NM's blog

Does the German poet Heinrich Heine have anything relevant today' Germany? Yes,  Heinrich Heine  is astoundingly relevant to today's Germany , so much so that his 19th-century writings read like a contemporary commentary on the nation's modern cultural, political, and social struggles.  [1, 2]  Though he spent the last 25 years of his life exiled in Paris, his complex relationship with his homeland—a mix of deep longing, bitter irony, and fierce critique—laid the groundwork for how modern Germany views itself.  [3, 4, 5]  1. A Prophet of the 20th Century (and Beyond) Heine is famously studied in Germany today for his uncanny, haunting ability to look into the future. In his 1821 play  Almansor , he wrote a line that is now engraved at the Bebelplatz Memorial in Berlin, where the Nazis burned books in 1933:  [6]  "Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people also."  [4]  This quote cements Heine as Germany’s absolute mora...

We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children… During an assault [on Indians], the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female or even discriminate as to age. —Cited in Ben Kiernan, Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007), 358; cited in John F. Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1993), 379. It is my purpose utterly to exterminate the Sioux if I have the power to do so and even if it requires a campaign lasting the whole of next year. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromises can be made. —  Major General John Pope, who led the Union forces, to Colonel Henry Sibley in David A. Nichols, “The Other Civil War: Lincoln and the Indians,” Minnesota History 44, no. 1 (1974): 4.

Is the human right to housing backed by local, state, national, or international law? If so, how is it being so flagrantly flouted? If a right is something you are actionably entitled to do or have, does the right to housing still exist absent the ability to wield it? Can rights endure without state power (or some other source of collective control) to enact and enforce them? Why does the 'richest' country on earth have “ over one hundred thousand people sleep in homeless shelters…and over three-quarters of a million people are homeless?” Related An excerpt from Samuel Stein's A Right to Housing?

Hossam el-Hamalawy (Verso 2026)

The World Bank and IMF “maintain similar political economic orientation, including in compelling regional countries to apply the same policies that were at the root causes for the uprisings and even deepening them. They indeed still argue that large sectors of the economy are in need of privatisation, in favour of trade liberalisation and more favourable regulations to attract foreign investment, austerity measures, including halting subsidies… This is no different in Syria today .”

The talk these days in Britain is again about the possible break up of the UK. Writing in 1977, during a decade marked by severe economic stagnation, IMF bailouts, and the initial emergence of the SNP, Tom Nairn famously predicted the "slow foundering" of the United Kingdom.  His core argument was that the UK is not a modern democratic nation-state, but an archaic, imperial relic whose structural flaws make its collapse inevitable.  Because Britain was the world's first industrial power, its rising capitalist bourgeoisie made a pact with the old agrarian aristocracy rather than overthrowing them. It never had a true democratic revolution The UK retained a fundamentally "pre-modern," centralized constitutional framework based on the absolute sovereignty of the  "Queen in Parliament"  rather than the sovereignty of the people. Nairn mockingly dubbed this encrusted, uncodified political system  "Ukania". According to Nairn, this archaic state st...

Claims on Facebook Claim: China’s most infamous traitor, General Wu Sangui; the guy who opened the gates of the Great Wall and allowed the Manchu hordes to invade China.  Why would someone compare that with Merkel in Germany accepting a million or so refugees? While rhetorically powerful for anti-immigration commentators, the comparison collapses under historical scrutiny: Intent and Motivation:  General Wu Sangui acted out of  military desperation and personal vengeance  to defeat domestic rebels, knowing he was allying with an invading military force. Merkel acted out of  humanitarian duty  to address a massive humanitarian crisis during the Syrian civil war. Nature of the Influx:  Wu Sangui let in a  highly organized, hostile military army  intent on conquest and regime change. Merkel accepted  disarmed, displaced civilian refugees  seeking asylum under international law. The Outcome:  Wu’s actions immediately led to the...