From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Jun 2 01:21:58 2021 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 20:21:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] New show from Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti: "Breaking Points" Message-ID: Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar homepage https://breakingpoints.supercast.tech/ Clips from the show should appear starting on 2021-06-07 https://youtube.com/breakingpoints According to Krystal Ball in https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1399713326503010307 > Here we go. Proud to announce the launch of BREAKING POINTS with > Krystal and Saagar on 6/7! We don't have billionaires backing our > high end production but we do have YOU! Help us BEAT corporate media > by becoming a premium member. You might recognize Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti from The Hill. Their new show "Breaking Points" starts on 2021-06-07. I'm mildly curious if this is genuinely an independent show which they're funding exclusively by viewer contributions as they claim on their site ("We don't have soulless billionaires or corporations backing our high end TV production, but we do have YOU. We took a big risk going independent...") or if some other organization is also secretly funding their effort (perhaps someone who is wealthy but not a billionaire, or an unincorporated organization). I noticed that Jimmy Dore congratulated them in https://twitter.com/jimmy_dore/status/1399888685508685825 > Congratulations to @krystalball & @esaagar for starting their own > show free of corporate ownership. Good luck! Why am I suspicious? Because Ryan Grim (of the Intercept) has been a frequent guest on The Hill's "Rising" show which Ball & Enjeti co-host. Grim is also an establishment lackey as Dore has pointed out multiple times[1]. I can only guess that Dore's repeated evidence-based explanations about Grim has had an effect on Ball & Enjeti, hence they started "Breaking Points". [1] For example: https://youtube.com/watch?v=J40JriWrj2U (28m 45s) -- "Intercept Reporter CAUGHT Falsely Accusing Jimmy Dore Of Lying" https://youtube.com/watch?v=HAgOqywYTUI (14m 49s) -- "Intercept Pushes Laughable Democrat Propaganda via Ryan Grim" https://youtube.com/watch?v=ohdWtVfF4yA (20m 25s) -- "Journo Protecting AOC Gets Humiliated by Justin Jackson On Twitter!" https://youtube.com/watch?v=1hqWRWauzGk (17m 23s) -- "Intercept Reporter Caught Lying Again About Third Parties" https://youtube.com/watch?v=15ZTEuB_30c (16m 44s) -- "Politician Humiliates Intercept Reporter For Pushing Establishment Propaganda" Visit https://youtube.com/search?q=jimmy+dore+ryan+grim to find more. From divisek at yahoo.com Wed Jun 2 18:39:30 2021 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 18:39:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Were the Wars Wise? Were They Worth It? References: <1908441374.1950356.1622659170332.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1908441374.1950356.1622659170332@mail.yahoo.com> Were the Wars Wise? Were They Worth It? Through the long Memorial Day weekend, anyone who read the newspapers or watched television could not miss or be unmoved by it: Story after story after story of the fallen, of those who had given the "last full measure of devotion" to their country. Heart-rending is an apt description of those stories; and searing are the videos of those who survived and returned home without arms or legs. But the stories could not help but bring questions to mind. While the service and sacrifice were always honorable and often heroic, never to be forgotten, were the wars these soldiers were sent to fight and die in wise? Were they necessary? What became of the causes for which these Americans were sent to fight in the new century, with thousands to die and tens of thousands to come home with permanent wounds? And what became of the causes for which they were sent to fight? The longest war of this new century, the longest in our history, the defining "endless war" or "forever war" was Afghanistan. In 2001, we sent an army halfway around the world to exact retribution on al-Qaida for 9/11, an attack that rivaled Pearl Harbor in the numbers of dead and wounded Americans. Because al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden had been given sanctuary by the Taliban in Kabul, who refused to give him up, we invaded, overthrew that Islamist regime and cleansed Tora Bora of al-Qaida. Mission accomplished. But then the mission changed. In control of a land that had seen off British and Soviet imperialists, we hubristically set about establishing a democracy and sent hundreds of thousands of Americans to hold off the rebel resistance for two decades while we went about nation-building. We did not succeed. All U.S. troops are to be gone by the 20th anniversary of 9/11. And the Taliban we ousted has never been closer to recapturing power in Kabul. Today's issue: How do we save the Afghans who allied with us in this war, so that they do not face the terrible vengeance of a victorious Taliban. The second American war of this century was the invasion and occupation of Iraq, to strip its dictator, Saddam Hussein, of weapons of mass destruction with which he intended to attack the United States. Begun in 2003, the war has lasted 18 years. No WMD were ever found. Most U.S. troops have come and gone. And today, the Baghdad regime rules at the sufferance of Shiite militia who look to Tehran for guidance and support. Afghanistan and Iraq cost us 7,000 dead and 40,000 wounded. Were they necessary wars? Were they wise? Were they worth it? In the second decade of this century, we intervened in Syria to back the "good rebels" seeking to overthrow Bashar Assad and became the indispensable ally in Saudi Arabia's murderous air war to stop the Houthi rebels from consolidating power in Yemen. In both Syria and Yemen, hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians have been wounded, killed, uprooted or driven into exile. Both countries are listed among the humanitarian catastrophes of the 21st century. Having helped to inflict so much damage on those countries, did we succeed in our missions? Today, after six years of fighting, the Houthi still control the Yemeni capital of Sanaa, and Assad just won a fourth term as president with 95% of the vote. In 2011, President Barack Obama ordered U.S. air attacks on Col. Moammar Gadhafi's forces in Libya, beginning a NATO intervention that would lead to his overthrow and lynching. In 2020, however, the future of Libya was not being decided by the European Union or U.S. but fought over by proxy forces supported and supplied by Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Russia. And Barack Obama had conceded that the worst mistake of his presidency was not to plan for the aftermath of his 2011 decision to topple the Libyan dictator. Again, the men and women sent to the Middle East to fight these wars did their duty and deserve the gratitude of their countrymen that they received this Memorial Day weekend. But where is the accounting from those who sent them to fight, bleed and die in what turned out to be unwinnable wars -- or, at the least, wars they were not given the requisite weapons or forces to win? What makes these questions of importance, and not only to historians, is that the cry of the hawk may be heard again in the land. We hear calls to confront Iran before the mullahs build an atom bomb, and to challenge Putin and arm Ukraine to retake Crimea and push Russia out of the Donbass. We hear talk of the American Navy contesting Beijing's claims in the East and South China Seas, including to Taiwan. The stories of Memorial Day should make us think long and hard before we launch any more unnecessary, unwise, or unwinnable wars. A Commentary By Patrick J Buchanan Wednesday, June 02, 2021 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Wed Jun 2 22:09:39 2021 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 17:09:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Further reflections on BLM: former supporters point to fraudulence In-Reply-To: <2bd909fd-673b-0085-32aa-79c9c6770608@forestfield.org> References: <2bd909fd-673b-0085-32aa-79c9c6770608@forestfield.org> Message-ID: <96e14b81fbb414f7c7139352779b7682620d02f2.camel@forestfield.org> I wrote: > I was watching Glenn Greenwald's latest interview ( > https://youtube.com/watch?v=I_2CVBN4mlo ) which is with Andray Domise > (described as "definitely a militant supporter of [Black Lives > Matter]" at 2m40s). I think this interview eventually gets into > something relevant to this discussion: BLM co-optation. I think this > ends up backing up David Green's criticism of BLM (particularly when > he wrote that "[BLM's] analysis is preposterous, with no material > component whatsoever."). Today RT published https://youtube.com/watch?v=oLnRxXHD1I0 ("Moral & financial fraud | Black families slam BLM") summarizing some recent problems with Black Lives Matter (BLM) including former supporters pointing out what they identify as fraudulent behavior by BLM. The more BLM goes on, the more it seems like BLM was built to be co-opted by the establishment in order to make BLM's founders wealthy and/or famous. Looking back, it's hard to put a finger on specific beneficial policy changes BLM had a hand in writing or forcing into law. It's not hard to find pro-BLM sloganeering, grandstanding speeches, and flag-waving (including establishment support of BLM which is a sign that BLM is no threat to the establishment). But for all of the highly visible PR, we don't see policy changes that help ordinary people avoid being beaten or killed by the police, we don't see communities gaining control over police policy and reviewing how the police carry out their work. From divisek at yahoo.com Wed Jun 9 18:51:36 2021 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 18:51:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fw: The Clubhouse Room That Is Changing The World References: <2065746942.3816762.1623264696551.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2065746942.3816762.1623264696551@mail.yahoo.com> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Hi Dianna, Have you joined Clubhouse??In case you haven?t heard, Clubhouse is a new invitation-only app used for audio chat rooms where users can participate in or listen into conversations happening about every topic under the Sun. I?ve only been on Clubhouse for about a month, but I?ve already witnessed something incredible. | | | | | | | | | After tensions and violence were on the rise once again last month between Israel and Palestine, a major attack was carried out on May 10th that brought the global conversation back to this conflict. What was heard from the mainstream was nothing new. Typical voices argued that one country or the other was to blame, radicals from opposing worldviews made their case why only their preferred side deserved to exist. However, one week later, something different happened.? On Monday, May 17th, a Clubhouse room was opened called simply, ?Meet Palestinians & Israelis?. I entered?and sat quietly, listening to the voices of Muslims in Palestine, Jews in Israel; people raised to see each other as enemies only. And yet, the voices were not filled with hate. For days I listened to stories filled with heartache, love, fear, strength, hurt, empathy, desperation, hope. Intentional moderators gently guided conversations away from accusations and arguments and encouraged every individual to just tell their story and listen to others share theirs. I heard stories from a Palestinian farmer, a Jewish woman and her Arab husband, a doctor in Gaza, and dozens of people who have fled or been displaced due to the violence. One story that I haven?t been able to shake was from a Palestinian man who watched a YouTube video from a popular Conservative organization that said all Palestinians hate Israelis. He fought back tears asking why someone would say this about him when he seeks to bring love to people whenever he can.? These stories continued without end for fourteen days as tens of thousands of people passed through this room. At the two week mark, they chose to close the room for the first time, and are now bringing it back for shorter bursts.? This app and this room has already done what governments and regimes have failed at again and again. For the first time that I?ve observed, people on opposite sides of perhaps the most well-known conflict are sitting at the table together. They are showing respect to one another while standing firm in their truth. They come with confidence and pride, yet earnestly and honestly seek common ground and healing. | | | | | | | | ?Meet Palestinians & Israelis? is libertarianism playing out before our eyes. Old and young, rich and poor, Arab and Israeli alike are declaring that their governments have failed them and that they are taking this into their own hands; without weapons, but with open minds and hearts. While the US government continues to act like a solution exists in billions spent on providing weapons and aid, the actual victims of the never-ending war we have made ourselves accessory to are writing a new page that history will not forget.? The Libertarian Party is clear in our defiance to the general sentiments of war held by both Republicans and Democrats in the government. Just as we see in the US, the warmongers of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are more interested in power than in solutions that would ease suffering and save lives.? | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | In Liberty & Peace, Bekah Congdon Development Associate | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Libertarian National Committee | | 1444 Duke St.Alexandria, VA 22314 | | | | | | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jun 10 13:39:42 2021 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (karen) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 08:39:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] New show from Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti: "Breaking Points" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: J.B. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjBdf7MRuSo I share your skepticism of the Krystal and Sagar new program being ?independent." I admit to rarely watching, if ever "The Hill, I?m waiting to for Jimmy to review. The above link is a recent podcast I just watched which should be of interest to those assuming our Representatives care about the concerns of the people, Jimmy Dore again exposes the duplicity. > On Jun 1, 2021, at 8:21 PM, J.B. Nicholson via Peace wrote: > > Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar homepage > https://breakingpoints.supercast.tech/ > > Clips from the show should appear starting on 2021-06-07 > https://youtube.com/breakingpoints > > According to Krystal Ball in https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1399713326503010307 >> Here we go. Proud to announce the launch of BREAKING POINTS with Krystal and Saagar on 6/7! We don't have billionaires backing our high end production but we do have YOU! Help us BEAT corporate media by becoming a premium member. > > You might recognize Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti from The Hill. Their new show "Breaking Points" starts on 2021-06-07. > > I'm mildly curious if this is genuinely an independent show which they're funding exclusively by viewer contributions as they claim on their site ("We don't have soulless billionaires or corporations backing our high end TV production, but we do have YOU. We took a big risk going independent...") or if some other organization is also secretly funding their effort (perhaps someone who is wealthy but not a billionaire, or an unincorporated organization). > > I noticed that Jimmy Dore congratulated them in https://twitter.com/jimmy_dore/status/1399888685508685825 >> Congratulations to @krystalball & @esaagar for starting their own show free of corporate ownership. Good luck! > > Why am I suspicious? Because Ryan Grim (of the Intercept) has been a frequent guest on The Hill's "Rising" show which Ball & Enjeti co-host. Grim is also an establishment lackey as Dore has pointed out multiple times[1]. I can only guess that Dore's repeated evidence-based explanations about Grim has had an effect on Ball & Enjeti, hence they started "Breaking Points". > > > > > [1] For example: > https://youtube.com/watch?v=J40JriWrj2U (28m 45s) -- "Intercept Reporter CAUGHT Falsely Accusing Jimmy Dore Of Lying" > https://youtube.com/watch?v=HAgOqywYTUI (14m 49s) -- "Intercept Pushes Laughable Democrat Propaganda via Ryan Grim" > https://youtube.com/watch?v=ohdWtVfF4yA (20m 25s) -- "Journo Protecting AOC Gets Humiliated by Justin Jackson On Twitter!" > https://youtube.com/watch?v=1hqWRWauzGk (17m 23s) -- "Intercept Reporter Caught Lying Again About Third Parties" > https://youtube.com/watch?v=15ZTEuB_30c (16m 44s) -- "Politician Humiliates Intercept Reporter For Pushing Establishment Propaganda" > Visit https://youtube.com/search?q=jimmy+dore+ryan+grim to find more. > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From carl at newsfromneptune.com Thu Jun 10 16:07:06 2021 From: carl at newsfromneptune.com (C. G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 11:07:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] WWII was not 'a good war' Message-ID: <0F5A5251-B5F4-4C59-A9E8-40611B6D98D9@newsfromneptune.com> I recently came across a column I wrote 20 years ago: . It puts me in mind of Nicholson Baker's excellent book, <'Human Smoke': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Smoke> ### From naiman.uiuc at gmail.com Thu Jun 10 20:50:39 2021 From: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 16:50:39 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] New show from Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti: "Breaking Points" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I dunno, calling Ryan Grim an "establishment lackey" seems a bit one-dimensional to me. For example, there's this: https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1403063198769631232 [image: image.png] On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:22 PM J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar homepage > https://breakingpoints.supercast.tech/ > > Clips from the show should appear starting on 2021-06-07 > https://youtube.com/breakingpoints > > According to Krystal Ball in > https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1399713326503010307 > > Here we go. Proud to announce the launch of BREAKING POINTS with > > Krystal and Saagar on 6/7! We don't have billionaires backing our > > high end production but we do have YOU! Help us BEAT corporate media > > by becoming a premium member. > > You might recognize Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti from The Hill. Their > new show "Breaking Points" starts on 2021-06-07. > > I'm mildly curious if this is genuinely an independent show which > they're funding exclusively by viewer contributions as they claim on > their site ("We don't have soulless billionaires or corporations > backing our high end TV production, but we do have YOU. We took a big > risk going independent...") or if some other organization is also > secretly funding their effort (perhaps someone who is wealthy but not a > billionaire, or an unincorporated organization). > > I noticed that Jimmy Dore congratulated them in > https://twitter.com/jimmy_dore/status/1399888685508685825 > > Congratulations to @krystalball & @esaagar for starting their own > > show free of corporate ownership. Good luck! > > Why am I suspicious? Because Ryan Grim (of the Intercept) has been a > frequent guest on The Hill's "Rising" show which Ball & Enjeti co-host. > Grim is also an establishment lackey as Dore has pointed out multiple > times[1]. I can only guess that Dore's repeated evidence-based > explanations about Grim has had an effect on Ball & Enjeti, hence they > started "Breaking Points". > > > > > [1] For example: > https://youtube.com/watch?v=J40JriWrj2U (28m 45s) -- "Intercept > Reporter CAUGHT Falsely Accusing Jimmy Dore Of Lying" > https://youtube.com/watch?v=HAgOqywYTUI (14m 49s) -- "Intercept Pushes > Laughable Democrat Propaganda via Ryan Grim" > https://youtube.com/watch?v=ohdWtVfF4yA (20m 25s) -- "Journo Protecting > AOC Gets Humiliated by Justin Jackson On Twitter!" > https://youtube.com/watch?v=1hqWRWauzGk (17m 23s) -- "Intercept > Reporter Caught Lying Again About Third Parties" > https://youtube.com/watch?v=15ZTEuB_30c (16m 44s) -- "Politician > Humiliates Intercept Reporter For Pushing Establishment Propaganda" > Visit https://youtube.com/search?q=jimmy+dore+ryan+grim to find more. > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 420648 bytes Desc: not available URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu Jun 10 22:05:50 2021 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (karen) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 17:05:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] WWII was not 'a good war' In-Reply-To: <0F5A5251-B5F4-4C59-A9E8-40611B6D98D9@newsfromneptune.com> References: <0F5A5251-B5F4-4C59-A9E8-40611B6D98D9@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: Great article Carl, the comparison to what is taking place today and ever since in respect to US interventions and hegemony??but why am I just seeing this now? > On Jun 10, 2021, at 11:07 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: > > I recently came across a column I wrote 20 years ago: . > > It puts me in mind of Nicholson Baker's excellent book, <'Human Smoke': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Smoke> > > ### > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From brussel at illinois.edu Fri Jun 11 02:21:01 2021 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 02:21:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] WWII was not 'a good war' In-Reply-To: References: <0F5A5251-B5F4-4C59-A9E8-40611B6D98D9@newsfromneptune.com> Message-ID: A powerful book about WWII, illustrating its lack of high principles by the allied (i.e. good) side, is David Swanson?s ?Leaving WWII Behind?. It sheds most of the myths about the unique ?good war?. Swanson is consistently clear minded. > On Jun 10, 2021, at 5:05 PM, karen via Peace wrote: > > > Great article Carl, the comparison to what is taking place today and ever since in respect to US interventions and hegemony??but why am I just seeing this now? > > >> On Jun 10, 2021, at 11:07 AM, C. G. Estabrook via Peace wrote: >> >> I recently came across a column I wrote 20 years ago: . >> >> It puts me in mind of Nicholson Baker's excellent book, <'Human Smoke': https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Smoke__;!!DZ3fjg!oVPU6EOfIz1FKW68a2CwmlTYE8kVLUv6G8iS82bMK74tQRTvIOy_GWP1_CYPxo8$ > >> >> ### >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace__;!!DZ3fjg!oVPU6EOfIz1FKW68a2CwmlTYE8kVLUv6G8iS82bMK74tQRTvIOy_GWP1EMQIJ8U$ > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace__;!!DZ3fjg!oVPU6EOfIz1FKW68a2CwmlTYE8kVLUv6G8iS82bMK74tQRTvIOy_GWP1EMQIJ8U$ From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Jun 12 23:00:03 2021 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 23:00:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Irenic note on "Political Hatred" Message-ID: OPINION : GUEST ESSAY Is There a Way to Dial Down the Political Hatred? NYT June 11, 2021 By Molly Worthen Dr. Worthen is a historian at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who writes frequently about America?s religious culture. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/opinion/god-religion-politics-partisanship.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Guest%20Essays From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sat Jun 12 23:00:03 2021 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2021 23:00:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Irenic note on "Political Hatred" Message-ID: OPINION : GUEST ESSAY Is There a Way to Dial Down the Political Hatred? NYT June 11, 2021 By Molly Worthen Dr. Worthen is a historian at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who writes frequently about America?s religious culture. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/11/opinion/god-religion-politics-partisanship.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Guest%20Essays From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun Jun 13 14:01:13 2021 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (karen) Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 09:01:13 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Tuesday, June 15: Say No to a New Cold War with China References: <60c5f35bd6601_2738bd0f60973d@asgworker-qmb3-15.nbuild.prd.useast1.3dna.io.mail> Message-ID: > > > > You are invited to join CODEPINK CONGRESS, our new campaign to mobilize co-sponsors and votes for peace legislation! > > Tuesday Capitol Calling Party: > Say No to a New Cold War with China > > Tuesday, June 15, 5 pm PT/8 pm ET > > RSVP NOW! > > Featuring > > Madison Tang, CODEPINK China is Not Our Enemy campaign coordinator; author, organizer, and educator against imperialism, militarism, and racial and gender-based violence. > > Mel Gurtov, professor emeritus of political science, Portland State University; senior editor, Asian Perspective; co-author,Pentagon Papers. > > In response to the U.S. Senate?s disturbing passage of the anti-China U.S. Innovation and Cooperation Act, CODEPINK Congress will challenge the misguided framing of China as the nation?s greatest security threat. The Biden administration, lawmakers, and military contractors are using this framing to justify new weapons production, mock nuclear strikes in the East Pacific, and troop deployments that make the world less safe. Our guests will discuss the importance of avoiding a military confrontation over the future of Taiwan. > > This week, we will take action against this dangerous act. Call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at 202-225-4965 to urge her to hold back the US Innovation and Competition Act from a full House floor vote. > > RSVP NOW! > CODEPINK Congress Google Group and Local Leaders > > Join our CODEPINK Congress Google Group, a space for sharing events and actions. Request to be added here ! > > Also, become a CODEPINK Congress liaison in your district to mobilize support for demilitarization and progressive foreign policy. Sign up here as a volunteer organizer. > > Onward toward peace and justice, > Medea, Marcy, Hanieh, Mary, and the entire CODEPINK team > > . > > ? 2021 CODEPINK.ORG | Created with NationBuilder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aol.com Tue Jun 15 18:07:38 2021 From: moboct1 at aol.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 18:07:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] RE Babylon Bee rejects NYT smears and gets retraction from NYT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <309939948.280525.1623780458643@mail.yahoo.com> Funny, I seem to have the same problem as the B.Bee--apparently my satire is so subtle, some people mistake it for "misinformation."? Cinicysm seems to be a lost art in this day of "fake news." mo'b -----Original Message----- From: J.B. Nicholson via Peace-discuss To: Peace Discuss Sent: Mon, Jun 14, 2021 7:26 pm Subject: [Peace-discuss] Babylon Bee rejects NYT smears and gets retraction from NYT https://on.rt.com/baag has the info on that: > The Babylon Bee is in fact a satirical site and not a ?far-right misinformation? > one that ?feuded? with Facebook and fact-checkers, The New York Times has finally > conceded after being threatened with a defamation lawsuit. > > ?This is huge. The NY Times was using misinformation to smear us as being a source > of it,? Bee CEO Seth Dillon tweeted[1] on Monday, calling it ?malicious? behavior. > > ?We pushed back hard and won. Thanks to everyone who voiced and offered their > support. We don't have to take this nonsense lying down. Remember that,? Dillon > added. > > Also on rt.com Satirical site Babylon Bee demands NYT retract ?defamatory? attack > equating its humor to ?misinformation? > > An article about Facebook censorship of irony in March, authored by the Times? > tech reporter Mike ?Rat King? Isaac, described the Bee as a ?far-right > misinformation site? that sometimes trafficked in fake news disguised as satire to > avoid censorship from Big Tech. It was the only example offered, too. > > After the initial complaint from Dillon, the Times edited the article to say that > the Bee, ?a right-leaning satirical site, has feuded with Facebook and the > fact-checking site Snopes over whether the site published misinformation or > satire.? That, too, was wrong. > > We objected to this pretty strongly, so @MikeIsaac removed the sentence that said > we trafficked in misinformation. In its place, he put an update that said we'd > feuded with @snopes and @Facebook about whether we're misinformation or satire. > But that wasn't true, either. ? Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) June 14, 2021[2] > > ?The update is every bit as damaging (and false) as the original,? Dillon tweeted > at the time, and explained that Snopes has actually retracted their insinuation > about the Bee?s motives, and even created a whole new label for satire. Snopes has > also discontinued their fact-checking partnership with Facebook, in early 2019. > > A correction dated June 10 ? of which the Times notified the Bee on Friday ? now > says the earlier version of the article ?imprecisely? referred to the > ?right-leaning satirical website,? and that Facebook and Snopes have since dropped > the claims the Bee ever trafficked in misinformation. > > This latest correction, however, no longer mentions the Bee as an example of a > far-right misinformation site that pretends to be doing satire. And it notes that > neither Snopes nor Facebook maintain that we're misinformation. >? ? Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) June 14, 2021[3] > > The partial retraction is a victory of sorts for the satirical outlet, but the > original Times story remains up, even though it had offered the Bee as the sole > example of ?far-right misinformation? allegedly giving benevolent social media > censors headaches. > > The Bee has often found itself a target of heavy-handed response by Big Tech and > ?fact-checkers? to its jokes. In September 2020, USA Today ?fact-checked? their > story about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, only to conclude it was satire. > > On at least two occasions, however, crackdowns followed attacks on the Bee in The > New York Times. In April, as Dillon and his coworkers fought against the > defamatory claim in Isaac?s article, Facebook demonetized the Bee?s page over a > joke about rioters, for ?promoting crime.? > > Something similar happened in October 2020. Just four days after the Times accused > the Bee of being a site that ?capitalizes on confusion? and has a ?habit of > skirting the line between misinformation and satire,? Facebook demonetized their > page for ?inciting violence.? The culprit? A story lampooning Senator Mazie Hirono > (D-Hawaii) with a witch-hunting joke from ?Monty Python and the Holy Grail.? [1] https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1404457269950091265 [2] https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1404457266313580550 [3] https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1404457268603723779 _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Fri Jun 18 00:04:44 2021 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 19:04:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Debunking_the_alleged_gas_attack_at_Do?= =?utf-8?q?uma_with_Aaron_Mat=C3=A9_and_Jimmy_Dore?= Message-ID: <13646c2f3071c5972deae671cf10a4ff@forestfield.org> https://youtube.com/watch?v=Tii0hSErIRs (1h 18m 31s) -- "TYT's Pro-War Propaganda Debunked By Aaron Mat?!" The Young Turks (TYT) alleged: - there was a gas attack in Douma, Syria in 2018 launched by Pres. Assad against his own people, - Jimmy Dore & Aaron Mat? are propagandists who can't be trusted[1], - Julian Assange and WikiLeaks can't be trusted, - that their interview subject is a "reporter" with relevant investigative information who can speak to issues involving engineering, chemistry, and toxicology, - that the OPCW engineers who were on the ground in Douma and the measurements those engineers took are fraudulent, - that the OPCW's officially published conclusion (as opposed to the OPCW engineer reports leaked by WikiLeaks) is not in alignment with the US war narrative. That US narrative (which ostensibly justified it's missile attack of Syria which was coordinated with France and the UK) is different than the OPCW conclusion because the US allegedly claimed that their attack was to strike a nerve gas factory, but the "real" attack was a chlorine gas attack. Therefore the US counter attack was not justified, - and that TYT would "show the receipts" with their "Syrian expert". TYT is doing US propaganda with the cooperation of someone who can't even be called a journalist (having published virtually nothing before his TYT interview), isn't from Syria but from Brooklyn, and hasn't been to Syria to investigate the claims he makes here. TYT does this even while trying to create an appearance that TYT is anti-war or progressive. Why does TYT do this? Because "TYT Network, whose flagship show is The Young Turks, closed $20 million in funding led by growth equity firm 3L Capital with participation from Greycroft, e.ventures and WndrCo." which means taking $20 million from Jeffrey Katzenberg (per https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/young-turks-jeffrey-katzenberg-wndrco-funding-1202518938/). Per the deep state-edited Wikipedia in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Katzenberg#Political_activities > Katzenberg is a longtime supporter of Barack Obama. Reportedly > "smitten" by Obama's speech at the 2004 > Democratic National Convention, Katzenberg pledged his full support to > Obama in 2006 if he decided to > run for president.[31] During his campaign, Obama praised Katzenberg > for his "tenacious support and > advocacy since we started back in 2007." [...] Katzenberg has been an > avid fundraiser for Obama, doing > so while much of Hollywood was still supporting the Clintons. His > fundraising prowess has reportedly > allowed him to become an "informal liaison" between Hollywood and the > White House.[31] Katzenberg co- > hosted a fundraiser for President Obama at the home of actor George > Clooney in May 2012. Katzenberg > said that the event raised almost $15 million, which would make it the > most profitable presidential > fundraiser in history. Katzenberg also has ties to the Clintons -- from the aforementioned Wikipedia article: > It was reported that Obama arrived in Los Angeles on October 7, 2012, > where he joined Bill Clinton at > Katzenberg's Beverly Hills home for a private meeting with several > deep-pocketed Democratic donors. and has donated millions to a super PAC which supported Hillary Clinton's 2016 run for POTUS. Jimmy Dore said Buddy Roemer is also on the TYT board (a "corporate board", according to Dore). I'm not sure if that is the Roemer on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Roemer . People who spend millions of dollars on media expect to get something in exchange for that money. TYT's so-called news has veered from making fun of women for going outside without wearing underwear to lying at the behest of the establishment. Jimmy Dore said that TYT is likely running out of money and that TYT is signaling to other donors that they are worth another investment. There is reason to believe that TYT has far fewer viewers than their YouTube numbers would indicate -- YouTube plays political games with some shows' numbers (according to multiple show hosts who broadcast messages that aren't in line with the establishment such as Jordan Chariton from 'Status Coup', Jimmy Dore, and the hosts of 'Convo Couch') and the repeated advertising for money sent to TYT subscribers. [1] See https://youtube.com/watch?v=iDXxUHOWqos for more on this where TYT co-host and co-executive producer Ana Kasperian tried to blackmail Jimmy Dore with an alleged claim of sexual harassment dating back to when Dore worked at TYT. Her claim to this is debunked in https://youtube.com/watch?v=iDXxUHOWqos and in https://youtube.com/watch?v=eobd336wXF0 . From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Jun 23 18:00:11 2021 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 18:00:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A Note on Our Elusive Pundits, Lawyers, & Sophisters Message-ID: Here are some examples of the innovative and ?creative? pseudo-defenses used against accusations concerning the systemic mendacity, fraudulence & lying propaganda in political & religious matters that now pervade our communications media and public life. All are increasingly being used to evade legal liability and being held accountable for falsehoods in our ?post-truth society.? => I am an entertainer in showbiz, not a reporter or newscaster; what I say is therefore to be judged only as entertainment. It is not meant to be taken seriously as the literal truth about anything. (? Alex Jones of Infowars, Sean Hannity) => My statements (charges, accusations ) are legally protected pleading and free speech (First Amendment !), obviously so bizarre and absurd that no reasonable person could have taken them seriously. (? Trump attorney Sidney Powell) => The ?Babylon Bee? dodge: The cutesy-smartass stuff we publish is brilliantly clever satire, irony and sarcasm. It therefore cannot be taken at face value as the literal truth by any literate, intelligent person. (Don?t blame us if you are not bright enough to discern the true intent and purport of our material !) It is therefore not legally actionable as defamation. (? E.g., ?Controversy As Catholic Church Decides To Deny Communion To Satanic Goat Worshipers.?) ? RSz. From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed Jun 23 18:00:11 2021 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 18:00:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A Note on Our Elusive Pundits, Lawyers, & Sophisters Message-ID: Here are some examples of the innovative and ?creative? pseudo-defenses used against accusations concerning the systemic mendacity, fraudulence & lying propaganda in political & religious matters that now pervade our communications media and public life. All are increasingly being used to evade legal liability and being held accountable for falsehoods in our ?post-truth society.? => I am an entertainer in showbiz, not a reporter or newscaster; what I say is therefore to be judged only as entertainment. It is not meant to be taken seriously as the literal truth about anything. (? Alex Jones of Infowars, Sean Hannity) => My statements (charges, accusations ) are legally protected pleading and free speech (First Amendment !), obviously so bizarre and absurd that no reasonable person could have taken them seriously. (? Trump attorney Sidney Powell) => The ?Babylon Bee? dodge: The cutesy-smartass stuff we publish is brilliantly clever satire, irony and sarcasm. It therefore cannot be taken at face value as the literal truth by any literate, intelligent person. (Don?t blame us if you are not bright enough to discern the true intent and purport of our material !) It is therefore not legally actionable as defamation. (? E.g., ?Controversy As Catholic Church Decides To Deny Communion To Satanic Goat Worshipers.?) ? RSz. From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Jun 24 02:11:48 2021 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 02:11:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Political control of Florida universities Message-ID: Salon 6/23/21 DeSantis signs bill requiring Florida students, professors to register political views with state MSN News / Brett Bachman Public universities in Florida will be required to survey both faculty and students on their political beliefs and viewpoints, with the institutions at risk of losing their funding if the responses are not satisfactory to the state's Republican-led legislature. The unprecedented project, which was tucked into a law signed Tuesday by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, is part of a long-running, nationwide right-wing push to promote "intellectual diversity" on campuses ? though worries over a lack of details on the survey's privacy protections, and questions over what the results may ultimately be used for, hover over the venture. Based on the bill's language, survey responses will not necessarily be anonymous ? sparking worries among many professors and other university staff that they may be targeted, held back in their careers or even fired for their beliefs. According to the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Ray Rodrigues, faculty will not be promoted or fired based on their responses, but, as The Tampa Bay Times reported Tuesday, the bill itself does not back up those claims. The only details on the survey come via a passage over its purpose, to discover "the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented" at public universities, and whether students "feel free to express beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom." "It used to be thought that a university campus was a place where you'd be exposed to a lot of different ideas," DeSantis said at a press conference following the bill signing. "Unfortunately, now the norm is, these are more intellectually repressive environments. You have orthodoxies that are promoted, and other viewpoints are shunned or even suppressed." Republicans have long held that universities promote left-wing ideologies and discriminate against conservative students and staff. Though the bill does not specify what the survey results will be used for, both DeSantis and Rodrigues suggested that the state could institute budget cuts if university students and staff do not respond in a satisfactory manner. "That's not worth tax dollars and that's not something that we're going to be supporting moving forward," DeSantis said. ? < continues > ? # # # From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu Jun 24 02:11:48 2021 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 02:11:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Political control of Florida universities Message-ID: Salon 6/23/21 DeSantis signs bill requiring Florida students, professors to register political views with state MSN News / Brett Bachman Public universities in Florida will be required to survey both faculty and students on their political beliefs and viewpoints, with the institutions at risk of losing their funding if the responses are not satisfactory to the state's Republican-led legislature. The unprecedented project, which was tucked into a law signed Tuesday by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, is part of a long-running, nationwide right-wing push to promote "intellectual diversity" on campuses ? though worries over a lack of details on the survey's privacy protections, and questions over what the results may ultimately be used for, hover over the venture. Based on the bill's language, survey responses will not necessarily be anonymous ? sparking worries among many professors and other university staff that they may be targeted, held back in their careers or even fired for their beliefs. According to the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Ray Rodrigues, faculty will not be promoted or fired based on their responses, but, as The Tampa Bay Times reported Tuesday, the bill itself does not back up those claims. The only details on the survey come via a passage over its purpose, to discover "the extent to which competing ideas and perspectives are presented" at public universities, and whether students "feel free to express beliefs and viewpoints on campus and in the classroom." "It used to be thought that a university campus was a place where you'd be exposed to a lot of different ideas," DeSantis said at a press conference following the bill signing. "Unfortunately, now the norm is, these are more intellectually repressive environments. You have orthodoxies that are promoted, and other viewpoints are shunned or even suppressed." Republicans have long held that universities promote left-wing ideologies and discriminate against conservative students and staff. Though the bill does not specify what the survey results will be used for, both DeSantis and Rodrigues suggested that the state could institute budget cuts if university students and staff do not respond in a satisfactory manner. "That's not worth tax dollars and that's not something that we're going to be supporting moving forward," DeSantis said. ? < continues > ? # # # From brussel at illinois.edu Fri Jun 25 02:12:11 2021 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 02:12:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Worthy Message-ID: As if you didn?t know, here?s Caitlin Johnstone?s reflection on an global rules based order, by order of the US administration: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/06/23/rules-based-international-order-means-washington-based-international-order/ Effective and concise ?mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aol.com Fri Jun 25 13:57:59 2021 From: moboct1 at aol.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 13:57:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Thanks Mort for this: Re: Worthy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <611171699.287317.1624629479128@mail.yahoo.com> Caitlin says it best--I'm surprised she hasn't been "banned by USG" Midge -----Original Message----- From: Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss To: Peace Discuss Cc: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Thu, Jun 24, 2021 9:12 pm Subject: [Peace-discuss] Worthy As if you didn?t know, here?s Caitlin Johnstone?s reflection on an global rules based order, by order of the US administration: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/06/23/rules-based-international-order-means-washington-based-international-order/ Effective and concise ?mkb _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Fri Jun 25 19:00:37 2021 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 19:00:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?b?RndkOiBbd2J3LWRpc2N1c3Npb25dIOKAi0d1?= =?utf-8?q?ided_Missiles=2C_Misguided_Policies=2C_and_Changing_Direction_O?= =?utf-8?q?r_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_WWIII?= References: Message-ID: David Swanson is extraordinary, as an activist, educator, and as a explicator of our current, and possibly future, predicament. The video link of his talk, below, has its problems but can be accessed even with its hiccups. Begin forwarded message: From: David Swanson > Subject: [wbw-discussion] ?Guided Missiles, Misguided Policies, and Changing Direction Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love WWIII Date: June 24, 2021 at 10:57:24 PM CDT To: David Swanson > Guided Missiles, Misguided Policies, and Changing Direction Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love WWIII By David Swanson, Remarks for Peace and Justice Works, June 24, 2021 https://worldbeyondwar.org/guided-missiles-misguided-policies-and-changing-direction-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-wwiii/ Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bqt6OkrGM0 Thank you for inviting me. I?d like to speak briefly and spend a good deal of time on Q&A. I?d like to start by considering this question: If it?s true that madness is more common in societies than individuals, and if the society we live in is aggressively hastening (as I think is well-established) climate collapse, ecosystem devastation, wealth inequality, and institutional corruption (in other words, processes that are clearly counter to conscious, stated desires) is this society perhaps no exception to the rule? Is it perhaps insane? And are there perhaps other interconnected madnesses that we don?t see entirely clearly, precisely because we are members of this society? What about locking huge numbers of people in cages at an expense much greater than giving them good lives? What about devoting land, energy, and resources to feeding animals to feed people, using food that could have fed ten times as many people without the environmental destruction and animal cruelty? What about employing armed and trained killers to tell people they?re driving too fast and shouldn?t bicycle on the sidewalk? Could it be that lots of stuff a saner culture would call loony looks as normal to us as burning witches, bleeding patients, and exhibiting eugenically awesome infants looked to others in the past? In particular, what if it just isn?t permanently and universally normal and rational to be taking all the steps being taken to hasten nuclear apocalypse? We?ve got scientists saying the catastrophe is more likely now than ever, and that the nature of it would be worse than ever previously understood. We?ve got historians saying the near misses are more numerous than ever before known. And yet we?ve got media outlets informing everyone that the problem vanished 30 years ago. We?ve got a U.S. government dumping vast treasure into building more nuclear weapons, refusing to foreswear using them first, and talking about them as ?usable.? One of the key reasons for the danger having supposedly passed is that the number of times the existing stockpiles of nukes could eliminate all life on earth has been reduced ? if you can dignify that with the term ?reason.? Much of the world is clamoring for the elimination of nukes, while another chunk of the world is defending their manufacture, distribution, and routine threats of using them. Clearly, somebody is right, and somebody is crazy. By somebody I mean a whole society, not its individuals, and despite the exceptions. What about the whole idea of killing people? Killing prisoners to teach them not to kill people? Killing people who look, from the perspective of a distant video camera, like they might be an adult male in the wrong place and near a cell phone suspected of belonging to someone unliked, plus any men and women and children who happen to be nearby? Killing people who cross a border and run from armed fighters? Killing people who get in the way of police and look like their skin has a bit too much pigment? What if the whole practice of killing all of these people has something wrong with it? What if it?s as deranged as the doctors who bled George Washington to death, or Phil Collins? belief that he died at the Alamo, or Joe Biden?s idea that the U.S. government doesn?t interfere in other nations? elections? What if killing people is certifiably bonkers even in an imaginary scenario in which the United Nations has authorized a good humanitarian war and the people being killed are all wearing uniforms, and nobody?s tortured or raped or looted, and every murder is super respectful and free of hatred or animosity? What if the problem is the careful avoidance of peace that gets each war started, not the details of the atrocities? What if ?war crimes? as a phrase to say a lot in public so that nobody thinks you?re a fascist or a Republican is actually as nonsensical as ?slavery crimes? or ?mass-rape crimes? because war is a crime in its entirety? What if every war for decades has actually killed disproportionately the so-called wrong people, the elderly, the very young, the civilian? What if there?s nothing worse than war that can be used to justify war? What if wars are principally generated by wars and by preparations for wars? If this were true ? and I?m willing to debate every claim that it isn?t ? would there not be something a little bit shy of playing with a full deck to be found in the practice of investing trillions of dollars in the machinery of war? The case made on the World BEYOND War website is, of course, that the diversion of money into war preparations that make people less safe, not more safe, itself kills vastly more people than have been killed in all the wars thus far. It does this by depriving us of those things we could have spent the money on, things like food, water, medicine, shelter, clothing, etc. If this is true, and if it?s additionally the case that war fuels hatred and bigotry and racism, that war and preparations for it devastate the natural earth, that war is the one and only excuse for government secrecy, that the war bases and weapons sales and free training and funding prop up horribly oppressive governments, that the war business erodes civil liberties in the name of some mysterious substance called ?freedom,? and that war coarsens a culture while militarizing police and minds ? if all of this is true, the offense of war that those infected by the madness call ?the defense industry? might just be the most coocoo confabulation ever concocted. This much I?ve said a billion times. And a billion and five times I?ve replied to the World War II delusion that you all will ask about as soon as I shut my mouth. No, WWII did not have anything to do with saving anyone from any death camp. The U.S. and allied governments explicitly refused to accept the Jews out of Germany, and for openly antisemitic reasons. No step was ever taken to halt the murders of the camps. The war killed several times what the camps did. The war came about after years of Western arms race with Japan and support for Nazi Germany. U.S. corporations critically supported the Nazis right through the war, for profit reasons and ideological ones. The Nordic race nonsense and the segregation laws and much of the extermination inspiration and technology came from the United States. The nuclear bombs were not needed for anything. Nothing about WWII proves that violence is needed for anything. And if it were needed for opposing Nazism, hiring lots of top Nazis into the U.S. military wouldn?t have made much sense. See my book Leaving World War II Behind for the long version. Now, I want to say something even crazier. Or, if I?m right, I want to say quite sanely that something is even crazier than war. I have in mind the advancement of the risk of World War III, of the first war waged directly between big rich countries since WWII, of a war likely to involve nuclear apocalypse. I don?t think most of the people moving the world toward WWIII think of themselves as doing that. But I don?t think even the CEO of ExxonMobil thinks of himself as advancing the cause of climate collapse either. If the U.S. president wanted to start WWIII and be aware of doing so, he would simply launch the nukes. But here?s what I really want us to think about: if a society wanted to start WWIII without being aware of doing so, what would it do? I know Freud took a lot of flack for saying people had some mysterious death wish even though they would deny it. But I think at this point the burden of proof is on those who would try to prove him wrong, because I don?t think an effort to accidentally start WWIII and blame it on somebody or something else would look particularly different from what U.S. society is doing right now. The U.S. military has plans for war on China, and talks about a war on China being perhaps a few years off. They call it a war with China, of course, and can count on Congress Members to saturate us with the idea that China has aggressively threatened U.S. prestige by growing wealthier, or aggressively moved into the waters just off the coast of China. But the fact is that, despite major increases in its military spending as the U.S. has moved bases, troops, missiles, and ships (including what the U.S. Navy ridiculously calls the Big Stick carrier strike group) near China, China still spends about 14% of what the U.S. and its allies and weapons customers spend on militarism each year. Russia is at about 8% of just U.S. military spending and falling. If there were a credible enemy for the U.S. military on this planet you?d be hearing a lot less about UFOs right now. We?ll also hear about Chinese violations of human rights, but bombs don?t actually improve human rights, and if human rights violations justified bombs, then the U.S. would have to bomb itself and many of its dearest allies as well as China. Also how do you threaten war against someone for how they manufacture products that you buy? Well, maybe making sense isn?t the goal. Maybe war is the goal. If you wanted to bring WWIII closer, what would you have to do? One step would be to make war normal and unquestionable. Go ahead and check that one off. Done. Accomplished. Flags and pledges to them are ubiquitous. Thank yous for a supposed service are everywhere. Military advertisements and paid-for pre-game ceremonies are so omnipresent that if the military forgets to pay for one, people will create one for free. The ACLU is arguing that young women should be added to young men in being forced to register for a draft to be compelled against their will to go to war as a matter of civil liberties, the civil liberty to be completely stripped of all liberty. When President Joe Biden went off to meet with President Vladimir Putin, both major political parties generally encouraged hostility. The Hill newspaper sent out an email with a video of the movie Rocky, demanding that Biden be Rocky in the ring with Putin. When, despite everything, Biden and Putin behaved almost civilly and issued a tiny little statement suggesting they might possibly pursue some unspecified disarmament, and Biden stopped calling Putin a soulless killer, the two presidents then held a pair of separate press conferences. There were no Russian media questions allowed at Biden?s, but U.S. media brought the craziness to both. They hurled nutty accusations. They demanded red lines. They wanted a commitment to war as a response to so-called cyber-war. They wanted declarations of distrust and enmity. They wanted self-righteous revenge for the supposed stealing of the 2016 election and enslavement of President Donald Trump. They would have appeared, I?m convinced, to a disinterested observer from one of the UFOs they?re always going on about, to have wanted WWIII. The U.S. military and NATO have indeed said that war can be a response to cyberwar. At Putin?s press conference, he discussed various actual laws, existing and potential. Russia and China and other nations have long sought treaties to ban weaponizing space, and to ban cyberwar. At Biden?s press conference, I don?t think a single law was mentioned once by anyone. Yet the constant theme was imposing the ?rule based order? on others in the name of stability. But nothing boosts instability more than replacing the very idea of written laws with arbitrary decrees from might-makes-right officials who believe in their own goodness ? believe it so much that they announce, as Biden did, that were the U.S. government to interfere in anyone else?s election, and were the world to find out about it, the whole international order would crumble. We know of 85 foreign elections the United States has blatantly interfered in during the past 75 years, not to mention assassination attempts on over 50 foreign leaders, and we know that in poll after poll the world says it fears the U.S. government above all others as a threat to peace and democracy. Yet the international order does not collapse because it does not exist, not as a set of moral standards based on respect. If you wanted to move the world closer to WWIII without realizing you were doing it, you could convince yourself that you were simply imposing a Pax Americana for the world?s own good, whether the world liked it or not, even while knowing in some back corner of your mind that sooner or later the world would not stand for it, and that when that moment came, some Americans would die, and that when those Americans died, the U.S. media and public would scream for blood and vengeance as if the past many millennia had taught them nothing, and BOOM you?d have what you never even knew you wanted, just like you have the day after browsing amazon.com. But how to make sure to get those Americans killed? Well, nobody else has ever done this, but one idea would be to station them ? and here?s a real stroke of genius ? with their families along, on bases all over the world. The bases would prop up and control some horrible governments, enraging local populations. The bases would cause environmental damage as well as plagues of drunkenness, rape, and lawless privilege. They?d be sort of giant gated Apartheid communities that the locals could enter to work menial jobs if they got out by sundown. Maybe 800 of these bases in 80 nations or so ought to do the trick. They wouldn?t strictly speaking be justifiable in terms of unavoidable future wars, given what can be moved where how quickly by airplane, but they might just make future wars unavoidable. Check that off the list. Done. And almost unnoticed. OK, what else? Well, you can?t very well have a war against enemies without weapons, can you? The United States is now the leading weapons supplier to the world, to rich countries, to poor countries, to so-called democracies, to dictatorships, to oppressive royal despots, and to most of its own designated enemies. The U.S. government allows weapons sales, and/or gives free money with which to buy weapons, and/or provides training for 48 out of 50 of the most oppressive governments in the world according to a ranking funded by the U.S. government ? plus plenty of nasty governments left out of that ranking. Few if any wars happen without U.S. weapons. Most wars today happen in places that manufacture few if any weapons. Few if any wars happen in the handful of countries that manufacture most of the weapons. You may think China is coming to get you. Your Congress Member almost certainly thinks China is keenly focused on eliminating his or her right to send free mail and appear on television at will. But the U.S. government funds and arms China, and invests in a bio-weapons lab in China whatever may or may not have come out of it. The weapons dealers do not imagine, of course, that they are bringing on WWIII. They?re just doing business, and it?s been gospel in Western madness for centuries that business causes peace. Those who work for weapons dealers mostly don?t think they?re causing war or peace; they think they?re serving their U.S. flag and so-called service members. They do this by pretending that most of the weapons companies? customers do not exist, that their only customer is the U.S. military. All right, the weapons bit is well covered. What else is needed? Well, if you wanted to roll a society into WWIII over a period of years or decades, you?d need to avoid the vicissitudes of elections or popular mood swings. You?d want to increase corruption to the point that shifting power from one big political party to another didn?t change anything terribly important. People could have a bit of emergency funding or a new holiday. The rhetoric could vary dramatically. But let?s say you gave the White House and the Congress to the Democrats in 2020, what would have to happen for the death train to remain on the tracks? Well, you?d want no actual wars to end. Nothing makes wars more likely than other wars. With both houses having voted repeatedly in the previous Congress to end the war on Yemen, vetoed by Trump, you?d need those votes to cease immediately. You?d want Biden to pretend to sort-of partially end the war on Yemen, and Congress to go mute. Same with Afghanistan. Keep forces there and on surrounding bases quietly, and make sure Congress does nothing in the way of actually forbidding the continuation of the war. In fact, it would be ideal to block Congress from ever lifting its grubby little paws again as it pretended to do on Yemen when it could count on Trump vetoes. Perhaps it could be permitted to repeal the AUMF (or authorization for the use of military force) from 2002, but keep the 2001 one around just in case it was ever needed. Or perhaps that one could be replaced by a new one. Also, the Senator Tim Kaine scam could be allowed to advance a bit perhaps ? this is where Congress itself repeals the War Powers Resolution that specifies how it can prevent wars, and replaces it with a requirement that presidents consult with Congress before feeling free to ignore Congress. The trick is to market this abandonment of the War Powers Resolution as a strengthening of the War Powers Resolution. OK, that should work. What else? Well, boost military spending beyond Trump levels. That?s key. And invite the so-called progressive members of Congress to lots of meetings, maybe even give them a few rides on presidential airplanes, threaten a few of them with primaries, whatever?s needed to keep them from actually trying to block military spending. Five of them in the House could block anything the Republicans oppose, but 100 of them putting out a public letter pretending to oppose what they facilitate will do no harm at all. OK, this part?s easy. What else? Well, avoid peace with Iran. What good would that do? Just stall and prevaricate until we?re past the Iranian elections and they?ve got a new super-hostile government, and then blame the Iranians. That?s never failed before. Why would it fail now? Keep funding and arming the attacks of Israel on Palestine. Keep Russiagate going, or at least don?t renounce it, even if the journalists start appearing ? rather than just being ? crazy. A small price to pay, and nobody likes the media anyway, no matter how much they obey it. What else? Well, a major tool that has increasingly proven its worth is sanctions. The U.S. government is brutally sanctioning numerous populations around the globe, fueling suffering, animosity, and bellicosity, and nobody knows it, or they think of it as law-enforcement rather than law violation. It?s brilliant. The U.S. government can even impose sanctions, cause suffering, blame the suffering on the local government?s efforts to alleviate suffering, and propose a coup as a solution straight from the Rule Based Order (we rule, so we give the orders). Also we?d better be sure to keep the climate catastrophe on track, and for a number of reasons. First, if the nuclear apocalypse never comes, the climate one will. Second, the climate disasters can be used to fuel international crises that ? with enough prodding and arming ? can lead to wars. Third, the military can actually be marketed as a climate protector, because, although it?s a major contributor to climate change, it can announce how concerned it is and use natural disasters to excuse invasions and establish new bases. And nothing builds up war spirit better than refugees, no matter who caused the horrors that they?re fleeing. Even disease pandemics can help advance the cause, as long as a reasonable and cooperative response to them is avoided. We?ll want to balance blaming China with avoiding blaming bio-weapons labs or their international partners and investors. The U.S. government can completely control through the media what possible explanations for the origin of a pandemic are acceptable and which ones are deemed, ironically enough, crazy. What we?ll want to avoid is questioning the priority of maintaining labs that can create new tools for wars, and proposing any global solutions to pandemics that might foster cooperation or understanding rather than profit and division. OK, isn?t this enough? What else could be needed? Well, you can?t very well put WWIII straight onto the stage unrehearsed, can you? We?ll want to have some full-dress rehearsals, major ones, the sort that could accidentally morph into the real thing ? the biggest ones ever in Europe and in the Pacific. And more missiles in place near Russia and China, and more nations invited into NATO ? especially some of those right on the border of Russia that Russia says it would never sit still for. War in Ukraine is too obvious. How about a coup in Belarus perhaps? What you want is to risk WWIII without jumping straight in with both feet. After all, the other guys need to start it. Let?s think. How did the U.S. get into WWII? Well there was the Atlantic Charter. Let?s make a new one. Check. There was sanctioning and threatening Japan. Make that China. Check. There was supporting Nazis in Germany. Make that Ukraine. Check. There were big new bases and ships and planes and troops in the Pacific. Check. But history doesn?t repeat exactly. There are many opportunities. Drone murders and bases and so-called anti-terror operations across Africa and Asia. Coups and destabilizations in Latin America. Plenty of hot spots. Plenty of weapons. Plenty of propaganda. Cyberwars anywhere at anytime and who can say who started them for sure? War is getting easier and easier. Now let?s ask a different question. What would U.S. society look like if it wanted to avoid WWIII? Well, it would drop the exceptionalist schtick and join the world, stop being the biggest holdout on human rights treaties, stop being the biggest vetoer at the UN, stop being the biggest opponent of the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice, start supporting the rule of law instead of the #RuleBasedOrder, start supporting democracy at the United Nations instead of as a word you say in speeches, and prioritize cooperating in global efforts to address environmental and health issues. In a United States intent on avoiding WWIII, you?d see masses of people demanding the money be moved from militarism to human and environmental needs, you?d see opposition to militarism across the population as well as from movements that are directly impacted by militarism and generally pretend they aren?t, such as environmentalism, anti-poverty, immigrants? rights, civil liberties, and transparent government movements. You?d see moves to demilitarize, close foreign bases, close domestic bases, divest funding from weapons, convert war industries to peaceful and sustainable industries. You?d see people who appeared on television and were right about upcoming wars allowed to appear on television again rather than being banished to blogs and the bottom dregs of Facebook algorithms. You?d see lying about wars treated as something other than the top qualification to lie about more wars. You?d see a lot more basic straightforward reporting on wars, including what?s called the humanizing of people. I?ve never understood what people supposedly are prior to being humanized, but it seems they?re decidedly not humans. Take, for example, a seven-year-old boy in Yemen who tells his mother that he wants to go to school. His name is Chakir and he speaks with a bit of difficulty caused by funny teeth and bad habit. But that?s not why his mother doesn?t want him to go to school. She?s afraid of missiles. She teaches Chakir at home. He sits at a little wooden desk next to the dining table, and he pretends to be at school. His mother loves him and finds him adorable and enjoys having him there, although she gets tired, needs a break, and knows school would be better. But then the buzzing grows louder. Chakir crawls under his desk. He smiles. He tries to think it?s funny. But the buzzing gets even louder. It?s straight overhead. Chakir starts to cry. His mother gets down on her knees and goes to him. When Chakir is finally able to get some words out, he says ?It?s not safer here than at school. It?s not safer here than at school, Mommy!? The drone passes over. They?re still there. They?ve not been obliterated. The next day, Chakir?s mother allows him to board a bus to school. The bus is struck by a U.S.-supplied missile via the Saudi military and U.S. targeting. Chakir?s mother buries part of one of his arms, which is found in a tree. Now he?s humanized. But they?re all humans. The victims are all humans, though if the media won?t humanize them, people will deny it to themselves. In a society bent on avoiding war, the humanizing would be relentless. And when it wasn?t, protests would demand it. Of course there is a wide gap between driving hard toward WWIII and proceeding to abolish all militaries. Of course it can only be done by stages. But when the stages are not understood as steps away from apocalypse and in the direction of sanity, they tend not to work very well, even to backfire. War has been so reformed and perfected that people imagine guided missiles killing only and exactly those who really need killing. We can?t survive much more reforming of war. The United States could radically scale back its militarism, destroy all of its nuclear weapons, and close all of its foreign bases, and you?d see a reverse arms race among other nations as a primary result. The United States could simply stop selling weapons to others and see militarism rolled back significantly. The United States could withdraw from NATO and NATO would vanish. It could stop badgering other nations to buy more weapons, and they?d buy fewer weapons. Each step toward a world beyond war would make such a world appear more reasonable to more people. So, that?s what we?re working on at World BEYOND War. We?re doing education and activism to build a culture of peace and to advance demilitarization around the globe including through divestment of funding from weapons and through efforts to close bases. We?re also working to align more movements and organizations against war by making the connections across divisions, such as by pressuring the conference scheduled for November in Scotland to stop excluding militarism from climate agreements, and working to demilitarize domestic police forces. I?m not sure we shouldn?t be also developing alliances with mental health workers, because either war is crazy or I am. I ask only that you take your time in deciding which. -- David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org. Swanson's books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org and WarIsACrime.org. He hosts Talk World Radio. He is a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and U.S. Peace Prize recipient. Longer bio and photos and videos here. Follow him on Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook, and sign up for: Activist alerts. Articles. David Swanson news. World Beyond War news. Charlottesville news. Connect with WBW: [https://facebook.com/worldbeyondwar][https://twitter.com/worldbeyondwar][https://youtube.com/user/worldbeyondwar][https://instagram.com/worldbeyondwar][https://linkedin.com/company/worldbeyondwar] -- This is a listserve to discuss the building of a global nonviolent movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace. Participants on this list must be respectful toward each other, not advocate violence, and not promote electoral candidates. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WBW discussion" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to wbw-discussion+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wbw-discussion/CAF1z47KUdmagGwWkrRwW-ikNAETBA6c_%3DP%3Djc%2BJVu-pDc0jq%2BA%40mail.gmail.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Fri Jun 25 19:16:12 2021 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:16:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?=5BPeace=5D_Fwd=3A_=5Bwbw-discussion?= =?utf-8?q?=5D_=E2=80=8BGuided_Missiles=2C_Misguided_Policies=2C_an?= =?utf-8?q?d_Changing_Direction_Or_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_a?= =?utf-8?q?nd_Love_WWIII?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That was really excellent. Utopian, given the depravity of human nature, but excellent. On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 2:01 PM Brussel, Morton K via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: David Swanson is extraordinary, as an activist, educator, and as a > explicator of our current, and possibly future, predicament. The video link > of his talk, below, has its problems but can be accessed even with its > hiccups. > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *David Swanson > *Subject: **[wbw-discussion] Guided Missiles, Misguided Policies, and > Changing Direction Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love WWIII* > *Date: *June 24, 2021 at 10:57:24 PM CDT > *To: *David Swanson > > *Guided Missiles, Misguided Policies, and Changing Direction Or How I > Learned to Stop Worrying and Love WWIII* > > By David Swanson, Remarks for *Peace and Justice Works* > , June 24, 2021 > > https://worldbeyondwar.org/guided-missiles-misguided-policies-and-changing-direction-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-wwiii/ > > Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Bqt6OkrGM0 > > Thank you for inviting me. I?d like to speak briefly and spend a good deal > of time on Q&A. I?d like to start by considering this question: If it?s > true that madness is more common in societies than individuals, and if the > society we live in is aggressively hastening (as I think is > well-established) climate collapse, ecosystem devastation, wealth > inequality, and institutional corruption (in other words, processes that > are clearly counter to conscious, stated desires) is this society perhaps > no exception to the rule? Is it perhaps insane? And are there perhaps other > interconnected madnesses that we don?t see entirely clearly, precisely > because we are members of this society? > > What about locking huge numbers of people in cages at an expense much > greater than giving them good lives? What about devoting land, energy, and > resources to feeding animals to feed people, using food that could have fed > ten times as many people without the environmental destruction and animal > cruelty? What about employing armed and trained killers to tell people > they?re driving too fast and shouldn?t bicycle on the sidewalk? Could it be > that lots of stuff a saner culture would call loony looks as normal to us > as burning witches, bleeding patients, and exhibiting eugenically awesome > infants looked to others in the past? > > In particular, what if it just isn?t permanently and universally normal > and rational to be taking all the steps being taken to hasten nuclear > apocalypse? We?ve got scientists saying the catastrophe is more likely now > than ever, and that the nature of it would be worse than ever previously > understood. We?ve got historians saying the near misses are more numerous > than ever before known. And yet we?ve got media outlets informing everyone > that the problem vanished 30 years ago. We?ve got a U.S. government dumping > vast treasure into building more nuclear weapons, refusing to foreswear > using them first, and talking about them as ?usable.? One of the key > reasons for the danger having supposedly passed is that the number of times > the existing stockpiles of nukes could eliminate all life on earth has been > reduced ? if you can dignify that with the term ?reason.? Much of the world > is clamoring for the elimination of nukes, while another chunk of the world > is defending their manufacture, distribution, and routine threats of using > them. Clearly, somebody is right, and somebody is crazy. By somebody I mean > a whole society, not its individuals, and despite the exceptions. > > What about the whole idea of killing people? Killing prisoners to teach > them not to kill people? Killing people who look, from the perspective of a > distant video camera, like they might be an adult male in the wrong place > and near a cell phone suspected of belonging to someone unliked, plus any > men and women and children who happen to be nearby? Killing people who > cross a border and run from armed fighters? Killing people who get in the > way of police and look like their skin has a bit too much pigment? What if > the whole practice of killing all of these people has something wrong with > it? What if it?s as deranged as the doctors who bled George Washington to > death, or Phil Collins? belief that he died at the Alamo, or Joe Biden?s > idea that the U.S. government doesn?t interfere in other nations? elections? > > What if killing people is certifiably bonkers even in an imaginary > scenario in which the United Nations has authorized a good humanitarian war > and the people being killed are all wearing uniforms, and nobody?s tortured > or raped or looted, and every murder is super respectful and free of hatred > or animosity? What if the problem is the careful avoidance of peace that > gets each war started, not the details of the atrocities? What if ?war > crimes? as a phrase to say a lot in public so that nobody thinks you?re a > fascist or a Republican is actually as nonsensical as ?slavery crimes? or > ?mass-rape crimes? because war is a crime in its entirety? What if every > war for decades has actually killed disproportionately the so-called wrong > people, the elderly, the very young, the civilian? What if there?s nothing > worse than war that can be used to justify war? What if wars are > principally generated by wars and by preparations for wars? If this were > true ? and I?m willing to debate every claim that it isn?t ? would there > not be something a little bit shy of playing with a full deck to be found > in the practice of investing trillions of dollars in the machinery of war? > > The case made on the World BEYOND War website is, of course, that the > diversion of money into war preparations that make people less safe, not > more safe, itself kills vastly more people than have been killed in all the > wars thus far. It does this by depriving us of those things we could have > spent the money on, things like food, water, medicine, shelter, clothing, > etc. If this is true, and if it?s additionally the case that war fuels > hatred and bigotry and racism, that war and preparations for it devastate > the natural earth, that war is the one and only excuse for government > secrecy, that the war bases and weapons sales and free training and funding > prop up horribly oppressive governments, that the war business erodes civil > liberties in the name of some mysterious substance called ?freedom,? and > that war coarsens a culture while militarizing police and minds ? if all of > this is true, the offense of war that those infected by the madness call > ?the defense industry? might just be the most coocoo confabulation ever > concocted. > > This much I?ve said a billion times. And a billion and five times I?ve > replied to the World War II delusion that you all will ask about as soon as > I shut my mouth. No, WWII did not have anything to do with saving anyone > from any death camp. The U.S. and allied governments explicitly refused to > accept the Jews out of Germany, and for openly antisemitic reasons. No step > was ever taken to halt the murders of the camps. The war killed several > times what the camps did. The war came about after years of Western arms > race with Japan and support for Nazi Germany. U.S. corporations critically > supported the Nazis right through the war, for profit reasons and > ideological ones. The Nordic race nonsense and the segregation laws and > much of the extermination inspiration and technology came from the United > States. The nuclear bombs were not needed for anything. Nothing about WWII > proves that violence is needed for anything. And if it were needed for > opposing Nazism, hiring lots of top Nazis into the U.S. military wouldn?t > have made much sense. See my book *Leaving World War II Behind* for the > long version. > > Now, I want to say something even crazier. Or, if I?m right, I want to say > quite sanely that something is even crazier than war. I have in mind the > advancement of the risk of World War III, of the first war waged directly > between big rich countries since WWII, of a war likely to involve nuclear > apocalypse. I don?t think most of the people moving the world toward WWIII > think of themselves as doing that. But I don?t think even the CEO of > ExxonMobil thinks of himself as advancing the cause of climate collapse > either. If the U.S. president wanted to start WWIII and be aware of doing > so, he would simply launch the nukes. But here?s what I really want us to > think about: if a society wanted to start WWIII without being aware of > doing so, what would it do? I know Freud took a lot of flack for saying > people had some mysterious death wish even though they would deny it. But I > think at this point the burden of proof is on those who would try to prove > him wrong, because I don?t think an effort to accidentally start WWIII and > blame it on somebody or something else would look particularly different > from what U.S. society is doing right now. > > The U.S. military has plans for war on China, and talks about a war on > China being perhaps a few years off. They call it a war with China, of > course, and can count on Congress Members to saturate us with the idea that > China has aggressively threatened U.S. prestige by growing wealthier, or > aggressively moved into the waters just off the coast of China. But the > fact is that, despite major increases in its military spending as the U.S. > has moved bases, troops, missiles, and ships (including what the U.S. Navy > ridiculously calls the Big Stick carrier strike group) near China, China > still spends about 14% of what the U.S. and its allies and weapons > customers spend on militarism each year. Russia is at about 8% of just U.S. > military spending and falling. If there were a credible enemy for the U.S. > military on this planet you?d be hearing a lot less about UFOs right now. > We?ll also hear about Chinese violations of human rights, but bombs don?t > actually improve human rights, and if human rights violations justified > bombs, then the U.S. would have to bomb itself and many of its dearest > allies as well as China. Also how do you threaten war against someone for > how they manufacture products that you buy? Well, maybe making sense isn?t > the goal. Maybe war is the goal. > > If you wanted to bring WWIII closer, what would you have to do? One step > would be to make war normal and unquestionable. Go ahead and check that one > off. Done. Accomplished. Flags and pledges to them are ubiquitous. Thank > yous for a supposed service are everywhere. Military advertisements and > paid-for pre-game ceremonies are so omnipresent that if the military > forgets to pay for one, people will create one for free. The ACLU is > arguing that young women should be added to young men in being forced to > register for a draft to be compelled against their will to go to war as a > matter of civil liberties, the civil liberty to be completely stripped of > all liberty. > > When President Joe Biden went off to meet with President Vladimir Putin, > both major political parties generally encouraged hostility. *The Hill* > newspaper sent out an email with a video of the movie * Rocky*, demanding > that Biden be Rocky in the ring with Putin. When, despite everything, Biden > and Putin behaved almost civilly and issued a tiny little statement > suggesting they might possibly pursue some unspecified disarmament, and > Biden stopped calling Putin a soulless killer, the two presidents then held > a pair of separate press conferences. There were no Russian media questions > allowed at Biden?s, but U.S. media brought the craziness to both. They > hurled nutty accusations. They demanded red lines. They wanted a commitment > to war as a response to so-called cyber-war. They wanted declarations of > distrust and enmity. They wanted self-righteous revenge for the supposed > stealing of the 2016 election and enslavement of President Donald Trump. > They would have appeared, I?m convinced, to a disinterested observer from > one of the UFOs they?re always going on about, to have wanted WWIII. > > The U.S. military and NATO have indeed said that war can be a response to > cyberwar. At Putin?s press conference, he discussed various actual laws, > existing and potential. Russia and China and other nations have long sought > treaties to ban weaponizing space, and to ban cyberwar. At Biden?s press > conference, I don?t think a single law was mentioned once by anyone. Yet > the constant theme was imposing the ?rule based order? on others in the > name of stability. But nothing boosts instability more than replacing the > very idea of written laws with arbitrary decrees from might-makes-right > officials who believe in their own goodness ? believe it so much that they > announce, as Biden did, that were the U.S. government to interfere in > anyone else?s election, and were the world to find out about it, the whole > international order would crumble. We know of 85 foreign elections the > United States has blatantly interfered in during the past 75 years, not to > mention assassination attempts on over 50 foreign leaders, and we know that > in poll after poll the world says it fears the U.S. government above all > others as a threat to peace and democracy. Yet the international order does > not collapse because it does not exist, not as a set of moral standards > based on respect. > > If you wanted to move the world closer to WWIII without realizing you were > doing it, you could convince yourself that you were simply imposing a Pax > Americana for the world?s own good, whether the world liked it or not, even > while knowing in some back corner of your mind that sooner or later the > world would not stand for it, and that when that moment came, some > Americans would die, and that when those Americans died, the U.S. media and > public would scream for blood and vengeance as if the past many millennia > had taught them nothing, and BOOM you?d have what you never even knew you > wanted, just like you have the day after browsing amazon.com. > > But how to make sure to get those Americans killed? Well, nobody else has > ever done this, but one idea would be to station them ? and here?s a real > stroke of genius ? with their families along, on bases all over the world. > The bases would prop up and control some horrible governments, enraging > local populations. The bases would cause environmental damage as well as > plagues of drunkenness, rape, and lawless privilege. They?d be sort of > giant gated Apartheid communities that the locals could enter to work > menial jobs if they got out by sundown. Maybe 800 of these bases in 80 > nations or so ought to do the trick. They wouldn?t strictly speaking be > justifiable in terms of unavoidable future wars, given what can be moved > where how quickly by airplane, but they might just make future wars > unavoidable. Check that off the list. Done. And almost unnoticed. > > OK, what else? Well, you can?t very well have a war against enemies > without weapons, can you? The United States is now the leading weapons > supplier to the world, to rich countries, to poor countries, to so-called > democracies, to dictatorships, to oppressive royal despots, and to most of > its own designated enemies. The U.S. government allows weapons sales, > and/or gives free money with which to buy weapons, and/or provides training > for 48 out of 50 of the most oppressive governments in the world according > to a ranking funded by the U.S. government ? plus plenty of nasty > governments left out of that ranking. Few if any wars happen without U.S. > weapons. Most wars today happen in places that manufacture few if any > weapons. Few if any wars happen in the handful of countries that > manufacture most of the weapons. You may think China is coming to get you. > Your Congress Member almost certainly thinks China is keenly focused on > eliminating his or her right to send free mail and appear on television at > will. But the U.S. government funds and arms China, and invests in a > bio-weapons lab in China whatever may or may not have come out of it. The > weapons dealers do not imagine, of course, that they are bringing on WWIII. > They?re just doing business, and it?s been gospel in Western madness for > centuries that business causes peace. Those who work for weapons dealers > mostly don?t think they?re causing war or peace; they think they?re serving > their U.S. flag and so-called service members. They do this by pretending > that most of the weapons companies? customers do not exist, that their only > customer is the U.S. military. > > All right, the weapons bit is well covered. What else is needed? Well, if > you wanted to roll a society into WWIII over a period of years or decades, > you?d need to avoid the vicissitudes of elections or popular mood swings. > You?d want to increase corruption to the point that shifting power from one > big political party to another didn?t change anything terribly important. > People could have a bit of emergency funding or a new holiday. The rhetoric > could vary dramatically. But let?s say you gave the White House and the > Congress to the Democrats in 2020, what would have to happen for the death > train to remain on the tracks? Well, you?d want no actual wars to end. > Nothing makes wars more likely than other wars. With both houses having > voted repeatedly in the previous Congress to end the war on Yemen, vetoed > by Trump, you?d need those votes to cease immediately. You?d want Biden to > pretend to sort-of partially end the war on Yemen, and Congress to go mute. > Same with Afghanistan. Keep forces there and on surrounding bases quietly, > and make sure Congress does nothing in the way of actually forbidding the > continuation of the war. > > In fact, it would be ideal to block Congress from ever lifting its grubby > little paws again as it pretended to do on Yemen when it could count on > Trump vetoes. Perhaps it could be permitted to repeal the AUMF (or > authorization for the use of military force) from 2002, but keep the 2001 > one around just in case it was ever needed. Or perhaps that one could be > replaced by a new one. Also, the Senator Tim Kaine scam could be allowed to > advance a bit perhaps ? this is where Congress itself repeals the War > Powers Resolution that specifies how it can prevent wars, and replaces it > with a requirement that presidents consult with Congress before feeling > free to ignore Congress. The trick is to market this abandonment of the War > Powers Resolution as a strengthening of the War Powers Resolution. OK, that > should work. What else? > > Well, boost military spending beyond Trump levels. That?s key. And invite > the so-called progressive members of Congress to lots of meetings, maybe > even give them a few rides on presidential airplanes, threaten a few of > them with primaries, whatever?s needed to keep them from actually trying to > block military spending. Five of them in the House could block anything the > Republicans oppose, but 100 of them putting out a public letter pretending > to oppose what they facilitate will do no harm at all. OK, this part?s > easy. What else? > > Well, avoid peace with Iran. What good would that do? Just stall and > prevaricate until we?re past the Iranian elections and they?ve got a new > super-hostile government, and then blame the Iranians. That?s never failed > before. Why would it fail now? Keep funding and arming the attacks of > Israel on Palestine. Keep Russiagate going, or at least don?t renounce it, > even if the journalists start appearing ? rather than just being ? crazy. A > small price to pay, and nobody likes the media anyway, no matter how much > they obey it. > > What else? Well, a major tool that has increasingly proven its worth is > sanctions. The U.S. government is brutally sanctioning numerous populations > around the globe, fueling suffering, animosity, and bellicosity, and nobody > knows it, or they think of it as law-enforcement rather than law violation. > It?s brilliant. The U.S. government can even impose sanctions, cause > suffering, blame the suffering on the local government?s efforts to > alleviate suffering, and propose a coup as a solution straight from the > Rule Based Order (we rule, so we give the orders). > > Also we?d better be sure to keep the climate catastrophe on track, and for > a number of reasons. First, if the nuclear apocalypse never comes, the > climate one will. Second, the climate disasters can be used to fuel > international crises that ? with enough prodding and arming ? can lead to > wars. Third, the military can actually be marketed as a climate protector, > because, although it?s a major contributor to climate change, it can > announce how concerned it is and use natural disasters to excuse invasions > and establish new bases. And nothing builds up war spirit better than > refugees, no matter who caused the horrors that they?re fleeing. > > Even disease pandemics can help advance the cause, as long as a reasonable > and cooperative response to them is avoided. We?ll want to balance blaming > China with avoiding blaming bio-weapons labs or their international > partners and investors. The U.S. government can completely control through > the media what possible explanations for the origin of a pandemic are > acceptable and which ones are deemed, ironically enough, crazy. What we?ll > want to avoid is questioning the priority of maintaining labs that can > create new tools for wars, and proposing any global solutions to pandemics > that might foster cooperation or understanding rather than profit and > division. > > OK, isn?t this enough? What else could be needed? Well, you can?t very > well put WWIII straight onto the stage unrehearsed, can you? We?ll want to > have some full-dress rehearsals, major ones, the sort that could > accidentally morph into the real thing ? the biggest ones ever in Europe > and in the Pacific. And more missiles in place near Russia and China, and > more nations invited into NATO ? especially some of those right on the > border of Russia that Russia says it would never sit still for. War in > Ukraine is too obvious. How about a coup in Belarus perhaps? What you want > is to risk WWIII without jumping straight in with both feet. After all, the > other guys need to start it. Let?s think. How did the U.S. get into WWII? > > Well there was the Atlantic Charter. Let?s make a new one. Check. There > was sanctioning and threatening Japan. Make that China. Check. There was > supporting Nazis in Germany. Make that Ukraine. Check. There were big new > bases and ships and planes and troops in the Pacific. Check. But history > doesn?t repeat exactly. There are many opportunities. Drone murders and > bases and so-called anti-terror operations across Africa and Asia. Coups > and destabilizations in Latin America. Plenty of hot spots. Plenty of > weapons. Plenty of propaganda. Cyberwars anywhere at anytime and who can > say who started them for sure? War is getting easier and easier. > > Now let?s ask a different question. What would U.S. society look like if > it wanted to avoid WWIII? Well, it would drop the exceptionalist schtick > and join the world, stop being the biggest holdout on human rights > treaties, stop being the biggest vetoer at the UN, stop being the biggest > opponent of the International Criminal Court and International Court of > Justice, start supporting the rule of law instead of the #RuleBasedOrder, > start supporting democracy at the United Nations instead of as a word you > say in speeches, and prioritize cooperating in global efforts to address > environmental and health issues. > > In a United States intent on avoiding WWIII, you?d see masses of people > demanding the money be moved from militarism to human and environmental > needs, you?d see opposition to militarism across the population as well as > from movements that are directly impacted by militarism and generally > pretend they aren?t, such as environmentalism, anti-poverty, immigrants? > rights, civil liberties, and transparent government movements. You?d see > moves to demilitarize, close foreign bases, close domestic bases, divest > funding from weapons, convert war industries to peaceful and sustainable > industries. You?d see people who appeared on television and were right > about upcoming wars allowed to appear on television again rather than being > banished to blogs and the bottom dregs of Facebook algorithms. You?d see > lying about wars treated as something other than the top qualification to > lie about more wars. > > You?d see a lot more basic straightforward reporting on wars, including > what?s called the humanizing of people. I?ve never understood what people > supposedly are prior to being humanized, but it seems they?re decidedly not > humans. Take, for example, a seven-year-old boy in Yemen who tells his > mother that he wants to go to school. His name is Chakir and he speaks with > a bit of difficulty caused by funny teeth and bad habit. But that?s not why > his mother doesn?t want him to go to school. She?s afraid of missiles. She > teaches Chakir at home. He sits at a little wooden desk next to the dining > table, and he pretends to be at school. His mother loves him and finds him > adorable and enjoys having him there, although she gets tired, needs a > break, and knows school would be better. But then the buzzing grows louder. > Chakir crawls under his desk. He smiles. He tries to think it?s funny. But > the buzzing gets even louder. It?s straight overhead. Chakir starts to cry. > His mother gets down on her knees and goes to him. When Chakir is finally > able to get some words out, he says ?It?s not safer here than at school. > It?s not safer here than at school, Mommy!? The drone passes over. They?re > still there. They?ve not been obliterated. The next day, Chakir?s mother > allows him to board a bus to school. The bus is struck by a U.S.-supplied > missile via the Saudi military and U.S. targeting. Chakir?s mother buries > part of one of his arms, which is found in a tree. Now he?s humanized. But > they?re all humans. The victims are all humans, though if the media won?t > humanize them, people will deny it to themselves. In a society bent on > avoiding war, the humanizing would be relentless. And when it wasn?t, > protests would demand it. > > Of course there is a wide gap between driving hard toward WWIII and > proceeding to abolish all militaries. Of course it can only be done by > stages. But when the stages are not understood as steps away from > apocalypse and in the direction of sanity, they tend not to work very well, > even to backfire. War has been so reformed and perfected that people > imagine guided missiles killing only and exactly those who really need > killing. We can?t survive much more reforming of war. The United States > could radically scale back its militarism, destroy all of its nuclear > weapons, and close all of its foreign bases, and you?d see a reverse arms > race among other nations as a primary result. The United States could > simply stop selling weapons to others and see militarism rolled back > significantly. The United States could withdraw from NATO and NATO would > vanish. It could stop badgering other nations to buy more weapons, and > they?d buy fewer weapons. Each step toward a world beyond war would make > such a world appear more reasonable to more people. > > So, that?s what we?re working on at World BEYOND War. We?re doing > education and activism to build a culture of peace and to advance > demilitarization around the globe including through divestment of funding > from weapons and through efforts to close bases. We?re also working to > align more movements and organizations against war by making the > connections across divisions, such as by pressuring the conference > scheduled for November in Scotland to stop excluding militarism from > climate agreements, and working to demilitarize domestic police forces. I?m > not sure we shouldn?t be also developing alliances with mental health > workers, because either war is crazy or I am. I ask only that you take your > time in deciding which. > > -- > *David Swanson *is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is > executive director of WorldBeyondWar.org and > campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org . > Swanson's books include *War Is A Lie > *. He blogs at DavidSwanson.org > and WarIsACrime.org . > He hosts Talk World Radio . He is a Nobel > Peace Prize nominee, and U.S. Peace Prize > recipient. Longer bio and > photos and videos here . Follow him on > Twitter: @davidcnswanson and FaceBook > , and sign up > for: Activist alerts > . > Articles . David > Swanson news . World > Beyond War news . Charlottesville > news . Connect > with WBW: > [image: https://facebook.com/worldbeyondwar] > [image: > https://twitter.com/worldbeyondwar] [image: > https://youtube.com/user/worldbeyondwar] > [image: > https://instagram.com/worldbeyondwar] > [image: > https://linkedin.com/company/worldbeyondwar] > > > -- > This is a listserve to discuss the building of a global nonviolent > movement to end war and establish a just and sustainable peace. > > Participants on this list must be respectful toward each other, not > advocate violence, and not promote electoral candidates. > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "WBW discussion" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to wbw-discussion+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/wbw-discussion/CAF1z47KUdmagGwWkrRwW-ikNAETBA6c_%3DP%3Djc%2BJVu-pDc0jq%2BA%40mail.gmail.com > > . > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sun Jun 27 22:06:45 2021 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 17:06:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FBI informant Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson now denies several parts of his testimony on which US case is built Message-ID: There's not currently much coverage of this out there, but Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson now denies several parts of his testimony on which US case is built. Edward Snowden tweeted in https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1408847450656415751 > This is the end of the case against Julian Assange. to which Glenn Greenwald replied in https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1408893235058065410 > It should be. https://stundin.is/grein/13627/key-witness-in-assange-case-admits-to-lies-in-indictment/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/teenage-wikileaks-volunteer-why-i-served-as-an-fbi-informant/ https://on.rt.com/bb6b From https://on.rt.com/bb6b which begins: > Key accusations in the case against WikiLeaks co-founder Julian > Assange, who > faces up to 175 years in prison if extradited to the US, are reportedly > based on > testimony from a convicted fraudster who admitted to media he was > lying. > > Sigurdur Ingi Thordarson, an Icelandic citizen and former WikiLeaks > volunteer > who became an FBI informant for $5,000, has admitted to Icelandic > newspaper > Stundin that he fabricated important parts of the accusations in the > indictment. > > In an article published on Saturday, Stundin details several parts of > his > testimony that he now denies, claiming that Assange never instructed > him to > carry out any hacking. > > The newspaper points out that even though a court in London has refused > to > extradite Assange to the US on humanitarian grounds, it still sided > with the US > when it came to claims based on Thordarson's now-denied testimony. For > instance, the ruling says that ?Mr. Assange and Teenager failed a joint > attempt > to decrypt a file stolen from a 'NATO country 1' bank,? where "NATO > country 1" > is believed to refer to Iceland, while "Teenager" referred to > Thordarson > himself. From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed Jun 30 22:21:09 2021 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (karen) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 17:21:09 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_CIA_Director_Arrives_in_Colombi?= =?utf-8?b?YSB0byBMZWFkIOKAmFNlbnNpdGl2ZSBTZWN1cml0eSBNaXNzaW9u4oCZ4oCU?= =?utf-8?q?Venezuela_on_Alert?= References: Message-ID: > > Orinoco Tribune ? News and opinion pieces about Venezuela and beyond > From Venezuela and made by Venezuelan Chavistas > > > CIA Director Arrives in Colombia to Lead ?Sensitive Security Mission??Venezuela on Alert > > June 30, 2021 orinocotribune <>Alert in Venezuela , CIA , Colombia , destabilization , Francisco Santos , human rights crisis in Colombia , Ivan Duque , Paro Nacional , regime change operation , US puppets , Venezuela , William Burns > The highest official of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), William Burns, arrived in Colombia to participate in a ?delicate? mission in terms of security, as part of the ?cooperation? between the two countries. > > The Colombian ambassador in Washington, Francisco Santos, reported on the arrival of the CIA director, however Santos did not want to provide additional details about Burns? visit to Bogot?. > > ?I prefer not to tell you it is a delicate mission, an important mission in terms of intelligence, that we managed to coordinate,? Santos replied obliquely when asked about the mission. > > This visit comes after US President Joe Biden?s first telephone conversation with his Colombian counterpart Iv?n Duque. The Colombian government, following the directions of the US regime, has been trying unsuccessfully for years to overthrow the legitimate government of President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, accusing it of human rights violations, when in reality it is in Colombia where human rights violations are sadly part of the everyday life of the civilian population. > > RELATED CONTENT: US Again Bombs Nations on Other Side of the World in ?Self-Defense? > The day before the visit marked two months since the beginning of Colombia?s bloody repression of the national strike and demonstrations rejecting the policies of Duque and demanding that measures be taken in the area of ??human rights particularly, due to the violence and repression perpetrated by his government. > > Santos explained that the visit of the highest CIA official to Colombia was made by through a contact, after having already held three meetings with the organization. > > > > Santos explained that in those meetings they had been told where they are going and what is happening, so they consider this visit as ?very important.? > ?That contact was made, you understand,? said Santos. ?We have been working with that agency. We have had three meetings.? > > William Burns became director of the CIA on March 18 of this year, as part of the changes that Biden made after his inauguration. > > What?s behind the CIA visit to Colombia? > Colombia is experiencing a delicate internal situation due to the demonstrations. The strike committee and demonstrators do not intend to cease until their requests are heard by the government. > > RELATED CONTENT: Despite Blockade Venezuela Refurbishes More than 1,000 Military Vehicles (Video) > These demonstrations revealed to the world the malicious structure of Colombia?s security organizations and the repressive manner that the government responds to peaceful protests > > Santos explained that in those meetings they had been told where they are going and what is happening, so they consider this visit as ?very important.? > > ?That contact was made, you understand,? said Santos. ?We have been working with that agency. We have had three meetings.? > > William Burns became director of the CIA on March 18 of this year, as part of the changes that Biden made after his inauguration. > > What?s behind the CIA visit to Colombia? > Colombia is experiencing a delicate internal situation due to the demonstrations. The strike committee and demonstrators do not intend to cease until their requests are heard by the government. > > > In addition, the visit follows the alleged attack against the Colombian president last Friday, in which his helicopter was purportedly hit by six bullets. Hours later they attempted to hold the government of Venezuela responsible. > > The accusations arose after the alleged discovery of weapons bearing identifying marks of the Bolivarian National Armed Force (FANB). > > Added to this is the complaint made by the Venezuelan government recently that the government of Colombia and the United States sponsor criminal gangs to commit crimes on the border with Venezuela and even in some barrios of Caracas. > > ?It is imperative to remind the international community that these irregular groups have the sponsorship of the Colombian government and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which is why their incursions into Venezuelan territory should be considered as an aggression sponsored by Iv?n Duque, since he provides them with logistical-financial support,? warned the Venezuelan Minister for Defense, Vladimir Padrino L?pez. Violence promoted in Apure state by Colombian paramilitary narco-trafficking gangs has taken the lives of more than ten Venezuelan army officers this year and sowed panic among the Venezuelan population. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: