen says.

The US flew B-1B Lancer bombers, escorted by F-15 fighters, off North Korea’s east coast. However, the aircraft remained in international airspace.

In a statement, the Pentagon said the mission was designed to demonstrate “US resolve and [sends] a clear message that the President has many military options to defeat any threat.”

RT discussed this situation with geopolitical analyst and founder of the news website 21st Century Wire Patrick Henningsen.

RT: What message is Washington sending with this bomber deployment?

Patrick Henningsen: They are sending a message of aggression and war. It is certainly the message that Trump’s base, some of them anyway, want to hear. It is the message that the military-industrial complex in the US – all the defense contractors – they want to hear this, it is John McCain’s message, it is James Mattis’ message. This is the message of neoconservative war hawks. That is basically who he is talking to.

In terms of diplomacy, it is completely counterproductive. In terms of China relations, it is very poor form. In terms of military strategy, it is worthless, it is nothing. The other thing is, Obama would have done the same thing. In fact, Obama did exactly the same thing in September, 2016 – he flew a B-1 bomber over South Korea not very far at all, technically from where this was flown today. Of course, it didn’t get any media coverage at the time. But this is just basic US behavior, a government that is dominated by the Pentagon, by the defense industry, by these interests.

RT: Is it a sensible move given how high tensions are at the moment?

PH: The US is the problem in this. South Korea and North Korea have tried different times to initiate some kind of meaningful peace process. And almost at every turn, the US will intervene in one way or another to try to break up that sort of bilateral negotiations between the North and the South. The US has a demilitarized zone between North and South Korea with 30,000 troops and military contractors and civilian personnel based there. They have a base in Okinawa, they have a base in Japan, they have a base in Guam, they have a few bases on the Philippines. From the Korean point of view, the problem is the US. I am sure North and South Korea could eventually work this out to have a peace treaty. But that is not what is happening now. The US is intervening for one simple fact: because the whole Pacific Rim agenda is predicated on poor relations with North Korea and war footing. Otherwise, the US would have no business in the Pacific and the only reason they are there is to counter China. So, North Korea is just theater. This is stage-managed geopolitical theater. It is very dangerous what the US is doing right now, what this president is doing right now, pushing the envelope in a very negative way.

RT: How might Pyongyang react to a provocation like this?

PH: If you listen to the words of Donald Trump at the UNGA, wouldn’t you want a nuclear deterrent as well? He is threatening to destroy a country with 25 million people that live there. And it is an idiotic statement by the US president for the simple reason, if you nuked North Korea, you would also create huge nuclear contamination that would kill so many people in the South. It would make huge areas uninhabitable and parts of China. It is not going to happen. Everyone knows the US is not going to nuke North Korea. What you have here is an exact identical replay of the US relations with Cuba. The US government, though its ridiculous policies and rhetoric, threatening, sanctions and embargos, kept Fidel Castro in power for so many odd years. They are doing exactly the same thing. This is like a replay of Cuba. The US made Fidel Castro who he was, made the conditions that kept him in power. The US government is doing the exact same thing here with North Korea; it is like a replay of history. It doesn’t make sense on so many levels, but this is sort of business as usual for Washington and unfortunately, history will not be on the side of the US in this, because at some point, it has to end. They’ve been there 70 years. They’ve carved out a strip between North Korea and South Korea, which is basically a giant dollar sink for US dollars, for the military-industrial complex. There is no reason for the US to be there and there is no reason for North and South Korea to be pointing guns at each other. The only reason they are is because of the US.

It’s all about money at the end of the day. It’s about a defense budget that has been increased 20 percent to 700 billion dollars; the increase percentage alone is more than the entire annual Russian defense budget… this is about money, this is about profit.

Update on Greek Debt Crises–Why Syriza Continues to Lose
| September 24, 2017 | 3:36 pm | Greece, Jack Rasmus, Syriza | No comments

Update on Greek Debt Crises–Why Syriza Continues to Lose

Update on Greek Debt Crises–Why Syriza Continues to Lose

This past August marked the second anniversary of the Greek debt crisis and the third major piling on of debt on Greece in August 2015 by the Eurozone ‘Troika’ of European Commission, European Central Bank, and the IMF. That 2015 third debt deal added $86 billion to the previous $230 billion imposed on Greece—all to be paid by various austerity measures squeezing Greek workers, taxpayers, retirees, and small businesses demanded by the Troika and their northern Euro bankers sitting behind it.

Studies by German academic institutions showed that more than 95% of the debt repayments by Greece to the Troika have ended up in Euro bankers’ hands.

But the third debt deal of August 2015, which extends another year to August 2018, was not the end. Every time a major multi-billion dollar interest payment from Greece was due to the Troika and their bankers, still more austerity was piled on the $83 billion August 2015 deal. The Troika forced Greece to introduce even more austerity in the summer of 2016, and again still more this past summer 2017, to pay for the deal.

Last month, August 2017, Syriza and its ‘rump’ leadership—-most of its militant elements were purged by Syriza’s leader, Alex Tsipras, following the August 2015 debt deal—-hailed as some kind of significant achievement that the private banks and markets were now willing to directly lend money to Greece once again. Instead of borrowing still more from the Troika—-i.e. the bankers representatives—-Greece now was able once again to borrow and owe still more to the private bankers instead. In other words, to pile on more private debt instead of Troika debt. To impose even more austerity in order to directly pay bankers, instead of indirectly pay their Troika friends. What an achievement!

Greece’s 2012 second debt deal borrowed $154 billion from the Troika, which Greece then had to pay, according to the debt terms, to the private bankers, hedge funds and speculators’ which had accumulated over preceding years and the first debt crisis of 2010. So the Troika simply fronted for the bankers and speculators in the 2nd and 3rd debt deals. Greece paid the Troika and it paid the bankers. But now, as of 2017, Syriza and Greece can indebt themselves once again directly to the bankers by borrowing from them in public markets. As the French say, everything changes but nothing changes!

What the Greek debt deals of 2010-2015, and the never-ending austerity, show is that supra-state institutions like the Troika function as debt collectors for the bankers and shadow bankers when the latter cannot successfully collect their debt payments on their own. This is the essence of the new, 21st century form of financial imperialism. New, emerging Supra-State institutions prefer weaker national governments to indebt themselves directly to the banks and squeeze their own populace with Austerity whenever they can to make the payments. The Supra-State may not be involved. But it will step in if necessary to play debt collector if and when popular governments get control of their governments and balk at onerous debt repayments. And in free trade currency zones and banking unions, like the Eurozone, that Supra-State role is becoming increasingly institutionalized and regularized. And as it does, forms of democracy in the associated weaker nation states become increasingly atrophied and eventually disappear.

Syriza came to power in January 2015 as one of those popularly elected governments intent on adjusting the terms of debt repayment. But after a tragic, comedy of errors negotiation effort, capitulated totally to the Troika’s negotiators after only seven months.

The capitulation by Syriza’s leader, Alex Tsipras, in July 2015 was doubly tragic in that he had just put to a vote to the Greek people a week beforehand whether to reject the Troika’s deal and its deeper austerity demands. And the Greek popular vote called for a rejection of the Troika’s terms and demands. But Tsipras and Syriza rejected their own supporters, not the Troika, and capitulated totally to the Troika’s terms.

The August 2015 3rd debt deal quickly thereafter signed by Syriza-Tsipras was so onerous—-and the Tsipras-Syriza treachery so odious—-that it left opposition and popular resistance temporarily immobilized. That of course was the Troika’s strategic objective. Together with Tsipras they then pushed through their $83 billion deal, while Tsipras simultaneously purged his own Syriza party to rid it of elements refusing to accept the deal. Polls showed at that time, in August-September 2015, that 70% of the Greek people opposed the deal and considered it even worse than the former two debt agreements of 2010 and 2012. Other polls showed 79% rejected Tsipras himself.

To remain in power, Tsipras immediately called new Parliamentary elections, blocking with the pro-Troika parties and against former Syriza dissidents, in order to push through the Troika’s $83 billion deal. This week, September 20, 2017 also marks the two year anniversary of that purge and election that solidified Troika and Euro banker control over the Syriza party—-a party that once dared to challenge it and the Eurozone’s neoliberal Supra-State regime.

The meteoric rise, capitulation, collapse, and aftermath ‘right-shift’ of Syriza raises fundamental questions and lessons still today. It raises questions about strategies of governments that make a social-democratic turn in response to popular uprisings, and then attempt to confront more powerful neoliberal capitalist regimes that retain control of their currencies, their banking systems, and their budgets–such as in the case of Greece. Even in the advanced capitalist economies, the message is smaller states beware of the integration within the larger capitalist states and economies–whether by free trade, central banking integration, budget consolidations, or common currencies. Democracy will soon become the victim in turn.

The following is an excerpt from the concluding chapter of this writer’s October 2016 book, ‘Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges’, Clarity Press, which questioned strategies that attempted to resurrect 20th century forms of social-democracy in the 21st century world of supra-State neoliberal regimes. It summarizes Syriza’s ‘fundamental error’—a naïve belief that elements of European social democracy would rally around it and together they—i.e. resurgent social democracy and Syriza Greece—would successfully outmaneuver the German-banker-Troika dominated Euro neoliberal regime that solidified its power with the 1999 Euro currency reforms.

Syriza and Tsipras continue to employ the same error, it appears, hoping to be rescued by other Euro regime leaders instead of relying on the Greek people. Tsipras-Syriza recently invited the new banker-president of France, Emmanuel Macron, who this past month visited Athens. Their meeting suggests Tsipras and the rump Syriza still don’t understand why they were so thoroughly defeated by the Troika in 2015, and have been consistently pushed even further into austerity and retreat over the past two years.

But perhaps it no longer matters. Polls show Tsipras and the rump Syriza trailing their political opponents by more than two to one in elections set to occur in 2018.

EXCERPT from ‘Looting Greece’, Chapter 10, ‘Why the Troika Prevailed’.

Syriza’s Fundamental Error

To have succeeded in negotiations with the Troika, Syriza would have had to achieve one or more of the following— expand the space for fiscal spending on its domestic economy, end the dominance and control of the ECB by the German coalition, restore Greece’s central bank independence from the ECB, or end the control of its own Greek private banking system from northern Europe core banks. None of these objectives could have been achieved by Syriza alone. Syriza’s grand error, however, was to think that it could rally the remnants of European social democracy to its side and support and together have achieved these goals—especially the expanding of space for domestic fiscal investment. It was Syriza’s fundamental strategic miscalculation to think it could rally this support and thereby create an effective counter to the German coalition’s dominant influence within the Troika.

Syriza went into the fight with the Troika with a Greek central bank that was the appendage, even agent, of the ECB in Greece, and with a private banking system in Greece that was primarily an extension of Euro banks outside Greece. Syriza struggled to create some space for fiscal stimulus within the Troika imposed debt deal, but it was thoroughly rebuffed by the Troika in that effort. It sought to launch a new policy throughout the Eurozone targeting fiscal investment, from which it might benefit as well. But just as the ECB was thwarted by German-core northern Euro alliance countries, the German coalition also successfully prevented efforts to promote fiscal stimulus by the EC as well. The Troika-German coalition had been, and continues to be, successful in preventing even much stronger members states in France and Italy from exceeding Eurozone fiscal stimulus rules. The dominant Troika German faction was not about to let Greece prevail and restore fiscal stimulus, therefore, when France and Italy were not. Greece was not only blocked from launching a Euro-wide fiscal investment spending policy; it was forced to introduce ‘reverse fiscal spending’ in the form of austerity.

Syriza’s insistence on remaining in the Euro system meant Grexit was never an option. That in turn meant Greece would not have an independent central bank providing liquidity when needed to its banking system. With ECB control over the currency and therefore liquidity, the ECB could reduce or turn on or off the money flow to Greece’s central bank and thus its entire private banking system at will—which it did repeatedly at key moments during the 2015 debt crisis to influence negotiations.

As one member of the Syriza party’s central committee reflected on the weeks leading up to the July 5 capitulation, “The European Central Bank had already begun to carry out its threats, closing down the country’s banking system”.

The ECB had actually begun turning the economic screws on Syriza well before the final weeks preceding the referendum: It refused to release interest on Greek bonds it owed under the old debt agreement to Greece from the outset of negotiations. It refused to accept Greek government bonds as collateral necessary for Greek central bank support of Greece’s private banks. It doled out Emergency Lending Assistance, ELA, funds in amounts just enough to keep Greek banks from imploding from March to June and constantly threatened to withhold those same ELA funds when Troika negotiators periodically demanded more austerity concessions from Greece. And it pressured Greece not to impose meaningful controls on bank withdrawals and capital flight during negotiations, even as those withdrawals and money flowing out of the country was creating a slow motion train wreck of the banking system itself. The ECB, in other words, was engineering a staged collapse of Greece’s banking system, and yet Syriza refused to implement any possible policy or strategy for preventing or impeding it.

For a more detailed analysis of the respective strategies and tactics of Syriza and the Troika in 2015 and after, and the role played by individual leaders and organizations, see the concluding chapter of Jack Rasmus, ‘Looting Greece: A New Financial Imperialism Emerges’, Clarity Press, October 2016, pp. 231-57. Dr. Rasmus is also author of the recently published, ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes?: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression’, Clarity Press, August 2017.

Michael Parenti: “Globalization and Terrorism”
| September 23, 2017 | 10:05 pm | Michael Parenti | No comments