Bulletin N° 609
Subject: ON CORPORATE MANAGEMENT AND ITS CONTROL OVER
CIVIL SOCIETY BY ‘DEFAULT’.
May Day 2014
Grenoble, France
Dear Colleagues and Friends of
CEIMSA,
While faith-based political
analysis cannot be turned into fact-based policy, believers can be turned
into fools, as the ground moves out from under them and they lose their
footing. As the rules of the game change, the players come and go, but the big winners
remain mostly the same, thanks to centuries of time-honored techniques which
when applied can produce predictable results. Nationalism and nationalist
wars, religious bigotry, the
violence of racism, sexism, and militarism, are but some of the techniques used to maintain
relationships of domination/subjugation. They are always available, sitting on
the shelf for ready access in case of emergencies. The ruling class can be
counted on to unite in sharp focus over one crucial question; their undivided show of solidarity is guaranteed when it comes to challenging their right to
exist as a class. Out come the classic tools of manipulation, with substantial
financial backing of course, and what was once our revolt against their illegitimate
domination over us becomes a fragmented free-for-all; our primary source of
power (class solidarity) is dissolved and we find ourselves isolated and
silenced under the scrutiny of a paranoid fascist, put back in our places,
which is located somewhere under the boot of artificial scarcity.
Nevertheless, we come back to revolt
again and again, for we can do no other; life under the control of this
decadent ruling class has no meaning for us. Our alienation is their
playground, from which they receive every imaginable benefit. From the Avoidable War in
Yugoslavia (1992-1999) to the Grand Chessboard in
Ukraine (April 24, 2014) (despite all the mobilizations of public opinion that have
crystallized during that interval) these events speak repeatedly to the fact that we are led by the nose by a
cynical ruling class that gets away with murder. Many among us have been
conditioned to fit comfortably under their boot and to surface now and again
when beckoned to support their cause.
What alternatives do we really have?
-
To live, on the one hand, a life of constant mystification . . .
a foremost figure in the intellectual awakening which
immediately preceded the French Revolution. Diderot was staying at the Russian
court, where his elegant flippancy was entertaining the nobility. Fearing that
the faith of her retainers was at stake, the Tsaritsa commissioned Euler, the
most distinguished mathematician of the time, to debate with Diderot in public,
Diderot was informed that a mathematician had established a proof of the
existence of God. He was summoned to court without being told the name of his
opponent. Before the assembled court, Euler accosted him with the following
pronouncement, which was uttered with due gravity:
‘a + b/n = x,
donc Dieu existe, repondez!’
Algebra was Arabic to Diderot. Unfortunately, he did not
realize that was the trouble. Had he realized that algebra is just a language
in which we describe the sizes of things in contrast to the ordinary languages
which we use to describe the sorts of things in the world, he would have asked
Euler to translate the first half of the sentence into French. Translated freely
into English, it may be rendered: ‘A number x
can be got by first adding a number a
to a number b multiplied by itself a certain number (n) of times, and then dividing the whole by the number of b’s multiplied together. So God exists
after all. What have you got to say now?’ If Diderot had asked Euler to
illustrate the first part of his remark for the clearer understanding of the
Russian court, Euler might have replied that x is 3 when a is 1 and b
is 2 and n is 3, or that x is 21when a is 3 and b is 3 and n is 4, and so forth. Euler’s troubles
would have begun when the court wanted to know how the second part of the
sentence follows from the first part. Like many us Diderot had stage fright
when confronted with a sentence in size language. He left the court abruptly
amid the titters of the assembly, confined himself to his chambers, demanded
safe conduct, and promptly returned to France.(pp.9-10)
-
or, on the other hand, to live a life of continual renewal, aimed at self-emancipation and undermining all illegitimate uses of power. [For more on the illegitimate use of power and dependent power hierarchies, see the discussions of Anthony Wilden’s works in CEIMSA Bulletin N° 268, 288, 312, 387, 388, and 399 .]
The 12 items below offer
CEIMSA readers a look at our artificial environment today, a totally managed
world where self-appointed elites keep decision-making power by default,
where new techniques combined with old habits of thought keep us securely
isolated from one another, behind closed doors, living in fear and suspicion of
one another rather than taking up the instruments of analysis necessary to free
ourselves from this wretched state of insecurity.
Item A.
contains two CEIMSA links to reviews of the work of UCSD Professor Fred Lonidier, labor activist and teacher in the Art Department at
the University of California-San Diego.
Item B., from Information Clearing House,
is an article by Sheldon
Richman on
Obama’s ‘bluff poker’ game against the Russian state and the real dangers this
game generates.
Item C., from ZNet, is an
article by Conn Hallinan on the Dark Side of Ukraine Revolt.
Item D., from Information Clearing House,
is an article by Pepe Escobar on the
US grand strategy in Eurasia.
Item E. is an article form The Nation magazine on Internet
freedom against corporate control, containing a petition for US lawmakers
to assure equal public access to the Internet.
Item F., from Democracy
Now !, is a discussion of how “The 1%” is seeking to control Internet access across the United
States.
Item G., from University of Pennsylvania
Professor Edward S. Herman, is a
short article first published in Z
Magazine, on “The
Fool, The Demagogue and The Former KGB Colonel.”
Item H., from Information Clearing House,
is an article by Ian Sinclair on
pro-imperialist propaganda in the US media.
Item I., from Truth
Out, is an article by Justin
Doolittle on “May Day in America.”
Item J., from Information Clearing House,
is an article by Robert
Parry on US Grand Strategy in Ukraine.
Item K., from Information Clearing House,
is an article by Loren
Thompson on Russian history in Ukraine.
Item L., from the co-secretaries of the
French teachers’ union, SNESup,
is a May Day call for solidarity in our struggle against corporate management
in pursuit of the ‘bottom line.”
And finally, we invite CEIMSA
readers to watch the Real News Network interview with University of London
economist Costas Lapavitsas :
|
The Rise of the Far Right as the
Euro-Crisis Hits France
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11779
|
|
|
Costas Lapavitsas: “The crisis
triggered by Germany now targets France,
as elites debate leaving the
Euro”
|
Sincerely,
Francis Feeley
Professor of American Studies
University of Grenoble-3
Director of Research
University of Paris-Nanterre
Center for the Advanced Study of
American Institutions and Social Movements
The University of California-San
Diego
http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/
_______________
A.
From Fred Lonidier :
Date: 28 April 2014
Subject : Fred Lonidier: the Aesthetics of an Activist professor
of art in San Diego.
Fred Lonidier
is a virtual landmark in Southern California. He has a long history of
political activism along the US Mexican border and far beyond. His work in the
field of photography and communications has inspired generations of students
and social activists.
Below are two CEIMSA links to art reviews which offer readers an historical
perspective of Lonidier’s creative work in the Border Art Project along the Mexican border over the past many
decades.
[Please use CEIMSA links to open: Lonidier Art Reviews I and II.]
(NOTE: If you encounter a problem opening these two pdf files, you can right click and save each one of these links on your computer desk and open it there.)
_______________
B.
From Information
Clearing House :
Date: 26 April 2014
Subject : US bluff poker game creates greater dangers for all.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
Obama Plays with Fire in Ukraine
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38333.htm
By Sheldon
Richman
How many American parents would proudly send their sons and daughters off to
kill or be killed in Slovyansk or Donetsk? Continue
_______________
C.
From ZNet
:
Date: 3 March 2014
Subject : Ukraine and the Grand Chessboard.
Ukraine
Revolt’s Dark Side
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/ukraine-revolts-dark-side/
by Conn Hallinan
_______________
D.
From Information
Clearing House :
Date: 26 April 2014
Subject : The US Grand Strategy in Eurasia.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
The pivoting to Cold War 2.0 proceeds unabated, as in Washington working hard
to build an iron curtain between Berlin and Moscow.
US 'Pivots',
China Reaps Dividends
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38339.htm
By
Pepe Escobar
_______________
E.
From The
Nation Magazine:
Date: 28 April 2014
Subject : Big fan of the Internet?
http://link.thenation.com/52868255039c1c4d1618b33d1jx51.c5s/Up-avOYQueemPYdxB4f02
Dear
francis,
Last week, the Federal Communications
Commission announced new rules that would allow companies to pay Internet
service providers for faster lanes to deliver their content to customers. That
means that large corporations like Amazon or Netflix could pay to have their
content delivered more smoothly, while small start-ups without the funds to pay
would be stuck with slow, low-quality service.
We’re calling on all of our readers
to tell FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler that the public needs a free and open
Internet. Will you join us? <http://link.thenation.com/52868255039c1c4d1618b33d1jx51.c5s/U16rzuYQiHBcYauWB7d1a>
This is serious. The rule change
would be devastating for net neutrality, the principle that ISPs must treat all
content on the Internet equally and that users should have equal access to see
any legal content.
Don't stand by while the Internet
is transformed into a pay-to-play service. Contact FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler now
and tell him that the public needs real net neutrality. <http://link.thenation.com/52868255039c1c4d1618b33d1jx51.c5s/U16rzuYQiHBcYauWC5508>
All the best,
Sarah Arnold
Activism Campaign Manager
_______________
F.
From Democracy
Now ! :
Date: 25 April 2014
Subject : The 1% Seeks Control of Internet Access.
Internet
For the 1 Percent: New FCC Rules Strike Down Net Neutrality, Opening Fast Lanes
For Fees
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/25/internet_for_the_1_percent_new
"Utopian Potential of the Internet": Astra Taylor on How
to Take Back Power & Culture in Digital Age
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/25/utopian_potential_of_the_internet_astra
_______________
G.
From Edward S. Herman :
Date: 28 April 2014
Subject : The Fool, The Demagogue and the Former KGB
Colonel, Z Magazine, May 2014.
[Z
Magazine, May 2014]
The
Fool, the Demagogue and the Former KGB Colonel
by
Edward S. Herman
The fool is John
Kerry, who has looked bad in his rushing around between Washington and Tel Aviv
trying to get in place a “framework” agreement between Israel and the
Palestinians that would show progress in the efforts of the honest broker,
assailing Nicholas Maduro of Venezuela for his “terror campaign against
his own people,” and of course denouncing the Russians for their
“aggression” against the coup-regime of Ukraine. His statement that
“You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading
another country on a completely trumped-up pretext,” has to be regarded as an
Orwellian classic, and may be his signifier in future history books, in the
unlikely event that he makes it at all. His punch line has been the subject of
many jokes and laughs in the dissident media, but the mainstream media have
hardly mentioned it and certainly haven’t made it the butt of jokes and a basis
for discrediting the man (just as there has been no discrediting of Madeleine
Albright based on her statement on national TV that killing 500,000 Iraqi
children via the sanctions of mass destruction in the 1990s. which she helped
engineer, “was worth it”).
Of course it is
possible that Kerry really believed he was speaking truths, having internalized
the assumptions that flow from U.S. “exceptionalism,” which make words
like “invasion,” “aggression” and “international law” inapplicable to us as the
world’s policeman; and what might be a “completely trumped up pretext” if
offered by the Russians is only a slight and excusable error or
misjudgment when we do it. And after all the New York Times quickly used
the word “aggression” in editorializing on the Crimea events ( “Russia’s
Aggression,” March 2, 2014), whereas it never used the word to describe the
invasion-occupation of Iraq, nor did it mention the words “UN Charter” or
“international law” in its 70 editorials on Iraq from September 11, 2001
to March 21, 2003 (Howard Friel and Richard Falk, The Record of the
Paper, chap. 1).
A bit more subtle
but more calculated, dishonest, hypocritical, often absurd, and demagogic were
the words of President Barack Obama, speaking in Belgium, as he
tried to confute the charges of hypocrisy that Russian President Vladimir Putin
leveled against Western denunciations of the Crimean independence vote
and subsequent Russian absorption of Crimea. (“Remarks by the President in
Address to European Youth,” Brussels, March 23, 2014). It is amusing to see how
outrageously he can twist history and his own record. According to Obama our
founding fathers put into our “founding documents” the beautiful concept that
“all men—and women—are created equal.” He apparently forgot about slavery and
the 3/5th value per slave for the South’s representation credit, and that women
didn’t get the vote till the twentieth century. He speaks about the ideal of
“uncensored information” that will “allow individuals to make their own
decisions,” but this is the man who has worked hard to control the flow of
information and to make it costly for whistleblowers to break through a growing
wall of government secrecy.
Obama is aghast at
“the belief among some that bigger nations can bully smaller ones to get their
way—that rejected maxim that might somehow makes right.” The United States has
its immense military budget and 800-plus military bases not to allow it to
bully smaller nations but for its national security! He is also impressed with
Russia’s “challenging truths that only a few weeks ago seemed
self-evident…[including] that international law matters.” This statement
is brazen given that U.S. officials (e.g., Dean Acheson, Madeleine Albright)
have explicitly stated that they don’t take international law
seriously in fixing U.S. policy; that Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush
dismissed it as a joke-- "International law? I better call my lawyer; he
didn't bring that up to me"--and we can observe a steady, even growing,
stream of actions that violate international law, including many engineered by
Obama. Violating international law is as American as apple pie.
Putin of course
pointed this out in reference to Iraq, but Obama answers him:”Now it is true
that the Iraq war was a subject of vigorous debate not just around the
world but in the United States as well. I participated in that debate and I opposed
our military intervention there. But even in Iraq, America sought to work
within the international system. We did not claim or annex Iraq’s territory. We
did not grab its resources for our own gain. Instead we ended our war and left
Iraq to its people and a fully sovereign Iraqi state that could make decisions
about its own future.”
We may note the
laughable evasion of the issue of “international law,” which he has said
really “matters” in considering Russian actions, but dodges in addressing
the U.S. case. His mentioning a “vigorous debate” is not only irrelevant to the
question of law violation, it is also highly deceptive, as it is well
established that Bush and his small coterie of advisers had determined to
attack Iraq long before any public discussion of the subject, and they picked
on “weapons of mass destruction” as the excuse on the basis of its
saleability. So it was an aggression built on a lie and the ultimate in a
“trumped up case.” On the “working within the international system,” the UN
Charter is basic to a meaningful international system, and the invasion was a
gross violation of that key ingredient. He brags that we didn’t steal their
resources and eventually got out. He doesn’t point out that we got out
only after many years of killing and destruction which actually helped
create a resistance that, in effect, pushed us out. He doesn’t mention that our
major international law violation in Iraq was responsible for the death
of probably a million people, the creation of four million refugees, and
huge material destruction. By contrast, that awful Russian action in the
Crimea seems to have resulted in fewer than half a dozen deaths.
Obama also fails
to mention that Iraq is far away from the United States, and the U.S. attack
there was an acknowledged “war of choice” that had nothing to do
with protecting U.S. security. Crimea, by contrast, is adjacent to Russia, its
people are linguistically and culturally close to Russia, it houses a
major Russian naval base, and the coup in Kiev, engineered with the support
of the United States and other NATO powers, posed a genuine security
threat to Russia. Its leaders were taken unawares by the coup and threat to its
naval base, and its moves were arguably defensive and a “war of necessity.”
The referendum
carried out in Crimea, which produced an overwhelming vote supporting secession
from Ukraine and integration into Russia, would seem like a relatively
democratic procedure and consistent with the principle of
self-determination. Obama and company found it a violation of Ukraine’s
sovereignty and a violation of international law. Here we have two principles
seemingly at odds with one another, and in this case the United States and its
allies chose the one that serves their interest and the Russians go for the
other. But Putin points out that in the case of Kosovo as part of Serbia,
the NATO alliance strongly supported a secession on self-determination
principles.
Obama tries to
rebut Putin’s mentioning of Kosovo, saying “But NATO only intervened
after the people of Kosovo were systematically brutalized and killed for years.
And Kosovo only left Serbia after a referendum was organized not outside the
boundaries of international law, but in careful cooperation with the United
Nations and with Kosovo’s neighbors. None of that even came close to happening
in Crimea.” But NATO didn’t just “intervene,” it carried out a massive bombing
war that was itself a violation of the UN Charter and hence of that sacred
“international law” to which Obama is so devoted. Obama ignores the fact that
the CIA had been training KLA terrorists in Kosovo for some time (and
they had been designated “terrorists” by U.S. officials) and the KLA was well
aware that actions that induced Serb retaliation would serve their interests in
helping justify a NATO attack. The day before the NATO bombing war began the
British Defence Minister told the British Parliament that the KLA had probably
killed more civilians in Kosovo than the Serb army.
Obama also lies on an alleged referendum
in Kosovo—none took place. On February 17, 2008, the Kosovo Albanian-dominated
parliament issued its Declaration of Independence, and that sufficed for the
United States and its closest allies, now so indignant at the Crimea
referendum. That Kosovo vote also took place after a NATO war and Kosovo
Albanian actions had driven large numbers of Serb and Roma residents out of
Kosovo. The United States constructed a huge military base in Kosovo during its
war and occupation of Kosovo, which was not agreed to by Serbia or by any
vote of the Kosovo or Serbian population. Russia had a naval base in the Crimea
by long-standing agreement with the Ukraine government. It didn’t bomb
the Ukraine as a prelude to the referendum vote and the vote was essentially uncontested
and unprotested by any local constituencies. So as Obama says, there is
no comparison between the two cases..
Obama’s draws a
picture of the freedom loving West, with NATO standing as a vigilant sentinel,
with the dark and evil forces behind the Iron Curtain being kept at bay.
“The United States and NATO do not seek any conflict with
Russia…Since the end of the Cold War, we have worked with Russia under
successive administrations to build ties of culture and commerce and international
community.” But he admonishes that Russia must be a “responsible” power. “Just
because Russia has a deep history with Ukraine doesn’t mean it should be able
to dictate Ukraine’s future. On the fundamental principle that is at
stake here—the ability of nations and peoples to make their own
choices—there can be no going back. It’s not America that filled the Maiden
with protesters—it was Ukrainians. No foreign forces compelled the citizens of
Tunis and Tripoli to rise up—they did so on their own.”
Obama fails to
mention that since the end of the Cold War NATO has worked steadily, in
violation of a pledge by U.S. officials not to move “one inch” toward the
Russian borders, to encircle Russia, to press up against its borders, and to
support border regime leaders openly hostile to Russia. So Western support of a
regime hostile to Russia in Ukraine would have to be regarded by Russian
officials as an unfriendly and threatening action. Obama’s claim that it was
only Ukrainians who were protesting in Maiden twists the evidence, as the
United States was actively supporting some of them, including the most violent,
and was therefore itself trying to “dictate Ukraine’s future.” It is notorious
that a compromise transition government plan negotiated between Ukrainian factions,
with EU support, was quickly overturned by violent protesters, leading
immediately to the coup government headed by Victoria Nuland’s first choice,
and effectively “fucking the EU’s” effort to end the strife peaceably.
The unelected government then in place, loaded with rightwingers in strategic
positions, represented a non-Russian “dictation” of Ukraine’s government,
and one that definitely threatened Russians within Ukraine and the Russian
state. In that context the Crimean referendum represented an important and
justifiable case of where the ability of “peoples to make their own
choices” (Obama) was applicable.
An argument can be
made that the Western, and mainly U.S., intervention and role in overthrowing
the elected government of Ukraine was a form of aggression against Russia,
which would make Russian actions actually a response to aggression.. An
important modern form of Western-sponsored regime change has been via
encouragement, training and material and propaganda aid to dissident groups that
disorganize and discredit a target government and help dislodge it from power.
This is done under the PR heading of “democracy promotion,” but it is often de
facto “democracy demotion.” This is not done in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia,
but rather in Serbia, Ukraine and Venezuela. The government displaced in
Ukraine was elected; the coup government that has replaced it was not. In his
Brussels speech Obama mentions that ”Latin American nations rejected
dictatorship and built new democracies,” but he fails to point out that
scads of those dictatorships were U.S. sponsored, and that while it supported
tyranny in Venezuela for many years, the United States has been consistently
hostile to the left-oriented Bolivarian democracy that has been in place for
more than a decade; and that while Obama was speaking in Brussels his
government was encouraging the often violent protesters in Caracas, denouncing
Maduro, and threatening sanctions and more in the traditional U.S. “democratic
demotion” mode. (See Kerry’s pugnacious statement of March 13, 2014 before the
House Foreign Affairs Committee on “Advancing U.S. Interests Abroad: The FY
2015 Foreign Affairs Budget.”)
Comparing Vladimir
Putin’s address to the Russian Federation on March 18, 2014 dealing with the
Crimean referendum and associated crisis with Obama’s March 23rd
address in Brussels is no contest—Putin wins hands down. This, I believe, is a
result of the fact that Russia is under serious attack and threat by the United
States, which is a still expanding empire that cannot tolerate serious rivals
and actually turns them into enemies that must resist. This is mainly Russia
and China, and U.S.-NATO actions have succeeded in transforming Russia from a
virtual client in the Yeltsin era to the enemy and ”aggressor” today. It is
amazing to see how the mainstream media and intellectuals can fail to see the
security threat to Russia posed by the Western-underwritten change in
government in Kiev, and the continuity in the extension of this threat in
NATO’s steady expansion on Russia’s borders. And the double standard on
aggression and international law is breath-taking. Putin sardonically
notes , “Firstly, it’s a good thing that they at least remember that there
exists such a thing as international law—better late than never.” He
makes his point in low key and with wit. Obama is never funny in Brussels and
his stream of clichés and misrepresentations is painful. He is defending the
indefensible, and his target looks good by comparison, both intellectually and
morally.
But Putin is the
loser in mainstream America. He is a victim of the standard demonization
process that is applied to any challenger or target of the imperial state. It
is amusing to see him so often referred to as the “former KGB colonel”—can you
imagine the U.S. media regularly referring to George Bush-1 as the “former head
of the CIA”? And of course every blemish in his career, and they
are real—Chechnya, his position on gay rights, the weakness of Russian
democracy and power of the oligarchs (which he inherited from the
U.S.-supported Yeltsin)—is featured regularly. But underneath this all is the
fact that he represents Russian national interests, which conflict with the
outward drive and interests of the U.S. imperial elite.
For just a tiny
illustration of the bias. We may consider the media treatment of the Pussy Riot
band, jailed after an action in a major Moscow church, and made into virtual
saints in the U.S. media. They feature the badness of Putin and his Russia. The
New York Times had 23 articles featuring the Pussy Riot band from
January 1, 2014 through March 31, a number of them with pictures of the
band visiting various places in New York. They met with the Times editorial
board and were honored by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, among
others. They are not good musicians and often do things that would land them in
jail in the United States, but they denounce Putin.
One of them, Maria
Alyokhina, was even given op ed space in the paper (“Sochi
Under Siege,” February 21). Two interesting contrasts: John Mearsheimer, a
University of Chicago political scientist and author of several important
books on foreign affairs, wrote an op ed column “Getting Ukraine Wrong,”
published on March 14 in the International New York Times, but not in the U.S.
print edition. His message was too strong for the main NYT vehicle as he
argued that “The taproot of the current crisis is NATO’s expansion… and is
motivated by the same geopolitical considerations that influence all
great powers, including the United States.” This is not opinion and
analysis fit to print.
Another
interesting comparison is this: in February 2014, while the trials and opinions
of Pussy Riot were hot news, the 84 year old nun, Sister Megan Rice, was
sentenced to four years in prison for having entered a nuclear weapons site in
July 2012 and carried out a symbolic action there. The New York Times
gave this news a tiny mention in its National Briefing items under
the title “Tennessee. Nun is Sentenced for Peace Protest,” on February
19, 2014 on page A12. Megan Rice was not invited to visit the Times editorial
board or write an opinion column. Her sentencing was news barely
fit to even marginalize.
_______________
H.
From Information
Clearing House :
Date: 26 April 2014
Subject : Pro-imperialist Propaganda in the US Media.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
A recent Win/Gallup International
survey across 65 countries around the world found the country seen as
representing the greatest threat to world peace was the US.
The Liberal
Media: US Imperialism's Biggest Cheerleaders
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38338.htm
By
Ian Sinclair
_______________
I.
From Truth
Out :
Date: 26 April 2014
Subject : The US Grand Strategy in Eurasia.
May Day: While the World
Celebrates Workers,
the US Celebrates
"Loyalty" and "Law"
by Justin
Doolittle
_______________
J.
From Information
Clearing House :
Date: 26 April 2014
Subject : US Grand Strategy in Ukraine.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
Any propaganda war starts by
planting stories that your target is getting rich, whether he is or isn’t, the
latest move in demonizing Vladimir Putin.
Why Neocons Seek
to Destabilize Russia
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38354.htm
by Robert
Parry
_______________
K.
From Information
Clearing House :
Date: 26 April 2014
Subject : Russian history in Ukraine.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
If you know the history of
the region, then it is easy to see why Moscow might fear aggression.
Four Ways The Ukraine Crisis
Could Escalate To Use Of Nuclear Weapons
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38355.htm
by Loren Thompson
_______________
L.
From SNESUP-FSU / SYNDICAT
NATIONAL DE L'ENSEIGNEMENT SUPERIEUR :
78, rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis
75010 - PARIS
Tél. : 0144799621 - 0659126981
Courriel : sg@snesup.fr
Date: 29 April 2014
Subject : Un 1er mai combatif !
http://www.fsu.fr/Journee-du-1er-mai-2014.html
Cher-e camarade,
Les annonces d'austérité renforcée du premier ministre sont claires : faire
payer les salariés et les retraités pour financer les cadeaux fiscaux aux entreprises,
s'attaquer à la protection sociale, à la Fonction Publique, notamment en
poursuivant le gel du point d'indice, pour financer le plan d'économies de 50
milliards d'euros contenu dans le pacte de « responsabilité ». Les orientations
du gouvernement Ayrault, largement condamnées, notamment lors des derniers
scrutins municipaux, sont encore aggravées par le gouvernement Valls.
Ainsi les fonctionnaires verront leurs salaires bloqués pendant encore au moins
18 mois, ce qui portera à 7 ans le blocage des salaires, entraînant une
dégringolade supplémentaire de leur pouvoir d'achat. En outre, le gouvernement
va priver les populations les plus précaires des prestations sociales et des
services publics indispensables pour leur garantir des conditions d'existence
décentes.
Dans l'Enseignement Supérieur et la Recherche, l'austérité(1) et la
précarité(2) font des ravages, entraînant la détérioration des conditions de
travail et d'étude. Le SNESUP-FSU est porteur d'exigences et de propositions
résumées dans son mémorandum(3).
Notre présence active et nombreuse au sein de la FSU dans les cortèges du
1er mai, aux côtés de la CGT, de Solidaires et de FO sera un message fort
adressé au gouvernement.
Elle doit être un moment de préparation de la journée de grève et d'action
unitaire du 15 Mai 2014 pour la défense de la fonction publique et de ses
agents.
Nous comptons sur toi.
Informations pratiques sur les horaires et parcours : http://www.fsu.fr/Journee-du-1er-mai-2014.html
Bien cordialement,
Claudine Kahane et Marc Neveu
Co-secrétaires généraux du SNESUP
1 Voir dossier austérité http://snesup.fr/Le-Snesup/Dossiers-actu?cid=3863
2 Voir dossier précarité http://snesup.fr/Votre-metier?aid=6959&ptid=10&cid=3793
3 http://snesup.fr/Le-Snesup/L-actualite-du-SUP?aid=6973&ptid=5
_______________________________________________