Crimes committed by our imperial adversaries are (rightly) covered by our media, especially if they are committed by a government we are trying to overthrow.

Crimes committed by our imperial allies receive minimal (often 0) coverage by our media unless they feel coerced by outside/social media coverage, in which case the crime is buried, misrepresented, not investigated, mentioned in passing, has important details omitted, and/or possibly even justified.

The IWA-RFC endorses the demands advanced in Lehman’s statement:

1. A full investigation of the posting, encompassing not only Jensen’s conduct but the knowledge, encouragement or acquiescence of the UAW leadership.
2. A public repudiation of the threat by the UAW in the strongest possible terms, a formal apology to Lehman, and an unequivocal public declaration—circulated to the entire membership—that the union recognizes and fully supports Lehman’s right to conduct his campaign.
3. An immediate public statement by the Monitor’s office warning that such threats will not be tolerated and announcing that an investigation has been initiated.
4. The immediate suspension of Jensen from his position without pay, pending completion of the investigation, with all appropriate legal and disciplinary sanctions to follow.
5. Referral of the matter to the Department of Labor and, as warranted, to federal law enforcement.
6. Affirmative measures to guarantee that the remainder of the 2026 election is conducted free of intimidation.

The IWA-RFC calls on UAW members and workers in every industry, in the US and internationally, to take up the defense of Lehman as their own cause. As Lehman stated: “This threat is not aimed at me alone. It is an act of intimidation directed against the entire rank-and-file opposition.”

The IWA-RFC also calls on all left-wing and progressive organizations to categorically denounce this threat.

Register your opposition to this incitement to violence! Email the UAW at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]) to demand that it publicly repudiate the threat against Lehman, with a copy to the Will Lehman campaign at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).

I made a previous post ( https://www.reddit.com/r/chomsky/comments/1v1i6nf/what_is_actually_at_stake_in_terms_of_chomskys/ ). I just want to break down some tactics that I noticed.

1: It's true that a lot of people are angry about Epstein-related matters on Reddit. But can mobs of angry people be wrong? Can mobs of angry people be misinformed? Isn't there a history of mobs of angry people getting their pitchforks out based on low information? I noticed a tactic where the goal is to translate "Lots of people got angry" into "They must be well-informed and correct about the issues at hand".

2: This can be a powerful tactic to use, since it makes the person who challenges the defamation into a "weirdo". It's an appeal to numbers. It's an appeal to the power of the mob. My own thoughts on this were:

I genuinely (not being starky) don't know how many of those "people" were bots. Reddit is a cesspool. A lot of comments are just angry little snippets that might or might not be from real human beings.

But more importantly, how many of the "people" who came to this subreddit had some kind of axe to grind? What if they were pissed about some geopolitical conflict that Chomsky had weighed in on? Chomsky is a very political person; lots of people have grudges against him for various reasons.

Another issue is: There are a small handful of people who have studied this case in any detail, whereas everyone else is going based on low-info media mythology.

3: I think that when it comes to smear campaigns it's extremely important to study the history of them and how they operate. Under conditions of panic, people are scared of the mob and they will "throw under the bus" their friends in order to appeal "balanced" and in order to protect themselves against the "mob". People may later realize "I shouldn't have conceded too many points to the mob", but it's too late; once you go down the road of giving in to the mob, you can't backtrack, since you've locked into your position. You are now feeding the moral panic because you've conceded too many points. The correct view is just to not weigh in on the facts of the matter. If you weigh in, you get locked in, and later you may realize that you gave in to various defamatory lies in order to appease the mob and appear "balanced" and appear reasonable. I made this point:

the obvious point is that you can't really take at face value anything that anyone says under the conditions of societal panic and societal hysteria. Everyone has an enormous self-interested incentive to condemn Jeffrey Epstein and condemn anyone who associated with him. Privately, people might be thinking "This whole media carnival is insane and this is the stupidest moral-panic nonsense that I've ever witnessed", but publicly people will still make statements that condemn and distance. It would be PR suicide to do anything other than feed into the media frenzy; basic self-interest and basic self-preservation requires that you issue statements about how Epstein was an Evil Demon and Chomsky was "disgusting" and whatever else.

4: I think that it's absolutely crucial to understand how smear campaigns operate. And how sex-panic cases operate. There are patterns that emerge when you look into these things. I don't know if anyone on this forum has looked into this particular case, but it might be a really important one in order to see how these things work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVaAlBfNnJY. I've noticed that people online constantly refer to Hasan having shocked his dog; there are memes about it and people deploy that accusation incessantly. Did he ever actually do anything whatsoever to his dog?

5: This defamation campaign is a crucial example to study: https://monthlyreview.org/articles/anatomy-of-a-propaganda-campaign-jeremy-corbyns-political-assassination/. It was highly effective. One of the lessons of this defamation campagin is that you can't "give in" to the lies. If you give one inch, you'll get destroyed. You have to have a spine against the liars and defamers. When people "give in" to the accusations, they help to cement those accusations. Of course, I can't blame people for "giving in" out of fear, since these panics are genuinely scary. These panics are genuinely scary and everything happens so quickly. Here's another piece on the Corbyn case: https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/jeremy-corbyn-is-the-most-smeared-politician-in-history. See here:

If our mainstream press has become a propaganda machine for the right-wing, it’s no wonder that the first openly socialist leader Britain has had in twenty years has been the victim of perhaps the longest continuous smear campaign ever seen against a politician in the UK.

6: Imagine Epstein had been accused of murder. I doubt any of this mob-fueled insanity would be occuring. Everything related to sex turns our brains off. Sex panics are very powerful; murder "panics" (insofar as they even occur) are not nearly as powerful. When they used to lynch Black people in the US, accusations of rape were much more potent in order to get people to lynch Black people and celebrate the lynching; there were accusations of other things too, but sexual things are a special category when it comes to mobilizing anger and panic, whereas murder accusations and other accusations just don't evoke the same level of emotion. There is scholarship showing that for 1000s of years, anything related to sex has been a special category for humanity in terms of deactivating rational faculties and evoking rage.

7: This Epstein thing is like the "Faurisson affair". We now look back on the Faurisson affair as a joke; obviously Noam was right and everyone else was being insane and hysterial and irrational. Maybe I'm wrong; maybe there are still people who think that Noam did something wrong regarding the Faurisson affair. But at the time, it was a huge panic; Noam got a lot of heat for that. I think that after the panic subsides people start to calm down and look at things without the blinding heat of rage and panic. Regarding Faurisson, Chomsky pointed out the facts, including that Faurisson wasn't actually denying that the Holocaust took place. Everyone lost their minds. Again, maybe some people still believe that Chomsky did something wrong regarding the Faurisson thing, but my sense is that people's blood pressure doesn't skyrocket on that matter any more. At this current moment, sex panics make people's blood pressure go through the roof.

8: The below is a super important thing to think about not because Hedges himself is so important but because of the principles involved:

https://bevstohl.substack.com/p/im-no-longer-waiting-for-the-storm

Hedges spent over a decade teaching in New Jersey state prisons, building genuine relationships with criminals, some convicted of egregious violent crimes, even publishing a book celebrating the bonds he formed with those folks. Like Chomsky’s, his philosophy is rooted in the idea that convicted people retain their humanity and shouldn’t be permanently defined by their worst acts. This is the same principle Chomsky applied to Epstein: the man had served his sentence. Yet Hedges denies Chomsky the same moral complexity he extends to those convicted of murder. This is not journalism.

9: The core tactic is shaming people who try to investigate the facts and who try to become fluent and well-informed and serious. You're not allowed to look into the facts of the Epstein case or else you're "litigating pedophilia" or "obsessed with pedophilic rape" or "defending Epstein". This keeps the defamation and the lies going. Investigation of the facts is taboo. In a sane world, understanding the facts would be a good thing. Presumption of innocence and skepticism would be a good thing. In a sex panic, understanding the facts is a huge crime and you will be shamed and attacked. See here:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/29/oscar-hangover-special-why-spotlight-is-a-terrible-film/

By their nature, moral panics are hysterical. They jettison reason for emotion, transform accusation into proof, spur more accusation and create a climate that demands not deliberation or evidence or resistance to prejudice but mindless faith.

They are the enemy of skepticism, which those on the left and near-left, liberals, progressives, regard as the sword and shield of journalism when it’s convenient or ideologically appealing. The Globe did not so much practice journalism as it constructed a courtroom of panic, one that reversed the presumption of innocence and spilled over into real courtrooms where real defendants didn’t stand a chance.

10: I think that this is the truth of the matter:

https://www.compactmag.com/article/noam-chomsky-was-right-about-epstein/

Among the strangest casualties of the entire affair is Noam Chomsky. Whatever one thinks of his contributions to linguistics, or his political history, it would be impossible to seriously contest Chomsky’s impact as a researcher, theorist, and advocate. But suddenly, we are being told that his reputation is in tatters and his life’s work tainted because he socialized and corresponded with Jeffrey Epstein. None of those rushing forward with melodramatic denunciations betray the slightest hint of an essential trait that Chomsky himself exhibited: a willingness to examine the actual facts and follow them to their logical conclusion, notwithstanding the opprobrium that may be unleashed as a consequence.

Here is that unutterable conclusion for present purposes: Chomsky was substantively correct in his judgments about the Epstein hysteria. That he should now be repudiated for this—by a parade of former friends and collaborators, no less—merely underscores how pervasive the hysteria is.

11: I found this ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgN0R3Skocc ) debate interesting because it shows how the Epstein stuff is a religion. It's something people believe in their hearts. The facts don't matter. I remember that when Chomsky was getting harangued about the Faurisson affair he asked one journalist "Do the facts matter?". Nobody wanted to know the facts about Faurisson. Nobody wants to know the facts about Epstein. It's taboo to "litigate the facts" when people are consumed by emotion and rage and hysteria; people have put "all their chips in" on this both emotionally and sometimes career-wise, so there's no possibility that they might be wrong on the facts, since that would be like telling a religious believer that they've been wrong their whole life about their religion. Once you put "all your chips in" on the Epstein thing, it's going to be nearly impossible for you to backtrack.

12: Not only is it taboo to "litigate the facts", but it's also just a difficult thing to do, since it's tedious. It takes a lot of time and energy and investigation to learn the facts of a complex legal saga. Chomsky made this comment:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159008/quotes/

I don't mind the denunciations, frankly; I mind the lies...intellectuals are very good at lying. They're professionals at it. Villification is a wonderful technique. There's no way of responding. If somebody calls you an anti-Semite, what can you say: "I'm not an anti-Semite"? If somebody says you're a racist or a Nazi? You always lose. The person who throws the mud always wins, because there is no way of responding to those charges.

In this episode, I explore football through the ideas of Frantz Fanon and Edward Said, reflecting on one of the most powerful moments of this World Cup—the embrace between the two coaches after the final whistle. Beyond the game lies a deeper story of power, colonial memory, culture, and human dignity.

Watch the full episode on Odysee: https://odysee.com/@KathaMukh:2/Football-be:b⁠�

If you enjoy independent, research-driven storytelling that connects sport, history, and philosophy, please consider supporting my work.

☕ Buy Me a Coffee: https://buymeacoffee.com/bappa32532a

Very disturbing news.

Rubio’s State Department, groups to be targeted under the new marching orders will include “violent far-left and anarchist networks and other violent extremist actors,” as well as “violent pro-Iranian and antisemitic networks” and “militant anti-tech and eco-terrorist movements.”

Chomsky was friends with Epstein. They emailed quite a bit, though Chomsky emailed a lot with tons of people; he's famous for the voluminous correspondence that he did via email with many, many, many people.

Apart from the email correspondence, I'm not sure how close their friendship was, since it's hard to explain exactly how close a friendship is (if you're friends with someone you might see them once a week or once every five years or once every 10 years..."friendship" is a vague term), but I wonder how many times the two of them actually met in person...5 times or 10 times or 50 times or 100 times?

Everyone who has a low-info pop-culture-based perspective on the "Epstein scandal" obviously thinks that Chomsky (like Epstein) is an Evil Demon. But the question is: What is actually at stake in terms of Chomsky's political work when it comes to the whole "Epstein scandal"? If someone has a low-info pop-culture-based perspective on the "Epstein scandal", how likely are they to actually be able to read and understand and think about Chomsky's work? What has actually been lost if people like this now think that Chomsky is an Evil Demon?

There's a very depressing fact that I've noticed for years, namely that almost nobody in our society actually reads and understands and thinks about Chomsky's political work. There are people who regard themselves as "Chomsky fans" who simply missed the whole point of the Herman and Chomsky book Manufacturing Consent; they claim to have read the book and they claim to be big fans of that work, but they don't even understand what the book was saying. Chomsky himself has talked about how nobody actually reads his work, including that book. That book is famous; if you look online and see how often our culture refers to that book then you'll see that it has a big "footprint" in our culture. But nobody has actually read the book or properly read the book; nobody knows the content of the book and actually understands the content of the book. Chomsky himself has talked about the fact that few people in our society actually understand that book's content and argument.

If there were literate and serious people who were sitting in the library going "I was going to read Manufacturing Consent but given that Chomsky is associated with the big Epstein scandal I'm going to refrain from reading that book" then that would be a loss. But how often is that ever going to actually happen?

The simple point is that the kind of person who joins in the denunciation of Chomsky for his friendship with Epstein is also the kind of person who (1) doesn't know what Chomsky's arguments actually are and (2) is never going to understand what Chomsky's arguments actually are. Not sure what the actual loss is.

And as an aside, there are legions of people who write about linguistics and cognitive science who have no idea what Chomsky's views on linguistics actually are. His views on linguistics, like his views on politics, are not very conducive to being reduced to a sound bite. It's rare to see an article about Chomsky's political or scientific work that actually engages with the real work; articles on both the political and scientific stuff tend to be disconnected from the actual arguments.

See here a point that relates to the issue of how nobody actually understands Chomsky's scientific work either:

https://preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2018/09/24/episode-15-david-poeppel-on-thought-language-and-how-to-understand-the-brain/

0:11:58 DP: But he is... He's difficult. I actually just finished a chapter, a couple of... Last year's so-called "The Influence of Chomsky on the Neuroscience of Language," because many of us are deeply influenced by that. The fact of the matter is, his role has been both deeply important and moving and terrible and it's partly because he's so relentlessly un-didactic. If you've ever picked up any of his writings, it's all about the work. He's not there to make it bite-size and fun. He assumes a lot, a lot of technical knowledge and a lot of hard work. And so if you're not into that, you're never gonna get past page one because it is technical. But that's made it very difficult because it seems obscurantist to many people.

...

0:12:57 DP: I wish that were true. That would mean a lot of people would read, let's say, my boring papers. But I think in the case of Chomsky, it's true because there are superficial misinterpretations and misreadings that are very catchy. The most famous concept is language is innate. Now, such a claim was never made and never said. It's much more nuanced. It's highly technical. It's about what's the structure of the learning apparatus, what's the nature of the evidence that the learner gets. Obviously this is a very sophisticated and nuanced notion, but what comes out is, "Oh, that guy's claim is language is innate," and that's...

...

0:13:40 DP: Exactly. And that's a little bit unfortunate because that's true for all fields. If there are nugget-sized one-liners, they're fun to remember, they're fun to talk about, but they're probably almost always wrong.

The amount of Chomsky material on YouTube is astonishing, and cumulatively has tens of millions of views. No scandal is going to nullify the change of consciousness he encouraged, and that social media will continue to disseminate. Here's a recent upload.

Full speech by Sayyid Abdul-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi, leader of the Ansar Allah movement in Yemen, delivered on July 16, 2026.

Summary: In a July 16, 2026 address, Ansar Allah leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi frames Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, and Yemen as fronts in a single confrontation against a US-Israeli-led scheme to subdue the region, casting Saudi Arabia as the chief collaborator: as Israel continues to kill Palestinians and expand occupation despite the ceasefire, Hezbollah's resistance and Iran's steadfastness against the US-Israeli aggressions are a regional deterrent victory. The twelve-year Saudi blockade of Yemen — restrictions on Hudaydah port and Sana'a airport, Saudi intelligence-sharing with Israel and the US, and a recent Saudi airstrike on Sana'a airport after Iran helped break the aerial blockade — must come to an end: this air, sea, and land siege has considerably restricted the entry of food, fuel, and medicine into the country, causing one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. Al-Houthi announces a new doctrine of reciprocal escalation (airport for airport, port for port, blockade for blockade) against Riyadh, warning that Saudi oil and vital installations will be targeted if Riyadh doesn’t lift the siege.

• God Commands His Servants to Fight Injustice
• America and Israel: The Great Tyrants of Our Time
• Resistance vs. Collaborators: The Saudi Plot Against Yemen, Palestine, and the Islamic Ummah
• Israel’s Ongoing Crimes in Gaza and Palestine: A World That Forgets
• The Situation in Lebanon
• Iran’s Steadfastness in the Face of US-Israeli Aggression
• Yemen Pays the Price for Its Stance Alongside Gaza
• Saudi’s Blockade Against Yemen Meets a New Equation: Airport for Airport, Port for Port, Blockade for Blockade
• Saudi Oil and Vital Installations: Legitimate Targets for Yemen

Source: Al-Masirah

Translation: Resistance News

I seek refuge in God from the accursed Satan. In the Name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds. I bear witness that there is no god but God, the Sovereign, the Manifest Truth, and I bear witness that our Master Muhammad is His servant and messenger, the Seal of the Prophets. O God, bestow your blessings upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad, and bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, as You blessed and bestowed blessings upon Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim. Verily, You are the Most Praiseworthy, the Most Glorious. And be pleased, O God, with Your pleasure upon his best and chosen companions, and upon all of Your righteous and striving servants. O Brothers and Sisters: Peace be upon you, and the mercy of God, and His blessings.

God Commands His Servants to Fight Injustice

God, Glory be to Him and Exalted is He, said in the Holy Quran:

{“If ye prayed for victory and judgment, now hath the judgment come unto you: if ye desist (from wrong), it will be best for you: if ye return (to the attack), so shall We. Not the least good will your forces be to you even if they were multiplied: for verily God is with those who believe.”} [Al-Anfal: 19]

God the Most High, the Most Great, has spoken the truth.

In this blessed verse, which came in the context of the Quran speaking about the Great Battle of Badr, which was an important and major opening in the jihad of the Messenger of God (may God’s blessings and peace be upon him and his family) and those believers who moved with him to confront the infidel tyranny targeting Islam and Muslims, and what God opened of clear victory for the Messenger of God (may God’s blessings and peace be upon him and his family) and for the Muslims on the Day of Distinction [Yawm al-Furqan], jihad in the path of God, Glory be to Him, was a path to victory, to honor, to breaking the power of the tyrants, the infidels, the aggressors, the oppressors, the criminals.

And God, Glory be to Him, established through this a sunnah [divine law/practice] for His believing servants, a constant sunnah in the divine messages with God’s Messengers and Prophets, and in the journey of His servants throughout history in accordance with the principle that the Holy Quran affirmed in the words of God the Almighty: {“And did not God check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief”} [Al-Baqarah: 251]. For throughout history, and since the very beginning of human existence, the wicked, the criminals, and the tyrants have moved, initiating their evil, their criminality, and their oppression, to target the oppressed. And when people do not act, the downtrodden, the oppressed, the rightful owners of justice, within the framework of their oppression and the just cause and right they possess, the result is that evil deepens, tyranny grows, and the tragedy becomes greater.

But when the movement is in the right direction, proceeding from the starting point of faith-based and religious responsibility, which teaches us to always move within the framework of the righteous position, to commit to it and not transgress it, then to move in accordance with the instructions of God, Glory be to Him — and the instructions of God, Glory be to Him, for us human beings, for those who respond to Him and move in the path of truth, faith, and justice, are great instructions, valuable instructions, guiding instructions ; their fruit is true freedom. This freedom fortifies those who respond to God, Glory be to Him, against all forms of enslavement to other than God, and enables them to fulfill their duties in this life and their positive role in it, on the basis of great principles, elevated values, and noble morals, and on the basis of the principle of justice, truth, and goodness. That is the path of God which He has traced for His servants alongside His Messengers and Prophets, and alongside the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers, the Messenger of God Muhammad (may God’s blessings, peace, and salutations be upon him and his family), to remain a path for Muslims in all generations, in every era and place, in every time, and in the face of every tyranny.

And we, in this era, as Muslims, strive to be an extension of the great, sacred, and blessed path of Islam, built upon the foundation of God’s revelation and His teachings, and the legacy of the Messengers and Prophets (may God’s blessings be upon them). We walk upon this foundation, and its fruit is that we be free, so that tyrants from any direction may not enslave us, nor be able to humiliate us, crush us, dominate us, and control us with their evil, their oppression, their tyranny, their criminality.

America and Israel: The Great Tyrants of Our Time

In our time, we face the most tyrannical of tyrants, the worst of the wicked, and the most criminal of the oppressors and infidels throughout all of history: Zionism, the Jewish movement, its arms, its followers, and those loyal to it with all they represent in this age of criminality, tyranny, corruption, misguidance, and evil, and with what they possess of enormous capabilities and means through which they move to target human societies, and at the forefront: our Islamic Ummah with all forms of targeting:

· with the soft, corrupting, and misleading war through which they seek to empty the human being of his humanity, achieve total control over him, enslave him to other than God, crush peoples, occupy their homelands, plunder their wealth and resources, and seek to exploit them as wealth, part of the wealth they exploit in service of their satanic goals and in realizing their terrible ambitions and their immense greed.

· and at the level of the hard, destructive, and unjust war in which they commit genocide, treating human societies with total savagery, with total criminality, with total tyranny, with total violation and squandering of human life.

America and Israel, and those with them, and those who revolve in their orbit, and those who ally themselves with them, are the source of evil, criminality, disruption of security, and threats to stability at the global level, at the level of our Arab region and our Islamic world. This is something that has been clear throughout all these decades: they are the source of wars, criminality, tyranny, strife, conspiracies upon conspiracies, which have not stopped for a single day in targeting our Islamic Ummah, in targeting our Arab region, in targeting global security and stability. Behind all of this is what is clear from their ambitions, from their desires, from their false pursuit of enslaving peoples and humiliating them, occupying their homelands, controlling and dominating and confiscating the freedom and dignity of people, and violating their sanctity, and this is something clear.

We, since childhood, grew up in this general atmosphere in our Arab and Islamic region. When we reached the stage of awareness and discernment in our childhood, we knew of American and Israeli wars, of American and Israeli crimes and tyranny targeting the peoples of our Ummah, starting with Palestine and beyond Palestine. Therefore, the source of evil, criminality, danger, and threat to security and stability at the regional and global levels, and the prevailing condition in our region with its tensions, its wars, its strife, even the internal strife within the peoples of our nation, behind it all is America and Israel, the Zionist movement, and the Zionist scheme which they work to implement, and which they announce, and which they reveal, and about which they sometimes speak under the heading of changing the Middle East, and sometimes with complete frankness and clarity about the implementation of the Zionist scheme to establish Greater Israel and control this Ummah, these peoples, and this region.

Amid these developments in which the enemies implement or work to implement their schemes with full power and might, and with all forms of conspiracies targeting these peoples and these countries on one hand, then respecting no agreements, no understandings, no commitments, no international law, no resolutions in the name of the United Nations, heeding no consideration, giving no value to any of that ; they commit the most heinous crimes, to the point of crimes of genocide, the targeting of women and children, boasting about targeting cities and civilians, targeting civilizations in the region, threatening to annihilate peoples and destroy entire countries. And their Trumpian infidel logic is clear in this.

So this is a clear and evident fact: the reality of these peoples is that they are targeted, that the source of danger and evil against them is clear, and that the problem lies in this: there is a Zionist movement with its arms represented by America, Israel, and Britain, targeting us in this region as Arab Muslim peoples and as the Islamic world, seeking to implement the Zionist scheme, seeking to confiscate our freedom and dignity, violating these peoples in their blood, their honor, their land, and their wealth, and confiscating their legitimate rights, recognized the world over.

Resistance vs. Collaborators: The Saudi Plot Against Yemen, Palestine, and the Islamic Ummah

As for those who move from among our nation’s sons, its free people, its honorable ones, those holding fast to the authentic principles of Islam and its great values, which are innate principles and innate values, on the basis of holding fast to our freedom and our human dignity, and on the basis of our legitimate rights as peoples to be free peoples that enjoy true independence and have their legitimate rights respected, they move on this basis, and they move from a correct starting point by all considerations: the considerations internationally recognized, in human nature, in international pacts and norms, and on the basis of the authentic Islamic principles of this Ummah: that it does not accept being enslaved to other than God, Glory be to Him, by its enemies.

Then comes the problem that increases the Ummah’s suffering, which is: the destructive, negative, and harmful role of some Arab regimes, some regimes in the Islamic world, that are oriented toward cooperating with the enemies of this Ummah in all forms of cooperation: at the level of the political position, at the level of financial support, at the level of military and security cooperation in targeting the peoples of this Ummah, at the level of harnessing all media capabilities and capacities in this context.

And in the circles of our Arab and Islamic peoples, in this context, the nature of the Saudi role in this direction is very well known: cooperation with America, with Israel, with Britain, at the level of fomenting strife within the Islamic world from the inside, at the level of striking any collective stance of the Ummah in the right direction to support the Palestinian cause, or to confront the American and Israeli tyranny targeting the peoples of this Ummah. And at the forefront of those who have suffered from this destructive, unjust, and aggressive Saudi role is our dear Muslim Yemeni people, for the Saudi did not respect the sanctity of neighborliness and initiated against it an unjust and brutal aggression under American supervision, British partnership, and Israeli contribution and instigation from the very beginning ; an aggression that has continued for twelve years and still continues. An aggression for which there is no justification whatsoever, on which it rests on no basis of any kind, in which the Saudi enemy, under American supervision and British partnership, and Israeli contribution, committed the most heinous crimes: killing thousands of children and thousands of women, destroying thousands of installations and homes in the country, destroying the economic infrastructure, violating all sanctities, respecting no sanctity whatsoever, neither in honor nor in blood ; and alongside this, the strangling and severe blockade throughout all these years, depriving the people of national wealth, and occupying a vast portion of the country.

The aggressive and destructive Saudi role, which comes within the framework of loyalty to America and Israel and working to serve Zionist projects and agendas, in targeting the free people of this Ummah, its peoples, in funding all the conspiracies that dismantle it from within in various countries, in conspiring against other countries with all forms of conspiracies here and there, everyone has suffered and everyone complains of this.

It is known and clear to our Islamic Ummah, and the first to be harmed is the Palestinian people. In the Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood, the destructive and negative Saudi role became manifest, working to prevent any Islamic and Arab movement at the level that this Ummah is presumed to be capable of, in the face of the genocide the Zionist enemy is committing against the Palestinian people in Gaza.

Indeed, the Saudi regime managed to prevent any position, be it only at the political level, to prevent any position on which Muslims would unite through their governments and regimes, at the level of politically or economically boycotting the Israeli enemy. And it would come to the fore in the Islamic arena politically, gathering regimes and rulers in conferences whose outputs would be a paper with statements written in polite, courteous, and respectable language, with a very low ceiling, not exceeding simple characterizations that accommodate the American side so that he would not be displeased, not going beyond that to any practical, effective stance to support the Palestinian people who are being annihilated in Gaza through the most heinous criminality and the most heinous forms of genocide, something that makes the face of humanity itself blush, something that peoples of the world screamed about in many parts of the earth, beyond the Islamic world.

The Saudi position succeeded in shackling the Ummah from within, at the level of adopting any practical stance, “practical” in parentheses, and making the highest ceiling nothing more than simple and polite statements and condemnations, accommodating as we said the American side, not reaching the point of his displeasure.

The destructive Saudi role continued, as we will mention, in positions and practical support in the service of the Israeli enemy, in seeking to win the favor of and please America, and in seeking to serve America, because America is a direct partner in the Israeli crimes, in the Israeli aggression on Gaza, in what happened in the region generally: against Lebanon, then against Yemen, then against the Islamic Republic of Iran... and so on generally.

The great suffering of the Palestinian people increased; since the beginning of the Israeli offensive to annihilate the Palestinian people in Gaza, the Saudi media and political position was always moving toward harming the Palestinian people and its mujahideen (fighters), the mujahideen in Gaza whom the Saudi describes as terrorists, and whom he had originally included on his terrorism list, along with other Arab regimes, without them having done anything to him, or caused him any harm, or directed any targeting toward him. But he made their resistance to Zionist criminality, their pursuit of liberating Palestine, a crime and terrorism, built upon it the classification of them on terrorism lists, and designated them with this label.

All Saudi media and its affiliates, since the Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood until today, have been harmful toward the Palestinian people and its mujahideen, inciting against them, harming them, and mocking the sacrifices being made by the Palestinian people, constantly justifying to the Israeli enemy whatever crimes it commits, and contributing in practical ways through multiple forms (which we will refer to some of them) to supporting the Israeli enemy and encouraging it in what it does. And likewise toward Lebanon, and likewise toward the Islamic Republic of Iran, and likewise (and even worse than that) toward Yemen of Faith and Wisdom, toward the great mujahid Yemeni people.

When we return to the course of events in the region, all of us know this context of events, that behind it lies American and Israeli tyranny, the injustice that the forces of Zionism commit against our Ummah, the suffering that our peoples endure. Against that, the responsibility is clear: the religious, human, and moral responsibility, and the right and just cause of these peoples. It is a clear matter. The responsibility of this entire Ummah, through its belonging to Islam, this Ummah as an oppressed nation, as a targeted nation, as an Ummah with a clear and explicit enemy: an enemy that occupies the land, plunders wealth, targets these peoples, confiscates their freedom and dignity. Its responsibility is to move to wage jihad in the path of God the Almighty to confront that tyranny, that criminality, that aggression, to repel from itself the evil of the Zionist enemy that targets it as an enemy, occupying the land, violating honor, killing people, violating their lives, along with its American partner, and the Western supporters.

So the righteous position is clear, there is no ambiguity in it. The just cause of the Palestinian people and the peoples of this region is clear, there is no ambiguity in it. And the responsibility, as we said, is clear, there is no ambiguity in it. And the right direction that stands upon these evident and clear facts is likewise clear, without confusion. Nor should the blame, the criticism, the attribution of responsibility, the directing of insults, the directing of accusations, and the negative and hostile movement be against those who take this right direction built upon a foundation of faith-based, human, moral, values-based, national, and pan-Arab responsibility... by all considerations.

But the divergent directions within this Ummah are clear: a direction that directly serves America and Israel, a direction that does not represent this Ummah, nor its identity, nor its Islam, nor its principles, nor does it adopt its legitimate rights, nor its just causes ; a direction hostile to the free people of this Ummah, because they stand against America and Israel in the American and Israeli effort to target this Ummah, to enslave this Ummah, to control this Ummah, and to implement the destructive Zionist scheme against this Ummah. So matters are clear and evident.

Israel’s Ongoing Crimes in Gaza and Palestine: A World That Forgets

The Israeli enemy, in its aggression on Gaza, committed the most heinous and terrible crimes, truly horrifying. And it is shameful and disgraceful for this Ummah, a continuing disgrace that will not leave any of the slackers, the neglectful, the bystanders, and the conspirators until the Day of Resurrection. And on the Day of Resurrection they will be held accountable for it, on the day they meet God, Glory be to Him, and God, Glory be to Him, will recompense them for it, because it is a contribution alongside the enemy in its terrible crimes against the Palestinian people: the crimes of genocide. Yet despite this, the Palestinian people still suffers, in Gaza itself and generally throughout all of Palestine. And the suffering is immense in the Gaza Strip, because the Israeli enemy does not abide by any agreement, disavows all pacts, all commitments, all agreements, breaks pledges, and acts treacherously without honoring any commitment, because it is a treacherous, unjust, criminal enemy that commits to no values whatsoever. Therefore, since the agreement that was made with guarantors guaranteeing both parties in the Gaza Strip and until today, the Israeli enemy has killed more than one thousand Palestinian martyrs, among them children and women, the old and the young, and among them mujahideen at the level of commanders and individual fighters, and it continues its crimes of killing on a daily basis in Gaza. And this number is a very large number: more than one thousand martyrs after the agreement, under the agreement, under the truce established by the agreement ; and at the forefront of this agreement is the ceasefire. The Israeli enemy kills and targets the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip with all means of fire: with air strikes, with artillery bombardment, with targeting through all forms, and with daily crimes. On a daily basis it kills people. This number is not a trivial number: more than one thousand martyrs, and more than three thousand wounded, under a ceasefire agreement, with guarantors. While at the same time, if a single Israeli soldier were killed in return, the world would be turned upside down, and some Arab regimes would even direct blame at the Palestinian people and its mujahideen.

The Israeli enemy, as we always say, constantly seeks to establish the matter of the violation of this Ummah’s sanctity, and to make it accepted within circles of this Ummah: that it kill every day from among the sons of the Palestinian people, in Gaza and beyond Gaza, sometimes killing in the West Bank and elsewhere, and killing in Lebanon, and killing in any country of the countries of this region, and for this to be a normal matter, not met with any serious movement from the governments and regimes of this Ummah to stop this violation that squanders the lives of our Muslim community, our Arab and Islamic peoples.

They want this to be an accepted matter across all circles of the Ummah: that the Jewish Zionists, and the Americans and Israelis, have the right to kill every day, to kill whomever they wish from among the sons of this Ummah, young and old, children, men, women, leaders, soldiers, civilians, all people, and for this to be an accepted matter within this Ummah’s circles, met by no reaction, no serious movement to prevent it. They want for the agreements to have no value or consideration, except in the matter of shackling the sons of this Ummah and binding them from any defense of themselves, from any resistance to the aggression by the Israeli and American enemy.

Then the Israeli enemy continues its occupation of a vast area of the Gaza Strip, while the agreement calls for its complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and it is expanding its occupation of the Gaza Strip and declaring publicly that it seeks to complete the occupation of 70% of the Gaza Strip. It establishes in Gaza and in Lebanon lines it sometimes calls yellow lines and sometimes red lines, colored lines: at each stage a line, it draws a line, then says it has become the yellow line, the blue line, the line... and so on according to the colors it assigns, claiming it now belongs to it, meaning it gives itself the right to occupy that area, calling it security belts or safe zones, or other designations. But these are occupation, and these are oppression, and these are the confiscation of lands, of the rights of the peoples of this Ummah, of their rights.

It boasts about demolishing entire cities, villages, towns, and residential neighborhoods in Gaza and in Lebanon, boasting about it, proud of it, and continues in the crime of comprehensive destruction of civilian homes, of dwellings belonging to residents. This is among the witnessed and well-known [war] crimes in the world; it boasts about demolishing and destroying them, and destroying all landmarks of life: destroying water wells, razing farms... and so on. It targets all landmarks of life, all installations that are civilian and service installations, and kills and targets continuously.

It continues the strangling of the Palestinian people through the blockade, tightening on them to the extreme. The sons of Gaza still generally, most of them, live in dilapidated tents, suffering in them during the summer season from the most intense heat, and alongside the heat there are the remaining plagues, harms, and suffering; and during the cold and winter they suffer from the most intense cold. And likewise, very severe suffering: suffering in restricting the level of what enters in terms of humanitarian aid, foodstuffs, and essential needs, regarding which it also did not honor what was stipulated in the agreement. A specific number of trucks was specified in the agreement to enter inside Gaza every day, even though this is a human right that needs no reliance on the matter of the agreement. Yet even so, there is an agreement that stipulates, within the agreement itself, the general agreement, a specific number of trucks entering daily into the Gaza Strip. It has not honored this, has placed restrictions, has reduced the number of trucks entering, has controlled the type of foodstuffs that enter, and has thereby created a very great and continuing catastrophe and suffering inside the Gaza Strip at all levels: very great suffering at the level of food, at the level of medicine, at the level of all human needs. And it has prevented reconstruction, and also controls the prevention of travelers who need to leave for medical treatment; it likewise disavows what was stipulated in the agreement and likewise disavows the human right of the Palestinian people to this.

So it creates very great and continuing suffering for the Palestinian people in Gaza, and its goal is the continuous pressure to displace the residents of the Gaza Strip, to displace the Palestinian people from their homeland and their land, by creating this catastrophe, this very severe suffering, this severe torture of the Palestinian people.

With the developments of events in the region, many people overlook the reality of what is happening daily in the Gaza Strip, and the level of the terrible suffering of the Palestinian people. And alongside this, what the Zionist Israeli enemy is doing in the West Bank:

- A massive expansion of settlement outposts.

- Continuous confiscation of the Palestinian people’s properties.

- Daily demolition of houses and homes.

- Continuous razing of agricultural areas, farms, installations.

- Daily attacks on sons of the Palestinian people by the herds of criminal Zionist usurpers, and also by what they call the Israeli army, from the Israeli criminal gangs.

- Continued forced displacement.

- Continued comprehensive destruction.

- Continued killing.

- Continuous torture of prisoners in Israeli prisons through the most heinous crimes of torture.

- Continued oppression.

- Daily violation of the sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque.

- And a pursuit to achieve new steps, in an attempt to make the matter of temporal division an ongoing established matter, followed by spatial division, then subsequent steps: comprehensive destruction, all courses of action are aggressive, all are unjust, all are criminal.

- Restrictions even on the call to prayer [adhan], and banning the call to prayer from the Ibrahimi Mosque through loudspeakers ! Eestrictions even on the call to prayer in Palestine imposed by the Israeli enemy.

- Constant tightening on the Palestinian people everywhere.

As for Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the daily incidents, the daily crimes, the daily attacks committed by the Israeli enemy against the Palestinian people are very numerous. And there is no horizon at the general level, at the international level, at the level of what was formerly expressed as peace negotiations: there is no horizon whatsoever.

The Israeli enemy disavows all commitments, confiscates all legitimate rights, its course is an aggressive and criminal one in which it seeks to entrench the occupation, full control, and the pursuit to massively expand settlement outposts, even threatening that they will extend to the Gaza Strip; and constantly seeks to make the question of speaking about Palestine, about Palestinian rights, about the liberation of Palestine, disappear, and to push things in the region toward other courses, to implement the Zionist scheme, part of which comes under the heading of normalization.

And thus is the situation regarding the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause: the condition is a continuing Zionist Israeli aggression with all forms of criminality, tyranny, aggression, confiscation of rights, usurpation of lands, killing of the Palestinian people... and all forms of violations and criminality. Israel is a clear enemy, persisting in what it does of criminality, occupation, injustice, usurpation... and all forms of crimes, even crimes of rape and violation of honor. Recent international reports in past weeks, even at the United Nations, about the escalation of this criminality, this type of criminality and targeting of the Palestinian people: a major escalation in the commission of crimes of rape of women and of men, in a shameless and utterly terrible criminal fashion.

In the face of all these facts, our Islamic Ummah generally, and our Arab peoples, cannot be exempted from religious, human, and moral responsibility toward that. This is a fundamental issue for the Ummah, a central issue for the Ummah, an issue for which the Ummah bears responsibility before God, Glory be to Him, and for the Ummah’s neglect of this responsibility there are very serious consequences and effects upon it in this world and in the hereafter.

Of course, in Gaza the Israeli enemy has prevented reconstruction, and with the prevention of reconstruction the very great suffering continues in the dilapidated tents, the great suffering of the Palestinian people with the restriction of food and medicine and other essential needs required by the Palestinian people. And where are the guarantors?! Guarantors of the implementation of the agreement, what is their role? Instead of concentrating on the humanitarian aspects, on the standard of human values and right and justice, which should receive attention before everything else, they are directing themselves in the Zionist Israeli American direction. They have no concern except working to strip the Palestinian people even of its personal arms, simple, modest arms with which it defends itself at the minimum it can manage and is capable of, instead of what they owe in terms of obligations under clear provisions, defined stages, defined priorities, and specific obligations in the agreement itself. Their role is very weak, and their role serves the Israeli enemy. As for what is called the Peace Council, it is the council of Trump, which aims to implement his Zionist agenda, to serve Zionism.

The Situation in Lebanon

As for Lebanon, likewise — an unjust, criminal, savage Israeli aggression killing, destroying, occupying the land. And in contrast, the fundamental, great, and important role of the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, of Hezbollah, in confronting the Israeli aggression: an effective confrontation that honors this nation, a source of pride for all of Islam and all Muslims. This great stance of heroic resistance to Israeli aggression by Hezbollah is met (starting with the Lebanese authority, and some Arab regimes, especially the Saudi regime) with a stab in the back, with attempts at internal pressure, with attempts at dictates that are American and Israeli dictates, which they adopt as their own in service of the Israeli enemy.

The great and honorable Iranian position in supporting the Lebanese front, in adopting the cessation of aggression on Lebanon as part of the agreement, as part of the Memorandum of Understanding, this great position that deserves great appreciation, the Lebanese authority itself attempts to disavow it and oppose it! Meaning: instead of benefiting from it and seeing in it a great benefit for Lebanon, a real interest for Lebanon and the Lebanese people, it attempts to disavow it and go toward a course that involves submission to the Israeli enemy, capitulation to the Israeli enemy, compliance with American and Israeli dictates, in what holds no interest whatsoever for the Lebanese people, but rather serves Israeli control over the situation in Lebanon generally.

For this reason, the position of Hezbollah, and behind it also the great and supportive Iranian position, which established in the Memorandum of Understanding, in its most important provisions: the cessation of aggression on Lebanon as part of the agreement in stopping the battle between the American and Israeli enemy on one side, and the Islamic Republic and the Axis on the other side, this great and important position that deserves appreciation, on which the Lebanese authority should rely, and which deserves respect from all Arab regimes and in the Islamic world generally, because it is the right course that has an expected positive result. As for going after a mirage, and the role of the Lebanese authority becoming like the Palestinian Authority’s in the West Bank: an authority that does nothing for its people, provides its people with no protection whatsoever, and moves under the headings of security coordination, military coordination, political coordination, to comply with American and Israeli dictates, that is a deviant course, representing a betrayal of the Lebanese people, harmful to the interests of the Lebanese people.

And here, the nature of the Saudi role, which plays a dirty role to serve the Israeli enemy in Lebanon, is painful. The Saudi ambassador in Lebanon plays a very active role at the level of officials on one hand, and at the level of some Lebanese forces, components, and figures on the other hand, to adopt the deviant course of the Lebanese authority — which is moving toward compliance with American and Israeli dictates — in what holds no interest whatsoever for Lebanon, and achieves neither security nor stability in the future for the Lebanese people, nor protection from the Israeli danger, from Israeli oppression, persecution, and ambitions. To the point where the Saudi ambassador in Lebanon distributes bags filled with enticing sums of money to some officials and some figures, to purchase their positions — to purchase their positions through betrayal of their people, betrayal of their country, through a negative stance hostile to Hezbollah — which amounts to hostility toward Lebanon’s freedom, Lebanon’s independence, and Lebanon’s interests. This role is regrettable! An aggressive role, a negative role, a role that serves Zionism, with no justification whatsoever.

When the Saudi comes in such conditions — in which the danger to the entire Ummah, even to the Arabian Peninsula, is very real; the Zionist scheme does not exempt it, in fact it is at the forefront of the targets — to settle scores rooted in malice, with no context that justifies them — that is a wrong course, a deviant course, a condemned course, and a course that brings problems even upon the Saudi regime itself, because it fabricates problems for itself with all parties, opens a problem here and a problem there, initiates against all parties: it initiated against the Yemeni people with aggression, conspires against all forces of this Ummah, stabs them in the back, targets them, without their having initiated any problem against it, without their having harbored aggressive intentions toward it. Meaning: it has no justification for any of this; it is nothing but blindness and misguidance that led it, for a long time, in all its activities, policies, and orientations, to serve Zionism.

So what is happening in Lebanon is clear. The problem therein is the Israeli enemy, and with it its American partner, within the framework of the Zionist scheme, Israeli tyranny, the aggression targeting the sons of this region. As for the role of the Resistance, it is an authentic role, and its right in what it does of confronting the Israeli enemy is a legitimate right, a firm right by all considerations, and its role is honorable, it holds the head high. And it is in the position where it deserves the appreciation of the entire Ummah, the support and backing of this entire Ummah. And the (Resistance) Axis is alongside it, and will never abandon it — the entire Axis, at the forefront: the Islamic Republic of Iran — will never abandon support for the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon, and its backing with what is necessary, and at the level of any developments in this stage and what comes after this stage.

Iran’s Steadfastness in the Face of US-Israeli Aggression

[...]

See the end of the speech here: https://resistanceaxis.substack.com/p/abdul-malik-al-houthi-yemen-will

The document seeks to put on an equal footing opponents of the genocide and those who support it: “The political and cultural debates around the war have fractured communities and families and spurred conflict in institutions worldwide, from corporations and cultural organizations to campuses.”

This foul statement claims that certain Israeli and Jewish writers are being targeted simply for being Jewish, not for their support for or refusal to oppose the genocide. A pretend “even-handedness” is the modus operandi here. “Israeli and Jewish writers and artists on all sides of the conflict have been silenced and faced a range of threats and repercussions,” it asserts.

Summary

The Second Amendment functions not as a check on state-corporate “tyranny” but as an ideological, electoral, and legal mechanism that reinforces state and elite power, diverting politics into culture-war conflict rather than economic representation. Rather than a constitutional right, it’s better understood as a revocable privilege granted to gun owners who largely operate as loyal auxiliary supporters of the state’s monopoly on “legitimate” violence. The legal profession’s role, in this account, is to furnish the epicycles (some more benign than others) through which doctrinal refinements and historical just‑so stories obscure this distribution of armed loyalty and culture‑war distraction.

—————————-

On a spring day in 1967, young black men in berets and leather jackets legally walked into the California State Capitol carrying loaded rifles to protest a bill that would sharply restrict open carry in California. They were members of the Black Panther Party. In Oakland, they had been following police cars with shotguns and law books, reciting California statutes on citizens’ rights while officers stopped, searched, beat, and sometimes killed Black residents. They called it “policing the police.”

If the common story about the Second Amendment were taken seriously—that an armed citizenry exists to deter government tyranny—this would look like a model exercise of that right. Citizens, armed and disciplined, were using weapons not to overthrow the state but to force its agents to obey the law.

Yet California responded by arresting them and then passing the Mulford Act, banning the open carry of loaded firearms. It was enacted by a Democratic‑majority legislature and signed by Governor Ronald Reagan, with strong law‑enforcement backing and support from the National Rifle Association.

That episode is more than a historical curiosity or a prelude to the lethal state repression that soon followed against the Black Panthers. It is a clue to how claims of freedom function in the United States—how the promise of armed resistance operates only within boundaries drawn by the state itself, so that what is commonly treated as an inviolable right in practice functions as a revocable privilege.

Legal doctrine and commentary by courts and scholars adjust around such decisions after the fact, offering post‑hoc talk of “public safety” and evolving responsibility—the kind of epicycles that make selective repression look like ordinary law rather than an explicit choice about which armed citizens will be treated as loyal auxiliaries to the state’s claim on legitimate force.

The Second Amendment was partially born in a post‑Revolutionary moment of fear about standing armies and centralized power, but as critics from Madison’s time to Chomsky have pointed out, the “primary role” of the new government was also understood as protecting “the minority of the opulent against the majority,” even as it claimed to secure popular rights that in practice excluded enslaved Black people, most Native Americans, and many others.

In the South in particular, support for the amendment was bound up with preserving state control over slave‑patrolling militias, while across the whole new US republic militias and armed settlers were central instruments of dispossession and mass killing of Native peoples, so that “the right to bear arms” was entangled from the start with tyrannical systems of racial violence rather than a race‑neutral fear of abstract tyranny.

Modern gun culture did not arise spontaneously from frontier necessity so much as it was cultivated and mythologized. In the twentieth century, manufacturers and their allies helped romanticize a largely invented “Wild West,” packaging guns as emblems of rugged individualism and masculine autonomy rather than as tools of organized, state‑sanctioned violence

That cultural work mattered: it aligned private weapons with a story of personal freedom even as concentrated corporate and state power grew more entrenched, and it encouraged citizens to see themselves as armed sentinels against abstract “government tyranny” rather than against the economic and political institutions that most directly shape their lives.

In that sense, the Second Amendment’s contemporary meaning is less a faithful transmission of founding intent than a flexible ideological project, one that channels fear and our natural heroic striving into a gun culture that leaves the real architecture of corporate power largely undisturbed.

The Second Amendment is often described as an ultimate check on abusive power, but in practice it is broadly tolerated only so long as it is exercised in ways that do not disrupt—and mostly reinforce—the existing elite order. When it threatens to disrupt that order, the system “discovers” its limits.

Max Weber’s definition of the state offers one useful way to see why. A state, Weber argued, “claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” The key word is “legitimate.”

Private force does not contradict the state’s monopoly so long as its authority is delegated, licensed, or revocable by the state itself. By that standard, the United States is not an exception to Weber but a revealing case study. When armed citizens and private military actors serve the state’s purposes, they are folded into its monopoly on legitimate violence; when they turn against it, they are brought back into line.

The Second Amendment sits squarely inside that arrangement: it functions not as an inviolable check on tyranny but as a revocable privilege disguised as a constitutional right. Because it is defined, interpreted, and enforced by the very state whose monopoly on “legitimate” violence it is supposed to restrain, the institutions that grant it can narrow, suspend, or selectively withdraw it whenever they deem fit.

That is why Blackwater in Iraq and Wagner in Russia do not really refute Weber’s dictum. Blackwater operated as a contractor for the U.S. government, and its claim to legitimacy depended on state contracts, state protection, and later congressional efforts to tighten contractor accountability.

Wagner, though murkier in legal status, was publicly acknowledged by Vladimir Putin to have been funded by the Russian state, and analysts describe it as a semi‑state security force rather than an independent rival sovereign. Even Wagner’s brief mutiny in 2023 ended not in coexistence but in reabsorption, dismemberment, or suppression, reaffirming the state’s ultimate claim to legitimate force.

The logic is consistent. Private force is acceptable when it extends state power and unacceptable when it competes with it. The Panthers’ guns fell into the second category. The Panthers were not neutral liberals with hunting rifles—they were a revolutionary Black socialist formation, rooted in a Black community subjected to persistent police violence. They openly challenged police power and capitalist ideology—but in Sacramento they were still operating within the formal bounds of California gun law when the law suddenly moved to close around them.

Even as the routine brutality of police was normalized or excused, corporate media did what they will always do with any challenge to the state’s monopoly over legitimate violence: they seized on the Panthers’ most violent episodes to portray them as simple criminals, helping to make the repression of their armed challenge look like ordinary “law and order.”

This is part of why so many gun owners in the United States do not seriously oppose the state’s monopoly on “legitimate” force: their framework for understanding and interpretation of individual events is shaped by corporate media and an ideological environment dominated by concentrated power and capital.

That the state treated a black, socialist challenge to racist policing as inherently illegitimate says more about the status quo than about whether the Panthers had any less claim to the Second Amendment than the white conservatives who now mythologize it.

Most gun owners never test the boundary of state tolerance because their political and cultural formation already aligns them with the police, the military, existing “law and order,” and the concentrated business capital that largely shapes U.S. political parties.

That pattern shows up clearly in empirical work on American gun culture. Gun ownership in the United States is disproportionately concentrated among white, conservative, Republican constituencies, and in what follows I am talking about that dominant pattern in the gun‑owning public, not every individual gun owner.

They tend to view the police, the military, and business elites favorably, while championing ever‑increasing budgets for the military and the police. Many people subjectively experience gun ownership as a genuine expression of autonomy and self‑defense, but those sincere motives operate within a political landscape in which state and corporate power are treated as natural allies of “freedom” rather than as institutions the public should be able to direct and restrain.

Furthermore, the Second Amendment is an important issue that the Republican Party uses to win votes without having to represent those voters’ interests economically. Democrats, for their part, lean on their own culture‑war causes, from LGBTQ rights to abortion, while likewise avoiding economic policies that would seriously constrain their corporate investors.

The continual adjustment of gun laws, court tests, and dueling originalist invocations of “founding intent” and “constitutional fidelity” helps keep the conflict permanently salient as culture war, so that voters are invited to fight over who loves or hates guns rather than over who controls capital and state power.

Elite and state alignment around the Second Amendment is factional rather than monolithic: some national media, academic, and corporate actors consistently push for stricter gun laws, while many law‑enforcement leaders, defense‑linked industries, and conservative politicians champion expansive gun rights.

But this struggle is not about reducing the state’s monopoly on “legitimate” violence. It is about deciding which armed civilians will be treated as its auxiliaries and how much collateral damage is acceptable in exchange for a serviceable myth of “freedom.”

In that sense, gun rights and gun control both function as culture‑war instruments that help major parties mobilize voters and define identities without seriously threatening the core distribution of economic power.

In the “gun rights” worldview, state and other elite power is easily equated with freedom so long as it can wrap itself in the flag. Research on “gun populism” and “gun militarism” shows that police chiefs in some jurisdictions understand armed, law‑abiding civilians as quasi‑partners in order maintenance, especially when those civilians are imagined as white and respectable.

Studies of “good guy with a gun” narratives likewise show how legitimate gun use is often racially and politically coded, with armed white conservatism normalized and armed Black or left radicalism pathologized.

Police, sheriffs, and even national security officials often reinforce this alignment: big‑city chiefs praise “good, responsible citizens” with guns as crime deterrents, sheriffs in Second Amendment “sanctuary” counties wrap themselves in the role of constitutional guardians of civilian gun rights, and presidents and defense‑linked politicians celebrate an armed public as an “indispensable safeguard of security and liberty”—always on the tacit assumption that those guns will be pointed with the police, the military, and the politicians who command them, not against them.

This helps explain why right‑wing gun populism often vilifies more distant—and thus easier to scapegoat in the abstract—federal agencies like the ATF or FBI as “tyranny,” while embracing local sheriffs, police, and the military as allies. In that sense, most gun‑rights hostility to the FBI isn’t a rejection of the state’s monopoly on legitimate violence, but a fight over who counts as its auxiliary: they fight, in effect, for civilian gun owners to be recognized as the rightful armed partners of the state, not treated as threats by other state officials, even as they imagine themselves as rebels against “the state.”

In that sense, the dominant Second Amendment constituency is not a rebel class waiting in the wings but a loyal one, an armed public that sees itself as the last defense against tyranny while mostly lending its guns and cultural authority to the very institutions it claims to fear. It is a kind of hegemonic rebellion: citizens who talk like insurrectionists yet live, vote, and arm themselves as the state’s most devoted civilian auxiliaries.

None of this requires that gun owners secretly adore federal power or invent their fears; it requires only that sincere desires for safety, autonomy, and self‑reliance are consistently channeled into forms of armament and politics that, in aggregate, leave the main institutions of organized violence and capital intact.

We should understand that it is a category mistake to try to confront a heavily militarized, corporate‑backed state in the domain where ordinary people are weakest—weapons—rather than where they are strongest: collective political and economic organization that can actually reduce corporate tyranny, impose limits on state brutality, and change the terms of governance.

The Panthers’ story shows how that category mistake plays out when people try to use guns directly against state power, even alongside much broader community and political organizing, as the Panthers did.

In a policing regime that already treats armed black presence as inherently threatening, carrying guns to “deter” brutality can actually increase the risk of being shot rather than reduce it; and when those guns are aimed at state actors instead of aligned with them, the state’s response is not to recognize a legitimate deterrent but to move the legal boundary.

That is why the Panthers were so revealing. Their weapons did not symbolize support for the police; they symbolized surveillance of the police. Their guns pointed, politically and morally, in the wrong direction. So the law changed.

The anti‑tyranny mythology surrounding the Second Amendment therefore does more ideological work than legal work. It encourages citizens to self‑servingly imagine themselves as a latent check on despotism, even as the actual legal and political system makes clear that armed resistance to state authority is not a protected constitutional project, either in doctrine or in practice.

Recent legal scholarship and Supreme Court doctrine have argued directly that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms but does not create a right to armed insurrection against the government, because such a right would be incompatible with the broader constitutional order. In other words, the state treats it as a revocable privilege for private self‑defense and sport, and as an informal auxiliary to police and military power—not as a standing license to resist its own authority.

Seen this way, America’s high levels of gun homicide and gun‑linked incarceration are in part the cost of maintaining an extraordinarily serviceable myth of “freedom.” Empirical research has found, for example, that people who possess a gun during an assault are several times more likely to be shot than those who are unarmed, and that fatal police shootings are more common in states with higher civilian gun ownership.

Saturating society with guns, tolerating the killings they produce, and handing out long sentences for gun possession all heighten fear, making police, prisons, and private arsenals (that on occasion deter crime) look like salvation.

The state and many of its corporate elite associates accept that collateral damage not so much because they care for the few individuals saved by private arsenals more than the greater number of individuals lost to gun violence, but because the Second Amendment myth those guns sustain helps secure their power regardless of the consequences to society.

That mismatch between myth and practice is central. The Second Amendment survives politically not because it is a serious standing threat to the state, but because the dominant gun‑owning public is, in broad ideological terms, supportive of the institutions of state violence and concentrated capital—even as many individuals reach for guns out of real fear and a real desire not to be at the mercy of others.

The Panthers understood this long before today’s “Second Amendment sanctuaries” and social‑media militias. They behaved as if the right to bear arms included the right to watch the police and make the state feel watched in return. The speed with which the law closed around them is a reminder that the Second Amendment’s most devoted political guardians are not those who point guns at power, but those who point them in the same direction.

Summary: The Saudi siege of Yemen dates back more than 11 years, having been imposed with the launch of the military operation "Decisive Storm" in March 2015, led by an Arab coalition under Saudi command (officially including the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Morocco, Sudan, Egypt, and unofficially the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Israel). This air, sea, and land siege has considerably restricted the entry of food, fuel, and medicine into the country, causing one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. In 2023, Yemen was on the verge of resuming the conflict, frozen by a 2022 agreement which Saudi Arabia did not honor, but the Al-Aqsa Flood pushed Yemen to prioritize the fight against Israel, in solidarity with the Palestinian people, going as far as directly confronting the United States, which was defeated and humiliated. Iran broke the Saudi blockade in July 2026, transporting wounded people and a Yemeni delegation on the occasion of the funeral of Sayyid Ali Khamenei. The Saud regime tried to prevent this plane's return by putting it in danger, striking Sanaa airport (without having the courage to claim the attack, leaving this task to the puppet Yemeni government even though it has no air force), and Yemen struck Saudi Arabia back, determined to break the siege once and for all by imposing an air blockade on the whole of Saudi Arabia, to liberate the whole of Yemen, and to defeat the imperialist and expansionist projects of Trump and Netanyahu: will both the Bab al-Mandab Strait and the Strait of Hormuz end up closed?

Interview with Muhammad Al-Bukhaiti, member of the Political Bureau of the Ansar Allah movement, and Brigadier General Bahaa Hallal, expert in military affairs and international relations, a few hours before the Yemeni retaliation.

Source: Al-Mayadeen, July 13, 2026

Translation: Resistance News

JOURNALIST*: Welcome, dear viewers, at this critical moment when the Gulf has been set ablaze by the fires of a renewed and growing American aggression, along with the Saudi targeting of Sanaa International Airport. A front that was, until yesterday, calm, even though the embers were smoldering beneath the ashes. In the news: Saudi strikes targeting Sanaa International Airport, with the aim of confirming the siege imposed by Riyadh on Yemen. The method: preventing any plane from landing at Sanaa airport. The Iranian plane therefore diverted its route to Hodeidah, and with it, it seems that the trajectory of the truce in effect since 2022 is coming to an end. The spokesman for the Yemeni armed forces, Brigadier General Yahya Saree, confirms that the Saudi aggression against Sanaa airport will not go without response or punishment: it puts an end to the de-escalation phase, and Riyadh will have to bear the consequences. Ali Al-Qahoum, member of the Political Bureau of the Ansar Allah movement, warns that the retaliation will not be long in coming and will be powerful and devastating, the blockade will be broken, the strangulation and economic war will not get the better of Yemen, and its people will not kneel.*

In the Gulf, the American president announces the renewal of the blockade against Iran, threatening to widen the confrontation and affirming his will to take control of the Strait of Hormuz in order to collect passage fees. Faced with this American escalation, the Khatam al-Anbiya headquarters [central command of the Iranian armed forces & IRGC] states: "We will never allow America to interfere in the management of the Strait of Hormuz," and warns that "the flames of war will touch all the countries of the region if its scope expands," and that "any cooperation with America or any support for Israel by the countries of the region will be treated as a war against the sovereignty and national security of Iran."

It seems that the fuse of war has been relit, and that the door to confrontations and escalation has been thrown wide open, on land and at sea, which could affect maritime navigation throughout the region. This situation heralds a major geographic confrontation extending beyond Yemen and the Gulf, with repercussions that international economic organizations have long warned about, and which could deal the world a fatal blow to its energy resources and financial balances.

Welcome, dear viewers, to this hour of coverage that we are devoting to this conflagration, whether concerning Iran or the Yemeni front. We are joined by Muhammad Al-Bukhaiti, member of the Political Bureau of the Ansar Allah movement, from Sanaa, and Brigadier General Bahaa Hallal, expert in military affairs and international relations, from Beirut. Sayed Muhammad [Bukhaiti], I begin with you to go over everything that has happened, namely the facts, their timing, and their implications.

AL-BUKHAITI: Peace be upon you, and upon all the brother viewers. It should have been up to the Saudi leadership to take the initiative itself to end the aggression and lift the siege on Yemen after the failure of all the objectives of this aggression and the collapse of all its pretexts and narratives. It is now established for everyone that Yemen represents no security threat to any Arab or Islamic country whatsoever; on the contrary, it is a support for them, especially since Yemen has waged a fierce war against America, Britain, and the Zionist entity to defend our brothers in Gaza, defend their rights, and put an end to the crimes of genocide in Gaza. We have also repeatedly affirmed that Yemen will stand alongside any Arab or Islamic country exposed to an American-Israeli aggression, even if it were Saudi Arabia or the Emirates. There is therefore no longer any justification for continuing the aggression against Yemen, especially since this aggression was launched under the pretext of "bringing Yemen back into the Arab fold" and that Ansar Allah supposedly represented a threat to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries. This pretext has collapsed.

On top of this, if the Saudi leadership does not reason according to moral logic, let it at least reason according to the logic of self-interest, because it has been proven, through the latest confrontation between Yemen and America, the Zionist entity, and Britain, that Yemen is now capable of confronting the most powerful countries in the world and emerging victorious from it. The Saudi and Emirati regimes were counting on American-British-Israeli protection; yet, if these countries, along with the Zionist entity, are incapable of protecting themselves, how could they protect the Saudi regime? The Saudi leadership should have reasoned, at the very least, according to the logic of self-interest, and that would have been enough to end the aggression and lift the siege on Yemen.

JOURNALIST*: I turn to you, Brigadier General Bahaa Hallal, why has Saudi Arabia decided to do what it has done now?*

HALLAL: My greetings to you, to your distinguished guest, and to the dear viewers. In truth, the Bab al-Mandab Strait is fundamentally a strait that transcends geography: it constitutes one of the most important maritime passages in the world, and consequently influences not only the region, but also, from a military point of view, supply chains and markets.

Concretely, what is the significance of what Saudi Arabia is doing today? Saudi Arabia wanted to prevent Yemen from breaking the siege it has imposed for more than eleven years. Saudi Arabia is putting pressure on this strait. We saw, about a week ago, that an Iranian plane was attempting to land at Sanaa airport, Saudi aviation tried to prevent it, and there was an air-to-ground confrontation between Yemeni air defense and these planes. The landing operation succeeded. That plane was carrying sick people and Yemenis returning from medical treatment in Iran. Today, the same thing happened again, and Sanaa airport was likewise bombed. The bombing of Sanaa airport cannot be read in isolation from the conflict over the breaking of the air blockade. The messages exchanged indicate that each side is seeking to establish new rules: Saudi Arabia is trying to prevent the establishment of air supply lines that could be interpreted as a change to the status quo, while the Yemenis, for their part, proclaim that the continued operation of the airport represents part of a new political and security reality, and that any targeting of it constitutes an escalation calling for a response. When the military command in Sanaa announces the end of the de-escalation phase, this carries, in my view, an operational significance that goes beyond political discourse: it means that the previous constraints, which lasted more than eleven years, have opened the way to retaliatory options liable to expand and encompass more sensitive targets, notably economic infrastructure, ports, refineries, or shipping lanes. What is most dangerous in this development is not the raid itself, but the shift from a policy of containment to a policy of imposing facts by force, which increases the likelihood of a slide into a new cycle of escalation that is difficult to control.

JOURNALIST*: On this precise point, I return to you, Muhammad Al-Bukhaiti, the imposition of facts by force. Why does Sanaa consider that this siege must be broken now, and that this move must also take place now? Especially since we have heard Yemeni voices say that Bab al-Mandab would be linked to the Strait of Hormuz in a plan going beyond the simple breaking of the blockade? Why is this timing opportune, and why does Sanaa insist on taking these measures and on ending this siege now?*

AL-BUKHAITI: In 2022, an agreement had been concluded between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, stipulating the Saudi withdrawal from Yemeni territory, the end of the aggression and the lifting of the siege, as well as the payment of Yemeni civil servants' salaries by the Saudi National Bank, with oil and gas revenues being paid into that bank. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia did not honor or implement this agreement, and kept stalling for more than a year. While we were preparing, in 2023, to break this siege and put an end to this aggression by force, the Al-Aqsa Flood operation took place and the crimes of genocide in Gaza began. We therefore judged that priority demanded putting an end to the crimes of genocide in Gaza. We thus froze the confrontation with Saudi Arabia and the countries of the aggression in order to devote ourselves to the Zionist entity, as well as to America and Britain who stood alongside it.

Then, we tried to get Saudi Arabia to take the initiative itself to end the aggression and lift the siege, especially since it is now established for everyone that Yemen represents no threat but is rather a support for any Arab or Islamic country. On top of this is the collapse of the narrative used by America to stir up discord and conflict in the region, according to which the Axis of Resistance would represent the Persians against the Arabs and the Shiites against the Sunnis, since the Axis of Resistance today stands alongside Arab Palestine, not Persian Palestine, Sunni Palestine, not Shiite Palestine. This means that the Axis of Resistance acts on the basis of religious conviction, of an Islamic national cause, of ethics and humanism. These realities should have changed Saudi Arabia's behavior. Moreover, Yemen is now capable of imposing a siege on the aggressor countries, just as they impose one on it.

But the Saudis did not learn the lesson, and when we attempted to break this siege by establishing flights to and from Tehran, Iran being the only country to have shown this willingness — we welcome, moreover, any flight to and from Yemen from any country in the region —, Saudi Arabia committed an act of aggression against Yemen by targeting Sanaa airport in order to maintain the siege. This cannot go unanswered.

And we say without hesitation that Yemen had the right to strike Saudi Arabia even before this latest Saudi aggression, since it is Yemen's right and the Yemeni government's duty to seek to break the siege and end the aggression by force of arms. But it was Saudi Arabia that took the initiative for war and opened the battle, thereby completing its own condemnation.

We will therefore retaliate, and the response will be very powerful. We will target objectives that are important and vital to the Saudi regime, and these strikes will be painful. And it is Saudi Arabia that took the initiative for the aggression. Our positions are just and logical, our demands are clear: end the aggression, lift the siege, withdraw all foreign forces from Yemen, and have Saudi Arabia withdraw its hand from Yemen. These demands are just, and they are today those of the entire Yemeni people, after it has realized that Saudi Arabia targets everyone. Everyone knows that the Saudi air force targeted its own mercenaries at the start of the aggression in the Al-Abr region, killing more than 300 mercenary soldiers. The Emirates also bombed mercenary forces in the Al-Alam region, killing more than 300 officers, commanders, and soldiers. Saudi forces also targeted the forces of the [Southern] Transitional Council and killed hundreds of them, simply because they were located in Hadramawt and Al-Mahra. Saudi Arabia considered that their presence in these regions constituted a violation of its sovereignty and a threat to its internal security. Look: when they said that the presence of Ansar Allah in any Yemeni province, particularly Sanaa, represented a threat to Saudi Arabia's security, they also considered that the presence of the forces of the Transitional Council — which was nonetheless a party to the conflict and was fighting against us — in these regions or provinces, constituted a threat to Saudi Arabia's internal security. Thus, today, the Yemeni people realize that all the pretexts for the aggression against Yemen have collapsed, and that the narratives used to inflame conflicts and discord in the region are American and Zionist narratives with no basis in truth whatsoever. The countries of the aggression target everyone.

We must also be aware of an important reality: Yemen has suffered greatly because of this aggression and this siege, and the only way to put an end to this suffering is to end the aggression and lift the siege. That is why the Yemeni people have, for several months now, begun preparing to wage the battle for the liberation of Yemen from Saada [governorate in northwestern Yemen, on the border with Saudi Arabia] to Al-Mahra [governorate in the far east of Yemen, bordering the Sultanate of Oman]. But today, we are not the ones taking the initiative for combat; it is Saudi Arabia that has taken it, and thus its condemnation is completed, and the Saudi leadership will come to regret what it has done.

JOURNALIST*: I will come back to you to learn more, Mr. Muhammad Al-Bukhaiti. I turn to you, Brigadier General Bahaa Hallal: why must Saudi Arabia keep Yemen under siege? Who is putting pressure on Saudi Arabia? Why is it determined to continue this siege by all means? How does this siege serve other parties who are also putting pressure on Saudi Arabia to maintain it? How is it being used to contain Yemen at this stage?*

HALLAL: In truth, the American calculations between freedom of navigation and total war constitute the situation that is today pressing Saudi Arabia and pushing it toward pressure, bombardment, aggression, or maintaining the siege on Yemen. Concretely, America knows what it is doing today in the Strait of Hormuz, that is to say, after the Memorandum of Understanding, and after having violated that Memorandum of Understanding and relaunched the war against Iran, it considers that the unity of the theater of operations [doctrine of coordination of the Axis of Resistance across all fronts] is a fact, as Iran has repeatedly threatened. It knows that Bab al-Mandab is not merely a maritime corridor, but a space of strategic deterrence. In military science, the value of maritime straits is not measured by their geographic surface area, but by their capacity to influence the strategic decisions of states. From this point of view, Bab al-Mandab is not a simple passage connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden: it is turning into one of the most important maritime chokepoints capable of influencing the movement of global trade. This reality, Iran has understood, and Saudi Arabia now understands it too. That is why it attempted, in my view, to wage a preventive battle, in line with the American vision, knowing that this subject was bound to come as a result of all this pressure exerted by the United States on Iran. The new strategic equation can be called "deterrence through the straits": if the Strait of Hormuz represents Iran's pressure card in the Arab Gulf, Bab al-Mandab constitutes the southern extension of this equation, allowing Tehran to widen its perimeter of deterrence toward the Red Sea.

This is where we see the change in the rules of engagement following the targeting of Sanaa airport: in light of today's statements from the Ansar Allah leadership, one can deduce that the concept of de-escalation is no longer considered a valid framework. And there is a fundamental answer on this subject: Saudi national security is facing the equation of a composite threat. Saudi Arabia is today confronted with a challenge consisting of multiple simultaneous sources of threat: it is today threatened by the United States of America, which demands that it be capable of fulfilling the role the United States decrees for it. The threats are therefore no longer limited to its southern borders, but extend into the maritime and economic domains. That is what it wanted to do. From a military planning point of view, the Saudi leadership is today trying to anticipate what could happen, and thus it is the American calculations that pushed Saudi Arabia to do what it did today. I believe it gave, with its own hand, through a flawed operational assessment, the pretext to Yemen to proceed with its military retaliation operations.

All these military and political indicators show that this latest escalation should not, in my opinion, be perceived as an event isolated from what is happening in the Middle East: it is a link in a process of recomposing the rules of engagement in the south of the Arabian Peninsula and in the Red Sea. The main actors are not necessarily seeking total war, but to improve their negotiating positions. Let us not forget that Marco Rubio [United States Secretary of State] traveled to the Gulf and met with the Arab Gulf countries, compelling them to get Oman to back down on the question of the Strait of Hormuz in its partnership with Iran, and the Gulf countries then declared that they did not want and would not accept Iran managing the Strait of Hormuz.

All these warning signs fall within this general framework: improving negotiating positions and imposing new equations of deterrence before any regional settlement and before a return to the Memorandum of Understanding. America, which has considered itself strategically the loser in this equation, wants to withdraw or modify the cards of strength to which Iran has clung, notably the Strait of Hormuz. And today, we add to this the Bab al-Mandab Strait, following this mistake by Saudi Arabia and America. The de-escalation phase is therefore over.

In turn, what will the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia do? Will it try to prevent any change to the reality on the ground while avoiding being dragged into a major war? It will not be able to do so, because the Yemeni retaliation is inevitable. I believe that this time, the region has been dragged, and Saudi Arabia has been dragged, into a new battle in the Red Sea and in the Bab al-Mandab Strait, a battle that falls within the framework of the American war.

JOURNALIST*: Continuing along these lines, I come back to you, Sayyid Muhammad Al-Bukhaiti. Based on the high level of Yemeni preparations against Saudi Arabia, when Sanaa chooses today to break this siege, it is saying, in one way or another, that it is now ready, knowing that a Saudi aggression aimed at preventing this breaking of the siege was foreseeable. What kind of Yemen will we now be facing, in terms of preparation and also in terms of coordination with its allies?*

AL-BUKHAITI: Today, Saudi Arabia, and behind it America, Britain, and the Zionist entity, will find themselves facing a united Yemen. Incidentally, for the information of Arab viewers: any foreign or covetous country wishing to impose its will on Yemen or to occupy it knows that Yemen, from Saada to Al-Mahra, is a people of resistance, and that this resistance is concentrated notably in the highlands region and in the region of the Triangle, that is to say Yafa', Al-Dhale', and Radfan. That is why Saudi Arabia, since its founding, has worked to dismember Yemen and to create conflicts and divergences between the highlands region and the Triangle region. In the aggression against Yemen, Saudi Arabia attempted to draw the Triangle region, notably the [Southern] Transitional Council, toward secession so that they would fight against their own compatriots in the interest of Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. We warned them from the very beginning, confirming to them that the ambitions of the countries of the aggression, notably Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, are concentrated in the southern provinces, especially those with low population density, such as Shabwa, Hadramawt, and Al-Mahra, and that the target of the countries of the aggression in the southern provinces is precisely the Triangle region, because resistance is traditionally concentrated there for historical, geographic, and demographic-density reasons. But they did not heed this advice. Yet as soon as the forces of the Transitional Council reached Hadramawt and Al-Mahra, Saudi Arabia considered this presence a violation of its sovereignty. This is what the defense minister of the "hotel government" [pejorative expression designating the internationally recognized Yemeni government-in-exile, a puppet of the Saud family] expressed when he affirmed that no country had the right to intervene in Yemen without Saudi authorization: that is to say, that if a country wishes to intervene in Yemen, it must obtain Saudi Arabia's authorization, whereas Saudi Arabia itself has the right to intervene in Yemen. And he said that this was in accordance with the law. And when he was asked what law he was referring to, the defense minister of the hotel government replied that by "law" he meant the will of the countries of what he calls the International Quartet: America, Britain, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates, which he explicitly named. Thus, whatever they decree concerning Yemen should have the force of law for Yemenis. He added that Yemen falls under Saudi national security. That is how they think.

But today, the people have reached a high level of awareness, notably after Saudi forces bombed the forces of the Transitional Council in various Yemeni provinces. Today, the picture has become clear for the children of the Yemeni people from Saada to Al-Mahra, and in the highlands region as in the Triangle region. Saudi Arabia will therefore today find itself facing a united people. Certainly, there remain a few mercenaries, who belong to only two categories: either Wahhabis influenced by Wahhabi thought, or paid mercenaries who depend on Saudi funds or others. They will therefore find themselves facing a united Yemen, a conscious Yemen, a Yemen armed with all kinds of weapons. And the most important weapon of the Yemenis here…

JOURNALIST*: If I may, please explain this to me in detail. You spoke of an armed Yemen: armed with what? We are talking about several parties in conflict within Yemen. How are you armed? And I had asked you what the role of coordination with allies was. Today, this siege was broken by the arrival of an Iranian plane at the airport.*

AL-BUKHAITI: Yes, Yemen is armed with all kinds of weapons, and the most important of them is Yemen's just cause, the injustice suffered by the Yemeni people, because this aggression has caused immense suffering to the children of the Yemeni people. And also the arrogance and pride of the countries of the aggression, first and foremost the Saudis. This arrogance and pride were on display when the Saudi air force targeted Sanaa airport to prevent the landing of a civilian plane carrying some 300 Yemeni citizens, including women and children, putting their lives in danger. Under what pretext? Under the pretext of preventing a violation of Yemen's sovereignty! Yet at the same time, it fought in the same trench as America and the Zionist entity to shoot down our missiles and drones that were striking deep into the Zionist entity and targeting the American navy in the Red Sea. And Saudi Arabia did not consider that the Israeli-American aggression against Yemen constituted a violation of Yemen's sovereignty. But an Iranian civilian plane, it considered a violation and targeted it.

We, the Yemenis, are armed with our faith, with our trust in Almighty God to grant us victory, armed with our just cause and the immense injustice done to us, armed against the arrogance and pride of the Saudi entity. And above all, Yemen today possesses ballistic and aerial capabilities: we are now capable of striking deep into Saudi territory and targeting the most important Saudi interests, first and foremost the oil and gas fields, as well as the airports and ports.

But we say that the ball is still in Saudi Arabia's court. If Saudi Arabia announces today the end of the aggression against Yemen, the end of what they call "Decisive Storm," and the lifting of the siege on Yemen, that is the only way to avoid the Yemeni strike that is coming. I warned years ago and advised the Saudi regime, I told them: be reasonable, so that you do not one day wake up in a state from which you can no longer escape until the Day of Judgment. They must therefore be reasonable; they still have a chance, perhaps a few hours. The Saudi leadership must hurry, otherwise, we will make the right decision to defend our country and our people.

JOURNALIST*: A few hours, you say, Sayyid Muhammad Al-Bukhaiti?*

AL-BUKHAITI: A few hours, yes, a few hours. But I say this as advice to the Saudi regime, because the retaliation could come soon, perhaps this evening, or tomorrow. The retaliation is inevitable. They therefore have little time left: they must hurry and take the initiative of announcing the end of the aggression and the lifting of the siege on Yemen.

JOURNALIST*: Stay with us, Sayyid Muhammad Al-Bukhaiti. Saudi strikes targeted Sanaa International Airport. The Yemeni state and armed forces confirm that this aggression will not go without retaliation or punishment, and hold the Saudi regime fully responsible for the consequences of its escalation. […] In Iran, the spokesman for the Khatam al-Anbiya central headquarters has warned that continued American interference in the management of the Strait of Hormuz threatens the security of the region and international trade, confirming that Iran will respond firmly to any American move outside the limits it sets. He also warned the countries of the region against the consequences of cooperating with Washington in this area.*

JOURNALIST*: To learn more, we welcome Mojtaba Heydari, Al-Mayadeen analyst for Iranian affairs, from Tehran. Mojtaba, all our greetings. Even more escalation in Iran, Trump's announcement on the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and his willingness to take control of it, even more positions in Iran and escalation in Iran, over to you.*

HEYDARI: My greetings to you and to the viewers. In truth, at this stage, Iran continues to affirm its full sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz; it says and affirms that it rejects any external interference and any parallel route in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States, through its latest attacks, is seeking to open a corridor in the Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran has rejected in its entirety. The nature of the American attacks, notably against the surveillance infrastructure linked to the Strait of Hormuz, shows us that the United States continues to seek to open the Strait of Hormuz. There are also attempts to target Kharg Island. For its part, Iran has announced the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and now Donald Trump is announcing the imposition of a naval blockade.

I anticipate, based on Iranian statements, that we will witness a greater and wider escalation on the Iranian side. Iran affirms that it will continue to maintain the closure of the strait and that it is the master of it. There is also an important question: it is expected that we will witness broader operations on the Iranian side to break the American naval blockade. At this stage, Iran affirms that the United States has violated the clauses of the memorandum of understanding.

JOURNALIST*: Do you have more information on this point?*

HEYDARI: On the subject of the Strait of Hormuz, yes: more than one official stated, and there is such an assessment at the media level in Iran, that the United States wants to impose a naval blockade, and Iran will work to break it. There are also sources confirming that Iran will expand, in the next phase, its retaliation, and there is no such thing as an Iranian concession. Iran has set out an equation: commitment for commitment. But when there is an escalation from the other side, Iran will also escalate further.

Just now, there was a remarkable statement from the spokesman of the Revolutionary Guards who said: "We exercise sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz with all our strength and determination." Iran therefore affirms its sovereignty and rejects any interference in the Strait of Hormuz. There is also an Iranian warning to the countries of the region: Iran says that any country that deals or cooperates with the Zionist entity or the United States will, from Iran's point of view, be considered a partner in hostile military operations against Iran. With this statement and this Iranian escalation, one can say that Iran is ready to defend itself. It is clear that Iran knows that the United States wants a greater escalation: this does not mean operations in Tehran, nor that the United States wants to target the Iranian capital, nor that there will be a total war. But the United States, at this stage, wants to subdue Iran and push it toward concessions on the nuclear file and on the Strait of Hormuz. Iran refuses: it cannot accept diktats. And certainly, Iran will continue to maintain the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and will respond to any American escalation.

JOURNALIST*: Thank you, Mojtaba Heydari, Al-Mayadeen analyst for Iranian affairs, you were with us from Tehran. I come back to you, Brigadier General Bahaa Hallal: who guarantees that things will not slide once again into total war? A war which seems to have a new actor: the Yemeni side, with its short-term threats to Saudi Arabia demanding that it back down, failing which the interior of Saudi territory will be bombed with weapons capabilities superior to what we have known from Yemen?*

HALLAL: There is no guarantee on this subject. The Strait of Hormuz is no longer even a simple maritime corridor for the transport of oil: it has become one of the most important theaters of geopolitical competition between the United States and Iran. If the escalation reaches the point of the United States announcing a genuine naval blockade, as your correspondent in Iran said, or the exercise of broad operational control over shipping movement, the conflict will move from the level of political deterrence to the level of direct competition for maritime control.

In this context, Washington does not consider the Strait of Hormuz to be an Iranian passage; and conversely, Iran considers this passage to be its own passage. America wants to maintain the freedom of navigation guaranteed by international law because of its importance to the global economy. Concretely, Iran's geographic position gives it a geopolitical and strategic influence that cannot be circumvented. The presence of foreign forces imposing rules of conduct in its territorial waters represents a direct threat to its national security.

America's strategic objectives are clear:

• depriving Iran of the use of the strait as a tool of deterrence, since the strait was at the heart of the Memorandum of Understanding and constitutes the first card of strength in that Memorandum, which the Democratic Party today boasts about in the face of the Republican Party, considering it inferior to any Obama-era deal that Trump had boasted of wanting to positively surpass for America.
• Trump claims to want to protect global energy export flows, to exhaust Iranian naval capabilities, and to reinforce the credibility of American deterrence, which collapsed during the 40-day war.

From the Iranian point of view, losing the capacity to exert influence over the Strait of Hormuz does not mean, in my view, merely losing a maritime passage, but means the retreat of one of the most important strategic deterrence cards that Tehran has built over decades. Accepting American domination or American participation in the domination of the strait alongside Iran could be interpreted, both domestically and in the region, as a retreat of Iran's capabilities. It became apparent during Imam Khamenei's funeral, and with the flags of vengeance, that the assembled crowds did not want this agreement.

Concretely, it is unlikely that Iran will engage in a conventional naval battle, because it knows that the balance of forces between it and America tips in America's favor — I am speaking here in terms of conventional military forces. But concretely, Iran is banking on asymmetry in warfare: it is adopting an asymmetric style of warfare, as I mentioned, through fast boats to disperse the large naval units, coastal anti-ship missiles, drones that handle targeting, reconnaissance, and attack, and naval mines to slow down navigation and thereby close the strait. The goal of all these messages is to exert pressure and raise the cost of losses on the American side.

And the essential point is the fundamental question: will the conflict turn into total war? There are several factors that could, in my view, push both sides to contain the escalation:

• the global economic cost of any prolonged blockage of the strait, since Iran has always said "we have closed the strait" while at the same time seeking to let certain oil tankers through in coordination with the authority managing the strait.
• the likelihood of other international powers becoming involved to protect navigation, which would make the confrontation global.
• the will of each side to achieve its objectives without sliding into open war — this does not lead to an operation, this brings the United States back to reason and Trump back to reason, in order to return to the Memorandum of Understanding.

I believe that in recent decades, deterrence in the Gulf has largely been based on the threat of closing the strait. If Iran manages to demonstrate its ability to disrupt naval operations, I believe that, in coordination with the closure of Bab al-Mandab, I see a new strategy, and thus new tools of deterrence that will change the rules of engagement in the strait.

JOURNALIST*: Perhaps we will better understand the game, or the Bab al-Mandab card, with you, Sayyid Muhammad Al-Bukhaiti, since you have now decided to break this siege. You told me earlier that you postponed this matter when the Al-Aqsa Flood began, but today, the whole planet is on fire, and you have taken this decision to go and break this siege, with all its meanings and its messages. If this total war occurs, what will Yemen's role be? Because it will naturally not be separate, and there will be alignments. What will Yemen's role be in this total war, and is there coordination for this total war? Is there information you have received, or is there any hope that Saudi Arabia will back down on continuing this siege and on breaking it?*

AL-BUKHAITI: We hold cards against Saudi Arabia even more painful than Bab al-Mandab: setting the Saudi oil fields ablaze, as well as destroying its ports and airports, is a more powerful and more effective card in Yemen's hands. As for Bab al-Mandab, it is likewise a card in Yemen's hands and a card of international pressure, not only against Saudi Arabia. There is currently no understanding whatsoever between us and Saudi Arabia. Our position is as clear as the sun: Saudi Arabia has no choice but to end the aggression, lift the siege, and withdraw its hand from Yemen.

On the question of alignments, an important point must be stressed: the war in the region, which America manages, either directly or through its instruments, this war is against all the countries of the Axis of Resistance. America and Britain offered Yemen and Iran the option of abandoning the Palestinian cause. So what is pushing America to wage war on us is that we stand alongside the Palestinian cause and that we refused to abandon it. And here we are today, as a country of the Axis of Resistance, at war against America and its British and Israeli allies. Saudi moves therefore serve America and the Zionist entity, and Saudi Arabia has transformed, unfortunately, into the front line of defense for this Zionist entity. And this reality has become clear to all Arab and Islamic peoples. That is why, as I said earlier, Yemen is today armed with its just cause, with the injustice done to it, with Saudi arrogance, with the awareness of the Yemeni people, and also with the development of its military capabilities.

To this must be added the awareness of the children of the Land of the Two Holy Places (Saudi Arabia). The Saudi regime succeeded in deceiving the children of the Land of the Two Holy Places by making them believe it was waging a battle against the Shiites to defend the Sunnis, and against the Persians to defend the Arabs. But it has become apparent today, it has become apparent today, that this Saudi entity is the front line of defense of the Zionist entity. And this is not surprising, because it was Britain that created the Zionist entity, and it was likewise Britain that created the Saudi entity, as a first preparatory step toward the creation of the Zionist entity on the land of Palestine. This reality has thus become clear to all peoples, including the children of the Land of the Two Holy Places. And I would add an important point: the vast majority of the tribes of Saudi Arabia are Yemeni tribes: Qahtan, Yam, Shammar, Zahran. And these will not abandon their cousins in Yemen. We are all moving together, as Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula, to break the devil's horn represented by the Saudi regime.

JOURNALIST*: All my thanks to Muhammad Al-Bukhaiti, member of the Political Bureau of the Ansar Allah movement, and my thanks also go to Brigadier General Bahaa Hallal, expert in military affairs and international relations. And, as always, the greatest thanks go to you, dear viewers, for your loyal following. See you soon.*

To support our work, share this article and subscribe to our newsletter.

​I stumbled upon this short video titled "জীবন যুদ্ধ অপরাজিত" (Invincible Battle of Life), and it completely froze me. On the surface, it’s a painful visual of a specially-abled man pulling himself across a busy zebra crossing while cars and bikes rush past him. But the more I think about it, the more it feels like a universal canvas of modern human existence.

​It instantly reminded me of Jacques Ellul and the ideas surrounding the "Empire of Nonsense." Ellul long warned us about how the obsession with absolute technological efficiency, speed, and corporate progress detaches us from our core humanity. We aren't just losing our aesthetic sense or artistic depth in this digital age; we are losing something far more critical—our capacity for raw, unadulterated empathy.

​This video isn't just a local incident from a specific street. It captures a global reality. We live in a world surrounded by advanced tech, algorithms, and endless noise, yet we have become painfully blind to the suffering of the person right next to us. The speed of the vehicles rushing past this man is a metaphor for a society moving too fast to care.

​It’s raw, it’s silent, and it leaves a heavy lump in your throat.

​[Video Link: https://youtu.be/KZEbDIX2l44\]

​[Support the Creator (Buy Me a Coffee): your_link

https://buymeacoffee.com/bappa32532a

Noam Chomsky: Classical Liberalism and Wage Slavery

Pascal from Neutrality Studies gives an update on world affairs.

BTW Naked Capitalism is an outstanding blog. Their articles and links are always great.

Do any of his linguistic ideas stand out to you, be it positively or negatively?

Over the years, I've focused more on his political views, but lately I've been trying to get a better overview of the linguistics aspect. Among other things, I've checked out some discussions on r/AskLinguistics. One commenter there said that linguistics has moved on from Chomsky. How accurate is that? Is there a consensus among linguists on how relevant his ideas are today? Keeping in mind that, as far as I understand, Chomsky himself revised some of his views, like when it comes to the concept of the Language Acquisition Device and Universal Grammar as localized, language-specific mechanisms.

There are several specific questions I'd like to delve into, but I thought I'd keep this post open-ended/oriented toward what you happen to know the most about. However, if you are very interested in e.g. what Hilary Putnam, W.V.O. Quine, Jean Piaget, B.F. Skinner or Steven Pinker have said about Chomsky's perspectives on linguistics (or what he has said about their ideas), I'd be interested in your views on that, even though I may make more targeted posts about some of that in the future.