As France's fiery student protests merged with a nationwide revolt on Saturday, a communist leader and academic, Vijay Prashad, celebrated the unrest with a message linking protests across three continents.

"Paris-New Delhi-Buenos Aires," Prashad posted on X, borrowing a line from the British punk band The Clash: "Let fury have the hour, anger can be power."

Prashad was important not only for what he said, but for who he is: executive director of Tricontinental Ltd., a nonprofit funded by an American-born Marxist tech tycoon, Neville Roy Singham, who lives in Shanghai.

The message captured how France's riots have become part of a wider international narrative of rebellion — a kind of "Chaos Inc." — amplified by a transnational network of communist and socialist organizations stretching from Europe to Asia, Australia, Africa and South America and North America.

FRANCE IS DEVOURING ITSELF AS SCHOOL RIOTS REVEAL A CRISIS FAR BIGGER THAN BROKEN CLASSROOMS

A Fox News Digital investigation has identified 54 organizations and movements in France's October student protests and their wider network of supporters and international amplifiers, including communist parties, revolutionary socialist groups, labor unions, environmental activists, Muslim student advocates, Palestinian-solidarity organizations and international media outlets.

Of the 54 organizations identified in the October protest ecosystem, 16 — or only about one in three — are student or youth organizations, including communist youth groups and a Muslim student association. The remaining 38 include adult-led communist groups, labor unions, political parties, revolutionary-left organizations, advocacy groups and international propaganda outlets.

They include Gilets jaunes, or "Yellow Vests," a radical far-left group that led protests with other groups this weekend, and far-left socialist political party La France Insoumise (LFI), or France Unbowed.

From the outset, far-left socialist and communist organizations helped organize and amplify France’s student revolt, using grievances over school conditions as a pretext to mobilize a broader political struggle against capitalism, government austerity, policing and military spending.

HOUSE PANEL WARNS SINGHAM-LINKED NONPROFITS: COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS OR FACE CONGRESS

In a sign of unrest to come, France is inspiring an expansion of Chaos Inc.

Fox News Digital has learned an international coalition of 28 communist and socialist youth and organizations are galvanizing students and youth for a coordinated strike across 12 countries in Europe under the slogan "Fight for Our Future, Not Their Wars!" They are calling for walkouts, demonstrations, assemblies, blockades and occupations.

Among the international amplifiers for this mayhem are organizations within the Singham network, including Tricontinental, named for a communist convention in Havana, Cuba, in 1966, CodePink and BreakThrough News, a New York-based media outlet, which promoted coverage of the weekend's mayhem in France with the headline: "ANTI-MACRON PROTESTS ROCK FRANCE." 

It shared a montage of chaotic scenes from Montpellier, Paris, Marseille, Bordeaux, Strasbourg and Saint-Étienne, showing activists engulfed in smoke, Palestinian flags flapping above the crowds, black smoke billowing over flames and police hitting demonstrators with clubs. Its editors added a soundtrack of dramatic music. Its videos include politicians from the far-left socialist political party La France Insoumise (LFI).

In an interview with BreakThrough News, Jodie Evans, Singham's wife and co-founder of a far-left group he funded, CodePink, promoted a planned November campaign in Washington opposing U.S. military spending.

She explicitly invoked youth demonstrations abroad, including France, Spain and India, while urging Americans to participate in CodePink's campaign.

"I want people to look at France, Spain and India," Evans said, urging Americans to take to the streets.

Fox News Digital has prepared a "Who's Who Guide to Chaos Inc. in France," identifying the 54 organizations in the international network promoting the riots and protests in France, from direct organizing to participation, public solidarity and media amplification.

FRENCH SCHOOL RIOTS DEEPEN AS EXPERTS POINT TO FAR-LEFT ALLIANCE FUELING ‘BROADER CONFRONTATION’

WHO'S WHO IN FRANCE'S 'CHAOS INC.' NETWORK

STUDENT UNIONS AND YOUTH GROUPS (16)

COMMUNIST AND SOCIALIST STUDENT AND YOUTH GROUPS

1. Communist Youth of Greece — COMMUNIST: A Greek communist youth organization that has publicly supported French students, connecting their education demands to opposition to military spending and government austerity. It has also supported communist protesters in Madrid, Spain, and Greece.
2. La Jeunesse Communists — COMMUNIST: A group coordinating communist youth activism visible in the French demonstrations, including hammer-and-sickle flags and banners calling for "Class War!"
3. Le Poing Levé — The Raised Fist — REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST: A revolutionary student and youth organization associated with Révolution Permanente that works to connect high-school and university protests.
4. Union de la Jeunesse Communiste (UJC) — Communist Youth Union — COMMUNIST: A French communist youth organization that called on supporters to join and amplify the student struggle.

STUDENT AND YOUTH GROUPS

1. AFGES – Les étudiant·e·s d'Alsace — The Students of Alsace: A Strasbourg-based student federation affiliated with FAGE that posted about the early October mobilization while describing itself as politically independent. It coordinated protests in Strasbourg on Oct. 17 with an Instagram post that said, "MOBILISER," which means "MOBILIZE." Another post invited activists onto the streets with the message, "LE COMBAT CONTINUE," or "THE FIGHT CONTINUES."
2. Étudiants Musulmans de France (EMF) — Muslim Students of France: A Muslim student association involved in student representation and campus solidarity whose social-media activity appears in the protest research; its exact Oct. 17 role remains unconfirmed.
3. Fédération des associations générales étudiantes (FAGE) — Federation of General Student Associations: A national student federation that joined calls for student mobilization against the "extremely violent repression" of youth. It shared footage of its members marching on Oct. 17, with the hashtags #manifestation #genz #17octobre.
4. Fédération Syndicale Étudiante (FSE) — Student Trade Union Federation: A left-wing student organization whose activists appeared in demonstrations and announced "Democratic and Antifascist Vigilance Committees," linking high-school grievances to the treatment of anti-Israel activists and union members. On Saturday, it posted videos with its trademark solid red flags. One message read: "In Bordeaux, protesters invade the house of the mayor! On October 17, the whole country is on a standstill. Everyone is mobilizing for better living conditions, and against cutting the budget for public service! In Bordeaux, we hear echoing in the protest: Only one solution, the Revolution! The mobilization of the 17 continues: let's block everywhere in France!"
5. Interfac Île-de-France — Regional Student Coordination: A student coordination organization among Oct. 17 organizers involved in discussions over demonstration routes in Paris.
6. Les Lycéens! — The High School Students!: A high-school student organization active in the early school blockades.
7. Renouveau lycéen — High School Renewal: A high-school student organization identified in coverage of the October school mobilization.
8. Rassemblement pour l'égalité et la démocratie Jeunes — Youth for Equality and Democracy: A youth civic and political organization associated with organizing support for students in Seine-Saint-Denis; its specific Oct. 17 role has not been independently established.
9. Solidaires Étudiant·e·s — Solidaires Students: A left-wing student union that supported the high-school movement and helped connect university students with the October demonstrations.
10. Union Étudiante — Student Union: A national university student union that helped mobilize students for the Oct. 6 demonstrations and encouraged participation in the broader movement.
11. Union nationale des étudiants de France (UNEF) — National Union of Students of France: One of France's established student unions, it was among the organizers of the Oct. 6 nationwide demonstrations.
12. Union syndicale lycéenne (USL) — High School Students' Union: A French high-school student union that helped organize the initial school blockades and October demonstrations before publicly supporting students joining the Oct. 17 Yellow Vest mobilization.

COMMUNIST, MARXIST, TROTSKYIST AND REVOLUTIONARY-SOCIALIST ORGANIZATIONS (11)

1. International Communist League — TROTSKYIST: An international communist organization whose French publication Le Bolchévik called on labor unions to mobilize in support of the school protests.
2. Jeunesse du Monde — COMMUNIST PUBLICATION: A communist publication associated with the Organisation Communiste de France; separate organizational participation in the October 17 protests has not been established.
3. La France insoumise (LFI) — France Unbowed — LEFT-POPULIST / SOCIALIST: A political movement whose elected officials supported student blockades, including lawmaker Louis Boyard, who waved a Palestinian flag alongside students at Paris-Est-Créteil University.
4. Nouveau Parti anticapitaliste – L'Anticapitaliste (NPA) — New Anticapitalist Party — REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST: A revolutionary anti-capitalist party that urged continued mobilization after the Oct. 6 protests.
5. Organisation communiste révolutionnaire — REVOLUTIONARY COMMUNIST: A communist organization identified in the wider research whose precise legal identity and direct October protest activities require additional verification.
6. Parti communiste français (PCF) — French Communist Party — COMMUNIST: Party leader Fabien Roussel publicly supported student demonstrators in Paris alongside communist elected officials and activists as demonstrators carried party flags.
7. Parti des Indigènes de la République (PIR) — Party of the Indigenous of the Republic — DECOLONIAL POLITICAL MOVEMENT: A political organization that defended the student revolt and circulated imagery of protesters outside Lycée Paul Éluard holding a Palestinian flag.
8. Parti de l'égalité socialiste — Socialist Equality Party — TROTSKYIST: A French socialist organization that called for workers' action committees and broader mobilization in support of the student movement.
9. Revolutionary Communist Group — COMMUNIST: A British revolutionary communist organization that published an article connecting the French student revolt to opposition to capitalism, imperialism and support for Palestine.
10. Révolution Permanente — Permanent Revolution — TROTSKYIST: A revolutionary socialist organization and publication that reported on university blockades and encouraged solidarity between high-school and university students.
11. World Socialist Web Site — TROTSKYIST MEDIA: An international socialist publication that covered the French school blockades and placed them within a broader argument about austerity, militarization and capitalism.

MUSLIM STUDENT AND PRO-PALESTINE ORGANIZATIONS (2)

1. Union juive française pour la paix (UJFP) — French Jewish Union for Peace: A Jewish peace and Palestine-solidarity organization that publicized "support for high school students" who joined protests in early October.
2. Urgence Palestine — Palestine Emergency: A French Palestine-solidarity organization whose protest-related social-media activity appears in the research, although direct organization of the October 17 demonstrations is not established.

LABOR UNIONS, TEACHERS' FEDERATIONS AND FARMERS (12)

1. CGT Éduc'action — CGT Education: The education-sector organization of the General Confederation of Labour that joined union mobilization calls.
2. CFDT Éducation Formation Recherche Publiques — CFDT Public Education, Training and Research: A public education and research union that joined education-sector statements supporting the school movement.
3. Confédération générale du travail (CGT) — General Confederation of Labour: One of France's major national labor confederations that supported the October school mobilizations and joined the Oct. 17 cost-of-living protests.
4. Confédération nationale du travail (CNT) — National Confederation of Labour — ANARCHO-SYNDICALIST TRADITION: A revolutionary-syndicalist labor organization that endorsed the student movement, declaring that students were right to revolt.
5. Confédération paysanne — Peasant Confederation: A farmers' union that called on agricultural workers to join Oct. 17 protests, linking rural economic grievances with the national mobilization.
6. Fédération syndicale unitaire (FSU) — Unitary Trade Union Federation: A major education and public-sector union federation that supported the school mobilization.
7. FNEC FP-FO — National Federation of Education, Culture and Vocational Training–Workers' Force: Force Ouvrière's education federation, which joined calls supporting high-school demonstrations.
8. Force Ouvrière (FO) — Workers' Force: A national labor confederation whose education affiliates joined calls supporting high-school students.
9. SUD éducation — SUD Education: A left-wing education union that joined mobilization calls involving students and education workers.
10. Syndicat national des enseignements de second degré (SNES-FSU) — National Union of Secondary Education: A major secondary-school personnel union that supported strikes and demonstrations in solidarity with students.
11. Union syndicale Solidaires — Solidaires Trade Union: A left-wing labor federation whose regional branches promoted Oct. 17 demonstrations and strikes after earlier student solidarity mobilizations.
12. Union nationale des syndicats autonomes (UNSA) — National Union of Autonomous Trade Unions: A national trade-union federation whose education organizations supported the school movement.

HUMAN-RIGHTS, PARENTS', ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC-JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS (11)

1. Amnesty International France: The French section of Amnesty International that reported on police treatment of minors during the school protests.
2. ATTAC France — Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions and Citizen Action: An economic-justice organization that linked protest grievances with opposition to austerity and restrictions on civil liberties.
3. Coordination nationale du mouvement du 26 septembre — September 26 Movement Coordination: A climate-mobilization network that encouraged participation in Oct. 17 protests and connected environmental concerns with household economic pressures.
4. Extinction Rebellion: An international environmental activist movement whose imagery appeared in photographic coverage of the French demonstrations.
5. Fédération des conseils de parents d'élèves (FCPE) — Federation of Parents' Councils: A national parents' federation that called on members to demonstrate and announced participation by its national board in Paris.
6. Gilets jaunes — Yellow Vests: A radical far-left French protest group revived around fuel prices and the cost of living whose Oct. 17 demonstrations converged with the student mobilization.
7. Intersyndicale nationale VTC — National Private-Hire Drivers' Union Coalition: A professional drivers' coalition that promoted participation in the Oct. 17 mobilization, including a gathering at Place de la Bastille.
8. Les Soulèvements de la Terre — Earth Uprisings: A radical environmental movement that celebrated the student revolt and called for an antifascist uprising.
9. Ligue des droits de l'Homme (LDH) — Human Rights League: A French civil-liberties organization that publicized support for students and criticism of police repression.
10. Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peuples (MRAP) — Movement Against Racism and for Friendship Between Peoples: An antiracism organization identified in earlier coalition activity around the student demonstrations.
11. SOS Racisme — SOS Racism: A French antiracism organization included in coalition activity supporting the school movement.

INTERNATIONAL AMPLIFIERS AND ADDITIONAL OCT. 17 ORGANIZERS (2)

1. BreakThrough News — COMMUNIST SINGHAM NETWORK: A New York-based outlet that reported on French student demonstrations and previewed their participation in the October 17 cost-of-living mobilization.
2. Indian Alliance Paris — COMMUNIST SINGHAM NETWORK: A France-based Indian diaspora organization that connected French and Indian youth protests through its social-media messaging. It has partnered with the SIngham network's People's Forum for an event.

THE NEXT MOBILIZATION: NOV. 20 EUROPEAN YOUTH STRIKE

1. Counterfire — United Kingdom — REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST / ANTI-WAR: A British socialist organization that advertised the Nov. 20 strike and connected opposition to war with campaigns involving universities and Palestine.
2. International Socialist Alternative — REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALIST: An international socialist organization that endorsed the Nov. 20 action and connected opposition to militarization with criticism of capitalism.
3. International Youth Strike coalition: The international organizing coalition announced plans in August for coordinated Nov. 20 student walkouts and demonstrations across Europe under the slogan "Fight for Our Future, Not Their Wars!"
4. Socialist Party — United Kingdom — TROTSKYIST: A British socialist party whose October commentary linked France's student revolt with wider European mobilization and the forthcoming strike.
5. Socialist Students — United Kingdom — SOCIALIST: A British socialist student organization that promoted the Nov. 20 strike and sought to connect student opposition to military spending with wider socialist campaigns.
6. Stop the War Coalition — United Kingdom — ANTI-WAR: A British anti-war organization that promoted the youth strike and encouraged demonstrations opposing military spending.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Sacrifica ciò che è scomodo, mai il progetto. Il “pal-washing” in azione.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Un copione già noto

Il 9 ottobre 2026 il Comitato norvegese per il Nobel ha assegnato il Premio per la pace a Navanethem Pillay, giurista sudafricana di 85 anni, già giudice della Corte penale internazionale e Alta commissaria Onu per i diritti umani. La motivazione parla di una persona che ha aperto la strada a un ordine giuridico globale più completo. Il presidente del Comitato, Jorgen Watne Frydnes, ha aggiunto che il premio è un messaggio per chi attacca e mina il sistema internazionale e le sue istituzioni. Il verdetto è dichiaratamente politico, ed è su questo piano che va discusso.

La stessa figura che nel 2011 avrebbe «abbattuto» Gheddafi, spianando la strada al saccheggio del petrolio libico e alla schiavitù dei migranti africani, ora «abbatterebbe» Netanyahu, e preparerebbe così la riabilitazione di Israele. Il filo logico non sarebbe la morale né la pace, ma l’agenda dell’Open Society di George Soros: sacrificare i soggetti diventati scomodi, mai l’essenza del progetto. Qualcuno l’ha battezzata «pal-washing». La domanda di fondo è seria, perché chiede se dietro premi e giurisdizioni dell’ordine liberale ci sia una regolarità.

Occorre sottolineare che il copione è già noto. Vi ricordate quando Barack Obama ricevette il premio Nobel per la pace, inaugurando guerre su guerre? O vi ricordare i personaggi in cerca d’autore come Machado, Mohammadi, o i difensori dei criminali Ucraini? Ma andiamo per ordine.

Atto Primo: la Libia

Nel febbraio 2011 Pillay, Alta commissaria, chiese al Consiglio per i diritti umani un’azione vigorosa per fermare le violenze e chiamare i responsabili a risponderne; il Consiglio condannò le violazioni e istituì una commissione d’inchiesta. Il passaggio successivo toccò al Consiglio di sicurezza: il rinvio alla CPI con la risoluzione 1970, poi la 1973, approvata con dieci voti favorevoli e cinque astensioni (Brasile, Cina, Germania, India, Russia). Nessuno sostiene che Pillay abbia deciso la guerra. Conta la sequenza: il linguaggio dei diritti umani aprì la porta, quello della protezione dei civili autorizzò la forza, e l’operazione scivolò verso il cambio di regime. Già in aprile Lavrov accusava la NATO di eccedere il mandato, e un ministro francese ammetteva che il cambio di regime avrebbe richiesto un nuovo voto.

Poi i costi. Nel 2017 l’OIM documentò aste di migranti subsahariani nel sud della Libia, venduti per somme tra 200 e 500 dollari. Il nesso con il crollo dello Stato dopo il 2011 è la lettura più plausibile, benché la fonte documenti il fenomeno e non la sua causa. Il prezzo lo pagarono la Libia e i migranti; la cornice giuridica ne uscì, sul piano formale, intatta, anche se la controversia sul mandato avrebbe poi pesato sui veti di Mosca e Pechino in altri dossier.

Atto Secondo: Bibi

Il 21 novembre 2024 la Camera preliminare I della CPI emise mandati d’arresto per Netanyahu e per l’ex ministro della Difesa Gallant, per crimini di guerra e crimini contro l’umanità. Pillay aveva lasciato la Corte nel 2008, ma ha presieduto la Commissione d’inchiesta Onu che il 16 settembre 2025 ha concluso che Israele ha commesso genocidio a Gaza. Qui il «pal-washing» trova il suo meccanismo. Il diritto penale internazionale lavora su persone: un imputato, un’imputazione, un periodo. Se il caso si chiude con la sorte di un leader, si apre una cesura narrativa, il prima e il dopo di un uomo, dopo la quale lo Stato può presentarsi come reintegrato. La Libia offre l’analogia: là il caso si chiuse con la caduta di un uomo.

I limiti del percorso giocano a favore della lettura. La Corte non ha una polizia e l’esecuzione dei mandati dipende dagli Stati parte; la Commissione non è un tribunale e non parla a nome dell’intera Onu; lo stesso Comitato, riferisce AFP, ha detto che spetta a una corte stabilire se vi sia genocidio. Il premio non produce effetti giuridici, lo sappiamo, però produce legittimazione per un circuito che promette giustizia e non può garantirla.

Dobbiamo, poi, considerare che dinamiche del genere le abbiamo già viste più volte all’interno dell’ordine globalista che domina in Occidente. L’Open Society Foundations si presenta come il maggiore finanziatore privato al mondo di gruppi per giustizia, democrazia e diritti umani, attivo in oltre cento paesi, e Pillay ha ricevuto lo Stockholm Human Rights Award, lo stesso che nel 2011 è andato a Soros e a Neier. Sembra proprio che si ripeta di nuovo il pattern della agenda sorosiana, fatta di fondazioni, ONG, tribunali, commissioni e burocrazie che condividono un lessico e un orizzonte, quello di un ordine liberale da perfezionare e mai da rimettere in discussione. Chi opera dentro quel lessico può denunciare un governo, un leader, perfino uno Stato, ma non può contestare i presupposti dell’ordine che gli dà legittimità.

Alcuni obietteranno che la Commissione di Pillay attribuisce la responsabilità a Israele come Stato, non soltanto ai suoi leader, il che contraddice l’idea di un’operazione puramente personalizzante. Il secondo è la reazione. Netanyahu ha accusato il Comitato di aver perso la bussola morale, il Ministero degli Esteri israeliano ha parlato di una grottesca strumentalizzazione del premio, e Washington ha annunciato sanzioni contro la CPI poche ore dopo l’annuncio. Tutto vero. Ma avrebbe senso e valore se il sistema occidentale non fosse marcio fin dalle sue fondamenta, se il suo sistema giuridico funzionasse, ma così non è, sotto nessun aspetto (e abbiamo avuto già sufficienti dimostrazioni – non scordiamoci anche il caso Epstein).

Se nei prossimi dodici mesi la caduta politica di Netanyahu verrà presentata come chiusura del caso, anziché come una tappa di un procedimento che riguarda lo Stato, il «pal-washing» guadagnerà peso. Se i procedimenti proseguiranno oltre la sua persona, e se gli Stati parte eseguiranno i mandati, forse ne perderà. Allo stato delle prove la tesi è plausibile e, fino a smentita comprovata, questo è l’ennesimo Nobel della non-Pace, che non possiamo chiamare “guerra”.

Sacrifice the inconvenient, never the project. “Pal-washing” in action.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A familiar script

On 9 October 2026, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Peace Prize to Navanethem Pillay, an 85-year-old South African jurist, former judge at the International Criminal Court and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The citation speaks of a person who has paved the way for a more comprehensive global legal order. The Committee’s chair, Jorgen Watne Frydnes, added that the prize is a message to those who attack and undermine the international system and its institutions. The verdict is avowedly political, and it is on this level that it must be discussed.

The very same figure who, in 2011, is said to have ‘toppled’ Gaddafi, paving the way for the plundering of Libyan oil and the enslavement of African migrants, would now ‘topple’ Netanyahu, thereby paving the way for Israel’s rehabilitation. The underlying logic would be neither morality nor peace, but the agenda of George Soros’s Open Society: to sacrifice those who have become inconvenient, never the essence of the project itself. Some have dubbed it ‘pal-washing’. The fundamental question is a serious one, for it asks whether there is a pattern behind the prizes and jurisdictions of the liberal order.

It must be emphasised that the script is already familiar. Do you remember when Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, whilst launching war after war? Or do you recall figures in search of a cause such as Machado, Mohammadi, or the defenders of Ukrainian criminals? But let us proceed in order.

Act One: Libya

In February 2011, Pillay, the High Commissioner, called on the Human Rights Council to take vigorous action to stop the violence and hold those responsible to account; the Council condemned the violations and established a commission of inquiry. The next step fell to the Security Council: referral to the ICC via Resolution 1970, followed by Resolution 1973, approved with ten votes in favour and five abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russia). No one claims that Pillay decided to go to war. What matters is the sequence of events: the language of human rights opened the door, that of the protection of civilians authorised the use of force, and the operation gradually shifted towards regime change. As early as April, Lavrov was accusing NATO of exceeding its mandate, and a French minister admitted that regime change would have required a new vote.

Then there are the costs. In 2017, the IOM documented auctions of sub-Saharan migrants in southern Libya, sold for sums ranging from 200 to 500 dollars. The link with the collapse of the state after 2011 is the most plausible interpretation, although the source documents the phenomenon rather than its cause. Libya and the migrants paid the price; the legal framework emerged, formally speaking, intact, even if the controversy over the mandate would later weigh on the vetoes of Moscow and Beijing in other matters.

Act Two: Bibi

On 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Pillay had left the Court in 2008, but chaired the UN Commission of Inquiry which, on 16 September 2025, concluded that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza. This is where ‘pal-washing’ comes into play. International criminal law deals with individuals: a defendant, a charge, a period of time. If the case concludes with the fate of a leader, a narrative break occurs – the ‘before’ and ‘after’ of a man – after which the state can present itself as restored. Libya offers an analogy: there, the case concluded with the fall of a man.

The limitations of the process work in favour of this interpretation. The Court has no police force and the execution of warrants depends on the States Parties; the Commission is not a court and does not speak on behalf of the entire UN; the Committee itself, according to AFP, has stated that it is up to a court to determine whether genocide has taken place. The award has no legal effect, as we know, but it lends legitimacy to a system that promises justice yet cannot guarantee it.

We must also bear in mind that we have already seen dynamics of this kind on numerous occasions within the globalist order that dominates the West. The Open Society Foundations presents itself as the world’s largest private funder of groups working for justice, democracy and human rights, active in over one hundred countries, and Pillay received the Stockholm Human Rights Award, the same prize that went to Soros and Neier in 2011. It certainly seems that the pattern of the Soros agenda is repeating itself once again – an agenda comprising foundations, NGOs, tribunals, commissions and bureaucracies that share a common lexicon and worldview: that of a liberal order to be perfected and never called into question. Those operating within that lexicon may denounce a government, a leader, or even a state, but they cannot challenge the underlying assumptions of the order that grants them legitimacy.

Some will object that Pillay’s Commission attributes responsibility to Israel as a state, not merely to its leaders, which contradicts the idea of a purely personalised operation. The second point concerns the reaction. Netanyahu accused the Committee of having lost its moral compass; the Israeli Foreign Ministry spoke of a grotesque exploitation of the prize; and Washington announced sanctions against the ICC just a few hours after the announcement. All true. But it would make sense and have value if the Western system were not rotten to its very core, if its legal system were functioning properly, but this is not the case, in any respect (and we have already seen sufficient evidence of this – let us not forget the Epstein case either).

If, over the next twelve months, Netanyahu’s political downfall is presented as the conclusion of the case, rather than as a stage in proceedings concerning the state, ‘Pal-washing’ will gain traction. If the proceedings continue beyond his person, and if the State Parties execute the warrants, perhaps it will lose ground. Given the current evidence, the argument is plausible and, until proven otherwise, this is yet another ‘Non-Peace’ Nobel Prize – one we cannot call ‘war’.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In the previous article, I discussed general aspects of the political testament left by the greatest science communicator of the 20th century: Carl Sagan (1934–1996). I showed that his Epicurean worldview leads him to portray life on Earth as the result of an extremely ephemeral convergence of causes, that humanity must artificially sustain to prevent our species from going extinct. This maintenance requires a global pact governed by scientists. Scientists are special beings because they are, supposedly, the only ones who strive to foresee catastrophes. Sagan artificially divides humanity into two groups: Enlightenment atheists who embrace science, and religious obscurantists who reject it. Therefore, for the species to survive, the former must prevail over the latter.

In his political testament, Billions and Billions (1997), the causes he champions are environmentalism and abortion. Today, I aim to show that these two causes are, in fact, one and the same: Neo-Malthusianism.

It is easy to prove that Carl Sagan was a Neo-Malthusian. Here is what he says in the chapter “The Persian Chessboard”: “Exponentials are also the central idea behind the world population crisis. […] As the English clergyman Thomas Malthus pointed out in 1798, a population increasing exponentially— Malthus described it as a geometrical progression— will outstrip any conceivable increase in food supply. No Green Revolution, no hydroponics, no making the deserts bloom can beat an exponential population growth. There is also no extraterrestrial solution to this problem. […] Even if it were possible to ship everybody on Earth off to planets of distant stars on ships that travel faster than light, almost nothing would be changed— all the habitable planets in the Milky Way galaxy would be full up in a millennium or so.”

There is no caveat regarding the error of Malthus’s prophecy, nor any consideration of the inhumanity of his recommendations. Malthus is portrayed as a scientific hero. And, with surprising dogmatism, Sagan dismisses—without argument—the idea that technological improvements could solve the food problem. Mind you: Sagan takes it for granted that, even on different planets, humans would continue to procreate exponentially, when fertility rates historically differ even between rural areas and the urban middle class! And a thousand years is far too short a timeframe for humanity, with all its astronomical development, to solve a problem!

Instead of openly proposing that the poor be denied charity, like old Malthus, Sagan proposes birth control and technological apartheid. Instead of helping the poor, then, we must prevent them from being born and deprive them of technology—except for birth control technology, which, it seems, is entirely immune to causing unforeseen environmental damage. Moreover, while old Malthus had England’s poor in mind, Sagan broadens his scope to include the world’s poor nations—nations that keep growing and adopting technology, something supposedly responsible for significant environmental damage.

Were he to state these things explicitly, he would clearly appear as a villain. Thus, in the same chapter, the issue of birth control is wrapped in the language of humanitarianism and feminism: “There is a well-documented worldwide correlation between poverty and high birthrates. In little countries and big countries […] in almost all these cases, exponential population growth slows down or stops when grirfcling poverty disappears. This is called the demographic transition. It is in the urgent long-term interest of the human species that every place on Earth achieves this demographic transition. […] One of the central issues in the world population crisis is poverty.”

Correlation does not imply causation, yet Sagan argues as if it did. People are not poor because they have children; rather, they have children because the cost of raising them is low and is offset by the utility of their labor: in an underdeveloped setting, all farmers need to provide their children is food—which the land itself yields—and within a few years, the child begins to assist the family with work. A sterile couple would not become wealthy simply by virtue of having no children; they would merely save on food that might well otherwise rot, while failing to multiply their workforce. If matters stood as Sagan claims, sterility would be a blessing in agrarian societies, yet reality demonstrates the opposite.

He continues: “The exceptions to the demographic transition are interesting. Some nations [which he does not name] with high per capita incomes still have high birthrates. But in them, contraceptives are sparsely available, and/or women lack any effective political power. It is not hard to understand the connection.” At no point in the book does he explain what criteria must be met to say that women possess real political power within a society. This is regrettable, given his assertion that women held such power during the Pleistocene (!!) but do not today. Thus, since Sagan cites no sources for this information, one can only conclude that he is fabricating a series of pretexts to advocate for contraception, tailored to whatever reality the reader faces: if women enjoy favorable material conditions yet continue to bear children, we cannot simply leave them be; this is framed as a symptom of a lack of political power—a power women supposedly possessed in prehistory while dancing in circles on full-moon nights under the influence of hallucinogens.

In “The Environment: Where Does Prudence Lie?”, after discussing the unexpected consequences of CFCs, he laments: “The inhibitions placed on the irresponsible use of technology are weak, often half-hearted, and almost always, worldwide, subordinated to short-term national or corporate interest. We are now able, intentionally or inadvertently, to alter the global environment. […] Maybe the products of science are simply too powerful, too dangerous for us. Maybe we’re not grown-up enough to be given them. Would it be wise to give a handgun as a present to an infant in the crib?” After comparing the weapon to science, he adds “one further complication: Imagine that when you pull the trigger on a handgun, it takes decades before either the victim or the assailant recognizes that someone’s been hit.”

The implication throughout is that CFC-based refrigeration, including for food, should not have been made available to the world’s population, even though it greatly improves human quality of life. It is an essentially peaceful technology. Yet, shortly thereafter, he once again advocates for birth control, as if millions of pills containing artificial hormones were, with absolute certainty,incapable of causing environmental harm in the long run. What Sagan tacitly proposes has a name: technological apartheid.

Observe how he concerns himself not only with the population growth of the Third World but also with its access to technology, in the chapter “Escape from Ambush”: “The biggest CO₂ emitter on the planet is the United States. The next biggest CO₂ emitter is Russia and the other republics of the former Soviet Union. The third biggest, if we combine them, is all the developing countries together. That’s a very important fact: This isn’t just a problem for the highly technological nations— through slash-and-burn agriculture, burning firewood, and so on, developing countries are also making a major contribution to global warming. And the developing countries have the world’s largest population growth rate. Even if they don’t succeed in achieving something like the standard of living of […] the West, these nations will constitute a steadily increasing part of the problem.”

The Third World is in the wrong if it doesn’t use much technology, and it is in the wrong if it grows food. A single country, the USA, leads the problem that needs to be tackled, yet it is the Third World, taken as a whole, that must be controlled through a reduction in birth rates. Why not curb consumerism in the United States instead of forcing the Chinese and Indians to have fewer children? Sagan offers no answer, nor does he ever address the issue of consumerism—a topic any serious environmentalist ought to tackle.

The path Sagan proposes to avert CO2-induced global warming is to gradually abandon fossil fuels and… live off solar panels and wind power, because Chernobyl supposedly “proved” that nuclear energy is unsafe, and because its technology could be converted for weapons production. It is as if the manufacture of solar panels caused no environmental damage, and as if those panels lasted forever without ever becoming waste. The impact of wind farms on bird populations is not considered either. It is as if the sun and wind generated energy with no environmental cost to the humans seeking to harness it. By 1996, Sagan was already an electric car enthusiast; he predicted they should be the preferred choice—not for their engine power or top speed (which he assumed were lower than those of gasoline cars), but to save the human species.

So, humanity must generate less energy and, especially in the Third World, reproduce less, magically becoming wealthier in the process; yet, it must not have access to technology—save for solar panels, windmills, and contraceptives, which supposedly cause no harm to the environment. Is it too bold to assume that the campaign to abandon reliable energy in favor of intermittent sources like solar and wind stems precisely from the fact that they are intermittent—thereby compromising access to technology and increasing mortality? All to save the human species.

This subject naturally leads to the most drastic method of birth control: abortion. In the United States, the issue has been framed since Roe v. Wade (1973) in terms of “pro-choice” and “pro-life,” with positions falling along a spectrum: the pro-choice extreme advocated for elective abortion up until the moments before birth, while the pro-life extreme advocated for the criminalization of abortion in all cases. With Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court compelled U.S. states to legalize abortion prior to “fetal viability”—that is, before the fetus is capable of surviving outside the mother’s body.

In the piece “Abortion: Is It Possible to Be Both ‘Pro-Life’ and ‘Pro-Choice’?”, first published in 1990, Sagan offered a “scientific” defense of Roe v. Wade. According to Gallup, 1996 was precisely the year when the extreme pro-choice position declined. Sagan begins his argument by stating that “a newborn baby is surely the same being it was just before birth.” However, throughout the text, he promotes the literal dehumanization of embryos and fetuses, as for him, what matters is whether the being differs from an irrational animal. To Sagan, the fact that lungs are ready or a heart is beating does not justify banning abortion, because we kill animals with these characteristics without it constituting murder. Thus, the point at which a baby is considered human is precisely when it acquires the specific human characteristic: thought. He believes thought likely emerges during the third trimester of pregnancy, implying that Roe v. Wade is sound.

Even so, the fact remains that, at least in practice, the ruling permitted abortion right up to the moment of birth; indeed, this remains the case in Alaska to this day, even after the ruling was overturned. Regarding this, Sagan states—without citing sources—that “as a practical matter, this isn’t very important: Less than 1 percent of all tabulated abortions in the United States are listed in the last three months of pregnancy (and, on closer investigation, most such reports turn out to be due to miscarriage or miscalculation).” Was this reversal of the extremist trend in the interest of the abortion-rights agenda, serving to forestall a backlash?

Yet, in the very same paragraph where he offers this reassuring statement for the average U.S. reader, he also asserts that “perhaps there is thought in the womb. It’s hard to maintain that a transformation to full personhood happens abruptly at the moment of birth.” Perhaps there isn’t thought in the womb — and perhaps newborn babies do not think, nor are full persons. That is essentially Peter Singer’s line of reasoning in defense of infanticide. Sagan defends the prevailing U.S. position with a very poor argument, one that leaves the door open to the institutionalization of infanticide should scientists present “proof” that babies do not think, or that they think less than an adult dog.

Let us consider the dehumanization involved. Through comic-book-style illustrations of pregnancy stages, we read that at three weeks the human embryo “looks a little like a segmented worm”; at the fifth week, “the face, seen here in profile, has a distinctly reptilian aspect”; at the seventh, “the face is mammalian but somewhat piglike”; at the eighth, “the face resembles that of a primate but is still not quite human.” Could all this really be the sincere opinion of a serious scientist?

Well, much of Sagan’s sophistry stems from confusing “human” as a noun with “human” as an adjective. Human cells are human, but they are not human individuals—human persons. HeLa cells (named for Henrietta Lacks, not Helen Lane as stated in the book) are human cells, but they are not a person. The adjective “human” applies even to feces.

The question should not be whether a human embryo is human, but whether a human embryo is a person. If an embryo is a living being, how can one deny that a person’s life begins at its formation—that is, at conception?

Sagan knew this. In his final text, written on the verge of death, he lamented not being able to “meet unconceived grandchildren.” His grandchildren would never be worms, reptiles, or piglike.