Bulletin N° 818
“The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34LGPIXvU5M
Subject : ENTITLEMENTS
vs. RIGHTS: SEVENTY YEARS OF “JUST MOWING THE GRASS.”
9 October 2018
Grenoble,
France
Dear
Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
In
the fourth and final part of E. P. Thompson’s epic study from the social
history of English Victorian society, William
Morris, Romantic to Revolutionary (1955), we are treated to a
richly descriptive discussion of “Necessity and Desire” and a critical analysis
of original contributions made by William Morris (1834-1896) to the founding of the British socialist
movement.
By
contrast, the ignoble years of Maragret Thatcher (1925-2013) in English
history - her ruinous reign as Prime Minister, from 1979 to 1990 - reflect a counterrevolutionary movement on the part of international capitalist forces at the end of the Vietnam War; it was an orchestrated strategy to defeat Socialist ideology and capture a subserviant labor market around the world, transforming active citizens into would be consummers. One aspect of this
Neoliberal crusade to save the capitalists’ political hegemony from collapse
involved the financialization
of daily life. In England, Thatcher’s “reforms,” following the Falkland Island
War of 2 April – 14 June 1982 (which saved her failing government and brought
her greater popular support in elections), included the introduction of user fees for home heating in Great Britain, litterally nickle-and-diming the poor, so that low-income families would often
face the choice of whether to buy food for the family or put their
coins in the meters recently installed in their apartments to activate a
central heating system that could warm their home for a few hours. California Governor Ronald
Reagan, Thatcher’s uneducated reactionary counterpart in the U.S., introduced the
same policy of advancing user fees and privatizing public assets with a vengeance - "the poor must feel the pain," it was decided, if they were to have
some access to the necessities of life, such as food, medical care and public education. The
politics of TINA (“There Is No Alternative” to capitalism) oversaw the
dismantling of the historic “Social Contract,” as the capitalist political
economy began its descent into the stage of universal
barbarism before the turn of the last century. And this class war continues, as morbidity rates rise and life expectancy declines
. . . .
It
is in this contemporary context that the history of the pioneers of 19th-century
Anglo-Saxon Socialism can shed light on the experiences of those who were present at the Creation, so to speak - personalities
like William Morris who forged the contours of the modern Revolutionary
Socialist movement in the furnace of Necessity & Desire.
Thompson
begins this discussion by citing Lenin on the fate of many revolutionaries whose ideas
after their death are co-opted to fit conveniently into the liberal canon of the day.
‘During
the lifetime of great revolutionaries the oppressing classes have invariably
meted out to them relentless persecution and received their teaching with the
most savage hostility, most furious hatred and ruthless campaign of slanders.
After their death, however, attempts are usually made to turn them into
harmless saints, canonizing them, as it were, and investing their name with a
certain halo . . . while at the same time emasculating and vulgarizing the real
essence of their revolutionary theories and blunting their revolutionary
edge.’(cited on p.735)
Such
was the case of William Morris, who during his life as an uncompromised socialist militant was
attacked, ridiculed, censored, and misquoted; only to be embraced, after his
death, as a misguided artist whose real contributions were in the realm of the
plastic arts and poetry, and not political thought.
[He]
was the first creative artist of major stature in the history of the world (to
take his stand, consciously and without shadow of compromise, with the
revolutionary working class: to participate in the day-to-day work of building
the Socialist movement: to put his brain and his genius at its disposal in the
struggle. In the Socialist world of the future, Morris’s writings and example
will be remembered to England’s honour.
It is no small matter for a man of fifty,
in the face of the ridicule of society, the indifference of family and friends,
to set aside the work he loves and fashion his life anew. But this was what
Morris did . . . .(p.841)
Thompson’s
assessment of Morris’s contribution to Socialist theory is summed up after
careful inspection of his writings: those critics who have attempted to
depoliticize William Morris lose their credibility after the analysis by
Thompson:
Morris’s claim to importance as a
political theorist rests upon two grounds. First, he was one of the earliest,
and remains one of the most original and creative thinkers within the Marxist
tradition in England. Second, he was a pioneer of constructive thought as to
the organization and manifestation of social life within Communist society.
No one familiar with Socialist theory can
doubt that Morris stood squarely within the Marxist tradition, despite certain
secondary circumstances which have clouded the issue. . . . The evidence is to
be found, not in coloured reminiscences or
second-hand opinions, but in Morris’s own political writings. His approach to
Socialism was not Utopian, but Scientific.
‘Socialism
is a theory of life,’ he wrote in the first of his four remarkable letters to
Rev. George Bainton (1888), ‘taking for its starting
point the evolution of society . . . of man as a social being’:
‘Since
man has certain material necessities as an animal, Society is founded on
man’s attempts to satisfy those necessities; and Socialism . . . points out to
him the way of doing so which will interfere least with the development of his
specially human capacities . . . . The foundation of Socialism, therefore, is
economical.’
If
his economic theory was faulty and he had imbibed (in his early days with Scheu) Lassalle’s doctrine of ‘the iron low of wages,’ his
historical understanding was superior to that of any English contemporary.
Always his teaching illustrated and directed attention to the essential
discoveries of Scientific Socialism.
First, he was at pains to explain in every
general discussion of theory the labour theory of
value, the root source of capitalist exploitation. Let those who doubt this
only read Chapters X and XI of The Dream of John Ball, and they cannot
fail to be convinced. Or, if the imaginative dialogue confuses them, let them
turn to any of Morris’s basic lectures – such as ‘True and False Society’,
‘Monopoly: or How Labour is Robbed’, or ‘The Dawn of
a New Epoch’ – or to Socialism: Its Growth and Outcome, and they will
receive a plain enough answer.
Second, the whole of Morris’s Socialist
writing is a rich storehouse of illustrations of the class struggle, both in
past history and in his own time. This, indeed, was to him the point of prime
importance, distinguishing revolutionary Socialism from mere Reformism.
Referring directly to Sidney Webb and the Fabians, he wrote in 1889:
‘What
is the real gate which will pull up these soft Socialists, who so long as they
are allowed to steal the goose will not object to give the giblets to the poor?
This is the barrier which they will not be able to pass, so long as they are in
their present minds, the acknowledgement of the class war. The
‘Socialists of this kind are blind as to the essence of modern society. They
hope for a revolution, which is not the Revolution, but a revolution
which is to ignore the facts that have led up to it and will bring it about. .
. .
‘It
is most important that young Socialists should have this fact of the class-war
always before them. It explains past history, and in the present gives us the
only solid hope for the future. And it must be understood that it is only by
the due working out of this class-war to its end, the abolition of classes,
that Socialism can come about. . . . The middle-class semi-Socialists, driven
by class instinct, preach revolution without the class struggle; which is an
absurdity and an impossibility.’
The bourgeois objection
that Socialists themselves create the class-war, he brushed aside with the
contempt it deserves:
“Who
or what sets class against class? The whole evolution of
society. That is, the existence of the classes;’
It
was in historical understanding, above all, that Morris excelled; and his
theory was ever anchored to the class-sturggle as to
a rock:
‘They
are already beginning . . . to stumble about with attempts at State Socialism.
Let they make their experiments and blunders, and prepare the way for us by so
doing . . . . We - sect
or party, or group of self-seekers, madmen, and poets, which you will –
are at least the only set of people who have been able to see that there is and
has been a great class-struggle going on. Further, we can see that this
class-struggle cannot come to an end till the classes themselves do: one class
must absorb the other. Which, then? Surely the useful one, the one that the
world lives by, and on. . . .’
This was at the core of
his teaching.
Third, Morris was never deluded for a
moment with theories of the neutrality, the ‘supra-class’ character, of the
State, which were later to lead Keir Hardie and his comrades into confusion. Look for example,
at Chapter XI (‘Concerning Government’) in News
from Nowhere, or at the central arguments in ‘The Policy of Abstention’ . .
. . The privilege of the capitalist class, Morris never tired of repeating,
“is
but the privilege of the robber by force of arms, is just the thing which it is
the aim and end of our present organization to uphold; and all the formidable
executive at the back of it, army, police, law courts, presided over by the
judge as representing the executive, is directed towards this one end – to take
care that the richest shall rule, and shall have full license to injure the
commonwealth to the full extent of his riches.’(pp.790-792)
Toward
the end of the final section of this book, Thompson returns to an observation
made by Lenin in 1919
:
‘I
have no doubt at all that many workers who belong to the best, most honest and
sincerely revolutionary representatives of the proletariat are enemies of parliamentarism and of any participation in parliament. The
older capitalist culture and bourgeois democracy are in a given country, then
the more comprehensible this is, since the bourgeoisie in old parliamentary
countries has excellently learned the arts of hypocrisy and fooling the people
in a thousand ways. . . .
‘I
am personally convinced that to renounce participation in the parliamentary
elections is a mistake for the revolutionary workers of England, but better to
make that mistake, than to delay the formation of a big workers’ Communist
Party. . . .’(cited on p.793)
Thompson
continues this discussion on the political theory of William Morris by quoting
the English labor union leader Tom Mann (1856-1941), who wrote his
recollections of William Morris in 1934:
‘Morris
was the man who enabled me to get a really healthy contempt for parliamentary
institutions and scheming politicians. Prior to this I saw clearly the need for
a complete change from private ownership of the means of production,
distribution, and exchange, but this was to be done by parliamentary action on
the basis of getting a majority of the voters to declare for it, and I was
among the simples who thought it would then come off. I did not see that
Parliament is an essentially capitalist institution and will perish with the
capitalist system, as neither did I see that the ruling class was and will be
ever ready to use their legislative institution on any hour on any day to
change the Constitution to suit themselves.’(cited on
p.793)
And
he goes on to conclude that,
On these three fundamental points Morris’s writings are absolutely clear and absolutely revolutionary in their standpoint – the labour theory of value, the class struggle and the theory of the State. These three points included, in his own manner of presentation, a fourth essential point, the dictatorship of the proletariat. ‘What I did that was new,’ Marx wrote to Weydemeyer in 1852,
‘was
to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular
historical phases in the development of production; (2) that the class
struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat; (3)
that his dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition of the abolition
of all classes and to a classless society.’(cited
on p.794)
Morris
understood and elaborated on the first and last of Marx’s three points. The
second point was implied when he spoke of “the Revloution.”
“It
was upon these foundations,” Thompson stresses, that William Morris
“built his rich interpretation of history and of life. Nor
did he shrink (like some who profess ‘Marxist’ principles) from any of the
revolutionary conclusions which flow from these principles. Above all, his
writings and life reveal inflexible opposition to imperialism and chauvinism in
any form. (p.794)
. . .
In
one further point Morris’s political writings and his practice anticipated the
theory of this century – in his search for the best type of organization an
leadership for the party of revolution.(p.795)
Indeed
the life and times of William Morris seem to offer an abundance of lessons for
our own 21st-century conundrums, which we agonize over instead of addressing
collectively and in a practical manner. Perhaps it is simply the case that the “dialectics of desire and necessity”
have yet to be resolved . . . .
Morris
differentiated between the organic relationships
in pre-capitalist societies and the increasingly mechanical relationships under the capitalist political economy.
Capitalist production necessitates,
‘the
creation of surplus value being the one aim of the employers of labour, they cannot for a moment trouble themselves as to
whether the work which creates that surplus value is pleasurable to the worker
or not. In fact in order to get the greatest amount possible of surplus value
out of the work . . . it is absolutely necessary that it should be done under
such conditions as make . . . a mere burden which nobody would endure unless
upon compulsion.’(cited on p.750)
He
went on to explain that the system of “wage-slavery,” which accompanied the
industrial revolution, “destroyed the attractiveness of labour
for the craftsman and the beauty of the product,”
‘by
lengthening the hours of labour: by intensifying the labour during its continuance; by the forcing of the
workers into noisy, dirty crowded factories; by the aggregation of the
population into cities and manufacturing districts . . . by the leveling of all
intelligence and excellence of workmanship by means of machinery. . . . All
this is the exact contrary of the conditions under which the spontaneous art of
past ages was produced.’(ibid.)
The
“Reverence” for Life of Man” Morris saw as the foundation of all art:
‘Art
is man’s embodiment of interest in the life of man; it springs from man’s
pleasure in his life; pleasure we must call it, taking all human life together,
however much it may be broken by the grief and trouble of individuals. . . .’(cited on p.762)
Labor
exploitation and class warfare necessarily stifled this “reverence for life;”
the difference between the “impersonal state” and the “simple and limited
kinship group” made apparent the alienating existence of the former and the
“organic and personal life” of the latter. This contrast in quality of life
becomes palpable:
‘The
difference between these opposing circumstances of society is, in fact, that
between an organism and a mechanism. The earlier condition in which everything,
art, science . . . law, industry, were personal, and aspects of a living body,
is opposed to the civilized condition in which all these elements have become
mechanical, uniting to build up mechanical life, and themselves the product of
machines material and moral.’(cited on p.784)
The capitalist system had to completely replaced if people were to fulfill their human potentials and becoming conscious of the intolerable constraints upon their lives was the first step workers must take in order to develop a revolutionary class consciousness. Morris held no illusions that under severe depravation and fear of starvation workers could be reduced to agreeing that the entire English countryside should be converted into one arificial hothouse for industrial farming that guaranteecd suficient production for their sustenance, thus abandoning the reason to live for the guarantee of survival. This he saw as the great danger of State Socialism.
Democratic Socialism – the only real socialism – thrived necessarily upon diversity and personal initiatives; it reflected the
desires of ordinary people and a revolutionary aesthetics which must always accompany economic necessity in order to assure
the uncompromised transition from alienated capitalist society to truely communist communities.
The
26 + items below reflect the overdue death throes of Capitalism and the
embryonic cries of Socialism, struggling to be born in this climate of
unabashed Barbarism, where socialist
structures cannot yet replace capitalist “civilization” and the barbaric
crimes against humanity continue unabated. Why, we must ask, is it that
Socialism has not yet gained the necessary strength to be born? And how much
damage must we continue to endure before the Revolution?
Francis Feeley
Professor emeritus of
American Studies
University
Grenoble-Alpes
Director of Research
University of
Paris-Nanterre
Center for the Advanced
Study of American Institutions and Social Movements
The University of
California-San Diego
a.
German Far-Right Uses ‘Judeo-Christian’ Values to
Polish its Racism
https://therealnews.com/stories/german-far-right-uses-judeo-christian-values-to-polish-its-racism
with Shir Hever
The
far-right German party identity Alternative fur Deutschland, or Alternative for
Germany, made significant gains in the 2017 elections and entered the German
parliament as the country’s fourth-largest party and as its largest opposition
party with 12.6 percent of the vote. The party, known by its initials AFD,
recently announced that it will launch a Jewish chapter next Sunday when it
holds a party meeting in the town of Wiesbaden. Although it is not clear how
many, or even if any, German Jews intend to join this Jewish chapter of the
party, which will be called JAFD, the German media is covering the story very
intensively. Germany’s media are fascinated because of the seeming
contradiction between the far right party, the AFD, that openly promotes racist
policies, and the aspect of a religious minority in Germany, the Jews, who were
persecuted in Germany and subjected to genocide by the Nazis.
How
does the AFD plan to draw Jews into its ranks? The AFD does so by claiming to
be the only party in Germany that is truly supporting the state of Israel.
Josef Schuster is the head of the organization Zentralat
der Juden, or Central
Council of Jews, in Germany, an organization that claims to represent the
Jewish community and its interests. Here is his response to the question: How
do you define anti-Semitism?
+
Everything Is A Hoax
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50390.htm
by Paul Craig Roberts
==========
b.
Encounters
With Gideon Levy, Israel’s Most Infamous Journalist
by
Robert
Fisk
Gideon Levy is a bit of a philosopher king although, sitting
in his postage stamp garden in a suburb of Tel Aviv, straw hat shading
mischievous dark eyes, there’s a touch of a Graham Greene character
about Haaretz’s
most provocative and infamous writer. Brave, subversive, sorrowful – in a
harsh, uncompromising way – he’s the kind of journalist you either worship or
loathe. Philosopher kings of the Plato kind are necessary for our moral health,
perhaps, but not good for our blood pressure. So Levy’s life has been
threatened by his fellow Israelis for telling the truth; and that’s the best
journalism award one can get.
He loves journalism but is appalled by its decline. His
English is flawless but it sometimes breaks up in fury. Here’s an angry Levy
on the effect of newspaper stories: “In the year of ’86, I wrote about a
Palestinian Bedouin woman who lost her baby after giving birth at a checkpoint.
She tried at three different [Israeli] checkpoints, she couldn’t make it and
she gave birth in the car. They [the Israelis] didn’t let her bring the baby to
the hospital. She carried him by foot two kilometres
to the Augusta Victoria [Hospital in east Jerusalem]. The baby died. When I
published this story – I don’t want to say that Israel ‘held its breath’, but
it was a huge scandal, the cabinet was dealing with it, two
officers were brought to court…”
Then Levy found ten more women who had lost babies at
Israeli checkpoints. “And nobody could care less any more. Today, I can publish
it and people will yawn if they read it at all. [It’s] totally normalised, totally justified. We have a justification now
for everything. The dehumanisation of the
Palestinians has reached a stage in which we really don’t care. I can tell you,
really, without exaggeration, if an Israeli dog was killed by Palestinians, it
will get more attention in the Israeli media than if 20 Palestinian youngsters
would be shot dead by snipers on the fence – without doing anything – in Gaza.
The life of Palestinians has become the cheapest thing. It’s a whole system of demonisation, of de-humanisation,
a whole system of justification that ‘we’ are always right and we can never be
wrong.”
==========
c.
"The
Problem In The Middle East Began With The Creation Of
The State Of Israel" Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50377.htm
HARDtalk's Zeinab
Badawi speaks to the world's oldest head of
government, Malaysia's Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad. He was Prime Minister for more
than 20 consecutive years until 2003.
+
Mowing the grass in Gaza
https://m.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Mowing-the-grass-in-Gaza-368516/amp
by Efraim Inbar & Eitan Shamir
==========
d.
|
Gaza: Teen killed by Israeli tear gas canister
Gaza
health ministry says 24 others were wounded after Israeli forces fired live
bullets and tear gas at protesters.
==========
e.
What
Syria Continues to Teach Us
https://blackagendareport.com/what-syria-continues-teach-us
by Danny Haiphong
Leftists
should turn their attention to the New Guard Fascists -- the enemies of the
people at the top of the class structure and the armed body, the state, that protects the class structure.
“New guard fascism controls the levers
of the economy, media, and military within the imperialist orbit.”
Syria
continues to make gains against the jihadist mercenaries that flooded the
country beginning 2011 with the help of US imperialism and its allies. The
imperial ruling classes did not expect Idlib to be
the last gasp of air for their efforts to destroy Syria and balkanize the
region. It is this province where Turkey and its imperialist friends, including
the United States, have lent critical support to jihadist proxies. It is also
where the future of a thirty-plus year
imperialist strategymay
experience its greatest failure to date. The Syrian people have survived the
imperial onslaught with much to teach us.
US
imperialism and its allies have two choices in Syria. Either continue their
current ineffectual attempt to hold back the liberation of Syria or escalate
militarily. Both options come at great risk. The former ends all ambitions of
overthrowing the Syrian government and further spreading the chaos of imperial
domination throughout the region. The latter probably won’t lead to the
overthrow of the Syrian government but willlead to dangerous military
confrontations with the Russian Federation. This may be too risky for even the
most blood thirsty war-hawks in Washington, Riyadh, Tel Aviv, Ankara, and the
rest of the NATO-aligned countries. However, the left shouldn’t count on the
good intentions of the imperialists when the profits of Wall Street and the war
economy are at stake.
==========
f.
Russia’s
New Missile Defense System in Syria
May
Change Balance of Power in Middle East
by
Patrick
Cockburn
Russia
has completed delivery of a S-300 surface-to-air
missile system to Syria in
a move likely to change the balance of forces in the skies over the Syrian battlefields.
“The
work was finished a day ago,” Russian defence
minister Sergei Shoigu told President Vladimir
Putin in a meeting broadcast on television.
The
decision to supply the sophisticated anti-aircraft system came in response
to the
shooting down of a Russian Ilyushin reconnaissance
plane with the loss of all 15 on board by Syria on 17 September
in an incident 22 miles off the Syrian coast for which Russia holds
Israel ultimately responsible.
The
friendly fire loss of the Russian plane is unsurprising since three of the
world’s most powerful air forces – Russia, US and Israel – are frequently
flying in or close to Syrian air space. In addition, there are Turkish and
Syrian planes, backed up, in the case of Syria, by a ground-to-air defence system. With five air forces operating in close
proximity some mishap always appeared inevitable.
Israel
has expressed regret at the death of the Russian air force personnel and is
concerned that the S-300s may make it more risky for its planes to continue a
campaign against Iranian facilities in Syria. The missiles have the capacity to
track dozens of targets at a distance of hundreds of miles. The state-owned
manufacturer Almaz-Antey says they can also shoot
down cruise and ballistic missiles.
Israel has
long sought to prevent the delivery of the S-300s to Iran and
Syria. Iran did buy the system in 2007 but it was only delivered in 2016.
“We have not changed our strategic line on Iran,” said Israeli education minister Naftali Bennett, a member of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu
’s security cabinet. “We will not allow Iran to open up a third front against us. We will take actions as required.”Mr Putin has succeeded hitherto in maintaining good
relations and a high level of cooperation with Syria, Turkey and Israel,
despite their conflicting objectives in Syria.
Relations
between Israel and Russia have been frayed by the 17 September shoot down when
the Russians claimed that Israeli F-16s had used the reconnaissance flight of
the Russian plane off Latakia to make an attack.
More is at
stake than future Israeli air operations over Syria. US military power in the
northern tier of the Middle East – notably in Syria and Iraq – stems primarily
from the massive destructive power of its air force and its ability to use its
planes and missiles at will.
==========
g.
How the
American Media Was Destroyed
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50352.htm
by Paul Craig
Roberts
In my
September 24 column, “Truth Is Evaporating Before Our Eyes,” https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/09/24/truth-is-evaporating-before-our-eyes/
I used the destruction of the CBS news team that broke the Abu Ghraib story and the story of President George W. Bush’s
non-performance of his Texas Air Force National Guard duties to demonstrate how
accusations alone could destroy a Peabody Award winning, 26 year veteran
producer of CBS News, Mary Mapes, and the established
news anchor Dan Rather.
I have many times written that it was President Bill Clinton who
destroyed the independent US media when he permitted 90 percent of the US media
to be concentrated in six mega-corporations that were in the entertainment and
other businesses and not in the news business. This unprecedented concentration
of media was against all American tradition and destroyed the reliance that our
Founding Fathers placed on a free press to keep government accountable to the
people.
Until I read Mary Mapes book, Truth and Duty (St. Martin’s Press, 2005), I was
unaware of how this monopolization of the media in violation of the Sherman
Anti-trust Act and American tradition had proceeded to destroy honest
reporting.
==========
h.
https://blackagendareport.com/standing-julian-assange
by Ann Garrison
Pacifica
radio stations are known as havens for leftwing thought and action, but the Berkeley
station and the national Pacifica board have yet to come to the defense of Wikileak’s Julian Assange.
“Pacifica has
incrementally moved to the right, along with the rest of the country.”
The following
resolution has been submitted for a vote to the national board of directors of
Pacifica, a non-commercial radio network of five high-power metropolitan
stations—in Berkeley, Los Angeles, Houston, New York City, and Washington, DC. Pacifica has over 200 affiliate stations in other cities, towns,
and college and university campuses across the US. The resolution has
also been submitted to Pacifica station KPFA’s local station board in Berkeley.
The US
National Press Club, Overseas Press Club of America, Reuters, and Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press all deserted Assange in 2011 ,
two years into Obama's presidency. After more than six years of political
asylum inside London’s Ecuadorian Embassy, he is in poor health and in danger
of extradition to stand trial in the US for publishing leaked confidential
documents, many of which were also published by the New York Times, the London Guardian, and other
prominent media outlets. He could even be tried and sentenced “in camera,” with
neither press nor human rights observers present.
“Assange is in poor health and in danger of
extradition to stand trial in the US for publishing leaked confidential
documents.”
Pacifica was founded by pacifist Lew Hill in the 1940s after World War
II. It has a long, proud history as a radical, edgy alternative to corporate
and state media that has opposed most US wars and austerity measures since. So
one might think that passing this resolution would be a slam dunk, but it hasn’t
been. As I wrote in “We Love the CIA!—Or How the Left Lost its Mind,” Pacifica has
incrementally moved to the right, along with the rest of the country, ever
since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, and during the neoliberal, hawkish
presidencies of Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
Pentagon
Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and other whistleblowers, writers, editors
and union and media activists have endorsed the resolution, but majorities on
the Berkeley board and the national board have prevented roll call votes or any
votes at all without explaining why. If you’d like to see this resolution
passed by the Pacifica National Board and the KPFA Local Station Board, please
write to pnb@pacifica.org and copy kpfalsb@googlegroups.com
+
John Pilger
On ‘Approved News,’ Syria, Iran, Austerity And Julian Assange
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50386.htm
Watch
On this episode of Going Underground, legendary journalist
John Pilger discusses Syria and it’s
ally Iran and the Trump administration’s policies towards the two countries,
the Venezuela crisis, Julian Assange, austerity and
the concept of ‘approved news’ and unapproved opinions!
+
The Fifth
Online Vigil for Julian Assange
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/10/06/the-fifthonline-vigil-for-julian-assange/
==========
i.
Kavanaugh Is a Corporation Masquerading as a Judge
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/ralph-nader-kavanaugh-is-a-corporation-masquerading-as-a-judge/
by Ralph Nader
+
How D.C. Prep
School Culture Builds Men Like Brett Kavanaugh
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/how-d-c-prep-school-culture-builds-men-like-brett-kavanaugh/
by Ilana Novick
Brett Kavanaugh, who is alleged to have
sexually abused Christine Blasey Ford during his days
at Georgetown Prep, is not an anomaly, or an accident. An entire
ecosystem for white, male children of wealthy families exists that both
encourages abusive behavior and covers it up.
Deirdre Bowen
would know. In a USA Today op-ed, Bowen,
now a law professor at Seattle University, details the world of D.C.-area
private schools and the people who attended them, including the underage
drinking, the violence and the expectation that women should suffer in silence
from the consequences.
“The students
at these elite schools are groomed to be charismatic, upstanding leaders in
society,” Bowen writes. “This, however, does not mean that the upstanding
leaders of today could not have committed unspoken venialities in their youth.”
Bowen writes
that she, like Kavanaugh, “was raised in Montgomery
County, Maryland. Like him, I attended Beach Week, the week of debauchery when
Catholic high school students take over Ocean City before the public school
kids get out for the summer. Like him, I hosted and went to parties where underage
drinking was the norm. To be honest, getting wasted was the norm.”
==========
Community Organizers weigh in on the Supreme Court
Nomination.
Flake
Demanded FBI Probe Soon After Being Confronted by Sexual Assault Survivors
Senator
Flake’s remarks shocked his Republican colleagues, who were hoping to quickly
push ahead with a full confirmation vote for Kavanaugh.
Flake’s move to stall the vote came just hours after he was confronted in a
Senate elevator by two survivors of sexual assault.
+
You Don’t
Know Brett: Ten Lessons From the Kavanaugh Hearings
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/28/you-dont-know-brett-ten-lessons-from-the-kavanaugh-hearings/
by Kristine Mattis
The Brett Kavanaugh hearings proved to be yet another shameless foray
into political theatre–not much more than a spectacle of the utmost
proportions. Surrounding one highly credible and candid witness (Blasey Ford), we saw self-serving members of Congress
jockeying for future positions with their sometimes ridiculous, sometimes
laughable, and sometimes overwrought rhetoric. We saw a very typical entitled
rich white man acting as if he had worked hard his whole life and deserved
every great fortune he has received. He seemingly had no regrets or mistakes in
his past (or present, or future, presumably.)
It’s fairly
obvious that Kavanaugh cannot be trusted. He has
already perjured himself in the past. We didn’t need to hear the Republicans spew their litany of erroneous,
misogynist, religious-tinged nonsense. We didn’t need to hear the Democrats
attempt to be heroes, however disingenuous they may be. (Ahem – does Juanita Broaddrick ring a bell?) What I think we need to hear are
some simple truths about how people and our society generally function, which
could put the Kavanaugh hearings in a non-partisan
context.
Here are ten
lessons from life in America that we might keep in mind. . . .
==========
k.
Ten Items
Corroborate Dr. Blasey Ford’s Allegation
by Doug Johnson
Along with
the usual smears, name calling, and flat dismissals put forward by rape culture
warriors, defenders of Brett Kavanaugh, and Kavanaugh at times himself, have repeatedly argued that Dr.
Christine Blasey Ford contradicted herself in the
number of people she placed at the party, that those people have said it never
happened, and that she has provided no evidence to support her story. The first
argument is terribly weak and barely worthy addressing. Remembering the exact
number of people there is not a central part of the story, and she’s named
several of them that will become relevant in what follows.
The second
argument (they’ve all denied it under penalty of perjury) was horribly handled
by Democratic Senators yesterday, and could be the topic of another post. For
starters, Mark Judge didn’t deny it under penalty of perjury as his lawyer, not
he himself, submitted a cursory statement to the Senate Judiciary committee.
(Update: Judge and lawyer sent a new letter, signed by
Judge and released by Chuck Grassely, before midnight
last night. As below, still no reason whatsoever he shouldn’t be scrutinized
under Senate questioning or court room cross-examination.) There are problems
with each of the other supposed denials too, but that isn’t the subject here.
So, without further ado, let’s go in reverse order of strength to the 10 items
that corroborate Dr. Blasey Ford’s allegation that Brett
Kavanaugh tried to rape her. The claim that “there is
no corroboration” is consistently bandied about on news programs, by senators, and on social
media by people who, apparently do not know what the term corroborate means
(hint: ‘to confirm or give support to’ is a lot wider category than “eye
witness testimony”).
10. Kavanaugh (and His Closest Defenders) Own Admissions
With some of
the wilder allegations of rape or sexual assault leaked, it seems, by Senate
Republicans, Kavanaugh said things like, “I was
not in Newport, haven’t been on a boat in Newport. Not with Mark Judge on a boat, nor all those three things combined. This is just
completely made up, or at least not me. I don’t know what they’re referring
to.” Fair enough. Corroboration would mean things like showing he was on a boat
at the relevant time in Newport with Mark Judge. This isn’t the case with Blasey Ford’s allegation. Kavanaugh
admits that he at least knew her and socialized with her in passing, further
acknowledging that he doesn’t deny that these things happened to her, it just
wasn’t him. As such, close associates of his tried a failed doppelgänger
theory on for size. Admitting he knew Blasey Ford and
acknowledging her credibility in so far as she claims to have been sexually
assaulted are minimally corroborative.
9. Kavanaugh’s Own Speeches
Kavanaugh went on Fox News and tried to suggest that maybe he
had a beer here and there, but that generally he was a virgin who focused on
sports, going to church every Sunday, and service projects. We’ll get to some
responses to that shortly, but his own speechesabout
hard-partying ways at both Yale and Georgetown Prep cut against that portrayal
and corroborate Dr. Blasey Ford’s suggestion that he
was the kind of person who could get wildly drunk and aggressive. “What happens
on the bus stays on the bus” and “what happens at Georgetown Prep stays at
Georgetown prep.”
8. People Blasey Ford Told Over the Last 1/2 Dozen Years . . . .
Senate
Republicans Set Kavanaugh FBI Probe Scope, McConnell
Says
by Laura Litvan & Steven T.
Dennis
==========
l.
Eve Ensler to White Women Supporting Kavanaugh:
Stand with
Survivors & Fight This Nominatio
https://www.democracynow.org/2018/10/5/eve_ensler_to_white_women_supporting
==========
m.
The 1% Will
Earn the People's Hatred
https://blackagendareport.com/1-will-earn-peoples-hatred
by Glen Ford
+
Theory 101:
Class Struggle in the Age of US Imperial Decline
https://blackagendareport.com/theory-101-class-struggle-age-us-imperial-decline
by Danny Haiphong
The focus on
separate “identities” has led to numerous academic theories and non-profit
career opportunities but no real power for oppressed and working-class people.
“Paul Robeson
and Huey P. Newton made common cause with oppressed people around the world and
defended revolutionary movements in Russia, Vietnam, and Cuba from US and
Western aggression.”
+
Who Owns US
Technology?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfdyL9c-MfI
==========
n.
The US Military-Industrial Complex’s
Worst Nightmare:
The S-300 May Destroy and Expose the
F-35
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50353.htm
by Federico Pieraccini
The tragic episode that
caused the death of 15 Russian air force personnel has had immediate repercussions on
the situation in Syria and the Middle East. On September 24, Russian Defense
Minister Sergei Shoigu informed allies and opponents
that the delivery of the S-300 air-defense systems to the Syrian Arab Republic
had been approved by President Vladimir Putin. The delivery had been delayed
and then suspended as a result of Israeli pressure back in 2013.
In one sense, the delivery of S-300 batteries to Syria is cause for
concern more for Washington than for Tel Aviv. Israel has several F-35
and has claimed to have used them in Syria
to strike alleged Iranian weapons transfers to Hezbollah. With the S-300
systems deployed in an updated version and incorporated into the Russian
command, control and communications (C3) system, there is a serious risk (for
Washington) that Israel, now incapable of changing the course of events in
Syria, could attempt a desperate maneuver.
It is no secret that Greece purchased S-300s from
Russia years ago, and that NATO and Israel have trained numerous times against
the Russian air-defense system. Senior IDF officials have often insisted that
they are capable taking out
the S-300s, having apparently discovered their weaknesses.
Tel Aviv’s
warning that it will attack and destroy the S-300 battery should not be taken
as an idle threat. It is enough to look at the recent downing of Russia’s Il-20
surveillance aircraft to understand how reckless a desperate Israel is prepared
to be. Moreover, more than one IDF commander has over the years reiterated
that a Syrian S-300 would be considered a legitimate target if threatening
Israeli aircraft.
At this point, it is necessary to add some additional information and
clarify some points. Greece’s S-300s are old, out of maintenance, and have not
had their electronics updated. Such modern and complex systems as the S-300s
and S-400s require maintenance, upgrades, and often replacement of parts to
improve hardware. All this is missing from the Greek batteries. Secondly, it is
the operator who uses the system (using radar, targeting, aiming, locking and
so forth) that often makes the difference in terms of overall effectiveness.
Furthermore, the system is fully integrated into the Russian C3 system, something that renders useless any previous
experience gleaned from wargaming the Greek S-300s.
No Western country knows the real capabilities and capacity of Syrian air
defense when augmented and integrated with Russian systems. This is a secret
that Damascus and Moscow will continue to keep well guarded. Yet two years ago,
during the operations to free Aleppo, a senior Russian military officer warned (presumably
alluding to fifth-generation stealth aircraft like the F-35 and F-22) that the
range and effectiveness of the Russian systems may come as a surprise.
The following are the words of Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu concerning the deployment of the S-300 to Syria and
its integration with other Russian systems:
"Russia will jam satellite navigation, onboard radars and
communication systems of combat aircraft, which attack targets in the Syrian
territory, in the Mediterranean Sea bordering with Syria. We are convinced that
the implementation of these measures will cool hotheads and prevent
ill-considered actions threatening our servicemen. Otherwise, we will respond
in line with the current situation. Syrian troops and military air defense
units will be equipped with automatic control systems, which have been supplied
to the Russian Armed Forces. This will ensure the centralized management of the
Syrian air defense forces and facilities, monitoring the situation in the
airspace and prompt target designation. Most importantly, it will be used to
identify the Russian aircraft by the Syrian air defense forces."
If the Israelis will follow through with their reckless attempts to
eliminate the S-300 (if they can find them in the first place, given that they
are mobile), they will risk their F-35s being brought down. The US
military-industrial complex would suffer irreparable damage. This would also
explain why Israel (and probably the US) has for more than five years put
enormous pressure on Moscow not to deliver the S-300 to Syria and Iran. The US
State Department’s reaction over the future purchase by Turkey and India of the
S-400 confirms the anxiety that US senior officials as well as generals are
experiencing over the prospect of allies opting for the Russian systems. This
would allow for a comparison with weapons these allies purchased from the US,
leading to the discovery of vulnerabilities and the realization of the US
weapons’ relative inferiority.
Given Tel Aviv’s tendency to place its own interests above all others, it
would not be surprising to find them using the possibility of attacking the
S-300 with their F-35s as a weapon to blackmail Washington into getting more
involved in the conflict. For the United States, there are two scenarios to
avoid. The first is a direct involvement in the conflict with Russia in Syria,
which is now unthinkable and impractical. The second – much more worrying for
military planners – concerns the possibility of the F-35’s capabilities and
secrets being compromised or even being shown not to be a match against
air-defense systems nearly half a century old.
==========
o.
‘Hillary said so’: Iran slams Saudi Arabia as top ‘terrorist donor,’
quotes Clinton to back claim
Members of Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria. © Omar Haj Kadour / AFP
https://www.rt.com/news/440071-iran-saudi-terrorist-sponsor-un/
A fiery
speech by an Iranian representative, responding to Saudi accusations at the UN
General Assembly, blamed terrorist activity around the globe on Riyadh – and
even quoted Hillary Clinton to back the claim.
Accusing Iran
of supporting terrorism was a “strange and outlandish claim” by Saudi
Foreign Minister Adel Jubeir, the Iranian
representative said. He was addressing the United Nations in Arabic, explaining
that he was doing so in order “to make sure that our position is rendered
clear” to Riyadh.
“Everybody
knows that Saudi Arabia supports terrorism in a very blatant and widespread
manner,” the diplomat said. He then added, unexpectedly, that
“in
the framework of WikiLeaks in 2009, Hillary Clinton
is said to have stated that Saudi Arabia is the greatest donor to terrorist
groups around the world.”
WikiLeaks did publish a memo by Clinton – which she put
together in 2009, while she was US secretary of state – that said that “donors
in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni
terrorist groups worldwide… Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support
base for Al-Qaida, the Taliban… and other terrorist groups.”
WARNING!
GRAPHIC IMAGES
https://www.facebook.com/RTnews/videos/346177939461275/
Tehran,
meanwhile, accuses Riyadh of being responsible for terrorist attacks “in the
Middle East, North Africa and Europe” as well as of backing Islamic State
(IS, formerly ISIS) and Al-Qaeda.
“It’s an open
secret that the Yemen nation is suffering as a result of the direct
machinations and maneuvers of Saudi Arabia,” the spokesman
added.
==========
p.
Noam Chomsky:
Facebook and Google Pose a Manifest Danger
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/noam-chomsky-facebook-and-google-pose-a-manifest-danger/
by Jacob Sugarman
In “Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media” (1988), authors Edward S. Herman
and Noam Chomsky identified what they called the “five filters of editorial bias”:
Size, Ownership and Profit Orientation; the Advertising License to Do Business;
Sourcing Mass Media News; Flak and the Enforcers; and Anti-Communism.
While the
Soviet Union has since been relegated to the dustbin of history, Herman and
Chomsky’s text has proved indispensable, with multinationals like Google,
Amazon and Facebook tightening their stranglehold on
the news industry and the economy at large. As Chomsky warns, these
corporations’ eagerness to appease their advertisers and manipulate their
users’ behavior has “very serious distorting effects” on the stories we
consume. “I don’t think that’s a healthy development, but it is happening,” he
says. “And that means essentially dividing much of the population … into
cocoons [or] bubbles, into which they receive the information conducive [only] to their own interests and commitments.”
Last week,
Chomsky explored this topic and more in an exhaustive interview (“American Dissident”) with The Intercept’s Jeremy Scahill. What
follows are just a few of the activist author’s more trenchant observations and
digressions.
“There’s an
authentic constituency of corporate power and private wealth, and they’re being
served magnificently by the executive orders [and] legislative programs that
are being pushed through. [These] represent the more savage wing of the
traditional Republican policies catering to private interests, private wealth,
and dismissing the rest as irrelevant and easily disposed of. At the same time,
[Trump] is managing to maintain the voting constituency by pretending, very
effectively, to be the one person in the world who stands up for them against
the hated elites. And this is quite an impressive con job. How long he can
carry it off? I don’t know.”
==========
q.
Will
Organized Human Life Survive?
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50370.htm
Noam Chomsky’s lecture
at St. Olaf College on 4 May 2018.
==========
r.
Kay Bailey
Hutchison Must Resign
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50385.htm
Because starting World War III isn’t what
Americans voted for
by Justin Raimondo
How
crazy-stupid do you have to be to get up there on the podium and openly threaten Russia
with a “preemptive” first strike? You don’t have to be Kay Bailey Hutchison,
but it helps.
Our
“Ambassador” to NATO – as if NATO is an actual country rather than a
supra-national parasite – claims that Moscow is in violation of the INF treaty,
and that, while she’s willing to give diplomacy a try, she is “prepared to
consider a military strike if development of the medium-range system
continued.”
So now the
“Ambassador” to NATO is empowered to start World War III. Next we’ll have the
Postmaster General ordering an invasion of Iran. The Ambassadress has exceeded
her authority and caused an international incident that may come to haunt us:
certainly she has endangered us all. In a civilized country like Japan, she
would literally fall on her sword, but I’ll settle for her resignation.
Although
Hutchison later denied that she was threatening a first strike, the meaning of
her words is unmistakable:
“At that
point, we would be looking at the capability to take out a (Russian) missile
that could hit any of our countries. Counter measures (by the United States)
would be to take out the missiles that are in development by Russia in
violation of the treaty. They are on notice.”
This should
put Americans on notice that,
a) we are living in very dangerous times, and b) that the foreign policy of the
United States has very little to do with the President of the United States.
Commentators have remarked on what they dub our “two-track” foreign policy, and
this is especially true when it comes to our stance toward Russia. What this
“two-track” business means is that the President’s advisors have done
everything possible to obstruct his preferred policy – the policy he campaigned
and won on, which is peace with Russia. They lied to him about
the number of Russian diplomats to be expelled, they actively subverted the
White House summit with Putin, and they have blocked his oft-expressed desire
to get out of Syria and reach some accord with Moscow about the future of the
region.
==========
s.
Weaponized Communication at the UN: Talking With Richard Falk
https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/10/04/weaponized-communication-at-the-un-talking-with-richard-falk/
by Daniel Falcone
Daniel Falcone: What are your general thoughts on Trump’s recent
UN talk and how world opinion received it? What do you regard as the central
theme? Trump seems determined to be one of the more militaristic statesmen in
recent history while claiming to be an anti-establishment politician. What are
your thoughts on what Trump said and were you surprised that certain diplomatic
issues were left unsaid by the president?
Richard Falk:
The Trump speech at the UN this year was a virtual mirror image of Trump’s
overall political profile, slightly embellished by some idealistic sentiments
of an abstract and vague character, and if the content analyzed, revealing
glaring tensions between its abstractions and the concrete lines of policy
being advocated.
At the same
time, if compared with Trump’s first speech to the General Assembly a year
earlier, it was somewhat less belligerent except with respect to Iran, a bit
more ingratiating to other members and to the UN as an organization, yet
essentially unchanged so far as its essential features of policy and
prescription are concerned.
A central
theme articulated by Trump throughout the speech and strongly stressed at the
beginning and end was the primacy of a sovereignty-centered world order based
on territorial nation-states. This amounts to a strong affirmation of Westphalian ideas of
world order as these have evolved in Europe since the middle of the 17thcentury.
The essential tone of the speech was awkwardly encapsulated in this pithy
statement: “We reject the ideology of globalism and accept the doctrine of
patriotism.”
It is far
from clear what is meant by ‘the ideology of globalism,’ although it can be
inferred from other formulations in the text, that it means rejecting any
outlook that puts the region or world ahead of the interests of individual sovereign
states. Trump leaves no
doubt about this: “Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where
freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever
prospered. And so we must protect our sovereignty and our cherished
independence above all.”
As an
emotional embodiment of this state-centric worldview is Trump’s stress, unusual
in his wording, on ‘the doctrine of patriotism.’ Again, the meaning is clear
even if the words chosen are rather odd. There is no doctrine of
patriotism lying about waiting to be adopted. A claim of patriotism is normally
associated with expressions of overriding, sometime blind, loyalty to a
particular national political community, especially in relation to war and in
terms of making sacrifices and lending support to one’s own country in
situations of international conflict.
Against such
a background, Trump’s next move in his address to this UN audience is exactly
what we have come to expect from him. First, putting America forward as a model
nation that demonstrates to the world what can, be achieved by way
constitutional stability and prosperity, and what other states should mimic if they
seek the best possible future for their respective societies.
And secondly,
insisting that America will respect the sovereignty of others and cooperate for
mutual benefits, but only on the basis of reciprocity and based on what he
deems as fair, which require some drastic course corrections within and without
the UN. Trump in his now familiar framing contends that the U.S. has in the
past borne a disproportionate share of financial burdens at the UN, and
elsewhere, but vows that this will not continue in the future. Whether in trade
relations or foreign economic assistance, the United States will demand not
only good balance sheet results, but shows of political support from those that
are beneficiaries of American largesse.
Where Trump
tramples on protocol, so much so that his comments provoke derisive laughter
from the assembled delegates, occurs when he boasts so grossly
about the achievements of his presidency. “In less than two years, my
administration has accomplished more than almost any other administration in
the history of our country.” To give more tangible grounds for this
extraordinary moment of self-congratulation with representatives of the
governments of the entire world sitting in front of him, Trump claims
“America’s economy is booming as never before.” To substantiate such a boast
Trump points to the record highs of the stock market and historic lows for unemployment,
especially for minorities. He also points to counterterrorism successes in
Syria and Afghanistan, and to border security in relation to illegal migration.
Maybe most
distressing in the context of telling this global audience about how well the
United States is doing under his leadership is Trump’s seeking credit for
unabashed embrace of militarism. He speaks with pride, rather than shame, of
record spending of $700 billion for the military budget, to be increased in the
following year to $716 billion. Such expenditures are announced with no felt
need for a security justification beyond the bald assertion “[our] military
will soon be more powerful than it has ever been.”
There is here
an unintended hint of a globalist element. Trump asserts his familiar trope
that “[we] are standing up for America and for the American people. And we are
also standing up for the world.” In other words, American militarism is a win/win
proposition for all nations, provided, of course, that they are not identified
as enemies to be sanctioned and destabilized from within and without.
I was also
struck by what Trump left unsaid in his speech. There was no reference to his
supposed ‘deal of the century’ with its pledge to deliver an enduring peace to
Israel and Palestine. I can only wonder whether the evident content of the
approach being long prepared by the White House seems so politically
unacceptable that it has either been shelved or is in the process of being
repackaged. Although it is probably foolish to speculate, the Kushner/Greenblatt/Friedman plan
according to what is known, involved an unpalatable mixture of ‘economic peace’
incentives with some sort of arrangement to transfer Gaza to the governmental
authority of Jordan and Egypt.
In effect,
this strikes me as a pseudo-diplomatic version of the ‘Victory Caucus’ promoted
so vigorously by Daniel Pipes and the
Middle East Forum, but for the sake of appearances made to seem as if a new
peace process. For Pipes, the road to peace is based on the prior renunciation
of Palestinian political aspirations coupled with the acknowledgement both
Israel is a state of the Jewish people and that international diplomacy had
been tried within the Oslo framework for more than 20 years, and failed. . . .
==========
t.
Democratic
Corporate Fascism vs. the Trump Kind
https://blackagendareport.com/democratic-corporate-fascism-vs-trump-kind
by Glen Ford
==========
u.
New American Civil War?
Some people
think it’s already begun
https://www.rt.com/usa/430957-america-new-civil-war-trump/
==========
v.
All the Good
News (Ignored by the Trump-Obsessed Media)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50369.htm
by Gary Leupp
There is much
good news in this world. But
the U.S. mass media barely reports it.
Have you
noticed? Syria is on the brink of defeating the U.S.-backed opposition forces
now corralled into Idlib Province. The successes of
the Syrian Arab Army and its allies have decisively stymied Washington’s
17-year-long year effort to dominate the Middle East through aggressive,
illegal regime change operations justified by lies.
Meanwhile the
Sadrists in Iraq in alliance with the Iraqi Communist
Party are steering an independent national path that includes cordial ties and
security cooperation with Iran, Syria and Russia. The Bush/Cheney dream (of
securing Iraq as a U.S. and Israel ally) hasn’t materialized.
The
Europeans, Chinese, Indians and Russians persist in expanding trade with Iran
in defiance of arrogant U.S. threats. This too is good; an affirmation of
international law in the face of U.S. violations. The very departure of the
U.S. from the Iran deal, to say nothing of efforts to sabotage it through
secondary sanctions, is illegal.
This too–have
you noticed? A remarkable warming of relations between North and South Korea is
underway! The North and South Korean heads of state have met three times in
rapid succession and signed a host of significant agreements. This is an
unqualified good, but the U.S. media pooh-poohs it, questioning whether any
progress has really been made on denuclearization, wondering whether Trump sold
out the store in Singapore. The desire to attack Trump trumps any natural
inclination to share the joy of the Korean people at this dramatic relaxation
of tensions. Instead of smiling about it, they glare, and express alarm that
Trump might actually pull U.S. troops out of South Korea. Like that would be an
irresponsible thing.
==========
w.
'A lot of
women are extremely happy':
Donald Trump
on Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation – video
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2018/oct/07/a-lot-of-women-are-extremely-happy-trump-on-brett-kavanaughs-confirmation-video
==========
x.
IPCC climate
change report calls for urgent action to phase out fossil fuels – live
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2018/oct/08/ipcc-climate-change-report-urgent-action-fossil-fuels-live
==========
y.
World War 3
FEARS: Iranian General vows
to DESTROY Israel in FURIOUS attack
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1028235/World-War-3-Iran-destroy-Israel-Hezbollah-Revolutionary-Guards-Syria
by James Bickerton
A TOP Iranian
General has vowed to destroy Israel, warning “there will soon be no way to
escape but the sea”, raising fears of a major outbreak of conflict in the volatile
Middle East.
==========
z.
The U.N.'s
Climate Report Exposes
How Badly
Wrong Leaders Like Trump Have Got Climate Change
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50399.htm
by Ban Ki-moon
Climate
change is a global challenge demanding global solutions. No one country can
face it alone, no matter that nation’s political, economic or military might.
From the richest to the poorest, we all share one planet, and we all have a stake
in its survival.
This is why
the latest report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes for such alarming reading and demands immediate, concerted action from
everyone — particularly our leaders.
The report sets out starkly that,
without a rapid change of course, global temperatures will rise above the 1.5°C
level that scientists view as the bare minimum to avert catastrophic climate
change, including rising sea waters, desertification and droughts.