From r-szoke at illinois.edu Tue May 1 01:22:25 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 01:22:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Who do YOU trust? References: Message-ID: <737FC3B3-E792-4EDE-AC04-98804B8AFCD5@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: NYTimes.com: How Your Brain Can Trick You Into Trusting People Date: April 30, 2018 >From The New York Times: How Your Brain Can Trick You Into Trusting People Knowing that you have hidden biases is the first step to getting around them. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/29/smarter-living/unconscious-bias-trust.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue May 1 01:34:14 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:34:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Who do YOU trust? In-Reply-To: <737FC3B3-E792-4EDE-AC04-98804B8AFCD5@illinois.edu> References: <737FC3B3-E792-4EDE-AC04-98804B8AFCD5@illinois.edu> Message-ID: The New York Times, for instance? > On Apr 30, 2018, at 8:22 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: NYTimes.com: How Your Brain Can Trick You Into Trusting People > Date: April 30, 2018 > > From The New York Times: > > How Your Brain Can Trick You Into Trusting People > > Knowing that you have hidden biases is the first step to getting around them. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/29/smarter-living/unconscious-bias-trust.html > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 1 11:43:44 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 11:43:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent letter to NG by Morton Brussel Message-ID: Get facts before dropping bombs Sun, 04/22/2018 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette It is stupefying that the American mainstream press and media maintain a propaganda barrage with respect to supposed chemical attacks employed by Russia (poisoning a Russian couple in the UK) and by Syrian forces (in its civil war), without acknowledging the obvious: that there has been no proof presented for either charges. On the contrary, evidence now exists disputing the claims of the UK authorities regarding the poisoning, and there is doubt about the Syrian chemical attack, even if it existed. Especially relevant to this obvious aggression by U.S. forces in Syria is that the recent cruise missile bombing there took place before international inspectors (OPCW) were able to investigate the charges of a chemical attack and its causes. The intent by the Trump regime and its allies seems to have been: Strike Syria before the truth is known from an investigation on the site of the presumed gas attack. This reeks of a false flag operation, something foreseen weeks earlier by a Russian spokesman. Most distressing, aside from the destruction and death resulting from bombing, is a suffocating smokescreen by American mass media, including The News-Gazette, that shrouds crucial information from the American public. This exacerbates a conceivable drift to war with Russia, a war which should be inconceivable since it would be disastrous for civilization. M.K. BRUSSEL Urbana -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 1 12:08:42 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 12:08:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" In-Reply-To: References: <1c3d18d9-ce10-e7bf-0c37-c677f98c5080@gmail.com> Message-ID: Under the requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, Apartheid Israel should have been cut-off from all US military assistance because of that nuke explosion with Apartheid South Africa. The Carter administration did not want that to happen. So they ordered the JASONS to write the cover-up story about this being a meteorite that hit the Vela Satellite. LOL! Complete, total, and utter bull-twaddle! So when I repeatedly attempted to discuss this matter within the context of our Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security, our Chair Sullivan repeatedly cut me off, finally yelling at me: “It never happened!” So he was enforcing the JASONs cover-up on this campus—totally antithetic to academic freedom and integrity. Such was the Director of our most fraudulent Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security, that I later quit. Just a Gang of Warmongers, including and especially their Founder Ed Kolodziej, who later founded our Center on Globaloney Studies. But it just goes to show you the insidious and nefarious impact Spook Professors have on this Campus and on the Academic World in general. Once again, see the book edited by Chomsky entitled The Cold War and the University. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:51 PM To: Stuart Levy ; Peace Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture Sullivan was a member of the Super-Secret JASONS, a group of Doctors Strangeloves who advise the Pentagon on the threat and use of nuclear weapons, biological weapons etc.. At the time they used to meet and still might do so at the Headquarters of the Mitre Corporation—A Big Arms Contractor.When I was on the Executive Committee of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security and Sullivan was the Chair, he repeatedly prevented me from discussing the open-air atomic bomb test over the Ocean by Apartheid South Africa and Apartheid Israel. That just shows you how pernicious these Spook Professors really are on Campus. Ditto for CIA Professors and CIA Departments such a Political Science and Psychology. Ditto for our biowarfare death scientists and Colleges such as VetMed. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:40 PM To: Peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" Late announcement of a talk happening this afternoon 5pm Monday 4/30 Loomis Lab room 141, corner of Green and Goodwin "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017” Speaker: Professor Jürgen Scheffran, Hamburg University in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Tue May 1 15:12:10 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Tue, 01 May 2018 10:12:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] HHS purchases anthrax antitoxin for Strategic National Stockpile Message-ID: HHS (BARDA program) purchases $25M of anthrax antitoxin from Eluthys in Pine Brook, New Jersey. Lovely. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: HHS Updates Date: Mon, Apr 23, 2018 1:42 PMTo: bjornsona at ameritech.net;Cc: Subject:HHS purchases anthrax antitoxin for Strategic National Stockpile Web Version HHS purchases anthrax antitoxin for Strategic National Stockpile Acquisition augments anthrax treatments currently stockpiled The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR ) will purchase an anthrax treatment for $25.2 million from Elusys Therapeutics Inc. of Pine Brook, New Jersey, as part of the department’s ongoing national preparedness efforts. “Protecting the American people from 21st century threats, such as anthrax, remains a high priority for the department,” said Dr. Robert Kadlec, assistant secretary for preparedness and response. “This procurement under Project BioShield ensures we continue to have treatment options for people exposed to anthrax and increases the number of courses available in an emergency.” The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a component of ASPR, provided funding under Project BioShield  for continued manufacturing and purchase of the treatment called Anthim or obiltoxaximab. The product will be delivered to the Strategic National Stockpile, the nation’s largest supply of potentially life-saving medical countermeasures, such as vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics, for use in a public health emergency.  Anthim is an antibody-based therapeutic that can complement antibiotics by neutralizing the toxins produced by Bacillus anthracis, the bacteria that cause anthrax disease. The treatment was developed through a public-private partnership with Elusys and BARDA after early research funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health. In March 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Anthim for use in patients suffering from inhalational anthrax. BARDA used Project BioShield to fund the first delivery of Anthim to the Strategic National Stockpile in 2016. Project BioShield funds are used to purchase critical medical countermeasures, which often have no commercial market and are needed to protect against national security threats. HHS’ comprehensive approach to meet immediate public health needs in an anthrax attack includes the acquisition of vaccines, antibiotics and therapeutics.  While antibiotics can be effective in treating bacteria like anthrax, antibody-based therapeutics treat the toxins released by the anthrax bacteria that lead to illness and death. The purchase is part of BARDA’s comprehensive and integrated portfolio approach to the advanced research and development, innovation, acquisition, and manufacturing infrastructure for vaccines, drugs, therapeutics, diagnostic tools, and non-pharmaceutical products for public health emergencies caused by chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats, pandemic influenza and emerging infectious diseases that threaten the U.S. civilian population. BARDA is seeking to develop additional medical countermeasures and accepts proposals through the Broad Agency Announcement “BARDA-BAA-18-100-SOL-00003” at  https://www.fbo.gov. HHS works to enhance and protect the health and well-being of all Americans, providing for effective health and human services and fostering advances in medicine, public health, and social services. ASPR’s mission is to save lives and protect Americans from 21st century health security threats. To learn more, visit www.phe.gov and  www.medicalcountermeasures.gov. ### This email was sent by: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC, 20201 US Privacy Policy Update Profile       Manage Subscriptions       Unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Tue May 1 15:55:07 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 10:55:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tim Shorrock on Korea & American pundits Message-ID: *AMY GOODMAN:* Let me ask you about the issue of media coverage of the possible rapprochement on the Korean Peninsula. In a recent article in *The New York Times* headlined “As Two Koreas Talk Peace, Trump’s Bargaining Chips Slip Away,” Mark Landler expressed skepticism that the meeting between the South and North Korean leaders could be beneficial to the U.S., concluding, quote, “The talk of peace is likely to weaken the two levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table. A resumption of regular diplomatic exchanges between the two Koreas, analysts said, will inevitably erode the crippling economic sanctions against the North, while Mr. Trump will find it hard to threaten military action against a country that is extending an olive branch,” unquote. Meanwhile, Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon had this to say on Friday. *MICHAEL O’HANLON:* President Trump’s going to have to rein in his more ambitious goals and yet still drive a relatively hard line and not give away too much for an interim or partial agreement. … The denuclearization idea, however, is a long ways from even getting seriously started, because we’ve heard this kind of talk before. We know that North Korea means something else by the concept of denuclearization than we think we hear with our Western ears. And I haven’t seen even any realistic discussion of what would be the first steps or any kind of an interim deal along the way. *AMY GOODMAN:* Tim Shorrock, your response to all of these comments? *TIM SHORROCK:* Well, Michael O’Hanlon has been so wrong on so many things, like Iraq and Afghanistan, for so long, I don’t know why anybody is listening to him. But he’s completely wrong. He apparently has not read this Panmunjom Declaration, for one thing. But let me get back to that *Times* piece. I mean, you know, I quoted from that—I quote from that in my next article and my last one in *The Nation*. I also talked about his reporting. I mean, that statement, that somehow it comes out that, you know, a peace agreement is bad for the U.S. national security because it will prevent Trump from taking military action, what kind of talk is that for a reporter? He depends on all the establishment, you know, pundits and experts in town, rounds them all up to make this analysis. It’s just amazing to me to see the Washington consensus. I mean, people here in Washington, in the press and in the pundit class, they make fun of North Korea for being this totalitarian state where everyone thinks the same and has to do what the leader says. Well, the lockstep groupthink here in Washington is very similar. It’s just they all say the same thing. You can read the same analysis that you just heard from Brookings, that you just saw in *The New York Times*, you can see that, you know, in *Post*, in all these hot takes that appear in the *Post*, *The Atlantic*, *The New Yorker*. Everybody thinks the same way in this pundit class here in Washington. Nobody takes Korea, South Korea, seriously, nobody takes North Korea seriously, that South Korea and North Korea mapped out a procedure, a plan, to denuclearize and to decompress and to move toward a peace regime and decrease the tensions. And South Korea took steps today, for example, that they said they were going to end all hostile acts. One of those hostile acts is these huge speakers they have set up in the DMZ to broadcast propaganda and broadcast K-pop into North Korea. They’re taking them down today. They’re taking these steps, one by one, to move toward this peace that’s been denied to Korea for so long. And I think American pundits should be—you know, applaud South Korea for taking these steps, and applaud North Korea. You see these—you see these stories like, you know, eight months ago, North Korea must denuclearize, must say they’re going to denuclearize. You see this all over. And then, all of a sudden, they say they’re going to denuclearize, and then the headline is “U.S. Wary of North Korea Saying They’re Going to Denuclearize.” I mean, you know, give it a break. You know, open your eyes. Try to understand what’s actually happening in North Korea and South Korea. And the fact is, the United States cannot control Korea anymore. The United States has been in Korea militarily since 1945. And it’s time to end this colonial-like relationship the U.S. has with South Korea. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Tue May 1 16:04:07 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 16:04:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Documents show ties between university, conservative donors References: Message-ID: <430E6E71-85F8-4B6C-9203-6CEF6FA94072@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: Documents show ties between university, conservative donors Date: May 1, 2018 Documents show ties between university, conservative donors https://www.yahoo.com/news/documents-show-ties-between-university-conservative-donors-160359654.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=ma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue May 1 18:29:19 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 18:29:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" In-Reply-To: References: <1c3d18d9-ce10-e7bf-0c37-c677f98c5080@gmail.com> Message-ID: I attended ACDIS for several years before it became obvious to me that it was essentially a relay of the views of the U.S. State Department and the military establishment.There were to many military lecturers. I have not known what they have recently been doing, but ACDIS harbors members and associates who are not truly disarmament and peace people, rather they are defenders of U.S. government policies. The most notable was Ed Kolodziej, a true cold warrior. Jeremiah Sullivan was not the same, but was enmeshed in U.S. efforts for “better”, more effective, U.S. Defense weapons and strategies. There are honest, truth seeking people in ACDIS, a few trying to mitigate the weaponizing of the U.S. military, but some are enmeshed in the clutches of that establishment by the prestige and contracts flung their way. A never remember any analyses, by ACDIS, of U.S. support of Israel, its repression of Palestinians, and its nuclear weaponry. —mkb On May 1, 2018, at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Under the requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, Apartheid Israel should have been cut-off from all US military assistance because of that nuke explosion with Apartheid South Africa. The Carter administration did not want that to happen. So they ordered the JASONS to write the cover-up story about this being a meteorite that hit the Vela Satellite. LOL! Complete, total, and utter bull-twaddle! So when I repeatedly attempted to discuss this matter within the context of our Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security, our Chair Sullivan repeatedly cut me off, finally yelling at me: “It never happened!” So he was enforcing the JASONs cover-up on this campus—totally antithetic to academic freedom and integrity. Such was the Director of our most fraudulent Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security, that I later quit. Just a Gang of Warmongers, including and especially their Founder Ed Kolodziej, who later founded our Center on Globaloney Studies. But it just goes to show you the insidious and nefarious impact Spook Professors have on this Campus and on the Academic World in general. Once again, see the book edited by Chomsky entitled The Cold War and the University. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:51 PM To: Stuart Levy >; Peace > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture Sullivan was a member of the Super-Secret JASONS, a group of Doctors Strangeloves who advise the Pentagon on the threat and use of nuclear weapons, biological weapons etc.. At the time they used to meet and still might do so at the Headquarters of the Mitre Corporation—A Big Arms Contractor.When I was on the Executive Committee of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security and Sullivan was the Chair, he repeatedly prevented me from discussing the open-air atomic bomb test over the Ocean by Apartheid South Africa and Apartheid Israel. That just shows you how pernicious these Spook Professors really are on Campus. Ditto for CIA Professors and CIA Departments such a Political Science and Psychology. Ditto for our biowarfare death scientists and Colleges such as VetMed. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:40 PM To: Peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" Late announcement of a talk happening this afternoon 5pm Monday 4/30 Loomis Lab room 141, corner of Green and Goodwin "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017” Speaker: Professor Jürgen Scheffran, Hamburg University in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture _______________________________________________ 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 Tue May 1 18:31:50 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 18:31:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tim Shorrock on Korea & American pundits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So Democracy Now! has not completely gone off the rails… On May 1, 2018, at 10:55 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about the issue of media coverage of the possible rapprochement on the Korean Peninsula. In a recent article in The New York Times headlined “As Two Koreas Talk Peace, Trump’s Bargaining Chips Slip Away,” Mark Landler expressed skepticism that the meeting between the South and North Korean leaders could be beneficial to the U.S., concluding, quote, “The talk of peace is likely to weaken the two levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table. A resumption of regular diplomatic exchanges between the two Koreas, analysts said, will inevitably erode the crippling economic sanctions against the North, while Mr. Trump will find it hard to threaten military action against a country that is extending an olive branch,” unquote. Meanwhile, Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon had this to say on Friday. MICHAEL O’HANLON: President Trump’s going to have to rein in his more ambitious goals and yet still drive a relatively hard line and not give away too much for an interim or partial agreement. … The denuclearization idea, however, is a long ways from even getting seriously started, because we’ve heard this kind of talk before. We know that North Korea means something else by the concept of denuclearization than we think we hear with our Western ears. And I haven’t seen even any realistic discussion of what would be the first steps or any kind of an interim deal along the way. AMY GOODMAN: Tim Shorrock, your response to all of these comments? TIM SHORROCK: Well, Michael O’Hanlon has been so wrong on so many things, like Iraq and Afghanistan, for so long, I don’t know why anybody is listening to him. But he’s completely wrong. He apparently has not read this Panmunjom Declaration, for one thing. But let me get back to that Times piece. I mean, you know, I quoted from that—I quote from that in my next article and my last one in The Nation. I also talked about his reporting. I mean, that statement, that somehow it comes out that, you know, a peace agreement is bad for the U.S. national security because it will prevent Trump from taking military action, what kind of talk is that for a reporter? He depends on all the establishment, you know, pundits and experts in town, rounds them all up to make this analysis. It’s just amazing to me to see the Washington consensus. I mean, people here in Washington, in the press and in the pundit class, they make fun of North Korea for being this totalitarian state where everyone thinks the same and has to do what the leader says. Well, the lockstep groupthink here in Washington is very similar. It’s just they all say the same thing. You can read the same analysis that you just heard from Brookings, that you just saw in The New York Times, you can see that, you know, in Post, in all these hot takes that appear in the Post, The Atlantic, The New Yorker. Everybody thinks the same way in this pundit class here in Washington. Nobody takes Korea, South Korea, seriously, nobody takes North Korea seriously, that South Korea and North Korea mapped out a procedure, a plan, to denuclearize and to decompress and to move toward a peace regime and decrease the tensions. And South Korea took steps today, for example, that they said they were going to end all hostile acts. One of those hostile acts is these huge speakers they have set up in the DMZ to broadcast propaganda and broadcast K-pop into North Korea. They’re taking them down today. They’re taking these steps, one by one, to move toward this peace that’s been denied to Korea for so long. And I think American pundits should be—you know, applaud South Korea for taking these steps, and applaud North Korea. You see these—you see these stories like, you know, eight months ago, North Korea must denuclearize, must say they’re going to denuclearize. You see this all over. And then, all of a sudden, they say they’re going to denuclearize, and then the headline is “U.S. Wary of North Korea Saying They’re Going to Denuclearize.” I mean, you know, give it a break. You know, open your eyes. Try to understand what’s actually happening in North Korea and South Korea. And the fact is, the United States cannot control Korea anymore. The United States has been in Korea militarily since 1945. And it’s time to end this colonial-like relationship the U.S. has with South Korea. _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 1 19:10:05 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 19:10:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" In-Reply-To: References: <1c3d18d9-ce10-e7bf-0c37-c677f98c5080@gmail.com> Message-ID: Shortly after I arrived here in the early Fall of 1978, Kolodziej had heard I was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger—that is another story. So he put me on one of their first ACDIS panels dealing with whether or not we should ratify the SALT II Treaty, expecting that I would blast it from the Committee’s perspective. Instead, I blasted them from the inside. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 1:29 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" I attended ACDIS for several years before it became obvious to me that it was essentially a relay of the views of the U.S. State Department and the military establishment.There were to many military lecturers. I have not known what they have recently been doing, but ACDIS harbors members and associates who are not truly disarmament and peace people, rather they are defenders of U.S. government policies. The most notable was Ed Kolodziej, a true cold warrior. Jeremiah Sullivan was not the same, but was enmeshed in U.S. efforts for “better”, more effective, U.S. Defense weapons and strategies. There are honest, truth seeking people in ACDIS, a few trying to mitigate the weaponizing of the U.S. military, but some are enmeshed in the clutches of that establishment by the prestige and contracts flung their way. A never remember any analyses, by ACDIS, of U.S. support of Israel, its repression of Palestinians, and its nuclear weaponry. —mkb On May 1, 2018, at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Under the requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, Apartheid Israel should have been cut-off from all US military assistance because of that nuke explosion with Apartheid South Africa. The Carter administration did not want that to happen. So they ordered the JASONS to write the cover-up story about this being a meteorite that hit the Vela Satellite. LOL! Complete, total, and utter bull-twaddle! So when I repeatedly attempted to discuss this matter within the context of our Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security, our Chair Sullivan repeatedly cut me off, finally yelling at me: “It never happened!” So he was enforcing the JASONs cover-up on this campus—totally antithetic to academic freedom and integrity. Such was the Director of our most fraudulent Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security, that I later quit. Just a Gang of Warmongers, including and especially their Founder Ed Kolodziej, who later founded our Center on Globaloney Studies. But it just goes to show you the insidious and nefarious impact Spook Professors have on this Campus and on the Academic World in general. Once again, see the book edited by Chomsky entitled The Cold War and the University. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:51 PM To: Stuart Levy >; Peace > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture Sullivan was a member of the Super-Secret JASONS, a group of Doctors Strangeloves who advise the Pentagon on the threat and use of nuclear weapons, biological weapons etc.. At the time they used to meet and still might do so at the Headquarters of the Mitre Corporation—A Big Arms Contractor.When I was on the Executive Committee of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security and Sullivan was the Chair, he repeatedly prevented me from discussing the open-air atomic bomb test over the Ocean by Apartheid South Africa and Apartheid Israel. That just shows you how pernicious these Spook Professors really are on Campus. Ditto for CIA Professors and CIA Departments such a Political Science and Psychology. Ditto for our biowarfare death scientists and Colleges such as VetMed. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:40 PM To: Peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" Late announcement of a talk happening this afternoon 5pm Monday 4/30 Loomis Lab room 141, corner of Green and Goodwin "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017” Speaker: Professor Jürgen Scheffran, Hamburg University in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 1 20:01:37 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 20:01:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" References: <1c3d18d9-ce10-e7bf-0c37-c677f98c5080@gmail.com> Message-ID: Jeremiah Sullivan ….was enmeshed in U.S. efforts for “better”, more effective, U.S. Defense weapons and strategies. Yeah Jerry was in The JASONS at MITRE with his Buddy Dick Garwin who had developed the Hydrogen Bomb when many members of the Manhattan Project refused to have anything to do with it because they knew it would only be good for Genocide. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 2:10 PM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" Shortly after I arrived here in the early Fall of 1978, Kolodziej had heard I was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger—that is another story. So he put me on one of their first ACDIS panels dealing with whether or not we should ratify the SALT II Treaty, expecting that I would blast it from the Committee’s perspective. Instead, I blasted them from the inside. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 1:29 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" I attended ACDIS for several years before it became obvious to me that it was essentially a relay of the views of the U.S. State Department and the military establishment.There were to many military lecturers. I have not known what they have recently been doing, but ACDIS harbors members and associates who are not truly disarmament and peace people, rather they are defenders of U.S. government policies. The most notable was Ed Kolodziej, a true cold warrior. Jeremiah Sullivan was not the same, but was enmeshed in U.S. efforts for “better”, more effective, U.S. Defense weapons and strategies. There are honest, truth seeking people in ACDIS, a few trying to mitigate the weaponizing of the U.S. military, but some are enmeshed in the clutches of that establishment by the prestige and contracts flung their way. A never remember any analyses, by ACDIS, of U.S. support of Israel, its repression of Palestinians, and its nuclear weaponry. —mkb On May 1, 2018, at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Under the requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, Apartheid Israel should have been cut-off from all US military assistance because of that nuke explosion with Apartheid South Africa. The Carter administration did not want that to happen. So they ordered the JASONS to write the cover-up story about this being a meteorite that hit the Vela Satellite. LOL! Complete, total, and utter bull-twaddle! So when I repeatedly attempted to discuss this matter within the context of our Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security, our Chair Sullivan repeatedly cut me off, finally yelling at me: “It never happened!” So he was enforcing the JASONs cover-up on this campus—totally antithetic to academic freedom and integrity. Such was the Director of our most fraudulent Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security, that I later quit. Just a Gang of Warmongers, including and especially their Founder Ed Kolodziej, who later founded our Center on Globaloney Studies. But it just goes to show you the insidious and nefarious impact Spook Professors have on this Campus and on the Academic World in general. Once again, see the book edited by Chomsky entitled The Cold War and the University. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:51 PM To: Stuart Levy >; Peace > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture Sullivan was a member of the Super-Secret JASONS, a group of Doctors Strangeloves who advise the Pentagon on the threat and use of nuclear weapons, biological weapons etc.. At the time they used to meet and still might do so at the Headquarters of the Mitre Corporation—A Big Arms Contractor.When I was on the Executive Committee of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security and Sullivan was the Chair, he repeatedly prevented me from discussing the open-air atomic bomb test over the Ocean by Apartheid South Africa and Apartheid Israel. That just shows you how pernicious these Spook Professors really are on Campus. Ditto for CIA Professors and CIA Departments such a Political Science and Psychology. Ditto for our biowarfare death scientists and Colleges such as VetMed. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:40 PM To: Peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" Late announcement of a talk happening this afternoon 5pm Monday 4/30 Loomis Lab room 141, corner of Green and Goodwin "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017” Speaker: Professor Jürgen Scheffran, Hamburg University in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 1 20:09:11 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 20:09:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" In-Reply-To: References: <1c3d18d9-ce10-e7bf-0c37-c677f98c5080@gmail.com> , Message-ID: Francis where are you? Sent on my Virgin Mobile Phone. ------ Original message------ From: Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss Date: Tue, May 1, 2018 3:02 PM To: Brussel, Morton K; Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net); Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" Jeremiah Sullivan ….was enmeshed in U.S. efforts for “better”, more effective, U.S. Defense weapons and strategies. Yeah Jerry was in The JASONS at MITRE with his Buddy Dick Garwin who had developed the Hydrogen Bomb when many members of the Manhattan Project refused to have anything to do with it because they knew it would only be good for Genocide. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 2:10 PM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" Shortly after I arrived here in the early Fall of 1978, Kolodziej had heard I was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger—that is another story. So he put me on one of their first ACDIS panels dealing with whether or not we should ratify the SALT II Treaty, expecting that I would blast it from the Committee’s perspective. Instead, I blasted them from the inside. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 1:29 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" I attended ACDIS for several years before it became obvious to me that it was essentially a relay of the views of the U.S. State Department and the military establishment.There were to many military lecturers. I have not known what they have recently been doing, but ACDIS harbors members and associates who are not truly disarmament and peace people, rather they are defenders of U.S. government policies. The most notable was Ed Kolodziej, a true cold warrior. Jeremiah Sullivan was not the same, but was enmeshed in U.S. efforts for “better”, more effective, U.S. Defense weapons and strategies. There are honest, truth seeking people in ACDIS, a few trying to mitigate the weaponizing of the U.S. military, but some are enmeshed in the clutches of that establishment by the prestige and contracts flung their way. A never remember any analyses, by ACDIS, of U.S. support of Israel, its repression of Palestinians, and its nuclear weaponry. —mkb On May 1, 2018, at 7:08 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Under the requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, Apartheid Israel should have been cut-off from all US military assistance because of that nuke explosion with Apartheid South Africa. The Carter administration did not want that to happen. So they ordered the JASONS to write the cover-up story about this being a meteorite that hit the Vela Satellite. LOL! Complete, total, and utter bull-twaddle! So when I repeatedly attempted to discuss this matter within the context of our Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security, our Chair Sullivan repeatedly cut me off, finally yelling at me: “It never happened!” So he was enforcing the JASONs cover-up on this campus—totally antithetic to academic freedom and integrity. Such was the Director of our most fraudulent Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security, that I later quit. Just a Gang of Warmongers, including and especially their Founder Ed Kolodziej, who later founded our Center on Globaloney Studies. But it just goes to show you the insidious and nefarious impact Spook Professors have on this Campus and on the Academic World in general. Once again, see the book edited by Chomsky entitled The Cold War and the University. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:51 PM To: Stuart Levy >; Peace > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture Sullivan was a member of the Super-Secret JASONS, a group of Doctors Strangeloves who advise the Pentagon on the threat and use of nuclear weapons, biological weapons etc.. At the time they used to meet and still might do so at the Headquarters of the Mitre Corporation—A Big Arms Contractor.When I was on the Executive Committee of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security and Sullivan was the Chair, he repeatedly prevented me from discussing the open-air atomic bomb test over the Ocean by Apartheid South Africa and Apartheid Israel. That just shows you how pernicious these Spook Professors really are on Campus. Ditto for CIA Professors and CIA Departments such a Political Science and Psychology. Ditto for our biowarfare death scientists and Colleges such as VetMed. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:40 PM To: Peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" Late announcement of a talk happening this afternoon 5pm Monday 4/30 Loomis Lab room 141, corner of Green and Goodwin "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017” Speaker: Professor Jürgen Scheffran, Hamburg University in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture _______________________________________________ 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed May 2 03:00:49 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 22:00:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tim Shorrock on Korea & American pundits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No, still good on Korea and Israel; not so good on Syria & Russiagate. On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Brussel, Morton K wrote: > So Democracy Now! has not completely gone off the rails… > > On May 1, 2018, at 10:55 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Let me ask you about the issue of media coverage of the > possible rapprochement on the Korean Peninsula. In a recent article > > in *The New York Times* headlined “As Two Koreas Talk Peace, Trump’s > Bargaining Chips Slip Away,” Mark Landler expressed skepticism that the > meeting between the South and North Korean leaders could be beneficial to > the U.S., concluding, quote, “The talk of peace is likely to weaken the two > levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining > table. A resumption of regular diplomatic exchanges between the two Koreas, > analysts said, will inevitably erode the crippling economic sanctions > against the North, while Mr. Trump will find it hard to threaten military > action against a country that is extending an olive branch,” unquote. > Meanwhile, Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon had this to > say on Friday. > > *MICHAEL O’HANLON:* President Trump’s going to have to rein in his more > ambitious goals and yet still drive a relatively hard line and not give > away too much for an interim or partial agreement. … The denuclearization > idea, however, is a long ways from even getting seriously started, because > we’ve heard this kind of talk before. We know that North Korea means > something else by the concept of denuclearization than we think we hear > with our Western ears. And I haven’t seen even any realistic discussion of > what would be the first steps or any kind of an interim deal along the way. > > *AMY GOODMAN:* Tim Shorrock, your response to all of these comments? > > *TIM SHORROCK:* Well, Michael O’Hanlon has been so wrong on so many > things, like Iraq and Afghanistan, for so long, I don’t know why anybody is > listening to him. But he’s completely wrong. He apparently has not read > this Panmunjom Declaration, for one thing. > > But let me get back to that *Times* piece. I mean, you know, I quoted > from that—I quote from that in my next article and my last one in *The > Nation*. I also talked about his reporting. I mean, that statement, that > somehow it comes out that, you know, a peace agreement is bad for the U.S. > national security because it will prevent Trump from taking military > action, what kind of talk is that for a reporter? He depends on all the > establishment, you know, pundits and experts in town, rounds them all up to > make this analysis. > > It’s just amazing to me to see the Washington consensus. I mean, people > here in Washington, in the press and in the pundit class, they make fun of > North Korea for being this totalitarian state where everyone thinks the > same and has to do what the leader says. Well, the lockstep groupthink here > in Washington is very similar. It’s just they all say the same thing. You > can read the same analysis that you just heard from Brookings, that you > just saw in *The New York Times*, you can see that, you know, in * Post*, > in all these hot takes that appear in the *Post*, * The Atlantic*, *The > New Yorker*. Everybody thinks the same way in this pundit class here in > Washington. > > Nobody takes Korea, South Korea, seriously, nobody takes North Korea > seriously, that South Korea and North Korea mapped out a procedure, a plan, > to denuclearize and to decompress and to move toward a peace regime and > decrease the tensions. And South Korea took steps today, for example, that > they said they were going to end all hostile acts. One of those hostile > acts is these huge speakers they have set up in the DMZ to broadcast > propaganda and broadcast K-pop into North Korea. They’re taking them down > today. They’re taking these steps, one by one, to move toward this peace > that’s been denied to Korea for so long. > > And I think American pundits should be—you know, applaud South Korea for > taking these steps, and applaud North Korea. You see these—you see these > stories like, you know, eight months ago, North Korea must denuclearize, > must say they’re going to denuclearize. You see this all over. And then, > all of a sudden, they say they’re going to denuclearize, and then the > headline is “U.S. Wary of North Korea Saying They’re Going to > Denuclearize.” I mean, you know, give it a break. You know, open your eyes. > Try to understand what’s actually happening in North Korea and South Korea. > And the fact is, the United States cannot control Korea anymore. The United > States has been in Korea militarily since 1945. And it’s time to end this > colonial-like relationship the U.S. has with South Korea. > _______________________________________________ > 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Wed May 2 12:51:30 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 12:51:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Illiniwak Conversations over Bigotry, Racism and Genocide Message-ID: Sure, let's all waste our time having "conversations" with the Illiniwaks about the bigotry, racism and genocide of Chief Illiniwak. Then we can all waste our time having conversations with the Illiniwaks about the Ku Klux Klan. Then we can all have conversations with the Illiniwaks about the Nazis. Great way to waste our time and stall and delay so that Chancellor Jones can keep his job, get pay raises, find a Presidency somewhere else, and then pass the Illiniwak Problem on to the Next Turkey willing to waste his or her time as Chancellor of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign knocking down Big Bucks to deal with the Illiniwaks and their Chief. As for me, I teach my Future Lawyers in my International Human Rights Class that Chief Illiniwak is a piece of Racist, Genocidal Garbage that must be consigned unceremoniously into the ashcan of history. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed May 2 13:04:36 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 13:04:36 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo: Illiniwak Conversations over Bigotry, Racism and Genocide Message-ID: For the record, I was the one who put the course on International Human Rights Law (3hours) into the curriculum of the University of Illiniwaks Law School over three decades ago and have taught it ever since. Chancellor Jones has my permission to audit my Course on International Human Rights Law. He would definitely learn something about how to protect and promote the basic Human Rights of Native Americans. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 7:51 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: News Gazoo: Illiniwak Conversations over Bigotry, Racism and Genocide Sure, let's all waste our time having "conversations" with the Illiniwaks about the bigotry, racism and genocide of Chief Illiniwak. Then we can all waste our time having conversations with the Illiniwaks about the Ku Klux Klan. Then we can all have conversations with the Illiniwaks about the Nazis. Great way to waste our time and stall and delay so that Chancellor Jones can keep his job, get pay raises, find a Presidency somewhere else, and then pass the Illiniwak Problem on to the Next Turkey willing to waste his or her time as Chancellor of the University of Illiniwaks at Urbana-Champaign knocking down Big Bucks to deal with the Illiniwaks and their Chief. As for me, I teach my Future Lawyers in my International Human Rights Class that Chief Illiniwak is a piece of Racist, Genocidal Garbage that must be consigned unceremoniously into the ashcan of history. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Wed May 2 20:48:28 2018 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 20:48:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Abbas, Jews and the Holocaust References: <1122780677.27692.1525294108351.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1122780677.27692.1525294108351@mail.yahoo.com> I'm just a nearly inconspicuous spec in a universe of international politics relaying the words of a world-renowned figure. FYIPalestinian president accused of antisemitism over Holocaust comments Mr Abbas said that the Jewish “social function” in 20th century Europe, such as money lending, caused animosity towards them which led to the Nazi genocide of six million Jews.  He cited what he said were books by “Jewish Zionist authors” for the claim, which was made during a 90-minute speech to the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) parliament in Ramallah on Monday.  The murder of 40 Palestinians in the Return protests may have contributed to his outrage and statements, which are actually incorrect ... The Red Cross put the number of deaths at 250k due to the chaos of war and typhus. | | | | | | | | | | | Palestinian president accused of antisemitism over Holocaust comments Bethan McKernan Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has been condemned over comments on the causes of the Holocaust wh... | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed May 2 21:23:58 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 21:23:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" References: <1c3d18d9-ce10-e7bf-0c37-c677f98c5080@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think I mentioned to you before that our Monsantoed Biological Sciences Division offered us a free professor for “Law and Biology” that they would pay for. She would obviously be a Monsanto Mole on the Law Faculty. She did get an interview, which never should have happened. But I shot her down during her faculty lecture presentation. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 2:36 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" And of course so much of what purport to be “biological sciences” and “biological scientists” on this campus are bought and paid for by Monsanto—Frankenfoods and Frankenprofs. And now the German Nazis at Bayer are taking over the American Nazis at Monsanto. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:51 PM To: 'Stuart Levy' >; Peace > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture Sullivan was a member of the Super-Secret JASONS, a group of Doctors Strangeloves who advise the Pentagon on the threat and use of nuclear weapons, biological weapons etc.. At the time they used to meet and still might do so at the Headquarters of the Mitre Corporation—A Big Arms Contractor.When I was on the Executive Committee of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security and Sullivan was the Chair, he repeatedly prevented me from discussing the open-air atomic bomb test over the Ocean by Apartheid South Africa and Apartheid Israel. That just shows you how pernicious these Spook Professors really are on Campus. Ditto for CIA Professors and CIA Departments such a Political Science and Psychology. Ditto for our biowarfare death scientists and Colleges such as VetMed. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:40 PM To: Peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" Late announcement of a talk happening this afternoon 5pm Monday 4/30 Loomis Lab room 141, corner of Green and Goodwin "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017” Speaker: Professor Jürgen Scheffran, Hamburg University in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed May 2 21:44:40 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 21:44:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" References: <1c3d18d9-ce10-e7bf-0c37-c677f98c5080@gmail.com> Message-ID: Of course the Illiniwaks Fired and Disgraced and Golden-parachuted Chancellor Richard Herman forced down the throat of the Illiniwaks Law School the CIA/Mossad Mole Mikey Moore and his Consort the Fired and Disgraced and Sanctioned Law Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd, both of whom immediately upon their arrival on campus began to stink up this Law School and this Campus and Our Good Community by advocating Torture and in particular the Torture of Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color. No Skin off their noses. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 4:24 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" I think I mentioned to you before that our Monsantoed Biological Sciences Division offered us a free professor for “Law and Biology” that they would pay for. She would obviously be a Monsanto Mole on the Law Faculty. She did get an interview, which never should have happened. But I shot her down during her faculty lecture presentation. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 2:36 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" And of course so much of what purport to be “biological sciences” and “biological scientists” on this campus are bought and paid for by Monsanto—Frankenfoods and Frankenprofs. And now the German Nazis at Bayer are taking over the American Nazis at Monsanto. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:51 PM To: 'Stuart Levy' >; Peace > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture Sullivan was a member of the Super-Secret JASONS, a group of Doctors Strangeloves who advise the Pentagon on the threat and use of nuclear weapons, biological weapons etc.. At the time they used to meet and still might do so at the Headquarters of the Mitre Corporation—A Big Arms Contractor.When I was on the Executive Committee of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security and Sullivan was the Chair, he repeatedly prevented me from discussing the open-air atomic bomb test over the Ocean by Apartheid South Africa and Apartheid Israel. That just shows you how pernicious these Spook Professors really are on Campus. Ditto for CIA Professors and CIA Departments such a Political Science and Psychology. Ditto for our biowarfare death scientists and Colleges such as VetMed. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 1:40 PM To: Peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tonight 5pm: "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017" Late announcement of a talk happening this afternoon 5pm Monday 4/30 Loomis Lab room 141, corner of Green and Goodwin "Nuclear Disarmament and Civil Society: The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and the Nobel Peace Prize for ICAN 2017” Speaker: Professor Jürgen Scheffran, Hamburg University in the first Jeremiah Sullivan Memorial Lecture -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 3 03:04:03 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 03:04:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tim Shorrock on Korea & American pundits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is typical of many “pseudo left” groups as well, they are on target in relation to Korea, and Israel, but Syria, and Russiagate is another story, because they are the necessary steps in relation to Iran, and our eventual goal of control over China. On May 1, 2018, at 20:00, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: No, still good on Korea and Israel; not so good on Syria & Russiagate. On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: So Democracy Now! has not completely gone off the rails… On May 1, 2018, at 10:55 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about the issue of media coverage of the possible rapprochement on the Korean Peninsula. In a recent article in The New York Times headlined “As Two Koreas Talk Peace, Trump’s Bargaining Chips Slip Away,” Mark Landler expressed skepticism that the meeting between the South and North Korean leaders could be beneficial to the U.S., concluding, quote, “The talk of peace is likely to weaken the two levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table. A resumption of regular diplomatic exchanges between the two Koreas, analysts said, will inevitably erode the crippling economic sanctions against the North, while Mr. Trump will find it hard to threaten military action against a country that is extending an olive branch,” unquote. Meanwhile, Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon had this to say on Friday. MICHAEL O’HANLON: President Trump’s going to have to rein in his more ambitious goals and yet still drive a relatively hard line and not give away too much for an interim or partial agreement. … The denuclearization idea, however, is a long ways from even getting seriously started, because we’ve heard this kind of talk before. We know that North Korea means something else by the concept of denuclearization than we think we hear with our Western ears. And I haven’t seen even any realistic discussion of what would be the first steps or any kind of an interim deal along the way. AMY GOODMAN: Tim Shorrock, your response to all of these comments? TIM SHORROCK: Well, Michael O’Hanlon has been so wrong on so many things, like Iraq and Afghanistan, for so long, I don’t know why anybody is listening to him. But he’s completely wrong. He apparently has not read this Panmunjom Declaration, for one thing. But let me get back to that Times piece. I mean, you know, I quoted from that—I quote from that in my next article and my last one in The Nation. I also talked about his reporting. I mean, that statement, that somehow it comes out that, you know, a peace agreement is bad for the U.S. national security because it will prevent Trump from taking military action, what kind of talk is that for a reporter? He depends on all the establishment, you know, pundits and experts in town, rounds them all up to make this analysis. It’s just amazing to me to see the Washington consensus. I mean, people here in Washington, in the press and in the pundit class, they make fun of North Korea for being this totalitarian state where everyone thinks the same and has to do what the leader says. Well, the lockstep groupthink here in Washington is very similar. It’s just they all say the same thing. You can read the same analysis that you just heard from Brookings, that you just saw in The New York Times, you can see that, you know, in Post, in all these hot takes that appear in the Post, The Atlantic, The New Yorker. Everybody thinks the same way in this pundit class here in Washington. Nobody takes Korea, South Korea, seriously, nobody takes North Korea seriously, that South Korea and North Korea mapped out a procedure, a plan, to denuclearize and to decompress and to move toward a peace regime and decrease the tensions. And South Korea took steps today, for example, that they said they were going to end all hostile acts. One of those hostile acts is these huge speakers they have set up in the DMZ to broadcast propaganda and broadcast K-pop into North Korea. They’re taking them down today. They’re taking these steps, one by one, to move toward this peace that’s been denied to Korea for so long. And I think American pundits should be—you know, applaud South Korea for taking these steps, and applaud North Korea. You see these—you see these stories like, you know, eight months ago, North Korea must denuclearize, must say they’re going to denuclearize. You see this all over. And then, all of a sudden, they say they’re going to denuclearize, and then the headline is “U.S. Wary of North Korea Saying They’re Going to Denuclearize.” I mean, you know, give it a break. You know, open your eyes. Try to understand what’s actually happening in North Korea and South Korea. And the fact is, the United States cannot control Korea anymore. The United States has been in Korea militarily since 1945. And it’s time to end this colonial-like relationship the U.S. has with South Korea. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 3 03:18:18 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 22:18:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Tim Shorrock on Korea & American pundits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <325EA0CD-5B67-48BB-81BC-17B308EDD7DC@gmail.com> The Israeli government and their friends in the US (in and out of government) want to get busy killing Iranians, but the administration (including the Pentagon) is dragging its feet, for fear of Russia (and indeed China). The war party looks like losing their casus belli at the east axial end of Mackinder’s Heartland. They want to be sure they can continue to get their war on at the west end. > —CGE > On May 2, 2018, at 10:04 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > This is typical of many “pseudo left” groups as well, they are on target in relation to Korea, and Israel, but Syria, and Russiagate is another story, because they are the necessary steps in relation to Iran, and our eventual goal of control over China. > > >> On May 1, 2018, at 20:00, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> No, still good on Korea and Israel; not so good on Syria & Russiagate. >> >> On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 1:31 PM, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: >> So Democracy Now! has not completely gone off the rails… >> >>> On May 1, 2018, at 10:55 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about the issue of media coverage of the possible rapprochement on the Korean Peninsula. In a recent article in The New York Times headlined “As Two Koreas Talk Peace, Trump’s Bargaining Chips Slip Away,” Mark Landler expressed skepticism that the meeting between the South and North Korean leaders could be beneficial to the U.S., concluding, quote, “The talk of peace is likely to weaken the two levers that Mr. Trump used to pressure Mr. Kim to come to the bargaining table. A resumption of regular diplomatic exchanges between the two Koreas, analysts said, will inevitably erode the crippling economic sanctions against the North, while Mr. Trump will find it hard to threaten military action against a country that is extending an olive branch,” unquote. Meanwhile, Brookings Institution senior fellow Michael O’Hanlon had this to say on Friday. >>> >>> MICHAEL O’HANLON: President Trump’s going to have to rein in his more ambitious goals and yet still drive a relatively hard line and not give away too much for an interim or partial agreement. … The denuclearization idea, however, is a long ways from even getting seriously started, because we’ve heard this kind of talk before. We know that North Korea means something else by the concept of denuclearization than we think we hear with our Western ears. And I haven’t seen even any realistic discussion of what would be the first steps or any kind of an interim deal along the way. >>> >>> AMY GOODMAN: Tim Shorrock, your response to all of these comments? >>> >>> TIM SHORROCK: Well, Michael O’Hanlon has been so wrong on so many things, like Iraq and Afghanistan, for so long, I don’t know why anybody is listening to him. But he’s completely wrong. He apparently has not read this Panmunjom Declaration, for one thing. >>> >>> But let me get back to that Times piece. I mean, you know, I quoted from that—I quote from that in my next article and my last one in The Nation. I also talked about his reporting. I mean, that statement, that somehow it comes out that, you know, a peace agreement is bad for the U.S. national security because it will prevent Trump from taking military action, what kind of talk is that for a reporter? He depends on all the establishment, you know, pundits and experts in town, rounds them all up to make this analysis. >>> >>> It’s just amazing to me to see the Washington consensus. I mean, people here in Washington, in the press and in the pundit class, they make fun of North Korea for being this totalitarian state where everyone thinks the same and has to do what the leader says. Well, the lockstep groupthink here in Washington is very similar. It’s just they all say the same thing. You can read the same analysis that you just heard from Brookings, that you just saw in The New York Times, you can see that, you know, in Post, in all these hot takes that appear in the Post, The Atlantic, The New Yorker. Everybody thinks the same way in this pundit class here in Washington. >>> >>> Nobody takes Korea, South Korea, seriously, nobody takes North Korea seriously, that South Korea and North Korea mapped out a procedure, a plan, to denuclearize and to decompress and to move toward a peace regime and decrease the tensions. And South Korea took steps today, for example, that they said they were going to end all hostile acts. One of those hostile acts is these huge speakers they have set up in the DMZ to broadcast propaganda and broadcast K-pop into North Korea. They’re taking them down today. They’re taking these steps, one by one, to move toward this peace that’s been denied to Korea for so long. >>> >>> And I think American pundits should be—you know, applaud South Korea for taking these steps, and applaud North Korea. You see these—you see these stories like, you know, eight months ago, North Korea must denuclearize, must say they’re going to denuclearize. You see this all over. And then, all of a sudden, they say they’re going to denuclearize, and then the headline is “U.S. Wary of North Korea Saying They’re Going to Denuclearize.” I mean, you know, give it a break. You know, open your eyes. Try to understand what’s actually happening in North Korea and South Korea. And the fact is, the United States cannot control Korea anymore. The United States has been in Korea militarily since 1945. And it’s time to end this colonial-like relationship the U.S. has with South Korea. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 3 12:43:58 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 12:43:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] March to Protest More War in the Middle East Message-ID: MAY6 Going March to Protest More War in the Middle East Sun 5 PM CDT · Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center · Urbana, IL Answer Coalition Champaign-Urbana added an event. Just a few weeks ago on April 13th the US led the UK, France, and other western NATO powers in the airstrikes bombing Syria's capital of Damascus. This followed unsubstantiated claims from the US of a chemical attack by the Syrian government on Syrian citizens. Despite a continued lack of evidence, the warmongering around Syria persists. This week in Israel, the US's primary ally in the Middle East, president Benjamin Netanyahu gave an alarmist presentation about Iran's capability to produce nuclear weapons. It featured 10+ year-old news about Iran's ability to redirect their nuclear energy program to a nuclear weapons program. This was an attempt to stir outrage against the Iranian government and to set the stage for US intervention. There is no evidence that the Iranian government is pursuing a nuclear weapons program or has any desire to do so. It's more than a little ironic that the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons presumes to dictate to any other country how they should handle their nuclear programs. The false claims of "weapons of mass destruction" preceding the US's invasion of Iraq in 2003 stand out as preposterous accusations to create a pretext for war. The ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition here in Champaign-Urbana understands the similarity between chemical attack claims in Syria and nuclear programs in Iran to be as ridiculous as the "weapons of mass destruction" claims about Iraq in 2003. Therefore we are staging a march to protest further war and warmongering against all countries in the Middle East, which the United States has no business interfering in. Join us at 5pm on Sunday at the IMC in Urbana for a march through downtown Urbana to oppose war. You can find us near the circle drive on the west side of the IMC building off of Elm street. Co-sponsored by the Young Democratic Socialists of America and Party for Socialism and Liberation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 3 13:48:38 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 08:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Regular AWARE meeting, Sunday 6 May Message-ID: <30C98B61-7182-4C4F-8384-BA7B645598A8@gmail.com> In view of the anti-war march noted below, the AWARE meeting scheduled for this Sunday 5-6pm at Hammerhead Coffee should be canceled. ======================================= MAY 6 - March to Protest More War in the Middle East Sun 5 PM CDT · Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center · Urbana, IL Answer Coalition Champaign-Urbana added an event. Just a few weeks ago on April 13th the US led the UK, France, and other western NATO powers in the airstrikes bombing Syria's capital of Damascus. This followed unsubstantiated claims from the US of a chemical attack by the Syrian government on Syrian citizens. Despite a continued lack of evidence, the warmongering around Syria persists. This week in Israel, the US's primary ally in the Middle East, president Benjamin Netanyahu gave an alarmist presentation about Iran's capability to produce nuclear weapons. It featured 10+ year-old news about Iran's ability to redirect their nuclear energy program to a nuclear weapons program. This was an attempt to stir outrage against the Iranian government and to set the stage for US intervention. There is no evidence that the Iranian government is pursuing a nuclear weapons program or has any desire to do so. It's more than a little ironic that the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons presumes to dictate to any other country how they should handle their nuclear programs. The false claims of "weapons of mass destruction" preceding the US's invasion of Iraq in 2003 stand out as preposterous accusations to create a pretext for war. The ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition here in Champaign-Urbana understands the similarity between chemical attack claims in Syria and nuclear programs in Iran to be as ridiculous as the "weapons of mass destruction" claims about Iraq in 2003. Therefore we are staging a march to protest further war and warmongering against all countries in the Middle East, which the United States has no business interfering in. Join us at 5pm on Sunday at the IMC in Urbana for a march through downtown Urbana to oppose war. You can find us near the circle drive on the west side of the IMC building off of Elm street. Co-sponsored by the Young Democratic Socialists of America and Party for Socialism and Liberation -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 3 13:52:46 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 13:52:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Important article Message-ID: WHY IS THIS AN IMPORTANT ARTICLE? Apply it to pseudo left groups supporting imperialism in the US Germany’s Marx 21 group backs imperialist offensive against Syria By Johannes Stern 3 May 2018 "The Marx 21 network, a pseudo-left grouping inside the Left Party with close connections to the state capitalist International Socialist Tendency (IST), has long been one of the most aggressive supporters of the imperialist offensive against Syria. After the recent attacks against Damascus, it is stepping up its campaign for a more aggressive military intervention in the country. The article, “Syria: The Enemy of my Enemy Remains My Enemy,” which featured prominently on the Marx 21 web site for several days, exemplifies the reactionary role these pseudo-left organisations play in the imperialist rape of Syria. Under the cynical cover of the struggle for “peace, freedom and respect for human rights”, Marx 21 tries to portray itself as an opponent of all “warring parties”. In fact, it acts as a propaganda tool for imperialism. The entire article is directed against representatives of the Left Party, who, in the eyes of Marx 21, do not support the imperialist offensive against Syria vehemently enough. “Unfortunately,” members of the Left Party had also repeatedly expressed “understanding for the government and war of the dictator Bashar al-Assad” and “indirectly defended” him, complains Marx 21 author Hans Krause. As an example, he cites claims that “reports of the ‘Syrian American Medical Society’ or the White Helmets about the victims of a possible Douma poison gas attack were ‘hardly worth anything’ because they are ‘US-funded organisations’.” This argument hardly differs from the war-mongering of the bourgeois press. Despite increasing evidence showing that the White Helmets staged the Douma gas attack to provide their imperialist sponsors with a pretext for new air strikes, Marx 21 seeks to suppress any criticism of the official propaganda. Although “it is correct not to accept the poison gas attack in Duma as truth just because the American government claims it took place”, it was, however, “wrong to dismiss the reports as unreliable.” The World Socialist Web Site has already commented in an earlier article on the cynical attempt of the Left Party to present itself as an opponent of the Syrian war. In reality, its position largely coincides with that of the German government, whereby it insists that Berlin pursue Germany’s imperialist interests more self-assuredly and independently of the United States. This is also the view of Marx 21, but it supports that wing of the ruling class which also urges taking a more aggressive course against Russia. In line with this view, Krause doesn’t fundamentally reject the recent US, French and British air strikes on Syria, but criticises them from the right. “Even the German-funded Science and Politics Foundation does not believe that NATO’s missile strike in Syria has achieved anything positive,” he notes at the beginning of his article. Nevertheless, “Chancellor Merkel considers them to be ‘successful and appropriate’.” The entire article leaves no doubt that Marx 21 advocates regime change in Damascus brought about by the imperialist powers. It expresses particular ire towards Moscow and Damascus, even though the US and its European allies have been fighting for domination of the resource-rich and strategically important region for 15 years now. “Neither Russia nor Syria are democratic, let alone socialist states, whatever standards are applied,” Krause points out to his readers. “Both governments have falsified elections for decades, arresting and murdering oppositionists, and in Syria, long before the war.” Just because Assad “does not base his rule on religion” this did not make him “a lesser evil”. Neither the actions of the Assad government nor those of the Kremlin, which defends the interests of the Russian oligarchy in Syria, can be supported by Marxists and class-conscious workers. Nevertheless, both are engaged in a predominantly defensive reaction to a war of aggression being waged by the imperialist powers contrary to international law. The imperialist powers have been intervening in Syria for the past seven years as part of their attempts to re-colonise the entire Middle East, to overthrow another pro-Russian government and act against Iran and, ultimately, Russia itself. Marxists are not neutral in the war between imperialist powers and oppressed countries—not because they support the governments of the latter, but in spite of these governments. The fight against the Assad regime, which represents a wing of the Syrian bourgeoisie, and the building of a democratic and equal society in Syria is the task of an independent, revolutionary movement of the working class. By contrast, the overthrow of the Assad regime by the Western imperialist powers and their lackeys would turn the country into an imperialist protectorate and bring to power an even more reactionary regime—as the experience in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya has recently underlined. But this is exactly what Krause has in mind when he demands, “when building a new anti-war movement in Germany, it should not downplay any warmongers in this world and neither conceal nor admire murderers, either from Washington, Moscow, Damascus or another place”. The slogan “Neither Washington nor Moscow”, which Krause resurrects here, has a long history. In the 1950s, it was used by the anti-Trotskyist “state capitalist” tendency from which Marx 21 descends to justify its orientation to imperialism. At that time, the state capitalists refused to defend China and the Soviet Union against the American invasion of Korea during the Korean War. Today, it serves to justify the installation of a pro-Western and potentially Islamist regime in Damascus. “For a long time, left-wing organisations and parties repeatedly made the mistake of supporting the government of a state simply because it was hostile to their own government,” writes Krause. But a “left-wing foreign policy as an antithesis to pro-NATO government should not be to support another imperialist government in its struggle for commodities, markets and military staging areas”—whereby he includes not only the Kremlin, but also the Syrian government of Bashar Assad as one of the “imperialist governments”. In his article, Krause provides the ruling class with the appropriate arguments to denounce the growing opposition to war: Those who oppose the efforts of the imperialist powers to re-colonise the entire Middle East automatically support Assad and the Putin regime. The support of Marx 21 for German imperialism is not limited to propaganda. The pseudo-left group plays an important role in Berlin’s return to an aggressive foreign policy, and it is deeply integrated into the institutions of German imperialism. Its leading member, Christine Buchholz, has been a defence policy spokeswoman for the Left Party for nine years now; she sits on the Parliamentary Defence Committee and regularly accompanies Defence Minister Ursula von Leyen during troop visits abroad. In this role, Marx 21 and the Left Party helped organ ise the pro-imperialist Syrian opposition in recent years and have repeatedly spoken in favour of military intervention in Syria. Together with representatives of the CDU, SPD and Greens, Left Party leaders had already signed up to a statement in 2012 entitled ”Syria: freedom needs assistance”, which called for “humanitarian intervention” in the country. The statement was initiated by the group Adopt a Revolution (AaR), with which Marx 21 cooperates to this day. Only in February of this year, Buchholz appeared at an AaR rally in front of the Russian Embassy in Berlin. In Syria itself, Marx 21 works with those who openly act as ground troops for the imperialist powers. Ghayath Naisse, secretary general of the Syrian Revolutionary Left Current (SRLC), is scheduled to speak at the “Marx is a must” conference in May. The SRLC is part of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which consists of Kurdish nationalist militias, parts of the Free Syrian Army, and Sunni Islamist militias, all of them operating in the region with British, French, and US troops. At the end of the article, when Krause argues that the “solidarity” of the Left Party must “apply to all those people, groups and organisations” advocating “the survival of the people”, he means the pro-imperialist organisations and militias of the SDF. Thus, even the claim of Marx 21 to support “neither Washington, nor Moscow, nor Damascus” turns out to be a lie. His orientation to Washington is also reflected in his denunciations of the Russian and Syrian governments exclusively, and by failing to mention the massive crimes of US imperialism in Syria and the entire region." WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu May 3 14:40:52 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 14:40:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Genociding Palestinians: May 15 Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 9:39 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Genociding Palestinians: May 15 My interview starts at 40 minutes into the program. Fab. Israeli's recent humanitarian crimes against Gazans and Palestinians Prof. Francis Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois Law School with a long career as an anti-war activist and upholder of human rights. He has served as a counsel to Bosnia and Herzegovina and was a legal advisor to the Palestinian delegation during the Middle East Peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993. Prof. Boyle has served on the board of directors of Amnesty International, and the Council for Responsible Genetics. He drafted the legislation for what became the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act in 1989 which was signed into law by the first Bush administration, served on the Board of Amnesty International and represented Bosnia-Herzegovina at the World Court. He has been a strong opponent of the current Afghan and Iraq wars, and was an advocate for bringing international arrest warrants against George W Bush-Cheney and Obama administrations. Prof.Boyle has published numerous papers in law reviews and many books. His most recent publications are “Palestine, Palestinians and International Law,” “Biowarfare and Terrorism”, and "The Tamil Genocide by Sri Lanka" Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, May 3, 2018 9:36 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: The Gary Null Show - 05.02.18 - YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MzlUSlhkr_A/hqdefault.jpg] The Gary Null Show - 05.02.18 Source: https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-4d7hp-9083d9 CONVERSATIONS WITH GREAT MINDS Israeli's recent humanitarian crimes against Gazans and Palestinia... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzlUSlhkr_A Sent from Mail for Windows 10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 3 14:50:15 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 09:50:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Robert Mueller: Gone Fishing Message-ID: >. Never before has it been clearer that the Mueller investigation is 90 percent charade... Mueller knows better than anyone, where and how to find the dirt on the Trump campaign, collusion with Russia, or anything else. That he has been able to come up with so little – and is trying to get some help from the President himself – speaks volumes. ...If there were any tangible evidence of Trump campaign-Russia collusion, Mueller would almost certainly have known where to look and, in today’s world of blanket surveillance, would have found it by now. It beggars belief that he would have failed, in the course of his year-old investigation, to use all the levers at his disposal – the levers Edward Snowden called “turnkey tyranny” — to “get the goods” on Trump. ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rwhelbig at gmail.com Thu May 3 15:03:31 2018 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 08:03:31 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Robert Mueller: Gone Fishing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: yet another great source - a blog that has been spewing lies for years - find the facts, Carl. Of course, there are none yet, but you have to smear people and any source that does that will do! On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 7:50 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > mueller-gone-fishing/>. > > Never before has it been clearer that the Mueller investigation is 90 > percent charade... > > Mueller knows better than anyone, where and how to find the dirt on > the Trump campaign, collusion with Russia, or anything else. That he > has been able to come up with so little – and is trying to get some > help from the President himself – speaks volumes. > > ...If there were any tangible evidence of Trump campaign-Russia collusion, > Mueller would almost certainly have known where to look and, in today’s > world of blanket surveillance, would have found it by now. It beggars > belief that he would have failed, in the course of his year-old > investigation, to use all the levers at his disposal – the levers Edward > Snowden called “turnkey tyranny” — to “get the goods” on Trump. > > ### > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 3 15:29:44 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 10:29:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Robert Mueller: Gone Fishing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ray McGovern has been as reliable as anyone writing on these matters, Roger. Do you have a counter-example? > On May 3, 2018, at 10:03 AM, Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss wrote: > > yet another great source - a blog that has been spewing lies for years - find the facts, Carl. Of course, there are none yet, but you have to smear people and any source that does that will do! > > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 7:50 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >. > > Never before has it been clearer that the Mueller investigation is 90 percent charade... > > Mueller knows better than anyone, where and how to find the dirt on the Trump campaign, collusion with Russia, or anything else. That he has been able to come up with so little – and is trying to get some help from the President himself – speaks volumes. > > ...If there were any tangible evidence of Trump campaign-Russia collusion, Mueller would almost certainly have known where to look and, in today’s world of blanket surveillance, would have found it by now. It beggars belief that he would have failed, in the course of his year-old investigation, to use all the levers at his disposal – the levers Edward Snowden called “turnkey tyranny” — to “get the goods” on Trump. > > ### > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 stuartnlevy at gmail.com Thu May 3 16:09:29 2018 From: stuartnlevy at gmail.com (Stuart Levy) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 11:09:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] IL state bill HB4405/SB2562 would allow use of drones to monitor protestors - call Rep. Ammons to vote No on it. In-Reply-To: <000000000000a4af36056b4e81c7@google.com> References: <000000000000a4af36056b4e81c7@google.com> Message-ID: <0e138b6c-2f1e-8583-81eb-f391b311b609@gmail.com> Bill HB4405 / SB2562 in the IL legislature, apparently supported by Chicago Mayor Emanuel, would allow police to use drones to record protestors.   The ACLU of IL opposes it.   It passed in the IL Senate yesterday - unfortunately Bennett was one of many Yes votes, though Sen. Biss was among only 6 No votes. I'm calling Rep. Ammons' office now to ask her to oppose HB4405 - hope you will too. Ammons' office: 217-531-1660 ==== ACLU-IL sounds the alarm about bill allowing use of drones to monitor protesters - Urgent calls to your IL Rep needed Fran Spielman @fspielman | email   The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday accused Mayor Rahm Emanuel of being the heavy hand behind legislation that would allow police officers to use drones to monitor the growing number of protests on the streets of Chicago.   The groundbreaking bill would allow drones to be used to hover over crowds, for the purpose of taking still photos and making audio and video recordings of demonstrations. Even more troubling to the ACLU, the drones could be equipped with facial recognition technology.   The legislation has already cleared Illinois House and Senate committees and is poised for a final vote in both chambers.   The bills are sponsored by a pair of Chicago Democrats with close ties to the mayor: State Sen. Martin Sandoval and State Rep. John D’Amico, nephew of Ald. Marge Laurino (39th), the City Council’s president pro tem and one of Emanuel’s closest aldermanic allies.   “Given Chicago’s history of surveillance against protesters and social justice advocates – including by the notorious Red Squad — the Chicago police should not be able to use this new, powerful tool to monitor protesters near silently and from above,” Karen Sheley, director of the ACLU Police Practices Project, was quoted as saying in a news release.   “The legislation also ignores sweeping surveillance tools currently available to the police – including an integrated public camera system that covers much of the city.”   Sheley noted that the House and Senate versions of the controversial bill “effectively guts” legislation passed three years ago requiring a judicial warrant for the use of drones by police in Illinois.   She wondered aloud why that’s even necessary at a time when there are 2,700 public safety cameras in Chicago that are part of a broader network of 27,000 private and government surveillance cameras.   That Big Brother network should be more than enough to keep close watch over the growing number of demonstrations protesting the immigration, travel ban and environmental policies of President Donald Trump.   “If this bill is passed, as drafted, during the next large scale political rally, drones could identify and list people protesting the Trump administration,” added Sheley.   “The sight of drones overhead, collecting information, may deter people from protesting in a time when so many want to exercise their First Amendment rights . . . This is too much unchecked power to give to the police — in Chicago or anywhere.”   Mayoral spokesperson Julienn Kaviar said the city met with the ACLU and “incorporated their input” to develop the proposed update to Illinois’ drone regulations.   The goal was “balancing privacy rights and ensuring the safety of those attending large-scale events in Chicago – whether at the annual Lollapalooza music festival or an impromptu World Series celebration,” Kaviar said.   If House and Senate approve the plan, law enforcement agencies would be required to report the date, time, location and authorized exception under the law in which the drone was used. The police department would also be required to delete any surveillance or other information gathered after 30 days, unless the information is relevant to a criminal matter.   “Under the current state law, CPD can only use a drone under very limited circumstances, such as preventing terrorism. This update simply allows CPD to monitor and secure large-scale events where a legitimate public safety interest exists in a more efficient manner, as we do currently with the existing security camera network,” Kaviar wrote in an email to the Sun-Times.   “The proposed updates would not change the existing privacy protections and limitations under the current law.”   Two years ago, a Chicago Sun-Times report that Chicago Police had opened six investigation into protest groups since 2009 prompted the chairman of the City Council’s Progressive Caucus to demand a hearing on police spying on protest groups.   At the time, Ald. Scott Waguespack (32nd) characterized the police monitoring of labor organizations, Occupy Chicago, Rainbow PUSH and other demonstrators as unnecessary and intrusive.   After demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri, police began using an intelligence-gathering center in Chicago they share with federal authorities to collect Internet data on African-American and left-wing groups protesting police tactics.   Police officials have said the investigations are legal and crucial to protecting public safety and they make sure that people’s rights are protected.   But Waguespack maintained that the investigations were “absolutely politically motivated.”   The alderman further noted before the NATO Summit in 2012, the City Council approved new regulations that required protesters to share event plans with the police.   At the time, Emanuel took issue with the resolution’s claim that the police “failed to provide evidence” its surveillance programs require “any proper legal evidentiary standard of proof.”   “We’ll take a look at the notion,” Emanuel said, but he added, “I do believe that doing proper policing and civil liberties are consistent.” Fran Spielman Follow me on Twitter @fspielman Email: fspielman at suntimes.com   https://chicago.suntimes.com/?post_type=cst_article&p=1070628   More coverage of this bill is here: http://www.thedrive.com/tech/20587/police-should-not-be-allowed-to-monitor-protests-via-drone-aclu-says -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 3 16:29:52 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 11:29:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dr. Know on the Clapper-Tapper chapter Message-ID: <7BA90245-7D7D-4D95-A0FD-4F656C32DE20@gmail.com> Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper not only leaked information about the infamous Steele dossier and high-level government briefings about it to CNN, he also may have lied to Congress about the matter. In one of the findings within the 253-page report, the House intelligence committee wrote that Clapper leaked details of a dossier briefing given to then-President-elect Donald Trump to CNN’s Jake Tapper, lied to Congress about the leak, and was rewarded with a CNN contract a few months later. From NEWS FROM NEPTUNE's research director: Clapper's adaptin' to leakin' and tattlin'. He'll surely avoid the cell. His NSA lies skirted Justice's eyes but certainly we could tell. Russiagate tales fill the warmongers' sails with the wind of the taxpayer purse. Distract us they must with sexual lust, 'cause killing is us at our worst. -J From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 3 17:37:14 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 17:37:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] IL state bill HB4405/SB2562 would allow use of drones to monitor protestors - call Rep. Ammons to vote No on it. In-Reply-To: <0e138b6c-2f1e-8583-81eb-f391b311b609@gmail.com> References: <000000000000a4af36056b4e81c7@google.com> <0e138b6c-2f1e-8583-81eb-f391b311b609@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you Stuart, I called, they were very receptive. We need to circulate this info as much as possible. If its coming to Chicago, it will be going elsewhere across the nation as well. On May 3, 2018, at 09:09, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > wrote: Bill HB4405 / SB2562 in the IL legislature, apparently supported by Chicago Mayor Emanuel, would allow police to use drones to record protestors. The ACLU of IL opposes it. It passed in the IL Senate yesterday - unfortunately Bennett was one of many Yes votes, though Sen. Biss was among only 6 No votes. I'm calling Rep. Ammons' office now to ask her to oppose HB4405 - hope you will too. Ammons' office: 217-531-1660 ==== ACLU-IL sounds the alarm about bill allowing use of drones to monitor protesters - Urgent calls to your IL Rep needed Fran Spielman @fspielman | email The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday accused Mayor Rahm Emanuel of being the heavy hand behind legislation that would allow police officers to use drones to monitor the growing number of protests on the streets of Chicago. The groundbreaking bill would allow drones to be used to hover over crowds, for the purpose of taking still photos and making audio and video recordings of demonstrations. Even more troubling to the ACLU, the drones could be equipped with facial recognition technology. The legislation has already cleared Illinois House and Senate committees and is poised for a final vote in both chambers. The bills are sponsored by a pair of Chicago Democrats with close ties to the mayor: State Sen. Martin Sandoval and State Rep. John D’Amico, nephew of Ald. Marge Laurino (39th), the City Council’s president pro tem and one of Emanuel’s closest aldermanic allies. “Given Chicago’s history of surveillance against protesters and social justice advocates – including by the notorious Red Squad — the Chicago police should not be able to use this new, powerful tool to monitor protesters near silently and from above,” Karen Sheley, director of the ACLU Police Practices Project, was quoted as saying in a news release. “The legislation also ignores sweeping surveillance tools currently available to the police – including an integrated public camera system that covers much of the city.” Sheley noted that the House and Senate versions of the controversial bill “effectively guts” legislation passed three years ago requiring a judicial warrant for the use of drones by police in Illinois. She wondered aloud why that’s even necessary at a time when there are 2,700 public safety cameras in Chicago that are part of a broader network of 27,000 private and government surveillance cameras. That Big Brother network should be more than enough to keep close watch over the growing number of demonstrations protesting the immigration, travel ban and environmental policies of President Donald Trump. “If this bill is passed, as drafted, during the next large scale political rally, drones could identify and list people protesting the Trump administration,” added Sheley. “The sight of drones overhead, collecting information, may deter people from protesting in a time when so many want to exercise their First Amendment rights . . . This is too much unchecked power to give to the police — in Chicago or anywhere.” Mayoral spokesperson Julienn Kaviar said the city met with the ACLU and “incorporated their input” to develop the proposed update to Illinois’ drone regulations. The goal was “balancing privacy rights and ensuring the safety of those attending large-scale events in Chicago – whether at the annual Lollapalooza music festival or an impromptu World Series celebration,” Kaviar said. If House and Senate approve the plan, law enforcement agencies would be required to report the date, time, location and authorized exception under the law in which the drone was used. The police department would also be required to delete any surveillance or other information gathered after 30 days, unless the information is relevant to a criminal matter. “Under the current state law, CPD can only use a drone under very limited circumstances, such as preventing terrorism. This update simply allows CPD to monitor and secure large-scale events where a legitimate public safety interest exists in a more efficient manner, as we do currently with the existing security camera network,” Kaviar wrote in an email to the Sun-Times. “The proposed updates would not change the existing privacy protections and limitations under the current law.” Two years ago, a Chicago Sun-Times report that Chicago Police had opened six investigation into protest groups since 2009 prompted the chairman of the City Council’s Progressive Caucus to demand a hearing on police spying on protest groups. At the time, Ald. Scott Waguespack (32nd) characterized the police monitoring of labor organizations, Occupy Chicago, Rainbow PUSH and other demonstrators as unnecessary and intrusive. After demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri, police began using an intelligence-gathering center in Chicago they share with federal authorities to collect Internet data on African-American and left-wing groups protesting police tactics. Police officials have said the investigations are legal and crucial to protecting public safety and they make sure that people’s rights are protected. But Waguespack maintained that the investigations were “absolutely politically motivated.” The alderman further noted before the NATO Summit in 2012, the City Council approved new regulations that required protesters to share event plans with the police. At the time, Emanuel took issue with the resolution’s claim that the police “failed to provide evidence” its surveillance programs require “any proper legal evidentiary standard of proof.” “We’ll take a look at the notion,” Emanuel said, but he added, “I do believe that doing proper policing and civil liberties are consistent.” Fran Spielman Follow me on Twitter @fspielman Email: fspielman at suntimes.com https://chicago.suntimes.com/?post_type=cst_article&p=1070628 More coverage of this bill is here: http://www.thedrive.com/tech/20587/police-should-not-be-allowed-to-monitor-protests-via-drone-aclu-says _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 3 18:11:36 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 13:11:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] IL state bill HB4405/SB2562 would allow use of drones to monitor protestors - call Rep. Ammons to vote No on it. In-Reply-To: References: <000000000000a4af36056b4e81c7@google.com> <0e138b6c-2f1e-8583-81eb-f391b311b609@gmail.com> Message-ID: I left a recording. > On May 3, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Thank you Stuart, > > I called, they were very receptive. We need to circulate this info as much as possible. If its coming to Chicago, it will be going elsewhere across the nation as well. > > >> On May 3, 2018, at 09:09, Stuart Levy via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Bill HB4405 / SB2562 in the IL legislature, apparently supported by Chicago Mayor Emanuel, would allow police to use drones to record protestors. The ACLU of IL opposes it. It passed in the IL Senate yesterday - unfortunately Bennett was one of many Yes votes, though Sen. Biss was among only 6 No votes. >> >> I'm calling Rep. Ammons' office now to ask her to oppose HB4405 - hope you will too. >> Ammons' office: 217-531-1660 >> >> ==== >> ACLU-IL sounds the alarm about bill allowing use of drones to monitor protesters - Urgent calls to your IL Rep needed >> >> Fran Spielman > >> @fspielman > | email >> >> >> The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday accused Mayor Rahm Emanuel of >> being the heavy hand behind legislation that would allow police officers to >> use drones to monitor the growing number of protests on the streets of >> Chicago. >> >> The groundbreaking bill would allow drones to be used to hover over crowds, >> for the purpose of taking still photos and making audio and video >> recordings of demonstrations. Even more troubling to the ACLU, the drones >> could be equipped with facial recognition technology. >> >> The legislation has already cleared Illinois House and Senate committees >> and is poised for a final vote in both chambers. >> >> The bills are sponsored by a pair of Chicago Democrats with close ties to >> the mayor: State Sen. Martin Sandoval and State Rep. John D’Amico, nephew >> of Ald. Marge Laurino (39th), the City Council’s president pro tem and one >> of Emanuel’s closest aldermanic allies. >> >> “Given Chicago’s history of surveillance against protesters and social >> justice advocates – including by the notorious Red Squad — the Chicago >> police should not be able to use this new, powerful tool to monitor >> protesters near silently and from above,” Karen Sheley, director of the >> ACLU Police Practices Project, was quoted as saying in a news release. >> >> “The legislation also ignores sweeping surveillance tools currently >> available to the police – including an integrated public camera system that >> covers much of the city.” >> >> Sheley noted that the House and Senate versions of the controversial bill >> “effectively guts” legislation passed three years ago requiring a judicial >> warrant for the use of drones by police in Illinois. >> >> She wondered aloud why that’s even necessary at a time when there are 2,700 >> public safety cameras in Chicago that are part of a broader network of >> 27,000 private and government surveillance cameras. >> >> That Big Brother network should be more than enough to keep close watch >> over the growing number of demonstrations protesting the immigration, >> travel ban and environmental policies of President Donald Trump. >> >> “If this bill is passed, as drafted, during the next large scale political >> rally, drones could identify and list people protesting the Trump >> administration,” added Sheley. >> >> “The sight of drones overhead, collecting information, may deter people >> from protesting in a time when so many want to exercise their First >> Amendment rights . . . This is too much unchecked power to give to the >> police — in Chicago or anywhere.” >> >> Mayoral spokesperson Julienn Kaviar said the city met with the ACLU and >> “incorporated their input” to develop the proposed update to Illinois’ >> drone regulations. >> >> The goal was “balancing privacy rights and ensuring the safety of those >> attending large-scale events in Chicago – whether at the annual >> Lollapalooza music festival or an impromptu World Series celebration,” >> Kaviar said. >> >> If House and Senate approve the plan, law enforcement agencies would be >> required to report the date, time, location and authorized exception under >> the law in which the drone was used. The police department would also be >> required to delete any surveillance or other information gathered after 30 >> days, unless the information is relevant to a criminal matter. >> >> “Under the current state law, CPD can only use a drone under very limited >> circumstances, such as preventing terrorism. This update simply allows CPD >> to monitor and secure large-scale events where a legitimate public safety >> interest exists in a more efficient manner, as we do currently with the >> existing security camera network,” Kaviar wrote in an email to the >> Sun-Times. >> >> “The proposed updates would not change the existing privacy protections and >> limitations under the current law.” >> >> Two years ago, a Chicago Sun-Times report that Chicago Police had opened >> six investigation into protest groups since 2009 prompted >> > >> the chairman of the City Council’s Progressive Caucus to demand a hearing >> on police spying on protest groups. >> >> At the time, Ald. Scott Waguespack (32nd) characterized the police >> monitoring of labor organizations, Occupy Chicago, Rainbow PUSH and other >> demonstrators >> > >> as unnecessary and intrusive. >> >> After demonstrations in Ferguson, Missouri, police began using an >> intelligence-gathering center in Chicago they share with federal >> authorities to collect Internet data on African-American and left-wing >> groups protesting police tactics. >> >> Police officials have said the investigations are legal and crucial to >> protecting public safety and they make sure that people’s rights are >> protected. >> >> But Waguespack maintained that the investigations were “absolutely >> politically motivated.” >> >> The alderman further noted before the NATO Summit in 2012, the City Council >> approved new regulations that required protesters to share event plans with >> the police. >> >> At the time, Emanuel took issue with the resolution’s claim that the police >> “failed to provide evidence” its surveillance programs require “any proper >> legal evidentiary standard of proof.” >> >> “We’ll take a look at the notion,” Emanuel said, but he added, “I do >> believe that doing proper policing and civil liberties are consistent.” >> Fran Spielman > >> Follow me on Twitter @fspielman >> > >> Email: fspielman at suntimes.com >> >> https://chicago.suntimes.com/?post_type=cst_article&p=1070628 >> >> More coverage of this bill is here: >> http://www.thedrive.com/tech/20587/police-should-not-be-allowed-to-monitor-protests-via-drone-aclu-says >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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 r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu May 3 18:51:38 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 18:51:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Army Special Forces Secretly Help Saudis Combat Threat From Yemen Rebels Message-ID: From The New York Times: Army Special Forces Secretly Help Saudis Combat Threat From Yemen Rebels Green Berets on Saudi Arabia’s border with Yemen are helping find and destroy Houthi missiles and launch sites, quietly expanding America’s role in a war it has tried to avoid. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/politics/green-berets-saudi-yemen-border-houthi.html From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 3 20:37:59 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 15:37:59 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Army Special Forces Secretly Help Saudis Combat Threat From Yemen Rebels In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77FA2C4F-A770-41E2-AC9B-E89244CA62AE@gmail.com> “…tried to avoid” - or supported all along, in the last administration and this one? > On May 3, 2018, at 1:51 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From The New York Times: > > Army Special Forces Secretly Help Saudis Combat Threat From Yemen Rebels > > Green Berets on Saudi Arabia’s border with Yemen are helping find and destroy Houthi missiles and launch sites, quietly expanding America’s role in a war it has tried to avoid. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/politics/green-berets-saudi-yemen-border-houthi.html > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From bjornsona at ameritech.net Fri May 4 07:27:06 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 02:27:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Army Special Forces Secretly Help Saudis Combat Threat From Yemen Rebels Message-ID: <8nofm5vq7ug2alslmv80ftj2.1525418812341@email.lge.com> Exactly.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Thu, May 3, 2018 3:38 PMTo: Ron Szoke;Cc: Peace Discuss;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Army Special Forces Secretly Help Saudis Combat Threat From Yemen Rebels “…tried to avoid” - or supported all along, in the last administration and this one? > On May 3, 2018, at 1:51 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From The New York Times: > > Army Special Forces Secretly Help Saudis Combat Threat From Yemen Rebels > > Green Berets on Saudi Arabia’s border with Yemen are helping find and destroy Houthi missiles and launch sites, quietly expanding America’s role in a war it has tried to avoid. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/politics/green-berets-saudi-yemen-border-houthi.html > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Fri May 4 07:27:06 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 02:27:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Army Special Forces Secretly Help Saudis Combat Threat From Yemen Rebels Message-ID: <8nofm5vq7ug2alslmv80ftj2.1525418812341@email.lge.com> Exactly.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Thu, May 3, 2018 3:38 PMTo: Ron Szoke;Cc: Peace Discuss;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Army Special Forces Secretly Help Saudis Combat Threat From Yemen Rebels “…tried to avoid” - or supported all along, in the last administration and this one? > On May 3, 2018, at 1:51 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From The New York Times: > > Army Special Forces Secretly Help Saudis Combat Threat From Yemen Rebels > > Green Berets on Saudi Arabia’s border with Yemen are helping find and destroy Houthi missiles and launch sites, quietly expanding America’s role in a war it has tried to avoid. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/03/us/politics/green-berets-saudi-yemen-border-houthi.html > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 4 11:30:07 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 11:30:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] CIA expands its Signature School program to University of Illinois Chicago : CIA OFF CAMPUS! Message-ID: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/04/ciuc-m04.html We have to get organized immediately to prevent this from happening on our Campus and in Our Good Community. I have personally dealt with these CIA/Spook Professors on this Campus, including the Political Science Department itself, which was on the CIA Payroll. These CIA/Spook Profs are rotten, corrupt, despicable, ruthless, and completely unprincipled and antithetical to Academic Integrity and Academic Freedom and Academic Independence. The CIA will pervert the very essence of what the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is supposed to be about. The one thing we learned from the Campus Struggle of the 1980s against the CIA is that the CIA on Campus and the CIA/Spook Profs despise Sunlight. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for these Academic Snakes in the Grass. CIA OFF CAMPUS! Fab. From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 4 12:09:46 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 12:09:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] CIA expands its Signature School program to University of Illinois Chicago : CIA OFF CAMPUS! Message-ID: That the CIA is a terrorist organization was upheld in the famous "CIA On Trial" case in Northampton, Mass., in 1987, when a jury acquitted 14 protestors who tried to stop CIA recruitment on campus, according to Francis Boyle, the University of Illinois international law authority who defended the group. The defense charged the CIA was "an organized criminal conspiracy like the SS and the Gestapo." Boyle said, "You would not let the SS or the Gestapo recruit on campus at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, so you would not permit the CIA to recruit on campus either." -------------------------------------------------------- Plus ca change at the CIA. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: sherwoodross10 at gmail.com [mailto:sherwoodross10 at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:45 PM To: Boyle, Francis Subject: The CIA, KKK, and USA THE CIA, KKK, & USA By Sherwood Ross By assigning covert action roles to the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA), it is as if the White House and Congress had legitimized the Ku Klux Klan to operate globally. That's because the CIA today resembles nothing so much as the "Invisible Empire" of the KKK that once spread terror across the South and Midwest. Fiery crosses aside, this is what the CIA is doing globally. The CIA today is committing many of the same sort of gruesome crimes against foreigners that the KKK once inflicted on Americans of color. The principal difference is that the KKK consisted of self-appointed vigilantes who regarded themselves as both outside and above the law when they perpetrated their crimes. By contrast, the CIA acts as the agent of the American government, often at the highest levels, and at times at the direction of the White House. Its crimes typically are committed in contravention of the highest established international law such as the Charter of the United Nations as well as the U.S. Constitution. What's more, the "Agency," as it is known, derives its funding largely from an imperialist- minded Congress; additionally, it has no qualms about fattening its budget from drug money and other illegal sources. It is a mirror-image of the lawless entity the U.S. has become since achieving superpower status. And it is incredible that the White House grants license to this violent Agency to commit its crimes with no accountability. The Ku Klux Klan was founded shortly after the end of the U.S. Civil War. Klansman concealed their identities behind flowing white robes and white hoods as they terrorized the newly emancipated blacks to keep them from voting or to drive them from their property. Allowing it to operate in secret literally gives the CIA the mythical Ring of Gyges. In Plato's Republic, the owner of the ring had the power to become invisible at will. As Wikipedia puts it, Plato "discusses whether a typical person would be moral if he did not have to fear the consequences of his actions." The ancient Greeks made the argument, Wikipedia says, that "No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men." The CIA, like Hitler's Gestapo and Stalin's NKVD before it, has provided modern man the answer to this question. Its actions illuminate why all criminal entities, from rapists and bank robbers, to Ponzi scheme swindlers and murderers, cloak themselves in secrecy. There are innumerable examples of how American presidents have authorized criminal acts without public discussion that the preponderant majority of Americans would find reprehensible. Example: it was President Lyndon Johnson who ordered the CIA to meddle in Chile's election to help Eduardo Frei become president. If they had known, U.S. taxpayers might have objected to such a use of their hard-earned money to influence the outcome of another country's elections. But the public is rarely let in on such illegal foreign policy decisions. Where the KKK after the Civil War terrorized blacks to keep them from voting, the CIA has worked to influence the outcome of elections all over the world through bribery and vote-buying, dirty tricks, and worse. According to investigative reporter William Blum in "Rogue State"(Common Courage Press), the CIA has perverted elections in Italy, Lebanon, Indonesia, The Philippines, Japan, Nepal, Laos, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Portugal, Australia, Jamaica, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, among other countries. If they had known, taxpayers might also object to the CIA's numerous overthrows of foreign governments by force and violence---such as was done in Iran in 1953 by President Eisenhower and Chile in 1973 by President Nixon. Both overthrows precipitated bloodbaths that cost tens of thousands of innocent civilians their lives. Blum also lists the countries the CIA has attempted to overthrow or has actually overthrown. His list includes Greece, The Philippines, East Germany, Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iraq, Viet Nam, Laos, Ecuador, The Congo, France, Cuba, Ghana, Chile, South Africa, Bolivia, Portugal, and Nicaragua, to cite a few. As I write, today, October 11th, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina called on President Obama to revise U.S. (imperialist)policies toward Latin America. He questioned why the U.S. continues to plant its military bases across the region. That's an excellent question. If the U.S. is a peace-loving nation, why does it need 800 bases the world over in addition to 1,000 on its own soil? Americans might recoil in disgust if they knew of the CIA's numerous assassinations of the elected officials of other nations. Is it any wonder Americans so often ask the question, "Why do they hate us?" As historian Arnold Toynbee wrote in 1961, "America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defence of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for. Rome consistently supported the rich against the poor in all foreign communities that fell under her sway; and, since the poor, so far, have always and everywhere been more numerous than the rich, Rome's policy made for inequality, for injustice, and for the least happiness of the greatest number." The CIA's protective secrecy resembles nothing so much as the KKK, which proudly proclaimed itself "the Invisible Empire" and whose thugs killed citizens having the courage to identify hooded Klansmen to law enforcement officials. Today, it is our highest public officials that protect this criminal force, said to number about 25,000 employees. It is actually a Federal offense to reveal the identity of a CIA undercover agent---unless, of course, you happen to be I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and are employed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame to punish her husband Joseph Wilson for publishing a report that undercut the White House lie that Saddam Hussein had purchased "yellowcake" from Niger to fuel WMD. Today, high public officials direct the CIA's criminal policies and protect its agents' identities the better to enable them to commit their crimes. According to journalist Fred Cook in his book "Ku Klux Klan: America's Recurring Nightmare"(Messner), "The Klan was inherently a vigilante organization. It could commit the most atrocious acts under the guise of high principle and perpetrators of those acts would be hidden behind white masks and protected by Klan secrecy... (The Klan) set itself up as judge, jury and executioner"---a policy adopted by the CIA today. CIA spies have conducted their criminal operations masquerading as officials of U.S. aid programs, business executives, or journalists. Example: The San Diego-based Copley News Service's staff of foreign correspondents allegedly was created to provide cover to CIA spies, compromising legitimate American journalists trying to do their jobs. While the murders committed by the KKK likely ran into the many thousands, the CIA has killed on a far grander scale and managed to keep its role largely secret. As Tim Weiner, who covered the CIA for the New York Times noted in his book "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA" (Anchor): "In Guatemala, 200,000 civilians had died during forty years of struggle following the agency's(CIA) 1954 coup against an elected president." Weiner adds, "the CIA's officers in Guatemala still went to great lengths to conceal the nature of their close relations with the military and to suppress reports that Guatemalan officers on its payroll were murderers, torturers, and thieves." When it comes to murder, the CIA makes the KKK look like Boy Scouts. Like the KKK, CIA terrorists operate above the law. KKK members committed thousands of lynchings yet rarely were its members punished for them. In 2009 at a speech at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, President Obama revealed he was not intent on punishing CIA agents for their crimes but would rather "look forward." This seemingly charitable philosophy may be driven by the fact that Obama worked for Business International Corporation, a CIA front, at least in 1983 and perhaps longer, and allegedly is the son of a mother and father both of whom also worked for the CIA, as did Obama's grandmother! I could find none of this in Obama's biography when he ran for the presidency, when a gullible American public elected a CIA "mole" to the White House. Consider this, too: an agency President Truman feared would become "an American Gestapo" when he signed the enabling legislation into law in 1947 has become just that, and it casts a lengthy shadow over the White House. Ominously, it has in Barack Obama one of its own former employees sitting in the Oval Office---a man who, according to news reports, has vastly expanded the frequency of the CIA's assassinations by drone aircraft in Pakistan and who illegally claims the "right" to assassinate any American citizen abroad as well. What's more, from 1989 to 1993 George Bush Sr., the CIA's own former Director, sat in the White House. Additionally, from 2001 to 2009, the CIA had that Director's son, George W. Bush, in the Oval Office giving the CIA a blank check after the 9/11 massacre. Bush Jr., according to The New York Times, in the summer of 1974 worked for Alaska International Industries, which did contract work for the CIA. The Times noted that this job did not appear in his biography when he ran for the White House in 2000, terming it "The Missing Chapter in the Bush Bio." Thus, two presidential candidates with CIA ties--- Bush Jr. and Obama---both neglected to mention them. And in Bill Clinton, who presided from 1993 to 2001, the CIA had a go-along president who satisfied the Agency's blood-lust when he authorized the first illegal "rendition," a euphemism for what KKK thugs once knew as kidnapping and torture. Is there any question that the Agency has not played an influential, behind-the-scenes or even a direct role in the operations of the U.S. government at its highest level? It may indeed be a stretch to argue that the CIA is running the country but it is no stretch to say that year after year our presidents reflect the criminal philosophy of the Agency. Other parallels with the KKK are striking. As Richmond Flowers, the Attorney General of Alabama stated in 1966, "I've found the Klan more than just another secret society... It resembles a shadow government, making its own laws, manipulating local politics, burrowing into some of our local law-enforcement agencies...When a pitiable misfit puts on his $15 sheet, society can no longer ignore him." Yet the descendants of those misfits have moved up today where they feel comfortable as operatives in the shadow government run by the White House. One of the CIA's illicit duties has been to serve as a conduit for funneling U.S. taxpayer dollars to corrupt dictators and strongmen bent on suppressing the popular will of their citizenry. As Noam Chomsky wrote in "Failed States"(Metropolitan/Owl), in Honduras, "military officers in charge of the battalion (3-16) were on the CIA payroll." This elite unit, he says, "organized and trained by the United States and Argentine neo-Nazis," was "the most barbaric of the Latin American killers that Washington had been supporting." Like the KKK, the CIA kidnaps many of its victims with no thought ever of legal procedure. It exhibits utter disdain for the rights of those individuals, the sovereignty of foreign nations, or respect for international law. At least hundreds of foreigners, mostly from the Middle East, have been the victims of "renditions" just as the KKK kidnapped and flogged and lynched blacks, labor leaders, Catholics, Jews, or wayward wives whom it felt to be morally lacking. In September, 1921, The New York World ran a series exposing the KKK. It pointed out that, among other things, the KKK was violating the Bill of Rights wholesale. This included the Fourth amendment against "unreasonable searches and seizures," the Fifth and the Sixth amendments, guaranteeing that no one may be held without a grand jury indictment or punished without a fair trial. And these rights today are similarly trampled by the CIA against American citizens, not just foreigners. Apparently, only foreign courts care to rein in the CIA. The 23 CIA agents that it took to render one "suspect" in Italy are wanted there by the magistrates. (The spooks, by the way, ran up some fabulous bills in luxury hotels on taxpayers' dollars in that escapade.) Former President Jimmy Carter wrote in his book "Our Endangered Values"(Simon & Schuster), the CIA transferred some of those it kidnapped to countries that included Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Morocco, Jordan, and Uzbekistan where "the techniques of torture are almost indescribably terrible, including, as a U.S. ambassador to one of the recipient countries reported, 'partial boiling of a hand or an arm,' with at least two prisoners boiled to death." The KKK's methods of punishment were often as ugly: the brutal flogging of blacks in front of vicious crowds, followed by castration and burning their victims alive, and then lynching of the corpses. As for the CIA, "Why?" asks investigative reporter William Blum, "are these men rendered in the first place if not to be tortured? Does the United States not have any speakers in foreign languages to conduct interrogations?" That the CIA is a terrorist organization was upheld in the famous "CIA On Trial" case in Northampton, Mass., in 1987, when a jury acquitted 14 protestors who tried to stop CIA recruitment on campus, according to Francis Boyle, the University of Illinois international law authority who defended the group. The defense charged the CIA was "an organized criminal conspiracy like the SS and the Gestapo." Boyle said, "You would not let the SS or the Gestapo recruit on campus at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, so you would not permit the CIA to recruit on campus either." Another shared characteristic of the KKK and CIA is greed, the desire to loot the hard-earned wealth of others. Often, Klansmen terrorized African-Americans who had amassed property to frighten them off their land. Law-abiding black citizens who had pulled themselves up by the proverbial bootstraps were cheated out of their homes and acreage by the night riders. Similarly, the CIA across Latin America has aligned itself with the well-to-do ruling class at every opportunity. It has cooperated with the elite to punish and murder labor leaders and clergy who espoused economic opportunity for the poor. The notion that allowing the poor to enrich themselves fairly will also create more wealth for an entire society generally, including the rich, has not permeated CIA thinking. I emphasize what historian Toynbee noted: "America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defence of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for."(Italics added.) In sum, by adopting the terrorist philosophy of the KKK and elevating it to the operations of government at the highest level, the imperial Obama administration, like its predecessors, is showing the world the worst possible face of America. Foreigners do not see the goodness inherent in the American people---most of whom only want a good day's pay for a good day's work and to educate their children and live at peace with the world. Every adult American has a solemn obligation to demand that its government live up to international law, punish the CIA criminals in its midst, and become a respected citizen of the world. This will not come to pass until Congress abolishes the CIA, putting an end to its KKK-style terrorism which threatens Americans as well as humankind everywhere.. # (Sherwood Ross is an American who has worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News, a columnist for wire services and as the News Director of a national civil rights organization. He currently operates the Anti-War News Service from Miami, Florida. To contribute to his work or reach him, email sherwoodross10 at gmail.com) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 6:30 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: CIA expands its Signature School program to University of Illinois Chicago : CIA OFF CAMPUS! http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/04/ciuc-m04.html We have to get organized immediately to prevent this from happening on our Campus and in Our Good Community. I have personally dealt with these CIA/Spook Professors on this Campus, including the Political Science Department itself, which was on the CIA Payroll. These CIA/Spook Profs are rotten, corrupt, despicable, ruthless, and completely unprincipled and antithetical to Academic Integrity and Academic Freedom and Academic Independence. The CIA will pervert the very essence of what the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is supposed to be about. The one thing we learned from the Campus Struggle of the 1980s against the CIA is that the CIA on Campus and the CIA/Spook Profs despise Sunlight. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for these Academic Snakes in the Grass. CIA OFF CAMPUS! Fab. From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 4 12:37:09 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 12:37:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] CIA expands its Signature School program to University of Illinois Chicago : CIA OFF CAMPUS! Message-ID: And speaking of Academic Snakes in the Grass is Mikey Moore, the Consort for our Fired, Disgraced and ABA Sanctioned and Fined Law Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd, who publicly bragged about the fact that he works for both the CIA and the Mossad. Both of them have been stinking up this law school and this campus and our Good Community by publicly advocating TORTURE on behalf of the CIA/MOSSAD. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for both of them. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 7:10 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: CIA expands its Signature School program to University of Illinois Chicago : CIA OFF CAMPUS! That the CIA is a terrorist organization was upheld in the famous "CIA On Trial" case in Northampton, Mass., in 1987, when a jury acquitted 14 protestors who tried to stop CIA recruitment on campus, according to Francis Boyle, the University of Illinois international law authority who defended the group. The defense charged the CIA was "an organized criminal conspiracy like the SS and the Gestapo." Boyle said, "You would not let the SS or the Gestapo recruit on campus at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, so you would not permit the CIA to recruit on campus either." -------------------------------------------------------- Plus ca change at the CIA. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: sherwoodross10 at gmail.com [mailto:sherwoodross10 at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:45 PM To: Boyle, Francis Subject: The CIA, KKK, and USA THE CIA, KKK, & USA By Sherwood Ross By assigning covert action roles to the Central Intelligence Agency(CIA), it is as if the White House and Congress had legitimized the Ku Klux Klan to operate globally. That's because the CIA today resembles nothing so much as the "Invisible Empire" of the KKK that once spread terror across the South and Midwest. Fiery crosses aside, this is what the CIA is doing globally. The CIA today is committing many of the same sort of gruesome crimes against foreigners that the KKK once inflicted on Americans of color. The principal difference is that the KKK consisted of self-appointed vigilantes who regarded themselves as both outside and above the law when they perpetrated their crimes. By contrast, the CIA acts as the agent of the American government, often at the highest levels, and at times at the direction of the White House. Its crimes typically are committed in contravention of the highest established international law such as the Charter of the United Nations as well as the U.S. Constitution. What's more, the "Agency," as it is known, derives its funding largely from an imperialist- minded Congress; additionally, it has no qualms about fattening its budget from drug money and other illegal sources. It is a mirror-image of the lawless entity the U.S. has become since achieving superpower status. And it is incredible that the White House grants license to this violent Agency to commit its crimes with no accountability. The Ku Klux Klan was founded shortly after the end of the U.S. Civil War. Klansman concealed their identities behind flowing white robes and white hoods as they terrorized the newly emancipated blacks to keep them from voting or to drive them from their property. Allowing it to operate in secret literally gives the CIA the mythical Ring of Gyges. In Plato's Republic, the owner of the ring had the power to become invisible at will. As Wikipedia puts it, Plato "discusses whether a typical person would be moral if he did not have to fear the consequences of his actions." The ancient Greeks made the argument, Wikipedia says, that "No man would keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked out of the market, go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, kill or release from prison whom he would, and in all respects be like a god among men." The CIA, like Hitler's Gestapo and Stalin's NKVD before it, has provided modern man the answer to this question. Its actions illuminate why all criminal entities, from rapists and bank robbers, to Ponzi scheme swindlers and murderers, cloak themselves in secrecy. There are innumerable examples of how American presidents have authorized criminal acts without public discussion that the preponderant majority of Americans would find reprehensible. Example: it was President Lyndon Johnson who ordered the CIA to meddle in Chile's election to help Eduardo Frei become president. If they had known, U.S. taxpayers might have objected to such a use of their hard-earned money to influence the outcome of another country's elections. But the public is rarely let in on such illegal foreign policy decisions. Where the KKK after the Civil War terrorized blacks to keep them from voting, the CIA has worked to influence the outcome of elections all over the world through bribery and vote-buying, dirty tricks, and worse. According to investigative reporter William Blum in "Rogue State"(Common Courage Press), the CIA has perverted elections in Italy, Lebanon, Indonesia, The Philippines, Japan, Nepal, Laos, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Portugal, Australia, Jamaica, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, among other countries. If they had known, taxpayers might also object to the CIA's numerous overthrows of foreign governments by force and violence---such as was done in Iran in 1953 by President Eisenhower and Chile in 1973 by President Nixon. Both overthrows precipitated bloodbaths that cost tens of thousands of innocent civilians their lives. Blum also lists the countries the CIA has attempted to overthrow or has actually overthrown. His list includes Greece, The Philippines, East Germany, Iran, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iraq, Viet Nam, Laos, Ecuador, The Congo, France, Cuba, Ghana, Chile, South Africa, Bolivia, Portugal, and Nicaragua, to cite a few. As I write, today, October 11th, 2010, Nobel Peace Prize winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel of Argentina called on President Obama to revise U.S. (imperialist)policies toward Latin America. He questioned why the U.S. continues to plant its military bases across the region. That's an excellent question. If the U.S. is a peace-loving nation, why does it need 800 bases the world over in addition to 1,000 on its own soil? Americans might recoil in disgust if they knew of the CIA's numerous assassinations of the elected officials of other nations. Is it any wonder Americans so often ask the question, "Why do they hate us?" As historian Arnold Toynbee wrote in 1961, "America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defence of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for. Rome consistently supported the rich against the poor in all foreign communities that fell under her sway; and, since the poor, so far, have always and everywhere been more numerous than the rich, Rome's policy made for inequality, for injustice, and for the least happiness of the greatest number." The CIA's protective secrecy resembles nothing so much as the KKK, which proudly proclaimed itself "the Invisible Empire" and whose thugs killed citizens having the courage to identify hooded Klansmen to law enforcement officials. Today, it is our highest public officials that protect this criminal force, said to number about 25,000 employees. It is actually a Federal offense to reveal the identity of a CIA undercover agent---unless, of course, you happen to be I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and are employed by Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame to punish her husband Joseph Wilson for publishing a report that undercut the White House lie that Saddam Hussein had purchased "yellowcake" from Niger to fuel WMD. Today, high public officials direct the CIA's criminal policies and protect its agents' identities the better to enable them to commit their crimes. According to journalist Fred Cook in his book "Ku Klux Klan: America's Recurring Nightmare"(Messner), "The Klan was inherently a vigilante organization. It could commit the most atrocious acts under the guise of high principle and perpetrators of those acts would be hidden behind white masks and protected by Klan secrecy... (The Klan) set itself up as judge, jury and executioner"---a policy adopted by the CIA today. CIA spies have conducted their criminal operations masquerading as officials of U.S. aid programs, business executives, or journalists. Example: The San Diego-based Copley News Service's staff of foreign correspondents allegedly was created to provide cover to CIA spies, compromising legitimate American journalists trying to do their jobs. While the murders committed by the KKK likely ran into the many thousands, the CIA has killed on a far grander scale and managed to keep its role largely secret. As Tim Weiner, who covered the CIA for the New York Times noted in his book "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA" (Anchor): "In Guatemala, 200,000 civilians had died during forty years of struggle following the agency's(CIA) 1954 coup against an elected president." Weiner adds, "the CIA's officers in Guatemala still went to great lengths to conceal the nature of their close relations with the military and to suppress reports that Guatemalan officers on its payroll were murderers, torturers, and thieves." When it comes to murder, the CIA makes the KKK look like Boy Scouts. Like the KKK, CIA terrorists operate above the law. KKK members committed thousands of lynchings yet rarely were its members punished for them. In 2009 at a speech at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, President Obama revealed he was not intent on punishing CIA agents for their crimes but would rather "look forward." This seemingly charitable philosophy may be driven by the fact that Obama worked for Business International Corporation, a CIA front, at least in 1983 and perhaps longer, and allegedly is the son of a mother and father both of whom also worked for the CIA, as did Obama's grandmother! I could find none of this in Obama's biography when he ran for the presidency, when a gullible American public elected a CIA "mole" to the White House. Consider this, too: an agency President Truman feared would become "an American Gestapo" when he signed the enabling legislation into law in 1947 has become just that, and it casts a lengthy shadow over the White House. Ominously, it has in Barack Obama one of its own former employees sitting in the Oval Office---a man who, according to news reports, has vastly expanded the frequency of the CIA's assassinations by drone aircraft in Pakistan and who illegally claims the "right" to assassinate any American citizen abroad as well. What's more, from 1989 to 1993 George Bush Sr., the CIA's own former Director, sat in the White House. Additionally, from 2001 to 2009, the CIA had that Director's son, George W. Bush, in the Oval Office giving the CIA a blank check after the 9/11 massacre. Bush Jr., according to The New York Times, in the summer of 1974 worked for Alaska International Industries, which did contract work for the CIA. The Times noted that this job did not appear in his biography when he ran for the White House in 2000, terming it "The Missing Chapter in the Bush Bio." Thus, two presidential candidates with CIA ties--- Bush Jr. and Obama---both neglected to mention them. And in Bill Clinton, who presided from 1993 to 2001, the CIA had a go-along president who satisfied the Agency's blood-lust when he authorized the first illegal "rendition," a euphemism for what KKK thugs once knew as kidnapping and torture. Is there any question that the Agency has not played an influential, behind-the-scenes or even a direct role in the operations of the U.S. government at its highest level? It may indeed be a stretch to argue that the CIA is running the country but it is no stretch to say that year after year our presidents reflect the criminal philosophy of the Agency. Other parallels with the KKK are striking. As Richmond Flowers, the Attorney General of Alabama stated in 1966, "I've found the Klan more than just another secret society... It resembles a shadow government, making its own laws, manipulating local politics, burrowing into some of our local law-enforcement agencies...When a pitiable misfit puts on his $15 sheet, society can no longer ignore him." Yet the descendants of those misfits have moved up today where they feel comfortable as operatives in the shadow government run by the White House. One of the CIA's illicit duties has been to serve as a conduit for funneling U.S. taxpayer dollars to corrupt dictators and strongmen bent on suppressing the popular will of their citizenry. As Noam Chomsky wrote in "Failed States"(Metropolitan/Owl), in Honduras, "military officers in charge of the battalion (3-16) were on the CIA payroll." This elite unit, he says, "organized and trained by the United States and Argentine neo-Nazis," was "the most barbaric of the Latin American killers that Washington had been supporting." Like the KKK, the CIA kidnaps many of its victims with no thought ever of legal procedure. It exhibits utter disdain for the rights of those individuals, the sovereignty of foreign nations, or respect for international law. At least hundreds of foreigners, mostly from the Middle East, have been the victims of "renditions" just as the KKK kidnapped and flogged and lynched blacks, labor leaders, Catholics, Jews, or wayward wives whom it felt to be morally lacking. In September, 1921, The New York World ran a series exposing the KKK. It pointed out that, among other things, the KKK was violating the Bill of Rights wholesale. This included the Fourth amendment against "unreasonable searches and seizures," the Fifth and the Sixth amendments, guaranteeing that no one may be held without a grand jury indictment or punished without a fair trial. And these rights today are similarly trampled by the CIA against American citizens, not just foreigners. Apparently, only foreign courts care to rein in the CIA. The 23 CIA agents that it took to render one "suspect" in Italy are wanted there by the magistrates. (The spooks, by the way, ran up some fabulous bills in luxury hotels on taxpayers' dollars in that escapade.) Former President Jimmy Carter wrote in his book "Our Endangered Values"(Simon & Schuster), the CIA transferred some of those it kidnapped to countries that included Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Morocco, Jordan, and Uzbekistan where "the techniques of torture are almost indescribably terrible, including, as a U.S. ambassador to one of the recipient countries reported, 'partial boiling of a hand or an arm,' with at least two prisoners boiled to death." The KKK's methods of punishment were often as ugly: the brutal flogging of blacks in front of vicious crowds, followed by castration and burning their victims alive, and then lynching of the corpses. As for the CIA, "Why?" asks investigative reporter William Blum, "are these men rendered in the first place if not to be tortured? Does the United States not have any speakers in foreign languages to conduct interrogations?" That the CIA is a terrorist organization was upheld in the famous "CIA On Trial" case in Northampton, Mass., in 1987, when a jury acquitted 14 protestors who tried to stop CIA recruitment on campus, according to Francis Boyle, the University of Illinois international law authority who defended the group. The defense charged the CIA was "an organized criminal conspiracy like the SS and the Gestapo." Boyle said, "You would not let the SS or the Gestapo recruit on campus at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, so you would not permit the CIA to recruit on campus either." Another shared characteristic of the KKK and CIA is greed, the desire to loot the hard-earned wealth of others. Often, Klansmen terrorized African-Americans who had amassed property to frighten them off their land. Law-abiding black citizens who had pulled themselves up by the proverbial bootstraps were cheated out of their homes and acreage by the night riders. Similarly, the CIA across Latin America has aligned itself with the well-to-do ruling class at every opportunity. It has cooperated with the elite to punish and murder labor leaders and clergy who espoused economic opportunity for the poor. The notion that allowing the poor to enrich themselves fairly will also create more wealth for an entire society generally, including the rich, has not permeated CIA thinking. I emphasize what historian Toynbee noted: "America is today the leader of a world-wide anti-revolutionary movement in the defence of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for."(Italics added.) In sum, by adopting the terrorist philosophy of the KKK and elevating it to the operations of government at the highest level, the imperial Obama administration, like its predecessors, is showing the world the worst possible face of America. Foreigners do not see the goodness inherent in the American people---most of whom only want a good day's pay for a good day's work and to educate their children and live at peace with the world. Every adult American has a solemn obligation to demand that its government live up to international law, punish the CIA criminals in its midst, and become a respected citizen of the world. This will not come to pass until Congress abolishes the CIA, putting an end to its KKK-style terrorism which threatens Americans as well as humankind everywhere.. # (Sherwood Ross is an American who has worked as a reporter for the Chicago Daily News, a columnist for wire services and as the News Director of a national civil rights organization. He currently operates the Anti-War News Service from Miami, Florida. To contribute to his work or reach him, email sherwoodross10 at gmail.com) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 6:30 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: CIA expands its Signature School program to University of Illinois Chicago : CIA OFF CAMPUS! http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/04/ciuc-m04.html We have to get organized immediately to prevent this from happening on our Campus and in Our Good Community. I have personally dealt with these CIA/Spook Professors on this Campus, including the Political Science Department itself, which was on the CIA Payroll. These CIA/Spook Profs are rotten, corrupt, despicable, ruthless, and completely unprincipled and antithetical to Academic Integrity and Academic Freedom and Academic Independence. The CIA will pervert the very essence of what the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is supposed to be about. The one thing we learned from the Campus Struggle of the 1980s against the CIA is that the CIA on Campus and the CIA/Spook Profs despise Sunlight. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for these Academic Snakes in the Grass. CIA OFF CAMPUS! Fab. From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri May 4 12:49:42 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 07:49:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE demo, Saturday 2-4pm, downtown Champaign Message-ID: <8116E7CB-6E5F-41FA-8BCF-5E5C1F5F13B0@gmail.com> Flyer for the regular AWARE anti-war demonstration, Saturday 5 May, 2-4pm, at the corner of Main and Neil streets in downtown Champaign =============================================================================== ISRAEL IS PUSHING THE U.S. TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN ~ WE SHOULDN’T LET IT HAPPEN Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump threatens to withdraw from the deal on May 12. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria -- last week with a bombing that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war by Israel. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a larger - even nuclear - war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred before the US attacked Iraq. We must do more to save the honor of the United States and prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives: President Donald Trump: Representative Rodney Davis: Senator Tammy Duckworth: Senator Dick Durbin: ~ The ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT of Champaign-Urbana on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri May 4 12:52:58 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 12:52:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE demo, Saturday 2-4pm, downtown Champaign In-Reply-To: <8116E7CB-6E5F-41FA-8BCF-5E5C1F5F13B0@gmail.com> References: <8116E7CB-6E5F-41FA-8BCF-5E5C1F5F13B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: I have a problem with one sentence: “We must do more to save the honor of the United States and prevent this new criminal war.” Save lives yes, but “honor” in respect to the US? Thats long gone, if ever. On May 4, 2018, at 05:49, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Flyer for the regular AWARE anti-war demonstration, Saturday 5 May, 2-4pm, at the corner of Main and Neil streets in downtown Champaign =============================================================================== ISRAEL IS PUSHING THE U.S. TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN ~ WE SHOULDN’T LET IT HAPPEN Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump threatens to withdraw from the deal on May 12. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria -- last week with a bombing that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war by Israel. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a larger - even nuclear - war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred before the US attacked Iraq. We must do more to save the honor of the United States and prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives: President Donald Trump: Representative Rodney Davis: Senator Tammy Duckworth: Senator Dick Durbin: ~ The ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT of Champaign-Urbana on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ ### _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri May 4 13:10:31 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 08:10:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE demo, Saturday 2-4pm, downtown Champaign In-Reply-To: References: <8116E7CB-6E5F-41FA-8BCF-5E5C1F5F13B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <41FE1F65-4F98-4BD0-9123-7004E4349401@gmail.com> I thought you were particularly concerned with addressing people 'where they are.’ Americans generally oppose war-making, except in a good cause. We should make it clear that this isn’t. —CGE > On May 4, 2018, at 7:52 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > I have a problem with one sentence: “We must do more to save the honor of the United States and prevent this new criminal war.” > > Save lives yes, but “honor” in respect to the US? Thats long gone, if ever. > > > > On May 4, 2018, at 05:49, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Flyer for the regular AWARE anti-war demonstration, Saturday 5 May, 2-4pm, at the corner of Main and Neil streets in downtown Champaign >> >> =============================================================================== >> ISRAEL IS PUSHING THE U.S. TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN ~ WE SHOULDN’T LET IT HAPPEN >> >> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” >> >> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: >> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >> >> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. >> >> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. >> >> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) >> >> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) plus Germany and the European Union. >> >> President Trump threatens to withdraw from the deal on May 12. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >> >> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria -- last week with a bombing that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >> >> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war by Israel. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a larger - even nuclear - war. >> >> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred before the US attacked Iraq. We must do more to save the honor of the United States and prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >> >> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives: >> >> President Donald Trump: >> > >> Representative Rodney Davis: > >> Senator Tammy Duckworth: > >> Senator Dick Durbin: >> > >> >> ~ >> >> The ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT of Champaign-Urbana >> on Facebook at >> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast >> ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >> >> ### >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Fri May 4 13:33:59 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 13:33:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE demo, Saturday 2-4pm, downtown Champaign In-Reply-To: <41FE1F65-4F98-4BD0-9123-7004E4349401@gmail.com> References: <8116E7CB-6E5F-41FA-8BCF-5E5C1F5F13B0@gmail.com> <41FE1F65-4F98-4BD0-9123-7004E4349401@gmail.com> Message-ID: No, I never suggested that. Vilifying representatives by making it personal, is a losing proposition, acting as an apologist for representatives is a losing proposition as well. “Truth" without making it “personal” one way or the other is the best means. This is not truth given there is nothing “honorable” about war, killing, destroying, occupying, etc. and is what the US is known for doing. All the rest is fine. On May 4, 2018, at 06:10, C G Estabrook > wrote: I thought you were particularly concerned with addressing people 'where they are.’ Americans generally oppose war-making, except in a good cause. We should make it clear that this isn’t. —CGE On May 4, 2018, at 7:52 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: I have a problem with one sentence: “We must do more to save the honor of the United States and prevent this new criminal war.” Save lives yes, but “honor” in respect to the US? Thats long gone, if ever. On May 4, 2018, at 05:49, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Flyer for the regular AWARE anti-war demonstration, Saturday 5 May, 2-4pm, at the corner of Main and Neil streets in downtown Champaign =============================================================================== ISRAEL IS PUSHING THE U.S. TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN ~ WE SHOULDN’T LET IT HAPPEN Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump threatens to withdraw from the deal on May 12. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria -- last week with a bombing that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war by Israel. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a larger - even nuclear - war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred before the US attacked Iraq. We must do more to save the honor of the United States and prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives: President Donald Trump: Representative Rodney Davis: Senator Tammy Duckworth: Senator Dick Durbin: ~ The ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT of Champaign-Urbana on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ ### _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Fri May 4 13:46:29 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 13:46:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: video link of rally at the U of I opposing Alan Dershowitz last week References: Message-ID: > > https://youtu.be/GUFVWVB8L_o > > > > From brussel at illinois.edu Fri May 4 14:07:06 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 14:07:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE demo, Saturday 2-4pm, downtown Champaign In-Reply-To: <8116E7CB-6E5F-41FA-8BCF-5E5C1F5F13B0@gmail.com> References: <8116E7CB-6E5F-41FA-8BCF-5E5C1F5F13B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <74EBA154-3EF8-456F-B9B6-9C8143D2CD87@illinois.edu> Very good piece! But the “honor" thing also makes me shake my head. On May 4, 2018, at 7:49 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Flyer for the regular AWARE anti-war demonstration, Saturday 5 May, 2-4pm, at the corner of Main and Neil streets in downtown Champaign =============================================================================== ISRAEL IS PUSHING THE U.S. TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN ~ WE SHOULDN’T LET IT HAPPEN Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump threatens to withdraw from the deal on May 12. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria -- last week with a bombing that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war by Israel. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a larger - even nuclear - war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred before the US attacked Iraq. We must do more to save the honor of the United States and prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives: President Donald Trump: Representative Rodney Davis: Senator Tammy Duckworth: Senator Dick Durbin: ~ The ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT of Champaign-Urbana on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ ### _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri May 4 15:29:26 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 10:29:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for the regular AWARE anti-war demonstration [revised] Message-ID: =============================================================================== ISRAEL IS PUSHING THE U.S. TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN ~ WE SHOULDN’T LET IT HAPPEN Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump threatens to withdraw from the deal on May 12. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria -- last week with a bombing that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war by Israel. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a larger - even nuclear - war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives: President Donald Trump: Representative Rodney Davis: Senator Tammy Duckworth: Senator Dick Durbin: ~ The ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT of Champaign-Urbana on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri May 4 22:57:10 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 22:57:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Flyer for the regular AWARE anti-war demonstration [revised] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I like this one much better, especially the second to last sentence. I’m not sure the statement “We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war by Israel.” is a good idea, given so many people think Israel manipulates the US into doing “their” bidding. And, we are too weak to resist, as well as bought off. Even though Israel wants the US to attack Iran for its sake, the US has had Iran in our crosshairs for sometime now, its not just due to Israel’s influence. On May 4, 2018, at 08:29, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: =============================================================================== ISRAEL IS PUSHING THE U.S. TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN ~ WE SHOULDN’T LET IT HAPPEN Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump threatens to withdraw from the deal on May 12. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria -- last week with a bombing that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war by Israel. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a larger - even nuclear - war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives: President Donald Trump: Representative Rodney Davis: Senator Tammy Duckworth: Senator Dick Durbin: ~ The ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT of Champaign-Urbana on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ ### _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri May 4 23:08:57 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 18:08:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for the regular AWARE anti-war demonstration [revised] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That’s true. David made the same point on the air today. Did you see Netanyahu’s dog & pony show? And Israel’s bombing (of Iranians) in Syria is meant to draw the US (further) in. I wanted also to mention Israel's killings in Gaza. And make it clear that war with Iran is an institutional decision, in which popular opinion counts. On Kent State day (May 4, 1970). > On May 4, 2018, at 5:57 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > I like this one much better, especially the second to last sentence. > > I’m not sure the statement “We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war by Israel.” is a good idea, given so many people think Israel manipulates the US into doing “their” bidding. And, we are too weak to resist, as well as bought off. > > Even though Israel wants the US to attack Iran for its sake, the US has had Iran in our crosshairs for sometime now, its not just due to Israel’s influence. > > > > On May 4, 2018, at 08:29, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> >> =============================================================================== >> ISRAEL IS PUSHING THE U.S. TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN ~ WE SHOULDN’T LET IT HAPPEN >> >> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” >> >> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: >> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >> >> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. >> >> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. >> >> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) >> >> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) plus Germany and the European Union. >> >> President Trump threatens to withdraw from the deal on May 12. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >> >> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria -- last week with a bombing that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >> >> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war by Israel. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a larger - even nuclear - war. >> >> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >> >> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives: >> >> President Donald Trump: > >> Representative Rodney Davis: > >> Senator Tammy Duckworth: > >> Senator Dick Durbin: > >> >> ~ >> >> The ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT of Champaign-Urbana >> on Facebook at >> ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast >> ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ >> >> ### >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri May 4 23:18:24 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 23:18:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Flyer for the regular AWARE anti-war demonstration [revised] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I will watch NFN when uploaded on to UTube. I did see Netanyahu’s dog and pony show, when first shown. I then suggested to ANSWER at their meeting, they might add Iran to their war concerns, for their anti-war march on Sunday, I’m pleased they did. Syria, or Iran, we are closer to disaster than ever. On May 4, 2018, at 16:08, C G Estabrook > wrote: That’s true. David made the same point on the air today. Did you see Netanyahu’s dog & pony show? And Israel’s bombing (of Iranians) in Syria is meant to draw the US (further) in. I wanted also to mention Israel's killings in Gaza. And make it clear that war with Iran is an institutional decision, in which popular opinion counts. On Kent State day (May 4, 1970). On May 4, 2018, at 5:57 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: I like this one much better, especially the second to last sentence. I’m not sure the statement “We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war by Israel.” is a good idea, given so many people think Israel manipulates the US into doing “their” bidding. And, we are too weak to resist, as well as bought off. Even though Israel wants the US to attack Iran for its sake, the US has had Iran in our crosshairs for sometime now, its not just due to Israel’s influence. On May 4, 2018, at 08:29, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: =============================================================================== ISRAEL IS PUSHING THE U.S. TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN ~ WE SHOULDN’T LET IT HAPPEN Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump threatens to withdraw from the deal on May 12. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria -- last week with a bombing that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war by Israel. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a larger - even nuclear - war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives: President Donald Trump: Representative Rodney Davis: Senator Tammy Duckworth: Senator Dick Durbin: ~ The ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT of Champaign-Urbana on Facebook at ~ U.S. troops & weapons out of the Mideast ~ Medicare for all ~ Universal basic income ~ ### _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephenf1113 at yahoo.com Sat May 5 10:51:28 2018 From: stephenf1113 at yahoo.com (Stephen Francis) Date: Sat, 5 May 2018 10:51:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] May 15 climax of Palestinian #GreatMarchofReturn References: <1862427693.126649.1525517488652.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1862427693.126649.1525517488652@mail.yahoo.com> Live fire by IDF is to be aimed at the legs of protesters...5500 injured, 45 deathsTensions flare at Israel-Gaza border | | | | | | | | | | | Tensions flare at Israel-Gaza border Hundreds of Palestinian protesters have gathered next to the fence along the Israeli border east of Gaza City. H... | | | 40 hurt as Israel warns against burning kites at Palestinian demonstration in Gaza | | | | | | | | | | | 40 hurt as Israel warns against burning kites at Palestinian demonstrati... Forty Palestinians, including three journalists, were injured in protests near Israel’s barrier with the Gaza St... | | | Hundreds of Palestinian protesters have gathered next to the fence along the Israeli border east of Gaza City. Heavy Israeli gunfire was heard Friday afternoon as the crowd broke away from a larger protest and moved toward the fence. (April 27) AP (Photo: Mohammed Abed, AFP/Getty Images) CONNECTTWEETLINKEDIN 24COMMENTEMAILMORE Forty Palestinians, including three journalists, were injured in protests near Israel’s barrier with the Gaza Strip on the sixth Friday of demonstrations there. Israel’s military warned against flying kites after wildfires were set Thursday by burning kites flown from Gaza into Israeli territory. "Rioters are flying kites with burning items, intending to ignite fires in Israel," the Israel Defense Forces announced on Twitter. "Also, rioters hurled an explosive device at IDF troops who are responding with riot dispersal means & fire in accordance with the rules of engagement." Ten firefighting teams spent hours Thursday putting out a forest fire set by a burning kite, and a wheat field was burned earlier in the week, according to Israeli TV station Arutz Sheva. Palestinians each Friday for the past month and a half have threatened to rush the border fence between Gaza and Israel in protest. In response, the Israeli military has ordered soldiers to fire at people's legs if they pose a threat.  So far, at least 45 people have been killed, including four children and two journalists. The number of wounded has reached 5,500, according to the United Nations. The demonstrations, which began March 30, reflect a long-simmering demand by Palestinians for the right of return to Israel while Israel says Palestinians should settle in a future Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. The deadly confrontations, known as the Great March of Return, are set to reach a climax on May 15. Organizers and leaders from the terrorist group Hamas, which controls Gaza, will urge masses of Palestinians to walk through the fence into Israel to reclaim homes left by their parents and grandparents in 1948 — the year Israel was formed.  A Palestinian carries a kite before flying it over the border fence with Israel during clashes on the eastern outskirts of Jabalia in the northern Gaza strip on May 4, 2018. (Photo: Mohammed Abed, AFP/Getty Images) The demonstrations have attracted as many as 30,000 participants, according to media reports. Danny Yatom, who led Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency from 1996 to 1998, worries that Hamas will mobilize three times that many people by mid-May. “If they bring a hundred thousand demonstrators there will be a lot casualties,” Yatom said during a visit to Washington this week for the Israel Policy Forum, which supports a two-state peace between Israel and Palestinians. “Their aim is to continue and march to one of our villages, hundreds of meters from the border,” he said.  What do the demonstrators want?  The march was sparked by a Facebook post months ago by Gazan political activist Ahmed Abu Artima, who suggested thousands of unarmed Palestinians walk toward the border fence. Artima rejects Hamas’ notion of defeating Israel, but wants to end the separation between Palestinians and Israelis. “I don't believe in liberation," Artima told Israel’s Ynet News, an online newspaper. "I want to live alongside Israelis." Palestinians protesters pull a barbed wire fence, installed by Israeli army along the border, during clashes with Israeli troops near the border with Israel in the east of Gaza City on April 13, 2018. According to local sources, more than 700 Palestinians were injured during fresh clashes in the east Gaza Strip near the border with Israel. Thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza strip protested on April 13 as part of the so-called Great March of Return demonstration for the third consecutive week along Gaza's border with Israel, calling for the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to their homelands. (Photo: MOHAMMED SABER, EPA-EFE) Palestinian leaders also demand the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees who fled or were driven from their homes in what is now Israel. Some 750,000 Palestinians were displaced in 1948. "If Palestinian refugees decide one day to break through the fence and enter Israel en-masse, that is their legal and principled right, but we have no intention of doing that in the campaign's first phase," Artima told Ynet in the beginning of April Around 70% of Gaza's 2 million population are descendants of those refugees, and now live in an area about the size of Philadelphia, according to the International Committee for Breaking the Siege of Gaza (ICBSG), an association of groups that oppose the control of goods entering Gaza by Israel, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority. For Israel, the influx of even a portion of the 3.5 million Palestinian refugees around the world would overwhelm the majority Jewish democracy of 8.5 million people, of whom 25% are not Jewish. Palestinians protesters make traditional coffee as they hold a demonstration commemorating Land Day, near the border with Israel, east of Khan Yunis, in the southern Gaza Strip on March 30, 2018. Clashes erupted as thousands of Gazans marched near the Israeli border in a major protest dubbed "The Great March of Return." (Photo: SAID KHATIB, AFP/Getty Images) Are the protests non-violent? The protests were conceived as non-violent civil disobedience. Organizers have quoted peaceful protest icons such as Mahatma Gandi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., according to ICBSG. Thousands of men, women and children have gathered in tent encampments at a safe distance from the border fence. But militants have joined the protest movement and urged other participants to burn tires close to the fence, and to hurl stones and gasoline bombs toward Israeli soldiers on the other side. According to Israeli authorities, Hamas also detonated two bombs near a border patrol passing along the fence, while others were shot trying to cut the fence and enter Israel. There have been no Israeli injuries associated with the protests. Palestinians protesters throw stones during clashes after Friday protests near the border with Israel, in eastern Gaza City, 27 April 2018. At least three demonstrators died and over 950 were injured, according to reports quoting Palestinian authorities, during the protests that were held for the fifth Friday in a row. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein condemned Israel's use of 'excessive force' against Palestinian protesters. The protests are held as part of the Great March of Return movement since March 30 to call for the right of Palestinians across the Middle East to return to homes they fled in the war surrounding the 1948 creation of Israel, also called 'Nakba.' (Photo: MOHAMMED SABER, EPA-EFE) While rock throwers and burning tires marked the front edge of the demonstration, the majority of participants have engaged in non-violent activities, the result of an important lesson learned by Palestinians, says Yousef Munayyer, executive director of the Washington-based U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights. Non-violent protest "reveals a very significant weakness for the Israelis because they don’t know how to handle it," Munayyer said. "These people are not coming at them with weapons, machine guns or rockets or anything like that. The only way (the Israelis) know how to deal with it is how they deal with everything they view as a threat, which is to use force."   What do human rights groups say? Human rights groups have condemned Israel for disproportionate use of deadly force.  “The Israeli government presented no evidence that rock-throwing and other violence by some demonstrators seriously threatened Israeli soldiers across the border fence,” Human Rights Watch said after the first protests of March 30 resulted in 14 Palestinian deaths and hundreds of injuries. “Footage of demonstrators provided by the army includes no evidence of firearms.” Eric Goldstein, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, said Israel’s military should be investigated by the International Criminal Court. Israeli soldiers "were apparently acting on orders that all but ensured a bloody military response to the Palestinian demonstrations,” Goldstein said. “The result was foreseeable deaths and injuries of demonstrators.” Amnesty International called on Israel to respect the rights of Palestinians to peacefully protest and to use lethal force only “when unavoidable.” What does Israel say? Israel says it has the right to defend its borders, protect its citizens and prevent illegal infiltration. “Responsibility for any clashes that may arise will thus lie solely with Hamas and the other Palestinian organizations who have manufactured this entire campaign,” according to a statement by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Yatom, a retired major general in the Israel Defense Forces, called the protests a smoke screen for launching attacks at Israel. For Hamas, the demonstrations show the Palestinian Authority, Israel and the world, that Hamas remains a force to be reckoned with, he said. The group has failed to effectively govern the Gaza Strip, which it violently took over from the Palestinian Authority in June 2007. In recent negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas refused to transfer command of its military wing to the Palestinian Authority. “To the rest of the world, (it shows) that Israel kills innocent people,” he said. “For them, as many casualties as possible is good.” How does Israel explain its use of force? Yatom, who commanded Israeli military’s central command from 1991 to 1993 during the first Palestinian uprising, said Israeli soldiers are following a use of force policy developed over the years. “We do not open fire immediately or automatically,” he said. Soldiers are supposed to seek authorization from top commanders. They’re required to shout “stop or you will be shot” before firing, “and then to aim at the legs,” he said. “Unfortunately, sometimes soldiers miss.” Palestinian cyclist Alaa Al-Dally, who lost his leg after a Gaza border protest, rests at family house in Rafah refugee camp, in the southern Gaza Strip, April 19, 2018. Al-Dally, 20, was injured in his leg by Israeli gunfire during protests near the Gaza border with Israel on March 30, 2018. He was not allowed to leave Gaza for treatment and had his right leg amputated. Alaa was practicing to participate in the upcoming Asian Game with Palestinian athletes. According to Gaza health ministry, 17 Palestinians had limbs amputated after they failed to have access to sufficient medical care outside Gaza Strip. (Photo: MOHAMMED SABER, EPA-EFE)   Deadly force is only supposed to be used when a soldier or comrade's life is at risk, Yatom said. Palestinian photojournalist Yaser Murtaja died April 7. He was shot in the abdomen while covering protests in Khan Younis, in the southern Gaza Strip. He was wearing a vest marked “PRESS,” according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. Israel’s Defense Forces said it is investigating Murtaja’s death. What do world leaders say? Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, President Trump’s new top diplomat, this week supported Israel’s handling of the protests. “We do believe that Israelis have the right to defend themselves, and we’re fully supportive of that,” Pompeo said Monday in Jordan. The European Parliament condemned Hamas “for instigating violence and for its terrorist activities on the Israel-Gaza border.” Parliament members also urged Israel and Palestinians “to use non-violent means and respect human rights.” Arab leaders reacted in a more muted fashion. The Arab League, representing all the Arab nations, issued a statement holding Israel responsible for any deaths. Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was quoted in early April saying Jews have a right to a homeland. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sat May 5 19:31:03 2018 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 5 May 2018 14:31:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune #379 is available Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJnUthrGBm8 -J From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat May 5 22:56:33 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 5 May 2018 22:56:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Peace] March to Protest More War in the Middle East on Sunday References: Message-ID: MAY6 Going March to Protest More War in the Middle East Sun 5 PM CDT · Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center · Urbana, IL Answer Coalition Champaign-Urbana added an event. Just a few weeks ago on April 13th the US led the UK, France, and other western NATO powers in the airstrikes bombing Syria's capital of Damascus. This followed unsubstantiated claims from the US of a chemical attack by the Syrian government on Syrian citizens. Despite a continued lack of evidence, the warmongering around Syria persists. This week in Israel, the US's primary ally in the Middle East, president Benjamin Netanyahu gave an alarmist presentation about Iran's capability to produce nuclear weapons. It featured 10+ year-old news about Iran's ability to redirect their nuclear energy program to a nuclear weapons program. This was an attempt to stir outrage against the Iranian government and to set the stage for US intervention. There is no evidence that the Iranian government is pursuing a nuclear weapons program or has any desire to do so. It's more than a little ironic that the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons presumes to dictate to any other country how they should handle their nuclear programs. The false claims of "weapons of mass destruction" preceding the US's invasion of Iraq in 2003 stand out as preposterous accusations to create a pretext for war. The ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition here in Champaign-Urbana understands the similarity between chemical attack claims in Syria and nuclear programs in Iran to be as ridiculous as the "weapons of mass destruction" claims about Iraq in 2003. Therefore we are staging a march to protest further war and warmongering against all countries in the Middle East, which the United States has no business interfering in. Join us at 5pm on Sunday at the IMC in Urbana for a march through downtown Urbana to oppose war. You can find us near the circle drive on the west side of the IMC building off of Elm street. Co-sponsored by the Young Democratic Socialists of America and Party for Socialism and Liberation _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun May 6 18:19:22 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 18:19:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Workingmen of all Countries, Untie! Message-ID: <8EFF9FE9-CCBA-4D94-92BE-DF3AEC0EDD8F@illinois.edu> >From The New York Times: On This Chinese TV Show, Participants Have Nothing to Lose but Their Chains A new program, part talk show, part indoctrination session, tries to coax millennials to put down their phones and pick up the works of Karl Marx. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/world/asia/china-karl-marx-xi-jinping.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun May 6 18:28:15 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 18:28:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Workingmen of all Countries, Untie! In-Reply-To: <8EFF9FE9-CCBA-4D94-92BE-DF3AEC0EDD8F@illinois.edu> References: <8EFF9FE9-CCBA-4D94-92BE-DF3AEC0EDD8F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Sounds good to me. On May 6, 2018, at 11:19, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: >From The New York Times: On This Chinese TV Show, Participants Have Nothing to Lose but Their Chains A new program, part talk show, part indoctrination session, tries to coax millennials to put down their phones and pick up the works of Karl Marx. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/world/asia/china-karl-marx-xi-jinping.html _______________________________________________ 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 galliher at illinois.edu Sun May 6 19:32:40 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 14:32:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Workingmen of all Countries, Untie! In-Reply-To: <8EFF9FE9-CCBA-4D94-92BE-DF3AEC0EDD8F@illinois.edu> References: <8EFF9FE9-CCBA-4D94-92BE-DF3AEC0EDD8F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <1459DED3-42C8-4EEB-B36D-D804FAD2BD38@illinois.edu> Isn’t that what we were doing on ‘AWARE on the Air’? > On May 6, 2018, at 1:19 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From The New York Times: > > On This Chinese TV Show, Participants Have Nothing to Lose but Their Chains > > A new program, part talk show, part indoctrination session, tries to coax millennials to put down their phones and pick up the works of Karl Marx. > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/world/asia/china-karl-marx-xi-jinping.html > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 r-szoke at illinois.edu Sun May 6 20:11:31 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 20:11:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Party animal? Message-ID: I’m puzzled : Frequent references on this site to the evildoing of the “War Party” prompt me to ask: Is Sen. John McCain a member of the “War Party”? How can you tell? Am I? Are you? > From The New York Times, 5/5/18: John McCain Battles Donald Trump With His Dying Breaths Imperfectly but steadily, the senator has pushed back at what the president personifies. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/opinion/sunday/john-mccain-trump.html — Wondering --- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun May 6 20:22:28 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 15:22:28 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Party animal? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <69EFB979-25EB-4C92-9465-04523D44AB5D@gmail.com> Yes. He promotes murder and threats by the American military to enhance elite profits. Yes, if you promote murder by the American military to enhance elite profits (as the Obama-Clinton administration did). No, I try to avoid promoting murder by the American military to enhance elite profits. —CGE > On May 6, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I’m puzzled : > Frequent references on this site to the evildoing of the “War Party” prompt me to ask: > Is Sen. John McCain a member of the “War Party”? > > How can you tell? > > Am I? Are you? > > > From The New York Times, 5/5/18: > John McCain Battles Donald Trump With His Dying Breaths > Imperfectly but steadily, the senator has pushed back at what the president personifies. > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/opinion/sunday/john-mccain-trump.html > > — Wondering > > --- > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From brussel at illinois.edu Sun May 6 23:00:28 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 23:00:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Workingmen of all Countries, Untie! In-Reply-To: <8EFF9FE9-CCBA-4D94-92BE-DF3AEC0EDD8F@illinois.edu> References: <8EFF9FE9-CCBA-4D94-92BE-DF3AEC0EDD8F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <750D20C8-6712-4112-9F17-45DFEDFAAEA7@illinois.edu> A propaganda piece in itself, as expected fro the NYT. On May 6, 2018, at 1:19 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: >From The New York Times: On This Chinese TV Show, Participants Have Nothing to Lose but Their Chains A new program, part talk show, part indoctrination session, tries to coax millennials to put down their phones and pick up the works of Karl Marx. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/05/world/asia/china-karl-marx-xi-jinping.html _______________________________________________ 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 Sun May 6 23:12:07 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 23:12:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Finkelstein=27s_passion=2C_on_Gaza?= =?utf-8?b?4oCm?= Message-ID: Painful, but worth a visit to get the dismal picture. https://twitter.com/YouTube?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email&iid=37486d9119644b1ba35613213b6c4680&uid=40497026&nid=244+272699403 —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun May 6 23:47:56 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 18:47:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Finkelstein=27s_passion=2C_on_Gaza?= =?utf-8?b?4oCm?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1200C5B7-69A2-42D3-B07B-4787B96178A3@gmail.com> This takes me to YouTube but not it seems to Finkelstein on Gaza. A better link? > On May 6, 2018, at 6:12 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Painful, but worth a visit to get the dismal picture. > > https://twitter.com/YouTube?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email&iid=37486d9119644b1ba35613213b6c4680&uid=40497026&nid=244+272699403 > > —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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon May 7 02:29:32 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 21:29:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A__Finkelstein=27s_passion=2C_on_G?= =?utf-8?b?YXph4oCm?= References: Message-ID: <9F832ACC-C4E8-4EFD-B351-7515E268BA22@gmail.com> Dr. Know, News from Neptune’s virtuoso researcher, comes up with the following: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: "J.B. Nicholson" > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Finkelstein's passion, on Gaza… > Date: May 6, 2018 at 9:19:43 PM CDT > To: C G Estabrook > > C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> This takes me to YouTube but not it seems to Finkelstein on Gaza. A better link? > > I'm not sure what Finkelstein interview/talk was being referred to but: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44eOpxHM1QY -- Gaza on the Brink: Norman Finkelstein on Israeli forces targeting Palestinian (2 months ago). Netanyahu's Munich speech where he held up what he claimed was an Iranian drone piece Israel shot down. "Going Underground" put this in the context of Colin Powell's UN speech holding a vial of some substance alleged to be anthrax (judging by what he was holding and moving as he spoke "Iraq declared 8500 liters of anthrax." in February 2003 to the UN Security Council) which we all know was Col. Powell's contribution to the lies that helped get the 2003 invasion of Iraq going. Finkelstein is talking about his book "Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom". > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51UseTj-nR8 -- Norman Finkelstein: Netanyahu is a maniac (3 years ago). Covers the Goldstone Report, Palestinian non-violence & Israeli torture, "the so-called 'threat from Iran'" as posed by Netanyahu who has said he sees himself as "the representative of all world Jewry" (a title nobody elected him to have) which is still significant. > > One not that old, one much older. Both from RT's "Going Underground". > > -J From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon May 7 02:31:46 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 02:31:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In a world of toil & care Message-ID: <4D8CCAFB-C20C-4E0D-BC2E-258242A2922A@illinois.edu> Post-May Day reflections on International Worker’s Day > While the leisured classes are frolicking around the Maypole, the lower classes are lustily singing Roll Me OV-er in the CLO-ver, Roll Me Over, Lay Me Down and Do It Again … [on YouTube with the Three Graces (q.v.)] From . . . THE MAYPOLE OF MERRY MOUNT (1832) [Once an actual settlement, now within Quincy, Mass.] by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804-1864) BRIGHT WERE THE DAYS at Merry Mount, when the Maypole was the banner staff of that gay colony! They who reared it, should their banner be triumphant, were to pour sunshine over New England’s rugged hills, and scatter flower seeds throughout the soil. Jollity and gloom were contending for an empire. Midsummer eve had come, bringing deep verdure to the forest, and roses in her lap, of a more vivid hue than the tender buds of Spring. But May, or her mirthful spirit, dwelt all the year round at Merry Mount, sporting with the Summer months, and revelling with Autumn, and basking in the glow of Winter's fireside. Through a world of toil and care she flitted with a dreamlike smile, and came hither to find a home among the lightsome hearts of Merry Mount. . . . & the opera Merry Mount (1933) by Howard Hanson. Extra credit: Look up the festival of Comus. ~~ Ron [cid:9163FCAF-2483-4C59-A92A-83B0E301A6EC at hsd1.il.comcast.net] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Naked gardening copy.png Type: image/png Size: 312624 bytes Desc: Naked gardening copy.png URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon May 7 02:45:03 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 6 May 2018 21:45:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Finkelstein=27s_passion=2C_on_Gaza?= =?utf-8?b?4oCm?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko7mFdleGvs&t=26s I think this recent one is what was likely intended. On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Painful, but worth a visit to get the dismal picture. > > https://twitter.com/YouTube?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D& > refsrc=email&iid=37486d9119644b1ba35613213b6c4680&uid=40497026&nid=244+ > 272699403 > > > —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 karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 7 03:10:32 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 03:10:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] In a world of toil & care In-Reply-To: <4D8CCAFB-C20C-4E0D-BC2E-258242A2922A@illinois.edu> References: <4D8CCAFB-C20C-4E0D-BC2E-258242A2922A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Ron, the working classes here in Champaign/Urbana some of us, were celebrating May Day with a film and discussion on the Young Karl Marx. On May 6, 2018, at 19:31, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: Post-May Day reflections on International Worker’s Day > While the leisured classes are frolicking around the Maypole, the lower classes are lustily singing Roll Me OV-er in the CLO-ver, Roll Me Over, Lay Me Down and Do It Again … [on YouTube with the Three Graces (q.v.)] From . . . THE MAYPOLE OF MERRY MOUNT (1832) [Once an actual settlement, now within Quincy, Mass.] by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1804-1864) BRIGHT WERE THE DAYS at Merry Mount, when the Maypole was the banner staff of that gay colony! They who reared it, should their banner be triumphant, were to pour sunshine over New England’s rugged hills, and scatter flower seeds throughout the soil. Jollity and gloom were contending for an empire. Midsummer eve had come, bringing deep verdure to the forest, and roses in her lap, of a more vivid hue than the tender buds of Spring. But May, or her mirthful spirit, dwelt all the year round at Merry Mount, sporting with the Summer months, and revelling with Autumn, and basking in the glow of Winter's fireside. Through a world of toil and care she flitted with a dreamlike smile, and came hither to find a home among the lightsome hearts of Merry Mount. . . . & the opera Merry Mount (1933) by Howard Hanson. Extra credit: Look up the festival of Comus. ~~ Ron _______________________________________________ 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 Mon May 7 03:32:41 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 03:32:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Finkelstein=27s_passion=2C_on_Gaza?= =?utf-8?b?4oCm?= In-Reply-To: <1200C5B7-69A2-42D3-B07B-4787B96178A3@gmail.com> References: <1200C5B7-69A2-42D3-B07B-4787B96178A3@gmail.com> Message-ID: My apologies. David has it right. On May 6, 2018, at 6:47 PM, C G Estabrook > wrote: This takes me to YouTube but not it seems to Finkelstein on Gaza. A better link? On May 6, 2018, at 6:12 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: Painful, but worth a visit to get the dismal picture. https://twitter.com/YouTube?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email&iid=37486d9119644b1ba35613213b6c4680&uid=40497026&nid=244+272699403 —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 r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon May 7 03:46:40 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 03:46:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Search the Scriptures, win $$$ In-Reply-To: References: <4D8CCAFB-C20C-4E0D-BC2E-258242A2922A@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <661FC242-22CF-4428-89FF-ABA612A242A6@illinois.edu> We are told that Karl Marx denied being a Marxist. Some have reminded us that his big book is about Capital, not Capitalism, & he says nothing whatever about the ideology of capitalism as such. Political sociologist Dennis Wrong claims that Marx never used the term ”capitalism” in “Capital.” (Nor, by the way, did Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations (1776).) The term didn’t come into widespread use until the 20th century. > Dennis Wrong, “Disaggregating the Idea of Capitalism,” in Mike Featherstone, ed., Cultural Theory and Cultural Change (SAGE Publications, 1992, pp.147-157). < I will send $50 to the first person who can prove to me (with appropriate documentation & accurate citation) that Wrong is wrong. ~~ Ron [cid:125BC20D-9754-494E-B100-6D84FC783418 at hsd1.il.comcast.net] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Political arguments.png Type: image/png Size: 32852 bytes Desc: Political arguments.png URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 7 11:48:28 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 11:48:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Interesting conversation related to Marx from The Real News Message-ID: May 5, 2018 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Marx and a Revolution in Understanding History Historian Gerald Horne and host Paul Jay discuss the ongoing relevance of Marx's Materialist Conception of History; to understand and fight ideas that defend injustice today, people must know the economic roots the give rise to, and perpetuate, such ideology ________________________________ Full Episode Gerald Horne on Marx [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-05-01/ghorne0504marx-thumb.jpg] 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Marx and a Revolution in Understanding History [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/video_page_banner.png] ________________________________ audio [Share to Facebook] [Share to Twitter] [http://therealnews.com/permalinkedgraphics/webml_share.png] [http://therealnews.com/t2/images/donate_btn.png] I support The real News network because they provide news that others do not.Unfortunatley because of my own financial situation I am unable to help financialy.All I can offer is 100 percent moral su - Edward Log in and tell us why you support TRNN ________________________________ biography Dr. Gerald Horne holds the John J. and Rebecca Moores Chair of History and African American Studies at the University of Houston. His research has addressed issues of racism in a variety of relations involving labor, politics, civil rights, international relations and war. Dr. Horne has also written extensively about the film industry. His latest book is The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America. Dr. Horne received his Ph.D. in history from Columbia University and his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley and his B.A. from Princeton University. ________________________________ transcript [http://therealnews.com/media/trn_2018-05-01/ghorne0504marx-240.jpg]PAUL JAY: May 5 is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx. He was born in Trier, Germany in 1818. His collaborator and friend Fredrick Engels said Marx “was the first to give socialism, and thereby the whole labor movement, a scientific foundation.” Marx, by most serious accounts, was one of the great minds of human history; a political economist, a historian, a philosopher, but also a man of action. He was an organizer and leader in the cause of socialism, social justice, and the modern working class. Inscribed on his headstone in Highgate Cemetery in London are his words: “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” Engels wrote that Marx “brought about a revolution in the whole conception of world history. The whole previous view of history was based on the conception that the ultimate causes of all historical changes are to be looked for in the changing ideas of human beings, and that of all historical changes, political changes are the most important and dominate the whole of history. But the question was not asked as to whence the ideas come into men’s minds and what the driving causes of the political changes are.” At the grave site of Marx, after his death on March 17, 1883, Engels said: “Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, et cetera; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.” Millions of people around the world, including our next guest, find Marx as relevant today as he ever was. If so, what does the application of Marx’s conception of history look like when applied to the origins of the United States of America and our current world? Joining us to discuss this is Gerald Horne. He joins us from Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Gerald holds the John J. and Rebecca Moores chair of History and African-American studies at the University of Houston. He's the author of many books, most recently "Storming the Heavens: African-Americans and the Early Fight for the Right to Fly," and "The Apocalypse of Settler Colonialism: the Roots of Slavery, White Supremacy and Capitalism in 17th Century North America and the Caribbean," and also, of course, "The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America." Thanks for joining us, Gerald. GERALD HORNE: Thank you for inviting me. PAUL JAY: So this concept that to understand state institutions, art, politics in today's terms, I shouldn't say in today's terms, but to add to that we talk about the ideology of systemic racism, American chauvinism. You and I have talked about both of these things often. Marx’s concept of history is that to really understand and get the underlying motivating factors that drive these ideologies, and what he would call, I guess, superstructure, you really have to understand the economic foundations and how people, what level the mode of production, the way people produce, as hunting and gathering versus digitization and modern industry you get different human relationships. Talk a bit about the basic concept, and then how does that come up in your work, understanding American history? GERALD HORNE: First of all, it's no surprise that if you look at the liberation of Africa in the latter part of the 20th century you'll find that many of the leaders of that epochal movement, including Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Samora Machel of Mozambique, even Nelson Mandela of South Africa, were influenced to a greater or lesser degree by the doctrines of Karl Marx and the philosophy and ideology of socialism. I think that in order to understand that, it might be useful to look, for example, at England in the latter part of the 16th century, when Shakespeare was rising to prominence and penning his epochal play Othello. And just as that play represents and depicts a portrait of an African, Othello, who is treated with sensitivity and humanity, likewise in London you had Africans who were living there who were involved in all manner of activities, and were treated much better and much more humanely than they were treated a century later, in the 16 9 0s, for example. Now, why that change? Well, that change takes place precisely because in that 100-year period England became deeply enmeshed in the African slave trade, became deeply enmeshed in the process of producing wealth by dint of the enslaved labor of Africans. And therefore the philosophy of Londoners and the English towards people of African descent likewise changed. And so in the late 16th century you had episodes of Africans beating and flaying Englishmen who might be defined as white, and not suffering as a result. That became virtually impossible by the late 17th century. That is to say, the 1690s. Similarly, if you look at the history of Europe generally, what you'll find is that up until the rise of colonialism in the mid-17th century, religious conflict was the axis upon which society turned. I'm speaking of Protestant versus Catholics. But once Europeans became deeply enmeshed in colonialism and the slave trade, you saw that those tensions and conflicts and contradictions began to be curbed in favor of a mutual suppression and oppression of people of African descent in the first place, because their enslaved, their enslaved labor was necessary for propelling colonialism. And therein you begin to see the power and correctness, indeed, of the idea of Karl Marx, which is that modes of production and the garnering of wealth helps to shape and propel philosophies. The philosophy of white supremacy and racism not least. Paul Jay: Well, then, take this conception of history, as Marx and Engels call it, and apply it to the United States. And to understand the extent of racism today, like, I'm recording this in Baltimore, a majority African-American city. Poverty numbers that are much, much higher than in non-black neighborhoods, non-black cities. The level of police repression, the level of the consequences of poverty like high murder rates and such. We're now a long time after the founding of America, and this stuff perpetuates and keeps recreating itself, this ideology. So apply Marx's conception to understanding this. GERALD HORNE: Well, I think that the Marxist conception is that, number one, the racism that you see in Baltimore, and indeed throughout these United States of America, is quite profitable. Because of this racism, oftentimes you're able to pay black workers substantially less than you pay workers who are defined as white, for example. Likewise, the racism is very corrosive to the idea of working class unity. That is to say, black and white workers united against their mutual oppressors, speaking of the boss, or the head of major transnational corporations. And that split in the working class is also very profitable to those at the top of the socioeconomic pyramid. Therefore, as Karl Marx might put it in 2018, racism is quite functional, although it would be a mistake to see it as wholly a product of economic forces, although in the first instance it's propelled by economic forces, forces. Because racism comes to take on a life of its own once it takes flight, even if one cannot be connected organically to its motive force, which is profit. PAUL JAY: So how, to what extent does the racism that, that emerged as such a prominent piece of America, given how important it was to the economic development, slavery was to the economic development in America, the way things get, become part of the culture, part of the ethos, part of the national psyche, even, at such an origin, original origin level. And that starts to become part of a culture that keeps going in spite that slavery itself, at least outright slavery, came to an end. GERALD HORNE: It becomes a machine that goes of itself. It's very useful to compare London, the mother country in the mid-18th century, with its settler colonies in North America. And London, not least because the African-derived population was not a substantial as that in the settler colony of North America, oftentimes you found painters like William Hogarth, for example, who depicted black people in a very sensitive and humane fashion, not unlike the way William Shakespeare did at the end of the 16th century and the beginning of the 1600s. Whereas in North America, where the entire economy was turning upon the phenomenon of the labor of enslaved Africans, you found a casual brutalization of black people because, not least, this was profitable. And this profitable enterprise then infested the entire culture and society, helping to lead to a devaluation of black life on the one hand, and an enrichment of slave masters on the other, which in turn helped to create a society and a culture that was based upon white supremacy. And that has continued, I'm afraid, into the 21st century. PAUL JAY: And when you look ahead at how to solve issues like systemic racism, abuse of police forces and such, it seems to me you have to tie these things together again. There's only so much you can kind of reform in a police department, for example. You can, you know, there's a lot of talk about training and changing the culture of the police departments, and such. That's not to say it might not have some effect. But when the fundamental role of a police department is to defend the system of the relationship of who owns property, in other words, the more property you've got the more police police serve and protect you, as long as that's the core relationship between a very few people owning the vast majority of wealth, and police are there to enforce laws that reinforce that distribution of wealth, there's only so much you can do about reforming the racist heads of various policemen. GERALD HORNE: I think that your question contains an answer that many find difficult to accept. What I mean is, is that even those who define themselves as radical oftentimes see the racism which we are discussing as virtually accidental. As being not an organic extension of the culture and society and history upon which it was based. Many, even those who define themselves as radical, find it difficult to accept that when you had the so-called Glorious Revolution in England in 1688, which led to the clipping the wings of the monarch, the rising merchant class did so, that is to say, clip the wings of the monarch, in order to gain a foothold in the lucrative African slave trade which the theretofore had been controlled by the monarch. Then in 1776 you had landowners and slave owners like George Washington who clipped the wings of the monarch once again by revolting against the idea that England was moving towards the abolition of slavery a la Somerset's case in June 1772 in London, and thereby moved toward secession and independence, creating a society based upon white supremacy and slavery. Then in 1836 you see slave owners in Texas revolt and secede from Mexico, not least because Mexico had moved towards the abolition of slavery in the preceding decade, the 1820s, under a leader of African descent. Speaking of Vicente Guerrero. And of course, because Texas independently could not withstand the pressure placed upon it by abolitionist Britain and revolutionary Haiti, Texas then entered the Union as a state of United States of America in 1845. And finally, in 1865 the so-called Confederate States of America seceded from the United States once again because they wanted to perpetuate slavery forevermore. But because of global pressure in the first place, they were defeated. It's very difficult even for radicals to come to the conclusion that this society and culture that was built, here in North America, was based not only on the enslavement on a mass basis of Africans, but on a genocidal dispossession of the indigenous population. And therefore it's no surprise that racism in its most brutal and naked form continues to stalk the land in 2018. PAUL JAY: So one of the ideas of Marx and Engels' conception of history is that as production, productive forces, as they would call it, the way people produce, becomes more modernized, technological development takes place, in terms of capitalism you have the development of sciences that leads to modern mass production and industry, that the old relationships, the old ideas and institutions, actually become an obstruction to this new, new coming into being, these new productive forces coming into being. And we saw the way feudalism fights against the rise of capitalism, and in fact there's revolutions to overthrow the feudalists in France, and to some extent even here. The, what are we seeing this now? How does it express itself now? Because Marx and Engels talked about having such socialized production now, with modern industry, with thousands of people work in factories. Now we have this social character of production has even become globalized at a scale I don't think anybody could have imagined 200 years ago. Yet we still have the old forms of ownership. We still have, in fact, it's even more exaggerated. What is it, 1 percent of the world's population controls, owns more than half the wealth, and so on. We've heard these statistics. These old relations of productions are still very much there. GERALD HORNE: Well, first of all, you need to realize that a beard can continue to grow upon the face of a corpse, even though the body has died. That is to say that it's not a simple nor easy matter to extinguish these manacles and handcuffs of the past that continue to bedevil us in the future. To step back for a second, for example, let's return to the question of religion, which we discussed a moment or two ago. With the rise of slavery and the slave trade, as noted, you began to see the decline of religion not only because of what I enunciated a moment or two ago, that those tensions and contradictions were curbed in favor of the mutual project of oppressing and suppressing the native populations of the Americas and the Africans. But also as the productive forces continued to grow and flourish, that led to more scientific exploration, which gives rise to what is now called the Enlightenment. And with the rise of science you begin to see a decline of religion. Now, that may come as a surprise to many of those in the United States of America. But I think it's fair to say that religious observance, even the United States of America, is not today what it once was, say, a century ago. And that's due in no small measure to the rise of the productive forces and the rise of scientific inquiry. I think that that helps to give meaning to this point that you are speaking about in terms of what Marx was trying to say, in terms of the productive forces in society helping to propel philosophies, ideas, and even religion. PAUL JAY: And I think you can see the sort of full blooming of this. One of Marx and Engels' ideas is that socialism is born in the womb of capitalism. That you that you actually have the development and this modernization and massive scale of production as social character that takes on these massive monopolies that are extremely well-planned. They're essentially, if you take the FedExes and the Amazons and the Wal-Marts, and some of these kinds of places, they're extremely big planned economies. And you can see the kind of seeds of this sort of rational way to produce at its full bloom in these big rationalized monopolies, except still privately owned. So overall, the whole system is completely irrational. GERALD HORNE: Well, it's striking to note that what you're speaking about is something that Marx and Engels also talk about in their epochal work, "The Communist Manifesto," which comes out approximately 30 years after the birth of Karl Marx, which is characterized by that pithy phrase, "Workers of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains." In other words, as you have the growth of these behemoths, the Amazons, for example, you also see an increasingly impoverished workforce, not only in North America, but in the other sites of exploitation where Amazon is sinking roots. Canada, for example. And therefore you see the growth of wealth that increasingly is appropriated by individuals like Jeff Bezos, whose fortune is nearing $100 billion , whereas you have workers who barely are surviving on salaries less than $30000 a year. Obviously that kind of contradiction is not sustainable in the long run. Obviously what needs to happen are massive union organizing drives that unites workers across geographical and political borders. And that, I am sure, will happen sooner rather than later. PAUL JAY: And these massive behemoths, as you say, to really have an effect of this planning for public good, need to be publicly owned. And that's, that's, I guess, a conversation we're going to have in the next time we get together to talk about this, and we don't have to wait another 200 years to celebrate the birth of Marx. Thanks very much for joining us, Gerald. GERALD HORNE: Thank you. PAUL JAY: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 7 14:06:56 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 14:06:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Palestinians resisting Israeli occupation not the same as rebels fighting Syrian govt. Message-ID: Palestinians resisting Israeli occupation not the same as rebels fighting Syrian govt [Rania Khalek] Rania Khalek is an American journalist, writer and political commentator based in the Middle East. Published time: 4 May, 2018 17:07Edited time: 7 May, 2018 08:50 Get short URL [Palestinians resisting Israeli occupation not the same as rebels fighting Syrian govt] © Mohamad Torokman / Reuters * 939 * * * * * * Supporters of the armed insurgency in Syria have deployed the Western left's pro-Palestine discourse to justify overthrowing the Syrian government. This tactic has confused and fractured the Palestine solidarity movement. The colonization of Palestine, unlike the war in Syria, is a straightforward issue. Palestinians were minding their own business when Jewish settlers, with the support of Western imperial powers, embarked on a colonial project that continues to ethnically cleanse Palestinians. Those who support regime change in Syria often equate the Syrian army with the Israeli army and the rebels with Palestinians. But the Israeli army is a colonial occupier that is systematically stealing land from the indigenous population. The Syrian army is indigenous and has been fighting an insurgency made up of Syrians and tens of thousands of foreign fighters from all over the world backed by many of Israel's allies. The left need not support the Syrian government or its methods, but it should certainly oppose the attempt of imperial powers to use reactionary forces to collapse the Syrian state, as the US and its regional allies tried to do. Read more [https://cdni.rt.com/files/2018.04/thumbnail/5ae6da47fc7e93684f8b460d.jpg]‘I didn’t think my leg would be like this’: Gazan who lost limb in IDF sniper fire talks to RT False equivalence One of the most commonly invoked talking points by rebel supporters involves Yarmouk in southern Damascus, where the Syrian government is currently carrying out an operation to rout Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS). Most of Yarmouk's inhabitants, which prior to the war included the largest number of Palestinian refugees in Syria and an even higher number of Syrians, have fled the area since conflict erupted in the camp between the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command. Yarmouk fell to Aknaf Beit al Maqdis, the Hamas affiliate of the FSA until IS seized it from them in 2015. Some remnants of Aknaf went on to cooperate with the Syrian government against IS by joining the National Defense Forces, and they even fought to help the Syrian government retake Salma in northern Latakia. While IS leaders in Yarmouk and the adjacent neighborhood of Hajr al Aswad asked to negotiate a deal with the Syrian government where they would leave to go to Eastern Syria, the government refused, not wanting to have these hardened fighters reinforce their jihadist comrades in Eastern Homs or Deir ez-Zor. In March of this year IS took advantage of a deal where other insurgent groups like Ababil and Liwa al Islam left Qadam in Southern Damascus and seized more territory, killing over 50 Syrian soldiers as well as several Syrian TV journalists. Despite all this, the operation to push IS out of Yarmouk has been portrayed by rebel supporters as a wholesale massacre of Palestinians by Assad. [https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/969341849495195648/vl5pSy8j_normal.jpg] CJ Werleman ✔@cjwerleman When Palestinians are killed by Israel, the "anti-war" left rightfully smears Israel as a terrorist state. When Palestinians are slaughtered in their thousands by Assad, the "anti-war" left smear Palestinians as "terrorists" or "jihadists." https://twitter.com/elizrael/status/988127991497674753 … 6:40 AM - Apr 23, 2018 * 37 * 41 people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy Israel's supporters also claim that Palestinians are victims of Assad to distract from Israel's atrocities against Palestinians. Even anti-interventionists, such as Al Jazeera pundit Mehdi Hasan, have invoked Yarmouk to highlight the regime's atrocities against Palestinians and lecture the American left about its "shameful silence when Israel is not to blame." But among Palestinians there is no consensus about the war in Syria. Palestinians are divided between the opposition and government while others remained neutral. Thousands of Palestinians are fighting alongside the Syrian Arab Army in the battle to retake Yarmouk from IS. It matters what you're fighting for Palestinian resistance groups are fighting for liberation from foreign occupation. But in Syria, Islamist insurgents are not fighting for a more democratic, free and equal society. They are not fighting for liberation or to offer anything better. They are fighting for sectarian and reactionary goals that would be far worse than the current system. While the regime is flawed and should change, it is far superior to alternative of the insurgents. The behavior of the rebel groups has resulted in the Syrian government, Iran and Hezbollah adopting the war on terror rhetoric that the West and the Israelis use against them. The regime's counter insurgency tactics have been brutal, often excessive and indiscriminate. This is terrible and is why we should have been calling to end the war years ago, not to perpetuate it and lead to more brutality. But it is also important to examine and recognize the ways in which the behavior of the armed insurgency inside Syria created the conditions for this. Read more [A wounded demonstrator is evacuated during clashes with Israeli troops on the Israel-Gaza border, April 27, 2018. ©REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa]4 dead, 833 injured as IDF clashes with #GreatReturnMarch protesters – Palestinian Health Ministry Human shields One of the most common Israeli justifications for attacking Palestinian civilians during its brutal wars on Palestinians (and before that in Lebanon) has been to claim Hamas prevents civilians from fleeing and uses women and children as human shields to protect its weapons and rocket launchers. But there is zero evidence that Hamas has used Palestinians as human shields or blocks them from fleeing Israeli bombardment. Ironically, it is Israel that has a well-documented history of using Palestinian civilians, including children, as human shields on a number of occasions. In what is referred to as "the neighbor procedure," Israeli soldiers force Palestinian civilians to approach armed suspects and homes potentially rigged with explosives to protect the lives of soldiers. Meanwhile, in Syria, the Syrian government and its allies have often argued that the armed insurgents use the civilian population as human shields in the areas they control, leading to accusation by rebel supporters that the Syrian government is using Israeli tactics to discredit the opposition. The problem is that the insurgents in Syria, unlike Hamas or any other Palestinian group, do in fact use civilians as human shields and they do so proudly, sometimes even videotaping themselves in the act. For example, Jaysh al Islam, the Salafi-jihadist group that controlled the city of Douma until it was retaken by the government in April, publicly bragged about parading caged civilians from the minority Alawite sect in the streets as human shields, which the group filmed and posted to YouTube. Moreover, during the government's operations to retake eastern Aleppo and eastern Ghouta, the insurgents, much like IS, withheld food from the local population and shot at civilians as they tried to flee to the safety of government-held areas. If Hamas behaved this way, it would be right to condemn them for it. Syrian insurgents do all of these things and their supporters try to shame people into overlooking this criminal behavior by cynically comparing them to Israelis. This is not to say the left should support Hamas. As a liberation movement, Hamas has the right to fight the Israeli occupation. But the Hamas government is reactionary and oppressive. Even more oppressive is the Palestinian Authority, a dictatorial system established by Israel and America so that Israel would have a puppet ruling the Palestinian people. Read more [The mother of Mohammed Ayoub shows her son's photo. © Mohammed Salem]Palestinian teen 'executed' by IDF was unarmed, far from fence – witness & parents Ethnic cleansing Another claim promoted by the regime changers is that the Syrian government, like the Israeli government, is engaged in ethnic cleansing. While the Israelis have been ethnically cleansing Palestinians to replace them with Jewish settlers, in Syria the rebels' supporters insist that the 'evil' Alawite Assad regime is exterminating and ethnically cleansing Sunnis and replacing them with Shias from Lebanon, Iran and Iraq. This is a totally false narrative and actually gets it backwards. The Syrian government has a great deal of support from Sunnis, which make up the majority of Syrians. While it's true that Assad is from the Alawite sect it's also true that support from most Sunnis in urban areas is critical to his remaining in power. The Alawite versus Sunni narrative fails to take into account that the Syrian Army is majority Sunni. While the government and its supporters are diverse, the insurgency is a Sunni supremacist phenomenon that has engaged in ethnic cleansing and extermination of non-Sunnis as well as Sunnis who don't agree with them. The armed opposition never obtained popular support because it was sectarian and had an Islamist agenda, which is anathema to the vast majority of Syrians. They fear the rebels more than they oppose the government. It is also a lie that Sunnis are being replaced by Shias. There is no evidence of this on the ground in Syria and the main source of this claim is Salafi Jihadi groups and external opposition propagandists. Idlib, currently under the control of Hayat Tahrir Al Sham - the latest iteration of the al Qaeda franchise in Syria, became home to thousands of Chinese foreign fighters who joined the jihad in Syria and moved into the homes of Syrians who fled. Calling themselves the Turkistan Islamic Party, they helped spearhead the seizure of Jisr al-Shughour. So if anyone is comparable to Jewish settlers in Israel, it is the foreign insurgents who took over Syrian areas, not the Syrian government. Read more [FILE PHOTO: Buses transport militants and their families from Eastern Ghouta © Ammar Safarjalani]Damascus, militants reach deal to evacuate armed groups from Homs area Attempts to equate the war in Syria with Israel's conquest of Palestine have been detrimental to the Palestine solidarity movement, which a couple of years ago was rising in popularity. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, was making huge strides, particularly on college campuses across the US. Nearly every month a Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter would succeed in passing a resolution to boycott companies that profit from Israel's occupation of Palestine. But arguments about the Syrian civil war were injected into Palestine activism. These arguments escalated into fights that damaged the movement. Many SJP chapters split over Syria, to the delight of Israel's supporters. Israel is in a de facto alliance with the Syrian opposition. Furthermore, many of the countries that intervened to prop up the armed insurgency in Syria, including the US and UK, are key supporters of Israel. If the Syrian opposition's alliance with Western imperial powers and Israel isn't enough to dissuade Palestine solidarity activists from casting their lot on the side of the insurgents, perhaps the media coverage will. On the issue of Palestine, we know that mainstream Western media coverage is biased in favor of Israel. Yet on Syria we are supposed to accept every claim from these same outlets and organizations that whitewash the atrocities and agendas of the US-backed insurgents in much the same way they whitewash Israel's crimes. Palestinians have a right to resist Israel's occupation of their land but the pro-rebel crowd argues that by extension Syrians have a right to resist the government and therefore we should support the armed insurgency in Syria. But it matters what an insurgency is fighting for. Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT. * 939 * * * * * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon May 7 22:49:43 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 17:49:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air, 5/8 Message-ID: <807C99EC-FB54-4AAD-83B8-472BE55BFBE5@gmail.com> On Tuesday, May 8, AWARE's weekly TV hour, 'AWARE on the Air,' will be recorded at Urbana Public Television at 3pm - not noon, as we usually do. Members and friends of AWARE are invited to participate in this unrehearsed discussion of US war-making. Space in the studio is limited, so let me know if you plan to attend. —CGE From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 8 01:20:17 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 01:20:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Message-ID: No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it on "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the WSWS.ORG. In this case she refers to the ISO, "International Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, supporting US imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or supporters of Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the "Unrepentant Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity to criticize them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have maintained the same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war activists as Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis presents. In the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of one more nation in the middle east by the US imperialists. K. Aram Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments Save The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. By Diana Johnstone Special to Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/edited-Diana-Johnstone-150x150.jpg]I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed. The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution. A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the First World War. The Issue of Sources [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Trotsky-1-238x300.jpg] Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist extremism with Wahhabi roots. Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times. [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stalin_in_July_1941-Atomic-Heritage-Foundation-229x300.jpg] Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times. More About Stalin Than Syria This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria. This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which are notthe Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong. The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened? For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted. Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries. No Excuse for Bashar [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Edited-Assads-300x188.jpeg] The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”. This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business. Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Tue May 8 02:30:53 2018 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 02:30:53 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] America Insults Intelligent and Educated People References: <1220131848.982070.1525746653228.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1220131848.982070.1525746653228@mail.yahoo.com> America Insults Intelligent and Educated People | | | | America Insults Intelligent and Educated People Rasmussen Reports There was controversy about it, but the Inuit famously and really do have at least 50 words for snow. The Scots ... | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Tue May 8 02:31:42 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 02:31:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Pilger interview Message-ID: <079EE40B-4F2B-4BC0-A27D-D4014CAC8441@illinois.edu> Worth the 30 minute to listen to what all here should know, but there is a spice integrity to his voice. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49371.htm From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue May 8 11:30:33 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 06:30:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Proyect may be a "former Trotskyist," but with respect to the matter at hand, he is more "Trotskyist" than "former." He spent decades in the SWP. People with that kind of life experience often maintain many of the same habits of thought, the same allegiances, the same opportunism, the same slash and burn polemical style. Her critique of Trotksyists' excessive attachment to other people's revolutions, even if imaginary, certainly applies to Proyect; and her critique of how this often approach often leads to supporting Western imperialism also applies to Proyect. He has often, not always, been careful to insist that he opposes Western military intervention in Syria; but he has supported its predicates. If the Western imperialists are saying, A is true, and that's why the West must bomb and invade, Proyect will argue vigorously for A, while claiming innocence of the implication. And, he calls everyone that he perceives to be an obstacle to his project an Assadist, including me; he has done this for years. I know these things because I've been reading his stuff for a long time. He's a great writer, very smart, very compelling, if you're willing to tolerate the slash and burn polemical style. And he's very open and self-reflective about his history in the SWP, which is a story I find fascinating, and which makes clear that things he critiques about the SWP apply to his own current commitments and endeavors. Having said that, he does concede that "the Syrian revolution," such as it was, is now over. Also, some of his critique of the "Assadist left" has been true. Some of the "Assad didn't do it" stuff has verged into conspiracy theory. Finally: I like this Diana Johnstone piece a lot. I think it's substantially right. But there's something I wish she wouldn't do, which is the argument for accepting the necessity of the "strong leader" in these countries, which I think is callous when one is speaking about people who have been responsible for huge atrocities, which exposes her unnecessarily to opponents who see her as an apologist for authoritarian politics, and which is inherently speculative. We're never going to know what the alternative history was in the absence of imperialism, or even if imperialism had taken a slightly different course. What would have happened in Iran if the CIA had left Mossadeq alone? What would have happened in Chile if the CIA had left Allende alone? How would the Sandinistas have evolved if the CIA had left them alone? We're never going to know. Each of these situations had internal contradictions that the CIA exploited but was not the author of. How would these contradictions have been resolved if the CIA hadn't intervened? We'll never know. So let's reserve judgment. The more we can mitigate the Empire, the more space there will be for people to work out their problems without the usually terrible influence of external force. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it on > "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the WSWS.ORG > . In this case she refers to the ISO, "International > Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, supporting US > imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or supporters of > Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the "Unrepentant > Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity to criticize > them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have maintained the > same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war activists as > Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis presents. In > the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of one more nation > in the middle east by the US imperialists. > K. Aram > > > > Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions > Everywhere > May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments > > > > > > > > > > > Save > > > > The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other > peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent > revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. > > *By Diana Johnstone **Special to Consortium News* > > > I > first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the > movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing > anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves > “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that > did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual > counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy > toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. > imperialism, but that has changed. > > The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival > tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably > those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). > > Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent > revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into > the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the > long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving > eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they > join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the > alleged revolution. > > A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March > 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so > thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. > Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, > this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. > > McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar > al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote > some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their > fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There > could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds > very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the > First World War. > > *The Issue of Sources* > > > Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. > > It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations > against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating > that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. > Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to > embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a > doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good > revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with > their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with > Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but > *intentions*, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable > evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. > > This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current > Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In > both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad > enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. > > “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the > early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological > lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions > as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were > framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia > purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy > of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up > according to the appetites of the US government and the International > Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. > > Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in > the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western > imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States > to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. > > Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of > anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist > extremism with Wahhabi roots. > > *Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance* > > In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo > in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed > rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional > enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and > Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of > secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a > few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist > atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the > Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance > between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. > > It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) > about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote > citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually > equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the > Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to > present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive > international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both > implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” > > No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan > Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. > > Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist > mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than *twenty-two times.* > > > > Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. > > And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to > destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly > denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi > family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its > neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist > groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. > > Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution > everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to > Stalin several times. > > *More About Stalin Than Syria* > > This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is > about Syria. > > This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which > are *not*the Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something > is wrong. > > The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the > Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. > Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their > much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not > much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? > > Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, > and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth > than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the > people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors > from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this *ever *happened? > > For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should > happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. > > In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World > countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful > emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people > and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the > population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning > independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik > revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, > maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to > save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no > evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more > tender-hearted. > > Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as > Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. > > McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat > redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This > modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the > Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its > failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the > progressive development of newly independent countries. > > *No Excuse for Bashar* > > > The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. > > If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in > McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a > global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the > most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of > state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the > heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by > showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while > evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” > > The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore > creating a situation that justified “revolution”. > > This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative > Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to > anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al > Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led > globalization? > > McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong > side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs > in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership > in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” > > One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be > saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible > for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we > possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” > > The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” > other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling > others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal > agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. > The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological > alibi for permanent war. > > For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its > inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own > business. > > *Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European > politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University > of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. > Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly **In These Times* > * from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a > correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group > in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include **Queen > of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton > , **CounterPunch > Books (2016) and **Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions > , **Pluto Press > (2002).* > > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 8 13:49:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 13:49:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert You make some good points, such as “Johnstone’s acceptance of strong leaders.” I prefer, "none of our business who the leaders are, strong or otherwise,” what is our business is what leaders the US supports with US taxpayer funds and military armaments. That is our business. However, the “coincidence" of specific groups totally unrelated to Trotskyists, making the exact same arguments, statements, and name calling of anti-war activists in relation to Syria, which includes members of the “Students for Justice in Palestine” on campus, to be highly questionable. Especially when we have former alternative news sources like Democracy Now, NPR, and The Intercept, though not doing the name calling of anti-war activists, they make the same arguments, in support of the “moderate rebels” in Syria. It is possible some individuals may misread, the intent of “international socialism,” in which case I suggest they go back and reread their “Communist Manifesto,” whereby Marx and Engels clarify, “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” We have a long way to go in the US, before we are ready to lend anything more than verbal support, to uprisings against oppressive rulers, in other nations, as a nation. As related to “individual Americans” supporting uprisings, such as was done during the “Spanish Civil War.” or the “troubles in Ireland, etc.” that is up to the individual, as an individual. My final analysis of all, including Proyect, is one is not a socialist, if they support “imperialism.” On May 8, 2018, at 04:30, Robert Naiman > wrote: Proyect may be a "former Trotskyist," but with respect to the matter at hand, he is more "Trotskyist" than "former." He spent decades in the SWP. People with that kind of life experience often maintain many of the same habits of thought, the same allegiances, the same opportunism, the same slash and burn polemical style. Her critique of Trotksyists' excessive attachment to other people's revolutions, even if imaginary, certainly applies to Proyect; and her critique of how this often approach often leads to supporting Western imperialism also applies to Proyect. He has often, not always, been careful to insist that he opposes Western military intervention in Syria; but he has supported its predicates. If the Western imperialists are saying, A is true, and that's why the West must bomb and invade, Proyect will argue vigorously for A, while claiming innocence of the implication. And, he calls everyone that he perceives to be an obstacle to his project an Assadist, including me; he has done this for years. I know these things because I've been reading his stuff for a long time. He's a great writer, very smart, very compelling, if you're willing to tolerate the slash and burn polemical style. And he's very open and self-reflective about his history in the SWP, which is a story I find fascinating, and which makes clear that things he critiques about the SWP apply to his own current commitments and endeavors. Having said that, he does concede that "the Syrian revolution," such as it was, is now over. Also, some of his critique of the "Assadist left" has been true. Some of the "Assad didn't do it" stuff has verged into conspiracy theory. Finally: I like this Diana Johnstone piece a lot. I think it's substantially right. But there's something I wish she wouldn't do, which is the argument for accepting the necessity of the "strong leader" in these countries, which I think is callous when one is speaking about people who have been responsible for huge atrocities, which exposes her unnecessarily to opponents who see her as an apologist for authoritarian politics, and which is inherently speculative. We're never going to know what the alternative history was in the absence of imperialism, or even if imperialism had taken a slightly different course. What would have happened in Iran if the CIA had left Mossadeq alone? What would have happened in Chile if the CIA had left Allende alone? How would the Sandinistas have evolved if the CIA had left them alone? We're never going to know. Each of these situations had internal contradictions that the CIA exploited but was not the author of. How would these contradictions have been resolved if the CIA hadn't intervened? We'll never know. So let's reserve judgment. The more we can mitigate the Empire, the more space there will be for people to work out their problems without the usually terrible influence of external force. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it on "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the WSWS.ORG. In this case she refers to the ISO, "International Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, supporting US imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or supporters of Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the "Unrepentant Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity to criticize them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have maintained the same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war activists as Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis presents. In the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of one more nation in the middle east by the US imperialists. K. Aram Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments Save The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. By Diana Johnstone Special to Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/edited-Diana-Johnstone-150x150.jpg]I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed. The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution. A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the First World War. The Issue of Sources [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Trotsky-1-238x300.jpg] Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist extremism with Wahhabi roots. Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times. [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stalin_in_July_1941-Atomic-Heritage-Foundation-229x300.jpg] Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times. More About Stalin Than Syria This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria. This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which are notthe Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong. The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened? For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted. Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries. No Excuse for Bashar [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Edited-Assads-300x188.jpeg] The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”. This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business. Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002). _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 8 14:53:37 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 14:53:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Pilger interview In-Reply-To: <079EE40B-4F2B-4BC0-A27D-D4014CAC8441@illinois.edu> References: <079EE40B-4F2B-4BC0-A27D-D4014CAC8441@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Worthwhile listen…… > On May 7, 2018, at 19:31, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Worth the 30 minute to listen to what all here should know, but there is a spice integrity to his voice. > > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49371.htm > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 8 14:47:23 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 14:47:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The American NeoCons started out as Trots. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Scoop Jackson Democrats. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Republicans. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. And now they might get us involved in a war with Iran in order to do Israel’s dirty work for it—just like they did to Iraq. Just remember that when you see them as Talking Heads on all the Mainstream Media. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 8:49 AM To: Robert Naiman Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Robert You make some good points, such as “Johnstone’s acceptance of strong leaders.” I prefer, "none of our business who the leaders are, strong or otherwise,” what is our business is what leaders the US supports with US taxpayer funds and military armaments. That is our business. However, the “coincidence" of specific groups totally unrelated to Trotskyists, making the exact same arguments, statements, and name calling of anti-war activists in relation to Syria, which includes members of the “Students for Justice in Palestine” on campus, to be highly questionable. Especially when we have former alternative news sources like Democracy Now, NPR, and The Intercept, though not doing the name calling of anti-war activists, they make the same arguments, in support of the “moderate rebels” in Syria. It is possible some individuals may misread, the intent of “international socialism,” in which case I suggest they go back and reread their “Communist Manifesto,” whereby Marx and Engels clarify, “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” We have a long way to go in the US, before we are ready to lend anything more than verbal support, to uprisings against oppressive rulers, in other nations, as a nation. As related to “individual Americans” supporting uprisings, such as was done during the “Spanish Civil War.” or the “troubles in Ireland, etc.” that is up to the individual, as an individual. My final analysis of all, including Proyect, is one is not a socialist, if they support “imperialism.” On May 8, 2018, at 04:30, Robert Naiman > wrote: Proyect may be a "former Trotskyist," but with respect to the matter at hand, he is more "Trotskyist" than "former." He spent decades in the SWP. People with that kind of life experience often maintain many of the same habits of thought, the same allegiances, the same opportunism, the same slash and burn polemical style. Her critique of Trotksyists' excessive attachment to other people's revolutions, even if imaginary, certainly applies to Proyect; and her critique of how this often approach often leads to supporting Western imperialism also applies to Proyect. He has often, not always, been careful to insist that he opposes Western military intervention in Syria; but he has supported its predicates. If the Western imperialists are saying, A is true, and that's why the West must bomb and invade, Proyect will argue vigorously for A, while claiming innocence of the implication. And, he calls everyone that he perceives to be an obstacle to his project an Assadist, including me; he has done this for years. I know these things because I've been reading his stuff for a long time. He's a great writer, very smart, very compelling, if you're willing to tolerate the slash and burn polemical style. And he's very open and self-reflective about his history in the SWP, which is a story I find fascinating, and which makes clear that things he critiques about the SWP apply to his own current commitments and endeavors. Having said that, he does concede that "the Syrian revolution," such as it was, is now over. Also, some of his critique of the "Assadist left" has been true. Some of the "Assad didn't do it" stuff has verged into conspiracy theory. Finally: I like this Diana Johnstone piece a lot. I think it's substantially right. But there's something I wish she wouldn't do, which is the argument for accepting the necessity of the "strong leader" in these countries, which I think is callous when one is speaking about people who have been responsible for huge atrocities, which exposes her unnecessarily to opponents who see her as an apologist for authoritarian politics, and which is inherently speculative. We're never going to know what the alternative history was in the absence of imperialism, or even if imperialism had taken a slightly different course. What would have happened in Iran if the CIA had left Mossadeq alone? What would have happened in Chile if the CIA had left Allende alone? How would the Sandinistas have evolved if the CIA had left them alone? We're never going to know. Each of these situations had internal contradictions that the CIA exploited but was not the author of. How would these contradictions have been resolved if the CIA hadn't intervened? We'll never know. So let's reserve judgment. The more we can mitigate the Empire, the more space there will be for people to work out their problems without the usually terrible influence of external force. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it on "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the WSWS.ORG. In this case she refers to the ISO, "International Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, supporting US imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or supporters of Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the "Unrepentant Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity to criticize them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have maintained the same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war activists as Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis presents. In the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of one more nation in the middle east by the US imperialists. K. Aram Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments Save The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. By Diana Johnstone Special to Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/edited-Diana-Johnstone-150x150.jpg]I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed. The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution. A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the First World War. The Issue of Sources [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Trotsky-1-238x300.jpg] Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist extremism with Wahhabi roots. Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times. [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stalin_in_July_1941-Atomic-Heritage-Foundation-229x300.jpg] Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times. More About Stalin Than Syria This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria. This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which are notthe Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong. The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened? For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted. Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries. No Excuse for Bashar [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Edited-Assads-300x188.jpeg] The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”. This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business. Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002). _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 8 15:06:24 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 15:06:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Really? The American NeoCons started out as Trots? Which organizations were they involved with? Were they Communist Party members then leaving over Stalin during the 30’s? Were they then scared off by McCarthyism? The assumption that all Zionists were at one time Trotskyists is also questionable, as during the seventies many of those opposing Zionism were Jewish Trotskyists. Who pays attention to talking heads on mainstream media? Very few young people, savvy people, or anyone embracing socialism, given mainstream media’s trivial, despicable yet successful attempts to manipulate popular opinion. I’m not disputing what you say, as much as I’m questioning when, where and how did this happen, given my absence from the US during the late 70’s, all of the 80’s,90’s and part of the 2000’s? Thank god. On May 8, 2018, at 07:47, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: The American NeoCons started out as Trots. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Scoop Jackson Democrats. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Republicans. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. And now they might get us involved in a war with Iran in order to do Israel’s dirty work for it—just like they did to Iraq. Just remember that when you see them as Talking Heads on all the Mainstream Media. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 8:49 AM To: Robert Naiman > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Robert You make some good points, such as “Johnstone’s acceptance of strong leaders.” I prefer, "none of our business who the leaders are, strong or otherwise,” what is our business is what leaders the US supports with US taxpayer funds and military armaments. That is our business. However, the “coincidence" of specific groups totally unrelated to Trotskyists, making the exact same arguments, statements, and name calling of anti-war activists in relation to Syria, which includes members of the “Students for Justice in Palestine” on campus, to be highly questionable. Especially when we have former alternative news sources like Democracy Now, NPR, and The Intercept, though not doing the name calling of anti-war activists, they make the same arguments, in support of the “moderate rebels” in Syria. It is possible some individuals may misread, the intent of “international socialism,” in which case I suggest they go back and reread their “Communist Manifesto,” whereby Marx and Engels clarify, “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” We have a long way to go in the US, before we are ready to lend anything more than verbal support, to uprisings against oppressive rulers, in other nations, as a nation. As related to “individual Americans” supporting uprisings, such as was done during the “Spanish Civil War.” or the “troubles in Ireland, etc.” that is up to the individual, as an individual. My final analysis of all, including Proyect, is one is not a socialist, if they support “imperialism.” On May 8, 2018, at 04:30, Robert Naiman > wrote: Proyect may be a "former Trotskyist," but with respect to the matter at hand, he is more "Trotskyist" than "former." He spent decades in the SWP. People with that kind of life experience often maintain many of the same habits of thought, the same allegiances, the same opportunism, the same slash and burn polemical style. Her critique of Trotksyists' excessive attachment to other people's revolutions, even if imaginary, certainly applies to Proyect; and her critique of how this often approach often leads to supporting Western imperialism also applies to Proyect. He has often, not always, been careful to insist that he opposes Western military intervention in Syria; but he has supported its predicates. If the Western imperialists are saying, A is true, and that's why the West must bomb and invade, Proyect will argue vigorously for A, while claiming innocence of the implication. And, he calls everyone that he perceives to be an obstacle to his project an Assadist, including me; he has done this for years. I know these things because I've been reading his stuff for a long time. He's a great writer, very smart, very compelling, if you're willing to tolerate the slash and burn polemical style. And he's very open and self-reflective about his history in the SWP, which is a story I find fascinating, and which makes clear that things he critiques about the SWP apply to his own current commitments and endeavors. Having said that, he does concede that "the Syrian revolution," such as it was, is now over. Also, some of his critique of the "Assadist left" has been true. Some of the "Assad didn't do it" stuff has verged into conspiracy theory. Finally: I like this Diana Johnstone piece a lot. I think it's substantially right. But there's something I wish she wouldn't do, which is the argument for accepting the necessity of the "strong leader" in these countries, which I think is callous when one is speaking about people who have been responsible for huge atrocities, which exposes her unnecessarily to opponents who see her as an apologist for authoritarian politics, and which is inherently speculative. We're never going to know what the alternative history was in the absence of imperialism, or even if imperialism had taken a slightly different course. What would have happened in Iran if the CIA had left Mossadeq alone? What would have happened in Chile if the CIA had left Allende alone? How would the Sandinistas have evolved if the CIA had left them alone? We're never going to know. Each of these situations had internal contradictions that the CIA exploited but was not the author of. How would these contradictions have been resolved if the CIA hadn't intervened? We'll never know. So let's reserve judgment. The more we can mitigate the Empire, the more space there will be for people to work out their problems without the usually terrible influence of external force. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it on "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the WSWS.ORG. In this case she refers to the ISO, "International Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, supporting US imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or supporters of Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the "Unrepentant Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity to criticize them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have maintained the same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war activists as Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis presents. In the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of one more nation in the middle east by the US imperialists. K. Aram Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments Save The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. By Diana Johnstone Special to Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/edited-Diana-Johnstone-150x150.jpg]I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed. The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution. A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the First World War. The Issue of Sources [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Trotsky-1-238x300.jpg] Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist extremism with Wahhabi roots. Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times. [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stalin_in_July_1941-Atomic-Heritage-Foundation-229x300.jpg] Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times. More About Stalin Than Syria This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria. This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which are notthe Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong. The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened? For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted. Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries. No Excuse for Bashar [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Edited-Assads-300x188.jpeg] The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”. This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business. Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002). _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 8 15:08:37 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 15:08:37 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: They are all about my age so you can calculate from there. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 10:06 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Really? The American NeoCons started out as Trots? Which organizations were they involved with? Were they Communist Party members then leaving over Stalin during the 30’s? Were they then scared off by McCarthyism? The assumption that all Zionists were at one time Trotskyists is also questionable, as during the seventies many of those opposing Zionism were Jewish Trotskyists. Who pays attention to talking heads on mainstream media? Very few young people, savvy people, or anyone embracing socialism, given mainstream media’s trivial, despicable yet successful attempts to manipulate popular opinion. I’m not disputing what you say, as much as I’m questioning when, where and how did this happen, given my absence from the US during the late 70’s, all of the 80’s,90’s and part of the 2000’s? Thank god. On May 8, 2018, at 07:47, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: The American NeoCons started out as Trots. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Scoop Jackson Democrats. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Republicans. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. And now they might get us involved in a war with Iran in order to do Israel’s dirty work for it—just like they did to Iraq. Just remember that when you see them as Talking Heads on all the Mainstream Media. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 8:49 AM To: Robert Naiman > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Robert You make some good points, such as “Johnstone’s acceptance of strong leaders.” I prefer, "none of our business who the leaders are, strong or otherwise,” what is our business is what leaders the US supports with US taxpayer funds and military armaments. That is our business. However, the “coincidence" of specific groups totally unrelated to Trotskyists, making the exact same arguments, statements, and name calling of anti-war activists in relation to Syria, which includes members of the “Students for Justice in Palestine” on campus, to be highly questionable. Especially when we have former alternative news sources like Democracy Now, NPR, and The Intercept, though not doing the name calling of anti-war activists, they make the same arguments, in support of the “moderate rebels” in Syria. It is possible some individuals may misread, the intent of “international socialism,” in which case I suggest they go back and reread their “Communist Manifesto,” whereby Marx and Engels clarify, “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” We have a long way to go in the US, before we are ready to lend anything more than verbal support, to uprisings against oppressive rulers, in other nations, as a nation. As related to “individual Americans” supporting uprisings, such as was done during the “Spanish Civil War.” or the “troubles in Ireland, etc.” that is up to the individual, as an individual. My final analysis of all, including Proyect, is one is not a socialist, if they support “imperialism.” On May 8, 2018, at 04:30, Robert Naiman > wrote: Proyect may be a "former Trotskyist," but with respect to the matter at hand, he is more "Trotskyist" than "former." He spent decades in the SWP. People with that kind of life experience often maintain many of the same habits of thought, the same allegiances, the same opportunism, the same slash and burn polemical style. Her critique of Trotksyists' excessive attachment to other people's revolutions, even if imaginary, certainly applies to Proyect; and her critique of how this often approach often leads to supporting Western imperialism also applies to Proyect. He has often, not always, been careful to insist that he opposes Western military intervention in Syria; but he has supported its predicates. If the Western imperialists are saying, A is true, and that's why the West must bomb and invade, Proyect will argue vigorously for A, while claiming innocence of the implication. And, he calls everyone that he perceives to be an obstacle to his project an Assadist, including me; he has done this for years. I know these things because I've been reading his stuff for a long time. He's a great writer, very smart, very compelling, if you're willing to tolerate the slash and burn polemical style. And he's very open and self-reflective about his history in the SWP, which is a story I find fascinating, and which makes clear that things he critiques about the SWP apply to his own current commitments and endeavors. Having said that, he does concede that "the Syrian revolution," such as it was, is now over. Also, some of his critique of the "Assadist left" has been true. Some of the "Assad didn't do it" stuff has verged into conspiracy theory. Finally: I like this Diana Johnstone piece a lot. I think it's substantially right. But there's something I wish she wouldn't do, which is the argument for accepting the necessity of the "strong leader" in these countries, which I think is callous when one is speaking about people who have been responsible for huge atrocities, which exposes her unnecessarily to opponents who see her as an apologist for authoritarian politics, and which is inherently speculative. We're never going to know what the alternative history was in the absence of imperialism, or even if imperialism had taken a slightly different course. What would have happened in Iran if the CIA had left Mossadeq alone? What would have happened in Chile if the CIA had left Allende alone? How would the Sandinistas have evolved if the CIA had left them alone? We're never going to know. Each of these situations had internal contradictions that the CIA exploited but was not the author of. How would these contradictions have been resolved if the CIA hadn't intervened? We'll never know. So let's reserve judgment. The more we can mitigate the Empire, the more space there will be for people to work out their problems without the usually terrible influence of external force. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it on "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the WSWS.ORG. In this case she refers to the ISO, "International Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, supporting US imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or supporters of Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the "Unrepentant Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity to criticize them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have maintained the same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war activists as Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis presents. In the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of one more nation in the middle east by the US imperialists. K. Aram Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments Save The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. By Diana Johnstone Special to Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/edited-Diana-Johnstone-150x150.jpg]I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed. The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution. A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the First World War. The Issue of Sources [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Trotsky-1-238x300.jpg] Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist extremism with Wahhabi roots. Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times. [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stalin_in_July_1941-Atomic-Heritage-Foundation-229x300.jpg] Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times. More About Stalin Than Syria This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria. This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which are notthe Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong. The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened? For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted. Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries. No Excuse for Bashar [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Edited-Assads-300x188.jpeg] The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”. This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business. Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002). _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 8 15:14:22 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 15:14:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists References: Message-ID: And for the record, Wexler here at the College of Law is proud of being and has bragged about being an “academic fellow” of the so-called Foundation for the Defense of Democracies—a die-hard NeoCon Zionist Gang of Warmongers who got us into war against Iraq and are now trying to do the same against Iran, both for the sake of Israel. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. The Zionists on the Faculty here hired her in order to “counteract” me. LOL! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 9:47 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists The American NeoCons started out as Trots. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Scoop Jackson Democrats. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Republicans. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. And now they might get us involved in a war with Iran in order to do Israel’s dirty work for it—just like they did to Iraq. Just remember that when you see them as Talking Heads on all the Mainstream Media. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 8:49 AM To: Robert Naiman > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Robert You make some good points, such as “Johnstone’s acceptance of strong leaders.” I prefer, "none of our business who the leaders are, strong or otherwise,” what is our business is what leaders the US supports with US taxpayer funds and military armaments. That is our business. However, the “coincidence" of specific groups totally unrelated to Trotskyists, making the exact same arguments, statements, and name calling of anti-war activists in relation to Syria, which includes members of the “Students for Justice in Palestine” on campus, to be highly questionable. Especially when we have former alternative news sources like Democracy Now, NPR, and The Intercept, though not doing the name calling of anti-war activists, they make the same arguments, in support of the “moderate rebels” in Syria. It is possible some individuals may misread, the intent of “international socialism,” in which case I suggest they go back and reread their “Communist Manifesto,” whereby Marx and Engels clarify, “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” We have a long way to go in the US, before we are ready to lend anything more than verbal support, to uprisings against oppressive rulers, in other nations, as a nation. As related to “individual Americans” supporting uprisings, such as was done during the “Spanish Civil War.” or the “troubles in Ireland, etc.” that is up to the individual, as an individual. My final analysis of all, including Proyect, is one is not a socialist, if they support “imperialism.” On May 8, 2018, at 04:30, Robert Naiman > wrote: Proyect may be a "former Trotskyist," but with respect to the matter at hand, he is more "Trotskyist" than "former." He spent decades in the SWP. People with that kind of life experience often maintain many of the same habits of thought, the same allegiances, the same opportunism, the same slash and burn polemical style. Her critique of Trotksyists' excessive attachment to other people's revolutions, even if imaginary, certainly applies to Proyect; and her critique of how this often approach often leads to supporting Western imperialism also applies to Proyect. He has often, not always, been careful to insist that he opposes Western military intervention in Syria; but he has supported its predicates. If the Western imperialists are saying, A is true, and that's why the West must bomb and invade, Proyect will argue vigorously for A, while claiming innocence of the implication. And, he calls everyone that he perceives to be an obstacle to his project an Assadist, including me; he has done this for years. I know these things because I've been reading his stuff for a long time. He's a great writer, very smart, very compelling, if you're willing to tolerate the slash and burn polemical style. And he's very open and self-reflective about his history in the SWP, which is a story I find fascinating, and which makes clear that things he critiques about the SWP apply to his own current commitments and endeavors. Having said that, he does concede that "the Syrian revolution," such as it was, is now over. Also, some of his critique of the "Assadist left" has been true. Some of the "Assad didn't do it" stuff has verged into conspiracy theory. Finally: I like this Diana Johnstone piece a lot. I think it's substantially right. But there's something I wish she wouldn't do, which is the argument for accepting the necessity of the "strong leader" in these countries, which I think is callous when one is speaking about people who have been responsible for huge atrocities, which exposes her unnecessarily to opponents who see her as an apologist for authoritarian politics, and which is inherently speculative. We're never going to know what the alternative history was in the absence of imperialism, or even if imperialism had taken a slightly different course. What would have happened in Iran if the CIA had left Mossadeq alone? What would have happened in Chile if the CIA had left Allende alone? How would the Sandinistas have evolved if the CIA had left them alone? We're never going to know. Each of these situations had internal contradictions that the CIA exploited but was not the author of. How would these contradictions have been resolved if the CIA hadn't intervened? We'll never know. So let's reserve judgment. The more we can mitigate the Empire, the more space there will be for people to work out their problems without the usually terrible influence of external force. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it on "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the WSWS.ORG. In this case she refers to the ISO, "International Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, supporting US imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or supporters of Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the "Unrepentant Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity to criticize them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have maintained the same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war activists as Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis presents. In the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of one more nation in the middle east by the US imperialists. K. Aram Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments Save The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. By Diana Johnstone Special to Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/edited-Diana-Johnstone-150x150.jpg]I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed. The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution. A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the First World War. The Issue of Sources [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Trotsky-1-238x300.jpg] Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist extremism with Wahhabi roots. Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times. [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stalin_in_July_1941-Atomic-Heritage-Foundation-229x300.jpg] Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times. More About Stalin Than Syria This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria. This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which are notthe Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong. The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened? For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted. Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries. No Excuse for Bashar [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Edited-Assads-300x188.jpeg] The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”. This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business. Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002). _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 8 15:26:02 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 15:26:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists References: Message-ID: It was truly pathetic. The Zionists on the COL Faculty were desperately scouting around trying to find a Zionist law professor to “counteract” me. Knowing what was going on, I just stayed out of it and chuckled while they were scurrying around. Wexler was the best they could come up with. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 10:14 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists And for the record, Wexler here at the College of Law is proud of being and has bragged about being an “academic fellow” of the so-called Foundation for the Defense of Democracies—a die-hard NeoCon Zionist Gang of Warmongers who got us into war against Iraq and are now trying to do the same against Iran, both for the sake of Israel. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. The Zionists on the Faculty here hired her in order to “counteract” me. LOL! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 9:47 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists The American NeoCons started out as Trots. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Scoop Jackson Democrats. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Republicans. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. And now they might get us involved in a war with Iran in order to do Israel’s dirty work for it—just like they did to Iraq. Just remember that when you see them as Talking Heads on all the Mainstream Media. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 8:49 AM To: Robert Naiman > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Robert You make some good points, such as “Johnstone’s acceptance of strong leaders.” I prefer, "none of our business who the leaders are, strong or otherwise,” what is our business is what leaders the US supports with US taxpayer funds and military armaments. That is our business. However, the “coincidence" of specific groups totally unrelated to Trotskyists, making the exact same arguments, statements, and name calling of anti-war activists in relation to Syria, which includes members of the “Students for Justice in Palestine” on campus, to be highly questionable. Especially when we have former alternative news sources like Democracy Now, NPR, and The Intercept, though not doing the name calling of anti-war activists, they make the same arguments, in support of the “moderate rebels” in Syria. It is possible some individuals may misread, the intent of “international socialism,” in which case I suggest they go back and reread their “Communist Manifesto,” whereby Marx and Engels clarify, “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” We have a long way to go in the US, before we are ready to lend anything more than verbal support, to uprisings against oppressive rulers, in other nations, as a nation. As related to “individual Americans” supporting uprisings, such as was done during the “Spanish Civil War.” or the “troubles in Ireland, etc.” that is up to the individual, as an individual. My final analysis of all, including Proyect, is one is not a socialist, if they support “imperialism.” On May 8, 2018, at 04:30, Robert Naiman > wrote: Proyect may be a "former Trotskyist," but with respect to the matter at hand, he is more "Trotskyist" than "former." He spent decades in the SWP. People with that kind of life experience often maintain many of the same habits of thought, the same allegiances, the same opportunism, the same slash and burn polemical style. Her critique of Trotksyists' excessive attachment to other people's revolutions, even if imaginary, certainly applies to Proyect; and her critique of how this often approach often leads to supporting Western imperialism also applies to Proyect. He has often, not always, been careful to insist that he opposes Western military intervention in Syria; but he has supported its predicates. If the Western imperialists are saying, A is true, and that's why the West must bomb and invade, Proyect will argue vigorously for A, while claiming innocence of the implication. And, he calls everyone that he perceives to be an obstacle to his project an Assadist, including me; he has done this for years. I know these things because I've been reading his stuff for a long time. He's a great writer, very smart, very compelling, if you're willing to tolerate the slash and burn polemical style. And he's very open and self-reflective about his history in the SWP, which is a story I find fascinating, and which makes clear that things he critiques about the SWP apply to his own current commitments and endeavors. Having said that, he does concede that "the Syrian revolution," such as it was, is now over. Also, some of his critique of the "Assadist left" has been true. Some of the "Assad didn't do it" stuff has verged into conspiracy theory. Finally: I like this Diana Johnstone piece a lot. I think it's substantially right. But there's something I wish she wouldn't do, which is the argument for accepting the necessity of the "strong leader" in these countries, which I think is callous when one is speaking about people who have been responsible for huge atrocities, which exposes her unnecessarily to opponents who see her as an apologist for authoritarian politics, and which is inherently speculative. We're never going to know what the alternative history was in the absence of imperialism, or even if imperialism had taken a slightly different course. What would have happened in Iran if the CIA had left Mossadeq alone? What would have happened in Chile if the CIA had left Allende alone? How would the Sandinistas have evolved if the CIA had left them alone? We're never going to know. Each of these situations had internal contradictions that the CIA exploited but was not the author of. How would these contradictions have been resolved if the CIA hadn't intervened? We'll never know. So let's reserve judgment. The more we can mitigate the Empire, the more space there will be for people to work out their problems without the usually terrible influence of external force. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it on "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the WSWS.ORG. In this case she refers to the ISO, "International Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, supporting US imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or supporters of Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the "Unrepentant Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity to criticize them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have maintained the same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war activists as Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis presents. In the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of one more nation in the middle east by the US imperialists. K. Aram Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments Save The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. By Diana Johnstone Special to Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/edited-Diana-Johnstone-150x150.jpg]I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed. The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution. A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the First World War. The Issue of Sources [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Trotsky-1-238x300.jpg] Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist extremism with Wahhabi roots. Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times. [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stalin_in_July_1941-Atomic-Heritage-Foundation-229x300.jpg] Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times. More About Stalin Than Syria This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria. This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which are notthe Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong. The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened? For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted. Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries. No Excuse for Bashar [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Edited-Assads-300x188.jpeg] The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”. This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business. Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002). _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 8 16:10:20 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 16:10:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists References: Message-ID: To give you an idea of how desperate the Zionist law professors here were to “counteract” me, they even tried to hire a Zionist law professor from Zionist Northwestern Law School who had just been denied tenure there. Back when I got hired here in December 1977, we were ranked about the same as Northwestern Law School. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Wexler was the best they could come up with. Keep that in mind if and when she starts to warmonger against Iran, Syria, Palestine, etc. on behalf of Israel. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 10:26 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists It was truly pathetic. The Zionists on the COL Faculty were desperately scouting around trying to find a Zionist law professor to “counteract” me. Knowing what was going on, I just stayed out of it and chuckled while they were scurrying around. Wexler was the best they could come up with. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 10:14 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists And for the record, Wexler here at the College of Law is proud of being and has bragged about being an “academic fellow” of the so-called Foundation for the Defense of Democracies—a die-hard NeoCon Zionist Gang of Warmongers who got us into war against Iraq and are now trying to do the same against Iran, both for the sake of Israel. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. The Zionists on the Faculty here hired her in order to “counteract” me. LOL! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 9:47 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists The American NeoCons started out as Trots. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Scoop Jackson Democrats. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Republicans. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. And now they might get us involved in a war with Iran in order to do Israel’s dirty work for it—just like they did to Iraq. Just remember that when you see them as Talking Heads on all the Mainstream Media. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 8:49 AM To: Robert Naiman > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Robert You make some good points, such as “Johnstone’s acceptance of strong leaders.” I prefer, "none of our business who the leaders are, strong or otherwise,” what is our business is what leaders the US supports with US taxpayer funds and military armaments. That is our business. However, the “coincidence" of specific groups totally unrelated to Trotskyists, making the exact same arguments, statements, and name calling of anti-war activists in relation to Syria, which includes members of the “Students for Justice in Palestine” on campus, to be highly questionable. Especially when we have former alternative news sources like Democracy Now, NPR, and The Intercept, though not doing the name calling of anti-war activists, they make the same arguments, in support of the “moderate rebels” in Syria. It is possible some individuals may misread, the intent of “international socialism,” in which case I suggest they go back and reread their “Communist Manifesto,” whereby Marx and Engels clarify, “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” We have a long way to go in the US, before we are ready to lend anything more than verbal support, to uprisings against oppressive rulers, in other nations, as a nation. As related to “individual Americans” supporting uprisings, such as was done during the “Spanish Civil War.” or the “troubles in Ireland, etc.” that is up to the individual, as an individual. My final analysis of all, including Proyect, is one is not a socialist, if they support “imperialism.” On May 8, 2018, at 04:30, Robert Naiman > wrote: Proyect may be a "former Trotskyist," but with respect to the matter at hand, he is more "Trotskyist" than "former." He spent decades in the SWP. People with that kind of life experience often maintain many of the same habits of thought, the same allegiances, the same opportunism, the same slash and burn polemical style. Her critique of Trotksyists' excessive attachment to other people's revolutions, even if imaginary, certainly applies to Proyect; and her critique of how this often approach often leads to supporting Western imperialism also applies to Proyect. He has often, not always, been careful to insist that he opposes Western military intervention in Syria; but he has supported its predicates. If the Western imperialists are saying, A is true, and that's why the West must bomb and invade, Proyect will argue vigorously for A, while claiming innocence of the implication. And, he calls everyone that he perceives to be an obstacle to his project an Assadist, including me; he has done this for years. I know these things because I've been reading his stuff for a long time. He's a great writer, very smart, very compelling, if you're willing to tolerate the slash and burn polemical style. And he's very open and self-reflective about his history in the SWP, which is a story I find fascinating, and which makes clear that things he critiques about the SWP apply to his own current commitments and endeavors. Having said that, he does concede that "the Syrian revolution," such as it was, is now over. Also, some of his critique of the "Assadist left" has been true. Some of the "Assad didn't do it" stuff has verged into conspiracy theory. Finally: I like this Diana Johnstone piece a lot. I think it's substantially right. But there's something I wish she wouldn't do, which is the argument for accepting the necessity of the "strong leader" in these countries, which I think is callous when one is speaking about people who have been responsible for huge atrocities, which exposes her unnecessarily to opponents who see her as an apologist for authoritarian politics, and which is inherently speculative. We're never going to know what the alternative history was in the absence of imperialism, or even if imperialism had taken a slightly different course. What would have happened in Iran if the CIA had left Mossadeq alone? What would have happened in Chile if the CIA had left Allende alone? How would the Sandinistas have evolved if the CIA had left them alone? We're never going to know. Each of these situations had internal contradictions that the CIA exploited but was not the author of. How would these contradictions have been resolved if the CIA hadn't intervened? We'll never know. So let's reserve judgment. The more we can mitigate the Empire, the more space there will be for people to work out their problems without the usually terrible influence of external force. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it on "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the WSWS.ORG. In this case she refers to the ISO, "International Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, supporting US imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or supporters of Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the "Unrepentant Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity to criticize them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have maintained the same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war activists as Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis presents. In the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of one more nation in the middle east by the US imperialists. K. Aram Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments Save The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. By Diana Johnstone Special to Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/edited-Diana-Johnstone-150x150.jpg]I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed. The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution. A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the First World War. The Issue of Sources [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Trotsky-1-238x300.jpg] Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist extremism with Wahhabi roots. Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times. [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stalin_in_July_1941-Atomic-Heritage-Foundation-229x300.jpg] Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times. More About Stalin Than Syria This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria. This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which are notthe Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong. The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened? For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted. Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries. No Excuse for Bashar [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Edited-Assads-300x188.jpeg] The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”. This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business. Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002). _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 8 16:20:14 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 16:20:14 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Posting again Diana Johnstone's article as its lost in the jumble of emails. I don't agree with her assessment of Trotskyists. Message-ID: . Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments Save The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. By Diana Johnstone Special to Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/edited-Diana-Johnstone-150x150.jpg]I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed. The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution. A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the First World War. The Issue of Sources [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Trotsky-1-238x300.jpg] Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist extremism with Wahhabi roots. Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times. [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stalin_in_July_1941-Atomic-Heritage-Foundation-229x300.jpg] Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times. More About Stalin Than Syria This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria. This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which are notthe Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong. The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened? For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted. Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries. No Excuse for Bashar [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Edited-Assads-300x188.jpeg] The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”. This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business. Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002). _______________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Tue May 8 16:48:52 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 11:48:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think it's a fool's errand to try to define away the problem of "socialists" supporting imperialism by insisting that someone is not a "socialist" by virtue of the fact that they support imperialism. "Socialists" have been supporting imperialism for more than a century. Indeed, it was the fact that so many European socialists supported what we now know as World War I which caused the great schism in the European socialist movement between "socialists" and what became known as "communists" a hundred years ago. When the parliamentary deputies of the German Socialist Party voted for the war budget, Rosa Luxemburg is said to have quipped, "There are only two men left in the German Socialist Party: me and Clara Zetkin." Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > Robert > > You make some good points, such as “Johnstone’s acceptance of strong > leaders.” I prefer, "none of our business who the leaders are, strong or > otherwise,” what is our business is what leaders the US supports with US > taxpayer funds and military armaments. That is our business. > > However, the “coincidence" of specific groups totally unrelated to > Trotskyists, making the exact same arguments, statements, and name calling > of anti-war activists in relation to Syria, which includes members of the > “Students for Justice in Palestine” on campus, to be highly questionable. > Especially when we have former alternative news sources like Democracy Now, > NPR, and The Intercept, though not doing the name calling of anti-war > activists, they make the same arguments, in support of the “moderate > rebels” in Syria. > > It is possible some individuals may misread, the intent of “international > socialism,” in which case I suggest they go back and reread their > “Communist Manifesto,” whereby Marx and Engels clarify, “Though not in > substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat of each country > must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” > > We have a long way to go in the US, before we are ready to lend anything > more than verbal support, to uprisings against oppressive rulers, in other > nations, as a nation. As related to “individual Americans” supporting > uprisings, such as was done during the “Spanish Civil War.” or the > “troubles in Ireland, etc.” that is up to the individual, as an individual. > > My final analysis of all, including Proyect, is one is not a socialist, if > they support “imperialism.” > > On May 8, 2018, at 04:30, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > Proyect may be a "former Trotskyist," but with respect to the matter at > hand, he is more "Trotskyist" than "former." He spent decades in the SWP. > People with that kind of life experience often maintain many of the same > habits of thought, the same allegiances, the same opportunism, the same > slash and burn polemical style. Her critique of Trotksyists' excessive > attachment to other people's revolutions, even if imaginary, certainly > applies to Proyect; and her critique of how this often approach often leads > to supporting Western imperialism also applies to Proyect. He has often, > not always, been careful to insist that he opposes Western military > intervention in Syria; but he has supported its predicates. If the Western > imperialists are saying, A is true, and that's why the West must bomb and > invade, Proyect will argue vigorously for A, while claiming innocence of > the implication. And, he calls everyone that he perceives to be an obstacle > to his project an Assadist, including me; he has done this for years. > > I know these things because I've been reading his stuff for a long time. > He's a great writer, very smart, very compelling, if you're willing to > tolerate the slash and burn polemical style. And he's very open and > self-reflective about his history in the SWP, which is a story I find > fascinating, and which makes clear that things he critiques about the SWP > apply to his own current commitments and endeavors. > > Having said that, he does concede that "the Syrian revolution," such as it > was, is now over. > > Also, some of his critique of the "Assadist left" has been true. Some of > the "Assad didn't do it" stuff has verged into conspiracy theory. > > Finally: I like this Diana Johnstone piece a lot. I think it's > substantially right. But there's something I wish she wouldn't do, which is > the argument for accepting the necessity of the "strong leader" in these > countries, which I think is callous when one is speaking about people who > have been responsible for huge atrocities, which exposes her unnecessarily > to opponents who see her as an apologist for authoritarian politics, and > which is inherently speculative. We're never going to know what the > alternative history was in the absence of imperialism, or even if > imperialism had taken a slightly different course. What would have happened > in Iran if the CIA had left Mossadeq alone? What would have happened in > Chile if the CIA had left Allende alone? How would the Sandinistas have > evolved if the CIA had left them alone? We're never going to know. Each of > these situations had internal contradictions that the CIA exploited but was > not the author of. How would these contradictions have been resolved if the > CIA hadn't intervened? We'll never know. So let's reserve judgment. The > more we can mitigate the Empire, the more space there will be for people to > work out their problems without the usually terrible influence of external > force. > > > > > > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> >> No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it >> on "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the >> WSWS.ORG . In this case she refers to the ISO, >> "International Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, >> supporting US imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or >> supporters of Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the >> "Unrepentant Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity >> to criticize them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have >> maintained the same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war >> activists as Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis >> presents. In the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of >> one more nation in the middle east by the US imperialists. >> K. Aram >> >> >> >> Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions >> Everywhere >> May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Save >> >> >> >> The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other >> peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent >> revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. >> >> *By Diana Johnstone **Special to Consortium News* >> >> >> I >> first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the >> movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing >> anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves >> “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that >> did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual >> counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy >> toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. >> imperialism, but that has changed. >> >> The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into >> rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, >> notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). >> >> Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent >> revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into >> the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the >> long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving >> eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they >> join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the >> alleged revolution. >> >> A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March >> 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so >> thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. >> Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, >> this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. >> >> McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar >> al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote >> some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their >> fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There >> could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds >> very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the >> First World War. >> >> *The Issue of Sources* >> >> Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. >> >> It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations >> against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating >> that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. >> Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to >> embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a >> doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good >> revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with >> their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with >> Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but >> *intentions*, which are invisible. But it is presented as >> unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. >> >> This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current >> Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In >> both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad >> enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. >> >> “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the >> early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological >> lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions >> as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were >> framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia >> purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy >> of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up >> according to the appetites of the US government and the International >> Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. >> >> Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line >> in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western >> imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States >> to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. >> >> Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of >> anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist >> extremism with Wahhabi roots. >> >> *Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance* >> >> In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, >> taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for >> armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its >> regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, >> Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds >> of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a >> few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist >> atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the >> Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance >> between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. >> >> It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) >> about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote >> citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually >> equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the >> Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to >> present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive >> international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both >> implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” >> >> No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan >> Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. >> >> Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist >> mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than *twenty-two times.* >> >> >> Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. >> >> And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to >> destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly >> denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi >> family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its >> neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist >> groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. >> >> Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution >> everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to >> Stalin several times. >> >> *More About Stalin Than Syria* >> >> This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is >> about Syria. >> >> This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which >> are *not*the Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something >> is wrong. >> >> The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the >> Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. >> Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their >> much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not >> much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? >> >> Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, >> and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth >> than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the >> people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors >> from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this *ever *happened? >> >> For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should >> happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. >> >> In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World >> countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful >> emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people >> and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the >> population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning >> independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik >> revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, >> maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to >> save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no >> evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more >> tender-hearted. >> >> Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as >> Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. >> >> McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat >> redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This >> modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the >> Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its >> failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the >> progressive development of newly independent countries. >> >> *No Excuse for Bashar* >> >> The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. >> >> If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in >> McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a >> global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the >> most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of >> state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the >> heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by >> showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while >> evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” >> >> The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore >> creating a situation that justified “revolution”. >> >> This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative >> Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to >> anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al >> Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led >> globalization? >> >> McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong >> side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs >> in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership >> in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” >> >> One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be >> saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible >> for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we >> possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” >> >> The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” >> other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling >> others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal >> agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. >> The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological >> alibi for permanent war. >> >> For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its >> inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own >> business. >> >> *Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European >> politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University >> of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. >> Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly **In These Times* >> * from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a >> correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group >> in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include **Queen >> of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton >> , **CounterPunch >> Books (2016) and **Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western >> Delusions , **Pluto >> Press (2002).* >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 8 17:13:13 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 17:13:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists References: Message-ID: Sorry, I left out Lebanon. Next time Israel genocides Lebanon and the Lebanese be sure to remember that the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and its “academic fellow” Wexler are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 11:10 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists To give you an idea of how desperate the Zionist law professors here were to “counteract” me, they even tried to hire a Zionist law professor from Zionist Northwestern Law School who had just been denied tenure there. Back when I got hired here in December 1977, we were ranked about the same as Northwestern Law School. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Wexler was the best they could come up with. Keep that in mind if and when she starts to warmonger against Iran, Syria, Palestine, etc. on behalf of Israel. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 10:26 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists It was truly pathetic. The Zionists on the COL Faculty were desperately scouting around trying to find a Zionist law professor to “counteract” me. Knowing what was going on, I just stayed out of it and chuckled while they were scurrying around. Wexler was the best they could come up with. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 10:14 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists And for the record, Wexler here at the College of Law is proud of being and has bragged about being an “academic fellow” of the so-called Foundation for the Defense of Democracies—a die-hard NeoCon Zionist Gang of Warmongers who got us into war against Iraq and are now trying to do the same against Iran, both for the sake of Israel. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. The Zionists on the Faculty here hired her in order to “counteract” me. LOL! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 9:47 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists The American NeoCons started out as Trots. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Scoop Jackson Democrats. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Republicans. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. And now they might get us involved in a war with Iran in order to do Israel’s dirty work for it—just like they did to Iraq. Just remember that when you see them as Talking Heads on all the Mainstream Media. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 8:49 AM To: Robert Naiman > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Robert You make some good points, such as “Johnstone’s acceptance of strong leaders.” I prefer, "none of our business who the leaders are, strong or otherwise,” what is our business is what leaders the US supports with US taxpayer funds and military armaments. That is our business. However, the “coincidence" of specific groups totally unrelated to Trotskyists, making the exact same arguments, statements, and name calling of anti-war activists in relation to Syria, which includes members of the “Students for Justice in Palestine” on campus, to be highly questionable. Especially when we have former alternative news sources like Democracy Now, NPR, and The Intercept, though not doing the name calling of anti-war activists, they make the same arguments, in support of the “moderate rebels” in Syria. It is possible some individuals may misread, the intent of “international socialism,” in which case I suggest they go back and reread their “Communist Manifesto,” whereby Marx and Engels clarify, “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” We have a long way to go in the US, before we are ready to lend anything more than verbal support, to uprisings against oppressive rulers, in other nations, as a nation. As related to “individual Americans” supporting uprisings, such as was done during the “Spanish Civil War.” or the “troubles in Ireland, etc.” that is up to the individual, as an individual. My final analysis of all, including Proyect, is one is not a socialist, if they support “imperialism.” On May 8, 2018, at 04:30, Robert Naiman > wrote: Proyect may be a "former Trotskyist," but with respect to the matter at hand, he is more "Trotskyist" than "former." He spent decades in the SWP. People with that kind of life experience often maintain many of the same habits of thought, the same allegiances, the same opportunism, the same slash and burn polemical style. Her critique of Trotksyists' excessive attachment to other people's revolutions, even if imaginary, certainly applies to Proyect; and her critique of how this often approach often leads to supporting Western imperialism also applies to Proyect. He has often, not always, been careful to insist that he opposes Western military intervention in Syria; but he has supported its predicates. If the Western imperialists are saying, A is true, and that's why the West must bomb and invade, Proyect will argue vigorously for A, while claiming innocence of the implication. And, he calls everyone that he perceives to be an obstacle to his project an Assadist, including me; he has done this for years. I know these things because I've been reading his stuff for a long time. He's a great writer, very smart, very compelling, if you're willing to tolerate the slash and burn polemical style. And he's very open and self-reflective about his history in the SWP, which is a story I find fascinating, and which makes clear that things he critiques about the SWP apply to his own current commitments and endeavors. Having said that, he does concede that "the Syrian revolution," such as it was, is now over. Also, some of his critique of the "Assadist left" has been true. Some of the "Assad didn't do it" stuff has verged into conspiracy theory. Finally: I like this Diana Johnstone piece a lot. I think it's substantially right. But there's something I wish she wouldn't do, which is the argument for accepting the necessity of the "strong leader" in these countries, which I think is callous when one is speaking about people who have been responsible for huge atrocities, which exposes her unnecessarily to opponents who see her as an apologist for authoritarian politics, and which is inherently speculative. We're never going to know what the alternative history was in the absence of imperialism, or even if imperialism had taken a slightly different course. What would have happened in Iran if the CIA had left Mossadeq alone? What would have happened in Chile if the CIA had left Allende alone? How would the Sandinistas have evolved if the CIA had left them alone? We're never going to know. Each of these situations had internal contradictions that the CIA exploited but was not the author of. How would these contradictions have been resolved if the CIA hadn't intervened? We'll never know. So let's reserve judgment. The more we can mitigate the Empire, the more space there will be for people to work out their problems without the usually terrible influence of external force. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it on "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the WSWS.ORG. In this case she refers to the ISO, "International Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, supporting US imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or supporters of Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the "Unrepentant Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity to criticize them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have maintained the same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war activists as Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis presents. In the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of one more nation in the middle east by the US imperialists. K. Aram Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments Save The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. By Diana Johnstone Special to Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/edited-Diana-Johnstone-150x150.jpg]I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed. The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution. A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the First World War. The Issue of Sources [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Trotsky-1-238x300.jpg] Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist extremism with Wahhabi roots. Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times. [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stalin_in_July_1941-Atomic-Heritage-Foundation-229x300.jpg] Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times. More About Stalin Than Syria This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria. This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which are notthe Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong. The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened? For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted. Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries. No Excuse for Bashar [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Edited-Assads-300x188.jpeg] The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”. This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business. Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002). _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 8 18:08:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 18:08:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That was then, did we not learn anything? Though your point is well taken. My point is Johnstone has labeled “Trotskyists” in general as supporting war in Syria, using the ISO as an example, a good one since its true their leadership obviously does, given the writings in their daily “Socialist Worker” and the ISR over the last seven years. That is just one example of a Trotskyist organization, and her analysis or theory maybe accurate, however one example is not enough to tar brush all Trotskyists as supporting imperialism. She excludes the WSWS.Org or the Socialist Equality Party, a Trotskyist organization, given their writings over the years opposing imperialism in not just Syria, but everywhere. The question is and should be, is it “policy,” or is it individuals, in the case of the ISO it’s clearly policy as it is coming from the leadership. Johnstone thinks its policy based upon ideology. I am saying based upon only one example, we don’t know. Without better data, we shouldn’t be so ready to tar brush everyone who is or was a Trotskyist. In the case of the Black Rose, their information supporting imperialism is coming from their national website, thus it must be policy. The recent public statement by the SJP, slandering those opposing war in Syria, was made by their Student President at the U of I campus. Thus, unless an apology or retraction is made and none has been forthcoming, it must be assumed to be policy. Not all Americans support war, though it is USG policy,and history will likely judge us accordingly. Until then I refuse to be labeled a war supporter by non Americans, and refuse to accept that all Trotskyists support imperialism because one group so obviously does. Other than this one point, I like what Johnstone has to say. On May 8, 2018, at 09:48, Robert Naiman > wrote: I think it's a fool's errand to try to define away the problem of "socialists" supporting imperialism by insisting that someone is not a "socialist" by virtue of the fact that they support imperialism. "Socialists" have been supporting imperialism for more than a century. Indeed, it was the fact that so many European socialists supported what we now know as World War I which caused the great schism in the European socialist movement between "socialists" and what became known as "communists" a hundred years ago. When the parliamentary deputies of the German Socialist Party voted for the war budget, Rosa Luxemburg is said to have quipped, "There are only two men left in the German Socialist Party: me and Clara Zetkin." Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: Robert You make some good points, such as “Johnstone’s acceptance of strong leaders.” I prefer, "none of our business who the leaders are, strong or otherwise,” what is our business is what leaders the US supports with US taxpayer funds and military armaments. That is our business. However, the “coincidence" of specific groups totally unrelated to Trotskyists, making the exact same arguments, statements, and name calling of anti-war activists in relation to Syria, which includes members of the “Students for Justice in Palestine” on campus, to be highly questionable. Especially when we have former alternative news sources like Democracy Now, NPR, and The Intercept, though not doing the name calling of anti-war activists, they make the same arguments, in support of the “moderate rebels” in Syria. It is possible some individuals may misread, the intent of “international socialism,” in which case I suggest they go back and reread their “Communist Manifesto,” whereby Marx and Engels clarify, “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” We have a long way to go in the US, before we are ready to lend anything more than verbal support, to uprisings against oppressive rulers, in other nations, as a nation. As related to “individual Americans” supporting uprisings, such as was done during the “Spanish Civil War.” or the “troubles in Ireland, etc.” that is up to the individual, as an individual. My final analysis of all, including Proyect, is one is not a socialist, if they support “imperialism.” On May 8, 2018, at 04:30, Robert Naiman > wrote: Proyect may be a "former Trotskyist," but with respect to the matter at hand, he is more "Trotskyist" than "former." He spent decades in the SWP. People with that kind of life experience often maintain many of the same habits of thought, the same allegiances, the same opportunism, the same slash and burn polemical style. Her critique of Trotksyists' excessive attachment to other people's revolutions, even if imaginary, certainly applies to Proyect; and her critique of how this often approach often leads to supporting Western imperialism also applies to Proyect. He has often, not always, been careful to insist that he opposes Western military intervention in Syria; but he has supported its predicates. If the Western imperialists are saying, A is true, and that's why the West must bomb and invade, Proyect will argue vigorously for A, while claiming innocence of the implication. And, he calls everyone that he perceives to be an obstacle to his project an Assadist, including me; he has done this for years. I know these things because I've been reading his stuff for a long time. He's a great writer, very smart, very compelling, if you're willing to tolerate the slash and burn polemical style. And he's very open and self-reflective about his history in the SWP, which is a story I find fascinating, and which makes clear that things he critiques about the SWP apply to his own current commitments and endeavors. Having said that, he does concede that "the Syrian revolution," such as it was, is now over. Also, some of his critique of the "Assadist left" has been true. Some of the "Assad didn't do it" stuff has verged into conspiracy theory. Finally: I like this Diana Johnstone piece a lot. I think it's substantially right. But there's something I wish she wouldn't do, which is the argument for accepting the necessity of the "strong leader" in these countries, which I think is callous when one is speaking about people who have been responsible for huge atrocities, which exposes her unnecessarily to opponents who see her as an apologist for authoritarian politics, and which is inherently speculative. We're never going to know what the alternative history was in the absence of imperialism, or even if imperialism had taken a slightly different course. What would have happened in Iran if the CIA had left Mossadeq alone? What would have happened in Chile if the CIA had left Allende alone? How would the Sandinistas have evolved if the CIA had left them alone? We're never going to know. Each of these situations had internal contradictions that the CIA exploited but was not the author of. How would these contradictions have been resolved if the CIA hadn't intervened? We'll never know. So let's reserve judgment. The more we can mitigate the Empire, the more space there will be for people to work out their problems without the usually terrible influence of external force. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it on "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the WSWS.ORG. In this case she refers to the ISO, "International Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, supporting US imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or supporters of Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the "Unrepentant Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity to criticize them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have maintained the same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war activists as Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis presents. In the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of one more nation in the middle east by the US imperialists. K. Aram Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments Save The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. By Diana Johnstone Special to Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/edited-Diana-Johnstone-150x150.jpg]I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed. The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution. A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the First World War. The Issue of Sources [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Trotsky-1-238x300.jpg] Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist extremism with Wahhabi roots. Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times. [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stalin_in_July_1941-Atomic-Heritage-Foundation-229x300.jpg] Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times. More About Stalin Than Syria This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria. This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which are notthe Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong. The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened? For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted. Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries. No Excuse for Bashar [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Edited-Assads-300x188.jpeg] The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”. This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business. Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002). _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 8 19:29:32 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 19:29:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists References: Message-ID: And please understand: The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, where Wexler bragged on the Law School News being an “academic fellow”—are not just your ordinary, run of the mill Zionists. They are all hard-core, die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers for Israel. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 12:13 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Sorry, I left out Lebanon. Next time Israel genocides Lebanon and the Lebanese be sure to remember that the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and its “academic fellow” Wexler are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 11:10 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists To give you an idea of how desperate the Zionist law professors here were to “counteract” me, they even tried to hire a Zionist law professor from Zionist Northwestern Law School who had just been denied tenure there. Back when I got hired here in December 1977, we were ranked about the same as Northwestern Law School. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Wexler was the best they could come up with. Keep that in mind if and when she starts to warmonger against Iran, Syria, Palestine, etc. on behalf of Israel. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 10:26 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists It was truly pathetic. The Zionists on the COL Faculty were desperately scouting around trying to find a Zionist law professor to “counteract” me. Knowing what was going on, I just stayed out of it and chuckled while they were scurrying around. Wexler was the best they could come up with. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 10:14 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists And for the record, Wexler here at the College of Law is proud of being and has bragged about being an “academic fellow” of the so-called Foundation for the Defense of Democracies—a die-hard NeoCon Zionist Gang of Warmongers who got us into war against Iraq and are now trying to do the same against Iran, both for the sake of Israel. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. The Zionists on the Faculty here hired her in order to “counteract” me. LOL! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 9:47 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists The American NeoCons started out as Trots. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Scoop Jackson Democrats. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Republicans. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. And now they might get us involved in a war with Iran in order to do Israel’s dirty work for it—just like they did to Iraq. Just remember that when you see them as Talking Heads on all the Mainstream Media. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 8:49 AM To: Robert Naiman > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Robert You make some good points, such as “Johnstone’s acceptance of strong leaders.” I prefer, "none of our business who the leaders are, strong or otherwise,” what is our business is what leaders the US supports with US taxpayer funds and military armaments. That is our business. However, the “coincidence" of specific groups totally unrelated to Trotskyists, making the exact same arguments, statements, and name calling of anti-war activists in relation to Syria, which includes members of the “Students for Justice in Palestine” on campus, to be highly questionable. Especially when we have former alternative news sources like Democracy Now, NPR, and The Intercept, though not doing the name calling of anti-war activists, they make the same arguments, in support of the “moderate rebels” in Syria. It is possible some individuals may misread, the intent of “international socialism,” in which case I suggest they go back and reread their “Communist Manifesto,” whereby Marx and Engels clarify, “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” We have a long way to go in the US, before we are ready to lend anything more than verbal support, to uprisings against oppressive rulers, in other nations, as a nation. As related to “individual Americans” supporting uprisings, such as was done during the “Spanish Civil War.” or the “troubles in Ireland, etc.” that is up to the individual, as an individual. My final analysis of all, including Proyect, is one is not a socialist, if they support “imperialism.” On May 8, 2018, at 04:30, Robert Naiman > wrote: Proyect may be a "former Trotskyist," but with respect to the matter at hand, he is more "Trotskyist" than "former." He spent decades in the SWP. People with that kind of life experience often maintain many of the same habits of thought, the same allegiances, the same opportunism, the same slash and burn polemical style. Her critique of Trotksyists' excessive attachment to other people's revolutions, even if imaginary, certainly applies to Proyect; and her critique of how this often approach often leads to supporting Western imperialism also applies to Proyect. He has often, not always, been careful to insist that he opposes Western military intervention in Syria; but he has supported its predicates. If the Western imperialists are saying, A is true, and that's why the West must bomb and invade, Proyect will argue vigorously for A, while claiming innocence of the implication. And, he calls everyone that he perceives to be an obstacle to his project an Assadist, including me; he has done this for years. I know these things because I've been reading his stuff for a long time. He's a great writer, very smart, very compelling, if you're willing to tolerate the slash and burn polemical style. And he's very open and self-reflective about his history in the SWP, which is a story I find fascinating, and which makes clear that things he critiques about the SWP apply to his own current commitments and endeavors. Having said that, he does concede that "the Syrian revolution," such as it was, is now over. Also, some of his critique of the "Assadist left" has been true. Some of the "Assad didn't do it" stuff has verged into conspiracy theory. Finally: I like this Diana Johnstone piece a lot. I think it's substantially right. But there's something I wish she wouldn't do, which is the argument for accepting the necessity of the "strong leader" in these countries, which I think is callous when one is speaking about people who have been responsible for huge atrocities, which exposes her unnecessarily to opponents who see her as an apologist for authoritarian politics, and which is inherently speculative. We're never going to know what the alternative history was in the absence of imperialism, or even if imperialism had taken a slightly different course. What would have happened in Iran if the CIA had left Mossadeq alone? What would have happened in Chile if the CIA had left Allende alone? How would the Sandinistas have evolved if the CIA had left them alone? We're never going to know. Each of these situations had internal contradictions that the CIA exploited but was not the author of. How would these contradictions have been resolved if the CIA hadn't intervened? We'll never know. So let's reserve judgment. The more we can mitigate the Empire, the more space there will be for people to work out their problems without the usually terrible influence of external force. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it on "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the WSWS.ORG. In this case she refers to the ISO, "International Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, supporting US imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or supporters of Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the "Unrepentant Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity to criticize them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have maintained the same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war activists as Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis presents. In the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of one more nation in the middle east by the US imperialists. K. Aram Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments Save The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. By Diana Johnstone Special to Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/edited-Diana-Johnstone-150x150.jpg]I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed. The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution. A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the First World War. The Issue of Sources [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Trotsky-1-238x300.jpg] Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist extremism with Wahhabi roots. Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times. [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stalin_in_July_1941-Atomic-Heritage-Foundation-229x300.jpg] Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times. More About Stalin Than Syria This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria. This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which are notthe Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong. The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened? For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted. Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries. No Excuse for Bashar [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Edited-Assads-300x188.jpeg] The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”. This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business. Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002). _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Wed May 9 02:12:11 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 02:12:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Message-ID: In light of today’s tragic events, I note for the record that Wexler’s Gang of Hard-core, Die-Hard NeoCon Zionist warmongers for Israel at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies went all out to convince Trump to pull out of the JCPOA with Iran for the benefit of Israel and to the most grave detriment of the United States, the American People, and World Peace. Wexler’s Foundsters are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States, the American People and the Peoples of the World. If war between the United States and Iran occurs, Wexler’s Foundsters will bear their fair share of the blame and the guilt for all the ensuing death and destruction of Iranians and Americans for the benefit of Israel. Just like Wexler’s Foundsters did against Iraq, including 5000+ dead American Soldiers. Wexler’s Foundsters are more than happy to use the Young Men and Women of US Armed Forces to do Israel’s Dirty Work for them. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 2:30 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists And please understand: The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, where Wexler bragged on the Law School News being an “academic fellow”—are not just your ordinary, run of the mill Zionists. They are all hard-core, die-hard NeoCon Zionist Warmongers for Israel. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 12:13 PM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Sorry, I left out Lebanon. Next time Israel genocides Lebanon and the Lebanese be sure to remember that the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and its “academic fellow” Wexler are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 11:10 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists To give you an idea of how desperate the Zionist law professors here were to “counteract” me, they even tried to hire a Zionist law professor from Zionist Northwestern Law School who had just been denied tenure there. Back when I got hired here in December 1977, we were ranked about the same as Northwestern Law School. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Wexler was the best they could come up with. Keep that in mind if and when she starts to warmonger against Iran, Syria, Palestine, etc. on behalf of Israel. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 10:26 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists It was truly pathetic. The Zionists on the COL Faculty were desperately scouting around trying to find a Zionist law professor to “counteract” me. Knowing what was going on, I just stayed out of it and chuckled while they were scurrying around. Wexler was the best they could come up with. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 10:14 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists And for the record, Wexler here at the College of Law is proud of being and has bragged about being an “academic fellow” of the so-called Foundation for the Defense of Democracies—a die-hard NeoCon Zionist Gang of Warmongers who got us into war against Iraq and are now trying to do the same against Iran, both for the sake of Israel. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. The Zionists on the Faculty here hired her in order to “counteract” me. LOL! fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 9:47 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists The American NeoCons started out as Trots. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Scoop Jackson Democrats. Then because of their die-hard support of Israel, they became Republicans. They are more loyal to Israel than they are to the United States of America. And now they might get us involved in a war with Iran in order to do Israel’s dirty work for it—just like they did to Iraq. Just remember that when you see them as Talking Heads on all the Mainstream Media. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 8:49 AM To: Robert Naiman > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Diana Johnstone: on Trotskyists Robert You make some good points, such as “Johnstone’s acceptance of strong leaders.” I prefer, "none of our business who the leaders are, strong or otherwise,” what is our business is what leaders the US supports with US taxpayer funds and military armaments. That is our business. However, the “coincidence" of specific groups totally unrelated to Trotskyists, making the exact same arguments, statements, and name calling of anti-war activists in relation to Syria, which includes members of the “Students for Justice in Palestine” on campus, to be highly questionable. Especially when we have former alternative news sources like Democracy Now, NPR, and The Intercept, though not doing the name calling of anti-war activists, they make the same arguments, in support of the “moderate rebels” in Syria. It is possible some individuals may misread, the intent of “international socialism,” in which case I suggest they go back and reread their “Communist Manifesto,” whereby Marx and Engels clarify, “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” We have a long way to go in the US, before we are ready to lend anything more than verbal support, to uprisings against oppressive rulers, in other nations, as a nation. As related to “individual Americans” supporting uprisings, such as was done during the “Spanish Civil War.” or the “troubles in Ireland, etc.” that is up to the individual, as an individual. My final analysis of all, including Proyect, is one is not a socialist, if they support “imperialism.” On May 8, 2018, at 04:30, Robert Naiman > wrote: Proyect may be a "former Trotskyist," but with respect to the matter at hand, he is more "Trotskyist" than "former." He spent decades in the SWP. People with that kind of life experience often maintain many of the same habits of thought, the same allegiances, the same opportunism, the same slash and burn polemical style. Her critique of Trotksyists' excessive attachment to other people's revolutions, even if imaginary, certainly applies to Proyect; and her critique of how this often approach often leads to supporting Western imperialism also applies to Proyect. He has often, not always, been careful to insist that he opposes Western military intervention in Syria; but he has supported its predicates. If the Western imperialists are saying, A is true, and that's why the West must bomb and invade, Proyect will argue vigorously for A, while claiming innocence of the implication. And, he calls everyone that he perceives to be an obstacle to his project an Assadist, including me; he has done this for years. I know these things because I've been reading his stuff for a long time. He's a great writer, very smart, very compelling, if you're willing to tolerate the slash and burn polemical style. And he's very open and self-reflective about his history in the SWP, which is a story I find fascinating, and which makes clear that things he critiques about the SWP apply to his own current commitments and endeavors. Having said that, he does concede that "the Syrian revolution," such as it was, is now over. Also, some of his critique of the "Assadist left" has been true. Some of the "Assad didn't do it" stuff has verged into conspiracy theory. Finally: I like this Diana Johnstone piece a lot. I think it's substantially right. But there's something I wish she wouldn't do, which is the argument for accepting the necessity of the "strong leader" in these countries, which I think is callous when one is speaking about people who have been responsible for huge atrocities, which exposes her unnecessarily to opponents who see her as an apologist for authoritarian politics, and which is inherently speculative. We're never going to know what the alternative history was in the absence of imperialism, or even if imperialism had taken a slightly different course. What would have happened in Iran if the CIA had left Mossadeq alone? What would have happened in Chile if the CIA had left Allende alone? How would the Sandinistas have evolved if the CIA had left them alone? We're never going to know. Each of these situations had internal contradictions that the CIA exploited but was not the author of. How would these contradictions have been resolved if the CIA hadn't intervened? We'll never know. So let's reserve judgment. The more we can mitigate the Empire, the more space there will be for people to work out their problems without the usually terrible influence of external force. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: No one says it better than Diana Johnstone. Though I would not blame it on "Trotskyists." She is clear, to eliminate those writing for the WSWS.ORG. In this case she refers to the ISO, "International Socialist Organization," and one of their many articles, supporting US imperialism, by labeling anti-war leftists as Assadists, or supporters of Dictatorship. While they maybe Trotskyists, Louis Proyect the "Unrepentant Markxist is a former Trotskyist, and takes every opportunity to criticize them, he like the anarchist group "Black Rose," all have maintained the same position as that of the ISO, that of labeling anti-war activists as Assadists and supporters of a Dictator, that Diana's analysis presents. In the meantime, the killing continues, and the destruction of one more nation in the middle east by the US imperialists. K. Aram Trotskyist Delusions: Obsessed with Stalin, They See Betrayed Revolutions Everywhere May 4, 2018 • 192 Comments Save The trouble with some Trotskyists is they’re always “supporting” other peoples’ revolutions, says Diana Johnstone. Their obsession with permanent revolution in the end provides an alibi for permanent war. By Diana Johnstone Special to Consortium News [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/edited-Diana-Johnstone-150x150.jpg]I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War. I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France. So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement. In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed. The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS). Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” (turning a bourgeois revolution into a working class one) into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media. More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution. A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria” indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism can go wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset. McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out.” The source of this grisly information is not given. There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies in the First World War. The Issue of Sources [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Trotsky-1-238x300.jpg] Trotsky: His permanent revolution turned into permanent war. It raises the issue of sources. There are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am. Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamist prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism. The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamist fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible. But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness. This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart. In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia. “Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna. Whose “ideological lynchpin?” Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its intervention was not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamist extremism. Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anti-colonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamist extremism with Wahhabi roots. Organic U.S.-Israel Alliance In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies. The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamist extremism to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks. It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source). And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda: the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).” No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to. Only one, innocuous mention of Israel. But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times. [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stalin_in_July_1941-Atomic-Heritage-Foundation-229x300.jpg] Stalin: Bolshevik Revolution ended in him. And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran? Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase. But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamist groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility. Clearly, this Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin. Assad is likened to Stalin several times. More About Stalin Than Syria This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria. This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events, which are notthe Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong. The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution. Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse (jihadists taking over the country)? Throughout history, revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression. Revolution is very rare. It is more a myth than a reality, especially as some Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy. Has this ever happened? For these Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness. In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine. Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population. Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies. There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted. Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong ruler. McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yes, there was a Soviet bloc, which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries. No Excuse for Bashar [https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Edited-Assads-300x188.jpeg] The Assads: Son succumbed to neo-liberalism. If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar. “In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.” The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”. This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it. Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies. Syria included. Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization? McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect: “If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?” One could turn that around. Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying: “If we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?” The trouble with these Trotskyists is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions. They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism. The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war. For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business. Diana Johnstone is a political writer, focusing primarily on European politics and Western foreign policy. She received a Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota and was active in the movement against the Vietnam War. Johnstone was European editor of the U.S. weekly In These Times from 1979 to 1990, and continues to be a correspondent for the publication. She was press officer of the Green group in the European Parliament from 1990 to 1996. Her books include Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton, CounterPunch Books (2016) and Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press (2002). _______________________________________________ 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 r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed May 9 03:29:40 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 03:29:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why Are So Many Democracies Breaking Down? References: Message-ID: From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: NYTimes.com: Why Are So Many Democracies Breaking Down? Date: May 8, 2018 >From The New York Times: Why Are So Many Democracies Breaking Down? The roots of backslides to authoritarianism reside in democratic constitutions themselves. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/democracy-authoritarian-constitutions.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Wed May 9 03:40:22 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 03:40:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why Are So Many Democracies Breaking Down? References: Message-ID: <28B8EF3F-FFBA-4AD8-B30A-7DED8E6F0D79@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: NYTimes.com: Why Are So Many Democracies Breaking Down? Date: May 8, 2018 >From The New York Times: Why Are So Many Democracies Breaking Down? The roots of backslides to authoritarianism reside in democratic constitutions themselves. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/democracy-authoritarian-constitutions.html [cid:3BC79E9D-015C-42D6-AA1A-AABB8C92D9D3 at hsd1.il.comcast.net] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Sein Kampf.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 43362 bytes Desc: Sein Kampf.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 9 12:57:02 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 12:57:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord 9 May 2018 US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. Keith Jones WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 9 13:03:19 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 08:03:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. —CGE > On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > 9 May 2018 > US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. > In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. > Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. > As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” > Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. > In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. > His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. > The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. > As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” > Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. > First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” > Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” > Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. > The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. > No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. > Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. > The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. > If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. > In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. > This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. > Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. > Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. > In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. > Keith Jones > WSWS.ORG > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 9 13:39:31 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 13:39:31 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Empire files censored available here Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/usa/423341-abby-martin-israel-youtube-blocked/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 9 13:43:24 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 13:43:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Carl Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. > On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. > > Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” > > During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: > > “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” > > A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. > > Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. > > But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) > > The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. > > President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. > > (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) > > In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. > > We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. > > The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. > > If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. > > In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. > > —CGE > >> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> >> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >> 9 May 2018 >> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. >> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. >> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. >> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. >> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” >> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” >> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. >> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. >> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. >> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. >> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >> Keith Jones >> WSWS.ORG >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed May 9 13:54:50 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 13:54:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> Message-ID: This visit {Dershowitz} is sponsored by Gies College of Business; The Program in Constitutional Theory, History, and Law at the College of Law {i.e., Fired and Disgraced Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd and her ConsortCIA/Mossad Torturer-mongerer Mikey Moore}; and the Chabad Center for Jewish {Sic!} Life at University of Illinois. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK. But Israel's Fifth Column Zionists here in the United States such as Wexler's Foundsters will be baying for war against Iran just like they twice did against Iraq. American Zionists are more than happy to Murder and Maim the Young Men and Young Women of OUR Armed Forces in order to do Israel's dirty work for it. In the C-U Community, these Fifth Column Zionists can all be conveniently located on that News Gazoo published list of those supporting Wise {Sic!} illegally firing Our Palestinian American Native American Studies Professor Steven Salaita, throwing him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, destroying his Academic Career and gutting our Native American Studies Program that was intended to be partial reparations for Chief Illiniwak. You can't trust any of them! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 8:43 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord Carl Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. > On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. > > Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” > > During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: > > “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” > > A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. > > Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. > > But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) > > The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. > > President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. > > (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) > > In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. > > We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. > > The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. > > If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. > > In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. > > —CGE > >> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> >> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >> 9 May 2018 >> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. >> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. >> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. >> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. >> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” >> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” >> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. >> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. >> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. >> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. >> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >> Keith Jones >> WSWS.ORG >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 9 13:59:31 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 08:59:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> Message-ID: 'Israel lobby calling the shots in Trump's rollback policy on Iran' – Max Blumenthal — RT US News President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal is a result of a lobbying effort by American Jewish billionaires and recycled, cooked-up intelligence touted by the Israeli PM, journalist Max Blumenthal told RT. Trump's decision to pull the US out of the deal, which capped Iran's uranium enrichment in return for economic sanctions relief, has drawn widespread criticism from Washington's European allies and Moscow, but it was lauded in Israel, which has long pushed for dismantling of the 2015 accord. If this doesn't speak for itself, Blumenthal told RT that the roots of Trump's decision to scrap the deal can be easily traced back to Israel. "Israeli influence is absolutely key here. At least, Trump sided Netanyahu's kind of used car salesman style of presentation in order to justify withdrawing from the Iran deal and his new policy of rollback," the journalist said. Taking aim at the bizarre PowerPoint presentation delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu late last month, Blumenthal pointed out the Israeli leader essentially "introduced nothing new in his presentation," adding that "much of the intelligence" appears to be "cooked" and stem from the early 2000s. In 2004, the George W. Bush administration claimed that it had obtained 1,000 pages of technical documentation shedding the light on Iran's intentions to produce a nuclear weapon. According to the US officials who spoke to the media at the time, the documents came from a "stolen Iranian laptop," and not from an anti-government group. However, it was later revealed by German intelligence officials that the source of the documents was Iranian resistance group Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), which is recognized as terrorist by the US State Department. "It's another intelligence scam driving us to war," Blumenthal said, calling the intelligence cited by Netanyahu "arguably fabricated." Apart from Netanyahu, who has long been advocating the collapse of the internationally recognized agreement, Israeli lobbies within the US greatly contributed to Trump's decision to take a more hawkish stance on Iran in line with Israel's own, Blumenthal said. "This triad of likudic billionaires – [ Home Deport co-founder] Bernard Marcus, [casino magnate] Sheldon Adelson and [hedge fund billionaire] Paul Signer – contributed over $40 million to pro-Trump Super PACs, and also contributed enormous amount of money to Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley and Tom Cotton, the senator that shaped Trump's Iran policy," the journalist pointed out. > > On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl > > Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. > > >> On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. >> >> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” >> >> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: >> >> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >> >> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. >> >> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. >> >> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) >> >> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. >> >> President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >> >> (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) >> >> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >> >> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. >> >> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. >> >> If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >> >> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. >> >> —CGE >> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>> >>> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >>> 9 May 2018 >>> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >>> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >>> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. >>> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >>> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >>> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. >>> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. >>> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >>> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >>> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. >>> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” >>> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” >>> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. >>> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >>> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >>> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. >>> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >>> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >>> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >>> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. >>> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >>> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. >>> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >>> Keith Jones >>> WSWS.ORG >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 9 14:18:57 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 14:18:57 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Carl I read this, I posted it, but to state that the Trump Administration is being “manipulated," would we have said that Obama was being manipulated when Libya was destroyed on his watch? No, you would not. “Manipulated” implies innocence, naïveté” being controlled, influenced. The statement: “Apart from Netanyahu, who has long been advocating the collapse of the internationally recognized agreement, Israeli lobbies within the US greatly contributed to Trump’s decision to take a more hawkish stance on Iran in line with Israel’s own, Blumenthal said.” is a more accurate portrayal, along with the last sentence related to the amounts of money paid to USG Representatives. Both Obama, and Trump, are willing partners, when they take that first cheque from lobbyists. Thats not manipulation, thats complicity. On May 9, 2018, at 06:59, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: 'Israel lobby calling the shots in Trump's rollback policy on Iran' – Max Blumenthal — RT US News President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal is a result of a lobbying effort by American Jewish billionaires and recycled, cooked-up intelligence touted by the Israeli PM, journalist Max Blumenthal told RT. Trump's decision to pull the US out of the deal, which capped Iran's uranium enrichment in return for economic sanctions relief, has drawn widespread criticism from Washington's European allies and Moscow, but it was lauded in Israel, which has long pushed for dismantling of the 2015 accord. If this doesn't speak for itself, Blumenthal told RT that the roots of Trump's decision to scrap the deal can be easily traced back to Israel. "Israeli influence is absolutely key here. At least, Trump sided Netanyahu's kind of used car salesman style of presentation in order to justify withdrawing from the Iran deal and his new policy of rollback," the journalist said. Taking aim at the bizarre PowerPoint presentation delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu late last month, Blumenthal pointed out the Israeli leader essentially "introduced nothing new in his presentation," adding that "much of the intelligence" appears to be "cooked" and stem from the early 2000s. In 2004, the George W. Bush administration claimed that it had obtained 1,000 pages of technical documentation shedding the light on Iran's intentions to produce a nuclear weapon. According to the US officials who spoke to the media at the time, the documents came from a "stolen Iranian laptop," and not from an anti-government group. However, it was later revealed by German intelligence officials that the source of the documents was Iranian resistance group Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), which is recognized as terrorist by the US State Department. "It's another intelligence scam driving us to war," Blumenthal said, calling the intelligence cited by Netanyahu "arguably fabricated." Apart from Netanyahu, who has long been advocating the collapse of the internationally recognized agreement, Israeli lobbies within the US greatly contributed to Trump's decision to take a more hawkish stance on Iran in line with Israel's own, Blumenthal said. "This triad of likudic billionaires – [ Home Deport co-founder] Bernard Marcus, [casino magnate] Sheldon Adelson and [hedge fund billionaire] Paul Signer – contributed over $40 million to pro-Trump Super PACs, and also contributed enormous amount of money to Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley and Tom Cotton, the senator that shaped Trump's Iran policy," the journalist pointed out. On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Carl Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. —CGE On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord 9 May 2018 US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. Keith Jones WSWS.ORG _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Wed May 9 15:05:15 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 15:05:15 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> Message-ID: This visit {Dershowitz} is sponsored by Gies College of Business; The Program in Constitutional Theory, History, and Law at the College of Law {i.e., Fired and Disgraced Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd and her ConsortCIA/Mossad Torturer-mongerer Mikey Moore}; and the Chabad Center for Jewish {Sic!} Life at University of Illinois. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Personally, I thought it was quite useful that most of the Fifth Column Zionists and Their Fellow Travelers in Champaign-Urbana voluntarily outed themselves by signing that letter published in the News Gazoo supporting Wise {Sic!} against Salaita. The rest showed up for Dersh's speech in Foellinger Hall. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 8:55 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord This visit {Dershowitz} is sponsored by Gies College of Business; The Program in Constitutional Theory, History, and Law at the College of Law {i.e., Fired and Disgraced Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd and her ConsortCIA/Mossad Torturer-mongerer Mikey Moore}; and the Chabad Center for Jewish {Sic!} Life at University of Illinois. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK. But Israel's Fifth Column Zionists here in the United States such as Wexler's Foundsters will be baying for war against Iran just like they twice did against Iraq. American Zionists are more than happy to Murder and Maim the Young Men and Young Women of OUR Armed Forces in order to do Israel's dirty work for it. In the C-U Community, these Fifth Column Zionists can all be conveniently located on that News Gazoo published list of those supporting Wise {Sic!} illegally firing Our Palestinian American Native American Studies Professor Steven Salaita, throwing him, his wife and their baby out into the street with no visible means of support, destroying his Academic Career and gutting our Native American Studies Program that was intended to be partial reparations for Chief Illiniwak. You can't trust any of them! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 8:43 AM To: Estabrook, Carl G Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord Carl Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. > On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. > > Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” > > During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: > > “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” > > A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. > > Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. > > But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) > > The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. > > President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. > > (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) > > In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. > > We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. > > The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. > > If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. > > In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. > > —CGE > >> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >> >> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >> 9 May 2018 >> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. >> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. >> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. >> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. >> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” >> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” >> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. >> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. >> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. >> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. >> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >> Keith Jones >> WSWS.ORG >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed May 9 15:28:12 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 10:28:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I think it's a hard distinction to draw. Trump and Netanyahu are close; they have similar worldviews, overlapping objectives, we don't get to see their whole interaction; each has incentives to play up the degree to which they are acting on behalf of each other as opposed to acting on their own behalf, or on behalf of other actors, such as Saudi Arabia. We know that Netanyahu gave a big speech about Iran, recycling and spinning old information ahead of Trump's decision; we know that Trump cited the speech in announcing his decision. But the time sequence doesn't tell us which was the effect and which was the cause; the thing that came second could have been the cause of the thing that came first. Bibi was delighted, but a lot of the Israeli national security establishment was against it. Saudi Arabia was delighted; Israel has a track record of acting in Washington as Saudi Arabia's lawyer. If you look at AIPAC's stuff on Yemen, it's Saudi talking points. There was a big debate about the role of AIPAC and Israel in promoting the Iraq war. Certainly, Israel was invoked and AIPAC and Israel lobbied for it, but there was also a lot of AIPAC and Israel initial skepticism and concern and some argued that AIPAC and Israel didn't lobby for it that strongly until it was clear that Bush was totally committed anyway, so they did it to support Bush as much or more as they did it for their own perceived direct interests, figuring that Bush was going to do it anyway. That doesn't mean that they didn't have an impact, but it affects the sharpness of the causation story. AIPAC lobbied for Obama's proposed 2013 military action in Syria; the House rejected it anyway. There's a problem in statistics called "collinearity." If you have multiple independent variables influencing a dependent variable which are highly correlated with each other, it's hard to pull apart the contribution to causation of the individual variables. There's the military, the Pentagon-industrial complex, the Israel lobby, Saudi Arabia, the media, other domestic political considerations, like changing the channel, rallying around the flag, etc. They're all pointing in the same direction, as they often do. How to say that one of them is the One True Cause, when they overlap so much? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Carl > > I read this, I posted it, but to state that the Trump Administration is > being “manipulated," would we have said that Obama was being manipulated > when Libya was destroyed on his watch? No, you would not. > > “Manipulated” implies innocence, naïveté” being controlled, influenced. > > The statement: “Apart from Netanyahu, who has long been advocating the > collapse of the internationally recognized agreement, Israeli lobbies > within the US greatly contributed to Trump’s decision to take a more > hawkish stance on Iran in line with Israel’s own, Blumenthal said.” is a > more accurate portrayal, along with the last sentence related to the > amounts of money paid to USG Representatives. > > Both Obama, and Trump, are willing partners, when they take that first > cheque from lobbyists. Thats not manipulation, thats complicity. > > > On May 9, 2018, at 06:59, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > 'Israel lobby calling the shots in Trump's rollback policy on Iran' – Max > Blumenthal — RT US News > > President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal is a result > of a lobbying effort by American Jewish billionaires and recycled, > cooked-up intelligence touted by the Israeli PM, journalist Max Blumenthal > told RT. > > Trump's decision to pull the US out of the deal, which capped Iran's > uranium enrichment in return for economic sanctions relief, has drawn > widespread criticism from Washington's European allies and Moscow, but it > was lauded in Israel, which has long pushed for dismantling of the 2015 > accord. > > If this doesn't speak for itself, Blumenthal told RT that the roots of > Trump's decision to scrap the deal can be easily traced back to Israel. > > "Israeli influence is absolutely key here. At least, Trump sided > Netanyahu's kind of used car salesman style of presentation in order to > justify withdrawing from the Iran deal and his new policy of rollback," the > journalist said. > > Taking aim at the bizarre PowerPoint presentation delivered by Israeli > Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu late last month, Blumenthal pointed out > the Israeli leader essentially "introduced nothing new in his > presentation," adding that "much of the intelligence" appears to > be "cooked" and stem from the early 2000s. > > In 2004, the George W. Bush administration claimed that it had > obtained 1,000 pages of technical documentation shedding the light on > Iran's intentions to produce a nuclear weapon. According to the US > officials who spoke to the media at the time, the documents came from > a "stolen Iranian laptop," and not from an anti-government group. However, > it was later revealed by German intelligence officials that the source of > the documents was Iranian resistance group Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), which > is recognized as terrorist by the US State Department. > > "It's another intelligence scam driving us to war," Blumenthal said, > calling the intelligence cited by Netanyahu "arguably fabricated." > > Apart from Netanyahu, who has long been advocating the collapse of > the internationally recognized agreement, Israeli lobbies within the > US greatly contributed to Trump's decision to take a more hawkish stance > on Iran in line with Israel's own, Blumenthal said. > > "This triad of likudic billionaires – [ Home Deport co-founder] Bernard > Marcus, [casino magnate] Sheldon Adelson and [hedge fund billionaire] > Paul Signer – contributed over $40 million to pro-Trump Super PACs, and > also contributed enormous amount of money to Trump's UN ambassador > Nikki Haley and Tom Cotton, the senator that shaped Trump's Iran policy," > the journalist pointed out. > > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Carl > > Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is > where your credibility comes into question. > > > On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it > happen. > > Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million > people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass > destruction.” > > During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to > the attack on Iraq: > > “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have > handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds > and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back > with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids > who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for > the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” > > A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the > government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the > Middle East. > > Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and > kill Iranians. > > But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that > guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has > thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) > > The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, > is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and > the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, > France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. > > President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ > from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to > attack Iran, for their benefit. > > (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus > speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any > Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign > power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) > > In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria > (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week > that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government > advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to > provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful > protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. > > We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The > president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember > the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more > populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and > China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. > > The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world > before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent > this new criminal war. > > If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - > strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. > > In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives > - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick > Durbin. > > —CGE > > On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: > > Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > 9 May 2018 > US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn > from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on > Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. > In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European > allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and > Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. > Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the > least surprising. > As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April > 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had > reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical > sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is > expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in > the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give > up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the > target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic > decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for > global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” > Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive > parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the > run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, > only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. > In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House > predecessors. > His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and > abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past > quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq > to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue > accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state > terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in > the Middle East. > The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear > program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other > signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other > top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran > has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has > not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet > Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed > ballistic missiles. > As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell > presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned > by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets > as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, > deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was > associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial > response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” > Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that > of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has > embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military > pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial > subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the > Shah. > First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 > Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared > Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated > “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their > position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting > deal.” > Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately > after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The > United States no longer makes empty threats.” > Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and > North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes > clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed > at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be > reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with > its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities > change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and > contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. > The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence > establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to > negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would > repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. > No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s > indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and > German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to > personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was > British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had > audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. > Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible > European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said > in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever > more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of > economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. > The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist > appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less > voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. > If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is > only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran > economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with > Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. > In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the > Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on > Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and > pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and > Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. > This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, > which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with > the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, > they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, > and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive > against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change > in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist > media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, > this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military > clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. > Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis > and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified > of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s > bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US > imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign > policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, > launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the > military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. > Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came > to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them > from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate > itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie > has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. > In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and > the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In > doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. > Keith Jones > WSWS.ORG > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 9 17:10:41 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 12:10:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <05BD1FFC-04BB-4AC1-A1B5-5F8F20A1C048@illinois.edu> I think that’s well put. The source of US war crimes is institutional - a patterned way of doing things. 'Collinearity’ may help when we come to assess personal responsibility. How much was Kennedy responsible for Vietnam? A lot? A little? Does it matter, beyond his final interview with the Most High (which might have been difficult)? Our task is to recognize the crimes of the institutions we’re responsible for - against the propaganda - publicize, and oppose them. > On May 9, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > I think it's a hard distinction to draw. Trump and Netanyahu are close; they have similar worldviews, overlapping objectives, we don't get to see their whole interaction; each has incentives to play up the degree to which they are acting on behalf of each other as opposed to acting on their own behalf, or on behalf of other actors, such as Saudi Arabia. > > We know that Netanyahu gave a big speech about Iran, recycling and spinning old information ahead of Trump's decision; we know that Trump cited the speech in announcing his decision. But the time sequence doesn't tell us which was the effect and which was the cause; the thing that came second could have been the cause of the thing that came first. Bibi was delighted, but a lot of the Israeli national security establishment was against it. Saudi Arabia was delighted; Israel has a track record of acting in Washington as Saudi Arabia's lawyer. If you look at AIPAC's stuff on Yemen, it's Saudi talking points. > > There was a big debate about the role of AIPAC and Israel in promoting the Iraq war. Certainly, Israel was invoked and AIPAC and Israel lobbied for it, but there was also a lot of AIPAC and Israel initial skepticism and concern and some argued that AIPAC and Israel didn't lobby for it that strongly until it was clear that Bush was totally committed anyway, so they did it to support Bush as much or more as they did it for their own perceived direct interests, figuring that Bush was going to do it anyway. That doesn't mean that they didn't have an impact, but it affects the sharpness of the causation story. AIPAC lobbied for Obama's proposed 2013 military action in Syria; the House rejected it anyway. > > There's a problem in statistics called "collinearity." If you have multiple independent variables influencing a dependent variable which are highly correlated with each other, it's hard to pull apart the contribution to causation of the individual variables. There's the military, the Pentagon-industrial complex, the Israel lobby, Saudi Arabia, the media, other domestic political considerations, like changing the channel, rallying around the flag, etc. They're all pointing in the same direction, as they often do. How to say that one of them is the One True Cause, when they overlap so much? > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > Carl > > I read this, I posted it, but to state that the Trump Administration is being “manipulated," would we have said that Obama was being manipulated when Libya was destroyed on his watch? No, you would not. > > “Manipulated” implies innocence, naïveté” being controlled, influenced. > > The statement: “Apart from Netanyahu, who has long been advocating the collapse of the internationally recognized agreement, Israeli lobbies within the US greatly contributed to Trump’s decision to take a more hawkish stance on Iran in line with Israel’s own, Blumenthal said.” is a more accurate portrayal, along with the last sentence related to the amounts of money paid to USG Representatives. > > Both Obama, and Trump, are willing partners, when they take that first cheque from lobbyists. Thats not manipulation, thats complicity. > > >> On May 9, 2018, at 06:59, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> 'Israel lobby calling the shots in Trump's rollback policy on Iran' – Max Blumenthal — RT US News >> >> President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal is a result of a lobbying effort by American Jewish billionaires and recycled, cooked-up intelligence touted by the Israeli PM, journalist Max Blumenthal told RT. >> >> Trump's decision to pull the US out of the deal, which capped Iran's uranium enrichment in return for economic sanctions relief, has drawn widespread criticism from Washington's European allies and Moscow, but it was lauded in Israel, which has long pushed for dismantling of the 2015 accord. >> >> If this doesn't speak for itself, Blumenthal told RT that the roots of Trump's decision to scrap the deal can be easily traced back to Israel. >> >> "Israeli influence is absolutely key here. At least, Trump sided Netanyahu's kind of used car salesman style of presentation in order to justify withdrawing from the Iran deal and his new policy of rollback," the journalist said. >> >> Taking aim at the bizarre PowerPoint presentation delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu late last month, Blumenthal pointed out the Israeli leader essentially "introduced nothing new in his presentation," adding that "much of the intelligence" appears to be "cooked" and stem from the early 2000s. >> >> In 2004, the George W. Bush administration claimed that it had obtained 1,000 pages of technical documentation shedding the light on Iran's intentions to produce a nuclear weapon. According to the US officials who spoke to the media at the time, the documents came from a "stolen Iranian laptop," and not from an anti-government group. However, it was later revealed by German intelligence officials that the source of the documents was Iranian resistance group Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), which is recognized as terrorist by the US State Department. >> >> "It's another intelligence scam driving us to war," Blumenthal said, calling the intelligence cited by Netanyahu "arguably fabricated." >> >> Apart from Netanyahu, who has long been advocating the collapse of the internationally recognized agreement, Israeli lobbies within the US greatly contributed to Trump's decision to take a more hawkish stance on Iran in line with Israel's own, Blumenthal said. >> >> "This triad of likudic billionaires – [ Home Deport co-founder] Bernard Marcus, [casino magnate] Sheldon Adelson and [hedge fund billionaire] Paul Signer – contributed over $40 million to pro-Trump Super PACs, and also contributed enormous amount of money to Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley and Tom Cotton, the senator that shaped Trump's Iran policy," the journalist pointed out. >> >> > >> >> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. >>> >>> >>>> On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >>>> >>>> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. >>>> >>>> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” >>>> >>>> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: >>>> >>>> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >>>> >>>> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. >>>> >>>> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. >>>> >>>> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) >>>> >>>> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. >>>> >>>> President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >>>> >>>> (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) >>>> >>>> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >>>> >>>> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. >>>> >>>> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. >>>> >>>> If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >>>> >>>> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> >>>>> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >>>>> 9 May 2018 >>>>> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >>>>> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >>>>> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. >>>>> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >>>>> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >>>>> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. >>>>> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. >>>>> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >>>>> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >>>>> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. >>>>> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” >>>>> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” >>>>> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. >>>>> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >>>>> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >>>>> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. >>>>> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >>>>> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >>>>> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >>>>> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. >>>>> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >>>>> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. >>>>> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >>>>> Keith Jones >>>>> WSWS.ORG >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed May 9 17:33:06 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 12:33:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: <05BD1FFC-04BB-4AC1-A1B5-5F8F20A1C048@illinois.edu> References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <05BD1FFC-04BB-4AC1-A1B5-5F8F20A1C048@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Sometimes it matters for strategy. One of the causes might be a weaker link in the chain than one of the other causes. Israel is causing Trump's policy and Saudi Arabia is causing Trump's policy. Israel is way more popular in DC and in the US generally than Saudi Arabia is, to say the least. I think that's a key reason that Trump and Bibi are emphasizing "doing this for Israel" vs. "doing this for Saudi Arabia." Conversely, it's a reason for us to emphasize "doing it for Saudi Arabia," even though both are true. In June 2017, we got 47 votes in the Senate against a Saudi arms deal. In March of this year, we got 44 votes in the Senate against unconstitutional U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. We're very far away from getting votes like that if the vote can be portrayed as "against Israel," even though both Israel and Saudi Arabia are backing the policy that we oppose. Recently I suggested to some folks, let's try to get a Congressional letter going calling for U.S. diplomacy with Russia to try to prevent armed conflict between Israel and Iran in Syria. I got no response, even though the suggestion tracked an op-ed by the International Crisis Group in the New York Times. Even though it's basically the same idea as what we're trying to do in Yemen - push for diplomacy to end the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. So, over-emphasizing the Israeli role could be counter-productive to opposing it, even though obviously the Israeli role is quite real. [Moving this to peace-discuss, since it seems like that's what we're doing. I didn't realize that the peace list was copied when I replied before.] Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > I think that’s well put. The source of US war crimes is institutional - a > patterned way of doing things. 'Collinearity’ may help when we come to > assess personal responsibility. > > How much was Kennedy responsible for Vietnam? A lot? A little? Does it > matter, beyond his final interview with the Most High (which might have > been difficult)? > > Our task is to recognize the crimes of the institutions we’re responsible > for - against the propaganda - publicize, and oppose them. > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > > I think it's a hard distinction to draw. Trump and Netanyahu are close; > they have similar worldviews, overlapping objectives, we don't get to see > their whole interaction; each has incentives to play up the degree to which > they are acting on behalf of each other as opposed to acting on their own > behalf, or on behalf of other actors, such as Saudi Arabia. > > We know that Netanyahu gave a big speech about Iran, recycling and > spinning old information ahead of Trump's decision; we know that Trump > cited the speech in announcing his decision. But the time sequence doesn't > tell us which was the effect and which was the cause; the thing that came > second could have been the cause of the thing that came first. Bibi was > delighted, but a lot of the Israeli national security establishment was > against it. Saudi Arabia was delighted; Israel has a track record of acting > in Washington as Saudi Arabia's lawyer. If you look at AIPAC's stuff on > Yemen, it's Saudi talking points. > > There was a big debate about the role of AIPAC and Israel in promoting the > Iraq war. Certainly, Israel was invoked and AIPAC and Israel lobbied for > it, but there was also a lot of AIPAC and Israel initial skepticism and > concern and some argued that AIPAC and Israel didn't lobby for it that > strongly until it was clear that Bush was totally committed anyway, so they > did it to support Bush as much or more as they did it for their own > perceived direct interests, figuring that Bush was going to do it anyway. > That doesn't mean that they didn't have an impact, but it affects the > sharpness of the causation story. AIPAC lobbied for Obama's proposed 2013 > military action in Syria; the House rejected it anyway. > > There's a problem in statistics called "collinearity." If you have > multiple independent variables influencing a dependent variable which are > highly correlated with each other, it's hard to pull apart the contribution > to causation of the individual variables. There's the military, the > Pentagon-industrial complex, the Israel lobby, Saudi Arabia, the media, > other domestic political considerations, like changing the channel, > rallying around the flag, etc. They're all pointing in the same direction, > as they often do. How to say that one of them is the One True Cause, when > they overlap so much? > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Carl >> >> I read this, I posted it, but to state that the Trump Administration is >> being “manipulated," would we have said that Obama was being manipulated >> when Libya was destroyed on his watch? No, you would not. >> >> “Manipulated” implies innocence, naïveté” being controlled, influenced. >> >> The statement: “Apart from Netanyahu, who has long been advocating the >> collapse of the internationally recognized agreement, Israeli lobbies >> within the US greatly contributed to Trump’s decision to take a more >> hawkish stance on Iran in line with Israel’s own, Blumenthal said.” is a >> more accurate portrayal, along with the last sentence related to the >> amounts of money paid to USG Representatives. >> >> Both Obama, and Trump, are willing partners, when they take that first >> cheque from lobbyists. Thats not manipulation, thats complicity. >> >> >> On May 9, 2018, at 06:59, Carl G. Estabrook >> wrote: >> >> 'Israel lobby calling the shots in Trump's rollback policy on Iran' – Max >> Blumenthal — RT US News >> >> President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal is a >> result of a lobbying effort by American Jewish billionaires and recycled, >> cooked-up intelligence touted by the Israeli PM, journalist Max Blumenthal >> told RT. >> >> Trump's decision to pull the US out of the deal, which capped Iran's >> uranium enrichment in return for economic sanctions relief, has drawn >> widespread criticism from Washington's European allies and Moscow, but it >> was lauded in Israel, which has long pushed for dismantling of the 2015 >> accord. >> >> If this doesn't speak for itself, Blumenthal told RT that the roots of >> Trump's decision to scrap the deal can be easily traced back to Israel. >> >> "Israeli influence is absolutely key here. At least, Trump sided >> Netanyahu's kind of used car salesman style of presentation in order to >> justify withdrawing from the Iran deal and his new policy of rollback," the >> journalist said. >> >> Taking aim at the bizarre PowerPoint presentation delivered by Israeli >> Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu late last month, Blumenthal pointed out >> the Israeli leader essentially "introduced nothing new in his >> presentation," adding that "much of the intelligence" appears to >> be "cooked" and stem from the early 2000s. >> >> In 2004, the George W. Bush administration claimed that it had >> obtained 1,000 pages of technical documentation shedding the light on >> Iran's intentions to produce a nuclear weapon. According to the US >> officials who spoke to the media at the time, the documents came from >> a "stolen Iranian laptop," and not from an anti-government group. However, >> it was later revealed by German intelligence officials that the source of >> the documents was Iranian resistance group Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), which >> is recognized as terrorist by the US State Department. >> >> "It's another intelligence scam driving us to war," Blumenthal said, >> calling the intelligence cited by Netanyahu "arguably fabricated." >> >> Apart from Netanyahu, who has long been advocating the collapse of >> the internationally recognized agreement, Israeli lobbies within the >> US greatly contributed to Trump's decision to take a more hawkish stance >> on Iran in line with Israel's own, Blumenthal said. >> >> "This triad of likudic billionaires – [ Home Deport co-founder] Bernard >> Marcus, [casino magnate] Sheldon Adelson and [hedge fund billionaire] >> Paul Signer – contributed over $40 million to pro-Trump Super PACs, and >> also contributed enormous amount of money to Trump's UN ambassador >> Nikki Haley and Tom Cotton, the senator that shaped Trump's Iran policy," >> the journalist pointed out. >> >> >> >> >> On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This >> is where your credibility comes into question. >> >> >> On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook >> wrote: >> >> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it >> happen. >> >> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million >> people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass >> destruction.” >> >> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition >> to the attack on Iraq: >> >> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have >> handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds >> and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back >> with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids >> who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for >> the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >> >> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the >> government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the >> Middle East. >> >> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and >> kill Iranians. >> >> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that >> guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has >> thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) >> >> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, >> is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and >> the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, >> France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. >> >> President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and >> ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want >> the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >> >> (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus >> speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any >> Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign >> power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) >> >> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria >> (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week >> that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government >> advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to >> provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful >> protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >> >> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The >> president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember >> the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more >> populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and >> China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. >> >> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world >> before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent >> this new criminal war. >> >> If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages >> - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >> >> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional >> representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, >> and Senator Dick Durbin. >> >> —CGE >> >> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >> 9 May 2018 >> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn >> from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on >> Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European >> allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and >> Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the >> least surprising. >> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in >> April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers >> had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical >> sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is >> expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in >> the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give >> up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the >> target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic >> decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for >> global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive >> parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the >> run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, >> only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House >> predecessors. >> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and >> abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past >> quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq >> to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue >> accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state >> terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in >> the Middle East. >> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s >> nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the >> other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and >> other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that >> Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter >> and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a >> half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with >> nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell >> presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned >> by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets >> as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, >> deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was >> associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial >> response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that >> of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has >> embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military >> pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial >> subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the >> Shah. >> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 >> Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared >> Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated >> “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their >> position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting >> deal.” >> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately >> after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The >> United States no longer makes empty threats.” >> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and >> North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes >> clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed >> at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be >> reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with >> its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities >> change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and >> contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. >> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence >> establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to >> negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would >> repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by >> Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel >> Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late >> April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On >> Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he >> only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its >> ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. >> Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist >> powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under >> conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and >> commercial rivalry. >> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist >> appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less >> voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it >> is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran >> economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with >> Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the >> Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on >> Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and >> pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and >> Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European >> imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less >> belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US >> military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best >> strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with >> NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on >> prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by >> political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s >> US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy >> could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian >> forces, with all that entails. >> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis >> and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified >> of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s >> bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US >> imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign >> policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, >> launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the >> military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came >> to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them >> from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate >> itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie >> has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. >> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and >> the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In >> doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >> Keith Jones >> WSWS.ORG >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 9 17:37:38 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 17:37:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: <05BD1FFC-04BB-4AC1-A1B5-5F8F20A1C048@illinois.edu> References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <05BD1FFC-04BB-4AC1-A1B5-5F8F20A1C048@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I agree with both Carl, and Roberts assessments, keeping in mind everything happening now was revealed by General Wesley Clark. After 9/11 the decision was to go to war with 7 nations in five years. Iran the final one. These plans didn’t just materialize as a result of 9/11 they had been in the planning stages for some time, as they take time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw We’re referring to the middle east only, it doesn’t include plans for Asia, the plans for “Eurasia” were provided in Zbigniew Brzezink\ski’s “The Grand Chessboard’ in 1997. All men are responsible for their actions, and Presidents are not exempt from that responsibility. Though it should be clear to most people by now, that the powers behind the throne are responsible for “what” is carried out, with the President and the White House implementing those plans. Yes, they work in concert with allies, who usually go along with whatever the US requires of them, but ultimately it’s the US decision as to when it takes place, and we’re long overdue in respect to Iran, perhaps because we didn’t achieve regime change in Syria, and partition isn’t quite what we had in mind. Perhaps the nuclear deal that took place under the Obama Administration, slowed things up. It appears the Democrats and the CIA were focused on Asia, while the Republican Neocons and the Pentagon were focused on control of the middle east first. It’s a matter of strategy, but the main goal of US foreign policy continues unabated no matter which Party is in power. On May 9, 2018, at 10:10, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: I think that’s well put. The source of US war crimes is institutional - a patterned way of doing things. 'Collinearity’ may help when we come to assess personal responsibility. How much was Kennedy responsible for Vietnam? A lot? A little? Does it matter, beyond his final interview with the Most High (which might have been difficult)? Our task is to recognize the crimes of the institutions we’re responsible for - against the propaganda - publicize, and oppose them. On May 9, 2018, at 10:28 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: I think it's a hard distinction to draw. Trump and Netanyahu are close; they have similar worldviews, overlapping objectives, we don't get to see their whole interaction; each has incentives to play up the degree to which they are acting on behalf of each other as opposed to acting on their own behalf, or on behalf of other actors, such as Saudi Arabia. We know that Netanyahu gave a big speech about Iran, recycling and spinning old information ahead of Trump's decision; we know that Trump cited the speech in announcing his decision. But the time sequence doesn't tell us which was the effect and which was the cause; the thing that came second could have been the cause of the thing that came first. Bibi was delighted, but a lot of the Israeli national security establishment was against it. Saudi Arabia was delighted; Israel has a track record of acting in Washington as Saudi Arabia's lawyer. If you look at AIPAC's stuff on Yemen, it's Saudi talking points. There was a big debate about the role of AIPAC and Israel in promoting the Iraq war. Certainly, Israel was invoked and AIPAC and Israel lobbied for it, but there was also a lot of AIPAC and Israel initial skepticism and concern and some argued that AIPAC and Israel didn't lobby for it that strongly until it was clear that Bush was totally committed anyway, so they did it to support Bush as much or more as they did it for their own perceived direct interests, figuring that Bush was going to do it anyway. That doesn't mean that they didn't have an impact, but it affects the sharpness of the causation story. AIPAC lobbied for Obama's proposed 2013 military action in Syria; the House rejected it anyway. There's a problem in statistics called "collinearity." If you have multiple independent variables influencing a dependent variable which are highly correlated with each other, it's hard to pull apart the contribution to causation of the individual variables. There's the military, the Pentagon-industrial complex, the Israel lobby, Saudi Arabia, the media, other domestic political considerations, like changing the channel, rallying around the flag, etc. They're all pointing in the same direction, as they often do. How to say that one of them is the One True Cause, when they overlap so much? Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 9:18 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Carl I read this, I posted it, but to state that the Trump Administration is being “manipulated," would we have said that Obama was being manipulated when Libya was destroyed on his watch? No, you would not. “Manipulated” implies innocence, naïveté” being controlled, influenced. The statement: “Apart from Netanyahu, who has long been advocating the collapse of the internationally recognized agreement, Israeli lobbies within the US greatly contributed to Trump’s decision to take a more hawkish stance on Iran in line with Israel’s own, Blumenthal said.” is a more accurate portrayal, along with the last sentence related to the amounts of money paid to USG Representatives. Both Obama, and Trump, are willing partners, when they take that first cheque from lobbyists. Thats not manipulation, thats complicity. On May 9, 2018, at 06:59, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: 'Israel lobby calling the shots in Trump's rollback policy on Iran' – Max Blumenthal — RT US News President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal is a result of a lobbying effort by American Jewish billionaires and recycled, cooked-up intelligence touted by the Israeli PM, journalist Max Blumenthal told RT. Trump's decision to pull the US out of the deal, which capped Iran's uranium enrichment in return for economic sanctions relief, has drawn widespread criticism from Washington's European allies and Moscow, but it was lauded in Israel, which has long pushed for dismantling of the 2015 accord. If this doesn't speak for itself, Blumenthal told RT that the roots of Trump's decision to scrap the deal can be easily traced back to Israel. "Israeli influence is absolutely key here. At least, Trump sided Netanyahu's kind of used car salesman style of presentation in order to justify withdrawing from the Iran deal and his new policy of rollback," the journalist said. Taking aim at the bizarre PowerPoint presentation delivered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu late last month, Blumenthal pointed out the Israeli leader essentially "introduced nothing new in his presentation," adding that "much of the intelligence" appears to be "cooked" and stem from the early 2000s. In 2004, the George W. Bush administration claimed that it had obtained 1,000 pages of technical documentation shedding the light on Iran's intentions to produce a nuclear weapon. According to the US officials who spoke to the media at the time, the documents came from a "stolen Iranian laptop," and not from an anti-government group. However, it was later revealed by German intelligence officials that the source of the documents was Iranian resistance group Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), which is recognized as terrorist by the US State Department. "It's another intelligence scam driving us to war," Blumenthal said, calling the intelligence cited by Netanyahu "arguably fabricated." Apart from Netanyahu, who has long been advocating the collapse of the internationally recognized agreement, Israeli lobbies within the US greatly contributed to Trump's decision to take a more hawkish stance on Iran in line with Israel's own, Blumenthal said. "This triad of likudic billionaires – [ Home Deport co-founder] Bernard Marcus, [casino magnate] Sheldon Adelson and [hedge fund billionaire] Paul Signer – contributed over $40 million to pro-Trump Super PACs, and also contributed enormous amount of money to Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley and Tom Cotton, the senator that shaped Trump's Iran policy," the journalist pointed out. On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Carl Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. —CGE On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord 9 May 2018 US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. Keith Jones WSWS.ORG _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 Wed May 9 19:22:28 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 19:22:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> Given all this ratiocination, i remain with the strong impression e.g. from their recent NfN program, that Carl and David let Israel off the hook too easily in its pushing for wars in Syria and Iran by the U.S.. Yes, of course there are others—weapons makers, Saudis, etc—, also pushing for these wars. Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration. > On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl > > Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. > > >> On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. >> >> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” >> >> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: >> >> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >> >> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. >> >> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. >> >> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) >> >> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. >> >> President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >> >> (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) >> >> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >> >> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. >> >> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. >> >> If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >> >> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. >> >> —CGE >> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>> >>> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >>> 9 May 2018 >>> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >>> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >>> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. >>> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >>> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >>> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. >>> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. >>> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >>> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >>> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. >>> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” >>> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” >>> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. >>> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >>> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >>> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. >>> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >>> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >>> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >>> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. >>> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >>> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. >>> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >>> Keith Jones >>> WSWS.ORG >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed May 9 20:38:26 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 20:38:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: We can make the same arguments here: Sure there has always been Blatant Structural Racism at the University of Illinois. But it was the Campus/CU Fifth Column Zionists who got Steven Salaita illegally fired, thrown out into the street with his wife and his baby with no visible means of support, destroyed his academic career, and gutted our Native American Studies Program that was intended to be partial reparations for Chief Illiniwak. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 2:59 PM To: Brussel, Morton K ; Karen Aram Cc: peace Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord Hear! Hear! Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 2:22 PM To: Karen Aram Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord Given all this ratiocination, i remain with the strong impression e.g. from their recent NfN program, that Carl and David let Israel off the hook too easily in its pushing for wars in Syria and Iran by the U.S.. Yes, of course there are others—weapons makers, Saudis, etc—, also pushing for these wars. Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration. > On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl > > Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. > > >> On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. >> >> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” >> >> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: >> >> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >> >> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. >> >> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. >> >> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) >> >> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. >> >> President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >> >> (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) >> >> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >> >> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. >> >> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. >> >> If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >> >> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. >> >> —CGE >> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>> >>> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >>> 9 May 2018 >>> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >>> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >>> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. >>> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >>> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >>> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. >>> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. >>> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >>> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >>> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. >>> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” >>> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” >>> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. >>> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >>> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >>> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. >>> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >>> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >>> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >>> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. >>> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >>> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. >>> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >>> Keith Jones >>> WSWS.ORG >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 9 21:31:41 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 21:31:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Mort, et al I think your statement that David and Carl, “let Israel off the hook too easily is a bit unfair," given I have been following them on NFN for years, and accompanied Carl and others on AWARE as well. I think the point is that it’s the US who is responsible, this is an important distinction to make given so many people constantly blame others, especially Israel, for everything. Stay on FB, and it will become quite apparent. Your statement "Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration.” is quite accurate, and no one is denying the power of the lobbying group AIPAC. My point is “no ones hands are tied, everyone has free will, one can always resign when being pressured to do that which is illegal or just distasteful, what a message that sends. Unfortunately our Representatives are motivated only by self interest therefore they will support anyone, who makes it worth their while. We know where Trump’s sympathies lie, just viewing the most awful people he has appointed to positions of power. And, many of these same people were his advisors before he was elected. My point is, when we blame others for that which we are responsible, we lesson opposition. The focus must be on what the USG is doing, no matter who we are influenced by, no matter who is in power. Most Americans are confused and focused on “getting rid of Trump,” which I think we all agree, will solve nothing, then we have Pence, then we have the Speaker of the House, then the next election we have another Democrat. One can say Obama, brought about peace with the Nuclear Accord, but choking that down with the destruction of Libya and his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, does us absolutely not good. I like the WSWS.ORG position which is “we need to change our whole damn system." See More from Karen Aram On May 9, 2018, at 12:22, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: Given all this ratiocination, i remain with the strong impression e.g. from their recent NfN program, that Carl and David let Israel off the hook too easily in its pushing for wars in Syria and Iran by the U.S.. Yes, of course there are others—weapons makers, Saudis, etc—, also pushing for these wars. Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration. On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Carl Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. —CGE On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord 9 May 2018 US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. Keith Jones WSWS.ORG _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 9 21:33:04 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 21:33:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: video link to: US Out of the Middle East march in Urbana References: <512a8c28506e44f096980b3c745d49ea@Zefram.city.urbana.il.us> Message-ID: Subject: video link Date: May 9, 2018 at 14:08:38 PDT https://youtu.be/e14RRUBpqyE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Wed May 9 21:43:08 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 16:43:08 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: "It's a breath mint!" "It's a candy mint!" "It's a BREATH mint!!" "It's a CANDY mint!!" STOP!! You're BOTH right!!! Lets just burn down this whole rotten system and start over, like we did in the '60's!!!!! On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: Mort, et al > > I think your statement that David and Carl, “let Israel off the hook too > easily is a bit unfair," given I have been following them on NFN for years, > and accompanied Carl and others on AWARE as well. I think the point is that > it’s the US who is responsible, this is an important distinction to make > given so many people constantly blame others, especially Israel, for > everything. Stay on FB, and it will become quite apparent. > > Your statement "*Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with > whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of > Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to > be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality > of the Trump administration.”* is quite accurate, and no one is denying > the power of the lobbying group AIPAC. > > My point is “no ones hands are tied, everyone has free will, one can > always resign when being pressured to do that which is illegal or just > distasteful, what a message that sends. Unfortunately our Representatives > are motivated only by self interest therefore they will support anyone, who > makes it worth their while. We know where Trump’s sympathies lie, just > viewing the most awful people he has appointed to positions of power. And, > many of these same people were his advisors before he was elected. > > My point is, when we blame others for that which we are responsible, we > lesson opposition. The focus must be on what the USG is doing, no matter > who we are influenced by, no matter who is in power. Most Americans are > confused and focused on “getting rid of Trump,” which I think we all agree, > will solve nothing, then we have Pence, then we have the Speaker of the > House, then the next election we have another Democrat. One can say Obama, > brought about peace with the Nuclear Accord, but choking that down with the > destruction of Libya and his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, > does us absolutely not good. > > I like the WSWS.ORG position which is “we need to > change our whole damn system." > > *See More* from Karen Aram > > On May 9, 2018, at 12:22, Brussel, Morton K wrote: > > Given all this ratiocination, i remain with the strong impression e.g. > from their recent NfN program, that Carl and David let Israel off the hook > too easily in its pushing for wars in Syria and Iran by the U.S.. Yes, of > course there are others—weapons makers, Saudis, etc—, also pushing for > these wars. Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever > Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, > their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be > inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of > the Trump administration. > > On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Carl > > Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is > where your credibility comes into question. > > > On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it > happen. > > Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million > people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass > destruction.” > > During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to > the attack on Iraq: > > “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have > handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds > and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back > with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids > who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for > the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” > > A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the > government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the > Middle East. > > Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and > kill Iranians. > > But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that > guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has > thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) > > The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, > is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and > the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council > (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European > Union. > > President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ > from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to > attack Iran, for their benefit. > > (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus > speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any > Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign > power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) > > In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria > (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week > that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli > government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is > designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill > peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. > > We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The > president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember > the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a > more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably > Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear > war. > > The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world > before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent > this new criminal war. > > If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - > strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. > > In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives > - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick > Durbin. > > —CGE > > On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: > > Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > 9 May 2018 > US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn > from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on > Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. > In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European > allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and > Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. > Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the > least surprising. > As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April > 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had > reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical > sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is > expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in > the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give > up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the > target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic > decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for > global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” > Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive > parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the > run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, > only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. > In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House > predecessors. > His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and > abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past > quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq > to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue > accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state > terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in > the Middle East. > The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear > program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other > signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other > top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran > has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has > not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet > Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed > ballistic missiles. > As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell > presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned > by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets > as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, > deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was > associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial > response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” > Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that > of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has > embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and > military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of > neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed > dictatorship of the Shah. > First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 > Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared > Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated > “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their > position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting > deal.” > Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately > after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The > United States no longer makes empty threats.” > Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and > North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes > clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed > at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be > reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with > its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic > priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most > flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization > agreement. > The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence > establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to > negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would > repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. > No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s > indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and > German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to > personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was > British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had > audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. > Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible > European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said > in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever > more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of > economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. > The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist > appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less > voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. > If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is > only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran > economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with > Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. > In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the > Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on > Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and > pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and > Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. > This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, > which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with > the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, > they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, > and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive > against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change > in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist > media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, > this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military > clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. > Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis > and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified > of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic > Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement > with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast > foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked > Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported > the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. > Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came > to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them > from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate > itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie > has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. > In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and > the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In > doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. > Keith Jones > WSWS.ORG > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 9 21:52:22 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 21:52:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. On May 9, 2018, at 14:43, John W. > wrote: "It's a breath mint!" "It's a candy mint!" "It's a BREATH mint!!" "It's a CANDY mint!!" STOP!! You're BOTH right!!! Lets just burn down this whole rotten system and start over, like we did in the '60's!!!!! On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: Mort, et al I think your statement that David and Carl, “let Israel off the hook too easily is a bit unfair," given I have been following them on NFN for years, and accompanied Carl and others on AWARE as well. I think the point is that it’s the US who is responsible, this is an important distinction to make given so many people constantly blame others, especially Israel, for everything. Stay on FB, and it will become quite apparent. Your statement "Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration.” is quite accurate, and no one is denying the power of the lobbying group AIPAC. My point is “no ones hands are tied, everyone has free will, one can always resign when being pressured to do that which is illegal or just distasteful, what a message that sends. Unfortunately our Representatives are motivated only by self interest therefore they will support anyone, who makes it worth their while. We know where Trump’s sympathies lie, just viewing the most awful people he has appointed to positions of power. And, many of these same people were his advisors before he was elected. My point is, when we blame others for that which we are responsible, we lesson opposition. The focus must be on what the USG is doing, no matter who we are influenced by, no matter who is in power. Most Americans are confused and focused on “getting rid of Trump,” which I think we all agree, will solve nothing, then we have Pence, then we have the Speaker of the House, then the next election we have another Democrat. One can say Obama, brought about peace with the Nuclear Accord, but choking that down with the destruction of Libya and his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, does us absolutely not good. I like the WSWS.ORG position which is “we need to change our whole damn system." See More from Karen Aram On May 9, 2018, at 12:22, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: Given all this ratiocination, i remain with the strong impression e.g. from their recent NfN program, that Carl and David let Israel off the hook too easily in its pushing for wars in Syria and Iran by the U.S.. Yes, of course there are others—weapons makers, Saudis, etc—, also pushing for these wars. Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration. On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Carl Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. —CGE On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord 9 May 2018 US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. Keith Jones WSWS.ORG _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 9 22:01:26 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 17:01:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: In regard to the influence of the Israeli government and lobby on US policy, I think David agrees with me that Chomsky got it about right in his response to Mearsheimer & Walt’s decade old book, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy”: >. 'The thesis M-W propose does however have plenty of appeal. The reason, I think, is that it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, “Wilsonian idealism,” etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape. It’s rather like attributing the crimes of the past 60 years to “exaggerated Cold War illusions,” etc. Convenient, but not too convincing. In either case.' The other side: > —CGE > On May 9, 2018, at 4:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: > > Mort, et al > > I think your statement that David and Carl, “let Israel off the hook too easily is a bit unfair," given I have been following them on NFN for years, and accompanied Carl and others on AWARE as well. I think the point is that it’s the US who is responsible, this is an important distinction to make given so many people constantly blame others, especially Israel, for everything. Stay on FB, and it will become quite apparent. > > Your statement "Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration.” is quite accurate, and no one is denying the power of the lobbying group AIPAC. > > My point is “no ones hands are tied, everyone has free will, one can always resign when being pressured to do that which is illegal or just distasteful, what a message that sends. Unfortunately our Representatives are motivated only by self interest therefore they will support anyone, who makes it worth their while. We know where Trump’s sympathies lie, just viewing the most awful people he has appointed to positions of power. And, many of these same people were his advisors before he was elected. > > My point is, when we blame others for that which we are responsible, we lesson opposition. The focus must be on what the USG is doing, no matter who we are influenced by, no matter who is in power. Most Americans are confused and focused on “getting rid of Trump,” which I think we all agree, will solve nothing, then we have Pence, then we have the Speaker of the House, then the next election we have another Democrat. One can say Obama, brought about peace with the Nuclear Accord, but choking that down with the destruction of Libya and his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, does us absolutely not good. > > I like the WSWS.ORG position which is “we need to change our whole damn system." > > See More from Karen Aram >> On May 9, 2018, at 12:22, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: >> >> Given all this ratiocination, i remain with the strong impression e.g. from their recent NfN program, that Carl and David let Israel off the hook too easily in its pushing for wars in Syria and Iran by the U.S.. Yes, of course there are others—weapons makers, Saudis, etc—, also pushing for these wars. Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration. >> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. >>> >>> >>>> On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >>>> >>>> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. >>>> >>>> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” >>>> >>>> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: >>>> >>>> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >>>> >>>> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. >>>> >>>> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. >>>> >>>> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) >>>> >>>> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. >>>> >>>> President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >>>> >>>> (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) >>>> >>>> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >>>> >>>> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. >>>> >>>> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. >>>> >>>> If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >>>> >>>> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> >>>>> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >>>>> 9 May 2018 >>>>> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >>>>> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >>>>> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. >>>>> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >>>>> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >>>>> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. >>>>> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. >>>>> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >>>>> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >>>>> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. >>>>> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” >>>>> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” >>>>> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. >>>>> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >>>>> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >>>>> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. >>>>> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >>>>> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >>>>> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >>>>> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. >>>>> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >>>>> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. >>>>> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >>>>> Keith Jones >>>>> WSWS.ORG >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Wed May 9 22:02:05 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 17:02:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram wrote: Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war > was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California > to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the > eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear > war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. > Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. > On May 9, 2018, at 14:43, John W. wrote: > > > "It's a breath mint!" > > "It's a candy mint!" > > "It's a BREATH mint!!" > > "It's a CANDY mint!!" > > > STOP!! You're BOTH right!!! > > > Lets just burn down this whole rotten system and start over, like we did > in the '60's!!!!! > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace < > peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Mort, et al >> >> I think your statement that David and Carl, “let Israel off the hook too >> easily is a bit unfair," given I have been following them on NFN for years, >> and accompanied Carl and others on AWARE as well. I think the point is that >> it’s the US who is responsible, this is an important distinction to make >> given so many people constantly blame others, especially Israel, for >> everything. Stay on FB, and it will become quite apparent. >> >> Your statement "*Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with >> whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of >> Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to >> be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality >> of the Trump administration.”* is quite accurate, and no one is denying >> the power of the lobbying group AIPAC. >> >> My point is “no ones hands are tied, everyone has free will, one can >> always resign when being pressured to do that which is illegal or just >> distasteful, what a message that sends. Unfortunately our Representatives >> are motivated only by self interest therefore they will support anyone, who >> makes it worth their while. We know where Trump’s sympathies lie, just >> viewing the most awful people he has appointed to positions of power. And, >> many of these same people were his advisors before he was elected. >> >> My point is, when we blame others for that which we are responsible, we >> lesson opposition. The focus must be on what the USG is doing, no matter >> who we are influenced by, no matter who is in power. Most Americans are >> confused and focused on “getting rid of Trump,” which I think we all agree, >> will solve nothing, then we have Pence, then we have the Speaker of the >> House, then the next election we have another Democrat. One can say Obama, >> brought about peace with the Nuclear Accord, but choking that down with the >> destruction of Libya and his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, >> does us absolutely not good. >> >> I like the WSWS.ORG position which is “we need to >> change our whole damn system." >> >> *See More* from Karen Aram >> >> On May 9, 2018, at 12:22, Brussel, Morton K wrote: >> >> Given all this ratiocination, i remain with the strong impression e.g. >> from their recent NfN program, that Carl and David let Israel off the hook >> too easily in its pushing for wars in Syria and Iran by the U.S.. Yes, of >> course there are others—weapons makers, Saudis, etc—, also pushing for >> these wars. Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever >> Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, >> their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be >> inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of >> the Trump administration. >> >> On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This >> is where your credibility comes into question. >> >> >> On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook >> wrote: >> >> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it >> happen. >> >> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million >> people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass >> destruction.” >> >> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition >> to the attack on Iraq: >> >> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have >> handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds >> and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back >> with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids >> who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for >> the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >> >> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the >> government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the >> Middle East. >> >> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and >> kill Iranians. >> >> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that >> guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has >> thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) >> >> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, >> is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and >> the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council >> (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European >> Union. >> >> President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and >> ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want >> the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >> >> (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus >> speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any >> Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign >> power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) >> >> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria >> (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week >> that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli >> government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is >> designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill >> peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >> >> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The >> president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember >> the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a >> more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably >> Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear >> war. >> >> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world >> before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent >> this new criminal war. >> >> If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages >> - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >> >> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional >> representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, >> and Senator Dick Durbin. >> >> —CGE >> >> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >> 9 May 2018 >> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn >> from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on >> Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European >> allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and >> Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the >> least surprising. >> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in >> April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers >> had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical >> sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is >> expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in >> the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give >> up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the >> target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic >> decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for >> global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive >> parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the >> run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, >> only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House >> predecessors. >> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and >> abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past >> quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq >> to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue >> accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state >> terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in >> the Middle East. >> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s >> nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the >> other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis >> and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically >> that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the >> letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade >> and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US >> with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell >> presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned >> by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets >> as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, >> deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was >> associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial >> response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that >> of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has >> embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and >> military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of >> neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed >> dictatorship of the Shah. >> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 >> Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared >> Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated >> “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their >> position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting >> deal.” >> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately >> after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The >> United States no longer makes empty threats.” >> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and >> North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes >> clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed >> at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be >> reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with >> its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic >> priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most >> flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization >> agreement. >> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence >> establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to >> negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would >> repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by >> Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel >> Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late >> April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On >> Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he >> only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its >> ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. >> Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist >> powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under >> conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and >> commercial rivalry. >> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist >> appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less >> voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it >> is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran >> economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with >> Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the >> Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on >> Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and >> pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and >> Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European >> imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less >> belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US >> military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best >> strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with >> NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on >> prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by >> political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s >> US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy >> could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian >> forces, with all that entails. >> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis >> and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified >> of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic >> Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement >> with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast >> foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked >> Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported >> the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came >> to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them >> from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate >> itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie >> has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. >> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and >> the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In >> doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >> Keith Jones >> WSWS.ORG >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 9 22:32:37 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 17:32:37 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <09E5A332-CE42-4114-9755-F12BA7AA180F@illinois.edu> You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become head of the NRA. What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated US politics. President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” ______________________________ * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” > > On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. > > Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. > > > > >> On May 9, 2018, at 14:43, John W. > wrote: >> >> >> "It's a breath mint!" >> >> "It's a candy mint!" >> >> "It's a BREATH mint!!" >> >> "It's a CANDY mint!!" >> >> >> STOP!! You're BOTH right!!! >> >> >> Lets just burn down this whole rotten system and start over, like we did in the '60's!!!!! >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >> >> Mort, et al >> >> I think your statement that David and Carl, “let Israel off the hook too easily is a bit unfair," given I have been following them on NFN for years, and accompanied Carl and others on AWARE as well. I think the point is that it’s the US who is responsible, this is an important distinction to make given so many people constantly blame others, especially Israel, for everything. Stay on FB, and it will become quite apparent. >> >> Your statement "Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration.” is quite accurate, and no one is denying the power of the lobbying group AIPAC. >> >> My point is “no ones hands are tied, everyone has free will, one can always resign when being pressured to do that which is illegal or just distasteful, what a message that sends. Unfortunately our Representatives are motivated only by self interest therefore they will support anyone, who makes it worth their while. We know where Trump’s sympathies lie, just viewing the most awful people he has appointed to positions of power. And, many of these same people were his advisors before he was elected. >> >> My point is, when we blame others for that which we are responsible, we lesson opposition. The focus must be on what the USG is doing, no matter who we are influenced by, no matter who is in power. Most Americans are confused and focused on “getting rid of Trump,” which I think we all agree, will solve nothing, then we have Pence, then we have the Speaker of the House, then the next election we have another Democrat. One can say Obama, brought about peace with the Nuclear Accord, but choking that down with the destruction of Libya and his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, does us absolutely not good. >> >> I like the WSWS.ORG position which is “we need to change our whole damn system." >> >> See More from Karen Aram <> >> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 12:22, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: >>> >>> Given all this ratiocination, i remain with the strong impression e.g. from their recent NfN program, that Carl and David let Israel off the hook too easily in its pushing for wars in Syria and Iran by the U.S.. Yes, of course there are others—weapons makers, Saudis, etc—, also pushing for these wars. Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration. >>> >>>> On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> Carl >>>> >>>> Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. >>>>> >>>>> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” >>>>> >>>>> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: >>>>> >>>>> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >>>>> >>>>> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. >>>>> >>>>> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. >>>>> >>>>> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) >>>>> >>>>> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. >>>>> >>>>> President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >>>>> >>>>> (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) >>>>> >>>>> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >>>>> >>>>> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. >>>>> >>>>> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. >>>>> >>>>> If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >>>>> >>>>> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> >>>>>> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >>>>>> 9 May 2018 >>>>>> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >>>>>> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >>>>>> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. >>>>>> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >>>>>> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >>>>>> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. >>>>>> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. >>>>>> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >>>>>> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >>>>>> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. >>>>>> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” >>>>>> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” >>>>>> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. >>>>>> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >>>>>> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >>>>>> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. >>>>>> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >>>>>> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >>>>>> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >>>>>> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. >>>>>> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >>>>>> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. >>>>>> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >>>>>> Keith Jones >>>>>> WSWS.ORG >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace mailing list >> Peace at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jbw292002 at gmail.com Wed May 9 22:38:12 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 17:38:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: <09E5A332-CE42-4114-9755-F12BA7AA180F@illinois.edu> References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> <09E5A332-CE42-4114-9755-F12BA7AA180F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US > government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably > involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. > > A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become > head of the NRA. > > What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious > counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's > counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. > > Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated > US politics. > > President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War > (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of > Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” > ______________________________ > > * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed > no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” > > While (mostly) true, this contradicts my/our theorem about history rhyming in what way, precisely? > On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war >> was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California >> to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the >> eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear >> war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. >> > > Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades > there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten > out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same > result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", > as Carl is fond of quoting. > > > > > >> On May 9, 2018, at 14:43, John W. wrote: >> >> >> "It's a breath mint!" >> >> "It's a candy mint!" >> >> "It's a BREATH mint!!" >> >> "It's a CANDY mint!!" >> >> >> STOP!! You're BOTH right!!! >> >> >> Lets just burn down this whole rotten system and start over, like we did >> in the '60's!!!!! >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Mort, et al >>> >>> I think your statement that David and Carl, “let Israel off the hook too >>> easily is a bit unfair," given I have been following them on NFN for years, >>> and accompanied Carl and others on AWARE as well. I think the point is that >>> it’s the US who is responsible, this is an important distinction to make >>> given so many people constantly blame others, especially Israel, for >>> everything. Stay on FB, and it will become quite apparent. >>> >>> Your statement "*Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with >>> whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of >>> Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to >>> be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality >>> of the Trump administration.”* is quite accurate, and no one is denying >>> the power of the lobbying group AIPAC. >>> >>> My point is “no ones hands are tied, everyone has free will, one can >>> always resign when being pressured to do that which is illegal or just >>> distasteful, what a message that sends. Unfortunately our Representatives >>> are motivated only by self interest therefore they will support anyone, who >>> makes it worth their while. We know where Trump’s sympathies lie, just >>> viewing the most awful people he has appointed to positions of power. And, >>> many of these same people were his advisors before he was elected. >>> >>> My point is, when we blame others for that which we are responsible, we >>> lesson opposition. The focus must be on what the USG is doing, no matter >>> who we are influenced by, no matter who is in power. Most Americans are >>> confused and focused on “getting rid of Trump,” which I think we all agree, >>> will solve nothing, then we have Pence, then we have the Speaker of the >>> House, then the next election we have another Democrat. One can say Obama, >>> brought about peace with the Nuclear Accord, but choking that down with the >>> destruction of Libya and his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, >>> does us absolutely not good. >>> >>> I like the WSWS.ORG position which is “we need to >>> change our whole damn system." >>> >>> *See More* from Karen Aram >>> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 12:22, Brussel, Morton K >>> wrote: >>> >>> Given all this ratiocination, i remain with the strong impression e.g. >>> from their recent NfN program, that Carl and David let Israel off the hook >>> too easily in its pushing for wars in Syria and Iran by the U.S.. Yes, of >>> course there are others—weapons makers, Saudis, etc—, also pushing for >>> these wars. Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever >>> Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, >>> their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be >>> inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of >>> the Trump administration. >>> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This >>> is where your credibility comes into question. >>> >>> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook >>> wrote: >>> >>> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it >>> happen. >>> >>> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million >>> people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass >>> destruction.” >>> >>> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition >>> to the attack on Iraq: >>> >>> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have >>> handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds >>> and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back >>> with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids >>> who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for >>> the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >>> >>> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the >>> government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the >>> Middle East. >>> >>> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and >>> kill Iranians. >>> >>> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that >>> guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has >>> thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) >>> >>> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear >>> deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran >>> and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council >>> (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European >>> Union. >>> >>> President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and >>> ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want >>> the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >>> >>> (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's >>> bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will >>> any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a >>> foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) >>> >>> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria >>> (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week >>> that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli >>> government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is >>> designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill >>> peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >>> >>> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The >>> president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember >>> the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a >>> more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably >>> Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear >>> war. >>> >>> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world >>> before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent >>> this new criminal war. >>> >>> If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages >>> - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >>> >>> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional >>> representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, >>> and Senator Dick Durbin. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace < >>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >>> 9 May 2018 >>> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn >>> from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on >>> Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >>> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European >>> allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and >>> Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >>> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in >>> the least surprising. >>> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in >>> April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers >>> had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical >>> sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is >>> expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in >>> the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give >>> up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the >>> target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic >>> decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for >>> global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >>> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive >>> parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the >>> run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, >>> only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >>> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House >>> predecessors. >>> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided >>> and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past >>> quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq >>> to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue >>> accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state >>> terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in >>> the Middle East. >>> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s >>> nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the >>> other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis >>> and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically >>> that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the >>> letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade >>> and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US >>> with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >>> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell >>> presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned >>> by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets >>> as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, >>> deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was >>> associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial >>> response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >>> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that >>> of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has >>> embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and >>> military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of >>> neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed >>> dictatorship of the Shah. >>> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 >>> Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared >>> Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated >>> “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their >>> position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting >>> deal.” >>> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, >>> immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had >>> demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” >>> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and >>> North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes >>> clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed >>> at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be >>> reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with >>> its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic >>> priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most >>> flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization >>> agreement. >>> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence >>> establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to >>> negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would >>> repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >>> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by >>> Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel >>> Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late >>> April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On >>> Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he >>> only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >>> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its >>> ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. >>> Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist >>> powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under >>> conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and >>> commercial rivalry. >>> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist >>> appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less >>> voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >>> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it >>> is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran >>> economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with >>> Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >>> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the >>> Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on >>> Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and >>> pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and >>> Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >>> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European >>> imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less >>> belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US >>> military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best >>> strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with >>> NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on >>> prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by >>> political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s >>> US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy >>> could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian >>> forces, with all that entails. >>> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis >>> and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified >>> of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic >>> Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement >>> with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast >>> foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked >>> Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported >>> the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >>> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, >>> came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield >>> them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts >>> to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian >>> bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity >>> policies. >>> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani >>> and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. >>> In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >>> Keith Jones >>> WSWS.ORG >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 9 23:31:32 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 18:31:32 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <26EC5614-92AF-4179-87A7-EEA818D13D2F@gmail.com> Some people thought my recent AWARE flyer [below] was too anti-Israel. > On May 9, 2018, at 2:22 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Given all this ratiocination, i remain with the strong impression e.g. from their recent NfN program, that Carl and David let Israel off the hook too easily in its pushing for wars in Syria and Iran by the U.S.. Yes, of course there are others—weapons makers, Saudis, etc—, also pushing for these wars. Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration. > >> On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. >> >> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. >>> >>> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” >>> >>> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: >>> >>> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >>> >>> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. >>> >>> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. >>> >>> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) >>> >>> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. >>> >>> President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >>> >>> (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) >>> >>> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >>> >>> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. >>> >>> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. >>> >>> If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >>> >>> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>>> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace wrote: >>>> >>>> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >>>> 9 May 2018 >>>> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >>>> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >>>> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. >>>> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >>>> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >>>> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. >>>> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. >>>> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >>>> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >>>> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. >>>> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” >>>> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” >>>> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. >>>> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >>>> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >>>> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. >>>> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >>>> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >>>> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >>>> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. >>>> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >>>> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. >>>> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >>>> Keith Jones >>>> WSWS.ORG >>>> _______________________________________________ From brussel at illinois.edu Thu May 10 16:05:38 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:05:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= Message-ID: <178E9C69-AE46-4EB6-AFFE-8C1B80DEE87F@illinois.edu> Just to show another point of view, a paragraph from Saker http://thesaker.is/the-warmakers/: "Amazing, isn’t it? The Israelis have been whining about “imminent” Iranian nukes for years, and they are still at it. Not only that, but these guys have the nerve to say “Iran lied”. Seriously, even by the already unique Israeli standards, that is chutzpah elevated to a truly stratospheric level. If it were just Bibi Netanyahu, then this would be comical. But the problem is that Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.” —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Thu May 10 16:24:27 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 11:24:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: <178E9C69-AE46-4EB6-AFFE-8C1B80DEE87F@illinois.edu> References: <178E9C69-AE46-4EB6-AFFE-8C1B80DEE87F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: On May 10, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote (quoting The Saker), "Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.” That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) that exculpates the US from its political and military crimes: “...it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, 'Wilsonian idealism,' etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape.” Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu May 10 16:30:00 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:30:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <178E9C69-AE46-4EB6-AFFE-8C1B80DEE87F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) It’s an absolute disgrace that Carl accused Mort of being anti-semitic—the last refuge of a scoundrel. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:24 AM To: Brussel, Morton K Cc: Peace Discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Israeli influence… On May 10, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote (quoting The Saker), "Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.” That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) that exculpates the US from its political and military crimes: “...it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, 'Wilsonian idealism,' etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape.” Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 10 16:44:19 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 11:44:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <178E9C69-AE46-4EB6-AFFE-8C1B80DEE87F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <00476945-D085-4E73-9DA4-35EC225DA69A@gmail.com> I pointed out that the Saker’s account was a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitism’ - blaming American crimes on Israel and thus exculpating the US government. Do you agree with the Saker? I would have thought you would have some criticisms of the US government... —The Scoundrel > On May 10, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) > It’s an absolute disgrace that Carl accused Mort of being anti-semitic—the last refuge of a scoundrel. > > fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:24 AM > To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Israeli influence… > > > On May 10, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote (quoting The Saker), > "Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.” > > That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) that exculpates the US from its political and military crimes: “...it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, 'Wilsonian idealism,' etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape.” > > Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu May 10 16:44:55 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:44:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Which Side Are You On? Message-ID: <4D23C11C-44AB-4C61-98F4-D10B9B543E61@illinois.edu> >From The New York Times: Which Side Are You On? It is educated voters who are making politics more polarized. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/opinion/democrats-partisanship-identity-politics.html From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 10 16:48:47 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:48:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <178E9C69-AE46-4EB6-AFFE-8C1B80DEE87F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Okay, enough guys, as three of the most intelligent people I know, and yet find myself constantly disagreeing on the various details related to specific issues, this takes the cake, and highlights why the left never gets anywhere. Internal bickering, of which I am most guilty. I support Carl’s statement below 100%, not that it matters what I support, but it is the point I had been attempting to make when we began this conversation, only Carl presented much better than I. In addition I must add: 1) Carl did not accuse Mort of anti-semitism. Carl merely pointed out that it is a “form of Anti-semitism” making the rounds, that of blaming the “Zionists or “Jews” as most people see them for absolutely everything. Though we recognize the difference, its amazing how many people worldwide do not. 2) This is dangerous, why? Do I really need ask? 3)Carl’s statement: "That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) that exculpates the US from its political and military crimes: “...it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, 'Wilsonian idealism,' etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape.” "Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” On May 10, 2018, at 09:30, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) It’s an absolute disgrace that Carl accused Mort of being anti-semitic—the last refuge of a scoundrel. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:24 AM To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Israeli influence… On May 10, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote (quoting The Saker), "Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.” That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) that exculpates the US from its political and military crimes: “...it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, 'Wilsonian idealism,' etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape.” Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” —CGE _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Thu May 10 16:48:45 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:48:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: <00476945-D085-4E73-9DA4-35EC225DA69A@gmail.com> References: <178E9C69-AE46-4EB6-AFFE-8C1B80DEE87F@illinois.edu> <00476945-D085-4E73-9DA4-35EC225DA69A@gmail.com> Message-ID: My forty year record since I moved here on July 14, 1978 speaks for itself. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:44 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Israeli influence… I pointed out that the Saker’s account was a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitism’ - blaming American crimes on Israel and thus exculpating the US government. Do you agree with the Saker? I would have thought you would have some criticisms of the US government... —The Scoundrel > On May 10, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us > do it”) It’s an absolute disgrace that Carl accused Mort of being anti-semitic—the last refuge of a scoundrel. > > fab > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Peace-discuss On > Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:24 AM > To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Israeli influence… > > > On May 10, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote (quoting The Saker), "Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.” > > That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) that exculpates the US from its political and military crimes: “...it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, 'Wilsonian idealism,' etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape.” > > Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From brussel at illinois.edu Thu May 10 16:47:11 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:47:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <178E9C69-AE46-4EB6-AFFE-8C1B80DEE87F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Yes, I think people on this list should read the whole Saker article: http://thesaker.is/the-warmakers/ It may be overly sanguine about the resourcefulness and determination of Iran in what looks like an incipient war, but in my view it hits many right notes in its comprehensive analysis of the current events. As to the "higher antisemitism" supposedly displayed there, this ploy is redolent of associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It does not reflect well on Carl Estabrook. —mkb On May 10, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) It’s an absolute disgrace that Carl accused Mort of being anti-semitic—the last refuge of a scoundrel. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:24 AM To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Israeli influence… On May 10, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote (quoting The Saker), "Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.” That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) that exculpates the US from its political and military crimes: “...it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, 'Wilsonian idealism,' etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape.” Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” —CGE _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Thu May 10 16:58:16 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:58:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <178E9C69-AE46-4EB6-AFFE-8C1B80DEE87F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: As to the "higher antisemitism" supposedly displayed there, this ploy is redolent of associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It does not reflect well on Carl Estabrook. Ditto! fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Brussel, Morton K Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:47 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Israeli influence… Yes, I think people on this list should read the whole Saker article: http://thesaker.is/the-warmakers/ It may be overly sanguine about the resourcefulness and determination of Iran in what looks like an incipient war, but in my view it hits many right notes in its comprehensive analysis of the current events. As to the "higher antisemitism" supposedly displayed there, this ploy is redolent of associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It does not reflect well on Carl Estabrook. —mkb On May 10, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) It’s an absolute disgrace that Carl accused Mort of being anti-semitic—the last refuge of a scoundrel. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:24 AM To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Israeli influence… On May 10, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote (quoting The Saker), "Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.” That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) that exculpates the US from its political and military crimes: “...it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, 'Wilsonian idealism,' etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape.” Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” —CGE _______________________________________________ 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 r-szoke at illinois.edu Thu May 10 17:29:32 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 17:29:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? References: <3E80B125-C11C-4AE6-B74A-EDC36F3215EC@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <210F479C-9F14-4E10-B251-9B16193F1EAA@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: From newyorker.com: Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? Date: May 10, 2018 The idea that authoritarianism attracts workers harmed by the free market, which emerged when the Nazis were in power, has been making a comeback. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/14/is-capitalism-a-threat-to-democracy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 10 17:53:50 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 12:53:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <178E9C69-AE46-4EB6-AFFE-8C1B80DEE87F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <31A6A770-82DF-4397-A7A6-146A50FF537F@gmail.com> I think the Saker is often worth reading, but the asseveration that the crimes of the US government occur because “the USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever” (what I called “the higher anti-Semitism”) is not. Of course, that has little to do with "associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism." > On May 10, 2018, at 11:47 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Yes, I think people on this list should read the whole Saker article: http://thesaker.is/the-warmakers/ > > It may be overly sanguine about the resourcefulness and determination of Iran in what looks like an incipient war, but in my view it hits many right notes in its comprehensive analysis of the current events. > > As to the "higher antisemitism" supposedly displayed there, this ploy is redolent of associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It does not reflect well on Carl Estabrook. > > —mkb > > >> On May 10, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) >> It’s an absolute disgrace that Carl accused Mort of being anti-semitic—the last refuge of a scoundrel. >> >> fab >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:24 AM >> To: Brussel, Morton K >> Cc: Peace Discuss >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Israeli influence… >> >> >> On May 10, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote (quoting The Saker), >> "Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.” >> >> That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) that exculpates the US from its political and military crimes: “...it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, 'Wilsonian idealism,' etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape.” >> >> Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” >> >> —CGE From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 10 18:06:12 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 18:06:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: <31A6A770-82DF-4397-A7A6-146A50FF537F@gmail.com> References: <178E9C69-AE46-4EB6-AFFE-8C1B80DEE87F@illinois.edu> <31A6A770-82DF-4397-A7A6-146A50FF537F@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think we all need to reread Marx’s “Das Kapital,” the answer to all, lies within. Imperialism, is the last stage of capitalism. Therefore, all those capitalists profiting from our imperialism are pulling the strings, and they range across the globe from the US, the KSA, Israel, Russia and China, and all the little nations within. They come in all colors, sizes. They exist within Iran, Syria, Catalonia, etc.,etc. they are all contributors. > On May 10, 2018, at 10:53, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I think the Saker is often worth reading, but the asseveration that the crimes of the US government occur because “the USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever” (what I called “the higher anti-Semitism”) is not. > > Of course, that has little to do with "associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism." > > >> On May 10, 2018, at 11:47 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Yes, I think people on this list should read the whole Saker article: http://thesaker.is/the-warmakers/ >> >> It may be overly sanguine about the resourcefulness and determination of Iran in what looks like an incipient war, but in my view it hits many right notes in its comprehensive analysis of the current events. >> >> As to the "higher antisemitism" supposedly displayed there, this ploy is redolent of associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It does not reflect well on Carl Estabrook. >> >> —mkb >> >> >>> On May 10, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) >>> It’s an absolute disgrace that Carl accused Mort of being anti-semitic—the last refuge of a scoundrel. >>> >>> fab >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:24 AM >>> To: Brussel, Morton K >>> Cc: Peace Discuss >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Israeli influence… >>> >>> >>> On May 10, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote (quoting The Saker), >>> "Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.” >>> >>> That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) that exculpates the US from its political and military crimes: “...it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, 'Wilsonian idealism,' etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape.” >>> >>> Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” >>> >>> —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 10 18:31:34 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 13:31:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: References: <178E9C69-AE46-4EB6-AFFE-8C1B80DEE87F@illinois.edu> <31A6A770-82DF-4397-A7A6-146A50FF537F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <25074FFE-8DFC-4194-9FDD-F516EE69BCA1@gmail.com> Karen— Instead of ‘Capital,' you may be thinking of Lenin’s 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,' which "describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development ... The essay is a synthesis of Lenin's modifications and developments of economic theories that Karl Marx formulated in Das Kapital (1867)” >. "Now of course everything would be so much simpler if the class struggle were altogether perspicuous, but it is not; it comes in a variety of disguises. In the first place the simple division into two classes won't do. The basic antagonism that lies at the root of society produces a whole series of naturally hostile groupings engaged in shifting alliances and confrontations. It is almost never a simple matter to decide in the case of any particular dispute which side is to be supported in the furtherance of the emancipation of the working class and the consequent abolition of all class antagonisms. Very familiar instances of these difficulties occur with national liberation movements which are always a confusion of different elements struggling for different and sometimes incompatible aims. "Nothing in Karl Marx that I know of ... provides you with a simple key to what to do in such cases. Marx said: 'All the struggles within the State, the struggle between democracy, aristocracy and monarchy, the struggle for the franchise, etc, are merely the illusory forms in which the real struggles of the different classes with each other are fought out'. No doubt, but getting through the illusions to the reality is a difficult and delicate business.” [H. McCabe] —CGE > On May 10, 2018, at 1:06 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > I think we all need to reread Marx’s “Das Kapital,” the answer to all, lies within. Imperialism, is the last stage of capitalism. > Therefore, all those capitalists profiting from our imperialism are pulling the strings, and they range across the globe from the US, the KSA, Israel, Russia and China, and all the little nations within. They come in all colors, sizes. They exist within Iran, Syria, Catalonia, etc.,etc. they are all contributors. > >> On May 10, 2018, at 10:53, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> I think the Saker is often worth reading, but the asseveration that the crimes of the US government occur because “the USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever” (what I called “the higher anti-Semitism”) is not. >> >> Of course, that has little to do with "associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism." >> >> >>> On May 10, 2018, at 11:47 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Yes, I think people on this list should read the whole Saker article: http://thesaker.is/the-warmakers/ >>> >>> It may be overly sanguine about the resourcefulness and determination of Iran in what looks like an incipient war, but in my view it hits many right notes in its comprehensive analysis of the current events. >>> >>> As to the "higher antisemitism" supposedly displayed there, this ploy is redolent of associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It does not reflect well on Carl Estabrook. >>> >>> —mkb >>> >>> >>>> On May 10, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) >>>> It’s an absolute disgrace that Carl accused Mort of being anti-semitic—the last refuge of a scoundrel. >>>> >>>> fab >>>> >>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>> Law Building >>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>> Champaign, IL 61820 USA >>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>> (personal comments only) >>>> >>>> From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:24 AM >>>> To: Brussel, Morton K >>>> Cc: Peace Discuss >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Israeli influence… >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 10, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote (quoting The Saker), >>>> "Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.” >>>> >>>> That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) that exculpates the US from its political and military crimes: “...it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, 'Wilsonian idealism,' etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape.” >>>> >>>> Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” >>>> >>>> —CGE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Thu May 10 19:20:35 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 19:20:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Billionaires Fueling Trump on Iran Deal, Jerusalem Move In-Reply-To: <5af49a993cdec_2781fbacfc8393a@ip-10-0-0-119.mail> References: <5af49a993cdec_2781fbacfc8393a@ip-10-0-0-119.mail> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Institute for Public Accuracy Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 2:17 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Billionaires Fueling Trump on Iran Deal, Jerusalem Move Billionaires Fueling Trump on Iran Deal, Jerusalem Move -- [On Twitter] Politico reports Thursday: "Sheldon Adelson kicks in $30M to stop Democratic House takeover." ELI CLIFTON, eliclifton at gmail.com, @EliClifton Clifton is a Nation Institute fellow and contributing editor to the foreign policy analysis website LobLog. He just wrote the piece "Follow The Money: Three Billionaires Paved Way For Trump’s Iran Deal Withdrawal." Clifton writes: "President Donald Trump has just fulfilled a campaign pledge to tear up the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy achievement, a multilateral agreement constraining Iran’s nuclear enrichment (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA). In doing so, the president went against the advice of, among many others, his secretary of defense, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA), Washington’s three most important European allies, and almost-two thirds of Americans who believe that the U.S. should not withdraw from the deal, according to a CNN poll released on Tuesday morning." The move "may have been exactly what two of Trump’s biggest donors, Sheldon Adelson and Bernard Marcus, and what one of his biggest inaugural supporters, Paul Singer, paid for when they threw their financial weight behind Trump. Marcus and Adelson, who are also board members of the Likudist Republican Jewish Coalition, have already received substantial returns on their investment: total alignment by the U.S. behind Israel, next week’s move of the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and the official dropping of 'occupied territories' to describe the West Bank and East Jerusalem. "Adelson, for his part, was Trump and the GOP’s biggest campaign supporter. He and his wife Miriam contributed $35 million in outside spending to elect Trump, $20 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund (a super PAC exclusively dedicated to securing a GOP majority in the House of Representatives), and $35 million to the Senate Leadership Fund (the Senate counterpart) in the 2016 election cycle. "Trump, who had previously complained that Adelson was seeking to 'mold [Marco Rubio] into the perfect little puppet,' quickly snapped around and echoed Adelson’s hawkish positions on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem after Trump won the Republican nomination and secured Adelson’s backing." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 May 10, 2018 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from Institute for Public Accuracy, please -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Thu May 10 20:18:03 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 20:18:03 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 3 Zionist Billionaires Fueling Trump on Iran Deal, Jerusalem Move Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Institute for Public Accuracy > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 2:17 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Billionaires Fueling Trump on Iran Deal, Jerusalem Move Billionaires Fueling Trump on Iran Deal, Jerusalem Move -- [On Twitter] Politico reports Thursday: "Sheldon Adelson kicks in $30M to stop Democratic House takeover." ELI CLIFTON, eliclifton at gmail.com, @EliClifton Clifton is a Nation Institute fellow and contributing editor to the foreign policy analysis website LobLog. He just wrote the piece "Follow The Money: Three Billionaires Paved Way For Trump’s Iran Deal Withdrawal." Clifton writes: "President Donald Trump has just fulfilled a campaign pledge to tear up the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy achievement, a multilateral agreement constraining Iran’s nuclear enrichment (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA). In doing so, the president went against the advice of, among many others, his secretary of defense, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA), Washington’s three most important European allies, and almost-two thirds of Americans who believe that the U.S. should not withdraw from the deal, according to a CNN poll released on Tuesday morning." The move "may have been exactly what two of Trump’s biggest donors, Sheldon Adelson and Bernard Marcus, and what one of his biggest inaugural supporters, Paul Singer, paid for when they threw their financial weight behind Trump. Marcus and Adelson, who are also board members of the Likudist Republican Jewish Coalition, have already received substantial returns on their investment: total alignment by the U.S. behind Israel, next week’s move of the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and the official dropping of 'occupied territories' to describe the West Bank and East Jerusalem. "Adelson, for his part, was Trump and the GOP’s biggest campaign supporter. He and his wife Miriam contributed $35 million in outside spending to elect Trump, $20 million to the Congressional Leadership Fund (a super PAC exclusively dedicated to securing a GOP majority in the House of Representatives), and $35 million to the Senate Leadership Fund (the Senate counterpart) in the 2016 election cycle. "Trump, who had previously complained that Adelson was seeking to 'mold [Marco Rubio] into the perfect little puppet,' quickly snapped around and echoed Adelson’s hawkish positions on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem after Trump won the Republican nomination and secured Adelson’s backing." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 May 10, 2018 Institute for Public Accuracy 980 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * accuracy.org * ipa at accuracy.org Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from Institute for Public Accuracy, please -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu May 10 20:46:47 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 15:46:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? Message-ID: My recent (and very short in duration)  visit to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia might confirm  that SOME authoritarianism in a human-planet-affirming direction is more attractive in SOME circumstances than the hellish hodge-podge we are experiencing in this country at this time. I missed 60 Minutes' interview of Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS), which I heard was interesting. Apparently not too long ago, MBS decreed that the traditional Thursday-Friday weekend was not working (presumably for business dealings with the rest of the world), so he changed the weekend to Friday- Saturday. Just like that. Up until less than a year ago, I believe, there was one public cinema in S. A. MBS announced it was ok for Western movies to be shown, cinemas are popping up. Western ex-pats in certain areas find Saudi a safer place to raise children than in the West for many reasons. The propaganda we and the other major NATO citizen media consumers get here and have gotten for so many years is so biased, fals e, and pointed toward war with Iran that it can hardly be overstated. Imho. Anne Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discussDate: Thu, May 10, 2018 12:29 PMTo: Peace Discuss;Cc: Bill Strutz;Subject:[Peace-discuss] Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? From: "Szoke, Ron" Subject: From newyorker.com: Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? Date: May 10, 2018  The idea that authoritarianism attracts workers harmed by the free market, which emerged when the Nazis were in power, has been making a comeback. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/14/is-capitalism-a-threat-to-democracy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu May 10 20:46:47 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 15:46:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? Message-ID: My recent (and very short in duration)  visit to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia might confirm  that SOME authoritarianism in a human-planet-affirming direction is more attractive in SOME circumstances than the hellish hodge-podge we are experiencing in this country at this time. I missed 60 Minutes' interview of Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS), which I heard was interesting. Apparently not too long ago, MBS decreed that the traditional Thursday-Friday weekend was not working (presumably for business dealings with the rest of the world), so he changed the weekend to Friday- Saturday. Just like that. Up until less than a year ago, I believe, there was one public cinema in S. A. MBS announced it was ok for Western movies to be shown, cinemas are popping up. Western ex-pats in certain areas find Saudi a safer place to raise children than in the West for many reasons. The propaganda we and the other major NATO citizen media consumers get here and have gotten for so many years is so biased, fals e, and pointed toward war with Iran that it can hardly be overstated. Imho. Anne Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discussDate: Thu, May 10, 2018 12:29 PMTo: Peace Discuss;Cc: Bill Strutz;Subject:[Peace-discuss] Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? From: "Szoke, Ron" Subject: From newyorker.com: Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? Date: May 10, 2018  The idea that authoritarianism attracts workers harmed by the free market, which emerged when the Nazis were in power, has been making a comeback. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/14/is-capitalism-a-threat-to-democracy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 10 20:55:55 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 20:55:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Israeli_influence=E2=80=A6?= In-Reply-To: <25074FFE-8DFC-4194-9FDD-F516EE69BCA1@gmail.com> References: <178E9C69-AE46-4EB6-AFFE-8C1B80DEE87F@illinois.edu> <31A6A770-82DF-4397-A7A6-146A50FF537F@gmail.com> <25074FFE-8DFC-4194-9FDD-F516EE69BCA1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carl Yes, of course, you are correct, my apologies to Mr. Lenin. On May 10, 2018, at 11:31, C G Estabrook > wrote: Karen— Instead of ‘Capital,' you may be thinking of Lenin’s 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,' which "describes the function of financial capital in generating profits from imperialist colonialism as the final stage of capitalist development ... The essay is a synthesis of Lenin's modifications and developments of economic theories that Karl Marx formulated in Das Kapital (1867)” . "Now of course everything would be so much simpler if the class struggle were altogether perspicuous, but it is not; it comes in a variety of disguises. In the first place the simple division into two classes won't do. The basic antagonism that lies at the root of society produces a whole series of naturally hostile groupings engaged in shifting alliances and confrontations. It is almost never a simple matter to decide in the case of any particular dispute which side is to be supported in the furtherance of the emancipation of the working class and the consequent abolition of all class antagonisms. Very familiar instances of these difficulties occur with national liberation movements which are always a confusion of different elements struggling for different and sometimes incompatible aims. "Nothing in Karl Marx that I know of ... provides you with a simple key to what to do in such cases. Marx said: 'All the struggles within the State, the struggle between democracy, aristocracy and monarchy, the struggle for the franchise, etc, are merely the illusory forms in which the real struggles of the different classes with each other are fought out'. No doubt, but getting through the illusions to the reality is a difficult and delicate business.” [H. McCabe] —CGE On May 10, 2018, at 1:06 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: I think we all need to reread Marx’s “Das Kapital,” the answer to all, lies within. Imperialism, is the last stage of capitalism. Therefore, all those capitalists profiting from our imperialism are pulling the strings, and they range across the globe from the US, the KSA, Israel, Russia and China, and all the little nations within. They come in all colors, sizes. They exist within Iran, Syria, Catalonia, etc.,etc. they are all contributors. On May 10, 2018, at 10:53, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: I think the Saker is often worth reading, but the asseveration that the crimes of the US government occur because “the USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever” (what I called “the higher anti-Semitism”) is not. Of course, that has little to do with "associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism." On May 10, 2018, at 11:47 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote: Yes, I think people on this list should read the whole Saker article: http://thesaker.is/the-warmakers/ It may be overly sanguine about the resourcefulness and determination of Iran in what looks like an incipient war, but in my view it hits many right notes in its comprehensive analysis of the current events. As to the "higher antisemitism" supposedly displayed there, this ploy is redolent of associating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It does not reflect well on Carl Estabrook. —mkb On May 10, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) It’s an absolute disgrace that Carl accused Mort of being anti-semitic—the last refuge of a scoundrel. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss > On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 11:24 AM To: Brussel, Morton K > Cc: Peace Discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Israeli influence… On May 10, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss > wrote (quoting The Saker), "Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.” That’s a good example of ‘the higher anti-semitsm’ (“the Jews made us do it”) that exculpates the US from its political and military crimes: “...it leaves the US government untouched on its high pinnacle of nobility, 'Wilsonian idealism,' etc., merely in the grip of an all-powerful force that it cannot escape.” Stephen Zunes has rightly pointed out, “there are far more powerful interests that have a stake in what happens in the Persian Gulf region than does AIPAC [or the Lobby generally], such as the oil companies, the arms industry and other special interests whose lobbying influence and campaign contributions far surpass that of the much-vaunted Zionist lobby and its allied donors to congressional races.” —CGE _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 10 21:07:04 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 21:07:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Saudi maybe, like many other authoritarian nations a safe place to raise children of the privileged, as western expats tend to be, been there, done that. However, tell it to the parents of the locals, the poor, the parents of young people who dared to question their rulers, or do even the most modest of challenge to authority, as their children are likely dead. Tell it to the parents of the nations bombed by Saudi, inYemen. On May 10, 2018, at 13:46, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: My recent (and very short in duration) visit to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia might confirm that SOME authoritarianism in a human-planet-affirming direction is more attractive in SOME circumstances than the hellish hodge-podge we are experiencing in this country at this time. I missed 60 Minutes' interview of Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS), which I heard was interesting. Apparently not too long ago, MBS decreed that the traditional Thursday-Friday weekend was not working (presumably for business dealings with the rest of the world), so he changed the weekend to Friday- Saturday. Just like that. Up until less than a year ago, I believe, there was one public cinema in S. A. MBS announced it was ok for Western movies to be shown, cinemas are popping up. Western ex-pats in certain areas find Saudi a safer place to raise children than in the West for many reasons. The propaganda we and the other maj or NATO citizen media consumers get here and have gotten for so many years is so biased, false, and pointed toward war with Iran that it can hardly be overstated. Imho. Anne Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss Date: Thu, May 10, 2018 12:29 PM To: Peace Discuss; Cc: Bill Strutz; Subject:[Peace-discuss] Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: From newyorker.com: Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? Date: May 10, 2018 The idea that authoritarianism attracts workers harmed by the free market, which emerged when the Nazis were in power, has been making a comeback. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/14/is-capitalism-a-threat-to-democracy _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 10 21:07:04 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 21:07:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Saudi maybe, like many other authoritarian nations a safe place to raise children of the privileged, as western expats tend to be, been there, done that. However, tell it to the parents of the locals, the poor, the parents of young people who dared to question their rulers, or do even the most modest of challenge to authority, as their children are likely dead. Tell it to the parents of the nations bombed by Saudi, inYemen. On May 10, 2018, at 13:46, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: My recent (and very short in duration) visit to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia might confirm that SOME authoritarianism in a human-planet-affirming direction is more attractive in SOME circumstances than the hellish hodge-podge we are experiencing in this country at this time. I missed 60 Minutes' interview of Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS), which I heard was interesting. Apparently not too long ago, MBS decreed that the traditional Thursday-Friday weekend was not working (presumably for business dealings with the rest of the world), so he changed the weekend to Friday- Saturday. Just like that. Up until less than a year ago, I believe, there was one public cinema in S. A. MBS announced it was ok for Western movies to be shown, cinemas are popping up. Western ex-pats in certain areas find Saudi a safer place to raise children than in the West for many reasons. The propaganda we and the other maj or NATO citizen media consumers get here and have gotten for so many years is so biased, false, and pointed toward war with Iran that it can hardly be overstated. Imho. Anne Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss Date: Thu, May 10, 2018 12:29 PM To: Peace Discuss; Cc: Bill Strutz; Subject:[Peace-discuss] Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: From newyorker.com: Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy? Date: May 10, 2018 The idea that authoritarianism attracts workers harmed by the free market, which emerged when the Nazis were in power, has been making a comeback. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/14/is-capitalism-a-threat-to-democracy _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 10 23:53:16 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 18:53:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism Message-ID: <21E4B47B-4BD0-425A-AF9F-20C9CBEDD90C@gmail.com> I’ve apparently been unclear in my reference to “the higher anti-semitism.” Perhaps I should eschew irony. By ‘the higher anti-semitism’ I mean the view that US foreign policy is run for the interests of the Israeli government - roughly the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis - or the view that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever,” as Mort quotes. The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses the crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' --CGE From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri May 11 01:21:55 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 20:21:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism In-Reply-To: References: <21E4B47B-4BD0-425A-AF9F-20C9CBEDD90C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <11D00B65-B4E6-4865-A2BC-591849CBC5F2@gmail.com> You obviously misinterpret what I wrote, Francis. > On May 10, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > “the higher anti-semitism.” > --------- > You slimed Mort just like Larry Summers slimed me. Pathetic! > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:53 PM > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Cc: peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism > > I’ve apparently been unclear in my reference to “the higher anti-semitism.” Perhaps I should eschew irony. > > By ‘the higher anti-semitism’ I mean the view that US foreign policy is run for the interests of the Israeli government - roughly the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis - or the view that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever,” as Mort quotes. > > The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. > > But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses the crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' > > --CGE > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 11 01:23:21 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 01:23:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism In-Reply-To: <11D00B65-B4E6-4865-A2BC-591849CBC5F2@gmail.com> References: <21E4B47B-4BD0-425A-AF9F-20C9CBEDD90C@gmail.com> <11D00B65-B4E6-4865-A2BC-591849CBC5F2@gmail.com> Message-ID: No I understood full well what you wrote. So did Mort. Anti-Semitism is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:22 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism You obviously misinterpret what I wrote, Francis. > On May 10, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: > > “the higher anti-semitism.” > --------- > You slimed Mort just like Larry Summers slimed me. Pathetic! > Fab > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:53 PM > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Cc: peace > Subject: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism > > I’ve apparently been unclear in my reference to “the higher anti-semitism.” Perhaps I should eschew irony. > > By ‘the higher anti-semitism’ I mean the view that US foreign policy is run for the interests of the Israeli government - roughly the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis - or the view that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever,” as Mort quotes. > > The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. > > But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses the crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' > > --CGE > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Fri May 11 01:46:46 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 20:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism In-Reply-To: References: <21E4B47B-4BD0-425A-AF9F-20C9CBEDD90C@gmail.com> <11D00B65-B4E6-4865-A2BC-591849CBC5F2@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1F77196D-11DA-4C36-9A88-C23ED10C07C7@illinois.edu> The ‘higher antisemitism’ that Mort (and apparently you) hold is the belief that much of US foreign policy is run in the peculiar interests of the Israeli government. Mort goes further to assert that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever”! On the contrary, the US is the godfather, and Israel (like the KSA) is a local caporegime. As Kissinger wrote, "Regional groupings supported by the United States will have to take over major responsibility for their immediate areas, with the United States being more concerned with the overall framework of order than with the management of every regional enterprise." The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' —CGE > On May 10, 2018, at 8:23 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > No I understood full well what you wrote. So did Mort. Anti-Semitism is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:22 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism > > You obviously misinterpret what I wrote, Francis. > > >> On May 10, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> “the higher anti-semitism.” >> --------- >> You slimed Mort just like Larry Summers slimed me. Pathetic! >> Fab >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:53 PM >> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Cc: peace >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >> >> I’ve apparently been unclear in my reference to “the higher anti-semitism.” Perhaps I should eschew irony. >> >> By ‘the higher anti-semitism’ I mean the view that US foreign policy is run for the interests of the Israeli government - roughly the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis - or the view that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever,” as Mort quotes. >> >> The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. >> >> But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses the crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' >> >> --CGE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 11 01:50:07 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 01:50:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism In-Reply-To: <1F77196D-11DA-4C36-9A88-C23ED10C07C7@illinois.edu> References: <21E4B47B-4BD0-425A-AF9F-20C9CBEDD90C@gmail.com> <11D00B65-B4E6-4865-A2BC-591849CBC5F2@gmail.com> <1F77196D-11DA-4C36-9A88-C23ED10C07C7@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Yeah, it is just like the New Anti-Semitism that is used by Zionists to discredit those of us in the BDS Campaign. Anti-Semitism is the last refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:47 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism The ‘higher antisemitism’ that Mort (and apparently you) hold is the belief that much of US foreign policy is run in the peculiar interests of the Israeli government. Mort goes further to assert that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever”! On the contrary, the US is the godfather, and Israel (like the KSA) is a local caporegime. As Kissinger wrote, "Regional groupings supported by the United States will have to take over major responsibility for their immediate areas, with the United States being more concerned with the overall framework of order than with the management of every regional enterprise." The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' —CGE > On May 10, 2018, at 8:23 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > No I understood full well what you wrote. So did Mort. Anti-Semitism is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:22 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism > > You obviously misinterpret what I wrote, Francis. > > >> On May 10, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >> >> “the higher anti-semitism.” >> --------- >> You slimed Mort just like Larry Summers slimed me. Pathetic! >> Fab >> >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:53 PM >> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Cc: peace >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >> >> I’ve apparently been unclear in my reference to “the higher anti-semitism.” Perhaps I should eschew irony. >> >> By ‘the higher anti-semitism’ I mean the view that US foreign policy is run for the interests of the Israeli government - roughly the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis - or the view that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever,” as Mort quotes. >> >> The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. >> >> But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses the crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' >> >> --CGE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Fri May 11 01:58:15 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 20:58:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism In-Reply-To: References: <21E4B47B-4BD0-425A-AF9F-20C9CBEDD90C@gmail.com> <11D00B65-B4E6-4865-A2BC-591849CBC5F2@gmail.com> <1F77196D-11DA-4C36-9A88-C23ED10C07C7@illinois.edu> Message-ID: “If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table.” A serious discussion of BDS - its strengths and limitations - would be more valuable than table pounding, Francis. > On May 10, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Yeah, it is just like the New Anti-Semitism that is used by Zionists to discredit those of us in the BDS Campaign. Anti-Semitism is the last refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:47 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism > > The ‘higher antisemitism’ that Mort (and apparently you) hold is the belief that much of US foreign policy is run in the peculiar interests of the Israeli government. Mort goes further to assert that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever”! > > On the contrary, the US is the godfather, and Israel (like the KSA) is a local caporegime. As Kissinger wrote, "Regional groupings supported by the United States will have to take over major responsibility for their immediate areas, with the United States being more concerned with the overall framework of order than with the management of every regional enterprise." > > The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. > > But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' > > —CGE > > >> On May 10, 2018, at 8:23 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> No I understood full well what you wrote. So did Mort. Anti-Semitism is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:22 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: peace ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >> >> You obviously misinterpret what I wrote, Francis. >> >> >>> On May 10, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> “the higher anti-semitism.” >>> --------- >>> You slimed Mort just like Larry Summers slimed me. Pathetic! >>> Fab >>> >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:53 PM >>> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> Cc: peace >>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >>> >>> I’ve apparently been unclear in my reference to “the higher anti-semitism.” Perhaps I should eschew irony. >>> >>> By ‘the higher anti-semitism’ I mean the view that US foreign policy is run for the interests of the Israeli government - roughly the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis - or the view that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever,” as Mort quotes. >>> >>> The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. >>> >>> But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses the crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' >>> >>> --CGE >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 11 01:59:51 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 01:59:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism In-Reply-To: References: <21E4B47B-4BD0-425A-AF9F-20C9CBEDD90C@gmail.com> <11D00B65-B4E6-4865-A2BC-591849CBC5F2@gmail.com> <1F77196D-11DA-4C36-9A88-C23ED10C07C7@illinois.edu> Message-ID: You were the one who slimed Mort. Just like Larry Summers slimed me. Fab D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:58 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism “If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table.” A serious discussion of BDS - its strengths and limitations - would be more valuable than table pounding, Francis. > On May 10, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Yeah, it is just like the New Anti-Semitism that is used by Zionists to discredit those of us in the BDS Campaign. Anti-Semitism is the last refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:47 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism > > The ‘higher antisemitism’ that Mort (and apparently you) hold is the belief that much of US foreign policy is run in the peculiar interests of the Israeli government. Mort goes further to assert that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever”! > > On the contrary, the US is the godfather, and Israel (like the KSA) is a local caporegime. As Kissinger wrote, "Regional groupings supported by the United States will have to take over major responsibility for their immediate areas, with the United States being more concerned with the overall framework of order than with the management of every regional enterprise." > > The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. > > But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' > > —CGE > > >> On May 10, 2018, at 8:23 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> No I understood full well what you wrote. So did Mort. Anti-Semitism is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:22 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: peace ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >> >> You obviously misinterpret what I wrote, Francis. >> >> >>> On May 10, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> “the higher anti-semitism.” >>> --------- >>> You slimed Mort just like Larry Summers slimed me. Pathetic! >>> Fab >>> >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:53 PM >>> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> Cc: peace >>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >>> >>> I’ve apparently been unclear in my reference to “the higher anti-semitism.” Perhaps I should eschew irony. >>> >>> By ‘the higher anti-semitism’ I mean the view that US foreign policy is run for the interests of the Israeli government - roughly the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis - or the view that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever,” as Mort quotes. >>> >>> The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. >>> >>> But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses the crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' >>> >>> --CGE >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri May 11 02:09:44 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 02:09:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism In-Reply-To: References: <21E4B47B-4BD0-425A-AF9F-20C9CBEDD90C@gmail.com> <11D00B65-B4E6-4865-A2BC-591849CBC5F2@gmail.com> <1F77196D-11DA-4C36-9A88-C23ED10C07C7@illinois.edu> Message-ID: David Green wrote an article on this very topic, I believe. He explains it very well. Unfortunately it will take me some time to locate it. > On May 10, 2018, at 18:58, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > “If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table.” > > A serious discussion of BDS - its strengths and limitations - would be more valuable than table pounding, Francis. > > >> On May 10, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Yeah, it is just like the New Anti-Semitism that is used by Zionists to discredit those of us in the BDS Campaign. Anti-Semitism is the last refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:47 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism >> >> The ‘higher antisemitism’ that Mort (and apparently you) hold is the belief that much of US foreign policy is run in the peculiar interests of the Israeli government. Mort goes further to assert that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever”! >> >> On the contrary, the US is the godfather, and Israel (like the KSA) is a local caporegime. As Kissinger wrote, "Regional groupings supported by the United States will have to take over major responsibility for their immediate areas, with the United States being more concerned with the overall framework of order than with the management of every regional enterprise." >> >> The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. >> >> But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On May 10, 2018, at 8:23 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> No I understood full well what you wrote. So did Mort. Anti-Semitism is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:22 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: peace ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >>> >>> You obviously misinterpret what I wrote, Francis. >>> >>> >>>> On May 10, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>> >>>> “the higher anti-semitism.” >>>> --------- >>>> You slimed Mort just like Larry Summers slimed me. Pathetic! >>>> Fab >>>> >>>> >>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>> Law Building >>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>> (personal comments only) >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:53 PM >>>> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>> Cc: peace >>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >>>> >>>> I’ve apparently been unclear in my reference to “the higher anti-semitism.” Perhaps I should eschew irony. >>>> >>>> By ‘the higher anti-semitism’ I mean the view that US foreign policy is run for the interests of the Israeli government - roughly the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis - or the view that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever,” as Mort quotes. >>>> >>>> The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. >>>> >>>> But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses the crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' >>>> >>>> --CGE >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri May 11 02:15:49 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 02:15:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism In-Reply-To: References: <21E4B47B-4BD0-425A-AF9F-20C9CBEDD90C@gmail.com> <11D00B65-B4E6-4865-A2BC-591849CBC5F2@gmail.com> <1F77196D-11DA-4C36-9A88-C23ED10C07C7@illinois.edu> Message-ID: ‘A higher racism’: The new justifications for Islamophobia and pre-emptive violence Israel/Palestine David Green on September 26, 2010 13 Comments Adjust Font Size       Our political culture has become more civilized, but also more sophisticated in its use of demonization. While overt hatred is no longer generally acceptable, it can be rationalized if it is clearly couched in allegations that assert the racism of our political enemies: their collective hatred puts us in danger. Similarly, conspiracy theories are anathema, except for those who claim that others conspire against us on the basis of conspiracy theories about us—that is, about Americans, Jews, Jewish Israelis, and western civilization. These observations regarding “higher racism” must be kept in mind if we are to distinguish anti-Semitism from—to borrow a phrasing from Norman Finkelstein—the Anti-Semitism Industry. Since the 1960s, both the United States and Israel have required regular upsurges in the “new anti-Semitism,” always with evocations of the Nazi Holocaust, as one aspect of imperial ideology—especially as it applies to the Middle East and the Islamic world, but also wherever criticism of Israel is to be found in the U.S. and Europe. The New York Times recently reviewed three books that exemplify this “higher racism” among academic writers and their reviewers. In reviewing Anthony Julius’s book Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England, prominent literary scholar Harold Bloom (5/7/10) writes: “He (Julius) is a truth-teller, and authentic enough to stand against the English literary and academic establishment, which essentially opposes the right of the state of Israel to exist, while indulging in the humbuggery that its anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism.” More recently in the New York Times (7/5/10), Edward Rothstein published an essay review that incorporated his perspectives on Julius’s above-mentioned book; Robert Wistrich’s A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism From Antiquity to the Global Jihad; and Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World, by Jeffrey Herf. In discussing Herf’s book, Rothstein asserts that Arab anti-Semitism should be understood in relation to Nazi anti-Semitism rather than imperial American/Israeli behavior. And anti-Semitism, among historical racisms, must be understood as uniquely conspiratorial and threatening. Rothstein writes: “It is easy enough to discern when responsible criticisms of Israel veer into something reprehensible: the structure of anti-Semitic belief is not subtle. There is a wildly exaggerated scale of condemnation, in which extremes of contempt confront a country caricatured as the world’s worst enemy of peace; such attacks (and the use of Nazi analogies) are beyond evidence and beyond pragmatic political debate or protest. Israel’s autonomy—its very presence—is the problem.” Rothstein approvingly quotes Julius’s assertion that “Israel is the only state in the world whose legitimacy is widely denied and whose destruction is publicly advocated and threatened; Israelis are the only citizens of a state whose indiscriminate murder is widely considered justifiable.” Finally, again in reference to Herf’s book, Rothstein concludes: “Nazi ideology bears many resemblances to that of contemporary Islamic extremism, some the consequence of careful teaching. That teaching is still present in the Arab world, amplified by political leaders and imams, often annexed to denigrations of Jews taken from Islamic sources.” In comparing anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, Rothstein mitigates the latter and draws this bizarre conclusion: “Islamophobia is a concept developed within the last two decades by those who wish to elevate Islam’s reputation in the West; anti-Semitism was a concept eagerly embraced and expanded by haters of Jews. One was constructed by a group’s supporters, the other by a group’s enemies. Moreover, much of what is characterized as Islamophobia today arises out of taking seriously the impassioned claims of doctrinal allegiance made by Islamic terrorist groups and their supporters. Anti-Semitism, though, has nothing to do with any claims at all.” This is sophistry. The fact that the term “Islamophobia” was not invented by its advocates can hardly serve to deny objective reality to Islamophobic paranoia and hatred, as we see now more clearly than ever. Moreover, to argue that anti-Semitism has “nothing to do with any claims at all” is transparent bad faith, whatever the perversity of genuine anti-Semites. No form of racism or conspiracism operates without reference to “evidence,” however distorted in its exploitation. Most revealing, Rothstein seriously asserts the merits of and justification for Islamophobia (thus implying it is not unreasonable at all), based on “doctrinal allegiance made by Islamic terrorist groups and their supporters.” He implies that their conspiracism and the legitimate need for our (or Israel’s) violent pre-emption is a matter of our survival. How different are these views from those of a serious Islamophobe such as Daniel Pipes? For example, Pipes wrote about Muslim Americans in a 1999 Commentary article: “Positive attitudes are very much the exception. At huge conventions closed to the press and public, in speeches and publications that tend to be couched in the historic Muslim languages rather than in English, nearly every Muslim organization in the United States—emphatically including those that carefully maintain a proper demeanor for public, English-language consumption—spews forth a blatant and vicious anti-Semitism, a barrage of bias, calumny, and conspiracy-mongering of a sort that has otherwise all but disappeared from American discourse.” In truth, modern anti-Semitism (that is, racially rather than religiously-based anti-Semitism) has been no more “unique” in its ideological tactics than racism associated with either slavery or apartheid. This was cogently demonstrated by the late historian George M. Fredrickson’s in his book Racism: A Short History (2003). Thus neither anti-Semitism nor Islamophobia has been singular in hatred based on the alleged racism of the other, and pre-emption justified by the alleged conspiracy theorizing of the other. For example, current rhetoric about Iran echoes Nazi rhetoric about Poland, in both ferocity and lack of validity. Islamophobia, especially in its “higher” expressions, has become a central ideological and propaganda component of the American/Israeli “War on Terror,” and is clearly the most dangerous form of politically-driven demonization on the current scene. In contrast, anti-Semitism in its most virulent European/Christian form is moribund, unique only in that it cannot be allowed to die a dishonorable death. Instead, it is cynically revitalized as the lurid propaganda of anti-anti-Semitism; i.e., Islamophobia; and the memory of its real victims debased. This fabricated anti-Semitism is projected onto the Islamic world in service of the imperial regimes. Academics, journalists, and think tank propagandists are called to present all of this as consistent with scholarly understanding. As can be seen, they do the best they can. David Green (davegreen84 at yahoo.com), a 60-year-old Jewish-American social researcher and policy analyst; he has been involved in pro-Palestinian activities since 1997. He lives in Champaign, IL. He has published his political work at websites such as Counterpunch, ZNet, Palestine Chronicle, and Electronic Intifada. > On May 10, 2018, at 19:09, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > David Green wrote an article on this very topic, I believe. He explains it very well. Unfortunately it will take me some time to locate it. > > >> On May 10, 2018, at 18:58, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> “If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither is on your side, pound the table.” >> >> A serious discussion of BDS - its strengths and limitations - would be more valuable than table pounding, Francis. >> >> >>> On May 10, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Yeah, it is just like the New Anti-Semitism that is used by Zionists to discredit those of us in the BDS Campaign. Anti-Semitism is the last refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] >>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:47 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism >>> >>> The ‘higher antisemitism’ that Mort (and apparently you) hold is the belief that much of US foreign policy is run in the peculiar interests of the Israeli government. Mort goes further to assert that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever”! >>> >>> On the contrary, the US is the godfather, and Israel (like the KSA) is a local caporegime. As Kissinger wrote, "Regional groupings supported by the United States will have to take over major responsibility for their immediate areas, with the United States being more concerned with the overall framework of order than with the management of every regional enterprise." >>> >>> The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. >>> >>> But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On May 10, 2018, at 8:23 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> No I understood full well what you wrote. So did Mort. Anti-Semitism is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. >>>> >>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>> Law Building >>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>> (personal comments only) >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:22 PM >>>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>>> Cc: peace ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >>>> >>>> You obviously misinterpret what I wrote, Francis. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 10, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>>> >>>>> “the higher anti-semitism.” >>>>> --------- >>>>> You slimed Mort just like Larry Summers slimed me. Pathetic! >>>>> Fab >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>>> Law Building >>>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>>> (personal comments only) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:53 PM >>>>> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>>> Cc: peace >>>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >>>>> >>>>> I’ve apparently been unclear in my reference to “the higher anti-semitism.” Perhaps I should eschew irony. >>>>> >>>>> By ‘the higher anti-semitism’ I mean the view that US foreign policy is run for the interests of the Israeli government - roughly the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis - or the view that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever,” as Mort quotes. >>>>> >>>>> The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. >>>>> >>>>> But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses the crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' >>>>> >>>>> --CGE >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 11 02:30:17 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 02:30:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: US Illegally Packs Gitmo to Spread Fear, Maintain Global Empire - Analysts - Sputnik International Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 9:30 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: US Illegally Packs Gitmo to Spread Fear, Maintain Global Empire - Analysts - Sputnik International https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201805111064341904-usa-guantanamo-law-rights-violation/ Concentration Camp Aura University of Illinois Professor of international Law Professor Francis Boyle told Sputnik the Guantanamo Bay facility remained a gross violation of human rights and international law as long as it was allowed to continue operating. "Gitmo [Guantanamo] is a crypto-Nazi concentration camp... where prisoners are being held and tortured in violation of their basic rights under the Geneva Conventions and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," he said. As of Wednesday, US authorities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba will prohibit lawyers from bringing food to their imprisoned clients during meetings, purportedly to ensure food safety. (c) AP Photo / Charles Dharapak Prisoners Cleared to Leave Gitmo Face 'Potential Lifetime of Detention' Under Trump Boyle said the United States was a contracting party to those international agreements and that violations of the Geneva Conventions were war crimes. "In the case of Gitmo where these war crimes are both widespread and systematic, it constitutes a Crime Against Humanity that in terms of severity verges upon the international crime of genocide perpetrated against its primarily Muslims of Color Prisoners," he said. "The Gitmo Kangaroo Courts are a joke and a fraud and part and parcel of the same violations of international criminal law mentioned above." The level of violence authorized at Guantanamo was likely to escalate and eventually lead to authorizing the killing of suspects being held there, Boyle cautioned. "In the event the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts sentences someone to death and that person is executed, Gitmo will become America's first Nazi death camp," he warned. From brussel at illinois.edu Fri May 11 02:48:45 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 02:48:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism In-Reply-To: <1F77196D-11DA-4C36-9A88-C23ED10C07C7@illinois.edu> References: <21E4B47B-4BD0-425A-AF9F-20C9CBEDD90C@gmail.com> <11D00B65-B4E6-4865-A2BC-591849CBC5F2@gmail.com> <1F77196D-11DA-4C36-9A88-C23ED10C07C7@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Your first paragraph includes a willful blatant lie: I asserted no such thing as “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever”! That is a Saker quote. Get the difference? I wanted to point out that you constantly let Israel and its cohort “off the hook” by denying the gross, yes undeniable, heinous influence of the Zionist lobby (and Israel/Netanyahu) in U.S.foreign policy. The Saker, and Max Blumenthal, are closer to the truth in my opinion. > On May 10, 2018, at 8:46 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > The ‘higher antisemitism’ that Mort (and apparently you) hold is the belief that much of US foreign policy is run in the peculiar interests of the Israeli government. Mort goes further to assert that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever”! > > On the contrary, the US is the godfather, and Israel (like the KSA) is a local caporegime. As Kissinger wrote, "Regional groupings supported by the United States will have to take over major responsibility for their immediate areas, with the United States being more concerned with the overall framework of order than with the management of every regional enterprise." > > The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. > > But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' > > —CGE > > >> On May 10, 2018, at 8:23 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> No I understood full well what you wrote. So did Mort. Anti-Semitism is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:22 PM >> To: Boyle, Francis A >> Cc: peace ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >> >> You obviously misinterpret what I wrote, Francis. >> >> >>> On May 10, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>> >>> “the higher anti-semitism.” >>> --------- >>> You slimed Mort just like Larry Summers slimed me. Pathetic! >>> Fab >>> >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:53 PM >>> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> Cc: peace >>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >>> >>> I’ve apparently been unclear in my reference to “the higher anti-semitism.” Perhaps I should eschew irony. >>> >>> By ‘the higher anti-semitism’ I mean the view that US foreign policy is run for the interests of the Israeli government - roughly the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis - or the view that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever,” as Mort quotes. >>> >>> The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. >>> >>> But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses the crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' >>> >>> --CGE >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Fri May 11 03:18:23 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 22:18:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The higher anti-Semitism In-Reply-To: References: <21E4B47B-4BD0-425A-AF9F-20C9CBEDD90C@gmail.com> <11D00B65-B4E6-4865-A2BC-591849CBC5F2@gmail.com> <1F77196D-11DA-4C36-9A88-C23ED10C07C7@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <9AEED912-AD14-445C-94B8-069C6E16357F@illinois.edu> It’s not a lie, Mort. You wrote, "Just to show another point of view, a paragraph from Saker … 'The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever.'” Did you quote it because you thought it was false? > On May 10, 2018, at 9:48 PM, Brussel, Morton K wrote: > > Your first paragraph includes a willful blatant lie: > I asserted no such thing as “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever”! That is a Saker quote. Get the difference? > I wanted to point out that you constantly let Israel and its cohort “off the hook” by denying the gross, yes undeniable, heinous influence of the Zionist lobby (and Israel/Netanyahu) in U.S.foreign policy. The Saker, and Max Blumenthal, are closer to the truth in my opinion. > >> On May 10, 2018, at 8:46 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> The ‘higher antisemitism’ that Mort (and apparently you) hold is the belief that much of US foreign policy is run in the peculiar interests of the Israeli government. Mort goes further to assert that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever”! >> >> On the contrary, the US is the godfather, and Israel (like the KSA) is a local caporegime. As Kissinger wrote, "Regional groupings supported by the United States will have to take over major responsibility for their immediate areas, with the United States being more concerned with the overall framework of order than with the management of every regional enterprise." >> >> The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. >> >> But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On May 10, 2018, at 8:23 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> No I understood full well what you wrote. So did Mort. Anti-Semitism is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel. Fab. >>> >>> Francis A. Boyle >>> Law Building >>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>> (personal comments only) >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:22 PM >>> To: Boyle, Francis A >>> Cc: peace ; peace-discuss at anti-war.net >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >>> >>> You obviously misinterpret what I wrote, Francis. >>> >>> >>>> On May 10, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Boyle, Francis A wrote: >>>> >>>> “the higher anti-semitism.” >>>> --------- >>>> You slimed Mort just like Larry Summers slimed me. Pathetic! >>>> Fab >>>> >>>> >>>> Francis A. Boyle >>>> Law Building >>>> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >>>> Champaign IL 61820 USA >>>> 217-333-7954 (phone) >>>> 217-244-1478 (fax) >>>> (personal comments only) >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 6:53 PM >>>> To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>>> Cc: peace >>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] The higher anti-Semitism >>>> >>>> I’ve apparently been unclear in my reference to “the higher anti-semitism.” Perhaps I should eschew irony. >>>> >>>> By ‘the higher anti-semitism’ I mean the view that US foreign policy is run for the interests of the Israeli government - roughly the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis - or the view that “The USA is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever,” as Mort quotes. >>>> >>>> The US is run by government institutions that serve the interests of dominant social groups in America (‘the ruling class’), influenced as they may be by various interest groups (‘lobbies’), of which the Israel lobby is not the only one nor even probably the most influential. >>>> >>>> But the ‘higher anti-semitism’ excuses the crimes of the US government on the crude and false excuse, 'the Jews [the government of Israel and the Israel lobby] made us do it.' >>>> >>>> --CGE >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri May 11 05:44:55 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 00:44:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Why is Putin "Allowing" Israel to Bomb Syria? Message-ID: <22904A00-9F05-479D-AC5B-C8A724AA1D9F@gmail.com> ["Just to show another point of view," Mort Brussel has alerted us to the eminent virtues of The Saker (who does seem to overstate when he refers to Israel’s "de-facto control of the US government").] Why is Putin "Allowing" Israel to Bomb Syria? The Saker • January 18, 2018 • Informationclearinghouse recently posted an article by Darius Shahtahmasebi entitled “Israel Keeps Bombing Syria and Nobody Is Doing Anything About It”. Following this publication I received an email from a reader asking me the following question: “Putin permitting Israel to bomb Syria – why? I am confused by Putins actions – does Putin support the Zionist entity, on the quiet like. I would appreciate your feedback on this matter. Also – I have heard, but not been able to confirm, that the Russian Jewish immigrants to Occupied Palestines are the most ardent tormenters of the Palestinians – it takes quite some doing to get ahead of the likes of Netanyahu. Please comment”. While in his article Darius Shahtahmasebi wonders why the world is not doing anything to stop the Israelis (“Why haven’t Iran, Syria, and/or Hezbollah in Lebanon responded directly?“), my reader is more specific and wonders why Putin (or Russia) specifically is not only “permitting” Israel to bomb Syria but even possibly “supporting” the Zionist Entity. I often see that question in emails and in comments, so I wanted to address this issue today. First, we need to look at some critical assumption implied by this question. These assumptions are: • That Russia can do something to stop the Israelis • That Russia should (or even is morally obliged) to do something. Let me begin by saying that I categorically disagree with both of these assumptions, especially the 2nd one. Let’s take them one by one. Assumption #1: Russia can stop the Israeli attacks on Syria How? I think that the list of options is fairly obvious here. Russian options range from diplomatic action (such as private or public protests and condemnations, attempts to get a UNSC Resolution passed) to direct military action (shooting down Israeli aircraft, “painting” them with an engagement radar to try to scare them away or, at least, try to intercept Israeli missiles). Trying to reason with the Israelis or get the to listen to the UN has been tried by many countries for decades and if there is one thing which is beyond doubt is that the Israelis don’t give a damn about what anybody has to say. So talking to them is just a waste of oxygen. What about threatening them? Actually, I think that this could work, but at what risk and price? First of all, while I always said that the IDF’s ground forces are pretty bad, this is not the case of their air forces. In fact, their record is pretty good. Now if you look at where the Russian air defenses are, you will see that they are all concentrated around Khmeimim and Tartus. Yes, an S-400 has a very long range, but that range is dependent on many things including the size of the target, its radar-cross section, its electronic warfare capabilities, the presence of specialized EW aircraft, altitude, etc. The Israelis are skilled pilots who are very risk averse so they are very careful about what they do. Finally, the Israelis are very much aware of where the Russians are themselves and where there missiles are. I think that it would be pretty safe to say that the Israelis make sure to keep a minimal safe distance between themselves and the Russians, if only to avoid any misunderstanding. But let’s say that the Russians did have a chance to shoot down an Israeli aircraft – what would be the likely Israeli reaction to such a shooting? In this article Darius Shahtahmasebi writes: “Is it because Israel reportedly has well over 200 nukes all “pointed at Iran,” and there is little Iran and its allies can do to take on such a threat?” I don’t see the Israelis use nukes on Russian forces, however, that does in no way mean that the Russians when dealing with Israel should not consider the fact that Israel is a nuclear armed power ruled by racist megalomaniacs. In practical terms this means this: “should Russia (or any other country) risk a military clash with Israel over a few destroyed trucks or a weapons and ammunition dump”? I think that the obvious answer is clearly ‘no’. While this is the kind of calculations the US simply ignores (at least officially – hence all the saber-rattling against the DPRK), Russia is ruled by a sane and responsible man who cannot make it a habit of simply waltzing into a conflict hence the Russian decision not to retaliate in kind against the shooting down of the Russian SU-24 by the Turks. If the Russians did not retaliate against the Turks shooting down one of their own aircraft, they sure ain’t gonna attack the Israelis when they attack a non-Russian target! There are also simply factual issues to consider: even if some Russian air-defense systems are very advanced and could shoot down an X number of Israeli aircraft, they are nowhere near numerous enough to prevent the entire Israeli air force from saturating them. In fact, both Israel and CENTCOM simply have such a numbers advantage over the relatively small Russian contingent that they both could over-run the Russian defenses, even if they would take losses in the process. So yes, the Russian probably could stop one or a few Israeli attacks, but if the Israelis decided to engage in a sustained air campaign against targets in Syria there is nothing the Russians could do short of going to war with Israel. So here again a very basic strategic principle fully applies: you never want to start an escalatory process you neither control nor can win. Put simply this means: if the Russians shoot back – they lose and the Israelis win. It’s really that simple and both sides know it (armchair strategist apparently don’t). And this begs a critical look at the second assumption: Assumption #2: Russia has some moral duty to stop the Israeli attacks on Syria This is the one which most baffles me. Why in the world would anybody think that Russia owes anybody anywhere on the planet any type of protection?! For starters, when is the last time somebody came to the help of Russia? I don’t recall anybody in the Middle-East offering their support to Russia in Chechnia, Georgia or, for that matter, the Ukraine! How many countries in the Middle-East have recognized South Ossetia or Abkhazia (and compare that with the Kosovo case!)? Where was the Muslim or Arab “help” or “friendship” towards Russia when sanctions were imposed and the price of oil dropped? Remind me – how exactly did Russia’s “friends” express their support for Russia over, say, the Donbass or Crimea? Can somebody please explain to me why Russia has some moral obligation towards Syria or Iran or Hezbollah when not a single Muslim or Arab country has done anything to help the Syrian government fight against the Takfiris? Where is the Arab League!? Where is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation?! Is it not a fact that Russia has done more in Syria than all the countries of the Arab League and the OIC combined?! Where do the Arab and Muslims of the Middle-East get this sense of entitlement which tells them that a faraway country which struggles with plenty of political, economic and military problems of its own has to do more than the immediate neighbors of Syria do?! Putin is the President of Russia and he is first and foremost accountable to the Russian people to whom he has to explain every Russian casualty and even every risk he takes. It seems to me that he is absolutely right when he acts first and foremost in defense of the people who elected him and not anybody else. By the way – Putin was very clear about why he was ordering a (very limited) Russian military intervention in Syria: to protect Russian national interests by, for example, killing crazy Takfiris in Syria so as not to have to fight then in the Caucasus and the rest of Russia. At no time and in no way did any Russian official refer to any kind of obligation of Russia towards Syria or any other country in the region. True, Russia did stand by President Assad, but that was not because of any obligation towards him or his country, but because the Russians always insisted that he was the legitimate President of Syria and that only the Syrian people had the right to replace (or keep) him. And, of course, it is in the Russian national interest to show that, unlike the US, Russia stands by her allies. But none of that means that Russia is now responsible for the protection of the sovereignty of the Syrian airspace or territory. As far as I am concerned, the only country which has done even more than Russia for Syria is Iran and, in lieu of gratitude the Arab countries “thank” the Iranians by conspiring against them with the US and Israel. Hassan Nasrallah is absolutely spot on when the calls all these countries traitors and collaborators of the AngloZionist Empire. There is something deeply immoral and hypocritical in this constant whining that Russia should do more when in reality Russia and Iran are the only two countries doing something meaningful (and Hezbollah, of course!). Now let me address a few typical questions: Question #1: but aren’t Syria, Iran and Hezbollah Russian allies? Yes and no. Objectively – yes. Formally – no. What this means is that while these three entities do have some common objectives, they are also independent and they all have some objectives not shared by others. Furthermore, they have no mutual defense treaty and this is why neither Syria, nor Iran nor Hezbollah retaliated against Turkey when the Turks shot down the Russian SU-24. While some might disagree, I would argue that this absence of a formal mutual defense treaty is a very good thing if only because it prevents Russian or Iranian forces in Syria from becoming “tripwire” forces which, if attacked, would require an immediate response. In a highly dangerous and explosive situation like the Middle-East the kind of flexibility provided by the absence any formal alliances is a big advantage for all parties involved. Question #2 : does that mean that Russia is doing nothing or even supporting Israel? Of course not! In fact, Netanyahu even traveled to Moscow to make all sorts of threats and he returned home with nothing (Russian sources even report that the Israelis ended up shouting at their Russian counterparts). Let’s restate here something which ought to be obvious to everybody: the Russian intervention in Syria was an absolute, total and unmitigated disaster for Israel (I explain that in detail in this article). If the Russians had any kind of concern for Israelis interests they would never have intervened in Syria in the first place! However, that refusal to let Israel dictate Russian policies in the Middle-East (or elsewhere) does not at all mean that Russia can simply ignore the very real power of the Israelis, not only because of their nukes, but also because of their de-facto control of the US government. Question #3: so what is really going on between Russia and Israel? As I have explained elsewhere, the relationship between Russia and Israel is a very complex and multi-layered one and nothing between those two countries is really black or white. For one thing, there is a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Russia at which Putin has been chipping away over the years, but only in very small and incremental steps. The key for Putin is to do what needs to be done to advance Russian interests but without triggering an internal or external political crisis. This is why the Russians are doing certain things, but rather quietly. First, they are re-vamping the aging Syrian air defenses not only with software updates, but also with newer hardware. They are also, of course, training Syrian crews. This does not mean that the Syrians could close their skies to Israeli aircraft, but that gradually the risks of striking Syria would go up and up with each passing month. First, we would not notice this, but I am confident that a careful analysis of the types of targets the Israelis will strike will go down and further down in value meaning the Syrians will become more and more capable of defending their most important assets. Second, it is pretty obvious that Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are working synergistically. For example, the Russians and the Syrians have integrated their air defenses which means that now the Syrians can “see” much further than their own radars would allow them to. Furthermore, consider the number of US cruise missiles which never made it to the Syrian air base Trump wanted to bomb: it is more or less admitted by now that this was the result of Russian EW countermeasures. Finally, the Russians are clearly “covering” for Hezbollah and Iran politically by refusing to consider them as pariahs which is what Israel and the US have been demanding all along. This is why Iran is treated as a key-player by the Russian sponsored peace process while the US and Israel are not even invited. So the truth of the matter is simple: the Russians will not directly oppose the Israelis, but what they will do is quietly strengthen Iran and Hezbollah, which is not only much safer but also much more effective. Conclusion We live in a screwed-up and dysfunctional society which following decades of US domination conflates war and aggression with strength, which implicitly accepts the notion that a “great country” is one which goes on some kind of violent rampage on a regular basis and which always resorts to military force to retaliate against any attack. I submit that the Russian and Iranian leaders are much more sophisticated then that. The same goes for the Hezbollah leadership, by the way. Remember when the Israelis (with the obvious complicity of some members of the Syrian regime, by the way) murdered Imad Mughniyeh? Hezbollah promised to retaliate, but so far, almost a decade later, they have not (or, at least, not officially). Some will say that Hezbollah’s threats were empty words – I totally disagree. When Hassan Nasrallah promises something you can take it to the bank. But Hezbollah leaders are sophisticated enough to retaliate when the time is right and on their own terms. And think about the Iranians who since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 have been in the crosshairs of both the US and Israel and who never gave either one of them the pretext to strike. When you are much more powerful than your opponent you can be stupid and reply on brute, dumb force. At least for the short to middle term. Eventually, as we see with the US today, this kind of aggressive stupidity backfires and ends up being counterproductive. But when you are smaller, weaker or even just still in the process of recovering your potential strength you have to act with much more caution and sophistication. This is why all the opponents of the AngloZionist Empire (including Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela) do their utmost to avoid using force against the AngloZionists even when it would be richly deserved. The one exception to this rule is Kim Jong-un who has chosen a policy of hyperinflated threats which, while possibly effective (he seems to have outwitted Trump, at least so far) is also very dangerous and one which none of the Resistance countries want to have any part in. The Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah are all “grown adults” (in political terms), and Assad is learning very fast, and they all understand that they are dealing with a “monkey with a hand grenade” (this fully applies to both Israeli and US leaders) which combines a nasty personality, a volatile temper, a primitive brain and a hand grenade big enough to kill everybody in the room. Their task is to incapacitate that monkey without having it pull the pin. In the case of the Israeli strikes on Syria, the primary responsibility to respond in some manner would fall either on the target of the strikes (usually Hezbollah) or on the nation whose sovereignty was violated (Syria). And both could, in theory, retaliate (by using tactical missiles for example). Yet they chose not to, and that is the wise and correct approach. As for the Russians, this is simply and plainly not their business. Addendum 1: One more thing. Make no mistake – the Israeli (and US!) propensity to use force as a substitute for diplomacy is a sign of weakness, not of strength. More accurately, their use of force, or the threat of force, is the result of their diplomatic incompetence. While to the unsophisticated mind the systematic use of force might appear as an expression of power, history shows that brute force can be defeated when challenged not directly, but by other means. This is, by necessity, a slow process, much slower than a (mostly entirely theoretical) “quick victory”, but an ineluctable one nonetheless. In purely theoretical terms, the use of force can roughly have any one of the following outcomes: defeat, stalemate, costly victory and a relatively painless victory. That last one is exceedingly rare and the use of force mostly results in one of the other outcomes. Sometimes the use of force is truly the only solution, but I submit that the wise political leader will only resort to it when all other options have failed and when vital interests are at stake. In all other situation a “bad peace is preferable to a good war”. Addendum 2: Contrary to the hallucinations of the Neocons, Russia is absolutely not a “resurgent USSR” and Putin has no desire whatsoever to rebuilt the Soviet Union. Furthermore, there is no meaningful constituency in Russia for any such “imperial” plans (well, there are always some lunatics everywhere, but in Russia they are, thank God, a tiny powerless minority). Furthermore, the new Russia is most definitely not an “anti-US” in the sense of trying to counter every US imperial or hegemonic move. This might be obvious to many, but I get so many questions about why Russia is not doing more to counter the US in Africa, Latin America or Asia that I feel that it is, alas, still important to remind everybody of a basic principle of international law and common sense: problems in country X are for country X to deal with. Russia has no more business than the US in “solving” country X’s problems. Furthermore, country X’s problems are usually best dealt with by country X’s immediate neighbors, not by megalomaniac messianic superpowers who feel that they ought to “power project” because they are somehow “indispensable” or because “manifest destiny” has placed upon them the “responsibility” to “lead” the world. All this terminology is just the expression of a pathological and delusional imperial mindset which has cost Russia and the Soviet Union an absolutely horrendous price in money, energy, resources and blood (for example, the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was justified in terms of the “internationalist duty” of the Soviet Union and people to help a “brotherly nation”). While this kind of nonsense is still 100% mainstream in the poor old US, it is absolutely rejected in modern Russia. For all the personal credibility of Putin with the Russian people, even he could not get away with trying to militarily intervene, nevemind police the whole planet, unless truly vital Russian interests were threatened (Crimea was such a very rare case). Some will deplore this, I personally very much welcome it, but the truth is that “the Russians are *not* coming”. ### From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 11 12:46:27 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo for Bloody Gina Message-ID: http://audioport.org/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=137166&nav=& Summary: Featured speakers/guests: Today on Flashpoints: Israel pulls out the stops with it's latest multiple bombings of Syria. We'll speak with international law expert, Francis Boyle about the legality of the bombing and about the distinct possibility of having a pro torture advocate to be the next director of the CIA. From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri May 11 13:23:16 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 08:23:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Collusion we could hope for Message-ID: <1B399FF7-95EC-4344-B100-BE27318BE3D4@gmail.com> http://www.atimes.com/article/putin-comes-out-with-a-russia-first-strategy// "Putin aims to mobilize funding for 'Russia First' not through aggressive pursuit of mercantilist policies abroad, but by axing military spending in the country’s budget. Whereas Trump intends to make American great by hiking defense spending to all-time high level, Putin is taking the diametrically opposite course of effecting sharp cuts in spending on the military... "Even if Putin makes an overture, it may not amount to much, given the toxic climate of Russophobia prevailing in US politics. Incredibly enough, the US chose the eve of Putin’s inaugural last week to announce the resurrection of the Second Fleet of the US Navy, which was mothballed years ago, to protect America’s east coast from the 'Russian threat.'” ### From cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri May 11 13:26:48 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 08:26:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Israel distorts timeline of events to play victim in the dangerous escalation with Iran and Syria Message-ID: <00DC5C21-FC53-4DBC-A178-F2D7AF88C30B@gmail.com> "I’ve been arguing all day against Israel’s policy of continually bombing Syria, Lebanon and Iran, pointing out that they’re not bombing us, we’re bombing them, which means we’re not acting in self defense, we’re the aggressors. . . For [people with the opposing opinion] it doesn’t matter how many times Israel bombs the enemy and the enemy doesn’t bomb back — Israel is still bombing in self-defense and the other side is still the aggressor. Why? Because Israel is Israel and Iran/Syria/Lebanon is Iran/Syria/Lebanon. Israel is right because it is good and they are wrong because they are bad. . .” ### From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri May 11 13:41:20 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 13:41:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: <09E5A332-CE42-4114-9755-F12BA7AA180F@illinois.edu> References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> <09E5A332-CE42-4114-9755-F12BA7AA180F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to limited media coverage? On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become head of the NRA. What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated US politics. President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” ______________________________ * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. On May 9, 2018, at 14:43, John W. > wrote: "It's a breath mint!" "It's a candy mint!" "It's a BREATH mint!!" "It's a CANDY mint!!" STOP!! You're BOTH right!!! Lets just burn down this whole rotten system and start over, like we did in the '60's!!!!! On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: Mort, et al I think your statement that David and Carl, “let Israel off the hook too easily is a bit unfair," given I have been following them on NFN for years, and accompanied Carl and others on AWARE as well. I think the point is that it’s the US who is responsible, this is an important distinction to make given so many people constantly blame others, especially Israel, for everything. Stay on FB, and it will become quite apparent. Your statement "Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration.” is quite accurate, and no one is denying the power of the lobbying group AIPAC. My point is “no ones hands are tied, everyone has free will, one can always resign when being pressured to do that which is illegal or just distasteful, what a message that sends. Unfortunately our Representatives are motivated only by self interest therefore they will support anyone, who makes it worth their while. We know where Trump’s sympathies lie, just viewing the most awful people he has appointed to positions of power. And, many of these same people were his advisors before he was elected. My point is, when we blame others for that which we are responsible, we lesson opposition. The focus must be on what the USG is doing, no matter who we are influenced by, no matter who is in power. Most Americans are confused and focused on “getting rid of Trump,” which I think we all agree, will solve nothing, then we have Pence, then we have the Speaker of the House, then the next election we have another Democrat. One can say Obama, brought about peace with the Nuclear Accord, but choking that down with the destruction of Libya and his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, does us absolutely not good. I like the WSWS.ORG position which is “we need to change our whole damn system." See More from Karen Aram On May 9, 2018, at 12:22, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: Given all this ratiocination, i remain with the strong impression e.g. from their recent NfN program, that Carl and David let Israel off the hook too easily in its pushing for wars in Syria and Iran by the U.S.. Yes, of course there are others—weapons makers, Saudis, etc—, also pushing for these wars. Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration. On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Carl Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. —CGE On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord 9 May 2018 US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. Keith Jones WSWS.ORG _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 11 14:10:42 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 14:10:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] When Larry Summers Slimed Me:The Cowardice of Harvard's Larry Summers Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:10 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: The Cowardice of Harvard's Larry Summers The Cowardice of Harvard's Larry Summers WBUR then called me back and said, Well, since Summers won't debate you, would you debate Alan Dershowitz? And I said, Sure. So we had a debate for one hour, live on the radio. http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/29277-cowardice-of-larry-summers.html Sent from Mail for Windows 10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Fri May 11 14:13:25 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 09:13:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> <09E5A332-CE42-4114-9755-F12BA7AA180F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: The US government & media had learnt their lesson in Vietnam - which a playwright friend of mine called “The TV War.” Herman & Chomsky’s “The Manufacture of Consent” was published in 1988. "'Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media' is a 1988 book written by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, in which the authors propose that the mass communication media of the U.S. 'are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion', by means of the propaganda model of communication. The title derives from the phrase 'the manufacture of consent,' employed in the book Public Opinion (1922), by Walter Lippmann (1889–1974). Chomsky credits the origin of the book to the impetus of Alex Carey, the Australian social psychologist, to whom he and co-author E. S. Herman dedicated the book.” Wikipedia "The twentieth century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: the growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.” —Alex Carey > On May 11, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to limited media coverage? > > >> On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. >> >> A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become head of the NRA. >> >> What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. >> >> Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated US politics. >> >> President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” >> ______________________________ >> >> * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” >> > >> >> >> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. >>> >>> Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On May 9, 2018, at 14:43, John W. > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "It's a breath mint!" >>>> >>>> "It's a candy mint!" >>>> >>>> "It's a BREATH mint!!" >>>> >>>> "It's a CANDY mint!!" >>>> >>>> >>>> STOP!! You're BOTH right!!! >>>> >>>> >>>> Lets just burn down this whole rotten system and start over, like we did in the '60's!!!!! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>>> >>>> Mort, et al >>>> >>>> I think your statement that David and Carl, “let Israel off the hook too easily is a bit unfair," given I have been following them on NFN for years, and accompanied Carl and others on AWARE as well. I think the point is that it’s the US who is responsible, this is an important distinction to make given so many people constantly blame others, especially Israel, for everything. Stay on FB, and it will become quite apparent. >>>> >>>> Your statement "Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration.” is quite accurate, and no one is denying the power of the lobbying group AIPAC. >>>> >>>> My point is “no ones hands are tied, everyone has free will, one can always resign when being pressured to do that which is illegal or just distasteful, what a message that sends. Unfortunately our Representatives are motivated only by self interest therefore they will support anyone, who makes it worth their while. We know where Trump’s sympathies lie, just viewing the most awful people he has appointed to positions of power. And, many of these same people were his advisors before he was elected. >>>> >>>> My point is, when we blame others for that which we are responsible, we lesson opposition. The focus must be on what the USG is doing, no matter who we are influenced by, no matter who is in power. Most Americans are confused and focused on “getting rid of Trump,” which I think we all agree, will solve nothing, then we have Pence, then we have the Speaker of the House, then the next election we have another Democrat. One can say Obama, brought about peace with the Nuclear Accord, but choking that down with the destruction of Libya and his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, does us absolutely not good. >>>> >>>> I like the WSWS.ORG position which is “we need to change our whole damn system." >>>> >>>> See More from Karen Aram <> >>>> >>>>> On May 9, 2018, at 12:22, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Given all this ratiocination, i remain with the strong impression e.g. from their recent NfN program, that Carl and David let Israel off the hook too easily in its pushing for wars in Syria and Iran by the U.S.. Yes, of course there are others—weapons makers, Saudis, etc—, also pushing for these wars. Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of the Trump administration. >>>>> >>>>>> On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Carl >>>>>> >>>>>> Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This is where your credibility comes into question. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, and Senator Dick Durbin. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >>>>>>>> 9 May 2018 >>>>>>>> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >>>>>>>> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >>>>>>>> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in the least surprising. >>>>>>>> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >>>>>>>> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >>>>>>>> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House predecessors. >>>>>>>> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in the Middle East. >>>>>>>> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >>>>>>>> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >>>>>>>> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed dictatorship of the Shah. >>>>>>>> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting deal.” >>>>>>>> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” >>>>>>>> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization agreement. >>>>>>>> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >>>>>>>> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >>>>>>>> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and commercial rivalry. >>>>>>>> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >>>>>>>> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >>>>>>>> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >>>>>>>> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian forces, with all that entails. >>>>>>>> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >>>>>>>> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity policies. >>>>>>>> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >>>>>>>> Keith Jones >>>>>>>> WSWS.ORG >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Peace mailing list >>>>>>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace mailing list >>>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 galliher at illinois.edu Fri May 11 14:44:00 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 09:44:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo for Bloody Gina In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5AC46BD9-F883-4874-8E61-D37E4FF14B43@illinois.edu> http://mondoweiss.net/2018/05/distorts-dangerous-escalation/ "Israel distorts timeline of events to play victim in the dangerous escalation with Iran and Syria" "I’ve been arguing all day against Israel’s policy of continually bombing Syria, Lebanon and Iran, pointing out that they’re not bombing us, we’re bombing them, which means we’re not acting in self defense, we’re the aggressors. . . For [people with the opposing opinion] it doesn’t matter how many times Israel bombs the enemy and the enemy doesn’t bomb back — Israel is still bombing in self-defense and the other side is still the aggressor. Why? Because Israel is Israel and Iran/Syria/Lebanon is Iran/Syria/Lebanon. Israel is right because it is good and they are wrong because they are bad. . .” --Larry Derfner, the American-turned-Israeli who is one of that country’s most experienced reporters > On May 11, 2018, at 7:46 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > http://audioport.org/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=137166&nav=& > Summary: Featured speakers/guests: > Today on Flashpoints: Israel pulls out the stops with it's latest multiple bombings of Syria. We'll speak with international law expert, Francis Boyle about the legality of the bombing and about the distinct possibility of having a pro torture advocate to be the next director of the CIA. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 11 14:47:17 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 14:47:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo for Bloody Gina Message-ID: Say, maybe our CIA/MOSSAD Torture-mongerer the Marquis De Sade Professor of Law and Philosophy Mikey Moore and his Consort Our Fired and Disgraced and ABA Sanctioned Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd can invite in Bloody Gina to give an Endowed Lecture here at the Carl Schmitt College of Law--Following in the tradition of Killer Koh, whom Mikey Moore also supported coming here. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 7:46 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: News Gazoo for Bloody Gina http://audioport.org/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=137166&nav=& Summary: Featured speakers/guests: Today on Flashpoints: Israel pulls out the stops with it's latest multiple bombings of Syria. We'll speak with international law expert, Francis Boyle about the legality of the bombing and about the distinct possibility of having a pro torture advocate to be the next director of the CIA. From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 11 15:09:01 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 15:09:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Half of all Americans now live in sanctuaries protecting "illegal aliens" Message-ID: Right after Trump was elected I went over to my Remote Storage Files and retrieved all of my old Sanctuary Files figuring I would need them again. According to my old files, the earliest document I found from working on the Sanctuary Movement was the beginning of 1985. Though it must have been sooner since I wrote an essay about it “The Sanctuary Movement and International Law” that was later published by the American Branch of the International Law Association, International Practitioner’s Notebook, April 1985, No. 30. Back when UI Law Dean ICEMAN AMAR was chugging beers in college. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: GOPUSA Eagle > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:53 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Half of all Americans now live in 'sanctuaries' protecting illegal aliens About half of all Americans now live under sanctuary policies that shield illegal immigrants from law enforcement, according to the latest tally of jurisdictions that the Federation for American Immigration Reform is releasing Thursday. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [Learn more about RevenueStripe...] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=0&cs_stripeid=4540] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/logo.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/eagle_text.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/eagle_header.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/sanctuary_everywhere.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] Half of all Americans now live in 'sanctuaries' protecting illegal aliens About half of all Americans now live under sanctuary policies that shield illegal immigrants from law enforcement, according to the latest tally of jurisdictions that the Federation for American Immigration Reform is releasing Thursday. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more.jpg][http://www.gopusa.com/temp/eagle/facebook.jpg][http://www.gopusa.com/temp/eagle/twitter.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] Donald Trump vs. Barack Obama: Veni, vidi, vici For eight years, the sane-minded of America suffered under a socialist-minded Barack Obama who scoffed law, mocked the Constitution and destroyed all that mattered on pretty near all matters tied to virtue, tradition, humble service and competent leadership. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more.jpg][http://www.gopusa.com/temp/eagle/facebook.jpg][http://www.gopusa.com/temp/eagle/twitter.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/hillary_trump_obama.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/mcinerney_mccain.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] Ret. Gen. McInerney: Torture worked on 'Songbird John' McCain A retired general and Fox Business Network guest argued Thursday that torture works on detainees, and as proof cited the example of one of its principal opponents -- Sen. John McCain. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more.jpg][http://www.gopusa.com/temp/eagle/facebook.jpg][http://www.gopusa.com/temp/eagle/twitter.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/todays_sponsor.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] You Might Like [Learn more about RevenueStripe...] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=0&cs_stripeid=4535] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=1&cs_stripeid=4535] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=2&cs_stripeid=4535] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=3&cs_stripeid=4535] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/more.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] News, Commentary, Discussions [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/gina_haspel.jpg] John McCain lobbies senators to vote no on Trump nominee Gina Haspel Republican Sen. John McCain, who is currently in Arizona recovering from brain cancer treatment and was unlikely to vote, advised his Senate colleagues to vote against her. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/larryelder.jpg] Democrats' War on Capitalism Hillary Clinton recently offered yet another reason why she lost her second consecutive race for the presidency: capitalism. Clinton was asked whether her self-proclaimed "capitalist" stance hurt her during the 2016 presidential primary season. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/tax_increase.jpg] Seattle never met a tax it didn't like Dozens of Seattle businesses not named Amazon are calling for the city to abandon its proposed head tax, which would raise money for affordable housing and homelessness services. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/feminism.jpg] Feminism falls to a new low in its porn phase Now we have porn feminism, by default led by Stormy Daniels, who knows how to make it through media attention. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/trump_head2.jpg] Donald Trump, Kim Jong-un talks set for Singapore President Trump announced Thursday that he will hold talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un on June 12 in Singapore. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/robert_mueller.jpg] Mark Meadows wants GAO audit of Robert Mueller probe The head of the main conservative caucus in the U.S. House wants to see special counsel Robert Mueller's books. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/web_site.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] Below the fold McCain confirms his role in Democrats' fictional Russian dossier [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] Hogg pushes bump stock ban [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/cartoons/mr250_180511.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/todays_sponsor.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] You Might Like [Learn more about RevenueStripe...] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=0&cs_stripeid=4536] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=1&cs_stripeid=4536] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=2&cs_stripeid=4536] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=3&cs_stripeid=4536] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/todays_sponsor.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [Learn more about RevenueStripe...] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=0&cs_stripeid=4537] [Learn more about RevenueStripe...] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=0&cs_stripeid=4538] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/footer.jpg] Please DO NOT REPLY to this message. This mailbox is unmonitored and replies will not be seen. View Eagle as a web page [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] Subscribe: Follow this link for your own subscription to GOPUSA Need to change your e-mail address? Follow this link [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/logo_footer.jpg] Copyright 2000-2018 www.GOPUSA.com A Division of Endeavor Media Group, LLC P.O. Box 981354 Houston, TX 77289 [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/facebook_footer.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/twitter_footer.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/1a885f5800d46f536305d09257_48aef55a-010101010005/cV/oa11297.x5] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 11 15:46:10 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 15:46:10 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] PS: Half of all Americans now live in sanctuaries protecting "illegal aliens" Message-ID: In 1985, the INS launched a ten-month investigation dubbed Operation Sojourner, sending paid informants into sanctuary communities to gain the trust of members, find information and report back to federal officials. In 1985, the government initiated criminal prosecutions against two activists in the Rio Grande Valley—Catholic layman Jack Elder and Methodist Stacey Merkt, both of whom provided sanctuary to Central Americans at Casa Óscar Romero in Brownsville, Texas. In 1985 International Law Professor Richard Falk and I were helping to defend the Founders of the Sanctuary Movement from persecution by the Feds—back when Dean Iceman Amar was chugging beers in college. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:09 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Half of all Americans now live in sanctuaries protecting "illegal aliens" Right after Trump was elected I went over to my Remote Storage Files and retrieved all of my old Sanctuary Files figuring I would need them again. According to my old files, the earliest document I found from working on the Sanctuary Movement was the beginning of 1985. Though it must have been sooner since I wrote an essay about it “The Sanctuary Movement and International Law” that was later published by the American Branch of the International Law Association, International Practitioner’s Notebook, April 1985, No. 30. Back when UI Law Dean ICEMAN AMAR was chugging beers in college. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: GOPUSA Eagle > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 9:53 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Half of all Americans now live in 'sanctuaries' protecting illegal aliens About half of all Americans now live under sanctuary policies that shield illegal immigrants from law enforcement, according to the latest tally of jurisdictions that the Federation for American Immigration Reform is releasing Thursday. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [Learn more about RevenueStripe...] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=0&cs_stripeid=4540] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/logo.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/eagle_text.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/eagle_header.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/sanctuary_everywhere.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] Half of all Americans now live in 'sanctuaries' protecting illegal aliens About half of all Americans now live under sanctuary policies that shield illegal immigrants from law enforcement, according to the latest tally of jurisdictions that the Federation for American Immigration Reform is releasing Thursday. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more.jpg][http://www.gopusa.com/temp/eagle/facebook.jpg][http://www.gopusa.com/temp/eagle/twitter.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] Donald Trump vs. Barack Obama: Veni, vidi, vici For eight years, the sane-minded of America suffered under a socialist-minded Barack Obama who scoffed law, mocked the Constitution and destroyed all that mattered on pretty near all matters tied to virtue, tradition, humble service and competent leadership. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more.jpg][http://www.gopusa.com/temp/eagle/facebook.jpg][http://www.gopusa.com/temp/eagle/twitter.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/hillary_trump_obama.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/mcinerney_mccain.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] Ret. Gen. McInerney: Torture worked on 'Songbird John' McCain A retired general and Fox Business Network guest argued Thursday that torture works on detainees, and as proof cited the example of one of its principal opponents -- Sen. John McCain. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more.jpg][http://www.gopusa.com/temp/eagle/facebook.jpg][http://www.gopusa.com/temp/eagle/twitter.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/todays_sponsor.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] You Might Like [Learn more about RevenueStripe...] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=0&cs_stripeid=4535] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=1&cs_stripeid=4535] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=2&cs_stripeid=4535] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=3&cs_stripeid=4535] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/more.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] News, Commentary, Discussions [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/gina_haspel.jpg] John McCain lobbies senators to vote no on Trump nominee Gina Haspel Republican Sen. John McCain, who is currently in Arizona recovering from brain cancer treatment and was unlikely to vote, advised his Senate colleagues to vote against her. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/larryelder.jpg] Democrats' War on Capitalism Hillary Clinton recently offered yet another reason why she lost her second consecutive race for the presidency: capitalism. Clinton was asked whether her self-proclaimed "capitalist" stance hurt her during the 2016 presidential primary season. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/tax_increase.jpg] Seattle never met a tax it didn't like Dozens of Seattle businesses not named Amazon are calling for the city to abandon its proposed head tax, which would raise money for affordable housing and homelessness services. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/feminism.jpg] Feminism falls to a new low in its porn phase Now we have porn feminism, by default led by Stormy Daniels, who knows how to make it through media attention. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/trump_head2.jpg] Donald Trump, Kim Jong-un talks set for Singapore President Trump announced Thursday that he will hold talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un on June 12 in Singapore. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/pictures/robert_mueller.jpg] Mark Meadows wants GAO audit of Robert Mueller probe The head of the main conservative caucus in the U.S. House wants to see special counsel Robert Mueller's books. [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/web_site.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] Below the fold McCain confirms his role in Democrats' fictional Russian dossier [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] Hogg pushes bump stock ban [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/cartoons/mr250_180511.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/read_more2.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/todays_sponsor.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] You Might Like [Learn more about RevenueStripe...] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=0&cs_stripeid=4536] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=1&cs_stripeid=4536] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=2&cs_stripeid=4536] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=3&cs_stripeid=4536] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/todays_sponsor.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [Learn more about RevenueStripe...] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=0&cs_stripeid=4537] [Learn more about RevenueStripe...] [http://rs-stripe.gopusamedia.com/stripe/image?cs_email=613680&cs_sendid=21359&cs_esp=gopusa&cs_offset=0&cs_stripeid=4538] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/footer.jpg] Please DO NOT REPLY to this message. This mailbox is unmonitored and replies will not be seen. View Eagle as a web page [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] Subscribe: Follow this link for your own subscription to GOPUSA Need to change your e-mail address? Follow this link [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle2011/logo_footer.jpg] Copyright 2000-2018 www.GOPUSA.com A Division of Endeavor Media Group, LLC P.O. Box 981354 Houston, TX 77289 [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/facebook_footer.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/twitter_footer.jpg] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/images/eagle/spacer_trans.gif] [http://www.gopusamedia.com/1a885f5800d46f536305d09257_48aef55a-010101010005/cV/oa11297.x5] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri May 11 16:52:51 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 16:52:51 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo for Bloody Gina In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why not, she is right up their ally. As Hannah Arendt when referring to “Eichmann,” said of him “the banality of evil.” > On May 11, 2018, at 07:47, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Say, maybe our CIA/MOSSAD Torture-mongerer the Marquis De Sade Professor of Law and Philosophy Mikey Moore and his Consort Our Fired and Disgraced and ABA Sanctioned Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd can invite in Bloody Gina to give an Endowed Lecture here at the Carl Schmitt College of Law--Following in the tradition of Killer Koh, whom Mikey Moore also supported coming here. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 7:46 AM > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: News Gazoo for Bloody Gina > > http://audioport.org/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=137166&nav=& > Summary: Featured speakers/guests: > Today on Flashpoints: Israel pulls out the stops with it's latest multiple bombings of Syria. We'll speak with international law expert, Francis Boyle about the legality of the bombing and about the distinct possibility of having a pro torture advocate to be the next director of the CIA. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 11 16:59:18 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 16:59:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo for Bloody Gina In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah, that's the Illiniwaks College of Law: The Banality Of Evil. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Karen Aram Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 11:53 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo for Bloody Gina Why not, she is right up their ally. As Hannah Arendt when referring to “Eichmann,” said of him “the banality of evil.” > On May 11, 2018, at 07:47, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Say, maybe our CIA/MOSSAD Torture-mongerer the Marquis De Sade Professor of Law and Philosophy Mikey Moore and his Consort Our Fired and Disgraced and ABA Sanctioned Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd can invite in Bloody Gina to give an Endowed Lecture here at the Carl Schmitt College of Law--Following in the tradition of Killer Koh, whom Mikey Moore also supported coming here. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 7:46 AM > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: News Gazoo for Bloody Gina > > http://audioport.org/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=137166&nav=& > Summary: Featured speakers/guests: > Today on Flashpoints: Israel pulls out the stops with it's latest multiple bombings of Syria. We'll speak with international law expert, Francis Boyle about the legality of the bombing and about the distinct possibility of having a pro torture advocate to be the next director of the CIA. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From jbw292002 at gmail.com Fri May 11 18:09:20 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 13:09:20 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <7C800042-BF43-42AA-BC29-3AED399574BF@illinois.edu> <714540F5-D753-488E-91AC-9DB52C592B8D@illinois.edu> <09E5A332-CE42-4114-9755-F12BA7AA180F@illinois.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram wrote: It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central > American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the > Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, > below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the > next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m > wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to > limited media coverage? > No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America for their various causes. > On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US > government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably > involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. > > A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become > head of the NRA. > > What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious > counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's > counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. > > Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated > US politics. > > President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War > (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of > Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” > ______________________________ > > * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed > no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” > > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war >> was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California >> to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the >> eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear >> war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. >> > > Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades > there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten > out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same > result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", > as Carl is fond of quoting. > > > > > >> On May 9, 2018, at 14:43, John W. wrote: >> >> >> "It's a breath mint!" >> >> "It's a candy mint!" >> >> "It's a BREATH mint!!" >> >> "It's a CANDY mint!!" >> >> >> STOP!! You're BOTH right!!! >> >> >> Lets just burn down this whole rotten system and start over, like we did >> in the '60's!!!!! >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Karen Aram via Peace < >> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Mort, et al >>> >>> I think your statement that David and Carl, “let Israel off the hook too >>> easily is a bit unfair," given I have been following them on NFN for years, >>> and accompanied Carl and others on AWARE as well. I think the point is that >>> it’s the US who is responsible, this is an important distinction to make >>> given so many people constantly blame others, especially Israel, for >>> everything. Stay on FB, and it will become quite apparent. >>> >>> Your statement "*Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with >>> whatever Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of >>> Zionists, their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to >>> be inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality >>> of the Trump administration.”* is quite accurate, and no one is denying >>> the power of the lobbying group AIPAC. >>> >>> My point is “no ones hands are tied, everyone has free will, one can >>> always resign when being pressured to do that which is illegal or just >>> distasteful, what a message that sends. Unfortunately our Representatives >>> are motivated only by self interest therefore they will support anyone, who >>> makes it worth their while. We know where Trump’s sympathies lie, just >>> viewing the most awful people he has appointed to positions of power. And, >>> many of these same people were his advisors before he was elected. >>> >>> My point is, when we blame others for that which we are responsible, we >>> lesson opposition. The focus must be on what the USG is doing, no matter >>> who we are influenced by, no matter who is in power. Most Americans are >>> confused and focused on “getting rid of Trump,” which I think we all agree, >>> will solve nothing, then we have Pence, then we have the Speaker of the >>> House, then the next election we have another Democrat. One can say Obama, >>> brought about peace with the Nuclear Accord, but choking that down with the >>> destruction of Libya and his expansion of the Bush wars from two to eight, >>> does us absolutely not good. >>> >>> I like the WSWS.ORG position which is “we need to >>> change our whole damn system." >>> >>> *See More* from Karen Aram >>> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 12:22, Brussel, Morton K >>> wrote: >>> >>> Given all this ratiocination, i remain with the strong impression e.g. >>> from their recent NfN program, that Carl and David let Israel off the hook >>> too easily in its pushing for wars in Syria and Iran by the U.S.. Yes, of >>> course there are others—weapons makers, Saudis, etc—, also pushing for >>> these wars. Nevertheless, the virtual unanimity in Congress with whatever >>> Israel proposes is further evidence of the toxic influence of Zionists, >>> their lobbying and money, on U.S. foreign policy. There seems to be >>> inadequate counterweight offsetting their pressures, given the mentality of >>> the Trump administration. >>> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> Carl >>> >>> Stop with the “Trump Administration” being manipulated by Israel.” This >>> is where your credibility comes into question. >>> >>> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 06:03, Carl G. Estabrook >>> wrote: >>> >>> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it >>> happen. >>> >>> Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million >>> people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass >>> destruction.” >>> >>> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition >>> to the attack on Iraq: >>> >>> “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have >>> handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds >>> and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back >>> with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids >>> who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for >>> the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” >>> >>> A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the >>> government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the >>> Middle East. >>> >>> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and >>> kill Iranians. >>> >>> But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that >>> guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has >>> thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) >>> >>> The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear >>> deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran >>> and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council >>> (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European >>> Union. >>> >>> President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and >>> ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want >>> the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. >>> >>> (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's >>> bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will >>> any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a >>> foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) >>> >>> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria >>> (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week >>> that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli >>> government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is >>> designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill >>> peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >>> >>> We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The >>> president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember >>> the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a >>> more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably >>> Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear >>> war. >>> >>> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world >>> before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent >>> this new criminal war. >>> >>> If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages >>> - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. >>> >>> In the meantime, write the president and our Congressional >>> representatives - Representative Rodney Davis, Senator Tammy Duckworth, >>> and Senator Dick Durbin. >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 7:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace < >>> peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >>> 9 May 2018 >>> US President Donald Trump announced yesterday that America has withdrawn >>> from the Iran nuclear accord, is reimposing crippling economic sanctions on >>> Iran, and will soon add further unspecified sanctions. >>> In doing so, Trump ignored warnings from Washington’s closest European >>> allies and cosignatories of the nuclear accord—Britain, France and >>> Germany—that such action risks plunging the Middle East into all-out war. >>> Whilst provocative and incendiary, yesterday’s announcement is not in >>> the least surprising. >>> As the World Socialist Web Site warned in a perspective published in >>> April 2015 in response to the announcement that Iran and the great powers >>> had reached the “framework” for a nuclear accord: “In a broader historical >>> sense, the deal is not worth the paper it is written on. If and when it is >>> expedient, the US will shred the agreement, as has happened many times in >>> the past. The Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi cut a deal in 2003 to give >>> up its WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] programs only to find itself the >>> target of a NATO-led war for regime-change in 2011. Amid its own economic >>> decline, US imperialism will stop at nothing in its reckless drive for >>> global domination at the expense of its major rivals.” >>> Changing what needs to be changed, there are striking and instructive >>> parallels between imperialist diplomacy in the 1930s and today. In the >>> run-up to World War II, all sorts of diplomatic agreements were signed, >>> only to be shredded soon after, with the Nazi regime leading the wolf pack. >>> In this, Trump is only more brazen and thuggish than his White House >>> predecessors. >>> His speech was a rant. The wars the US has waged, fomented, and aided >>> and abetted in the greater Middle East over the course of the past >>> quarter-century have blown up complex societies, from Afghanistan and Iraq >>> to Libya, Syria and Yemen. Yet the billionaire, fascist-minded demagogue >>> accused Iran of being “the world’s leading state sponsor of state >>> terrorism,” whose “malign” and “sinister” activities have caused “havoc” in >>> the Middle East. >>> The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has subjected Iran’s >>> nuclear program to the most intrusive inspection regime in history, all the >>> other signatories of the Iran accord, US Defense Secretary James Mattis >>> and other top members of the Trump administration all state categorically >>> that Iran has fulfilled all its obligations under the Iran deal to the >>> letter and has not had any nuclear-weapons program for at least a decade >>> and a half. Yet Trump claimed Iran is on the cusp of threatening the US >>> with nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. >>> As proof for these lies, he pointed to the April 30 show-and-tell >>> presentation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was panned >>> by the European Union and all but the most right-wing Western media outlets >>> as hype and lies. The New York Times, which is an expert at war propaganda, >>> deception and forgery, felt professionally affronted that Washington was >>> associating itself with so crude a performance, headlining its editorial >>> response “Netanyahu’s Flimflam on Iran.” >>> Near the end of his speech Trump underscored—using language akin to that >>> of a mafia don touting an “offer you can’t refuse”—that Washington has >>> embarked on an escalating campaign of economic, diplomatic and >>> military pressure aimed at reimposing on the Iranian people the type of >>> neocolonial subjugation that prevailed under the savage US-backed >>> dictatorship of the Shah. >>> First he sung a paean to the Shah, claiming that prior to the 1979 >>> Revolution Iran “commanded the respect of the world.” Then he declared >>> Iran’s leaders will reject Washington’s demands for a “new” US-dictated >>> “deal,” adding, “I’d probably say the same thing if I was in their >>> position. But the fact is, they are going to want to make a new and lasting >>> deal.” >>> Trump made a brief reference to North Korea in his statement, >>> immediately after boasting that by blowing up the Iran deal he had >>> demonstrated “The United States no longer makes empty threats.” >>> Whatever the immediate outcome of the planned talks between Trump and >>> North Korean leader Kim Jung-un, the US repudiation of the Iran deal makes >>> clear that the Korean Peninsula “peace talks” are a tactical maneuver aimed >>> at facilitating US imperialist violence and banditry. Should a deal be >>> reached, it will only be to free America’s hands for confrontations with >>> its more substantial adversaries. If and when US strategic >>> priorities change, or circumstances allow, Washington will invoke the most >>> flimsy and contrived pretext to jettison a Korean denuclearization >>> agreement. >>> The Democrats and wide sections of the US military-intelligence >>> establishment have, it should be noted, decried Trump’s turn to >>> negotiations with Pyongyang and more or less announced that they would >>> repudiate any deal he signs with the North Korean regime. >>> No doubt the European imperialist powers are angered and shaken by >>> Trump’s indifference to their counsels. French Prime Minister Emanuel >>> Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both came to Washington in late >>> April to personally plea for Trump not to jettison the Iran deal. On >>> Monday, it was British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s turn, although he >>> only had audiences with Vice-President Pence and Secretary of State Pompeo. >>> Once again US imperialism has brushed aside the concerns of its >>> ostensible European allies in the naked pursuit of its own interests. >>> Whatever is said in public statements, relations between the imperialist >>> powers are ever more venomous as each pursues its own interests under >>> conditions of economic crisis and ever-intensifying geopolitical and >>> commercial rivalry. >>> The history of the last century demonstrated that the imperialist >>> appetites of the British, French and German ruling elites are no less >>> voracious than those of the capitalist rulers of America. >>> If they have sought to dissuade Trump from jettisoning the Iran deal it >>> is only because this would cut across their attempts to exploit Iran >>> economically, and because they fear the destabilizing impact of a war with >>> Iran, including soaring oil prices and a further mass influx of refugees. >>> In their vain attempt to convince Trump to remain in the deal, the >>> Europeans joined with him in making a whole series of fresh demands on >>> Teheran, including for drastic limits to its ballistic-missile program, and >>> pledged their steadfast support for Israel—thus encouraging both Trump and >>> Netanyahu to proceed with their offensive against Iran. >>> This points to another of the chief concerns of the European >>> imperialists, which underscores that their intentions are no less >>> belligerent. Along with the Democratic Party and much of the US >>> military-intelligence apparatus, they have been arguing that the best >>> strategy for bringing Iran to heel, and integrating that campaign with >>> NATO’s military-strategic offensive against Russia, is to concentrate on >>> prosecuting the war for regime change in Syria. As was frankly admitted by >>> political leaders and the capitalist media in the run-up to last month’s >>> US-French-British airstrikes on Syria, this alternate imperialist strategy >>> could rapidly result in direct military clashes between US and Russian >>> forces, with all that entails. >>> Washington’s trashing of the nuclear deal constitutes an immense crisis >>> and devastating exposure of Iran’s bourgeois nationalist regime. Terrified >>> of the growing class contradictions in Iran, the Islamic >>> Republic’s bourgeois-clerical regime placed its hopes in a rapprochement >>> with US imperialism and Barack Obama’s phony promises of a new US Mideast >>> foreign policy. No matter that it was under Obama that the US attacked >>> Libya, launched a similar regime-change operation in Syria and supported >>> the military in restoring its bloody grip over Egypt. >>> Since Trump, an avowed opponent of the Iran deal from its inception, >>> came to office, Teheran has desperately appealed to the Europeans to shield >>> them from America’s wrath. Meanwhile, in line with these efforts >>> to ingratiate itself with the imperialists and woo investment, the Iranian >>> bourgeoisie has pressed forward with its anti-working-class austerity >>> policies. >>> In response to Trump’s announcement, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani >>> and the Europeans announced that they intend to stay in the nuclear deal. >>> In doing so, Rouhani is clutching at straws. >>> Keith Jones >>> WSWS.ORG >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace mailing list >>> Peace at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace >>> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Fri May 11 18:31:40 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 13:31:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: <163506cce33-1dbd-15673@webjas-vaa009.srv.aolmail.net> References: <163506cce33-1dbd-15673@webjas-vaa009.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien wrote: I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, > uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. > You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address me directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly have been privileged to swim in. > He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, > Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those who might have been allies. You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". > but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at least > in this area. > I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. > Midge > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John W. via Peace-discuss > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Brussel, Morton K ; Peace-discuss List ( > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central > American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the > Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, > below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the > next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m > wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to > limited media coverage? > > > No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying > there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no > particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no > interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. > Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure > out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an > example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole > Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, > remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. > > I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, > dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America > for their various causes. > > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US > government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably > involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. > > A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become > head of the NRA. > > What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious > counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's > counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. > > Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated > US politics. > > President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War > (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of > Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” > ______________________________ > > * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed > no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” > > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war > was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California > to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the > eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear > war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. > > > Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades > there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten > out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same > result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", > as Carl is fond of quoting. > > Virus-free. www.avg.com <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri May 11 19:14:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 19:14:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <163506cce33-1dbd-15673@webjas-vaa009.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: Carl Your statement: “What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community’s counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism.” Makes sense and I believe this is what happened based upon what I have read, and what you have said stated many times. I have also heard others discuss how many people turned to “personal pursuits” as a result of Edward Bernais propaganda. The turn on, navel gazing crowd, populating the west coast began a movement, in the sixties that dulled the senses of many of those who “participated in political activism of the 60’s and 70’s”, not the serious organizers, who often were older and continued the struggle. Just as today, its difficult with only small turn outs. Many of the groups such as the SWP regrouped under a new strategy, of taking individuals out of the cities, off of campuses, into more rural areas in order to organize unions, unfortunately many as a result, dropped out rather than uproot their lives. This is why I find it difficult to believe that the masses demonstrating against US interventions in Latin America were larger than that which took place during the Vietnam war. On May 11, 2018, at 11:31, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien > wrote: I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address me directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly have been privileged to swim in. He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those who might have been allies. You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at least in this area. I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. Midge -----Original Message----- From: John W. via Peace-discuss > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Brussel, Morton K >; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to limited media coverage? No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America for their various causes. On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become head of the NRA. What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated US politics. President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” ______________________________ * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png] Virus-free. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 11 19:16:38 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 19:16:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo for Bloody Gina References: Message-ID: I think Mikey Moore could pull some strings with his Fellow CIA Operative Bloody Gina to get her to come out here and publicly agree with him in a lecture to the Faculty and our Board of Overseers that since torture works for the KGB, we American should mimic the KGB and torture--exactly the point Mikey made during his first lecture here that we faculty and Board of Overseers had to suffer through on Orders of His Consort then Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd. The Banality And Mediocrity Of Evil. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 11:59 AM To: 'Karen Aram' Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo for Bloody Gina Yeah, that's the Illiniwaks College of Law: The Banality Of Evil. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Karen Aram Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 11:53 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] News Gazoo for Bloody Gina Why not, she is right up their ally. As Hannah Arendt when referring to “Eichmann,” said of him “the banality of evil.” > On May 11, 2018, at 07:47, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Say, maybe our CIA/MOSSAD Torture-mongerer the Marquis De Sade Professor of Law and Philosophy Mikey Moore and his Consort Our Fired and Disgraced and ABA Sanctioned Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd can invite in Bloody Gina to give an Endowed Lecture here at the Carl Schmitt College of Law--Following in the tradition of Killer Koh, whom Mikey Moore also supported coming here. fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign, IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 7:46 AM > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: News Gazoo for Bloody Gina > > http://audioport.org/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=137166&nav=& > Summary: Featured speakers/guests: > Today on Flashpoints: Israel pulls out the stops with it's latest multiple bombings of Syria. We'll speak with international law expert, Francis Boyle about the legality of the bombing and about the distinct possibility of having a pro torture advocate to be the next director of the CIA. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From jbw292002 at gmail.com Fri May 11 22:02:16 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 17:02:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <163506cce33-1dbd-15673@webjas-vaa009.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Karen Aram wrote: Carl > > Your statement: > > “What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious > counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community’s > counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism.” > Makes sense and I believe this is what happened based upon what I have > read, and what you have said stated many times. > > I have also heard others discuss how many people turned to “personal > pursuits” as a result of Edward Bernais propaganda. The turn on, navel > gazing crowd, populating the west coast began a movement, in the sixties > that dulled the senses of many of those who “participated in political > activism of the 60’s and 70’s”, not the serious organizers, who often were > older and continued the struggle. > In a word, Dave Dellinger vs. Abbie Hoffman. Ironically, Abbie became a serious environmental activist years later in upstate New York, before committing suicide at age 53. But he and Timothy Leary had turned a generation of college students into "yippies". > Just as today, its difficult with only small turn outs. > > Many of the groups such as the SWP regrouped under a new strategy, of > taking individuals out of the cities, off of campuses, into more rural > areas in order to organize unions, unfortunately many as a result, dropped > out rather than uproot their lives. > > This is why I find it difficult to believe that the masses demonstrating > against US interventions in Latin America were larger than that which took > place during the Vietnam war. > > > > > > > On May 11, 2018, at 11:31, John W. via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien wrote: > > I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, >> uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. >> > > You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address me > directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But > here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. > > I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived > and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their > interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was > water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't > know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly > have been privileged to swim in. > > > > >> He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, >> > > Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far > higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not > can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and > strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those > who might have been allies. > > You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 > long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by > Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". > > > >> but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at least >> in this area. >> > > I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. > > > >> Midge >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: John W. via Peace-discuss >> To: Karen Aram >> Cc: Brussel, Morton K ; Peace-discuss List ( >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >> Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm >> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >> >> >> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram >> wrote: >> >> It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central >> American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the >> Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, >> below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the >> next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m >> wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to >> limited media coverage? >> >> >> No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying >> there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no >> particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no >> interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. >> Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure >> out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an >> example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole >> Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, >> remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. >> >> I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, >> dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America >> for their various causes. >> >> >> >> >> On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook >> wrote: >> >> You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US >> government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably >> involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. >> >> A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become >> head of the NRA. >> >> What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious >> counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's >> counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. >> >> Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated >> US politics. >> >> President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War >> (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of >> Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” >> ______________________________ >> >> * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed >> no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” >> >> >> >> >> On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war >> was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California >> to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the >> eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear >> war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. >> >> >> Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades >> there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten >> out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same >> result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", >> as Carl is fond of quoting. >> >> > > Virus-free. > www.avg.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Fri May 11 22:05:19 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 22:05:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <163506cce33-1dbd-15673@webjas-vaa009.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: Were Abbie Hoffman and Dave Dellinger serious organizers, or were they just the “superstars.” I was informed in the seventies, by some of the serious organizers that those two were the latter. On May 11, 2018, at 15:02, John W. > wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Carl Your statement: “What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community’s counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism.” Makes sense and I believe this is what happened based upon what I have read, and what you have said stated many times. I have also heard others discuss how many people turned to “personal pursuits” as a result of Edward Bernais propaganda. The turn on, navel gazing crowd, populating the west coast began a movement, in the sixties that dulled the senses of many of those who “participated in political activism of the 60’s and 70’s”, not the serious organizers, who often were older and continued the struggle. In a word, Dave Dellinger vs. Abbie Hoffman. Ironically, Abbie became a serious environmental activist years later in upstate New York, before committing suicide at age 53. But he and Timothy Leary had turned a generation of college students into "yippies". Just as today, its difficult with only small turn outs. Many of the groups such as the SWP regrouped under a new strategy, of taking individuals out of the cities, off of campuses, into more rural areas in order to organize unions, unfortunately many as a result, dropped out rather than uproot their lives. This is why I find it difficult to believe that the masses demonstrating against US interventions in Latin America were larger than that which took place during the Vietnam war. On May 11, 2018, at 11:31, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien > wrote: I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address me directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly have been privileged to swim in. He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those who might have been allies. You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at least in this area. I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. Midge -----Original Message----- From: John W. via Peace-discuss > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Brussel, Morton K >; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to limited media coverage? No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America for their various causes. On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become head of the NRA. What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated US politics. President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” ______________________________ * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png] Virus-free. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Fri May 11 22:33:16 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 17:33:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <163506cce33-1dbd-15673@webjas-vaa009.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <1A5ECE1F-B1F9-4C7A-9D62-3948D026EFCE@gmail.com> Both were committed activists, for all their difference in style. I remember someone writing, after Hoffman’s suicide, “Abbie was always full of surprises. I could have done without this last one.” Requiescant in pace. —CGE > On May 11, 2018, at 5:05 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Were Abbie Hoffman and Dave Dellinger serious organizers, or were they just the “superstars.” > > I was informed in the seventies, by some of the serious organizers that those two were the latter. > >> On May 11, 2018, at 15:02, John W. > wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> Your statement: >> >> “What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community’s counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism.” >> Makes sense and I believe this is what happened based upon what I have read, and what you have said stated many times. >> >> I have also heard others discuss how many people turned to “personal pursuits” as a result of Edward Bernais propaganda. The turn on, navel gazing crowd, populating the west coast began a movement, in the sixties that dulled the senses of many of those who “participated in political activism of the 60’s and 70’s”, not the serious organizers, who often were older and continued the struggle. >> >> In a word, Dave Dellinger vs. Abbie Hoffman. Ironically, Abbie became a serious environmental activist years later in upstate New York, before committing suicide at age 53. But he and Timothy Leary had turned a generation of college students into "yippies". >> >> >> Just as today, its difficult with only small turn outs. >> >> Many of the groups such as the SWP regrouped under a new strategy, of taking individuals out of the cities, off of campuses, into more rural areas in order to organize unions, unfortunately many as a result, dropped out rather than uproot their lives. >> >> This is why I find it difficult to believe that the masses demonstrating against US interventions in Latin America were larger than that which took place during the Vietnam war. >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On May 11, 2018, at 11:31, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien > wrote: >>> >>> I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. >>> >>> You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address me directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. >>> >>> I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly have been privileged to swim in. >>> >>> >>> >>> He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, >>> >>> Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those who might have been allies. >>> >>> You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". >>> >>> >>> but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at least in this area. >>> >>> I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. >>> >>> >>> Midge >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: John W. via Peace-discuss > >>> To: Karen Aram > >>> Cc: Brussel, Morton K >; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ) > >>> Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>> >>> It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to limited media coverage? >>> >>> No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. >>> >>> I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America for their various causes. >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >>> >>> You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. >>> >>> A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become head of the NRA. >>> >>> What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. >>> >>> Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated US politics. >>> >>> President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” >>> ______________________________ >>> >>> * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>> >>> Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. >>> >>> Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. >>> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com <>_______________________________________________ >>> 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 jbw292002 at gmail.com Fri May 11 22:33:27 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 17:33:27 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <163506cce33-1dbd-15673@webjas-vaa009.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Karen Aram wrote: Were Abbie Hoffman and Dave Dellinger serious organizers, or were they just > the “superstars.” > > I was informed in the seventies, by some of the serious organizers that > those two were the latter. > Dellinger was by a couple of decades the oldest of the "Chicago Seven". He's worth reading about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dellinger He was a pacifist and a socialist dating back to the Depression, the organizer of all sorts of things. He was the real deal, an old-school organizer who wore a coat and tie and went to prison many times for various acts of civil disobedience. Abbie Hoffman was more of a "superstar", in that he was in large-part ego-driven, someone who just wanted to have fun throwing monkey wrenches into the gears. "Revolution for the Hell of It" is probably his best-known book. He and Jerry Rubin were self-styled leaders of the Yippies, and as such did manage to capture the imaginations of a hell of a lot of impressionable and rebellious youth. It turned out that Abbie was bipolar, and apparently his mania contributed to his form of "activism". The rest of the Chicago Seven - Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines, and Lee Weiner - were somewhere in between but more like Dellinger. They were young, but leaders of various student "movement" groups of the era. They were all thought to have been organizers of the protesters at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in the summer of 1968. As I'm sure you know, they were all found not guilty of various conspiracies after a tumultuous trial. So yes, Dellinger and Hoffman were about as different as two people could be. They were both "anti-establishment", but in entirely different ways. Thanks for asking. John W, whoever he is > On May 11, 2018, at 15:02, John W. wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Carl >> >> Your statement: >> >> “What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious >> counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community’s >> counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism.” >> Makes sense and I believe this is what happened based upon what I have >> read, and what you have said stated many times. >> >> I have also heard others discuss how many people turned to “personal >> pursuits” as a result of Edward Bernais propaganda. The turn on, navel >> gazing crowd, populating the west coast began a movement, in the sixties >> that dulled the senses of many of those who “participated in political >> activism of the 60’s and 70’s”, not the serious organizers, who often were >> older and continued the struggle. >> > > In a word, Dave Dellinger vs. Abbie Hoffman. Ironically, Abbie became a > serious environmental activist years later in upstate New York, before > committing suicide at age 53. But he and Timothy Leary had turned a > generation of college students into "yippies". > > > >> Just as today, its difficult with only small turn outs. >> >> Many of the groups such as the SWP regrouped under a new strategy, of >> taking individuals out of the cities, off of campuses, into more rural >> areas in order to organize unions, unfortunately many as a result, dropped >> out rather than uproot their lives. >> >> This is why I find it difficult to believe that the masses demonstrating >> against US interventions in Latin America were larger than that which took >> place during the Vietnam war. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On May 11, 2018, at 11:31, John W. via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien wrote: >> >> I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, >>> uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. >>> >> >> You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address me >> directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But >> here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. >> >> I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived >> and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their >> interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was >> water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't >> know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly >> have been privileged to swim in. >> >> >> >> >>> He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, >>> >> >> Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far >> higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not >> can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and >> strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those >> who might have been allies. >> >> You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 >> long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by >> Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". >> >> >> >>> but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at >>> least in this area. >>> >> >> I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. >> >> >> >>> Midge >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: John W. via Peace-discuss >>> To: Karen Aram >>> Cc: Brussel, Morton K ; Peace-discuss List ( >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) >>> Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm >>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram w >>> rote: >>> >>> It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central >>> American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the >>> Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, >>> below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the >>> next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m >>> wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to >>> limited media coverage? >>> >>> >>> No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying >>> there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no >>> particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no >>> interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. >>> Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure >>> out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an >>> example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole >>> Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, >>> remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. >>> >>> I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, >>> dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America >>> for their various causes. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook >>> wrote: >>> >>> You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US >>> government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably >>> involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. >>> >>> A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become >>> head of the NRA. >>> >>> What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious >>> counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's >>> counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. >>> >>> Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies >>> dominated US politics. >>> >>> President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War >>> (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of >>> Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” >>> ______________________________ >>> >>> * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed >>> no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram w >>> rote: >>> >>> Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam >>> war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to >>> California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into >>> the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear >>> war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. >>> >>> >>> Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades >>> there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten >>> out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same >>> result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", >>> as Carl is fond of quoting. >>> >>> >> >> >> Virus-free. www.avg.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Fri May 11 23:17:13 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 23:17:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <163506cce33-1dbd-15673@webjas-vaa009.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: John, Thank you so much for the indepth description of these three people from the past. Two of whom were as I remember, the third “Dellinger” I will read up on, as I don’t want to mislabel him, given he was a serious organizer. On May 11, 2018, at 15:33, John W. > wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Were Abbie Hoffman and Dave Dellinger serious organizers, or were they just the “superstars.” I was informed in the seventies, by some of the serious organizers that those two were the latter. Dellinger was by a couple of decades the oldest of the "Chicago Seven". He's worth reading about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dellinger He was a pacifist and a socialist dating back to the Depression, the organizer of all sorts of things. He was the real deal, an old-school organizer who wore a coat and tie and went to prison many times for various acts of civil disobedience. Abbie Hoffman was more of a "superstar", in that he was in large-part ego-driven, someone who just wanted to have fun throwing monkey wrenches into the gears. "Revolution for the Hell of It" is probably his best-known book. He and Jerry Rubin were self-styled leaders of the Yippies, and as such did manage to capture the imaginations of a hell of a lot of impressionable and rebellious youth. It turned out that Abbie was bipolar, and apparently his mania contributed to his form of "activism". The rest of the Chicago Seven - Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines, and Lee Weiner - were somewhere in between but more like Dellinger. They were young, but leaders of various student "movement" groups of the era. They were all thought to have been organizers of the protesters at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in the summer of 1968. As I'm sure you know, they were all found not guilty of various conspiracies after a tumultuous trial. So yes, Dellinger and Hoffman were about as different as two people could be. They were both "anti-establishment", but in entirely different ways. Thanks for asking. John W, whoever he is On May 11, 2018, at 15:02, John W. > wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Carl Your statement: “What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community’s counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism.” Makes sense and I believe this is what happened based upon what I have read, and what you have said stated many times. I have also heard others discuss how many people turned to “personal pursuits” as a result of Edward Bernais propaganda. The turn on, navel gazing crowd, populating the west coast began a movement, in the sixties that dulled the senses of many of those who “participated in political activism of the 60’s and 70’s”, not the serious organizers, who often were older and continued the struggle. In a word, Dave Dellinger vs. Abbie Hoffman. Ironically, Abbie became a serious environmental activist years later in upstate New York, before committing suicide at age 53. But he and Timothy Leary had turned a generation of college students into "yippies". Just as today, its difficult with only small turn outs. Many of the groups such as the SWP regrouped under a new strategy, of taking individuals out of the cities, off of campuses, into more rural areas in order to organize unions, unfortunately many as a result, dropped out rather than uproot their lives. This is why I find it difficult to believe that the masses demonstrating against US interventions in Latin America were larger than that which took place during the Vietnam war. On May 11, 2018, at 11:31, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien > wrote: I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address me directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly have been privileged to swim in. He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those who might have been allies. You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at least in this area. I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. Midge -----Original Message----- From: John W. via Peace-discuss > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Brussel, Morton K >; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to limited media coverage? No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America for their various causes. On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become head of the NRA. What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated US politics. President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” ______________________________ * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png] Virus-free. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ 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 Sat May 12 02:27:29 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 02:27:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <163506cce33-1dbd-15673@webjas-vaa009.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <087C289B-12D9-4BC3-8E40-3EB37D39BB20@illinois.edu> The book by Dellinger, “From Yale to Jail” reveals much about him, his idealism and his activism. —mkb On May 11, 2018, at 6:17 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: John, Thank you so much for the indepth description of these three people from the past. Two of whom were as I remember, the third “Dellinger” I will read up on, as I don’t want to mislabel him, given he was a serious organizer. On May 11, 2018, at 15:33, John W. > wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 5:05 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Were Abbie Hoffman and Dave Dellinger serious organizers, or were they just the “superstars.” I was informed in the seventies, by some of the serious organizers that those two were the latter. Dellinger was by a couple of decades the oldest of the "Chicago Seven". He's worth reading about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Dellinger He was a pacifist and a socialist dating back to the Depression, the organizer of all sorts of things. He was the real deal, an old-school organizer who wore a coat and tie and went to prison many times for various acts of civil disobedience. Abbie Hoffman was more of a "superstar", in that he was in large-part ego-driven, someone who just wanted to have fun throwing monkey wrenches into the gears. "Revolution for the Hell of It" is probably his best-known book. He and Jerry Rubin were self-styled leaders of the Yippies, and as such did manage to capture the imaginations of a hell of a lot of impressionable and rebellious youth. It turned out that Abbie was bipolar, and apparently his mania contributed to his form of "activism". The rest of the Chicago Seven - Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, John Froines, and Lee Weiner - were somewhere in between but more like Dellinger. They were young, but leaders of various student "movement" groups of the era. They were all thought to have been organizers of the protesters at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in the summer of 1968. As I'm sure you know, they were all found not guilty of various conspiracies after a tumultuous trial. So yes, Dellinger and Hoffman were about as different as two people could be. They were both "anti-establishment", but in entirely different ways. Thanks for asking. John W, whoever he is On May 11, 2018, at 15:02, John W. > wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Carl Your statement: “What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community’s counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism.” Makes sense and I believe this is what happened based upon what I have read, and what you have said stated many times. I have also heard others discuss how many people turned to “personal pursuits” as a result of Edward Bernais propaganda. The turn on, navel gazing crowd, populating the west coast began a movement, in the sixties that dulled the senses of many of those who “participated in political activism of the 60’s and 70’s”, not the serious organizers, who often were older and continued the struggle. In a word, Dave Dellinger vs. Abbie Hoffman. Ironically, Abbie became a serious environmental activist years later in upstate New York, before committing suicide at age 53. But he and Timothy Leary had turned a generation of college students into "yippies". Just as today, its difficult with only small turn outs. Many of the groups such as the SWP regrouped under a new strategy, of taking individuals out of the cities, off of campuses, into more rural areas in order to organize unions, unfortunately many as a result, dropped out rather than uproot their lives. This is why I find it difficult to believe that the masses demonstrating against US interventions in Latin America were larger than that which took place during the Vietnam war. On May 11, 2018, at 11:31, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien > wrote: I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address me directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly have been privileged to swim in. He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those who might have been allies. You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at least in this area. I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. Midge -----Original Message----- From: John W. via Peace-discuss > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Brussel, Morton K >; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to limited media coverage? No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America for their various causes. On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become head of the NRA. What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated US politics. President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” ______________________________ * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-green-avg-v1.png] Virus-free. www.avg.com _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Sat May 12 12:44:22 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 12:44:22 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE at the Market today Message-ID: AWARE is at the Urbana Market today. In the Community Group section #18-19. Drop by for books, literature, and conversation. From divisek at yahoo.com Sat May 12 14:25:06 2018 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 14:25:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] The War Party convinced Trump to reject the Iranian nuclear deal References: <925401402.501100.1526135106293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <925401402.501100.1526135106293@mail.yahoo.com> Are Bibi and Bolton in the Wheel House Now? Friday, May 11, 2018  Brushing aside the anguished pleas of our NATO allies, President Trump Tuesday contemptuously trashed the Iranian nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions. Prime Minister Theresa May of Great Britain, President Emmanuel Macron of France and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were put on notice that their ties to Iran are to be severed, or secondary sanctions will be imposed on them. Driving the point home, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin ordered Airbus to cancel its $19 billion contract to sell 100 commercial planes to Iran. Who is cheering Trump's trashing of the treaty? The neocons who sought his political extinction in 2016, the royals of the Gulf, Bibi Netanyahu, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC had warned Iranians that the Americans were duplicitous. When Trump finished speaking, Bibi launched strikes on Iranian bases in Syria, and flew to Moscow to persuade Vladimir Putin not to give the Iranians any air defense against Israeli attacks. Iranian forces responded with 20 missiles fired at the Golan, which ignited a massive Israeli counterstrike Thursday night, a 70-missile attack on Iranian bases in Syria. We appear to be at the beginning of a new war, and how it ends we know not. But for Bibi and National Security Adviser John Bolton, the end has always been clear -- the smashing of Iran and regime change. Tuesday, Trump warned that Iran is on "a quest for nuclear weapons," and "if we do nothing ... in just a short period of time, the world's worst sponsor of state terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world's most dangerous weapon." And where is the evidence for this Bush-like assertion? If Iran is on a "quest" for nukes, why did 17 U.S. intel agencies, "with high confidence," in 2007 and 2011, say Iran did not even have a nuclear weapons program? Saddam Hussein could not convince us he had no WMD, because the nonexistent WMD were the pretext, the casus belli, for doing what the War Party had already decided to do: invade Iraq. We were lied into that war. And how did it turn out? Why has the Foreign Relations committee not called in the heads of the U.S. intelligence agencies and asked them flat out: Does Iran have an active nuclear bomb program, or is this a pack of lies to stampede us into another war? If Iran is on a quest for nukes, let the intel agencies tell us where the work is being done, so we can send inspectors and show the world. Efforts to pull us back from being dragged into a new war have begun. The Europeans are begging Iran to abide by the terms of the nuclear deal, even if the Americans do not. But the regime of Hassan Rouhani, who twice defeated Ayatollah-backed candidates, is in trouble. The nuclear deal and opening to the West were the reasons the children of the Green Movement of 2009 voted for Rouhani. If his difficulties deepen because of reimposed U.S. and Western sanctions, his great achievement, the nuclear deal, will be seen by his people as the failed gamble of a fool who trusted the Americans. Should Rouhani's regime fall, we may get a Revolutionary Guard regime rather less to the liking of everyone, except for the War Party, which could seize upon that as a pretext for war. What happens next is difficult to see. Iran does not want a war with Israel in Syria that it cannot win. Iran's ally, Hezbollah, which just swept democratic elections in Lebanon, does not want a war with Israel that would bring devastation upon the nation it now leads. The Russians don't want a war with Israel or the Americans. But as Putin came to the rescue of a Syria imperiled by ISIS and al-Qaida, to save his ally from a broad insurgency, he is not likely to sit impotently and watch endless air and missile strikes on Syria. Trump has said U.S. troops will be getting out of Syria. But Bolton and the generals appear to have walked him back. There are reports we are reinforcing the Kurds in Manbij on the west bank of the Euphrates, though President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has demanded that the Kurds vacate all Syrian border towns with Turkey. Americans are also reportedly on the border of Yemen, assisting Saudi Arabia in locating the launch sites of the rockets being fired at Riyadh by Houthi rebels in retaliation for the three years of savage Saudi assault on their country. Meanwhile, the news out of Afghanistan, our point of entry into the Near East wars almost a generation ago, is almost all bad -- most of it about terrorist bombings of Afghan troops and civilians. Is the foreign policy that America Firsters voted for being replaced by the Middle East agenda of Bibi and the neoconservatives? So it would appear. A Commentary By Patrick J. Buchanan Are Bibi and Bolton in the Wheel House Now? | | | | Are Bibi and Bolton in the Wheel House Now? Rasmussen Reports Brushing aside the anguished pleas of our NATO allies, President Trump Tuesday contemptuously trashed the Irania... | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brussel at illinois.edu Sat May 12 17:43:48 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 17:43:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Korea and U.S. mainstream media Message-ID: <5E73B5F3-B724-4DFD-972A-CAE79A5F252F@illinois.edu> See https://fair.org/home/what-do-us-pundits-know-about-north-korea-that-88-of-south-koreans-dont/ Useful to know.. —mkb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat May 12 22:22:59 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 22:22:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Julian Assange is in danger References: <380cabff931cd452085b8d4a5.2cb7388bc9.20180512175938.075eb226c5.127adbe7@mail77.suw91.mcdlv.net> Message-ID: [https://gallery.mailchimp.com/380cabff931cd452085b8d4a5/images/3f463dd2-fd12-43f3-8738-5ab4826bcca7.png] Dear Karen, Julian Assange is in immense danger. Remarks made this week by Ecuador’s foreign minister suggest that her government may be preparing to renege on the political asylum it granted to the WikiLeaks editor in 2012 and hand him over to British and then American authorities. On March 28, under immense pressure from the governments in the US, Britain and other powers, Ecuador imposed a complete ban on Assange having any Internet or phone contact with the outside world, and blocked his friends and supporters from physically visiting him. For 45 days, he has not been heard from. Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Maria Fernanda Espinosa stated in a Spanish-language interview on Wednesday that her government and Britain “have the intention and the interest that this be resolved.” Moves were underway, she said, to reach a “definite agreement” on Assange. Read the Full Report The World Socialist Web Site and the International Committee of the Fourth International unconditionally defend Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. If the ruling elite can haul him before a court, it will hold him up as an example of what happens to those who speak out against social inequality, militarism, war and police-state measures. His prosecution would be used to try to intimidate and silence all dissent. If Assange is imprisoned or worse, and WikiLeaks shut down, it will be a serious blow to the democratic rights of the entire international working class. Workers and young people should join with the WSWS and ICFI in demanding and fighting for the immediate freedom of Julian Assange. Help spread expose what is happening! Share this article as widely as possible on social media! Sincerely, The World Socialist Web Site Socialism and the Struggle Against Internet Censorship At the May Day Online Rally May 5, Andre Damon delivered this speech on internet censorship. Read the text and listen to the remarks on the WSWS. Other recent articles: * Google, Amazon assist in blocking encrypted communications * Facebook censors Arizona educators' rank-and-file committee group * Socialist Equality Party holds meetings in Australia on Internet censorship * How Google, Facebook and Twitter are manipulating the Mexican presidential elections (Part 2) [https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/icons/social-block-v2/color-facebook-48.png] Share [https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/icons/social-block-v2/color-twitter-48.png] Tweet [https://cdn-images.mailchimp.com/icons/social-block-v2/color-forwardtofriend-48.png] Forward World Socialist Web Site | wsws.org Articles: Copyright © 2017 wsws.org, All rights reserved. unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun May 13 01:39:06 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 12 May 2018 20:39:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The War Party convinced Trump to reject the Iranian nuclear deal In-Reply-To: <925401402.501100.1526135106293@mail.yahoo.com> References: <925401402.501100.1526135106293.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <925401402.501100.1526135106293@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This was posted to the AWARE fb page with the remark, "Paleoconservatives - not soi-disant liberals and conservatives - see what is happening in the Mideast." > On May 12, 2018, at 9:25 AM, Dianna Visek via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Are Bibi and Bolton in the Wheel House Now? > > Friday, May 11, 2018 > > Brushing aside the anguished pleas of our NATO allies, President Trump Tuesday contemptuously trashed the Iranian nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions. > > Prime Minister Theresa May of Great Britain, President Emmanuel Macron of France and German Chancellor Angela Merkel were put on notice that their ties to Iran are to be severed, or secondary sanctions will be imposed on them. > > Driving the point home, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin ordered Airbus to cancel its $19 billion contract to sell 100 commercial planes to Iran. > > Who is cheering Trump's trashing of the treaty? > > The neocons who sought his political extinction in 2016, the royals of the Gulf, Bibi Netanyahu, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The IRGC had warned Iranians that the Americans were duplicitous. > When Trump finished speaking, Bibi launched strikes on Iranian bases in Syria, and flew to Moscow to persuade Vladimir Putin not to give the Iranians any air defense against Israeli attacks. > > Iranian forces responded with 20 missiles fired at the Golan, which ignited a massive Israeli counterstrike Thursday night, a 70-missile attack on Iranian bases in Syria. > > We appear to be at the beginning of a new war, and how it ends we know not. But for Bibi and National Security Adviser John Bolton, the end has always been clear -- the smashing of Iran and regime change. > > Tuesday, Trump warned that Iran is on "a quest for nuclear weapons," and "if we do nothing ... in just a short period of time, the world's worst sponsor of state terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world's most dangerous weapon." > > And where is the evidence for this Bush-like assertion? > > If Iran is on a "quest" for nukes, why did 17 U.S. intel agencies, "with high confidence," in 2007 and 2011, say Iran did not even have a nuclear weapons program? > > Saddam Hussein could not convince us he had no WMD, because the nonexistent WMD were the pretext, the casus belli, for doing what the War Party had already decided to do: invade Iraq. > > We were lied into that war. And how did it turn out? > > Why has the Foreign Relations committee not called in the heads of the U.S. intelligence agencies and asked them flat out: Does Iran have an active nuclear bomb program, or is this a pack of lies to stampede us into another war? > > If Iran is on a quest for nukes, let the intel agencies tell us where the work is being done, so we can send inspectors and show the world. > > Efforts to pull us back from being dragged into a new war have begun. > > The Europeans are begging Iran to abide by the terms of the nuclear deal, even if the Americans do not. But the regime of Hassan Rouhani, who twice defeated Ayatollah-backed candidates, is in trouble. > > The nuclear deal and opening to the West were the reasons the children of the Green Movement of 2009 voted for Rouhani. If his difficulties deepen because of reimposed U.S. and Western sanctions, his great achievement, the nuclear deal, will be seen by his people as the failed gamble of a fool who trusted the Americans. > > Should Rouhani's regime fall, we may get a Revolutionary Guard regime rather less to the liking of everyone, except for the War Party, which could seize upon that as a pretext for war. > > What happens next is difficult to see. > > Iran does not want a war with Israel in Syria that it cannot win. > > Iran's ally, Hezbollah, which just swept democratic elections in Lebanon, does not want a war with Israel that would bring devastation upon the nation it now leads. > > The Russians don't want a war with Israel or the Americans. > > But as Putin came to the rescue of a Syria imperiled by ISIS and al-Qaida, to save his ally from a broad insurgency, he is not likely to sit impotently and watch endless air and missile strikes on Syria. > > Trump has said U.S. troops will be getting out of Syria. But Bolton and the generals appear to have walked him back. > > There are reports we are reinforcing the Kurds in Manbij on the west bank of the Euphrates, though President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has demanded that the Kurds vacate all Syrian border towns with Turkey. > > Americans are also reportedly on the border of Yemen, assisting Saudi Arabia in locating the launch sites of the rockets being fired at Riyadh by Houthi rebels in retaliation for the three years of savage Saudi assault on their country. > > Meanwhile, the news out of Afghanistan, our point of entry into the Near East wars almost a generation ago, is almost all bad -- most of it about terrorist bombings of Afghan troops and civilians. > > Is the foreign policy that America Firsters voted for being replaced by the Middle East agenda of Bibi and the neoconservatives? So it would appear. > > A Commentary By Patrick J. Buchanan > > Are Bibi and Bolton in the Wheel House Now? > > Are Bibi and Bolton in the Wheel House Now? > Rasmussen Reports > Brushing aside the anguished pleas of our NATO allies, President Trump Tuesday contemptuously trashed the Irania... > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Sun May 13 13:16:01 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 13:16:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?windows-1252?q?FW=3A_Trump=92s_Lethal_Decision_?= =?windows-1252?q?on_Jerusalem?= Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 8:15 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: Trump’s Lethal Decision on Jerusalem Here is the link to the article: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/12/trumps-lethal-decision-on-jerusalem/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun May 13 13:36:24 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 13:36:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A particularly good NFN discussion covering several topics of interest. Message-ID: https://youtu.be/IhEB1354TX4 From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun May 13 14:12:21 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 14:12:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: SNYT Review: Hans Morgenthau Was not a Prophet of Doom! Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 9:12 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: SNYT Review: Hans Morgenthau Was not a Prophet of Doom! "If Morgenthau was a "prophet of doom," his prophecy failed." ________________ Hans Morgenthau was not a "Prophet of Doom." Having studied with him for almost a decade, all he was trying to do was to provide us with a realistic assessment of where the world was going if it continued with the nuclear arms race. In contradiction to those who argued in favor of "limited nuclear war" like Kahn, Wohlstetter, Kissinger, et al. Morgenthau thought nuclear weapons were "insane." At our last meeting at his Home in Manhattan about six months before he died, in answer to my question about the future, Morgenthau told me that he was afraid I was going to live to see a Third World War, a Strategic Nuclear War. See the account of that last conversation in my book World Politics and International (Duke University Press: 1985). The verdict is still out whether I will die from natural causes or Nuclear Armageddon. Fab, AB, UChicago, in Political Science, 1971/72 [Boylebookemail.JPG] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20855 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun May 13 14:19:19 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 09:19:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] News from Neptune, Friday 11 May 2018 Message-ID: > An AMERICAN TORTURE & WAR edition ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun May 13 14:34:19 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 14:34:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] SNYT Review: Hans Morgenthau Was not a Prophet of Doom! Message-ID: During the Darkest Days of the Vietnam War, Morgenthau predicted to us his students that someday there would be a rapprochement between Vietnam and the United States because of China. It was almost impossible to believe at the time. But a Generation later it happened. RIP. fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 9:12 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: FW: SNYT Review: Hans Morgenthau Was not a Prophet of Doom! Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 9:12 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: SNYT Review: Hans Morgenthau Was not a Prophet of Doom! "If Morgenthau was a "prophet of doom," his prophecy failed." ________________ Hans Morgenthau was not a "Prophet of Doom." Having studied with him for almost a decade, all he was trying to do was to provide us with a realistic assessment of where the world was going if it continued with the nuclear arms race. In contradiction to those who argued in favor of "limited nuclear war" like Kahn, Wohlstetter, Kissinger, et al. Morgenthau thought nuclear weapons were "insane." At our last meeting at his Home in Manhattan about six months before he died, in answer to my question about the future, Morgenthau told me that he was afraid I was going to live to see a Third World War, a Strategic Nuclear War. See the account of that last conversation in my book World Politics and International (Duke University Press: 1985). The verdict is still out whether I will die from natural causes or Nuclear Armageddon. Fab, AB, UChicago, in Political Science, 1971/72 [Boylebookemail.JPG] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20855 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun May 13 14:33:19 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 09:33:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: SNYT Review: Hans Morgenthau Was not a Prophet of Doom! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: October 6, 2013 The recent Obama-Putin tiff over American exceptionalism reignited an ongoing debate over the Obama Doctrine: Is the president veering toward isolationism? Or will he proudly carry the banner of exceptionalism? The debate is narrower than it may seem. There is considerable common ground between the two positions, as was expressed clearly by Hans Morgenthau, the founder of the now dominant no-sentimentality “realist” school of international relations. Throughout his work, Morgenthau describes America as unique among all powers past and present in that it has a “transcendent purpose” that it “must defend and promote” throughout the world: “the establishment of equality in freedom.” The competing concepts “exceptionalism” and “isolationism” both accept this doctrine and its various elaborations but differ with regard to its application. One extreme was vigorously defended by President Obama in his Sept. 10 address to the nation: “What makes America different,” he declared, “what makes us exceptional,” is that we are dedicated to act, “with humility, but with resolve,” when we detect violations somewhere. “For nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security,” a role that “has meant more than forging international agreements; it has meant enforcing them.” The competing doctrine, isolationism, holds that we can no longer afford to carry out the noble mission of racing to put out the fires lit by others. It takes seriously a cautionary note sounded 20 years ago by the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that “granting idealism a near exclusive hold on our foreign policy” may lead us to neglect our own interests in our devotion to the needs of others. Between these extremes, the debate over foreign policy rages. At the fringes, some observers reject the shared assumptions, bringing up the historical record: for example, the fact that “for nearly seven decades” the United States has led the world in aggression and subversion — overthrowing elected governments and imposing vicious dictatorships, supporting horrendous crimes, undermining international agreements and leaving trails of blood, destruction and misery. To these misguided creatures, Morgenthau provided an answer. A serious scholar, he recognized that America has consistently violated its “transcendent purpose.” But to bring up this objection, he explains, is to commit “the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds.” It is the transcendent purpose of America that is “reality”; the actual historical record is merely “the abuse of reality.” In short, “American exceptionalism” and “isolationism” are generally understood to be tactical variants of a secular religion, with a grip that is quite extraordinary, going beyond normal religious orthodoxy in that it can barely even be perceived. Since no alternative is thinkable, this faith is adopted reflexively. Others express the doctrine more crudely. One of President Reagan’s U.N. ambassadors, Jeane Kirkpatrick, devised a new method to deflect criticism of state crimes. Those unwilling to dismiss them as mere “blunders” or “innocent naivete” can be charged with “moral equivalence” — of claiming that the U.S. is no different from Nazi Germany, or whoever the current demon may be. The device has since been widely used to protect power from scrutiny. Even serious scholarship conforms. Thus in the current issue of the journal Diplomatic History, scholar Jeffrey A. Engel reflects on the significance of history for policy makers. Engel cites Vietnam, where, “depending on one’s political persuasion,” the lesson is either “avoidance of the quicksand of escalating intervention [isolationism] or the need to provide military commanders free rein to operate devoid of political pressure” — as we carried out our mission to bring stability, equality and freedom by destroying three countries and leaving millions of corpses. The Vietnam death toll continues to mount into the present because of the chemical warfare that President Kennedy initiated there — even as he escalated American support for a murderous dictatorship to all-out attack, the worst case of aggression during Obama’s “seven decades.” Another “political persuasion” is imaginable: the outrage Americans adopt when Russia invades Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. But the secular religion bars us from seeing ourselves through a similar lens. One mechanism of self-protection is to lament the consequences of our failure to act. Thus New York Times columnist David Brooks, ruminating on the drift of Syria to “Rwanda-like” horror, concludes that the deeper issue is the Sunni-Shiite violence tearing the region asunder. That violence is a testimony to the failure “of the recent American strategy of light-footprint withdrawal” and the loss of what former foreign service officer Gary Grappo calls the “moderating influence of American forces.” Those still deluded by “abuse of reality” — that is, fact — might recall that the Sunni-Shiite violence resulted from the worst crime of aggression of the new millennium, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And those burdened with richer memories might recall that the Nuremberg Trials sentenced Nazi criminals to hanging because, according to the Tribunal’s judgment, aggression is “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” The same lament is the topic of a celebrated study by Samantha Power, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In “A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide,” Power writes about the crimes of others and our inadequate response. She devotes a sentence to one of the few cases during the seven decades that might truly rank as genocide: the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975. Tragically, the United States “looked away,” Power reports. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, her predecessor as U.N. ambassador at the time of the invasion, saw the matter differently. In his book “A Dangerous Place,” he described with great pride how he rendered the U.N. “utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook” to end the aggression, because “the United States wished things to turn out as they did.” And indeed, far from looking away, Washington gave a green light to the Indonesian invaders and immediately provided them with lethal military equipment. The U.S. prevented the U.N. Security Council from acting and continued to lend firm support to the aggressors and their genocidal actions, including the atrocities of 1999, until President Clinton called a halt — as could have happened anytime during the previous 25 years. But that is mere abuse of reality. It is all too easy to continue, but also pointless. Brooks is right to insist that we should go beyond the terrible events before our eyes and reflect about the deeper processes and their lessons. Among these, no task is more urgent than to free ourselves from the religious doctrines that consign the actual events of history to oblivion and thereby reinforce our basis for further “abuses of reality.” --Noam Chomsky > On May 13, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 9:12 AM > To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org > Subject: SNYT Review: Hans Morgenthau Was not a Prophet of Doom! > > “If Morgenthau was a “prophet of doom,” his prophecy failed.” > ________________ > Hans Morgenthau was not a “Prophet of Doom.” Having studied with him for almost a decade, all he was trying to do was to provide us with a realistic assessment of where the world was going if it continued with the nuclear arms race. In contradiction to those who argued in favor of “limited nuclear war” like Kahn, Wohlstetter, Kissinger, et al. Morgenthau thought nuclear weapons were “insane.” At our last meeting at his Home in Manhattan about six months before he died, in answer to my question about the future, Morgenthau told me that he was afraid I was going to live to see a Third World War, a Strategic Nuclear War. See the account of that last conversation in my book World Politics and International (Duke University Press: 1985). The verdict is still out whether I will die from natural causes or Nuclear Armageddon. > Fab, AB, UChicago, in Political Science, 1971/72 > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun May 13 14:56:02 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 14:56:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The Vietnam War Debate: Hans J Morgenthau and the Attempt to Halt the Drift Into Disaster In-Reply-To: <918F11F0D707A9458876C1B112320C540582D63C@quoll.law.uiuc.edu> References: <918F11F0D707A9458876C1B112320C540582D63C@quoll.law.uiuc.edu> Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 11:59 AM To: Killeacle Subject: The Vietnam War Debate: Hans J Morgenthau and the Attempt to Halt the Drift Into Disaster Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, Illinois 61820 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Louis B. Zimmer's The Vietnam War Debate: Hans J. Morgenthau and the Attempt to Halt the Drift into Disaster (Lexington Books: 2011). by Professor Francis A. Boyle University of Illinois College of Law Hans Morgenthau was my teacher, mentor and friend. He recommended me for my law professorship. It was my great honor and distinct pleasure to have studied with Morgenthau while he was heroically leading the forces of opposition to the genocidal Vietnam War at great personal cost to himself and his family. Morgenthau's stellar example of brilliance in the service of courage, integrity and principles has inspired and motivated me now for over four decades. After reading Zimmer's compelling book, Morgenthau will do the same for you. Zimmer vividly brings back to life Morgenthau, his epic battle against the Vietnam War, and those tumultuous and tragic events that shaped my generation and determined the destinies of two nations only now beginning to reconcile -- a volte-face preternaturally predicted by Morgenthau during the darkest days of the wars. This book is required reading for all those seeking to pursue peace with justice in today's increasingly troubled and endangered world. Humanity desperately needs more like Morgenthau in order to survive. Zimmer explains why. A real tour de force of engaged historical research and scholarship. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun May 13 15:15:45 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 10:15:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: <1635991bcca-1dd7-1c4ab@webjas-vad078.srv.aolmail.net> References: <1635991bcca-1dd7-1c4ab@webjas-vad078.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <9876557C-D95C-49EF-84FA-4E8FE22986BC@gmail.com> Hoffman was born November 30, 1936, in Worcester, Massachusetts, [and reared] in a middle-class household [with] two younger siblings. As a child in the 1940s–50s, he was a member of what has been described as "the transitional generation between the beatniks and hippies". He described his childhood as "idyllic" and the '40s as "a great time to grow up in.” In his sophomore year, Hoffman was expelled from Classical High School, a now-closed public high school in Worcester ... Hoffman wrote a paper declaring that "God could not possibly exist, for if he did, there wouldn't be any suffering in the world." The irate teacher ripped up the paper and called him "a Communist punk". Hoffman jumped on the teacher and started fighting him until he was restrained and removed from the school ... he enrolled in Brandeis University, where he studied under professors such as noted psychologist Abraham Maslow… He was also a student of Marxist theorist Herbert Marcuse, who Hoffman said had a profound effect on his political outlook. Hoffman would later cite Marcuse's influence during his activism and his theories on revolution… Hoffman was involved with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and organized Liberty House, which sold items to support the Civil Rights Movement in the southern United States. During the Vietnam War, Hoffman was an anti-war activist, using deliberately comical and theatrical tactics... One of Hoffman's well-known stunts was on August 24, 1967, when he led members of the movement to the gallery of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The protesters threw fistfuls of real and fake dollar bills down to the traders below, some of whom booed, while others began to scramble frantically to grab the money as fast as they could. Accounts of the amount of money that Hoffman and the group tossed was said to be as little as $30 to $300. Hoffman claimed to be pointing out that, metaphorically, that's what NYSE traders "were already doing." "We didn't call the press," wrote Hoffman. "At that time we really had no notion of anything called a media event." Yet the press was quick to react and by evening the event was reported around the world. After that incident, the stock exchange spent $20,000 to enclose the gallery with bulletproof glass. In October 1967, David Dellinger of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam asked Jerry Rubin to help mobilize and direct a march on the Pentagon. The protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial as Dellinger and Dr. Benjamin Spock gave speeches to the mass of people. From there, the group marched towards the Pentagon. As the protesters neared the Pentagon, they were met by soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division who formed a human barricade blocking the Pentagon steps. Not to be dissuaded, Hoffman vowed to levitate the Pentagon claiming he would attempt to use psychic energy to levitate the Pentagon until it would turn orange and begin to vibrate, at which time the war in Vietnam would end. Allen Ginsberg led Tibetan chants to assist Hoffman. Hoffman was arrested and tried for conspiracy and inciting to riot as a result of his role in anti-Vietnam War protests, which were met by a violent police response during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. He was among the group that came to be known as the Chicago Seven (originally known as the Chicago Eight), which included fellow Yippie Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, future California state senator Tom Hayden and Black Panther Party co-founder Bobby Seale (before his trial was severed from the others). Presided over by Judge Julius Hoffman (no relation to Hoffman, about which he joked throughout the trial), Abbie Hoffman's courtroom antics frequently grabbed the headlines; one day, defendants Hoffman and Rubin appeared in court dressed in judicial robes, while on another day, Hoffman was sworn in as a witness with his hand giving the finger. Judge Hoffman became the favorite courtroom target of the Chicago Seven defendants, who frequently would insult the judge to his face. Abbie Hoffman told Judge Hoffman "you are a 'shande fur de Goyim' [disgrace in front of the gentiles]. You would have served Hitler better." He later added that "your idea of justice is the only obscenity in the room." Both Davis and Rubin told the Judge "this court is bullshit." When Hoffman was asked in what state he resided, he replied the "state of mind of my brothers and sisters". Other celebrities were called as "cultural witnesses" including Allen Ginsberg, Phil Ochs, Arlo Guthrie, Norman Mailer and others. Hoffman closed the trial with a speech in which he quoted Abraham Lincoln, making the claim that the president himself, if alive today, would also be arrested in Chicago's Lincoln Park. On February 18, 1970, Hoffman and four of the other defendants (Rubin, Dellinger, Davis, and Hayden) were found guilty of intent to incite a riot while crossing state lines. All seven defendants were found not guilty of conspiracy. At sentencing, Hoffman suggested the judge try LSD and offered to set him up with "a dealer he knew in Florida" (the judge was known to be headed to Florida for a post-trial vacation). Each of the five was sentenced to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. However, all convictions were subsequently overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Walker Commission later found that in fact it had been a "police riot”... In 1971, Hoffman published 'Steal This Book', which advised readers on how to live basically for free. Many of his readers followed Hoffman's advice and stole the book, leading many bookstores to refuse to carry it. He was also the author of several other books, including Vote!, co-written with Rubin and Ed Sanders. Hoffman was arrested August 28, 1973, on drug charges for intent to sell and distribute cocaine. He always maintained that undercover police agents entrapped him into a drug deal and planted suitcases of cocaine in his office. In the spring of 1974, Hoffman skipped bail, underwent cosmetic surgery to alter his appearance, and hid from authorities, sometimes dressed as an Orthodox Jew, for several years... In 1998, Peter Coyote opined: "The FBI couldn't infiltrate us. We did everything anonymously, and we did everything for nothing, because we wanted our actions to be authentic. It's the mistake that Abbie Hoffman made. He came out, he studied with us, we taught him everything, and then he went back and wrote a book called Free, and he put his name on it! He set himself up to be a leader of the counterculture, and he was undone by that. Big mistake." Despite being "in hiding" during part of this period (Hoffman lived in Fineview, New York, near Thousand Island Park, a private resort on Wellesley Island on the St. Lawrence River under the name "Barry Freed"), he helped coordinate an environmental campaign to preserve the Saint Lawrence River (Save the River organization). During his time on the run, he was also the "travel" columnist for Crawdaddy! magazine. On September 4, 1980, he surrendered to authorities, and, on the same date, he appeared on a pre-taped edition of ABC-TV's 20/20 in an interview with Barbara Walters. Hoffman received a one-year sentence, but was released after four months. In November 1986, Hoffman was arrested along with 14 others, including Amy Carter, the daughter of former President Jimmy Carter, for trespassing at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The charges stemmed from a protest against the Central Intelligence Agency's recruitment on the UMass campus. Since the university's policy limited campus recruitment to law-abiding organizations, the defense argued that the CIA engaged in illegal activities. The federal district court judge permitted expert witnesses, including former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a former CIA agent who testified that the CIA carried on an illegal Contra war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua in violation of the Boland Amendment. In three days of testimony, more than a dozen defense witnesses, including Daniel Ellsberg, and former Contra leader Edgar Chamorro, described the CIA's role in more than two decades of covert, illegal and often violent activities. In his closing argument, Hoffman, acting as his own attorney, placed his actions within the best tradition of American civil disobedience. He quoted from Thomas Paine, "the most outspoken and farsighted of the leaders of the American Revolution: 'Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and generations which preceded it. Man has no property in man, neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.'" Hoffman concluded: "Thomas Paine was talking about this Spring day in this courtroom. A verdict of not guilty will say, 'When our country is right, keep it right; but when it is wrong, right those wrongs.'" On April 15, 1987, the jury found Hoffman and the other defendants not guilty. After his acquittal, Hoffman acted in a cameo appearance in Oliver Stone's later-released anti-Vietnam War movie, 'Born on the Fourth of July'. He essentially played himself in the movie, waving a flag on the ramparts of an administration building during a campus protest that was being teargassed and crushed by state troopers. In 1987 Hoffman summed up his views: "You are talking to a leftist. I believe in the redistribution of wealth and power in the world. I believe in universal hospital care for everyone. I believe that we should not have a single homeless person in the richest country in the world. And I believe that we should not have a CIA that goes around overwhelming governments and assassinating political leaders, working for tight oligarchies around the world to protect the tight oligarchy here at home." Later that same year, Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers wrote 'Steal This Urine Test' (published October 5, 1987), which exposed the internal contradictions of the War on Drugs and suggested ways to circumvent its most intrusive measures. He stated, for instance, that Federal Express, which received high praise from management guru Tom Peters for "empowering" workers, in fact subjected most employees to random drug tests, firing any who got a positive result, with no retest or appeal procedure, despite the fact that FedEx chose a drug lab (the lowest bidder) with a proven record of frequent false positive results. Stone's 'Born on the Fourth of July' was released on December 20, 1989, more than eight months after Hoffman's suicide on April 12, 1989. At the time of his death, Hoffman was at the height of a renewed public visibility ... He regularly lectured audiences about the CIA's covert activities, including assassinations disguised as suicides. His Playboy article (October, 1988) outlining the connections that constitute the "October Surprise", brought that alleged conspiracy to the attention of a wide-ranging American readership for the first time... His personal life drew a great deal of scrutiny from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. By their own admission, they kept a file on him that was 13,262 pages long. Hoffman was 52 at the time of his death on April 12, 1989, which was caused by swallowing 150 phenobarbital tablets and liquor. He had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1980.[40] At the time he had recently changed treatment medications and was reportedly depressed when his 83-year-old mother was diagnosed with cancer (she died in 1996 at the age of 90). Some close to Hoffman, including his longtime friend David Denton and fellow Chicago Seven co-defendant Tom Hayden, claimed that as a natural prankster who valued youth, he was also unhappy about reaching middle age, combined with the fact that the ideas of the 1960s had given way to a conservative backlash in the 1980s. In 1984 he had expressed dismay that the current generation of young people were not as interested in protesting and social activism as youth had been during the 1960s. Hoffman's body was found in his apartment in a converted turkey coop on Sugan Road in Solebury Township, near New Hope, Pennsylvania. At the time of his death, he was surrounded by about 200 pages of his own handwritten notes, many about his own moods. His death was officially ruled as suicide. As reported by The New York Times, "Among the more vocal doubters at the service today was Mr. Dellinger, who said, 'I don't believe for one moment the suicide thing.' He said he had been in fairly frequent touch with Mr. Hoffman, who had 'numerous plans for the future.'" Yet the same New York Times article reported that the coroner found the residue of about 150 pills and quoted the coroner in a telephone interview saying "There is no way to take that amount of phenobarbital without intent. It was intentional and self-inflicted." A week after Hoffman's death, 1,000 friends and relatives gathered for a memorial in Worcester, Massachusetts, at Temple Emanuel, the synagogue he attended as a child. Two of his colleagues from the Chicago Seven conspiracy trial were there: David Dellinger and Jerry Rubin, Hoffman's co-founder of the Yippies, by then a businessman... Bill Walton, the radical Celtic of basketball renown, told of a puckish Abbie, then underground evading a cocaine charge in the '70s, leaping from the shadows on a New York street to give him an impromptu basketball lesson after a loss to the Knicks. 'Abbie was not a fugitive from justice,' said Mr. Walton. 'Justice was a fugitive from him.' On a more traditional note, Rabbi Norman Mendell said in his eulogy that Mr. Hoffman's long history of protest, antic though much of it had been, was 'in the Jewish prophetic tradition, which is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.’ [Wikipedia] On May 13, 2018, at 7:55 AM, Mildred O'brien wrote: > > > Abbie Hoffman may have been the brains behind resistance but I have no personal knowledge of his contribution; Dave Dellinger as a peace activist, socialist, and pacifist lived it and was the real deal, like Dorothy Day and A. J. Muste, and was often jailed for it. I don't know about his organizational skills, but he was a tireless speaker and demonstrator on behalf of peace issues, travelling all over the world to spread the message of peace and non-violence, which at least is organization by example. I think he was formally involved in representing several organizations, I don't know to what extent, but he probably was. I was impressed by his sincerity and commitment when he was a resident scholar at Allen Hall here some 30 years ago. He had a long and tireless life in activism and hardship when he apparently came from a family of means, and he had other alternatives but chose to be dedicated to peace. > > Midge > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Aram > To: John W. > Cc: C G Estabrook ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace-discuss List > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 5:05 pm > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > > Were Abbie Hoffman and Dave Dellinger serious organizers, or were they just the “superstars.” > > I was informed in the seventies, by some of the serious organizers that those two were the latter. > > On May 11, 2018, at 15:02, John W. wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Carl > > Your statement: > > “What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community’s counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism.” > Makes sense and I believe this is what happened based upon what I have read, and what you have said stated many times. > > I have also heard others discuss how many people turned to “personal pursuits” as a result of Edward Bernais propaganda. The turn on, navel gazing crowd, populating the west coast began a movement, in the sixties that dulled the senses of many of those who “participated in political activism of the 60’s and 70’s”, not the serious organizers, who often were older and continued the struggle. > > In a word, Dave Dellinger vs. Abbie Hoffman. Ironically, Abbie became a serious environmental activist years later in upstate New York, before committing suicide at age 53. But he and Timothy Leary had turned a generation of college students into "yippies". > > > Just as today, its difficult with only small turn outs. > > Many of the groups such as the SWP regrouped under a new strategy, of taking individuals out of the cities, off of campuses, into more rural areas in order to organize unions, unfortunately many as a result, dropped out rather than uproot their lives. > > This is why I find it difficult to believe that the masses demonstrating against US interventions in Latin America were larger than that which took place during the Vietnam war. > > > > > > > On May 11, 2018, at 11:31, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien wrote: > > I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. > > You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address me directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. > > I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly have been privileged to swim in. > > > > He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, > > Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those who might have been allies. > > You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". > > > but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at least in this area. > > I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. > > > Midge > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John W. via Peace-discuss > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Brussel, Morton K ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to limited media coverage? > > No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. > > I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America for their various causes. > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. > > A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become head of the NRA. > > What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. > > Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated US politics. > > President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” > ______________________________ > > * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” > > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. > > Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun May 13 19:31:40 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 14:31:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Antisemitism as a red herring Message-ID: <6D5C1557-4B35-41A7-855B-A857F0F841A0@gmail.com> https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/11/anti-semitism-orchestrated-offensive-against-jeremy-corbyn-in-the-uk/ From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun May 13 21:04:06 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 21:04:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord Message-ID: In November 1986, Hoffman was arrested along with 14 others, including Amy Carter, the daughter of former President Jimmy Carter, for trespassing at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The charges stemmed from a protest against the Central Intelligence Agency's recruitment on the UMass campus.... ----------- Yeah, I helped defend them with the late, great Len Weinglass, who did the Chicago 7/8 Trial. When they were all arrested, Hoffmann told the rest of them that he knew a lawyer who would defend them--Len. After agreeing to do so, then Len called me up at home and asked me what our Defense was going to be: Well Len, you would not let the SS and the Gestapo recruit on campus, so we are not going to let the CIA Recruit on Campus--Legally, the CIA is just like the SS and the Gestapo, and Organized Criminal Conspiracy. So our Defense became "CIA On Trial." How we did it is explained in my book Defending Civil Resistance under International Law (Transnational Publishers Inc. 1987). Len was a real Clarence Darrow for his generation. RIP Despite my best efforts, I could never convince the Illiniwaks College of Law Faculty to bring Len out here to give an endowed lecture--unlike they did for Killer Koh whom I vigorously opposed. As for our student protestors here against the CIA, I worked with my student Brian Savage on their case. We were going to try the exact same defense here. The trial was to open on Monday after Commencement. On the Friday before commencement, Bryan sent out subpoenas to President Ikenberry, Chancellor Wehr, the Chair of the Political Science Department, Head of the Institute of Government and Public Affairs, Chair of the Psychos Department, etc. in order to explain the amount and extent of CIA Infiltration of this campus at the trial. On Monday the University General Counsel appeared in court and dropped all charges. Sunlight is always the best DISINFECTANT when it comes to the CIA on Campus. They are Academic Rats who like to stay hidden in the darkness of their holes. Fab. Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law in Book Review — by Editor — January 22, 2017 Defending Civil Resistance Under International LawSince the Reagan administration’s ascent to power in 1981, thousands of American citizens have engaged in various forms of non-violent civil resistance activities in order to protest against distinct elements of U.S. foreign policy that violate basic principles of international law. These citizen protests have led to numerous arrests and prosecutions by federal, state, and local governments around the country. The author has given advice, counsel and assistance to individuals and groups who have engaged in acts of non-violent civil resistance directed against several aspects of the U.S. government’s foreign policy: the Nuclear Freeze Movement, the Sanctuary Movement, the Anti-Apartheid Movement, the Plowshares, and the Pledge of Resistance, among others. He has also participated in the defense of individuals who are not part of formal movements but nevertheless resorted to non-violent civil resistance to protest the U.S. government’s policies on nuclear weapons, Central America, Southern Africa, and the Middle East. Because of these experiences, he drew up a set of rules and materials for criminal defense attorneys who seek to defend those who have engaged in acts of non-violent civil resistance by utilizing considerations of international law in the courtroom. This book should be of interest to all those who are members of these movements, or who are contemplating joining them, in order to inform themselves on the best legal arguments in defense of such activities. The book contains extensive materials analyzing the illegality of the U.S. government’s foreign policies toward nuclear weapons, Central America, Southern Africa, and the Middle East in a manner that can be readily comprehended and used by non-experts as well. Defending Civil Resistance Under International Law When you “step across the line” at the Nevada Test Site, at a military base or at your local federal building, you are probably protected by International Law. Our treaties (like the Partial Test Ban Treaty) and the Nuremburg Principles provide you with a legal defense against arrest and imprisonment when you commit acts of “civil resistance” against our government’s illegal warmaking. A number of juries have returned “not guilty” verdicts after hearing this defense. The presentation of this defense allows you to educate the jurors, the judge and the prosecutors–maximizing the impact of your action. Dr. Francis Boyle’s landmark book tells you how to run your own legal defense of civil resistance actions. This book is a must for any person who has taken part in a civil resistance action, or who has contemplated doing so. See how this defense can not only give you your best chance to avoid jail, but can also advance the cause for which you risked arrest. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 10:16 AM To: Mildred O'brien Cc: jbw292002 at gmail.com; Karen Aram Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord Hoffman was born November 30, 1936, in Worcester, Massachusetts, [and reared] in a middle-class household [with] two younger siblings. As a child in the 1940s–50s, he was a member of what has been described as "the transitional generation between the beatniks and hippies". He described his childhood as "idyllic" and the '40s as "a great time to grow up in.” In his sophomore year, Hoffman was expelled from Classical High School, a now-closed public high school in Worcester ... Hoffman wrote a paper declaring that "God could not possibly exist, for if he did, there wouldn't be any suffering in the world." The irate teacher ripped up the paper and called him "a Communist punk". Hoffman jumped on the teacher and started fighting him until he was restrained and removed from the school ... he enrolled in Brandeis University, where he studied under professors such as noted psychologist Abraham Maslow… He was also a student of Marxist theorist Herbert Marcuse, who Hoffman said had a profound effect on his political outlook. Hoffman would later cite Marcuse's influence during his activism and his theories on revolution… Hoffman was involved with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and organized Liberty House, which sold items to support the Civil Rights Movement in the southern United States. During the Vietnam War, Hoffman was an anti-war activist, using deliberately comical and theatrical tactics... One of Hoffman's well-known stunts was on August 24, 1967, when he led members of the movement to the gallery of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The protesters threw fistfuls of real and fake dollar bills down to the traders below, some of whom booed, while others began to scramble frantically to grab the money as fast as they could. Accounts of the amount of money that Hoffman and the group tossed was said to be as little as $30 to $300. Hoffman claimed to be pointing out that, metaphorically, that's what NYSE traders "were already doing." "We didn't call the press," wrote Hoffman. "At that time we really had no notion of anything called a media event." Yet the press was quick to react and by evening the event was reported around the world. After that incident, the stock exchange spent $20,000 to enclose the gallery with bulletproof glass. In October 1967, David Dellinger of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam asked Jerry Rubin to help mobilize and direct a march on the Pentagon. The protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial as Dellinger and Dr. Benjamin Spock gave speeches to the mass of people. From there, the group marched towards the Pentagon. As the protesters neared the Pentagon, they were met by soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division who formed a human barricade blocking the Pentagon steps. Not to be dissuaded, Hoffman vowed to levitate the Pentagon claiming he would attempt to use psychic energy to levitate the Pentagon until it would turn orange and begin to vibrate, at which time the war in Vietnam would end. Allen Ginsberg led Tibetan chants to assist Hoffman. Hoffman was arrested and tried for conspiracy and inciting to riot as a result of his role in anti-Vietnam War protests, which were met by a violent police response during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. He was among the group that came to be known as the Chicago Seven (originally known as the Chicago Eight), which included fellow Yippie Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, future California state senator Tom Hayden and Black Panther Party co-founder Bobby Seale (before his trial was severed from the others). Presided over by Judge Julius Hoffman (no relation to Hoffman, about which he joked throughout the trial), Abbie Hoffman's courtroom antics frequently grabbed the headlines; one day, defendants Hoffman and Rubin appeared in court dressed in judicial robes, while on another day, Hoffman was sworn in as a witness with his hand giving the finger. Judge Hoffman became the favorite courtroom target of the Chicago Seven defendants, who frequently would insult the judge to his face. Abbie Hoffman told Judge Hoffman "you are a 'shande fur de Goyim' [disgrace in front of the gentiles]. You would have served Hitler better." He later added that "your idea of justice is the only obscenity in the room." Both Davis and Rubin told the Judge "this court is bullshit." When Hoffman was asked in what state he resided, he replied the "state of mind of my brothers and sisters". Other celebrities were called as "cultural witnesses" including Allen Ginsberg, Phil Ochs, Arlo Guthrie, Norman Mailer and others. Hoffman closed the trial with a speech in which he quoted Abraham Lincoln, making the claim that the president himself, if alive today, would also be arrested in Chicago's Lincoln Park. On February 18, 1970, Hoffman and four of the other defendants (Rubin, Dellinger, Davis, and Hayden) were found guilty of intent to incite a riot while crossing state lines. All seven defendants were found not guilty of conspiracy. At sentencing, Hoffman suggested the judge try LSD and offered to set him up with "a dealer he knew in Florida" (the judge was known to be headed to Florida for a post-trial vacation). Each of the five was sentenced to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. However, all convictions were subsequently overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Walker Commission later found that in fact it had been a "police riot”... In 1971, Hoffman published 'Steal This Book', which advised readers on how to live basically for free. Many of his readers followed Hoffman's advice and stole the book, leading many bookstores to refuse to carry it. He was also the author of several other books, including Vote!, co-written with Rubin and Ed Sanders. Hoffman was arrested August 28, 1973, on drug charges for intent to sell and distribute cocaine. He always maintained that undercover police agents entrapped him into a drug deal and planted suitcases of cocaine in his office. In the spring of 1974, Hoffman skipped bail, underwent cosmetic surgery to alter his appearance, and hid from authorities, sometimes dressed as an Orthodox Jew, for several years... In 1998, Peter Coyote opined: "The FBI couldn't infiltrate us. We did everything anonymously, and we did everything for nothing, because we wanted our actions to be authentic. It's the mistake that Abbie Hoffman made. He came out, he studied with us, we taught him everything, and then he went back and wrote a book called Free, and he put his name on it! He set himself up to be a leader of the counterculture, and he was undone by that. Big mistake." Despite being "in hiding" during part of this period (Hoffman lived in Fineview, New York, near Thousand Island Park, a private resort on Wellesley Island on the St. Lawrence River under the name "Barry Freed"), he helped coordinate an environmental campaign to preserve the Saint Lawrence River (Save the River organization). During his time on the run, he was also the "travel" columnist for Crawdaddy! magazine. On September 4, 1980, he surrendered to authorities, and, on the same date, he appeared on a pre-taped edition of ABC-TV's 20/20 in an interview with Barbara Walters. Hoffman received a one-year sentence, but was released after four months. In November 1986, Hoffman was arrested along with 14 others, including Amy Carter, the daughter of former President Jimmy Carter, for trespassing at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The charges stemmed from a protest against the Central Intelligence Agency's recruitment on the UMass campus. Since the university's policy limited campus recruitment to law-abiding organizations, the defense argued that the CIA engaged in illegal activities. The federal district court judge permitted expert witnesses, including former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a former CIA agent who testified that the CIA carried on an illegal Contra war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua in violation of the Boland Amendment. In three days of testimony, more than a dozen defense witnesses, including Daniel Ellsberg, and former Contra leader Edgar Chamorro, described the CIA's role in more than two decades of covert, illegal and often violent activities. In his closing argument, Hoffman, acting as his own attorney, placed his actions within the best tradition of American civil disobedience. He quoted from Thomas Paine, "the most outspoken and farsighted of the leaders of the American Revolution: 'Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and generations which preceded it. Man has no property in man, neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.'" Hoffman concluded: "Thomas Paine was talking about this Spring day in this courtroom. A verdict of not guilty will say, 'When our country is right, keep it right; but when it is wrong, right those wrongs.'" On April 15, 1987, the jury found Hoffman and the other defendants not guilty. After his acquittal, Hoffman acted in a cameo appearance in Oliver Stone's later-released anti-Vietnam War movie, 'Born on the Fourth of July'. He essentially played himself in the movie, waving a flag on the ramparts of an administration building during a campus protest that was being teargassed and crushed by state troopers. In 1987 Hoffman summed up his views: "You are talking to a leftist. I believe in the redistribution of wealth and power in the world. I believe in universal hospital care for everyone. I believe that we should not have a single homeless person in the richest country in the world. And I believe that we should not have a CIA that goes around overwhelming governments and assassinating political leaders, working for tight oligarchies around the world to protect the tight oligarchy here at home." Later that same year, Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers wrote 'Steal This Urine Test' (published October 5, 1987), which exposed the internal contradictions of the War on Drugs and suggested ways to circumvent its most intrusive measures. He stated, for instance, that Federal Express, which received high praise from management guru Tom Peters for "empowering" workers, in fact subjected most employees to random drug tests, firing any who got a positive result, with no retest or appeal procedure, despite the fact that FedEx chose a drug lab (the lowest bidder) with a proven record of frequent false positive results. Stone's 'Born on the Fourth of July' was released on December 20, 1989, more than eight months after Hoffman's suicide on April 12, 1989. At the time of his death, Hoffman was at the height of a renewed public visibility ... He regularly lectured audiences about the CIA's covert activities, including assassinations disguised as suicides. His Playboy article (October, 1988) outlining the connections that constitute the "October Surprise", brought that alleged conspiracy to the attention of a wide-ranging American readership for the first time... His personal life drew a great deal of scrutiny from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. By their own admission, they kept a file on him that was 13,262 pages long. Hoffman was 52 at the time of his death on April 12, 1989, which was caused by swallowing 150 phenobarbital tablets and liquor. He had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1980.[40] At the time he had recently changed treatment medications and was reportedly depressed when his 83-year-old mother was diagnosed with cancer (she died in 1996 at the age of 90). Some close to Hoffman, including his longtime friend David Denton and fellow Chicago Seven co-defendant Tom Hayden, claimed that as a natural prankster who valued youth, he was also unhappy about reaching middle age, combined with the fact that the ideas of the 1960s had given way to a conservative backlash in the 1980s. In 1984 he had expressed dismay that the current generation of young people were not as interested in protesting and social activism as youth had been during the 1960s. Hoffman's body was found in his apartment in a converted turkey coop on Sugan Road in Solebury Township, near New Hope, Pennsylvania. At the time of his death, he was surrounded by about 200 pages of his own handwritten notes, many about his own moods. His death was officially ruled as suicide. As reported by The New York Times, "Among the more vocal doubters at the service today was Mr. Dellinger, who said, 'I don't believe for one moment the suicide thing.' He said he had been in fairly frequent touch with Mr. Hoffman, who had 'numerous plans for the future.'" Yet the same New York Times article reported that the coroner found the residue of about 150 pills and quoted the coroner in a telephone interview saying "There is no way to take that amount of phenobarbital without intent. It was intentional and self-inflicted." A week after Hoffman's death, 1,000 friends and relatives gathered for a memorial in Worcester, Massachusetts, at Temple Emanuel, the synagogue he attended as a child. Two of his colleagues from the Chicago Seven conspiracy trial were there: David Dellinger and Jerry Rubin, Hoffman's co-founder of the Yippies, by then a businessman... Bill Walton, the radical Celtic of basketball renown, told of a puckish Abbie, then underground evading a cocaine charge in the '70s, leaping from the shadows on a New York street to give him an impromptu basketball lesson after a loss to the Knicks. 'Abbie was not a fugitive from justice,' said Mr. Walton. 'Justice was a fugitive from him.' On a more traditional note, Rabbi Norman Mendell said in his eulogy that Mr. Hoffman's long history of protest, antic though much of it had been, was 'in the Jewish prophetic tradition, which is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.’ [Wikipedia] On May 13, 2018, at 7:55 AM, Mildred O'brien wrote: > > > Abbie Hoffman may have been the brains behind resistance but I have no personal knowledge of his contribution; Dave Dellinger as a peace activist, socialist, and pacifist lived it and was the real deal, like Dorothy Day and A. J. Muste, and was often jailed for it. I don't know about his organizational skills, but he was a tireless speaker and demonstrator on behalf of peace issues, travelling all over the world to spread the message of peace and non-violence, which at least is organization by example. I think he was formally involved in representing several organizations, I don't know to what extent, but he probably was. I was impressed by his sincerity and commitment when he was a resident scholar at Allen Hall here some 30 years ago. He had a long and tireless life in activism and hardship when he apparently came from a family of means, and he had other alternatives but chose to be dedicated to peace. > > Midge > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Aram > To: John W. > Cc: C G Estabrook ; Mildred O'brien ; Peace-discuss List > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 5:05 pm > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > > Were Abbie Hoffman and Dave Dellinger serious organizers, or were they just the “superstars.” > > I was informed in the seventies, by some of the serious organizers that those two were the latter. > > On May 11, 2018, at 15:02, John W. wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Carl > > Your statement: > > “What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community’s counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism.” > Makes sense and I believe this is what happened based upon what I have read, and what you have said stated many times. > > I have also heard others discuss how many people turned to “personal pursuits” as a result of Edward Bernais propaganda. The turn on, navel gazing crowd, populating the west coast began a movement, in the sixties that dulled the senses of many of those who “participated in political activism of the 60’s and 70’s”, not the serious organizers, who often were older and continued the struggle. > > In a word, Dave Dellinger vs. Abbie Hoffman. Ironically, Abbie became a serious environmental activist years later in upstate New York, before committing suicide at age 53. But he and Timothy Leary had turned a generation of college students into "yippies". > > > Just as today, its difficult with only small turn outs. > > Many of the groups such as the SWP regrouped under a new strategy, of taking individuals out of the cities, off of campuses, into more rural areas in order to organize unions, unfortunately many as a result, dropped out rather than uproot their lives. > > This is why I find it difficult to believe that the masses demonstrating against US interventions in Latin America were larger than that which took place during the Vietnam war. > > > > > > > On May 11, 2018, at 11:31, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien wrote: > > I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. > > You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address me directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. > > I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly have been privileged to swim in. > > > > He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, > > Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those who might have been allies. > > You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". > > > but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at least in this area. > > I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. > > > Midge > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John W. via Peace-discuss > To: Karen Aram > Cc: Brussel, Morton K ; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to limited media coverage? > > No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. > > I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America for their various causes. > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. > > A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become head of the NRA. > > What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. > > Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated US politics. > > President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” > ______________________________ > > * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” > > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. > > Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon May 14 01:55:38 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 20:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: <9876557C-D95C-49EF-84FA-4E8FE22986BC@gmail.com> References: <1635991bcca-1dd7-1c4ab@webjas-vad078.srv.aolmail.net> <9876557C-D95C-49EF-84FA-4E8FE22986BC@gmail.com> Message-ID: FWIW, Abbie maintained throughout the decades a relationship with the well-known Chicago activist Dr. Quentin Young, who memorialized him very positively on his WBEZ radio show not soon after his death; from that I recall reference to his environmental activities, especially in relation to the St. Lawrence River, although there was I'm sure much more. Around 1980, Abbie was on tour with gone-to-Wall Street Jerry Rubin, debating the 60s, I guess. They happened to pass through Chapel Hill, but for some reason it did not interest me, or perhaps I had a class to go to. I did attend an event at the Chicago Cultural Center (formerly central library) in 1988, 20th anniversary of the convention. I don't believe either Rubin or Hoffmann was there, however, although Dellinger and (probably) Hayden were; Dellinger was the "grand old man" of the peace movement, and remained sincerely admired. For some reason I remember that the person with a controversially revisionist account of the events of August '68 at that event was a fellow named David Farber, but I can't remember much more; perhaps it was because I was babysitting a one-year-old during the event. I saw Hoffmann's book in the UCLA bookstore back in the day, but I did not steal it or, for that matter, read it. But I did read Norman Mailer's excellent "Miami and the Siege of Chicago," regarding the events of 1968. And I do recommend Haskell Wexler's film, Medium Cool, as a compelling example of cinema vérité. On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 10:15 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Hoffman was born November 30, 1936, in Worcester, Massachusetts, [and > reared] in a middle-class household [with] two younger siblings. As a child > in the 1940s–50s, he was a member of what has been described as "the > transitional generation between the beatniks and hippies". He described his > childhood as "idyllic" and the '40s as "a great time to grow up in.” > > In his sophomore year, Hoffman was expelled from Classical High School, a > now-closed public high school in Worcester ... Hoffman wrote a paper > declaring that "God could not possibly exist, for if he did, there wouldn't > be any suffering in the world." The irate teacher ripped up the paper and > called him "a Communist punk". Hoffman jumped on the teacher and started > fighting him until he was restrained and removed from the school ... he > enrolled in Brandeis University, where he studied under professors such as > noted psychologist Abraham Maslow… > > He was also a student of Marxist theorist Herbert Marcuse, who Hoffman > said had a profound effect on his political outlook. Hoffman would later > cite Marcuse's influence during his activism and his theories on revolution… > > Hoffman was involved with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee > (SNCC), and organized Liberty House, which sold items to support the Civil > Rights Movement in the southern United States. During the Vietnam War, > Hoffman was an anti-war activist, using deliberately comical and theatrical > tactics... > > One of Hoffman's well-known stunts was on August 24, 1967, when he led > members of the movement to the gallery of the New York Stock Exchange > (NYSE). The protesters threw fistfuls of real and fake dollar bills down to > the traders below, some of whom booed, while others began to scramble > frantically to grab the money as fast as they could. Accounts of the > amount of money that Hoffman and the group tossed was said to be as little > as $30 to $300. Hoffman claimed to be pointing out that, metaphorically, > that's what NYSE traders "were already doing." "We didn't call the press," > wrote Hoffman. "At that time we really had no notion of anything called a > media event." Yet the press was quick to react and by evening the event was > reported around the world. After that incident, the stock exchange spent > $20,000 to enclose the gallery with bulletproof glass. > > In October 1967, David Dellinger of the National Mobilization Committee to > End the War in Vietnam asked Jerry Rubin to help mobilize and direct a > march on the Pentagon. The protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial as > Dellinger and Dr. Benjamin Spock gave speeches to the mass of people. From > there, the group marched towards the Pentagon. As the protesters neared the > Pentagon, they were met by soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division who > formed a human barricade blocking the Pentagon steps. Not to be dissuaded, > Hoffman vowed to levitate the Pentagon claiming he would attempt to use > psychic energy to levitate the Pentagon until it would turn orange and > begin to vibrate, at which time the war in Vietnam would end. Allen > Ginsberg led Tibetan chants to assist Hoffman. > > Hoffman was arrested and tried for conspiracy and inciting to riot as a > result of his role in anti-Vietnam War protests, which were met by a > violent police response during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in > Chicago. He was among the group that came to be known as the Chicago Seven > (originally known as the Chicago Eight), which included fellow Yippie Jerry > Rubin, David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, future > California state senator Tom Hayden and Black Panther Party co-founder > Bobby Seale (before his trial was severed from the others). > > Presided over by Judge Julius Hoffman (no relation to Hoffman, about which > he joked throughout the trial), Abbie Hoffman's courtroom antics frequently > grabbed the headlines; one day, defendants Hoffman and Rubin appeared in > court dressed in judicial robes, while on another day, Hoffman was sworn in > as a witness with his hand giving the finger. Judge Hoffman became the > favorite courtroom target of the Chicago Seven defendants, who frequently > would insult the judge to his face. Abbie Hoffman told Judge Hoffman "you > are a 'shande fur de Goyim' [disgrace in front of the gentiles]. You would > have served Hitler better." He later added that "your idea of justice is > the only obscenity in the room." Both Davis and Rubin told the Judge "this > court is bullshit." When Hoffman was asked in what state he resided, he > replied the "state of mind of my brothers and sisters". > > Other celebrities were called as "cultural witnesses" including Allen > Ginsberg, Phil Ochs, Arlo Guthrie, Norman Mailer and others. Hoffman closed > the trial with a speech in which he quoted Abraham Lincoln, making the > claim that the president himself, if alive today, would also be arrested in > Chicago's Lincoln Park. > > On February 18, 1970, Hoffman and four of the other defendants (Rubin, > Dellinger, Davis, and Hayden) were found guilty of intent to incite a riot > while crossing state lines. All seven defendants were found not guilty of > conspiracy. At sentencing, Hoffman suggested the judge try LSD and offered > to set him up with "a dealer he knew in Florida" (the judge was known to be > headed to Florida for a post-trial vacation). Each of the five was > sentenced to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. > > However, all convictions were subsequently overturned by the Seventh > Circuit Court of Appeals. The Walker Commission later found that in fact it > had been a "police riot”... > > In 1971, Hoffman published 'Steal This Book', which advised readers on how > to live basically for free. Many of his readers followed Hoffman's advice > and stole the book, leading many bookstores to refuse to carry it. He was > also the author of several other books, including Vote!, co-written with > Rubin and Ed Sanders. Hoffman was arrested August 28, 1973, on drug charges > for intent to sell and distribute cocaine. He always maintained that > undercover police agents entrapped him into a drug deal and planted > suitcases of cocaine in his office. In the spring of 1974, Hoffman skipped > bail, underwent cosmetic surgery to alter his appearance, and hid from > authorities, sometimes dressed as an Orthodox Jew, for several years... > > In 1998, Peter Coyote opined: > > "The FBI couldn't infiltrate us. We did everything anonymously, and we did > everything for nothing, because we wanted our actions to be authentic. It's > the mistake that Abbie Hoffman made. He came out, he studied with us, we > taught him everything, and then he went back and wrote a book called Free, > and he put his name on it! He set himself up to be a leader of the > counterculture, and he was undone by that. Big mistake." > > Despite being "in hiding" during part of this period (Hoffman lived in > Fineview, New York, near Thousand Island Park, a private resort on > Wellesley Island on the St. Lawrence River under the name "Barry Freed"), > he helped coordinate an environmental campaign to preserve the Saint > Lawrence River (Save the River organization). During his time on the run, > he was also the "travel" columnist for Crawdaddy! magazine. On September 4, > 1980, he surrendered to authorities, and, on the same date, he appeared on > a pre-taped edition of ABC-TV's 20/20 in an interview with Barbara Walters. > Hoffman received a one-year sentence, but was released after four months. > > In November 1986, Hoffman was arrested along with 14 others, including Amy > Carter, the daughter of former President Jimmy Carter, for trespassing at > the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The charges stemmed from a protest > against the Central Intelligence Agency's recruitment on the UMass campus. > Since the university's policy limited campus recruitment to law-abiding > organizations, the defense argued that the CIA engaged in illegal > activities. The federal district court judge permitted expert witnesses, > including former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a former CIA agent who > testified that the CIA carried on an illegal Contra war against the > Sandinista regime in Nicaragua in violation of the Boland Amendment. > > In three days of testimony, more than a dozen defense witnesses, including > Daniel Ellsberg, and former Contra leader Edgar Chamorro, described the > CIA's role in more than two decades of covert, illegal and often violent > activities. In his closing argument, Hoffman, acting as his own attorney, > placed his actions within the best tradition of American civil > disobedience. He quoted from Thomas Paine, "the most outspoken and > farsighted of the leaders of the American Revolution: 'Every age and > generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and > generations which preceded it. Man has no property in man, neither has any > generation a property in the generations which are to follow.'" > > Hoffman concluded: "Thomas Paine was talking about this Spring day in this > courtroom. A verdict of not guilty will say, 'When our country is right, > keep it right; but when it is wrong, right those wrongs.'" On April 15, > 1987, the jury found Hoffman and the other defendants not guilty. > > After his acquittal, Hoffman acted in a cameo appearance in Oliver Stone's > later-released anti-Vietnam War movie, 'Born on the Fourth of July'. He > essentially played himself in the movie, waving a flag on the ramparts of > an administration building during a campus protest that was being > teargassed and crushed by state troopers. > > In 1987 Hoffman summed up his views: > > "You are talking to a leftist. I believe in the redistribution of wealth > and power in the world. I believe in universal hospital care for everyone. > I believe that we should not have a single homeless person in the richest > country in the world. And I believe that we should not have a CIA that goes > around overwhelming governments and assassinating political leaders, > working for tight oligarchies around the world to protect the tight > oligarchy here at home." > > Later that same year, Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers wrote 'Steal This Urine > Test' (published October 5, 1987), which exposed the internal > contradictions of the War on Drugs and suggested ways to circumvent its > most intrusive measures. He stated, for instance, that Federal Express, > which received high praise from management guru Tom Peters for "empowering" > workers, in fact subjected most employees to random drug tests, firing any > who got a positive result, with no retest or appeal procedure, despite the > fact that FedEx chose a drug lab (the lowest bidder) with a proven record > of frequent false positive results. > > Stone's 'Born on the Fourth of July' was released on December 20, 1989, > more than eight months after Hoffman's suicide on April 12, 1989. At the > time of his death, Hoffman was at the height of a renewed public visibility > ... He regularly lectured audiences about the CIA's covert activities, > including assassinations disguised as suicides. His Playboy article > (October, 1988) outlining the connections that constitute the "October > Surprise", brought that alleged conspiracy to the attention of a > wide-ranging American readership for the first time... > > His personal life drew a great deal of scrutiny from the Federal Bureau of > Investigation. By their own admission, they kept a file on him that was > 13,262 pages long. > > Hoffman was 52 at the time of his death on April 12, 1989, which was > caused by swallowing 150 phenobarbital tablets and liquor. He had been > diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1980.[40] At the time he had recently > changed treatment medications and was reportedly depressed when his > 83-year-old mother was diagnosed with cancer (she died in 1996 at the age > of 90). Some close to Hoffman, including his longtime friend David Denton > and fellow Chicago Seven co-defendant Tom Hayden, claimed that as a natural > prankster who valued youth, he was also unhappy about reaching middle age, > combined with the fact that the ideas of the 1960s had given way to a > conservative backlash in the 1980s. In 1984 he had expressed dismay that > the current generation of young people were not as interested in protesting > and social activism as youth had been during the 1960s. Hoffman's body was > found in his apartment in a converted turkey coop on Sugan Road in Solebury > Township, near New Hope, Pennsylvania. At the time of his death, he was > surrounded by about 200 pages of his own handwritten notes, many about his > own moods. > > His death was officially ruled as suicide. As reported by The New York > Times, "Among the more vocal doubters at the service today was Mr. > Dellinger, who said, 'I don't believe for one moment the suicide thing.' He > said he had been in fairly frequent touch with Mr. Hoffman, who had > 'numerous plans for the future.'" Yet the same New York Times article > reported that the coroner found the residue of about 150 pills and quoted > the coroner in a telephone interview saying "There is no way to take that > amount of phenobarbital without intent. It was intentional and > self-inflicted." > > A week after Hoffman's death, 1,000 friends and relatives gathered for a > memorial in Worcester, Massachusetts, at Temple Emanuel, the synagogue he > attended as a child. Two of his colleagues from the Chicago Seven > conspiracy trial were there: David Dellinger and Jerry Rubin, Hoffman's > co-founder of the Yippies, by then a businessman... > > Bill Walton, the radical Celtic of basketball renown, told of a puckish > Abbie, then underground evading a cocaine charge in the '70s, leaping from > the shadows on a New York street to give him an impromptu basketball lesson > after a loss to the Knicks. 'Abbie was not a fugitive from justice,' said > Mr. Walton. 'Justice was a fugitive from him.' On a more traditional note, > Rabbi Norman Mendell said in his eulogy that Mr. Hoffman's long history of > protest, antic though much of it had been, was 'in the Jewish prophetic > tradition, which is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.’ > [Wikipedia] > > > On May 13, 2018, at 7:55 AM, Mildred O'brien wrote: > > > > > > Abbie Hoffman may have been the brains behind resistance but I have no > personal knowledge of his contribution; Dave Dellinger as a peace activist, > socialist, and pacifist lived it and was the real deal, like Dorothy Day > and A. J. Muste, and was often jailed for it. I don't know about his > organizational skills, but he was a tireless speaker and demonstrator on > behalf of peace issues, travelling all over the world to spread the message > of peace and non-violence, which at least is organization by example. I > think he was formally involved in representing several organizations, I > don't know to what extent, but he probably was. I was impressed by his > sincerity and commitment when he was a resident scholar at Allen Hall here > some 30 years ago. He had a long and tireless life in activism and > hardship when he apparently came from a family of means, and he had other > alternatives but chose to be dedicated to peace. > > > > Midge > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karen Aram > > To: John W. > > Cc: C G Estabrook ; Mildred O'brien < > moboct1 at aim.com>; Peace-discuss List > > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 5:05 pm > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > > > > Were Abbie Hoffman and Dave Dellinger serious organizers, or were they > just the “superstars.” > > > > I was informed in the seventies, by some of the serious organizers that > those two were the latter. > > > > On May 11, 2018, at 15:02, John W. wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > > > Carl > > > > Your statement: > > > > “What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious > counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community’s > counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism.” > > Makes sense and I believe this is what happened based upon what I have > read, and what you have said stated many times. > > > > I have also heard others discuss how many people turned to “personal > pursuits” as a result of Edward Bernais propaganda. The turn on, navel > gazing crowd, populating the west coast began a movement, in the sixties > that dulled the senses of many of those who “participated in political > activism of the 60’s and 70’s”, not the serious organizers, who often were > older and continued the struggle. > > > > In a word, Dave Dellinger vs. Abbie Hoffman. Ironically, Abbie became a > serious environmental activist years later in upstate New York, before > committing suicide at age 53. But he and Timothy Leary had turned a > generation of college students into "yippies". > > > > > > Just as today, its difficult with only small turn outs. > > > > Many of the groups such as the SWP regrouped under a new strategy, of > taking individuals out of the cities, off of campuses, into more rural > areas in order to organize unions, unfortunately many as a result, dropped > out rather than uproot their lives. > > > > This is why I find it difficult to believe that the masses demonstrating > against US interventions in Latin America were larger than that which took > place during the Vietnam war. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 2018, at 11:31, John W. via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien > wrote: > > > > I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, > uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. > > > > You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address > me directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But > here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. > > > > I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived > and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their > interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was > water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't > know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly > have been privileged to swim in. > > > > > > > > He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, > > > > Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far > higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not > can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and > strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those > who might have been allies. > > > > You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 > long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by > Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". > > > > > > but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at > least in this area. > > > > I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. > > > > > > Midge > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John W. via Peace-discuss > > To: Karen Aram > > Cc: Brussel, Morton K ; Peace-discuss List ( > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > > > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > > > It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central > American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the > Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, > below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the > next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m > wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to > limited media coverage? > > > > No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying > there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no > particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no > interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. > Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure > out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an > example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole > Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, > remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. > > > > I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, > dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America > for their various causes. > > > > > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US > government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably > involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. > > > > A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become > head of the NRA. > > > > What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious > counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's > counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. > > > > Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies > dominated US politics. > > > > President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War > (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of > Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” > > ______________________________ > > > > * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed > no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam > war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to > California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into > the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear > war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. > > > > Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades > there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten > out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same > result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", > as Carl is fond of quoting. > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon May 14 02:01:30 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 21:01:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <1635991bcca-1dd7-1c4ab@webjas-vad078.srv.aolmail.net> <9876557C-D95C-49EF-84FA-4E8FE22986BC@gmail.com> Message-ID: Mailer’s book might be the thing to read for those who came in late. Chomsky makes an appearance. (Mailer writes of himself in the third person.) http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2016/05/noam-chomsky-and-norman-mailer-share.html > On May 13, 2018, at 8:55 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss wrote: > > FWIW, Abbie maintained throughout the decades a relationship with the well-known Chicago activist Dr. Quentin Young, who memorialized him very positively on his WBEZ radio show not soon after his death; from that I recall reference to his environmental activities, especially in relation to the St. Lawrence River, although there was I'm sure much more. > > Around 1980, Abbie was on tour with gone-to-Wall Street Jerry Rubin, debating the 60s, I guess. They happened to pass through Chapel Hill, but for some reason it did not interest me, or perhaps I had a class to go to. > > I did attend an event at the Chicago Cultural Center (formerly central library) in 1988, 20th anniversary of the convention. I don't believe either Rubin or Hoffmann was there, however, although Dellinger and (probably) Hayden were; Dellinger was the "grand old man" of the peace movement, and remained sincerely admired. For some reason I remember that the person with a controversially revisionist account of the events of August '68 at that event was a fellow named David Farber, but I can't remember much more; perhaps it was because I was babysitting a one-year-old during the event. > > I saw Hoffmann's book in the UCLA bookstore back in the day, but I did not steal it or, for that matter, read it. But I did read Norman Mailer's excellent "Miami and the Siege of Chicago," regarding the events of 1968. And I do recommend Haskell Wexler's film, Medium Cool, as a compelling example of cinema vérité. > > On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 10:15 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > Hoffman was born November 30, 1936, in Worcester, Massachusetts, [and reared] in a middle-class household [with] two younger siblings. As a child in the 1940s–50s, he was a member of what has been described as "the transitional generation between the beatniks and hippies". He described his childhood as "idyllic" and the '40s as "a great time to grow up in.” > > In his sophomore year, Hoffman was expelled from Classical High School, a now-closed public high school in Worcester ... Hoffman wrote a paper declaring that "God could not possibly exist, for if he did, there wouldn't be any suffering in the world." The irate teacher ripped up the paper and called him "a Communist punk". Hoffman jumped on the teacher and started fighting him until he was restrained and removed from the school ... he enrolled in Brandeis University, where he studied under professors such as noted psychologist Abraham Maslow… > > He was also a student of Marxist theorist Herbert Marcuse, who Hoffman said had a profound effect on his political outlook. Hoffman would later cite Marcuse's influence during his activism and his theories on revolution… > > Hoffman was involved with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and organized Liberty House, which sold items to support the Civil Rights Movement in the southern United States. During the Vietnam War, Hoffman was an anti-war activist, using deliberately comical and theatrical tactics... > > One of Hoffman's well-known stunts was on August 24, 1967, when he led members of the movement to the gallery of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The protesters threw fistfuls of real and fake dollar bills down to the traders below, some of whom booed, while others began to scramble frantically to grab the money as fast as they could. Accounts of the amount of money that Hoffman and the group tossed was said to be as little as $30 to $300. Hoffman claimed to be pointing out that, metaphorically, that's what NYSE traders "were already doing." "We didn't call the press," wrote Hoffman. "At that time we really had no notion of anything called a media event." Yet the press was quick to react and by evening the event was reported around the world. After that incident, the stock exchange spent $20,000 to enclose the gallery with bulletproof glass. > > In October 1967, David Dellinger of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam asked Jerry Rubin to help mobilize and direct a march on the Pentagon. The protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial as Dellinger and Dr. Benjamin Spock gave speeches to the mass of people. From there, the group marched towards the Pentagon. As the protesters neared the Pentagon, they were met by soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division who formed a human barricade blocking the Pentagon steps. Not to be dissuaded, Hoffman vowed to levitate the Pentagon claiming he would attempt to use psychic energy to levitate the Pentagon until it would turn orange and begin to vibrate, at which time the war in Vietnam would end. Allen Ginsberg led Tibetan chants to assist Hoffman. > > Hoffman was arrested and tried for conspiracy and inciting to riot as a result of his role in anti-Vietnam War protests, which were met by a violent police response during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. He was among the group that came to be known as the Chicago Seven (originally known as the Chicago Eight), which included fellow Yippie Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, future California state senator Tom Hayden and Black Panther Party co-founder Bobby Seale (before his trial was severed from the others). > > Presided over by Judge Julius Hoffman (no relation to Hoffman, about which he joked throughout the trial), Abbie Hoffman's courtroom antics frequently grabbed the headlines; one day, defendants Hoffman and Rubin appeared in court dressed in judicial robes, while on another day, Hoffman was sworn in as a witness with his hand giving the finger. Judge Hoffman became the favorite courtroom target of the Chicago Seven defendants, who frequently would insult the judge to his face. Abbie Hoffman told Judge Hoffman "you are a 'shande fur de Goyim' [disgrace in front of the gentiles]. You would have served Hitler better." He later added that "your idea of justice is the only obscenity in the room." Both Davis and Rubin told the Judge "this court is bullshit." When Hoffman was asked in what state he resided, he replied the "state of mind of my brothers and sisters". > > Other celebrities were called as "cultural witnesses" including Allen Ginsberg, Phil Ochs, Arlo Guthrie, Norman Mailer and others. Hoffman closed the trial with a speech in which he quoted Abraham Lincoln, making the claim that the president himself, if alive today, would also be arrested in Chicago's Lincoln Park. > > On February 18, 1970, Hoffman and four of the other defendants (Rubin, Dellinger, Davis, and Hayden) were found guilty of intent to incite a riot while crossing state lines. All seven defendants were found not guilty of conspiracy. At sentencing, Hoffman suggested the judge try LSD and offered to set him up with "a dealer he knew in Florida" (the judge was known to be headed to Florida for a post-trial vacation). Each of the five was sentenced to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. > > However, all convictions were subsequently overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Walker Commission later found that in fact it had been a "police riot”... > > In 1971, Hoffman published 'Steal This Book', which advised readers on how to live basically for free. Many of his readers followed Hoffman's advice and stole the book, leading many bookstores to refuse to carry it. He was also the author of several other books, including Vote!, co-written with Rubin and Ed Sanders. Hoffman was arrested August 28, 1973, on drug charges for intent to sell and distribute cocaine. He always maintained that undercover police agents entrapped him into a drug deal and planted suitcases of cocaine in his office. In the spring of 1974, Hoffman skipped bail, underwent cosmetic surgery to alter his appearance, and hid from authorities, sometimes dressed as an Orthodox Jew, for several years... > > In 1998, Peter Coyote opined: > > "The FBI couldn't infiltrate us. We did everything anonymously, and we did everything for nothing, because we wanted our actions to be authentic. It's the mistake that Abbie Hoffman made. He came out, he studied with us, we taught him everything, and then he went back and wrote a book called Free, and he put his name on it! He set himself up to be a leader of the counterculture, and he was undone by that. Big mistake." > > Despite being "in hiding" during part of this period (Hoffman lived in Fineview, New York, near Thousand Island Park, a private resort on Wellesley Island on the St. Lawrence River under the name "Barry Freed"), he helped coordinate an environmental campaign to preserve the Saint Lawrence River (Save the River organization). During his time on the run, he was also the "travel" columnist for Crawdaddy! magazine. On September 4, 1980, he surrendered to authorities, and, on the same date, he appeared on a pre-taped edition of ABC-TV's 20/20 in an interview with Barbara Walters. Hoffman received a one-year sentence, but was released after four months. > > In November 1986, Hoffman was arrested along with 14 others, including Amy Carter, the daughter of former President Jimmy Carter, for trespassing at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The charges stemmed from a protest against the Central Intelligence Agency's recruitment on the UMass campus. Since the university's policy limited campus recruitment to law-abiding organizations, the defense argued that the CIA engaged in illegal activities. The federal district court judge permitted expert witnesses, including former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a former CIA agent who testified that the CIA carried on an illegal Contra war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua in violation of the Boland Amendment. > > In three days of testimony, more than a dozen defense witnesses, including Daniel Ellsberg, and former Contra leader Edgar Chamorro, described the CIA's role in more than two decades of covert, illegal and often violent activities. In his closing argument, Hoffman, acting as his own attorney, placed his actions within the best tradition of American civil disobedience. He quoted from Thomas Paine, "the most outspoken and farsighted of the leaders of the American Revolution: 'Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and generations which preceded it. Man has no property in man, neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.'" > > Hoffman concluded: "Thomas Paine was talking about this Spring day in this courtroom. A verdict of not guilty will say, 'When our country is right, keep it right; but when it is wrong, right those wrongs.'" On April 15, 1987, the jury found Hoffman and the other defendants not guilty. > > After his acquittal, Hoffman acted in a cameo appearance in Oliver Stone's later-released anti-Vietnam War movie, 'Born on the Fourth of July'. He essentially played himself in the movie, waving a flag on the ramparts of an administration building during a campus protest that was being teargassed and crushed by state troopers. > > In 1987 Hoffman summed up his views: > > "You are talking to a leftist. I believe in the redistribution of wealth and power in the world. I believe in universal hospital care for everyone. I believe that we should not have a single homeless person in the richest country in the world. And I believe that we should not have a CIA that goes around overwhelming governments and assassinating political leaders, working for tight oligarchies around the world to protect the tight oligarchy here at home." > > Later that same year, Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers wrote 'Steal This Urine Test' (published October 5, 1987), which exposed the internal contradictions of the War on Drugs and suggested ways to circumvent its most intrusive measures. He stated, for instance, that Federal Express, which received high praise from management guru Tom Peters for "empowering" workers, in fact subjected most employees to random drug tests, firing any who got a positive result, with no retest or appeal procedure, despite the fact that FedEx chose a drug lab (the lowest bidder) with a proven record of frequent false positive results. > > Stone's 'Born on the Fourth of July' was released on December 20, 1989, more than eight months after Hoffman's suicide on April 12, 1989. At the time of his death, Hoffman was at the height of a renewed public visibility ... He regularly lectured audiences about the CIA's covert activities, including assassinations disguised as suicides. His Playboy article (October, 1988) outlining the connections that constitute the "October Surprise", brought that alleged conspiracy to the attention of a wide-ranging American readership for the first time... > > His personal life drew a great deal of scrutiny from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. By their own admission, they kept a file on him that was 13,262 pages long. > > Hoffman was 52 at the time of his death on April 12, 1989, which was caused by swallowing 150 phenobarbital tablets and liquor. He had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1980.[40] At the time he had recently changed treatment medications and was reportedly depressed when his 83-year-old mother was diagnosed with cancer (she died in 1996 at the age of 90). Some close to Hoffman, including his longtime friend David Denton and fellow Chicago Seven co-defendant Tom Hayden, claimed that as a natural prankster who valued youth, he was also unhappy about reaching middle age, combined with the fact that the ideas of the 1960s had given way to a conservative backlash in the 1980s. In 1984 he had expressed dismay that the current generation of young people were not as interested in protesting and social activism as youth had been during the 1960s. Hoffman's body was found in his apartment in a converted turkey coop on Sugan Road in Solebury Township, near New Hope, Pennsylvania. At the time of his death, he was surrounded by about 200 pages of his own handwritten notes, many about his own moods. > > His death was officially ruled as suicide. As reported by The New York Times, "Among the more vocal doubters at the service today was Mr. Dellinger, who said, 'I don't believe for one moment the suicide thing.' He said he had been in fairly frequent touch with Mr. Hoffman, who had 'numerous plans for the future.'" Yet the same New York Times article reported that the coroner found the residue of about 150 pills and quoted the coroner in a telephone interview saying "There is no way to take that amount of phenobarbital without intent. It was intentional and self-inflicted." > > A week after Hoffman's death, 1,000 friends and relatives gathered for a memorial in Worcester, Massachusetts, at Temple Emanuel, the synagogue he attended as a child. Two of his colleagues from the Chicago Seven conspiracy trial were there: David Dellinger and Jerry Rubin, Hoffman's co-founder of the Yippies, by then a businessman... > > Bill Walton, the radical Celtic of basketball renown, told of a puckish Abbie, then underground evading a cocaine charge in the '70s, leaping from the shadows on a New York street to give him an impromptu basketball lesson after a loss to the Knicks. 'Abbie was not a fugitive from justice,' said Mr. Walton. 'Justice was a fugitive from him.' On a more traditional note, Rabbi Norman Mendell said in his eulogy that Mr. Hoffman's long history of protest, antic though much of it had been, was 'in the Jewish prophetic tradition, which is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.’ [Wikipedia] > > > On May 13, 2018, at 7:55 AM, Mildred O'brien > wrote: > > > > > > Abbie Hoffman may have been the brains behind resistance but I have no personal knowledge of his contribution; Dave Dellinger as a peace activist, socialist, and pacifist lived it and was the real deal, like Dorothy Day and A. J. Muste, and was often jailed for it. I don't know about his organizational skills, but he was a tireless speaker and demonstrator on behalf of peace issues, travelling all over the world to spread the message of peace and non-violence, which at least is organization by example. I think he was formally involved in representing several organizations, I don't know to what extent, but he probably was. I was impressed by his sincerity and commitment when he was a resident scholar at Allen Hall here some 30 years ago. He had a long and tireless life in activism and hardship when he apparently came from a family of means, and he had other alternatives but chose to be dedicated to peace. > > > > Midge > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karen Aram > > > To: John W. > > > Cc: C G Estabrook >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace-discuss List > > > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 5:05 pm > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > > > > Were Abbie Hoffman and Dave Dellinger serious organizers, or were they just the “superstars.” > > > > I was informed in the seventies, by some of the serious organizers that those two were the latter. > > > > On May 11, 2018, at 15:02, John W. > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > > > Carl > > > > Your statement: > > > > “What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community’s counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism.” > > Makes sense and I believe this is what happened based upon what I have read, and what you have said stated many times. > > > > I have also heard others discuss how many people turned to “personal pursuits” as a result of Edward Bernais propaganda. The turn on, navel gazing crowd, populating the west coast began a movement, in the sixties that dulled the senses of many of those who “participated in political activism of the 60’s and 70’s”, not the serious organizers, who often were older and continued the struggle. > > > > In a word, Dave Dellinger vs. Abbie Hoffman. Ironically, Abbie became a serious environmental activist years later in upstate New York, before committing suicide at age 53. But he and Timothy Leary had turned a generation of college students into "yippies". > > > > > > Just as today, its difficult with only small turn outs. > > > > Many of the groups such as the SWP regrouped under a new strategy, of taking individuals out of the cities, off of campuses, into more rural areas in order to organize unions, unfortunately many as a result, dropped out rather than uproot their lives. > > > > This is why I find it difficult to believe that the masses demonstrating against US interventions in Latin America were larger than that which took place during the Vietnam war. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 11, 2018, at 11:31, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien > wrote: > > > > I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. > > > > You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address me directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. > > > > I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly have been privileged to swim in. > > > > > > > > He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, > > > > Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those who might have been allies. > > > > You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". > > > > > > but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at least in this area. > > > > I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. > > > > > > Midge > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John W. via Peace-discuss > > > To: Karen Aram > > > Cc: Brussel, Morton K >; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ) > > > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm > > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > > > > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > > > It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to limited media coverage? > > > > No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. > > > > I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America for their various causes. > > > > > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > > > You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. > > > > A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become head of the NRA. > > > > What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. > > > > Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated US politics. > > > > President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” > > ______________________________ > > > > * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” > > > > > > > > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. > > > > Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. > > > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Mon May 14 11:20:53 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 11:20:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord In-Reply-To: References: <1635991bcca-1dd7-1c4ab@webjas-vad078.srv.aolmail.net> <9876557C-D95C-49EF-84FA-4E8FE22986BC@gmail.com> Message-ID: I was at the 1968 DNC at the Chicago Amphitheater and Commuted Downtown from there. Missed Abbie then, but caught up with him at CIA On Trial in Northampton Mass 1987. RIP. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 9:02 PM To: David Green Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord Mailer’s book might be the thing to read for those who came in late. Chomsky makes an appearance. (Mailer writes of himself in the third person.) http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2016/05/noam-chomsky-and-norman-mailer-share.html On May 13, 2018, at 8:55 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: FWIW, Abbie maintained throughout the decades a relationship with the well-known Chicago activist Dr. Quentin Young, who memorialized him very positively on his WBEZ radio show not soon after his death; from that I recall reference to his environmental activities, especially in relation to the St. Lawrence River, although there was I'm sure much more. Around 1980, Abbie was on tour with gone-to-Wall Street Jerry Rubin, debating the 60s, I guess. They happened to pass through Chapel Hill, but for some reason it did not interest me, or perhaps I had a class to go to. I did attend an event at the Chicago Cultural Center (formerly central library) in 1988, 20th anniversary of the convention. I don't believe either Rubin or Hoffmann was there, however, although Dellinger and (probably) Hayden were; Dellinger was the "grand old man" of the peace movement, and remained sincerely admired. For some reason I remember that the person with a controversially revisionist account of the events of August '68 at that event was a fellow named David Farber, but I can't remember much more; perhaps it was because I was babysitting a one-year-old during the event. I saw Hoffmann's book in the UCLA bookstore back in the day, but I did not steal it or, for that matter, read it. But I did read Norman Mailer's excellent "Miami and the Siege of Chicago," regarding the events of 1968. And I do recommend Haskell Wexler's film, Medium Cool, as a compelling example of cinema vérité. On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 10:15 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Hoffman was born November 30, 1936, in Worcester, Massachusetts, [and reared] in a middle-class household [with] two younger siblings. As a child in the 1940s–50s, he was a member of what has been described as "the transitional generation between the beatniks and hippies". He described his childhood as "idyllic" and the '40s as "a great time to grow up in.” In his sophomore year, Hoffman was expelled from Classical High School, a now-closed public high school in Worcester ... Hoffman wrote a paper declaring that "God could not possibly exist, for if he did, there wouldn't be any suffering in the world." The irate teacher ripped up the paper and called him "a Communist punk". Hoffman jumped on the teacher and started fighting him until he was restrained and removed from the school ... he enrolled in Brandeis University, where he studied under professors such as noted psychologist Abraham Maslow… He was also a student of Marxist theorist Herbert Marcuse, who Hoffman said had a profound effect on his political outlook. Hoffman would later cite Marcuse's influence during his activism and his theories on revolution… Hoffman was involved with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and organized Liberty House, which sold items to support the Civil Rights Movement in the southern United States. During the Vietnam War, Hoffman was an anti-war activist, using deliberately comical and theatrical tactics... One of Hoffman's well-known stunts was on August 24, 1967, when he led members of the movement to the gallery of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The protesters threw fistfuls of real and fake dollar bills down to the traders below, some of whom booed, while others began to scramble frantically to grab the money as fast as they could. Accounts of the amount of money that Hoffman and the group tossed was said to be as little as $30 to $300. Hoffman claimed to be pointing out that, metaphorically, that's what NYSE traders "were already doing." "We didn't call the press," wrote Hoffman. "At that time we really had no notion of anything called a media event." Yet the press was quick to react and by evening the event was reported around the world. After that incident, the stock exchange spent $20,000 to enclose the gallery with bulletproof glass. In October 1967, David Dellinger of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam asked Jerry Rubin to help mobilize and direct a march on the Pentagon. The protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial as Dellinger and Dr. Benjamin Spock gave speeches to the mass of people. From there, the group marched towards the Pentagon. As the protesters neared the Pentagon, they were met by soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division who formed a human barricade blocking the Pentagon steps. Not to be dissuaded, Hoffman vowed to levitate the Pentagon claiming he would attempt to use psychic energy to levitate the Pentagon until it would turn orange and begin to vibrate, at which time the war in Vietnam would end. Allen Ginsberg led Tibetan chants to assist Hoffman. Hoffman was arrested and tried for conspiracy and inciting to riot as a result of his role in anti-Vietnam War protests, which were met by a violent police response during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. He was among the group that came to be known as the Chicago Seven (originally known as the Chicago Eight), which included fellow Yippie Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, future California state senator Tom Hayden and Black Panther Party co-founder Bobby Seale (before his trial was severed from the others). Presided over by Judge Julius Hoffman (no relation to Hoffman, about which he joked throughout the trial), Abbie Hoffman's courtroom antics frequently grabbed the headlines; one day, defendants Hoffman and Rubin appeared in court dressed in judicial robes, while on another day, Hoffman was sworn in as a witness with his hand giving the finger. Judge Hoffman became the favorite courtroom target of the Chicago Seven defendants, who frequently would insult the judge to his face. Abbie Hoffman told Judge Hoffman "you are a 'shande fur de Goyim' [disgrace in front of the gentiles]. You would have served Hitler better." He later added that "your idea of justice is the only obscenity in the room." Both Davis and Rubin told the Judge "this court is bullshit." When Hoffman was asked in what state he resided, he replied the "state of mind of my brothers and sisters". Other celebrities were called as "cultural witnesses" including Allen Ginsberg, Phil Ochs, Arlo Guthrie, Norman Mailer and others. Hoffman closed the trial with a speech in which he quoted Abraham Lincoln, making the claim that the president himself, if alive today, would also be arrested in Chicago's Lincoln Park. On February 18, 1970, Hoffman and four of the other defendants (Rubin, Dellinger, Davis, and Hayden) were found guilty of intent to incite a riot while crossing state lines. All seven defendants were found not guilty of conspiracy. At sentencing, Hoffman suggested the judge try LSD and offered to set him up with "a dealer he knew in Florida" (the judge was known to be headed to Florida for a post-trial vacation). Each of the five was sentenced to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. However, all convictions were subsequently overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Walker Commission later found that in fact it had been a "police riot”... In 1971, Hoffman published 'Steal This Book', which advised readers on how to live basically for free. Many of his readers followed Hoffman's advice and stole the book, leading many bookstores to refuse to carry it. He was also the author of several other books, including Vote!, co-written with Rubin and Ed Sanders. Hoffman was arrested August 28, 1973, on drug charges for intent to sell and distribute cocaine. He always maintained that undercover police agents entrapped him into a drug deal and planted suitcases of cocaine in his office. In the spring of 1974, Hoffman skipped bail, underwent cosmetic surgery to alter his appearance, and hid from authorities, sometimes dressed as an Orthodox Jew, for several years... In 1998, Peter Coyote opined: "The FBI couldn't infiltrate us. We did everything anonymously, and we did everything for nothing, because we wanted our actions to be authentic. It's the mistake that Abbie Hoffman made. He came out, he studied with us, we taught him everything, and then he went back and wrote a book called Free, and he put his name on it! He set himself up to be a leader of the counterculture, and he was undone by that. Big mistake." Despite being "in hiding" during part of this period (Hoffman lived in Fineview, New York, near Thousand Island Park, a private resort on Wellesley Island on the St. Lawrence River under the name "Barry Freed"), he helped coordinate an environmental campaign to preserve the Saint Lawrence River (Save the River organization). During his time on the run, he was also the "travel" columnist for Crawdaddy! magazine. On September 4, 1980, he surrendered to authorities, and, on the same date, he appeared on a pre-taped edition of ABC-TV's 20/20 in an interview with Barbara Walters. Hoffman received a one-year sentence, but was released after four months. In November 1986, Hoffman was arrested along with 14 others, including Amy Carter, the daughter of former President Jimmy Carter, for trespassing at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The charges stemmed from a protest against the Central Intelligence Agency's recruitment on the UMass campus. Since the university's policy limited campus recruitment to law-abiding organizations, the defense argued that the CIA engaged in illegal activities. The federal district court judge permitted expert witnesses, including former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a former CIA agent who testified that the CIA carried on an illegal Contra war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua in violation of the Boland Amendment. In three days of testimony, more than a dozen defense witnesses, including Daniel Ellsberg, and former Contra leader Edgar Chamorro, described the CIA's role in more than two decades of covert, illegal and often violent activities. In his closing argument, Hoffman, acting as his own attorney, placed his actions within the best tradition of American civil disobedience. He quoted from Thomas Paine, "the most outspoken and farsighted of the leaders of the American Revolution: 'Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and generations which preceded it. Man has no property in man, neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.'" Hoffman concluded: "Thomas Paine was talking about this Spring day in this courtroom. A verdict of not guilty will say, 'When our country is right, keep it right; but when it is wrong, right those wrongs.'" On April 15, 1987, the jury found Hoffman and the other defendants not guilty. After his acquittal, Hoffman acted in a cameo appearance in Oliver Stone's later-released anti-Vietnam War movie, 'Born on the Fourth of July'. He essentially played himself in the movie, waving a flag on the ramparts of an administration building during a campus protest that was being teargassed and crushed by state troopers. In 1987 Hoffman summed up his views: "You are talking to a leftist. I believe in the redistribution of wealth and power in the world. I believe in universal hospital care for everyone. I believe that we should not have a single homeless person in the richest country in the world. And I believe that we should not have a CIA that goes around overwhelming governments and assassinating political leaders, working for tight oligarchies around the world to protect the tight oligarchy here at home." Later that same year, Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers wrote 'Steal This Urine Test' (published October 5, 1987), which exposed the internal contradictions of the War on Drugs and suggested ways to circumvent its most intrusive measures. He stated, for instance, that Federal Express, which received high praise from management guru Tom Peters for "empowering" workers, in fact subjected most employees to random drug tests, firing any who got a positive result, with no retest or appeal procedure, despite the fact that FedEx chose a drug lab (the lowest bidder) with a proven record of frequent false positive results. Stone's 'Born on the Fourth of July' was released on December 20, 1989, more than eight months after Hoffman's suicide on April 12, 1989. At the time of his death, Hoffman was at the height of a renewed public visibility ... He regularly lectured audiences about the CIA's covert activities, including assassinations disguised as suicides. His Playboy article (October, 1988) outlining the connections that constitute the "October Surprise", brought that alleged conspiracy to the attention of a wide-ranging American readership for the first time... His personal life drew a great deal of scrutiny from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. By their own admission, they kept a file on him that was 13,262 pages long. Hoffman was 52 at the time of his death on April 12, 1989, which was caused by swallowing 150 phenobarbital tablets and liquor. He had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1980.[40] At the time he had recently changed treatment medications and was reportedly depressed when his 83-year-old mother was diagnosed with cancer (she died in 1996 at the age of 90). Some close to Hoffman, including his longtime friend David Denton and fellow Chicago Seven co-defendant Tom Hayden, claimed that as a natural prankster who valued youth, he was also unhappy about reaching middle age, combined with the fact that the ideas of the 1960s had given way to a conservative backlash in the 1980s. In 1984 he had expressed dismay that the current generation of young people were not as interested in protesting and social activism as youth had been during the 1960s. Hoffman's body was found in his apartment in a converted turkey coop on Sugan Road in Solebury Township, near New Hope, Pennsylvania. At the time of his death, he was surrounded by about 200 pages of his own handwritten notes, many about his own moods. His death was officially ruled as suicide. As reported by The New York Times, "Among the more vocal doubters at the service today was Mr. Dellinger, who said, 'I don't believe for one moment the suicide thing.' He said he had been in fairly frequent touch with Mr. Hoffman, who had 'numerous plans for the future.'" Yet the same New York Times article reported that the coroner found the residue of about 150 pills and quoted the coroner in a telephone interview saying "There is no way to take that amount of phenobarbital without intent. It was intentional and self-inflicted." A week after Hoffman's death, 1,000 friends and relatives gathered for a memorial in Worcester, Massachusetts, at Temple Emanuel, the synagogue he attended as a child. Two of his colleagues from the Chicago Seven conspiracy trial were there: David Dellinger and Jerry Rubin, Hoffman's co-founder of the Yippies, by then a businessman... Bill Walton, the radical Celtic of basketball renown, told of a puckish Abbie, then underground evading a cocaine charge in the '70s, leaping from the shadows on a New York street to give him an impromptu basketball lesson after a loss to the Knicks. 'Abbie was not a fugitive from justice,' said Mr. Walton. 'Justice was a fugitive from him.' On a more traditional note, Rabbi Norman Mendell said in his eulogy that Mr. Hoffman's long history of protest, antic though much of it had been, was 'in the Jewish prophetic tradition, which is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.’ [Wikipedia] On May 13, 2018, at 7:55 AM, Mildred O'brien > wrote: > > > Abbie Hoffman may have been the brains behind resistance but I have no personal knowledge of his contribution; Dave Dellinger as a peace activist, socialist, and pacifist lived it and was the real deal, like Dorothy Day and A. J. Muste, and was often jailed for it. I don't know about his organizational skills, but he was a tireless speaker and demonstrator on behalf of peace issues, travelling all over the world to spread the message of peace and non-violence, which at least is organization by example. I think he was formally involved in representing several organizations, I don't know to what extent, but he probably was. I was impressed by his sincerity and commitment when he was a resident scholar at Allen Hall here some 30 years ago. He had a long and tireless life in activism and hardship when he apparently came from a family of means, and he had other alternatives but chose to be dedicated to peace. > > Midge > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Aram > > To: John W. > > Cc: C G Estabrook >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace-discuss List > > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 5:05 pm > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > > Were Abbie Hoffman and Dave Dellinger serious organizers, or were they just the “superstars.” > > I was informed in the seventies, by some of the serious organizers that those two were the latter. > > On May 11, 2018, at 15:02, John W. > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > Carl > > Your statement: > > “What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community’s counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism.” > Makes sense and I believe this is what happened based upon what I have read, and what you have said stated many times. > > I have also heard others discuss how many people turned to “personal pursuits” as a result of Edward Bernais propaganda. The turn on, navel gazing crowd, populating the west coast began a movement, in the sixties that dulled the senses of many of those who “participated in political activism of the 60’s and 70’s”, not the serious organizers, who often were older and continued the struggle. > > In a word, Dave Dellinger vs. Abbie Hoffman. Ironically, Abbie became a serious environmental activist years later in upstate New York, before committing suicide at age 53. But he and Timothy Leary had turned a generation of college students into "yippies". > > > Just as today, its difficult with only small turn outs. > > Many of the groups such as the SWP regrouped under a new strategy, of taking individuals out of the cities, off of campuses, into more rural areas in order to organize unions, unfortunately many as a result, dropped out rather than uproot their lives. > > This is why I find it difficult to believe that the masses demonstrating against US interventions in Latin America were larger than that which took place during the Vietnam war. > > > > > > > On May 11, 2018, at 11:31, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien > wrote: > > I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. > > You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address me directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. > > I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly have been privileged to swim in. > > > > He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, > > Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those who might have been allies. > > You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". > > > but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at least in this area. > > I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. > > > Midge > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John W. via Peace-discuss > > To: Karen Aram > > Cc: Brussel, Morton K >; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to limited media coverage? > > No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. > > I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America for their various causes. > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. > > A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become head of the NRA. > > What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. > > Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated US politics. > > President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” > ______________________________ > > * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” > > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. > > Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Mon May 14 11:33:05 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 11:33:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord References: <1635991bcca-1dd7-1c4ab@webjas-vad078.srv.aolmail.net> <9876557C-D95C-49EF-84FA-4E8FE22986BC@gmail.com> Message-ID: I personally saw the Dem establishment steal the nomination from Gene McCarthy and give it to Houie. Sort of like in 2016 the Dem establishment stealing the nomination from Bernie and giving it to Hillary. Some things never change. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 6:21 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Cc: David Green Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord I was at the 1968 DNC at the Chicago Amphitheater and Commuted Downtown from there. Missed Abbie then, but caught up with him at CIA On Trial in Northampton Mass 1987. RIP. fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 9:02 PM To: David Green > Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord Mailer’s book might be the thing to read for those who came in late. Chomsky makes an appearance. (Mailer writes of himself in the third person.) http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2016/05/noam-chomsky-and-norman-mailer-share.html On May 13, 2018, at 8:55 PM, David Green via Peace-discuss > wrote: FWIW, Abbie maintained throughout the decades a relationship with the well-known Chicago activist Dr. Quentin Young, who memorialized him very positively on his WBEZ radio show not soon after his death; from that I recall reference to his environmental activities, especially in relation to the St. Lawrence River, although there was I'm sure much more. Around 1980, Abbie was on tour with gone-to-Wall Street Jerry Rubin, debating the 60s, I guess. They happened to pass through Chapel Hill, but for some reason it did not interest me, or perhaps I had a class to go to. I did attend an event at the Chicago Cultural Center (formerly central library) in 1988, 20th anniversary of the convention. I don't believe either Rubin or Hoffmann was there, however, although Dellinger and (probably) Hayden were; Dellinger was the "grand old man" of the peace movement, and remained sincerely admired. For some reason I remember that the person with a controversially revisionist account of the events of August '68 at that event was a fellow named David Farber, but I can't remember much more; perhaps it was because I was babysitting a one-year-old during the event. I saw Hoffmann's book in the UCLA bookstore back in the day, but I did not steal it or, for that matter, read it. But I did read Norman Mailer's excellent "Miami and the Siege of Chicago," regarding the events of 1968. And I do recommend Haskell Wexler's film, Medium Cool, as a compelling example of cinema vérité. On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 10:15 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Hoffman was born November 30, 1936, in Worcester, Massachusetts, [and reared] in a middle-class household [with] two younger siblings. As a child in the 1940s–50s, he was a member of what has been described as "the transitional generation between the beatniks and hippies". He described his childhood as "idyllic" and the '40s as "a great time to grow up in.” In his sophomore year, Hoffman was expelled from Classical High School, a now-closed public high school in Worcester ... Hoffman wrote a paper declaring that "God could not possibly exist, for if he did, there wouldn't be any suffering in the world." The irate teacher ripped up the paper and called him "a Communist punk". Hoffman jumped on the teacher and started fighting him until he was restrained and removed from the school ... he enrolled in Brandeis University, where he studied under professors such as noted psychologist Abraham Maslow… He was also a student of Marxist theorist Herbert Marcuse, who Hoffman said had a profound effect on his political outlook. Hoffman would later cite Marcuse's influence during his activism and his theories on revolution… Hoffman was involved with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and organized Liberty House, which sold items to support the Civil Rights Movement in the southern United States. During the Vietnam War, Hoffman was an anti-war activist, using deliberately comical and theatrical tactics... One of Hoffman's well-known stunts was on August 24, 1967, when he led members of the movement to the gallery of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The protesters threw fistfuls of real and fake dollar bills down to the traders below, some of whom booed, while others began to scramble frantically to grab the money as fast as they could. Accounts of the amount of money that Hoffman and the group tossed was said to be as little as $30 to $300. Hoffman claimed to be pointing out that, metaphorically, that's what NYSE traders "were already doing." "We didn't call the press," wrote Hoffman. "At that time we really had no notion of anything called a media event." Yet the press was quick to react and by evening the event was reported around the world. After that incident, the stock exchange spent $20,000 to enclose the gallery with bulletproof glass. In October 1967, David Dellinger of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam asked Jerry Rubin to help mobilize and direct a march on the Pentagon. The protesters gathered at the Lincoln Memorial as Dellinger and Dr. Benjamin Spock gave speeches to the mass of people. From there, the group marched towards the Pentagon. As the protesters neared the Pentagon, they were met by soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division who formed a human barricade blocking the Pentagon steps. Not to be dissuaded, Hoffman vowed to levitate the Pentagon claiming he would attempt to use psychic energy to levitate the Pentagon until it would turn orange and begin to vibrate, at which time the war in Vietnam would end. Allen Ginsberg led Tibetan chants to assist Hoffman. Hoffman was arrested and tried for conspiracy and inciting to riot as a result of his role in anti-Vietnam War protests, which were met by a violent police response during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. He was among the group that came to be known as the Chicago Seven (originally known as the Chicago Eight), which included fellow Yippie Jerry Rubin, David Dellinger, Rennie Davis, John Froines, Lee Weiner, future California state senator Tom Hayden and Black Panther Party co-founder Bobby Seale (before his trial was severed from the others). Presided over by Judge Julius Hoffman (no relation to Hoffman, about which he joked throughout the trial), Abbie Hoffman's courtroom antics frequently grabbed the headlines; one day, defendants Hoffman and Rubin appeared in court dressed in judicial robes, while on another day, Hoffman was sworn in as a witness with his hand giving the finger. Judge Hoffman became the favorite courtroom target of the Chicago Seven defendants, who frequently would insult the judge to his face. Abbie Hoffman told Judge Hoffman "you are a 'shande fur de Goyim' [disgrace in front of the gentiles]. You would have served Hitler better." He later added that "your idea of justice is the only obscenity in the room." Both Davis and Rubin told the Judge "this court is bullshit." When Hoffman was asked in what state he resided, he replied the "state of mind of my brothers and sisters". Other celebrities were called as "cultural witnesses" including Allen Ginsberg, Phil Ochs, Arlo Guthrie, Norman Mailer and others. Hoffman closed the trial with a speech in which he quoted Abraham Lincoln, making the claim that the president himself, if alive today, would also be arrested in Chicago's Lincoln Park. On February 18, 1970, Hoffman and four of the other defendants (Rubin, Dellinger, Davis, and Hayden) were found guilty of intent to incite a riot while crossing state lines. All seven defendants were found not guilty of conspiracy. At sentencing, Hoffman suggested the judge try LSD and offered to set him up with "a dealer he knew in Florida" (the judge was known to be headed to Florida for a post-trial vacation). Each of the five was sentenced to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. However, all convictions were subsequently overturned by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Walker Commission later found that in fact it had been a "police riot”... In 1971, Hoffman published 'Steal This Book', which advised readers on how to live basically for free. Many of his readers followed Hoffman's advice and stole the book, leading many bookstores to refuse to carry it. He was also the author of several other books, including Vote!, co-written with Rubin and Ed Sanders. Hoffman was arrested August 28, 1973, on drug charges for intent to sell and distribute cocaine. He always maintained that undercover police agents entrapped him into a drug deal and planted suitcases of cocaine in his office. In the spring of 1974, Hoffman skipped bail, underwent cosmetic surgery to alter his appearance, and hid from authorities, sometimes dressed as an Orthodox Jew, for several years... In 1998, Peter Coyote opined: "The FBI couldn't infiltrate us. We did everything anonymously, and we did everything for nothing, because we wanted our actions to be authentic. It's the mistake that Abbie Hoffman made. He came out, he studied with us, we taught him everything, and then he went back and wrote a book called Free, and he put his name on it! He set himself up to be a leader of the counterculture, and he was undone by that. Big mistake." Despite being "in hiding" during part of this period (Hoffman lived in Fineview, New York, near Thousand Island Park, a private resort on Wellesley Island on the St. Lawrence River under the name "Barry Freed"), he helped coordinate an environmental campaign to preserve the Saint Lawrence River (Save the River organization). During his time on the run, he was also the "travel" columnist for Crawdaddy! magazine. On September 4, 1980, he surrendered to authorities, and, on the same date, he appeared on a pre-taped edition of ABC-TV's 20/20 in an interview with Barbara Walters. Hoffman received a one-year sentence, but was released after four months. In November 1986, Hoffman was arrested along with 14 others, including Amy Carter, the daughter of former President Jimmy Carter, for trespassing at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The charges stemmed from a protest against the Central Intelligence Agency's recruitment on the UMass campus. Since the university's policy limited campus recruitment to law-abiding organizations, the defense argued that the CIA engaged in illegal activities. The federal district court judge permitted expert witnesses, including former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and a former CIA agent who testified that the CIA carried on an illegal Contra war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua in violation of the Boland Amendment. In three days of testimony, more than a dozen defense witnesses, including Daniel Ellsberg, and former Contra leader Edgar Chamorro, described the CIA's role in more than two decades of covert, illegal and often violent activities. In his closing argument, Hoffman, acting as his own attorney, placed his actions within the best tradition of American civil disobedience. He quoted from Thomas Paine, "the most outspoken and farsighted of the leaders of the American Revolution: 'Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and generations which preceded it. Man has no property in man, neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow.'" Hoffman concluded: "Thomas Paine was talking about this Spring day in this courtroom. A verdict of not guilty will say, 'When our country is right, keep it right; but when it is wrong, right those wrongs.'" On April 15, 1987, the jury found Hoffman and the other defendants not guilty. After his acquittal, Hoffman acted in a cameo appearance in Oliver Stone's later-released anti-Vietnam War movie, 'Born on the Fourth of July'. He essentially played himself in the movie, waving a flag on the ramparts of an administration building during a campus protest that was being teargassed and crushed by state troopers. In 1987 Hoffman summed up his views: "You are talking to a leftist. I believe in the redistribution of wealth and power in the world. I believe in universal hospital care for everyone. I believe that we should not have a single homeless person in the richest country in the world. And I believe that we should not have a CIA that goes around overwhelming governments and assassinating political leaders, working for tight oligarchies around the world to protect the tight oligarchy here at home." Later that same year, Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers wrote 'Steal This Urine Test' (published October 5, 1987), which exposed the internal contradictions of the War on Drugs and suggested ways to circumvent its most intrusive measures. He stated, for instance, that Federal Express, which received high praise from management guru Tom Peters for "empowering" workers, in fact subjected most employees to random drug tests, firing any who got a positive result, with no retest or appeal procedure, despite the fact that FedEx chose a drug lab (the lowest bidder) with a proven record of frequent false positive results. Stone's 'Born on the Fourth of July' was released on December 20, 1989, more than eight months after Hoffman's suicide on April 12, 1989. At the time of his death, Hoffman was at the height of a renewed public visibility ... He regularly lectured audiences about the CIA's covert activities, including assassinations disguised as suicides. His Playboy article (October, 1988) outlining the connections that constitute the "October Surprise", brought that alleged conspiracy to the attention of a wide-ranging American readership for the first time... His personal life drew a great deal of scrutiny from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. By their own admission, they kept a file on him that was 13,262 pages long. Hoffman was 52 at the time of his death on April 12, 1989, which was caused by swallowing 150 phenobarbital tablets and liquor. He had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1980.[40] At the time he had recently changed treatment medications and was reportedly depressed when his 83-year-old mother was diagnosed with cancer (she died in 1996 at the age of 90). Some close to Hoffman, including his longtime friend David Denton and fellow Chicago Seven co-defendant Tom Hayden, claimed that as a natural prankster who valued youth, he was also unhappy about reaching middle age, combined with the fact that the ideas of the 1960s had given way to a conservative backlash in the 1980s. In 1984 he had expressed dismay that the current generation of young people were not as interested in protesting and social activism as youth had been during the 1960s. Hoffman's body was found in his apartment in a converted turkey coop on Sugan Road in Solebury Township, near New Hope, Pennsylvania. At the time of his death, he was surrounded by about 200 pages of his own handwritten notes, many about his own moods. His death was officially ruled as suicide. As reported by The New York Times, "Among the more vocal doubters at the service today was Mr. Dellinger, who said, 'I don't believe for one moment the suicide thing.' He said he had been in fairly frequent touch with Mr. Hoffman, who had 'numerous plans for the future.'" Yet the same New York Times article reported that the coroner found the residue of about 150 pills and quoted the coroner in a telephone interview saying "There is no way to take that amount of phenobarbital without intent. It was intentional and self-inflicted." A week after Hoffman's death, 1,000 friends and relatives gathered for a memorial in Worcester, Massachusetts, at Temple Emanuel, the synagogue he attended as a child. Two of his colleagues from the Chicago Seven conspiracy trial were there: David Dellinger and Jerry Rubin, Hoffman's co-founder of the Yippies, by then a businessman... Bill Walton, the radical Celtic of basketball renown, told of a puckish Abbie, then underground evading a cocaine charge in the '70s, leaping from the shadows on a New York street to give him an impromptu basketball lesson after a loss to the Knicks. 'Abbie was not a fugitive from justice,' said Mr. Walton. 'Justice was a fugitive from him.' On a more traditional note, Rabbi Norman Mendell said in his eulogy that Mr. Hoffman's long history of protest, antic though much of it had been, was 'in the Jewish prophetic tradition, which is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.’ [Wikipedia] On May 13, 2018, at 7:55 AM, Mildred O'brien > wrote: > > > Abbie Hoffman may have been the brains behind resistance but I have no personal knowledge of his contribution; Dave Dellinger as a peace activist, socialist, and pacifist lived it and was the real deal, like Dorothy Day and A. J. Muste, and was often jailed for it. I don't know about his organizational skills, but he was a tireless speaker and demonstrator on behalf of peace issues, travelling all over the world to spread the message of peace and non-violence, which at least is organization by example. I think he was formally involved in representing several organizations, I don't know to what extent, but he probably was. I was impressed by his sincerity and commitment when he was a resident scholar at Allen Hall here some 30 years ago. He had a long and tireless life in activism and hardship when he apparently came from a family of means, and he had other alternatives but chose to be dedicated to peace. > > Midge > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Karen Aram > > To: John W. > > Cc: C G Estabrook >; Mildred O'brien >; Peace-discuss List > > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 5:05 pm > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > > Were Abbie Hoffman and Dave Dellinger serious organizers, or were they just the “superstars.” > > I was informed in the seventies, by some of the serious organizers that those two were the latter. > > On May 11, 2018, at 15:02, John W. > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > Carl > > Your statement: > > “What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community’s counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism.” > Makes sense and I believe this is what happened based upon what I have read, and what you have said stated many times. > > I have also heard others discuss how many people turned to “personal pursuits” as a result of Edward Bernais propaganda. The turn on, navel gazing crowd, populating the west coast began a movement, in the sixties that dulled the senses of many of those who “participated in political activism of the 60’s and 70’s”, not the serious organizers, who often were older and continued the struggle. > > In a word, Dave Dellinger vs. Abbie Hoffman. Ironically, Abbie became a serious environmental activist years later in upstate New York, before committing suicide at age 53. But he and Timothy Leary had turned a generation of college students into "yippies". > > > Just as today, its difficult with only small turn outs. > > Many of the groups such as the SWP regrouped under a new strategy, of taking individuals out of the cities, off of campuses, into more rural areas in order to organize unions, unfortunately many as a result, dropped out rather than uproot their lives. > > This is why I find it difficult to believe that the masses demonstrating against US interventions in Latin America were larger than that which took place during the Vietnam war. > > > > > > > On May 11, 2018, at 11:31, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 1:18 PM, Mildred O'brien > wrote: > > I suppose John W. (whoever he is) represents mainstream rural America, uninformed and unread, gullible patriots. > > You replied only to me, Mildred/Midge, so you may as well just address me directly, whoever I am. Anything else would be rude and boorish. But here, I'll add us back in to the peace-discuss discussion. > > I don't "represent" mainstream rural America, except insofar as I lived and worked in that environment for 20 long years, and know what their interests are and how they think. I was a fish out of water, but it was water that I was forced to swim in for all those years, and I really didn't know how to find fresher, purer water such as the kind that YOU plainly have been privileged to swim in. > > > > He no doubt represents more of the population than informed activists, > > Again, I'm absolutely certain that that benighted population is far, far higher than the population of "informed activists", who as often as not can't even agree among themselves as to priorities, tactics, and strategies, and end up breaking into splinter groups and driving away those who might have been allies. > > You see, I've now been an "informed activist" in THIS community for 20 long years, and I see how IT works too. I have what might be termed by Noam Chomsky a "basis for comparison". > > > but to say there was no opposition in those days is not accurate at least in this area. > > I at least didn't assert that in any way, shape, or form. > > > Midge > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John W. via Peace-discuss > > To: Karen Aram > > Cc: Brussel, Morton K >; Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > > Sent: Fri, May 11, 2018 1:09 pm > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Trump torpedoes Iran nuclear accord > > > On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > It’s good to know that more Americans were protesting the USG Central American wars in the late 70’s and 80’s than even those protesting the Vietnam war in the 60”s. I had no idea, until you made the statement, below. I have the excuse of being in Asia from Spring 1977 on through the next 22 to 28 years, with brief visits to the US at times. However, I’m wondering if most Americans even knew of the opposition at the time, due to limited media coverage? > > No, most Americans had no idea. Our "boys" weren't fighting and dying there, so most Americans outside of university communities had no particular awareness of what was going on in Central America, and no interest in finding out. There was very little mainstream media coverage. Living in a small blue-collar Illinois town back then, I never did figure out the difference between the Sandinistas and the Contras, just as an example. And didn't really care. Nor did I understand what the whole Ollie North scandal was all about. There was no internet in those days, remember, and I personally didn't even read a daily newspaper. > > I think academics and "progressives" and "revolutionaries" absolutely, dramatically overestimate the amount of support they have in middle America for their various causes. > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 15:32, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > > You’re both forgetting the organizing in this country against the US government's Central American wars of the 1970s and ‘80s - arguably involving more Americans than the Vietnam protests of the ‘60s. > > A decorated (indicted) hero of those wars, Oliver North, has just become head of the NRA. > > What happened after 1975 was the construction of a vicious counter-narrative, neo-conservatism, to join the business community's counter-attack on ’the Sixties,’ neoliberalism. > > Beginning in the Carter* administration, neolib and neocon lies dominated US politics. > > President Bush I celebrated the real success of the first Gulf War (1990-91): “...by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome [ = reluctance of Americans to engage in neo-colonial wars, after Vietnam] once and for all!” > ______________________________ > > * "At one point, President Jimmy Carter actually said that the U.S. owed no reparations to Vietnam because 'the destruction was mutual.’” > > > > > On May 9, 2018, at 5:02 PM, John W. via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > > Unfortunately, thats not what we did in the sixties. Once the Vietnam war was over, everyone went home, I left the country, many went to California to join communes, and navel gaze, while others got swept up into the eighties, where greed was good. So here we are on the brink of nuclear war, and climate catastrophe, pick your poison. > > Right you are, Karen. And more or less my point. Every several decades there's a new generation of young idealists who are going to "straighten out" the mess their parents made. And always, always, always with the same result. Or, if not EXACTLY the same result, close enough that "it rhymes", as Carl is fond of quoting. > > Virus-free. www.avg.com > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 14 15:37:56 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 15:37:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Well worth a listen to Crosstalk today Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/426612-trans-atlantic-alliance-trump/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon May 14 17:05:48 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 17:05:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Actress Margot Kidder, who starred as Lois Lane in 'Superman' movies, dead at 69 Message-ID: Margot’s career in Hollywood was destroyed because she publicly opposed Gulf War I by Bush Sr. At her own expense she came down to Fort Leonard Wood MO to take care of Captain Doctor Yolanda Huett-Vaughn’s children while we were defending her at the court-martial. After her Kangaroo court proceedings, conviction and sentence, Margot and I conducted a joint press conference in front of the assembled news media including at least one satellite dish in which I condemned the manner the Pentagon had treated Huett-Vaughn saying that she had been “ railroaded” and “could have gotten a fairer trial in the Soviet Union.” Thanks to Margot, that message went out nationwide. May God hold Margot in the Palm of His Hand. Professor Francis A. Boyle Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: FoxNews.com > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 11:54 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Actress Margot Kidder, who starred as Lois Lane in 'Superman' movies, dead at 69 · Breaking News Actress Margot Kidder, who starred as Lois Lane in 'Superman' movies, dead at 69 Actress Margot Kidder, who starred as Lois Lane opposite actor Christoper Reeve in the iconic "Superman" movies, is dead at 69. She passed away Sunday at her home in Livingston, Montana. More on this · For more news, please go to FoxNews.com and watch Fox News Channel. [http://media.newsletters.foxnews.com/fox_sandbox/Newer%20Newsletter/logo.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Mon May 14 21:25:06 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 21:25:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Google staff rebel as company embraces military links Message-ID: <2A575D45-CD69-428D-A4E3-938333DF6BF0@illinois.edu> https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/14/google-staff-rebel-as-company-embraces-military-links/ Google staff rebel as company embraces military links Bloomberg NewsMay 14, 2018 at 1:11 pm [MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - MAY 08: Google CEO Sundar Pichai delivers the keynote address at the Google I/O 2018 Conference at Shoreline Amphitheater on May 8, 2018 in Mountain View, California. Google's two day developer conference runs through Wednesday May 9. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)] Justin Sullivan/Getty Images Google CEO Sundar Pichai delivers the keynote address at the Google I/O 2018 Conference at Shoreline Amphitheater on May 8, 2018 in Mountain View, California. By Mark Bergen | Bloomberg News Last July, 13 U.S. military commanders and technology executives met at the Pentagon’s Silicon Valley outpost, two miles from Google headquarters. It was the second meeting of an advisory board set up in 2016 to counsel the military on ways to apply technology to the battlefield. Milo Medin, a Google vice president, turned the conversation to using artificial intelligence in war games. Eric Schmidt, Google’s former boss, proposed using that tactic to map out strategies for standoffs with China over the next 20 years. A few months later, the Defense Department hired Google’s cloud division to work on Project Maven, a sweeping effort to enhance its surveillance drones with technology that helps machines think and see. Start your day with the news you need from the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our new Morning Report weekday newsletter. The pact could generate millions in revenue for Alphabet Inc.’s internet giant. But inside a company whose employees largely reflect the liberal sensibilities of the San Francisco Bay Area, the contract is about as popular as President Donald Trump. Not since 2010, when Google retreated from China after clashing with state censors, has an issue so roiled the rank and file. Almost 4,000 Google employees, out of an Alphabet total of 85,000, signed a letter asking Google Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai to nix the Project Maven contract and halt all work in “the business of war.” The petition cites Google’s history of avoiding military work and its famous “do no evil” slogan. One of Alphabet’s AI research labs has even distanced itself from the project. Employees against the deal see it as an unacceptable link with a U.S. administration many oppose and an unnerving first step toward autonomous killing machines. About a dozen staff are resigning in protest over the company’s continued involvement in Maven, Gizmodo reported on Monday. The internal backlash, which coincides with a broader outcry over how Silicon Valley uses data and technology, has prompted Pichai to act. He and his lieutenants are drafting ethical principles to guide the deployment of Google’s powerful AI tech, according to people familiar with the plans. That will shape its future work. Google is one of several companies vying for a Pentagon cloud contract worth at least $10 billion. A Google spokesman declined to say whether that has changed in light of the internal strife over military work. Pichai’s challenge is to find a way of reconciling Google’s dovish roots with its future. Having spent more than a decade developing the industry’s most formidable arsenal of AI research and abilities, Google is keen to wed those advances to its fast-growing cloud-computing business. Rivals are rushing to cut deals with the government, which spends billions of dollars a year on all things cloud. No government entity spends more on such technology than the military. Medin and Alphabet director Schmidt, who both sit on the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Board, have pushed Google to work with the government on counter-terrorism, cybersecurity, telecommunications and more. To dominate the cloud business and fulfill Pichai’s dream of becoming an “AI-first company,” Google will find it hard to avoid the business of war. Inside the company there is no greater advocate of working with the government than Google Cloud chief Diane Greene. In a March interview, she defended the Pentagon partnership and said it’s wrong to characterize Project Maven as a turning point. “Google’s been working with the government for a long time,” she said. The Pentagon created Project Maven about a year ago to analyze mounds of surveillance data. Greene said her division won only a “tiny piece” of the contract, without providing specifics. She described Google’s role in benign terms: scanning drone footage for landmines, say, and then flagging them to military personnel. “Saving lives kind of things,” Greene said. The software isn’t used to identify targets or to make any attack decisions, Google says. Many employees deem her rationalizations unpersuasive. Even members of the AI team have voiced objections, saying they fear working with the Pentagon will damage relations with consumers and Google’s ability to recruit. At the company’s I/O developer conference last week, Greene told Bloomberg News the issue had absorbed much of her time over the last three months. Googlers’ discomfort with using AI in warfare is longstanding. AI chief Jeff Dean revealed at the I/O conference that he signed an open letter back in 2015 opposing the use of AI in autonomous weapons. Providing the military with Gmail, which has AI capabilities, is fine, but it gets more complex in other cases, Dean said. “Obviously there’s a continuum of decisions we want to make as a company,” he said. Last year, several executives-including Demis Hassabis and Mustafa Suleyman, who run Alphabet’s DeepMind AI lab, and famed AI researcher Geoffrey Hinton-signed a letter to the United Nations outlining their concerns. “Lethal autonomous weapons … [will] permit armed conflict to be fought at a scale greater than ever, and at timescales faster than humans can comprehend,” the letter reads. “We do not have long to act.” London-based DeepMind assured staff it’s not involved in Project Maven, according to a person familiar with the decision. A DeepMind spokeswoman declined to comment. Richard Moyes, director of Article 36, a non-profit focused on weapons, is cautious about pledges from companies that humans-not machines-will still make lethal decisions. “This could be a stepping stone to giving those machines greater capacity to make determination of what is or what’s not a target,” he said. Moyes, a partner of the DeepMind Ethics & Society group, hasn’t spoken to Google or DeepMind about the Pentagon project. AI military systems have already made mistakes. Nighat Dad, director of the Digital Rights Foundation, cites the case of two Al Jazeera reporters who filed legal complaints that they were erroneously placed on a drone “kill list” by the U.S. government’s Skynet surveillance system. Dad sent a letter in April to Pichai asking Google to end the Project Maven contract, but says she hasn’t received a reply. The primary concern for some AI experts is that the existing technology is still unreliable and could be commandeered by hackers to make battlefield decisions. “I wouldn’t trust any software to make mission-critical decisions,” says Gary Marcus, an AI researcher at New York University. Project Maven, Marcus says, falls into an ethical “gray area” since the public doesn’t know how the software will be used. “If Google wants to get in the business of doing classified things for the military, then the public has the right to be concerned about what kind of company Google is becoming,” he says. Google’s cloud division is not certified to work on classified projects. A Google spokesman declined to say if the company will purse that certification. For many years, Google typically exited the government contracts of companies it acquired. In 2011, the year Google bought it, facial recognition startup Pittsburgh Pattern Recognition billed the U.S. $679,910, according to Bloomberg Government data. The next year, Google’s revenue from the U.S. government amounted to less than that. (These figures exclude military spending on Google ads, which are classified numbers and likely equal many millions of dollars a year.) Robot maker Boston Dynamics generated more than $150 million in federal contracts over 13 years before being bought by Google in late 2013. The next year, the contracts ended. (Google agreed to sell Boston Dynamics in 2017). Since Greene was recruited to run its cloud unit in 2015, Google has become less squeamish about government work. Last year, federal agencies spent more than $6 billion on unclassified cloud contracts, according to Bloomberg Government. About a third of that came from the Defense Department. Right now Amazon.com, Microsoft and Oracle are big players. Amazon’s cloud business alone has generated $600 million in classified work with the Central Intelligence Agency since 2014, Bloomberg Government data show. Greene is determined to compete for such contracts. “We will work with governments because governments need a lot of digital technology,” she said in the March interview. “What’s new, and what we’re having a lot of discussion around, is artificial intelligence.” After initially wavering on the need for specific AI policies, the Trump Administration is now moving to embrace the technology-a shift driven largely by the looming competitive threat from China and Russia. On April 2, Project Maven received an additional $100 million in government funding. Military officials have cast the program as a key way to reduce time-consuming tasks and make warfare more efficient. “We can confirm Project Maven involves working with a number of different vendors, and DoD representatives regularly meet with various companies to discuss progress with ongoing projects,” said Defense Department spokeswoman Maj. Audricia Harris. “These internal deliberations are a private matter, therefore it would be inappropriate to provide further details.” ECS Federal, the contractor paying Google for the Project Maven work, didn’t respond to requests for comment. Defense Secretary James Mattis visited Google in August and met with Pichai, Greene and co-founder Sergey Brin. They discussed the company’s cloud and AI advances as well as other opportunities, such as finding new ways to share telecom spectrum owned by the military, another Google project. (Schmidt, who stepped down as Alphabet chairman in December, recently told Defense One that he’s excluded from decision-making about any Google work with the Pentagon. Notes from the July meeting of the Defense Innovation Board were made public online.) Mattis also visited Microsoft and Amazon during the trip. Some Google executives consider warmer ties with the government long overdue. Five years ago, relations were strained after Google vocally objected to revelations, uncovered by Edward Snowden, that the National Security Agency had tapped the company’s networks. A senior executive involved in recent talks says one objective was to avoid the kind of “pissing contest” between Google and the government that happened after Snowden’s revelations. But the divide inside the company will not be easily overcome. At several Google-wide meetings since March, Greene and other executives were peppered with questions about the merits of Project Maven. One says a recent justification for moving ahead amounted to: If we don’t do this, a less-scrupulous rival will. “The argument they’ve been using is terrible,” this person says. Another employee says the anti-Project Maven petition, reported earlier by The New York Times, is one of the largest in the history of the company, which is famous for encouraging internal debate. Gizmodo first reported Google staff concern about the company’s involvement. Pichai has addressed the issue with employees, but has yet to answer their demand to cancel the contract. Google’s CEO didn’t mention the military deal at the I/O conference. Several executives there said privately that they trusted Pichai to make the appropriate decision. The deal didn’t come up at the event’s marquee session on AI either. Fei-Fei Li, who runs AI for Google Cloud, made a passing mention of ethics. “We talk a lot about building benevolent technology,” she said. “Our technology reflects our values.” Greene, sitting next to her on stage, nodded in agreement. Bloomberg’s Daniel Flatley and Chris Cornillie contributed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Tue May 15 00:19:41 2018 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 19:19:41 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] peace-discuss list archives appear to be broken Message-ID: I tried reading the peace-discuss list archives for April 2018 at https://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/2018-April/thread.html and received a document containing only "Not Found". Were list archives for this mailing list purposefully set to do this? If so, perhaps a better response message could be set up to explain why this choice was made and what, if anything, one is expected to do to read those archives. From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue May 15 00:47:07 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 19:47:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Support for the 'higher antisemitism' Message-ID: <56F06A6A-3907-4A1F-9434-9C34CE2F568A@gmail.com> …however mistaken it may be: >. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 15 00:57:24 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 00:57:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] We've had russiagate, now we will have The China Threat Message-ID: [https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/v3/y4/r/-PAXP-deijE.gif] Play 0:00 / 3:48 Additional Visual Settings Enter Watch And ScrollClick to enlarge Mute [https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s280x280/20882731_900527973429092_5333796834683977393_n.png?_nc_cat=0&oh=e9206a7027f4c92a5266b72157db36f0&oe=5B4E960C] 87 episodes · 794K followers Tucker: The China Threat … Show · 794K followers Follow 1,328,212 Views Fox News Voices posted a new episode. May 10 at 6:00am · "China is rising. It's a disaster for the world, it's a catastrophe potentially for the United States. It's by far the single biggest threat we face no matter what they tell you." — Tucker Carlson Tonight -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue May 15 01:02:51 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 20:02:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Support for the 'higher antisemitism' In-Reply-To: <56F06A6A-3907-4A1F-9434-9C34CE2F568A@gmail.com> References: <56F06A6A-3907-4A1F-9434-9C34CE2F568A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <37853FB6-7A98-49DE-B34B-10BD83F32C55@illinois.edu> https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/14/who-is-the-vassal-israel-the-us-and-iran/ > On May 14, 2018, at 7:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > …however mistaken it may be: > > >. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 15 01:17:54 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 01:17:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Zionist Genocide in Gaza v.] Support for the 'higher antisemitism' Message-ID: Estabrook is truly pathetic! Today the Zionists murdered 58 Palestinians in Gaza and wounded about 2000. Instead of dealing with the ongoing Zionist Genocide against the Palestinians, Estabrook deliberately tries to distract and sidetrack our attention from this tragedy by trying to get into some meaningless debate about “higher anti-semitism.” Anti-semitism is the last refuge of this Scoundrel—and of all Scoundrels. Q.E.D. Fab. D in BDS. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 8:03 PM To: C G Estabrook Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Support for the 'higher antisemitism' https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/14/who-is-the-vassal-israel-the-us-and-iran/ On May 14, 2018, at 7:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: …however mistaken it may be: >. _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue May 15 01:36:06 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 20:36:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Support for the 'higher antisemitism' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh, come on, Francis. Your obloquy isn't making much sense. (I’m not an antisemite.) Talk about the real politics of the situation. Uri Avnery does: =========================================== "Who is the Vassal? Israel, the US and Iran” - by Uri Avnery “If you want to understand the policy of a nation, look at the map!” Napoleon is supposed to have said. It is good advice. If you are living in Israel, these days, you get the impression that the huge State of Israel is dictating to its American vassal what to do about Iran. [N.B. = “THE HIGHER ANTISEMITISM”] President Donald Trump listens and complies. Bibi the Great tells him to tear up the Iranian deal for no obvious reason, and he obeys. He has no choice, poor man. But then you look at the map, and to your great surprise you discover that the USA is a huge country, while Israel is a mere speck, so small that its name has to be written outside its borders, in the sea. So what is wrong? Geography, of course, is not the only factor. Israel has some millions of faithful adherents, who are American citizens and have a lot of money. But still. Can it be that we got the picture wrong? That Trump is not the vassal of Netanyahu, that it’s the other way round? That Trump dictates, and Bibi, for all his bluster, just obeys? It would not be the first time. In ancient times, the leaders of the Jewish commonwealth in Palestine tried very hard to please the imperator in Rome. Nero, for example, the man who enjoyed setting fire to his own city, and to the world, while playing the flute, or whatever. Donald Trump is the present-day Nero, the imperator of the New Rome. Trump’s main object in life is to get out of the Iran deal, “the worst deal ever”. Why? I have listened intently and have discerned no other reason than that the deal was forged by his hated predecessor, Barack Obama. What other reason was there for annulling the deal? I have heard none. The deal stopped Iran from proceeding with the building of a nuclear weapon. All experts, without exception (even in Israel) confirm that Iran has scrupulously adhered to its commitment. Indeed, the entire world outside the US (and Israel, of course) has now decided to go on with the deal. Germany, France and Britain, three not quite insignificant powers, believe that the deal has to be maintained. So do Russia and China, no tiny countries, either. Except Israel. Ah, Israel. Most people in Israel now believe that Binyamin Netanyahu, Bibi the Great, is really leading Trump on a leash. Bibi has such a magical hold over Trump, that the American president has to follow Israel’s lead. Bibi is obsessed with Iran. He wakes up in the morning with Iran and goes to sleep with Iran. Nobody seems to ask: Why, for God’s sake? Going back to Napoleon’s map: there seems to be no clash of interests between the countries of Iran and Israel. No common border. No territories of one that the other desires. Also, no natural resources of one that the other would like to get its hands on. Proof: not so long ago, well within my lifetime, Iran was Israel’s closest ally (except our American vassal, of course). Iran was governed by the Shah, with his beautiful uniform and his beautiful wife (please indulge me for once, dear feminists). Israel and Iran went to steal chickens together, as we say. The Iranians helped us to infiltrate agents into the Kurdish region of Iraq, in order to make trouble for the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. Later, we supported Iran in its war against Iraq, started by the same Hussein. In one of the greatest scandals of its time, the so-called Iran-Contra affair, Israel transferred American arms to Iran. (Iran paid for them, and the Americans used the money to illegally finance the “Contra'” war against the leftist government in Nicaragua. My friend Amiram Nir, a journalist turned government security advisor, personally delivered the arms to Tehran. (His US counterpart, Oliver North, has just been appointed to head the powerful American Rifle Association.) Enough amusing anecdotes. There is no basic antagonism, dictated by geography, between our two nations. So what is it? Well, there is ideology. The present rulers of Iran are extreme Shia Islamists. They want to become the overlords of the Arab Muslim world. The Arabs hate Israel, mainly because of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. So the Iranians pretend to be the great enemy of the “Little Satan” (their rather insulting appellation of Israel, to distinguish it from the Great Satan, the USA). Frankly, I think that the rulers of Iran don’t give a damn about Israel, except as an useful instrument. The hatred of Israel is a weapon in the battle with the Sunni Arab world, led by the hyper-active Saudi Crown Prince. (The conflict between Sunni and Shia goes back almost to the times of the Prophet, more than 15 centuries ago.) *** So why is Bibi obsessed with Iran, to such an extent that he commands his American vassal to drive towards World War III? Depends how cynical you are. If you are very cynical, you might well say that both Trump and Bibi are up to their respective necks in criminal investigations. With a bit of luck, both might end up in prison. What better way to divert the attention of their subjects than a little war? It is a precept that has been tried out since the beginning of the world, and it almost never fails. Who will worry about trifles like Trump’s porno stars or Bibi’s gifts from (American) billionaires, when the lives of our boys are at stake? The US is still far from war with Iran but we are not. Perhaps we are already in it, without believing it. These days – or should I say, these nights – our brave boys fly over Syria and bomb Iranian army installations there. Until this minute, the Iranians have not reacted, except for a feeble attempt that was quickly answered by a massive Israeli air strike. Why are Iranians there in the first place? It is a part of their objective to create an Iranian sphere of influence extending from Iran proper to the Mediterranean Sea. In Iraq, which has a large Shia population, they are already dominant. With the help of Russia, they are now almost dominant in Syria. In Lebanon their close allies, the Shia Hizbollah movement, controls a large part of the country and has just won the elections. *** The US does not like this at all. True, Trump has decided to withdraw from the Middle East (costs too much money), but he does not want the void to be filled by Vladimir Putin. Not at all. So he sends his boys back, and tells Israel to make the life of the Iranians in Syria hell. It is playing with fire (for us). Until now, the Iranians have limited their reaction to our nightly bombing of their forces to the utterance of dire threats and the ineffectual response this week. But for how much longer? Iran is a wise country. Whatever the bluster of the present regime, it does exercise a lot of restraint. It remembers that quite recently (just about 2500 years ago) it was a world power. It can wait. It does not satisfy Trump’s expectations. After all, how long does the USA exist? So we bomb. So they react with threats. So Trump is happy. *** And the Israeli public? One may wonder: is there such a thing? Some local commentators are already asking: have Israeli citizens turned into mere subjects? Israel is obviously on the path to war. The nightly bombing of Iranian forces is an insult to their national pride. In our region, national pride plays a large role. Our army has told the population in the north of the country to open the air-raid shelters and prepare them for use. Large anti-aircraft forces have been moved to the Syrian frontier. And the Israelis? They shrug their shoulders. They know that Bibi is a showman of genius. Just now he has held the country and the world in thrall with a superb TV demonstration, in which he revealed a wealth of information about Iran’s nuclear activities. The brave boys and girls of the Mossad stole this trove in Teheran and brought it to Israel, risking their lives. Wonderful. Except that it turned out that this trove consists of obsolete documents from before the deal, which show what everybody already knew: that Iran wanted to emulate Israel and produce its own nuclear bomb. It was to prevent this that the nuclear deal was initiated in the first place. But what showmanship! What a stage set! What wonderful (American) English! What perfect coordination with Trump’s decision to scuttle the deal!Can it be that the entire showwas ordered by Trump? Some Israeli commentators pointed all this out. But there is no real opposition to Bibi in the Knesset, the popular press or on TV. The vast majority of the people in Israel – and everywhere else – stand at attention when the word “security” is mentioned. OK, Bibi may be a tiny bit corrupt, he may have taken some bribes here and there, but he is our commander-in-chief! He is sending our boys into battle! So hail to the Chief! Hail Bibi! [URI AVNERY is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch’s book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.] ========================= > On May 14, 2018, at 8:17 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Estabrook is truly pathetic! Today the Zionists murdered 58 Palestinians in Gaza and wounded about 2000. Instead of dealing with the ongoing Zionist Genocide against the Palestinians, Estabrook deliberately tries to distract and sidetrack our attention from this tragedy by trying to get into some meaningless debate about “higher anti-semitism.” Anti-semitism is the last refuge of this Scoundrel—and of all Scoundrels. Q.E.D. > Fab. > D in BDS. > > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 8:03 PM > To: C G Estabrook > Cc: peace ; Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Support for the 'higher antisemitism' > > https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/14/who-is-the-vassal-israel-the-us-and-iran/ > > > > On May 14, 2018, at 7:47 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > …however mistaken it may be: > > . > > From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 15 01:38:26 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 01:38:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Gaza Genocide: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 6:16 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" [https://s.ytimg.com/yt/img/email/digest/email_header.png] [https://yt3.ggpht.com/-w4phvYGWivc/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/_Vq2X19VNEk/s50-c-k-no-mo-rj-c0xffffff/photo.jpg] Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4G6uo7hLAq4/mqdefault.jpg] Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians by UPTV6 University of Illinois College of Law professor Francis Boyle speaks to the grave injustice that is the treatment of the Palestinian people both within the West Bank and Gaza, as well as within Israel proper. His areas of expertise include Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Jurisprudence, and ... Help center • Report spam ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue May 15 02:02:13 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 21:02:13 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Gaza Genocide: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0E49E89F-BB35-4CA0-9708-A781274954E8@illinois.edu> Francis — Did you see the flyer distributed at the last regular AWARE demonstration (May 9)? ===================================================== Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn’t let it happen. Fifteen years ago the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people - on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous “weapons of mass destruction.” During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: “Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we’re in. I would never have handled it that way ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who’ve been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!” A principal instigator of that shameful US war against Iraq was the government of Israel, who wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the US to attack and kill Iranians. But the US is part of a deal with Iran and six other countries that guarantees that Iran will not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The US has thousands; Israel has at least two hundred.) The ‘Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,’ known as the Iran nuclear deal, is an international agreement reached in Vienna in 2015 between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, Britain and the US), plus Germany and the European Union. President Trump has announced he will violate the agreement and ‘withdraw’ from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the US to attack Iran, for their benefit. (Aaron Maté writes, “Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power [like ‘Russiagate’]?”) In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike US troops) -- including a bombing last week that registered as a 2.6 earthquake on seismographs. An Israeli government advisor has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not let the Trump administration be manipulated into war. The president and our Congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran - among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war - even a nuclear war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the US attacked Iraq. As Americans we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the US and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages - strikes - and street demonstrations across the US. In the meantime, write the president and your Congressional representatives. Demand that the US abide by international law and agreements. ### > On May 14, 2018, at 8:38 PM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From: Francis Boyle via YouTube [mailto:noreply at youtube.com] > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 6:16 PM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Francis Boyle sent you a video: "Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians" > > Francis Boyle has shared a video with you on YouTube > > Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Stopping Zionist Genocide Against the Palestinians > > by UPTV6 > University of Illinois College of Law professor Francis Boyle speaks to the grave injustice that is the treatment of the Palestinian people both within the West Bank and Gaza, as well as within Israel proper. His areas of expertise include Constitutional Law, Human Rights, Jurisprudence, and ... > Help center • Report spam > ©2018 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066, USA > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From rwhelbig at gmail.com Tue May 15 05:15:03 2018 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 22:15:03 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Actress Margot Kidder, who starred as Lois Lane in 'Superman' movies, dead at 69 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: so who did you get to spin lies at this court proceeding - Reserve Officers do not get to pick and choose their wars. I see she got clemency and still is practicing medicine. Roger Just wondering since you got Rokke for the trial of Berrigan for damaging A-10s at Maryland ANG - he spins tall tales and should have gotten hit with perjury charge and conviction. On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > > *Margot’s career in Hollywood was destroyed because she publicly opposed > Gulf War I by Bush Sr. At her own expense she came down to Fort Leonard > Wood MO to take care of Captain Doctor Yolanda Huett-Vaughn’s children > while we were defending her at the court-martial. After her Kangaroo court > proceedings, conviction and sentence, Margot and I conducted a joint > press conference in front of the assembled news media including at least > one satellite dish in which I condemned the manner the Pentagon had treated > Huett-Vaughn saying that she had been “ railroaded” and “could have gotten > a fairer trial in the Soviet Union.” Thanks to Margot, that message went > out nationwide.* > > > > *May God hold Margot in the Palm of His Hand.* > > > > *Professor Francis A. Boyle* > > > > *Francis A. Boyle* > > *Law Building* > > *504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.* > > *Champaign, IL 61820 USA* > > *217-333-7954 (phone)* > > *217-244-1478 (fax)* > > *(personal comments only)* > > > > *From:* FoxNews.com > *Sent:* Monday, May 14, 2018 11:54 AM > *To:* Boyle, Francis A > *Subject:* Actress Margot Kidder, who starred as Lois Lane in 'Superman' > movies, dead at 69 > > > > · *Breaking News* > Actress Margot Kidder, who starred as Lois Lane in 'Superman' movies, dead > at 69 > > > Actress Margot Kidder, who starred as Lois Lane opposite actor Christoper > Reeve in the iconic "Superman" movies, is dead at 69. She passed away > Sunday at her home in Livingston, Montana. > > *More on this* > > > · For more news, please go to *FoxNews.com* > > and watch Fox News Channel. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 15 11:13:32 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 11:13:32 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Actress Margot Kidder, who starred as Lois Lane in 'Superman' movies, dead at 69 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Captain Doctor Yolanda Huett-Vaughn was adopted a Prisoner of Conscience by Amnesty International. We got her out of Leavenworth after 8 months. How we did it is explained in my book Destroying World Order (Clarity Press: 2004). Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Roger Helbig [mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 12:15 AM To: Boyle, Francis A ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] FW: Actress Margot Kidder, who starred as Lois Lane in 'Superman' movies, dead at 69 so who did you get to spin lies at this court proceeding - Reserve Officers do not get to pick and choose their wars. I see she got clemency and still is practicing medicine. Roger Just wondering since you got Rokke for the trial of Berrigan for damaging A-10s at Maryland ANG - he spins tall tales and should have gotten hit with perjury charge and conviction. On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: Margot’s career in Hollywood was destroyed because she publicly opposed Gulf War I by Bush Sr. At her own expense she came down to Fort Leonard Wood MO to take care of Captain Doctor Yolanda Huett-Vaughn’s children while we were defending her at the court-martial. After her Kangaroo court proceedings, conviction and sentence, Margot and I conducted a joint press conference in front of the assembled news media including at least one satellite dish in which I condemned the manner the Pentagon had treated Huett-Vaughn saying that she had been “ railroaded” and “could have gotten a fairer trial in the Soviet Union.” Thanks to Margot, that message went out nationwide. May God hold Margot in the Palm of His Hand. Professor Francis A. Boyle Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: FoxNews.com > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 11:54 AM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Actress Margot Kidder, who starred as Lois Lane in 'Superman' movies, dead at 69 • Breaking News Actress Margot Kidder, who starred as Lois Lane in 'Superman' movies, dead at 69 Actress Margot Kidder, who starred as Lois Lane opposite actor Christoper Reeve in the iconic "Superman" movies, is dead at 69. She passed away Sunday at her home in Livingston, Montana. More on this • For more news, please go to FoxNews.com and watch Fox News Channel. [http://media.newsletters.foxnews.com/fox_sandbox/Newer%20Newsletter/logo.png] _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 15 13:19:20 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 13:19:20 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Important interview by Ben Norton, with Ali Abunimah in relation to Israel, celebrities and BDS Message-ID: https://therealnews.com/stories/israels-massacres-of-gaza-protesters-forces-liberal-zionists-to-face-oppressive-reality -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 15 14:21:45 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 14:21:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: Debut Novel - Now Available on Amazon for Pre-Order/Sale. References: Message-ID: Dear friends, A recently published mystery novel, by someone I know, is now available for pre-order on Amazon. 50% off until the launch date - 5/29/18. Thank you for your support, https://www.facebook.com/FirmResolveLiciaFlynn/ Firm Resolve - Home | Facebook www.facebook.com Firm Resolve. 2 likes. FIRM RESOLVE - mystery novel about a Silicon Valley pharmaceutical startup relocating to Shanghai and the disappearance of an... [cid:98ED6700-F55A-4763-B6DA-C44BC46764DF] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Slide1.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 58611 bytes Desc: Slide1.JPG URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Tue May 15 16:48:01 2018 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 16:48:01 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Israel at 70: Bibi's Troubled Hour of Power References: <1296407345.1532736.1526402881858.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1296407345.1532736.1526402881858@mail.yahoo.com> Tuesday, May 15, 2018  For Bibi Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister save only founding father David Ben-Gurion, it has been a week of triumph. Last Tuesday, President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal as Bibi had demanded. Thursday, after Iran launched 20 missiles at the Golan Heights, Bibi answered with a 70-missile attack on Iran in Syria. "If it rains on us, it will storm on them. I hope we have finished the episode," Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said, boasting that Israel's raids hit "nearly all Iranian infrastructure in Syria." The day before, Bibi was in Moscow, persuading Vladimir Putin to cancel the sale of Russia's S-300 air defense system to Damascus. Yesterday, in an event televised worldwide, the U.S. embassy was transferred to Jerusalem, with Trump's daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner doing the honors in what Bibi called a "glorious day." Few can recall a time when Israel seemed in so favorable a position. The White House and the Republican Party that controls Congress are solidly behind Israel. Egypt is cooperating to battle terrorists in Sinai. Israel has a de facto alliance with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf royals. And the Palestinians have never been more divided, isolated and alone. Yet, there is another side to this story, also visible this last week. As the transfer ceremony of the Jerusalem embassy was taking place, TV split screens showed pictures of protesting Palestinians, 52 of whom were shot dead Monday, with thousands wounded by snipers. Some 40,000 had rallied against the U.S. embassy move. Even before Monday's body count, the Gaza Health Ministry said that, over the previous six Fridays of "March of Return" protests, 49 Palestinians had been killed and 2,240 hit by live fire from Israeli troops. Those dead and wounded Palestinians are not likely to be forgotten in Gaza. And while Israel has never had so many Arab regimes willing to work with her in pushing back against Iran, Arab League Chief Ahmed Aboul Gheit called the U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem, a "clear violation of international law." Gheit added: "The fall of Palestinian martyrs by the bullets of the Israeli occupation must ring an alarm ... bell to any state that does not find anything wrong with the immoral and illegal stance that we are watching." Last week, Hezbollah, which arose in resistance to the 1982 Israeli occupation of Lebanon, and expelled the Israeli army 18 years later, won Lebanon's elections. A Hezbollah-backed coalition will likely form the new government in Beirut. Michael Oren, Israel's former ambassador to the U.S. and Bibi ally, said that any attack by Hezbollah, which fought Israel to a standstill in 2006, should bring an Israeli declaration of war -- on Lebanon. While Israel launched some 100 strikes on Syria in recent years, Syrian President Bashar Assad has survived and, with the aid of Hezbollah, Iran and Russia, won his civil war. Assad and his army and allies are far stronger now, while President Trump, Israel's indispensable ally, speaks of bringing U.S. troops home from Syria. In polls, a majority of Americans lines up behind Israel in its clashes, but a majority also wants no more U.S. wars in the Middle East. Also, Sunday, the U.S. sustained another major political defeat. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi lost his re-election bid. Based on early results, the winning coalition was that of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, against whose forces U.S. troops fought a decade ago. Running second was a ticket led by a Shiite militia general close to Iran. When a new government is formed in Baghdad, the orientation of Iraq seems certain to shift away from the United States. While the Israelis are the most powerful nation in the region, how long can they keep 2 million Palestinian Arabs confined in the penal colony that is the Gaza Strip? How long can they keep the 2 million Palestinians of the West Bank living in conditions even Israeli leaders have begun to compare to apartheid? Across the West, especially in universities, a BDS movement to have students, companies and consumers boycott, divest and sanction Israeli-produced products has been gaining ground. The Palestinians may have been abandoned by Arab rulers and the wider world. Yet, history teaches that people forced to survive in such conditions eventually rise in rebellion and revolution, take revenge, and exact retribution for what was done to them and their own. Republican leaders often say that we cannot permit "any daylight" between the U.S. position and that of Israel. But can the country that decried for decades the panicked reaction of an Ohio National Guard that shot and killed four students at Kent State University sit silent as scores of unarmed protesters are shot to death and thousands are wounded by Israeli troops in Gaza? Bibi and Israel appear to be on a winning streak. It is difficult to see how, over the long run, it can be sustained. A Commentary By Patrick J. Buchanan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 15 17:09:29 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 17:09:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Israel at 70: Symbol of war, racism, reaction. From the PSL Message-ID: From the PSL Party for Socialist Liberation, I think they get it right. Israel at 70: Symbol of war, racism, reaction By Joyce Chediac The settler state of Israel turns 70 on May 14. In imperialist capitals, especially Israel and the U.S., this state built on the bones of the Palestinian people will be praised and celebrated. The U.S. will open its embassy in Jerusalem the same day. It is a state built on lies. The people of the world have a different assessment of Israel at 70. It is a pariah state and international outlaw; a dog of war armed and unleashed by the Pentagon; a symbol of war, of racism and apartheid, and of reaction. It is a danger to all people of the region, including Israelis. The continued struggle of the Palestinian people is most responsible for shattering the colonizer’s illusions. A dog of war unleashed by the U.S. More than anything, Israel is an agent of war, since its formation. Just a day after the Trump administration exited the Nuclear Accord with Iran, in a coordinated move, Israel violated the sovereign borders of Syria and bombed what it called “Iranian positions” there. The provocative nature of these attacks, and bombings days later, were to draw Syria and its allies into an escalating conflict. Israel’s internal name for its strikes—“Chess.” Israel has attacked all bordering countries, some, like Lebanon, repeatedly and for decades. It occupied or annexed all of historic Palestine and territory from Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Jordan. This not because it had to do so to survive. It is because imperialism backed the formation of Israel on stolen Palestinian land, not as a homeland for Jewish people but as an agent of war against Arab independence. The Holocaust survivors who populated it were meant to fight and die for imperialism. To this end, the U.S. has given this country of 8.5 million people $254 billions (2016 dollars) since its formation. Most of this is in sophisticated offensive weapons and spy equipment. Israel has been constantly at war with its neighbors for the benefit of U.S. imperialism. War ‘games’ with US prepare for more aggression More aggression appears to be in the works. In mid-March, the U.S. and Israel participated in joint training war games called “Juniper Cobra.” Thousands of U.S. and Israeli soldiers prepared for the simultaneous launch of thousands of rockets against Israel from Lebanon, Syria, Iran and even Gaza. U.S. Army’s European Command said that if there is a need for them U.S. soldiers would arrive in Israel within two or three days.” In September, Israel simulated an invasion of Lebanon targeting Hezbollah. This was Israel’s largest military drill in 20 years, involving all branches of the Israeli military. The secret war on Syria For six years, Israel has waged a secret war on Syria. In August, Israeli Air Force Commander Maj. General Amir Eshel said Israel had launched nearly 100 strikes in Syria since 2012. Many of these gave air cover for Al Nusra, an al Qaeda affiliate fighting to dismember Syria. Israel also gives them medical support. The Israeli military acknowledges giving medical treatment to 1,000 al Nusra fighters since 2011. An apartheid state Israel has issued murderous assaults twice on Gaza and blockaded it for 11 years. It it steadily annexing the West Bank, and regularly arrests and jails activists for indeterminate periods. Israel has declared Israel itself to be an exclusively Jewish state, when 20 percent of Israeli citizens are Palestinian. It prevents Palestinian refugees from returning to their lands and homes simply because they are not Jewish. Members of the African National Congress have described what they saw in occupied Palestine as worse than South African apartheid. Racism is not only directed against Palestinians. The Israeli government is taking steps to expel to Africa, tens of thousands of migrants, most of them from Eritrea and Sudan. Known as Israel’s “Dreamers,” many are children who have known no other home and grew up speaking Hebrew. No democracy, no Jewish ‘homeland’ Israel claims to be a democracy and a Jewish homeland. This “democracy” published in January a list of 20 human rights organizations whose members would be banned from the country. This included Jewish groups like Jewish Voice for Peace that support some form of Palestinian rights. A state that claims to be a refuge from anti-Semitism has twisted the definition of the term to include those who oppose the policies of the Netanyahu regime, many of them war crimes. It has launched an international campaign to get other governments to accept this patently false definition and make it legally binding. This is aimed at the movement to Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel, which calls for an end to the occupation of Palestine, equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and the right of return for all Palestinian refugees to their homes. In the U.S., both Democratic and Republican legislatures have happily complied. Such a bill is currently pending before the U.S. Congress, and 23 states have pass laws outlawing BDS as “anti-Semitic.” There are other indications of the cynicism and opportunism of the Israeli government. Of all the segments within the U.S. elite, the Netanyahu regime is most closely aligned with the religious ultra-right and the neo-cons, known for their virulent racism and anti-Semitism, Class character of Israeli state exposed It is also aligned with the most reactionary, repressive and anti-democratic forces in the Arab world—the Saudi Arabian regime and the Gulf states. Steadfastness and struggle become objective factors After the expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians in 1948, Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, said, “The old will die and the young will forget.” This was an illusion. Seventy years after the indigenous population was driven from Palestinian and Israel proclaimed in its place, the Palestinian struggle for human and national rights has been passed down for three generations. It is viable, vibrant and growing. The justice of the Palestinian cause is clearer than ever on the international arena. The steadfastness of the Palestinian people, seen now in the “Great March of Return” on the Gaza border, inspires the whole world. The Syrian people, too, after seven years of war, remain determined to defend their country and way of life. After the U.S. bombed Syria on April 13, hundreds of thousands took to the streets in defiance. The U.S. and Israel may be planning more attacks, but that does not mean they will have the final say. The determination and resilience of the oppressed make their struggle an objective force. And it will not be defeated by missiles, snipers or bombs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue May 15 19:22:02 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 14:22:02 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] AWARE on the Air - May 15, 2018 Message-ID: <8985C735-89F2-4A7D-9EA4-23C62B607C21@illinois.edu> Good evening and welcome to ‘AWARE on the Air,’ presented by members and friends of AWARE, the ‘anti-war anti-racism effort’ of Champaign-Urbana. I’m Carl Estabrook. We are recording this at noon on Tuesday, May 15, in the studios of Urbana Public Television. Our subject is the wars the US government is waging around the world, and the racism we display to those we’re killing, in accord with the Latin proverb, ‘Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem laeseris” - “It’s human nature to hate those you have injured.” At this moment the US is making war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, & Yemen - principally to control the flow of oil out of the Mideast and North Africa, which the US uses as a weapon against its economic rivals from Germany to China. Thousands of U.S. troops are killing people in these countries, although most Americans are barely aware of it. ~ More than a quarter of a million US troops are stationed in a thousand US bases on foreign soil, most of them ringing Russia and China. ~ The 70,000-members of the U.S. ‘Special Operations Command’ are active in three-quarters of the countries of the world. Their activities include kidnapping (‘rendition’), torture, and murder. As the rest of the world recognizes - but Americans don’t - they are nothing less than American death squads. The rest of the world recognizes that the US today is what ML King called it long ago, the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” - an international criminal surpassing all others. But most Americans don’t know that, protected as they are by government and media propaganda. What we do here at AWARE ON THE AIR is try to encourage our fellow-citizens to oppose US government killing around the world. =================== The crime of the week has been committed by American client Israel - attacking & killing unarmed protesters, including children & journalists. [WikiLeaks] Israeli snipers shot 1,359 Gaza border protesters yesterday killing 60 so far. While media reports the trigger to be the US embassy move, the context is the blockade of Gaza & and a criminal corruption probe into Israeli PM Netanyahu which threatens to bring down his government. [CNN] The decision to open a US Embassy in Jerusalem has been met with deadly clashes [SIC] along the Israeli-Gaza border. At least 58 Palestinians were killed in protests and confrontations on Monday as the new embassy was officially opened. Global leaders condemned Israeli forces for using lethal force against protesters, but there could be even more bloodshed to come. Today, Palestinians are observing what they call "Nakba," or Catastrophe, in memory of the more than 700,000 Palestinians who [WERE ETHNICALLY CLEANSED FOR] the state of Israel. The 1948 Palestinian exodus, also known as the Nakba (Arabic: al-Nakbah, literally "disaster", "catastrophe", or "cataclysm"), occurred when more than 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1948 Palestine war. Between 400 and 600 Palestinian villages were sacked during the war, while urban Palestine was almost entirely extinguished. The term "nakba" also refers to the period of war itself and events affecting Palestinians from December 1947 to January 1949. The precise number of refugees, many of whom settled in refugee camps in neighboring states, is a matter of dispute[4] but around 80 percent of the Arab inhabitants of what became Israel (half of the Arab total of Mandatory Palestine) left or were expelled from their homes.[5][6] About 250,000-300,000 Palestinians had fled or been expelled before the Israeli Declaration of Independence in May 1948, a fact which was named as a casus belli for the entry of the Arab League into the country, sparking the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. ======== [HAARETZ] “Jerusalem celebrates, Tel Aviv parties and Gaza bleeds - a surreal 24 hours” “Tens of Thousands Attend Funerals for 60 Gazans Killed [BY IDF] in Border Protests” “In this photo combination, Palestinians protest near the Israel-Gaza border and U.S. and Israeli dignitaries applaud at the opening ceremony of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem , May 14, 2018.” “Messianic U.S.-Israel Axis Showcased at Jerusalem Embassy Ceremony Is Gut-punch for Most American Jews.” ============ [MONDOWEISS] Yesterday was a horrifying and tragic day in Palestine. The Israeli military opened fire on Gaza protesters as the U.S. and Israeli governments celebrated the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem in what was the deadliest day in Gaza since the end of Operation Protective Edge in 2014. Here is our coverage from a day that will not be soon forgotten: ~ ‘America crossed every red line’: Palestinians in Jerusalem protest new US embassy Israel kills 58 Palestinian protesters during deadliest day in Gaza in four years ~ ‘If Not Now’ blocks traffic outside Trump DC hotel to protest embassy move Israeli government minister justifies Gaza massacre by calling Palestinians ‘Nazis’ ~ ‘Gaza, Gaza’ is chant from Palestinians demonstrating near new US embassy ============= [AJAMU BARAKA] Yesterday was a horrifying and tragic day in Palestine. The Israeli military opened fire on Gaza protesters as the U.S. and Israeli governments celebrated the move of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem in what was the deadliest day in Gaza since the end of Operation Protective Edge in 2014. ‘If Not Now’ blocks traffic outside Trump DC hotel to protest embassy move Israeli government minister justifies Gaza massacre by calling Palestinians ‘Nazis’ The democrats were ready to support Trump's war on Syria to "punish" Assad after it was reported that the army had gassed civilians. But the Israelis kill over 50 human beings on one day and close to a hundred over last few weeks and silence from both parties. Yesterday was turning point for the criminal regime in Israel. The nature of that state was revealed even to the super-propagandized US public. Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) Condemns Slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza: Calls on members of the Congressional Black Caucus and leadership of Poor Peoples Campaign to publicly condemn Israeli violence. Obama gave impunity for crimes against humanity committed by Bush officials like Gina Haspel, while his DOJ prosecuted Snowden, the Freddie Gray resisters in Baltimore &Julian Assange, that set stage for Trump to be in position to get his hands on Assange. Most people don't realize that 1968 was a pivotal year for counterrevolution in the U.S. and Western Europe. The capitalist class was under assault and had real concerns about its survival when it decided to launch a murderous counter against popular forces world-wide. Dems not standing up for anything except impeach Trump. That's what they're running on. EVEN Sanders can't help himself from emphasizing the bogus "Hamas violence" theme... Bernie Sanders: "Over 50 killed in Gaza today and 2,000 wounded, on top of the 41 killed and more than 9,000 wounded over the past weeks. This is a staggering toll. Hamas violence does not justify Israel firing on unarmed protesters." =========== [Gary Brecher] A huge massacre. Death toll now given as 58, with 2700 wounded. And "wounded" is a very light term for this. There'll be many disabled for life, which in a blockaded resettlement zone like Gaza means families exhausting themselves for decades trying to find medical care, supplies, and accessible transport. The dead are a different sort of burden to the community. In cold terms Hamas wins (at terrible cost) and Israel loses today, but insurgents, it's worth remembering, are human and come from families. Families want justice. Thus the First Intifada, rocks against tanks, is followed by the second, more lethal one. Israel probably wants Hamas to jump to that stage, which it knows how to exploit in its time-honored fashion. But that's a short-term solution at best. Does Israel have any long-term one? I can't see it. The long slide to pariah status, the retreat to raw ethno-religious chauvinism, and the bottom line: "We've got the US backing us, and nukes." Which means another round--another dozen, maybe hundred more rounds--of this, followed by the transformation, distraction, or extinction of the foreign backer, at which point it will become clear that the nukes are not really such effective deterrents. Can't see any other end to this. As Mark Ames and I said on the RWN we recorded yesterday, there COULD have been a relatively happy ending once--something better than this slow metal-fatigue attrition--but that doesn't mean there's one now. Enoch Allred Promo heard on NPR yesterday: "the US opened its embassy in Jerusalem today. It was met with cheers from Israelis, but some Palestinians were not so happy". The liberal media. And one thing you can count on in American stories on this: the passive voice will have a big, big day. Instead of the classic who-did-what-to-whom sentence from Journalism 101, you'll see a thousand variations on something-happened-to-some people. WaPO hedline: "Under banner of peace, U.S. opens embassy in Jerusalem. Sixty miles away, dozens of Palestinians are killed." Must have been a really bad traffice accident or tornado outbreak i guess... ================================ {“Who is the Vassal? Israel, the US and Iran” by URI AVNERY, an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch’s book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.} “If you want to understand the policy of a nation, look at the map!” Napoleon is supposed to have said. It is good advice. If you are living in Israel, these days, you get the impression that the huge State of Israel is dictating to its American vassal what to do about Iran. [HIGHER ANTI-SEMITISM] President Donald Trump listens and complies. Bibi the Great tells him to tear up the Iranian deal for no obvious reason, and he obeys. He has no choice, poor man. But then you look at the map, and to your great surprise you discover that the USA is a huge country, while Israel is a mere speck, so small that its name has to be written outside its borders, in the sea. So what is wrong? Geography, of course, is not the only factor. Israel has some millions of faithful adherents, who are American citizens and have a lot of money. But still. Can it be that we got the picture wrong? That Trump is not the vassal of Netanyahu, that it’s the other way round? That Trump dictates, and Bibi, for all his bluster, just obeys? It would not be the first time. In ancient times, the leaders of the Jewish commonwealth in Palestine tried very hard to please the imperator in Rome. Nero, for example, the man who enjoyed setting fire to his own city, and to the world, while playing the flute, or whatever. Donald Trump is the present-day Nero, the imperator of the New Rome. Trump’s main object in life is to get out of the Iran deal, “the worst deal ever”. Why? I have listened intently and have discerned no other reason than that the deal was forged by his hated predecessor, Barack Obama. What other reason was there for annulling the deal? I have heard none. The deal stopped Iran from proceeding with the building of a nuclear weapon. All experts, without exception (even in Israel) confirm that Iran has scrupulously adhered to its commitment. Indeed, the entire world outside the US (and Israel, of course) has now decided to go on with the deal. Germany, France and Britain, three not quite insignificant powers, believe that the deal has to be maintained. So do Russia and China, no tiny countries, either. Except Israel. Ah, Israel. Most people in Israel now believe that Binyamin Netanyahu, Bibi the Great, is really leading Trump on a leash. Bibi has such a magical hold over Trump, that the American president has to follow Israel’s lead. Bibi is obsessed with Iran. He wakes up in the morning with Iran and goes to sleep with Iran. Nobody seems to ask: Why, for God’s sake? Going back to Napoleon’s map: there seems to be no clash of interests between the countries of Iran and Israel. No common border. No territories of one that the other desires. Also, no natural resources of one that the other would like to get its hands on. Proof: not so long ago, well within my lifetime, Iran was Israel’s closest ally (except our American vassal, of course). Iran was governed by the Shah, with his beautiful uniform and his beautiful wife (please indulge me for once, dear feminists). Israel and Iran went to steal chickens together, as we say. The Iranians helped us to infiltrate agents into the Kurdish region of Iraq, in order to make trouble for the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein. Later, we supported Iran in its war against Iraq, started by the same Hussein. In one of the greatest scandals of its time, the so-called Iran-Contra affair, Israel transferred American arms to Iran. (Iran paid for them, and the Americans used the money to illegally finance the “Contra'” war against the leftist government in Nicaragua. My friend Amiram Nir, a journalist turned government security advisor, personally delivered the arms to Tehran. (His US counterpart, Oliver North, has just been appointed to head the powerful American Rifle Association.) Enough amusing anecdotes. There is no basic antagonism, dictated by geography, between our two nations. So what is it? Well, there is ideology. The present rulers of Iran are extreme Shia Islamists. They want to become the overlords of the Arab Muslim world. The Arabs hate Israel, mainly because of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. So the Iranians pretend to be the great enemy of the “Little Satan” (their rather insulting appellation of Israel, to distinguish it from the Great Satan, the USA). Frankly, I think that the rulers of Iran don’t give a damn about Israel, except as an useful instrument. The hatred of Israel is a weapon in the battle with the Sunni Arab world, led by the hyper-active Saudi Crown Prince. (The conflict between Sunni and Shia goes back almost to the times of the Prophet, more than 15 centuries ago.) *** So why is Bibi obsessed with Iran, to such an extent that he commands his American vassal to drive towards World War III? Depends how cynical you are. If you are very cynical, you might well say that both Trump and Bibi are up to their respective necks in criminal investigations. With a bit of luck, both might end up in prison. What better way to divert the attention of their subjects than a little war? It is a precept that has been tried out since the beginning of the world, and it almost never fails. Who will worry about trifles like Trump’s porno stars or Bibi’s gifts from (American) billionaires, when the lives of our boys are at stake? The US is still far from war with Iran but we are not. Perhaps we are already in it, without believing it. These days – or should I say, these nights – our brave boys fly over Syria and bomb Iranian army installations there. Until this minute, the Iranians have not reacted, except for a feeble attempt that was quickly answered by a massive Israeli air strike. Why are Iranians there in the first place? It is a part of their objective to create an Iranian sphere of influence extending from Iran proper to the Mediterranean Sea. In Iraq, which has a large Shia population, they are already dominant. With the help of Russia, they are now almost dominant in Syria. In Lebanon their close allies, the Shia Hizbollah movement, controls a large part of the country and has just won the elections. *** The US does not like this at all. True, Trump has decided to withdraw from the Middle East (costs too much money), but he does not want the void to be filled by Vladimir Putin. Not at all. So he sends his boys back, and tells Israel to make the life of the Iranians in Syria hell. It is playing with fire (for us). Until now, the Iranians have limited their reaction to our nightly bombing of their forces to the utterance of dire threats and the ineffectual response this week. But for how much longer? Iran is a wise country. Whatever the bluster of the present regime, it does exercise a lot of restraint. It remembers that quite recently (just about 2500 years ago) it was a world power. It can wait. It does not satisfy Trump’s expectations. After all, how long does the USA exist? So we bomb. So they react with threats. So Trump is happy. *** And the Israeli public? One may wonder: is there such a thing? Some local commentators are already asking: have Israeli citizens turned into mere subjects? Israel is obviously on the path to war. The nightly bombing of Iranian forces is an insult to their national pride. In our region, national pride plays a large role. Our army has told the population in the north of the country to open the air-raid shelters and prepare them for use. Large anti-aircraft forces have been moved to the Syrian frontier. And the Israelis? They shrug their shoulders. They know that Bibi is a showman of genius. Just now he has held the country and the world in thrall with a superb TV demonstration, in which he revealed a wealth of information about Iran’s nuclear activities. The brave boys and girls of the Mossad stole this trove in Teheran and brought it to Israel, risking their lives. Wonderful. Except that it turned out that this trove consists of obsolete documents from before the deal, which show what everybody already knew: that Iran wanted to emulate Israel and produce its own nuclear bomb. It was to prevent this that the nuclear deal was initiated in the first place. But what showmanship! What a stage set! What wonderful (American) English! What perfect coordination with Trump’s decision to scuttle the deal!Can it be that the entire showwas ordered by Trump? Some Israeli commentators pointed all this out. But there is no real opposition to Bibi in the Knesset, the popular press or on TV. The vast majority of the people in Israel – and everywhere else – stand at attention when the word “security” is mentioned. OK, Bibi may be a tiny bit corrupt, he may have taken some bribes here and there, but he is our commander-in-chief! He is sending our boys into battle! So hail to the Chief! Hail Bibi! =========================== {“Israel Repurposes Old Nakba Myths to Justify the Massacre in Gaza” by JONATHAN COOK, in Nazareth} On Monday and Tuesday, Palestinians commemorate the anniversary of the Nakba, or catastrophe, their mass expulsion and dispossession 70 years ago as the new state of Israel was built on the ruins of their homeland. As a result, most Palestinians were turned into refugees, denied by Israel the right to return to their homes. Tens of thousands turned out on Monday in the occupied territories to protest against seven decades of Israel’s refusal to make amends or end its oppressive rule. The move on Monday of the US embassy to Jerusalem, a city under belligerent occupation, has only inflamed Palestinian grievances – and a sense that the West is still conspiring in their dispossession. The focus of the protests is Gaza, where unarmed Palestinians have been massing every Friday since late March at the perimeter fence that encages two million of them. For their troubles, they have faced a hail of live ammunition, rubber bullets and clouds of tear gas. Dozens had been killed and many hundreds more maimed, including children. Early reports on Monday suggested that Gaza’s demonstrators were being massacred by the Israeli army. Amnesty International called the events a “horror show”. But for more than a month, Israel has been working to manage western perceptions of the protests – and its response – in ways designed to discredit the outpouring of anger from Palestinians. In a message all too readily accepted by some western audiences, Israel has presented the protests as a “security threat”. Israeli officials have even argued before the country’s high court that the protesters lack any rights – that army snipers are entitled to shoot them, even if facing no danger – because Israel is supposedly in a “state of war” with Gaza, defending itself. On Sunday night the Israeli air force dropped leaflets across Gaza warning Palestinians not to go near fence. “The Israel Defense Forces is determined to defend Israel’s citizens and sovereignty against Hamas’ attempts at terrorism under cover of violent riots,” the leaflets said. “Don’t get near the fence and don’t take part in Hamas’ show, which endangers you.” Many Americans and Europeans, worried about an influx of “economic migrants” flooding into their own countries, readily sympathise with Israel’s concerns – and its actions. Until now, the vast majority of Gaza’s protesters have been peaceful and made no attempt to break through the fence. But Israel claims that Hamas has exploited this week’s protests in Gaza to encourage Palestinians to storm the fence. The implication is that the protesters have been trying to cross a “border” and “enter” Israel illegally. The truth is rather different. There is no border because there is no Palestinian state. Israel has made sure of that. Palestinians live under occupation, with Israel controlling every aspect of their lives. In Gaza, even the air and sea are Israel’s domain. Meanwhile, the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their former lands – now in Israel – is recognised in United Nations Resolutions. Nonetheless, Israel has been crafting a dishonest counter-narrative ever since the Nakba, myths that historians scouring the archives have slowly exploded. One claim – that Arab leaders told the 750,000 Palestinian refugees to flee in 1948 – was in fact invented by Israel’s founding father, David Ben Gurion. He hoped it would deflect US pressure on Israel to honour its obligations to allow the refugees back. Even had the refugees chosen to leave during the heat of battle, rather than wait to be expelled, it would not have justified denying them a right to return when the fighting finished. It was that refusal that transformed flight into ethnic cleansing. In another myth unsupported by the records, Ben Gurion is said to have appealed to the refugees to come back. In truth, Israel defined Palestinians who tried to return to their lands as “infiltrators”. That entitled Israeli security officials to shoot them on sight – in what was effectively execution as a deterrence policy. Nothing much has changed seven decades on. A majority of Gaza’s population today are descended from refugees driven into the enclave in 1948. They have been penned up like cattle ever since. That is why the Palestinians’ current protests take place under the banner of the March of Return. For decades, Israel has not only denied Palestinians the prospect of a minimal state. It has carved the Palestinian territories into a series of ghettos – and in the case of Gaza, blockaded it for 12 years, choking it into a humanitarian catastrophe. Despite this, Israel wants the world to view Gaza as an embryonic Palestinian state, supposedly liberated from occupation in 2005 when it pulled out several thousand Jewish settlers. Again, this narrative has been crafted only to deceive. Hamas has never been allowed to rule Gaza, any more than Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority governs the West Bank. But echoing the events of the Nakba, Israel has cast the protesters as “infiltrators”, a narrative that has left most observers strangely indifferent to the fate of Palestinian youth demonstrating for their freedom. Once again, the executions of recent weeks, supposedly carried out by the Israeli army in self-defence, are intended to dissuade Palestinians from demanding their rights. Israel is not defending its borders but the walls of cages it has built to safeguard the continuing theft of Palestinian land and preserve Jewish privilege. In the West Bank, the prison contracts by the day as Jewish settlers and the Israeli army steal more land. In Gaza’s case, the prison cannot be shrunk any smaller. For many years, world heads of state have castigated Palestinians for using violence and lambasted Hamas for firing rockets out of Gaza. But now that young Palestinians prefer to take up mass civil disobedience, their plight is barely attracting attention, let alone sympathy. Instead, they are criticised for “breaching the border” and threatening Israel’s security. The only legitimate struggle for Palestinians, it seems, is keeping quiet, allowing their lands to be plundered and their children to be starved. Western leaders and the public betrayed the Palestinians in 1948. There is no sign, 70 years on, that the West is about to change its ways. =============================== You've been watching AWARE ON THE AIR, presented by members and friends of AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana, a local peace group - in the 20th week of 2018 [May 8] - another week in which the world can see that the most extensive global terrorism is US world-wide war-making. We’ll conclude with (two) videos: ~ > [12:34] ~ > [13:00] ~ My thanks tonight to Dr.Know/J. B. Nicholson, for research. See Know’s Notes on the Fb page for AOTA >, along with articles referred to tonight. =========================== ~ Our show is produced and directed by Jason Liggett & Ethan Young, thanks to whom also this program & others like it will be available on YouTube and > ~ AWARE meeting this coming Sunday, 5-6Pm - at Hammerhead Coffee - University Avenue at Wright Street on the edge of campus. ~ Finally, AWARE honors those who reveal the crimes of the US government - which the rest of the world knows about, but Americans don't - Manning, Assange, Snowden, and others - who truth-tellers persecuted by the US government. ~ This is Carl Estabrook for members & friends of the anti-war anti-racism effort of Champaign-Urbana - saying in the words of the late Edward Murrow, “Good night - and good luck." ### Ray McGovern: Gina Haspel Supervised Nazi-Era Interrogation Techniques (Pt. 1/2) During her Senate confirmation hearings, CIA nominee Gina Haspel evaded questions about her role in using “enhanced interrogation” (torture)… therealnews.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Tue May 15 19:28:05 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 19:28:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hasbara defined (Internet dictionary) Message-ID: <289F420C-2E23-47D0-8416-95E3709364EF@illinois.edu> Public diplomacy of Israel (redirected from Hasbara) Public diplomacy in Israel (also hasbara, Hebrew: הַסְבָּרָה‎‎ hasbará, "explaining") refers to public relations efforts todisseminate abroad positive information or propaganda about the State of Israel and its actions.[1][2] The term is usedby the Israeli government and its supporters to describe efforts to explain government policies and promote Israel in theface of negative press, and to counter what they see as delegitimisation of Israel around the world. Hasbara means"explanation", and is also a euphemism for propaganda.[3][4][5][6] Lexicology While hasbara literally means "explanation", its exact import in its current usage is debated. Gideon Meir has said thatthere is no "real, precise" translation of the word hasbara in English or any other language, and has characterized it aspublic diplomacy,[7] an action undertaken by all governments around the world with the growing importance of whatHarvard professor Joseph Nye termed soft power. Gary Rosenblatt describes it as "advocacy".[8] Individuals whoengage in the practise have been called hasbarists.[9] Hasbara has been described as "pro-Israel propaganda,"[10] and "the new user-friendly term for Israeli propaganda"[11]but while "propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a conflict, hasbara seeks to explain actions,whether or not they are justified."[12] Historian Giora Goodman considers "hasbara" to mean "propaganda" in practice, explaining The term "propaganda" acquired a pejorative sense during the first half of the twentieth century.Accordingly, British and American propagandists used "information" to describe their work and the positive-sounding word hasbara has generally been preferred in Hebrew. "Propaganda", ta’amula in Hebrew, ismostly reserved for what opponents do, but the term was often used by the Zionist movement to portray itsown efforts to influence mass audiences.[13] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Tue May 15 22:06:49 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 22:06:49 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?FW=3A_Bernstein_interview=3A_COULD_?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=9CBLOODY=E2=80=9D_GINA_HASPEL_FACE_ARREST_AS_A_SERIAL_TO?= =?utf-8?q?RTURER_IF_SHE_TRAVELS_ABROAD=3F_=E2=80=93_Consortiumnews?= References: Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:06 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: FW: Bernstein interview: COULD “BLOODY” GINA HASPEL FACE ARREST AS A SERIAL TORTURER IF SHE TRAVELS ABROAD? – Consortiumnews Bernstein interview: COULD “BLOODY” GINA HASPEL FACE ARREST AS A SERIAL TORTURER IF SHE TRAVELS ABROAD? May 15, 2018 • 0 Comments Save An interview with International Law Expert, Francis Boyle, on the pro-torture Trump nominee to head-up Central Intelligence, and the dangerous and continuing illegal Israeli bombing of Syria. By Dennis J Bernstein Francis Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He is the author of many books on International Law and an outspoken critic of US policy in the Middle East. Boyle’s books include Foundations of World Order and the sequel, Destroying World Order. In the following interview with Pacifica Radio host Dennis J Bernstein, Boyle warns that, among other things, given her background as key implementer of the US torture program, Gina Haspel is vulnerable to be arrested for war crimes and crimes against humanity if she travels abroad. Dennis Bernstein spoke with Francis Boyle on May 10th, 2018. Dennis Bernstein: You may have heard by now that Israel is blaming Iran for attempting to target the occupied Golan Heights with missiles, and they say that they are responding. But there have been reports that Israel opened fire only hours after the US pulled out of the Iran deal. Francis Boyle, who do you believe in terms of who is firing missiles at whom? Who has the motivation? Francis Boyle: It appears that Israel has decided to escalate, with a green light from the Trump administration. It also appears that this has been coordinated with Trump pulling out of the nuclear agreement. You have to understand that Iranian troops are in Syria with the legitimate consent of the Syrian government under the right of collective self-defense, recognized under UN Charter Article 51. The reason Iran went in there was because, starting with Clinton and Obama, the United States decided to overthrow the government of Syria in violation of international law, including the decision of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case. As for Israel in the Golan Heights, it is clearly there illegally. Israel stole the Golan Heights in 1967 and they have refused to leave. They have refused to negotiate in good faith with Syria, except when Prime Minister Rabin did negotiate a comprehensive peace settlement with Syria along the lines of the peace settlement with Egypt. Of course, he was assassinated by religious fundamentalists for that reason. Netanyahu has made it clear that Israel is not going to leave the region. It is a very dangerous situation we are in today. DB: You talked about Israel essentially taking off the gloves. We have seen many presidents side with Israel when it slaughters Palestinians. Is there something new here? Is there going to be that final attempt at regime change in Syria? FB: General Wesley Clark says it all in his memoirs. After 9/11 he went to the Pentagon–then under the control of the Bush, Jr. neocons–and the Pentagon told him that there was a plan to take over and destroy several different Muslim states. Iraq was on the list, Afghanistan, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Iran and Syria. Clearly Syria has been in the crosshairs from at least that time. DB: There is another subject that you have been addressing for several years and that is illegal torture programs. It looks like we are going to have a new CIA director who likes to get her hands dirty and participate directly in torture. She has also been actively involved in making sure nobody finds out that torture takes place. FB: “Bloody” Gina Haspel is her nickname at the CIA. She was directly involved in the extraordinary rendition program, which is a euphemism for the enforced disappearance of human beings and their consequent torture. This was in the complaint I filed against Bush and company in 2010 with the International Criminal Court for this crime against humanity. Last fall the ICC prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, said she is going to open up an investigation into the entire CIA extraordinary rendition program for violating the Rome Statute. Although the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, these actions took place on the territorial sovereignty of Rome Statute states, and therefore the ICC does have jurisdiction. In my opinion, Gina Haspel is a presumptive war criminal and torturer. It looks like she might get confirmed, and then we will have a torturer and war criminal as head of the CIA. As I have argued in anti-CIA cases here in the United States, the CIA is an organized criminal conspiracy like the SS and the Gestapo. We argued that successfully back in 1987 at University of Massachusetts, Amherst. I was involved in large numbers of CIA protest cases back in the 1980’s because of what was going on in Central America, with 35,000 dead in Nicaragua, 75,000 dead in El Salvador, and perhaps a quarter of a million in Guatemala. Most of those killed were Mayan Indians, which meant outright genocide. DB: Will it be difficult for our director of the CIA to travel abroad? Maybe she has to be covert forever. FB: That is correct. Under international law today–following a terrible decision by the International Court of Justice–heads of state and foreign ministers have diplomatic immunity while there are in office. But that is not going to apply to the head of the CIA. I have a whole dossier here against Bush, Jr. and the rest of them for the extraordinary rendition program. We scared him out of Switzerland over that. A Swiss prosecutor demanded that Bush be prosecuted if he showed up in Switzerland. I know that Amnesty International and the Center for Constitutional Rights also have extensive dossiers against high-level US officials involved in these torture programs, including Haspel. She would be a sitting duck for international human rights lawyers. The evidence is there. We have a 600-page executive summary of the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee’s report on the extent of torture and extraordinary disappearances by the CIA. This is an official US government document. She was not personally named in there, but she was a high-level official who was personally involved. She certainly supervised the operation in Thailand. Under international law, there is a command responsibility. She is denying that she herself physically tortured anyone, but she supervised others doing the torturing. Under international criminal law, she is accountable for the criminal behavior she oversaw. DB: She admitted at the hearing that she had the tapes of these torture sessions but she considered it prudent to destroy them. FB: The Senate Committee had just announced their investigation so her boss, Jose Rodriguez, ordered her to destroy the tapes. Arguably, this would be obstruction of justice. Unless something happens within the next couple weeks, we are going to be seeing a notorious international criminal heading up the CIA. In my opinion, any senator who votes to confirm her becomes an accessory after the fact to her crimes: torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture. DB: This is a very difficult time. We are all worried about our friend Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who was brutalized while protesting the Haspel nomination. Obviously, they are very serious about shutting up anyone protesting torture. FB: Ray arguably has the defense of prevention of crimes under international law. I am not saying it would be a winner, because it is always tough going into a federal court and defending anyone protesting and resisting criminal behavior by the United States government. Dennis J. Bernstein is a host of “Flashpoints” on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom. You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net. You can get in touch with the author at dbernstein at igc.org. [image_pdf]image_pdf Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:06 PM To: Boyle, Francis A > Subject: Bernstein interview: COULD “BLOODY” GINA HASPEL FACE ARREST AS A SERIAL TORTURER IF SHE TRAVELS ABROAD? – Consortiumnews Bernstein interview: COULD “BLOODY” GINA HASPEL FACE ARREST AS A SERIAL TORTURER IF SHE TRAVELS ABROAD? An interview with International Law Expert, Francis Boyle, on the pro-torture Trump nominee to head-up Central Intelligence, and the dangerous and continuing illegal Israeli bombing of Syria. By Dennis J Bernstein Francis Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois C https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xTjW4GaFfH8J:https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/15/bernstein-interview-could-bloody-gina-haspel-face-arrest-as-a-serial-torturer-if-she-travels-abroad/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_de%7Clang_en%7Clang_es%7Clang_fr%7Clang_hr%7Clang_it%7Clang_be%7Clang_sr Sent from Mail for Windows 10 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 494 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 15 22:35:58 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 22:35:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Mass Murder in Gaza Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Mass murder in Gaza 15 May 2018 The Israeli military slaughtered dozens of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators and wounded thousands more in Gaza on Monday. As this atrocity was being carried out, a grotesque ceremony was unfolding barely 50 miles away to mark the formal opening of a US embassy in the divided and occupied city of Jerusalem. The two events—occurring on the 70th anniversary of Israel’s declaration of independence—were juxtaposed by the media, broadcast simultaneously on split screens by television networks. What could not be concealed was the fact that the opening of the American embassy was entirely in line with and, indeed, a statement of political support for the massacre taking place at the security fence separating the impoverished occupied territory from Israel. The number of unarmed Palestinian protesters shot dead by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) snipers on the eastern border of Gaza rose to at least 60 Tuesday, with over 2,700 others wounded, many suffering grievous injuries from live ammunition that will almost certainly drive up the death toll. Many of the injured who survive will lose one or more limbs as a result of Israeli sniper fire. Palestinian ambulance teams were reportedly unable to collect some of the bodies of protesters who were cut down as they reached the heavily fortified fence. Among the dead were at least eight children under the age of 16, including a 12-year-old and one young girl. The wounded included 78 women and 203 children, the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza reported. This deliberate mass killing of refugees demanding the right to return to the homes and villages from which their families were violently expelled 70 years ago with the founding of the state of Israel is a monstrous criminal act. The lethal violence unleashed by the Israeli military included air strikes, tank shelling and the dropping of flammable material on tent encampments where Palestinian families had gathered. This unbridled state violence is motivated not by any lethal threat from the tens of thousands of unarmed demonstrators. The IDF, while killing well over 100 Palestinians, has suffered not a single casualty since the “Great March of Return” protests began in Gaza on March 30. Rather, the elementary right demanded by the youth marching into gunfire poses an existential threat to the entire Zionist project of carving out a Jewish state based upon racial and religious exclusivity through the dispossession of the Palestinian people. All those involved in this mass killing, from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his cabinet, their enablers in Washington, down to the snipers firing the bullets, are collectively and personally responsible for war crimes. As the Nuremberg trials of the Nazi war criminals established, soldiers are able and obliged to refuse an illegal order to wantonly kill civilians. Only an army saturated with racist and fascistic ideology can be counted on to commit such crimes. The carnage on the Gaza border was matched by the atmosphere of criminality and reaction at the US embassy ceremony, which was staged before an audience of right-wing Israeli and American politicians, army commanders and leading rabbis. Present for the occasion was Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino mogul whose millions have gone to fund Zionist settlements in the occupied West Bank as well as Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. Also present was Joseph Lieberman, the former Democratic senator and vice-presidential candidate, who drafted the 1995 US legislation—supported overwhelmingly by both parties—that called for transferring the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Further underscoring the bipartisan support for Israel’s criminal policy, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York hailed the opening of the Jerusalem embassy as “long overdue,” adding, “I applaud President Trump for doing it.” Providing an opening invocation was Robert Jeffress, the right-wing Dallas Baptist preacher who has declared that “all Jews will go to hell” and that Islam is “a heresy from the pit of hell.” He spoke alongside an Israeli rabbi who has described blacks as “monkeys.” Also present was another prominent “Christian Zionist,” John Hagee, who has declared that Hitler was “a hunter” sent by God to fulfill biblical prophesy by chasing the Jews into Israel. Such are the friends of the Israeli state. While Trump appeared via video, the main speech was given by his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who told the audience, “We stand with Israel because we both believe in human rights, democracy worth defending, and believe that we know that it is the right thing to do.” Nothing could provide a more graphic exposure of the “human rights” and “democracy” promoted by Washington than US support for the mass killing of civilian protesters by the Israeli military. Kushner went on to blame the Palestinians for their own deaths, declaring to applause that “those provoking violence are part of the problem and not part of the solution.” This position was concretized Monday afternoon by a White House spokesman who rebuffed repeated questions about whether Washington was calling on Israel to exercise restraint. He insisted that the “cynical actions” of Hamas, the bourgeois Islamist party that administers the territory, were entirely to blame for the massacre. The corporate media has done its best to conceal the scale of the crime being carried out in Gaza. Television networks in the US gave the bloodbath short shrift, while making no criticism of Israel’s savage repression. One can easily imagine the reaction had such killings been carried out by the government in Russia, Iran, Venezuela or any other country targeted by the hypocritical “human rights” imperialists. The European powers issued hand-wringing statements on the Gaza bloodbath that only point to their own complicity. The European Union’s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini called for Israel to respect the “principle of proportionality in the use of force’”—something that it clearly will not do—while demanding that Hamas insure that the protests “remain strictly nonviolent.” For their part, the Arab bourgeois regimes that once falsely postured as defenders of the Palestinian people have turned their backs on the carnage in Gaza. The Saudi monarchy, which has aligned itself firmly with the US and Israel in preparations for a region-wide war with Iran, welcomes the repression. The Egyptian regime of Gen. Abdel-Fateh al-Sisi issued a hypocritical statement declaring that it “rejects the use of force against peaceful marches demanding legitimate and just rights.” This came from a government that consolidated its power by massacring 1,600 followers of the elected president backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Mursi, toppled in a 2013 coup. The Egyptian regime has demanded that the Gaza protests stop, fearing that the contagion of mass resistance could spill across its own border. In exchange for suppressing the demonstrators, Cairo has offered to open up the country’s border crossing to Gaza to allow in food, fuel, medicine and other vital supplies that have been stopped by Israel. Tel Aviv has closed down its one open border crossing in retaliation for the protests, threatening to throw the territory’s fragile infrastructure into a state of complete collapse. There is no fundamental difference between what the Israeli government has done in Gaza and the actions carried out by the most reactionary regimes in history, from British colonialism’s mass killing of Indians in Amritsar in 1919, to the South African apartheid regime’s massacre at Sharpeville in 1960 to the crimes of the Nazi regime itself. Attempts by Israel to justify its slaughter of Palestinians with references to the Holocaust are morally obscene, as are the efforts to intimidate those who denounce these crimes by labeling them as anti-Semites. This was grotesquely illustrated by Israeli Security Minister Gilad Erdan, who said on Monday that the scale of the death toll on the Gaza border “doesn’t indicate anything—just as the number of Nazis who died in the world war doesn’t make Nazism something you can explain or understand.” Only a deeply diseased and demoralized society could produce such a comparison between the desperate youth of Gaza, imprisoned by the Israeli military in a territory where they confront 60 percent unemployment, mass poverty and deprivation, with Nazis. The reality is that the Israeli occupation and repression have produced conditions that resemble nothing so much as the Warsaw Ghetto, replete with snipers ready to kill anyone attempting to get out. Israel as a society and a country is heading toward the abyss. Regardless of the support it enjoys from Washington and other imperialist powers, in the eyes of millions around the world it is viewed as a criminal state, having lost all moral and political legitimacy. No government claiming to be democratic has ever committed such atrocities. The crimes in Gaza are the end product of the methods through which the state was founded 70 years ago and all of the consequences since. Behind the Zionist myths of Israel representing a “safe haven” for the Jewish people, the onslaught against Gaza and the drive by Tel Aviv toward a wider war in the Middle East are in large measure driven by the desperation of the country’s capitalist ruling class to divert social and class tensions outward by promoting fear, anti-Arab chauvinism and militarism. Israel is second only to the US as the most socially unequal of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, with a 22 percent poverty rate and one of the world’s highest per capita concentrations of billionaires. The bloody events in Gaza pose with utmost urgency the necessity of uniting the working class, Arab and Jewish alike, across national, religious and sectarian divides in a common struggle against imperialism, Zionism and the Arab bourgeoisie on the basis of a socialist and internationalist program. There is no national road out of the present bloody impasse, either in the continuation of the crisis-ridden Zionist project or in the chimera of a “two-state solution” based on the creation of a Bantustan-style Palestinian state under the rule of a corrupt native bourgeoisie. At the same time, the massacre in Gaza constitutes an urgent warning to workers everywhere. The Israeli state’s turn to savage repression is part of a shift to the right by capitalist governments all over the world. The indifference of the media and bourgeois governments to the mowing down of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators is an indication of their readiness to carry out and justify even greater crimes in any country where they face mass resistance. Bill Van Auken WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 16 00:34:05 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 19:34:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Sanders on Gaza Message-ID: <3F1EA3D4-93E7-4AEB-899F-F6571827A1A4@gmail.com> http://normanfinkelstein.com/2018/05/14/pitiful-and-pathetic-shameless-and-shameful-bernie-sanders-denounces-hamas-violence-even-as-not-a-single-israeli-incurred-a-scratch-while-more-than-50-unarmed-gazan-civilians-peacefully-prote/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 16 01:04:11 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 01:04:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] A particularly good article on Egypt Message-ID: I haven’t always appreciated the authors articles, but I found this one to be particularly accurate and interesting…….[http://publici.ucimc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/PiMasthead1.jpeg] Skip to content * About Us * Contributors * Sustainers * In Print (Archives) * UC-IMC * Have a comment, tip, photo or story idea? ← GloHeart, A Displaced Lullaby: A Play on Immigration Asks Questions About Language Student Coalition Protests Gun Violence → The Real War in Egypt: the Labor Struggle Posted on May 2018 by Janice Jayes By Janice Jayes If you missed the exciting Presidential election news out of Egypt this past March, don’t be too hard on yourself: also missing it were 96 million Egyptians. Yes, a few Egyptians showed up at the polls for an exercise that faintly resembled an election, but the event was lacking a few key ingredients–like actual opposition candidates. Incumbent General-turned-President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi drove five contenders out of the race by arresting or threatening them, then allowed one opposition candidate (a member of al-Sisi’s campaign staff) to register just hours before the deadline. As expected, al-Sisi claimed a “landslide” victory with a Mubarak-esque 97% of the vote. [http://publici.ucimc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/real-war-egypt-candidate-chart.png] This election is one of the many things about post-Arab Spring Egypt that look remarkably like pre-Arab Spring Egypt. Egypt is again governed by a military-dominated clique that runs the state like a private investors’ club, elections are staged for international consumption, and any hint of political independence in NGOs, media or labor is ruthlessly silenced. It isn’t just opposition candidates that have been jailed: the 2018 Human Rights Watch Report notes that tens of thousands of Egyptians have been detained, arrested, tortured and disappeared since al-Sisi came to power in 2013. The only notable change from the Mubarak years is that al-Sisi no longer relies on the Communist menace to justify repression and solidify his relationship with Washington; instead, he deploys the newest smokescreen, the War on Terror, to justify mass repression. It’s the old Mubarak machine in new counterterrorism clothing. Counterterrorism may not be winning the war against terror in Egypt (in November, 310 Egyptians were killed by extremists during an armed assault on a mosque in el Arish), but it is doing a pretty good job of distracting attention from the crackdown on civil rights. For example, in February 2018 the Egyptian Army rolled out a major anti-terrorism operation in the Sinai that flooded the news with tales of troop convoys, bombing operations and weapon seizures. Of course, the media blackout meant that the news available came only from government sources, leaving open the question of who exactly was being targeted and how. Still, the images of Egyptian troops fighting extremism achieved the regime’s information goals at home and abroad. Many Egyptians, cognizant of the civil war hell that has engulfed Libya and Syria, watched the military assault on the Sinai and calculated that now was not the moment to press for freedoms of speech and assembly—even if they might be nice things to have in the month before a presidential election. The military operation also reminded the U.S. of Egypt’s partnership in the War on Terror, silencing some congressional critics of al-Sisi who had been debating tying part of the $1.6 billion U.S. aid package to political reform. [http://publici.ucimc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/U.S.-military-aid-has-helped-Egypt-equip-counterterrorism-units-that-are-also-used-to-break-up-strikes-and-protests..jpg] U.S. military aid has helped Egypt equip counterterrorism units that are also used to break up strikes and protests. The real war for Egypt isn’t going to be waged in the Sinai, however. It will be waged in the textile mills, railroad yards and teacher’s lounges across the nation. Egyptian unions led the nation into the Arab Spring by creating a space for public protest in the years before 2011, and they are the only civil society sector challenging the government today. The Labor Spring of 2008 [http://publici.ucimc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/In-2008-videos-of-workers-defacing-a-poster-of-then-President-Mubarak-shocked-the-nation..png] In 2008 videos of workers defacing a poster of then-President Mubarak shocked the nation. While the tech-savvy youth of Cairo captured the world’s imagination in the Arab Spring of 2011, it was actually the Egyptian labor movement that ousted the thirty-year regime of Hosni Mubarak in 2011. Between 2004 and 2010 there were more than 4000 unauthorized strikes across Egypt. Working conditions were abysmal and worsening. The official monthly wage was $6 a month (34 Egyptian pounds, set in 1984), and the majority of the population subsisted on less than $1 a day. Some workers earned more ($45–$117 a month), but living conditions were increasingly unstable as the government scrambled to attract foreign investment and loans in the wild west of neoliberal capitalism. Temporary contracts ended traditional labor protections, and the state backed off from commitments to subsidies on basic consumption items. [http://publici.ucimc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Striking-Workers-at-el-Mahalla-2006..jpg] Striking Workers at el Mahalla, 2006. The strikes that undid Mubarak’s Egypt centered on the textile industry in el Mahalla al Kubra. More than 20,000 workers shut down production multiple times and, while the demands were focused on workplace issues (wage increases, benefits, work protections and the right to establish unions independent from state control), the day-to-day cooperation required to manage community life during strikes inevitably politicized discussions. Since the 1950s the Egyptian state had controlled the syndicates that organized everyone from lawyers to street sweepers, trading benefits for political support. But by the 2000s the state had abandoned the compact, and replaced bargaining with violent repression. In 2008 strikers in Mahalla moved from an attitude of petitioning to confronting the state. [http://publici.ucimc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/real-war-egypt-strike-graph.jpg] It was the labor movement that laid the groundwork for the Arab Spring in Egypt, and despite harsh repression since 2013, unions remain the most active civil society sector challenging the regime. The strikes in Mahalla were largely invisible to most Egyptians due to state media controls, but in April 2008 phone videos showing strikers defacing a poster of President Mubarak went viral, stunning the government (which quickly negotiated a resolution to the strike) and fascinating the few Egyptians with access to social media. The unplanned act foreshadowed a new era of Egyptian politics. Three years later urban youth received the credit for expelling Mubarak, but it was the unions—lawyers, teachers, transportation workers, textile workers, etc.—who led the way. Unfortunately, workers found that little changed after 2011. Each administration since 2011 has waged a campaign of harassment against labor leaders, criminalizing protests, strikes and independent unions. Repressive laws designed to combat terrorist militias have been used against labor; unlucky activists have been detained in the middle of the night and held for years without charges or tried in military courts for destabilizing the nation. [http://publici.ucimc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Egyptian-Special-Forces-raid-in-central-Cairo-Sept.-2017..jpg] Egyptian Special Forces raid in central Cairo, Sept. 2017. Hundreds of Egyptians have disappeared since 2013, but in 2016 the kidnapping and murder of Giulio Regeni, an Italian graduate student studying unions in Cairo, created an international scandal that exposed the brutality of the regime. The signs of torture on his body, consistent with Egyptian security practices, sent a chilling message to international journalists, academics and human rights activists who might once have expected their passport to protect them: in Egypt, no one is safe from the state. A New Global Chapter in the Labor Struggle The labor crisis in Egypt isn’t a remote struggle showcasing the horrors of distant countries. It raises the same issues that increasingly confront workers everywhere: how do vulnerable groups achieve a life with dignity in an era when states are abandoning commitments to the public good in favor of serving elites? When capital can travel easily across borders to seek out the weakest regulatory markets? There isn’t really any road back from globalization—changes in technology and production chains have made that impossible—but we can resurrect an alternative vision of globalization that recognizes the shared concerns we all have with addressing economic and political rights. The U.S. government, blinded by its fixation on Islamist radicals, has given the Egyptian government a free hand to abuse state power, using weapons paid for with American taxpayer money. At a minimum, the U.S. could condemn the harassment of journalists, the midnight detention of human rights activists, the criminalization of strikes and protests, or even the sham of an election that just passed. Egypt today is more violently repressive than it was during the Mubarak years, but workers continue to challenge a state that is more interested in capturing the approval and investments of international capital than in serving the public they purport to represent. Egyptian labor deserves our attention and support. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed May 16 04:06:57 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 23:06:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Hasbara defined (Internet dictionary) In-Reply-To: <289F420C-2E23-47D0-8416-95E3709364EF@illinois.edu> References: <289F420C-2E23-47D0-8416-95E3709364EF@illinois.edu> Message-ID: We do have a word in English for hasbara: LIES. On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:28 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Public diplomacy of Israel (redirected from *Hasbara*) > > *Public diplomacy in Israel* (also *hasbara*, Hebrew > : הַסְבָּרָה > ‎‎ *hasbará*, "explaining") refers to public relations > efforts to > disseminate abroad positive information or propaganda > about the State > of Israel and its > actions.[1] > [2] > The term > is usedby the Israeli government and its supporters to describe efforts > to explain government policies and promote Israel in theface of negative > press, and to counter what they see as delegitimisation of Israel around > the world. *Hasbara* means"explanation", and is also a euphemism for pro > paganda.[3] > [4] > [5] > [6] > > Lexicology > > While *hasbara* literally means "explanation", its exact import in its > current usage is debated. Gideon Meir > has said that > there is no "real, precise" translation of the word *hasbara* in English > or any other language, and has characterized it aspublic diplomacy > ,[7] > an > action undertaken by all governments around the world with the growing im > portance of whatHarvard professor Joseph Nye > termed soft power > . Gary Rosenblatt > describes it as "advocacy".[8] > > Individuals whoengage in the practise have been called *hasbarists*.[9] > > > *Hasbara* has been described as "pro-Israel propaganda,"[10] > and "the > new user-friendly term for Israeli propaganda"[11] > but while > "propaganda strives to highlight the positive aspects of one side of a > conflict, *hasbara* seeks to explain actions,whether or not they are ju > stified."[12] > > > Historian Giora Goodman considers "hasbara" to mean "propaganda" in > practice, explaining > > The term "propaganda" acquired a pejorative sense during the first half > of the twentieth century.Accordingly, British and American propagandists > used "information" to describe their work and the positive-sounding word > *hasbara* has generally been preferred in Hebrew. "Propaganda", *ta’amula* > in Hebrew, ismostly reserved for what opponents do, but the term was > often used by the Zionist movement to portray itsown efforts to influence > mass audiences.[13] > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 16 12:03:39 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 12:03:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Social engineering by Hollywood and CIA Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/420360-film-industry-hollywood-washington/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 16 12:23:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 12:23:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The pseudo-left Message-ID: The ISO and the imperialist politics of the pseudo-left By Barry Grey 16 May 2018 The International Socialist Organization is stepping up its efforts to legitimize American imperialism’s military interventions in the Middle East in the wake of US-British-French missile strikes against Syria, the intensified offensive against Iran signaled by President Donald Trump’s pullout from the Iran nuclear agreement, and the Israeli bombardment of Iranian forces in Syria. The ISO’s longstanding campaign for an escalation of the US-led war for regime change in Syria and a more direct confrontation with Iranian and Russian forces has closely tracked the moves by the American government. The present situation is no exception. In recent days, Socialist Worker, the website of the ISO, has prominently featured an editorial published May 8 titled “Our socialism is international,” which concludes with an attack on opponents of the US intervention and Washington’s proxy forces in Syria, branding them apologists for the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The ISO has also reposted an article by Ashley Smith from August of 2016, at the height of the media propaganda blitz denouncing the Syrian government offensive against US-backed “rebels” in Aleppo, which makes similar arguments (see: “International Socialist Organization backs NATO escalation in Syria” ) On May 1, Socialist Worker published a commentary titled “The left can’t be silent about Assad’s crimes.” The article attacked a piece published in Jacobin under the headline “US Out of Syria.” Jacobin has adopted an eclectic position on the war, publishing articles both pro and con. The ISO felt all the more obliged to publicly reply to this article because Jacobin is co-hosting the ISO’s “Socialism 2018” conference in Chicago in July. Jacobin’s publisher, Bhaskar Sunkara, is a former vice-chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America, with which the ISO appears to be preparing some form of political regroupment. The ISO is concerned that politically radicalized students and youth attracted to socialism are hostile to American military interventions in Syria and elsewhere. The growth of anti-capitalist sentiment among young people coincides with a resurgence of the class struggle among teachers and other sections of workers, which is taking the form of an incipient rebellion against the corporatist trade unions. The ISO wants to ensure that any movement that emerges is subordinated to the agencies of American imperialism such as the unions, the Democratic Party and the State Department. Its May 1 article begins by complaining that the Jacobin article “provides an analysis of the US government role in Syria that is at best misleading and at worst a compilation of dangerous conspiracy theories.” The authors criticize the Jacobin article for “casting doubt on the idea that the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons… With his arguments, Shupak [the author of the Jacobin article] joins a section of the left that apologizes for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and the Russian and Iranian interventions that have propped him up. By taking this position, they ally themselves with forces that have worked to crush the Syrian revolution and the broader Arab Spring.” In other words, anything short of uncritical acceptance of US government claims about alleged crimes by the Syrian government is tantamount to political support for Assad. This is a cynical and dishonest amalgam. The ISO is using a form of moral blackmail to stampede youth and workers appalled by the death and destruction inflicted by the US in Syria into supporting the American intervention. “When the Syrian uprising began,” the authors write, “leftists had to make a choice—support a popular uprising or a murderous dictator. Sections of the left reverted to old paradigms about US imperialism in the Middle East that were always incomplete and that certainly today no longer fit the context of the region.” [Emphasis added] Later on, they return to this theme, writing: “The question is simple. Which side are you on? Assad or the Syrian people resisting his oppressive regime?” This presentation of the situation in Syria and the broader Middle East is a travesty of history and socialist principles. It completely accepts the fraudulent “human rights” framework that US imperialism has used for decades as the pretext to invade countries, overthrow governments and plunder entire regions in the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. What are these “old paradigms about US imperialism in the Middle East” that no longer apply? The ISO is arguing that the long-established hostility of the left to American imperialism is outdated, that the American State Department, Pentagon and CIA can play a progressive and democratic role, and that “leftists” should support their global campaigns against Syria, Iran and Russia. Has the role of American imperialism changed? The ISO would have people believe that the war in Syria represents a new and unprecedented phenomenon. According to it, “some on the left” have “mistakenly viewed the US as the main aggressor in Syria,” when in fact the US is “not pursuing regime change” and has essentially ceded the initiative in the region to Russia and Iran. According to the ISO, these latter states are the principal actors, with the US consigned to the role of a second-rank player with no significant influence. The narrative is absurd from beginning to end. In fact, the United States has a long history of disguising its aggressive military interventions behind talk of defending democracy and human rights and supporting local “insurgencies” for this purpose. The US launched the Korean War, which killed 5 million people, in an effort to strangle the Chinese Revolution, which had triumphed the year before. It was supposedly waged to defend “freedom” against “communist totalitarianism.” Washington carried out the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, using a mercenary force recruited by the CIA, in the name of “democracy.” In Vietnam, the United States killed nearly 3.5 million Vietnamese for the supposed purpose of defending the “Free World” against communist dictatorship. Nor is the use of right-wing Islamist militias, for the most part linked to Al Qaeda, as US proxy forces peculiar to Washington’s intervention in Syria. The CIA armed and funded the Mujahideen (whom Reagan called the moral equals of America’s founding fathers) to overthrow a pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan in the 1980s, giving rise to Al Qaeda, and it resorted to Al Qaeda-linked Islamist forces to bring down and murder Gaddafi in Libya. There is no essential difference between these criminal interventions and the US war to overthrow Assad and establish a puppet regime in Syria. Among the socialist principles jettisoned by the ISO is the distinction drawn by Marxists between oppressor nations and oppressed nations. Syria is an oppressed nation, a former colony of France that has long been subject to subversion and intrigue by the United States. From the days of Marx through Lenin and Trotsky to the present, genuine socialists have not based their attitude to military attacks by imperialist powers on oppressed nations on the democratic credentials of the governments of the targeted countries. The Assad government, as the Iranian government and all of the governments in the Middle East, is a bourgeois regime. It has run afoul of the United States not because it is repressive. Washington has no problem allying itself with and arming the Saudi oil sheiks and the bloody al-Sisi military dictatorship in Egypt. Assad has been targeted for regime change because he is allied with Russia and Iran, and is therefore seen by the United States as an obstacle to its drive for hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East and the Eurasian continent that it borders. It is the task of the Syrian working class to put an end to the rule of Assad by the methods of class struggle and international socialist revolution, in opposition to both imperialism and the local ruling class, not in alliance with imperialism. Marxists do not contract out the struggle against the bourgeoisie anywhere to one or another imperialist power, all of which operate to subjugate, exploit and plunder other countries as well as their “own” working class. The ISO attacks the Marxist conception of imperialism. For Marxists, the term has an objective historical significance. We continue to live in the epoch of imperialism. Lenin defined imperialism as a definite stage in the historical development of capitalism—the highest stage. It was and remains the epoch of wars and revolutions. Its essential features are the monopolization of the economy, the dominance of finance capital, and the carve-up of the entire planet by a handful of advanced countries. It signifies, in Lenin’s words, “reaction all down the line.” On these scientific foundations, not moralistic phrases, Marxists determine their attitude to a given war. The central issues are the class interests being pursued by the various camps, whether the countries involved are oppressor nations or oppressed nations, and what the real war aims are. These questions can be answered only by an examination of the historical background and the international context in which the war has erupted. The ISO says nothing about the historical context of the war being waged by the US and its NATO and regional allies in Syria. In fact, the United States has been engaged in perpetual war for more than a quarter-century, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Each of these wars has been justified on the basis of lies, most notoriously the fabrication of “weapons of mass destruction” used as the pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In all these aggressive wars, the US has employed the propaganda technique of demonizing the leaders of the targeted countries—generally figures who had previously collaborated with Washington in its predatory global activities. The list includes Manuel Noriega of Panama (invaded in 1989), Saddam Hussein of Iraq (1991 and 2003), Mohamed Farrah Aidid of Somalia (1992), Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia (1999), the Taliban of Afghanistan (2001), Muammar Gaddafi of Libya (2011) and now Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Most of these leaders have ended up imprisoned, dead or both, and there is no doubt that Assad remains in the cross hairs of the US military today. Moreover, the US has been intervening in Syria ever since France granted the country nominal independence in 1946, beginning with the CIA-orchestrated ouster of the left bourgeois nationalist regime of Shukri al-Quwatly in March of 1949. In December of the same year, Adib Shishakli came to power in a coup organized with the support of the US. Indicative of the political types leading the anti-Assad opposition today is the fact that Adib Shishakli’s grandson and namesake, Adib Shishakli, a right-wing businessman with close ties to the Saudi royal family, is a leading figure in that opposition. The US has been working to destabilize and ultimately remove the Assad regime for more than 15 years. Despite Syria’s collaboration with the US in the early days of the “war on terror,” Trump’s current national security adviser, John Bolton, then an undersecretary of state in the George W. Bush administration, gave a speech in 2002, “Beyond the Axis of Evil,” in which he added three other countries—Syria, Libya and Cuba—to Bush’s list of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as countries most directly targeted by American imperialism. Washington enacted the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which imposed sanctions against the Assad regime. Following the 2005 assassination of the pro-US business tycoon and former prime minister of Lebanon Rafiq Hariri, which Washington immediately blamed on Assad, the US stepped up its offensive against Syria, forcing the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. According to cables published by WikiLeaks, the US State Department provided $6 million to an Islamic group, the Movement for Justice and Development. This funded the anti-Assad Barada TV and various subversive activities in Syria. The US also funneled $12 million into its Middle East Partnership Initiative between 2005 and 2010. In 2011, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published details of another US-inspired plot against Syria. It reported that in 2008, the Saudi national security adviser and long-time ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and Jeffrey Feltman, a veteran US diplomat in the Middle East and assistant secretary of state for Middle East affairs, had hatched a $2 billion plot to destabilize Syria and overthrow the Assad regime. By the time protests broke out against the Assad regime in March of 2011, the US had in place a far-flung and well-financed infrastructure of CIA assets and émigré politicians to rapidly gain control and channel the opposition behind the intrigues of US imperialism and its regional allies Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf oil sheikdoms. Syria’s CIA-backed “democratic revolution” Central to the ISO’s libel against opposition to the US intervention in Syria is the claim that the civil war in the country is a “democratic revolution.” According to its fraudulent narrative, the US is not backing Islamist militias and the anti-Assad movement is a “genuine expression of popular outrage.” The May 1 article is particularly incensed by the (correct) statement in Jacobin that “The CIA’s effort to oust the Syrian government has been one of the costliest covert-action programs in the agency’s history.” The ISO rejects this statement, though it makes no effort to refute the facts cited to back it up, including an article in the New York Times noting that the CIA has spent $1 billion on its operations in Syria. The ISO attempts to deny what is in fact undeniable—that the main forces arrayed against the Syrian government in Syria are Islamist militias, the most active of which are linked to Al Qaeda. The partisans of this “revolution” vie with one another for money and arms from regional and imperialist powers, mainly the US. They include forces funneled into Syria from Libya, Russia, Turkey and other countries by the CIA and allied Western intelligence agencies. This so-called revolution has not produced a single programmatic document and has no internationally recognized spokespeople. The ISO never seeks to define the class character of its “revolution.” The ISO does not choose to name the political leaders of its “revolution” because they are, virtually without exception, tied to the US government and the governments of the other imperialist powers. The Syrian National Council, which was formed in the summer of 2011 and immediately presented by the American media as the legitimate leadership of the anti-Assad opposition, was politically dominated by the Saudi- and Qatari-backed Muslim Brotherhood and led by émigré businessmen, lawyers and politicians with long ties to the US State Department, the CIA and the intelligence agencies of the European imperialist powers. Its initial head was a wealthy Chicago-based lawyer. Agitating for a war it falsely claims to oppose The ISO presents a grossly distorted account of the events in Syria so as to whitewash Washington’s responsibility for the destruction of an entire society, including the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people and transformation of millions more into homeless refugees. It seeks to legitimize the official US lie that the blame for this bloody catastrophe rests entirely with Assad and his “imperialist” allies Russia and Iran. It slanders opponents of the US war as apologists for Assad and denounces the US government for failing to supply more advanced weapons to the Islamist militias that comprise the “rebels.” Yet at the same time, talking out of both sides of its mouth, it claims to oppose the US intervention in the country. The authors of the May 1 Socialist Worker article write: “As revolutionary socialists, we recognize that US military intervention anywhere is against the interests of all working people. We agree that US intervention in Syria and elsewhere should be opposed unequivocally.” This is a brazen lie. Far from opposing US military intervention, the ISO has for years been campaigning for it to be expanded. The May 1 Socialist Worker article restates the ISO’s oft repeated attack on both the Obama and Trump administrations for failing to supply the so-called “rebels” with sufficient arms, denouncing the government for “denying them anti-aircraft weaponry that would be necessary to combat the regime’s air war.” Just weeks before the April 14 missile strikes against Syria, Eric Ruder, a prominent member of the ISO and socialistworker.org writer, signed an open letter published in the New York Review of Books by some 200 “left” academics, writers and journalists under the headline “The World Must Act Now on Syria.” Issued in the midst of a coordinated propaganda campaign in the Western media over the Russian and Syrian government assault on anti-Assad Islamist holdouts in the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, the letter was an open appeal to the US and the other imperialist powers to launch a direct military intervention against the regime (see: “A new ‘left’ appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria”). Less than seven weeks later, the US, Britain and France used the pretext of the alleged gas attack Douma in eastern Ghouta to launch their missile attack on Syrian facilities. In September of 2013, after the Obama administration pulled back from plans to bomb Syria, having blamed the Assad government for an alleged sarin gas attack in eastern Ghouta without producing any proof of its involvement in the event, the ISO issued an apoplectic denunciation of Washington’s failure to implement its war plans. Socialist Worker published a rant by Michael Karadjis of the Socialist Alliance in Australia. It said, in part: “Terrified of popular revolution, throughout these two-and-a-half years, the US and especially Israel have happily watched the slaughter, and despite hypocritical whining about the regime, the US has made sure to not send a single gun or bullet to the armed opposition up to now… [A]verage Syrians would gladly see a US attack if the US destroyed the ‘conventional’ weapons of mass destruction that Assad has used against them for the last two-and-a-half years… In fact, the idea that the US had ever wanted to intervene at all, including in this current crisis, is, in my opinion, also largely a grand delusion of Western left thinking.” After the US missile attack on Syrian air bases in April of 2017, the ISO published an article by Joseph Daher and Frieda Afary denouncing the attack for not going far enough. They wrote: “However, at this point, we can say that this strike, which was announced in advance to the Russian government, does not indicate any strategic change in US policy concerning the future of Syria or the Assad regime… Clearly, no peaceful and just solution in Syria can be reached with Bashar al-Assad and his clique in power. He is the biggest criminal in Syria and must be prosecuted for his crimes instead of being legitimized by international and regional imperialist powers.” The upcoming “Socialism 2018” conference will take place in the context of a deepening global geopolitical, economic and social crisis; a widening war in the Middle East and a growing danger of world war; and an unprecedented political crisis in the United States, the center of world imperialism. This crisis is being immensely intensified by the revival of the class struggle internationally and in the United States. The bourgeoisie is terrified of the implications of a new period of working-class struggle, under conditions where their main instruments for suppressing the class struggle in the US, the trade unions and the Democratic Party, are losing any credibility in the eyes of working people and youth. The ISO, notwithstanding its socialist pretensions and rhetoric, is a critical part of the bourgeois political establishment in America. Its function is to provide a left face for sections of the foreign policy establishment, primarily those affiliated with the Democratic Party. Above all, it functions as a mechanism for the AFL-CIO, the Democratic Party and the State Department to seek to control oppositional movements in the US. Those who attend the ISO conference in July should be aware of the organization’s pro-war record and oppose attempts to direct growing left-wing sentiment behind American imperialism. The author also recommends: US imperialism and the proxy war in Syria [19 September 2013] [http://www.wsws.org/en/media/photos/legacy/frontpage/201802appeal490.png] Fight Google's censorship! Google is blocking the World Socialist Web Sitefrom search results. To fight this blacklisting: Share this article with friends and coworkers * Facebook * Twitter * E-Mail * Reddit Commenting Discussion Rules » -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed May 16 12:35:47 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 12:35:47 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The pseudo-left In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In our protest against Dershowitz, we also had a nice protest against US Intervention against Syria. Congrats to everyone who put that on. I did not make specific comments about Syria because I was speaking primarily against Dershowitz. But certainly agreed with what everyone else was saying. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 7:23 AM To: Peace-discuss List Subject: [Peace-discuss] The pseudo-left The ISO and the imperialist politics of the pseudo-left By Barry Grey 16 May 2018 The International Socialist Organization is stepping up its efforts to legitimize American imperialism’s military interventions in the Middle East in the wake of US-British-French missile strikes against Syria, the intensified offensive against Iran signaled by President Donald Trump’s pullout from the Iran nuclear agreement, and the Israeli bombardment of Iranian forces in Syria. The ISO’s longstanding campaign for an escalation of the US-led war for regime change in Syria and a more direct confrontation with Iranian and Russian forces has closely tracked the moves by the American government. The present situation is no exception. In recent days, Socialist Worker, the website of the ISO, has prominently featured an editorial published May 8 titled “Our socialism is international,” which concludes with an attack on opponents of the US intervention and Washington’s proxy forces in Syria, branding them apologists for the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The ISO has also reposted an article by Ashley Smith from August of 2016, at the height of the media propaganda blitz denouncing the Syrian government offensive against US-backed “rebels” in Aleppo, which makes similar arguments (see: “International Socialist Organization backs NATO escalation in Syria” ) On May 1, Socialist Worker published a commentary titled “The left can’t be silent about Assad’s crimes.” The article attacked a piece published in Jacobin under the headline “US Out of Syria.” Jacobin has adopted an eclectic position on the war, publishing articles both pro and con. The ISO felt all the more obliged to publicly reply to this article because Jacobin is co-hosting the ISO’s “Socialism 2018” conference in Chicago in July. Jacobin’s publisher, Bhaskar Sunkara, is a former vice-chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America, with which the ISO appears to be preparing some form of political regroupment. The ISO is concerned that politically radicalized students and youth attracted to socialism are hostile to American military interventions in Syria and elsewhere. The growth of anti-capitalist sentiment among young people coincides with a resurgence of the class struggle among teachers and other sections of workers, which is taking the form of an incipient rebellion against the corporatist trade unions. The ISO wants to ensure that any movement that emerges is subordinated to the agencies of American imperialism such as the unions, the Democratic Party and the State Department. Its May 1 article begins by complaining that the Jacobin article “provides an analysis of the US government role in Syria that is at best misleading and at worst a compilation of dangerous conspiracy theories.” The authors criticize the Jacobin article for “casting doubt on the idea that the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons… With his arguments, Shupak [the author of the Jacobin article] joins a section of the left that apologizes for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and the Russian and Iranian interventions that have propped him up. By taking this position, they ally themselves with forces that have worked to crush the Syrian revolution and the broader Arab Spring.” In other words, anything short of uncritical acceptance of US government claims about alleged crimes by the Syrian government is tantamount to political support for Assad. This is a cynical and dishonest amalgam. The ISO is using a form of moral blackmail to stampede youth and workers appalled by the death and destruction inflicted by the US in Syria into supporting the American intervention. “When the Syrian uprising began,” the authors write, “leftists had to make a choice—support a popular uprising or a murderous dictator. Sections of the left reverted to old paradigms about US imperialism in the Middle East that were always incomplete and that certainly today no longer fit the context of the region.” [Emphasis added] Later on, they return to this theme, writing: “The question is simple. Which side are you on? Assad or the Syrian people resisting his oppressive regime?” This presentation of the situation in Syria and the broader Middle East is a travesty of history and socialist principles. It completely accepts the fraudulent “human rights” framework that US imperialism has used for decades as the pretext to invade countries, overthrow governments and plunder entire regions in the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. What are these “old paradigms about US imperialism in the Middle East” that no longer apply? The ISO is arguing that the long-established hostility of the left to American imperialism is outdated, that the American State Department, Pentagon and CIA can play a progressive and democratic role, and that “leftists” should support their global campaigns against Syria, Iran and Russia. Has the role of American imperialism changed? The ISO would have people believe that the war in Syria represents a new and unprecedented phenomenon. According to it, “some on the left” have “mistakenly viewed the US as the main aggressor in Syria,” when in fact the US is “not pursuing regime change” and has essentially ceded the initiative in the region to Russia and Iran. According to the ISO, these latter states are the principal actors, with the US consigned to the role of a second-rank player with no significant influence. The narrative is absurd from beginning to end. In fact, the United States has a long history of disguising its aggressive military interventions behind talk of defending democracy and human rights and supporting local “insurgencies” for this purpose. The US launched the Korean War, which killed 5 million people, in an effort to strangle the Chinese Revolution, which had triumphed the year before. It was supposedly waged to defend “freedom” against “communist totalitarianism.” Washington carried out the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, using a mercenary force recruited by the CIA, in the name of “democracy.” In Vietnam, the United States killed nearly 3.5 million Vietnamese for the supposed purpose of defending the “Free World” against communist dictatorship. Nor is the use of right-wing Islamist militias, for the most part linked to Al Qaeda, as US proxy forces peculiar to Washington’s intervention in Syria. The CIA armed and funded the Mujahideen (whom Reagan called the moral equals of America’s founding fathers) to overthrow a pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan in the 1980s, giving rise to Al Qaeda, and it resorted to Al Qaeda-linked Islamist forces to bring down and murder Gaddafi in Libya. There is no essential difference between these criminal interventions and the US war to overthrow Assad and establish a puppet regime in Syria. Among the socialist principles jettisoned by the ISO is the distinction drawn by Marxists between oppressor nations and oppressed nations. Syria is an oppressed nation, a former colony of France that has long been subject to subversion and intrigue by the United States. From the days of Marx through Lenin and Trotsky to the present, genuine socialists have not based their attitude to military attacks by imperialist powers on oppressed nations on the democratic credentials of the governments of the targeted countries. The Assad government, as the Iranian government and all of the governments in the Middle East, is a bourgeois regime. It has run afoul of the United States not because it is repressive. Washington has no problem allying itself with and arming the Saudi oil sheiks and the bloody al-Sisi military dictatorship in Egypt. Assad has been targeted for regime change because he is allied with Russia and Iran, and is therefore seen by the United States as an obstacle to its drive for hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East and the Eurasian continent that it borders. It is the task of the Syrian working class to put an end to the rule of Assad by the methods of class struggle and international socialist revolution, in opposition to both imperialism and the local ruling class, not in alliance with imperialism. Marxists do not contract out the struggle against the bourgeoisie anywhere to one or another imperialist power, all of which operate to subjugate, exploit and plunder other countries as well as their “own” working class. The ISO attacks the Marxist conception of imperialism. For Marxists, the term has an objective historical significance. We continue to live in the epoch of imperialism. Lenin defined imperialism as a definite stage in the historical development of capitalism—the highest stage. It was and remains the epoch of wars and revolutions. Its essential features are the monopolization of the economy, the dominance of finance capital, and the carve-up of the entire planet by a handful of advanced countries. It signifies, in Lenin’s words, “reaction all down the line.” On these scientific foundations, not moralistic phrases, Marxists determine their attitude to a given war. The central issues are the class interests being pursued by the various camps, whether the countries involved are oppressor nations or oppressed nations, and what the real war aims are. These questions can be answered only by an examination of the historical background and the international context in which the war has erupted. The ISO says nothing about the historical context of the war being waged by the US and its NATO and regional allies in Syria. In fact, the United States has been engaged in perpetual war for more than a quarter-century, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Each of these wars has been justified on the basis of lies, most notoriously the fabrication of “weapons of mass destruction” used as the pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In all these aggressive wars, the US has employed the propaganda technique of demonizing the leaders of the targeted countries—generally figures who had previously collaborated with Washington in its predatory global activities. The list includes Manuel Noriega of Panama (invaded in 1989), Saddam Hussein of Iraq (1991 and 2003), Mohamed Farrah Aidid of Somalia (1992), Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia (1999), the Taliban of Afghanistan (2001), Muammar Gaddafi of Libya (2011) and now Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Most of these leaders have ended up imprisoned, dead or both, and there is no doubt that Assad remains in the cross hairs of the US military today. Moreover, the US has been intervening in Syria ever since France granted the country nominal independence in 1946, beginning with the CIA-orchestrated ouster of the left bourgeois nationalist regime of Shukri al-Quwatly in March of 1949. In December of the same year, Adib Shishakli came to power in a coup organized with the support of the US. Indicative of the political types leading the anti-Assad opposition today is the fact that Adib Shishakli’s grandson and namesake, Adib Shishakli, a right-wing businessman with close ties to the Saudi royal family, is a leading figure in that opposition. The US has been working to destabilize and ultimately remove the Assad regime for more than 15 years. Despite Syria’s collaboration with the US in the early days of the “war on terror,” Trump’s current national security adviser, John Bolton, then an undersecretary of state in the George W. Bush administration, gave a speech in 2002, “Beyond the Axis of Evil,” in which he added three other countries—Syria, Libya and Cuba—to Bush’s list of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as countries most directly targeted by American imperialism. Washington enacted the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which imposed sanctions against the Assad regime. Following the 2005 assassination of the pro-US business tycoon and former prime minister of Lebanon Rafiq Hariri, which Washington immediately blamed on Assad, the US stepped up its offensive against Syria, forcing the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. According to cables published by WikiLeaks, the US State Department provided $6 million to an Islamic group, the Movement for Justice and Development. This funded the anti-Assad Barada TV and various subversive activities in Syria. The US also funneled $12 million into its Middle East Partnership Initiative between 2005 and 2010. In 2011, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published details of another US-inspired plot against Syria. It reported that in 2008, the Saudi national security adviser and long-time ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and Jeffrey Feltman, a veteran US diplomat in the Middle East and assistant secretary of state for Middle East affairs, had hatched a $2 billion plot to destabilize Syria and overthrow the Assad regime. By the time protests broke out against the Assad regime in March of 2011, the US had in place a far-flung and well-financed infrastructure of CIA assets and émigré politicians to rapidly gain control and channel the opposition behind the intrigues of US imperialism and its regional allies Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf oil sheikdoms. Syria’s CIA-backed “democratic revolution” Central to the ISO’s libel against opposition to the US intervention in Syria is the claim that the civil war in the country is a “democratic revolution.” According to its fraudulent narrative, the US is not backing Islamist militias and the anti-Assad movement is a “genuine expression of popular outrage.” The May 1 article is particularly incensed by the (correct) statement in Jacobin that “The CIA’s effort to oust the Syrian government has been one of the costliest covert-action programs in the agency’s history.” The ISO rejects this statement, though it makes no effort to refute the facts cited to back it up, including an article in the New York Times noting that the CIA has spent $1 billion on its operations in Syria. The ISO attempts to deny what is in fact undeniable—that the main forces arrayed against the Syrian government in Syria are Islamist militias, the most active of which are linked to Al Qaeda. The partisans of this “revolution” vie with one another for money and arms from regional and imperialist powers, mainly the US. They include forces funneled into Syria from Libya, Russia, Turkey and other countries by the CIA and allied Western intelligence agencies. This so-called revolution has not produced a single programmatic document and has no internationally recognized spokespeople. The ISO never seeks to define the class character of its “revolution.” The ISO does not choose to name the political leaders of its “revolution” because they are, virtually without exception, tied to the US government and the governments of the other imperialist powers. The Syrian National Council, which was formed in the summer of 2011 and immediately presented by the American media as the legitimate leadership of the anti-Assad opposition, was politically dominated by the Saudi- and Qatari-backed Muslim Brotherhood and led by émigré businessmen, lawyers and politicians with long ties to the US State Department, the CIA and the intelligence agencies of the European imperialist powers. Its initial head was a wealthy Chicago-based lawyer. Agitating for a war it falsely claims to oppose The ISO presents a grossly distorted account of the events in Syria so as to whitewash Washington’s responsibility for the destruction of an entire society, including the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people and transformation of millions more into homeless refugees. It seeks to legitimize the official US lie that the blame for this bloody catastrophe rests entirely with Assad and his “imperialist” allies Russia and Iran. It slanders opponents of the US war as apologists for Assad and denounces the US government for failing to supply more advanced weapons to the Islamist militias that comprise the “rebels.” Yet at the same time, talking out of both sides of its mouth, it claims to oppose the US intervention in the country. The authors of the May 1 Socialist Worker article write: “As revolutionary socialists, we recognize that US military intervention anywhere is against the interests of all working people. We agree that US intervention in Syria and elsewhere should be opposed unequivocally.” This is a brazen lie. Far from opposing US military intervention, the ISO has for years been campaigning for it to be expanded. The May 1 Socialist Worker article restates the ISO’s oft repeated attack on both the Obama and Trump administrations for failing to supply the so-called “rebels” with sufficient arms, denouncing the government for “denying them anti-aircraft weaponry that would be necessary to combat the regime’s air war.” Just weeks before the April 14 missile strikes against Syria, Eric Ruder, a prominent member of the ISO and socialistworker.org writer, signed an open letter published in the New York Review of Books by some 200 “left” academics, writers and journalists under the headline “The World Must Act Now on Syria.” Issued in the midst of a coordinated propaganda campaign in the Western media over the Russian and Syrian government assault on anti-Assad Islamist holdouts in the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, the letter was an open appeal to the US and the other imperialist powers to launch a direct military intervention against the regime (see: “A new ‘left’ appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria”). Less than seven weeks later, the US, Britain and France used the pretext of the alleged gas attack Douma in eastern Ghouta to launch their missile attack on Syrian facilities. In September of 2013, after the Obama administration pulled back from plans to bomb Syria, having blamed the Assad government for an alleged sarin gas attack in eastern Ghouta without producing any proof of its involvement in the event, the ISO issued an apoplectic denunciation of Washington’s failure to implement its war plans. Socialist Worker published a rant by Michael Karadjis of the Socialist Alliance in Australia. It said, in part: “Terrified of popular revolution, throughout these two-and-a-half years, the US and especially Israel have happily watched the slaughter, and despite hypocritical whining about the regime, the US has made sure to not send a single gun or bullet to the armed opposition up to now… [A]verage Syrians would gladly see a US attack if the US destroyed the ‘conventional’ weapons of mass destruction that Assad has used against them for the last two-and-a-half years… In fact, the idea that the US had ever wanted to intervene at all, including in this current crisis, is, in my opinion, also largely a grand delusion of Western left thinking.” After the US missile attack on Syrian air bases in April of 2017, the ISO published an article by Joseph Daher and Frieda Afary denouncing the attack for not going far enough. They wrote: “However, at this point, we can say that this strike, which was announced in advance to the Russian government, does not indicate any strategic change in US policy concerning the future of Syria or the Assad regime… Clearly, no peaceful and just solution in Syria can be reached with Bashar al-Assad and his clique in power. He is the biggest criminal in Syria and must be prosecuted for his crimes instead of being legitimized by international and regional imperialist powers.” The upcoming “Socialism 2018” conference will take place in the context of a deepening global geopolitical, economic and social crisis; a widening war in the Middle East and a growing danger of world war; and an unprecedented political crisis in the United States, the center of world imperialism. This crisis is being immensely intensified by the revival of the class struggle internationally and in the United States. The bourgeoisie is terrified of the implications of a new period of working-class struggle, under conditions where their main instruments for suppressing the class struggle in the US, the trade unions and the Democratic Party, are losing any credibility in the eyes of working people and youth. The ISO, notwithstanding its socialist pretensions and rhetoric, is a critical part of the bourgeois political establishment in America. Its function is to provide a left face for sections of the foreign policy establishment, primarily those affiliated with the Democratic Party. Above all, it functions as a mechanism for the AFL-CIO, the Democratic Party and the State Department to seek to control oppositional movements in the US. Those who attend the ISO conference in July should be aware of the organization’s pro-war record and oppose attempts to direct growing left-wing sentiment behind American imperialism. The author also recommends: US imperialism and the proxy war in Syria [19 September 2013] [http://www.wsws.org/en/media/photos/legacy/frontpage/201802appeal490.png] Fight Google's censorship! Google is blocking the World Socialist Web Sitefrom search results. To fight this blacklisting: Share this article with friends and coworkers · Facebook · Twitter · E-Mail · Reddit Commenting Discussion Rules » -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Wed May 16 12:52:55 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 12:52:55 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The pseudo-left References: Message-ID: This visit {Dershowitz} is sponsored by Gies College of Business; The Program in Constitutional Theory, History, and Law at the College of Law {i.e., Fired and Disgraced Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd and her ConsortCIA/Mossad Torturer-mongerer Mikey Moore}; and the Chabad Center for Jewish {Sic!} Life at University of Illinois. And in light of the Gaza Genocide on Monday, I am glad we had our protest against Dershowitz and what he stands for—which was on manifest display on Monday. Massacre Monday is precisely why we were protesting. We knew it was coming. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 7:36 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: RE: The pseudo-left In our protest against Dershowitz, we also had a nice protest against US Intervention against Syria. Congrats to everyone who put that on. I did not make specific comments about Syria because I was speaking primarily against Dershowitz. But certainly agreed with what everyone else was saying. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 7:23 AM To: Peace-discuss List > Subject: [Peace-discuss] The pseudo-left The ISO and the imperialist politics of the pseudo-left By Barry Grey 16 May 2018 The International Socialist Organization is stepping up its efforts to legitimize American imperialism’s military interventions in the Middle East in the wake of US-British-French missile strikes against Syria, the intensified offensive against Iran signaled by President Donald Trump’s pullout from the Iran nuclear agreement, and the Israeli bombardment of Iranian forces in Syria. The ISO’s longstanding campaign for an escalation of the US-led war for regime change in Syria and a more direct confrontation with Iranian and Russian forces has closely tracked the moves by the American government. The present situation is no exception. In recent days, Socialist Worker, the website of the ISO, has prominently featured an editorial published May 8 titled “Our socialism is international,” which concludes with an attack on opponents of the US intervention and Washington’s proxy forces in Syria, branding them apologists for the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The ISO has also reposted an article by Ashley Smith from August of 2016, at the height of the media propaganda blitz denouncing the Syrian government offensive against US-backed “rebels” in Aleppo, which makes similar arguments (see: “International Socialist Organization backs NATO escalation in Syria” ) On May 1, Socialist Worker published a commentary titled “The left can’t be silent about Assad’s crimes.” The article attacked a piece published in Jacobin under the headline “US Out of Syria.” Jacobin has adopted an eclectic position on the war, publishing articles both pro and con. The ISO felt all the more obliged to publicly reply to this article because Jacobin is co-hosting the ISO’s “Socialism 2018” conference in Chicago in July. Jacobin’s publisher, Bhaskar Sunkara, is a former vice-chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America, with which the ISO appears to be preparing some form of political regroupment. The ISO is concerned that politically radicalized students and youth attracted to socialism are hostile to American military interventions in Syria and elsewhere. The growth of anti-capitalist sentiment among young people coincides with a resurgence of the class struggle among teachers and other sections of workers, which is taking the form of an incipient rebellion against the corporatist trade unions. The ISO wants to ensure that any movement that emerges is subordinated to the agencies of American imperialism such as the unions, the Democratic Party and the State Department. Its May 1 article begins by complaining that the Jacobin article “provides an analysis of the US government role in Syria that is at best misleading and at worst a compilation of dangerous conspiracy theories.” The authors criticize the Jacobin article for “casting doubt on the idea that the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons… With his arguments, Shupak [the author of the Jacobin article] joins a section of the left that apologizes for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and the Russian and Iranian interventions that have propped him up. By taking this position, they ally themselves with forces that have worked to crush the Syrian revolution and the broader Arab Spring.” In other words, anything short of uncritical acceptance of US government claims about alleged crimes by the Syrian government is tantamount to political support for Assad. This is a cynical and dishonest amalgam. The ISO is using a form of moral blackmail to stampede youth and workers appalled by the death and destruction inflicted by the US in Syria into supporting the American intervention. “When the Syrian uprising began,” the authors write, “leftists had to make a choice—support a popular uprising or a murderous dictator. Sections of the left reverted to old paradigms about US imperialism in the Middle East that were always incomplete and that certainly today no longer fit the context of the region.” [Emphasis added] Later on, they return to this theme, writing: “The question is simple. Which side are you on? Assad or the Syrian people resisting his oppressive regime?” This presentation of the situation in Syria and the broader Middle East is a travesty of history and socialist principles. It completely accepts the fraudulent “human rights” framework that US imperialism has used for decades as the pretext to invade countries, overthrow governments and plunder entire regions in the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. What are these “old paradigms about US imperialism in the Middle East” that no longer apply? The ISO is arguing that the long-established hostility of the left to American imperialism is outdated, that the American State Department, Pentagon and CIA can play a progressive and democratic role, and that “leftists” should support their global campaigns against Syria, Iran and Russia. Has the role of American imperialism changed? The ISO would have people believe that the war in Syria represents a new and unprecedented phenomenon. According to it, “some on the left” have “mistakenly viewed the US as the main aggressor in Syria,” when in fact the US is “not pursuing regime change” and has essentially ceded the initiative in the region to Russia and Iran. According to the ISO, these latter states are the principal actors, with the US consigned to the role of a second-rank player with no significant influence. The narrative is absurd from beginning to end. In fact, the United States has a long history of disguising its aggressive military interventions behind talk of defending democracy and human rights and supporting local “insurgencies” for this purpose. The US launched the Korean War, which killed 5 million people, in an effort to strangle the Chinese Revolution, which had triumphed the year before. It was supposedly waged to defend “freedom” against “communist totalitarianism.” Washington carried out the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, using a mercenary force recruited by the CIA, in the name of “democracy.” In Vietnam, the United States killed nearly 3.5 million Vietnamese for the supposed purpose of defending the “Free World” against communist dictatorship. Nor is the use of right-wing Islamist militias, for the most part linked to Al Qaeda, as US proxy forces peculiar to Washington’s intervention in Syria. The CIA armed and funded the Mujahideen (whom Reagan called the moral equals of America’s founding fathers) to overthrow a pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan in the 1980s, giving rise to Al Qaeda, and it resorted to Al Qaeda-linked Islamist forces to bring down and murder Gaddafi in Libya. There is no essential difference between these criminal interventions and the US war to overthrow Assad and establish a puppet regime in Syria. Among the socialist principles jettisoned by the ISO is the distinction drawn by Marxists between oppressor nations and oppressed nations. Syria is an oppressed nation, a former colony of France that has long been subject to subversion and intrigue by the United States. From the days of Marx through Lenin and Trotsky to the present, genuine socialists have not based their attitude to military attacks by imperialist powers on oppressed nations on the democratic credentials of the governments of the targeted countries. The Assad government, as the Iranian government and all of the governments in the Middle East, is a bourgeois regime. It has run afoul of the United States not because it is repressive. Washington has no problem allying itself with and arming the Saudi oil sheiks and the bloody al-Sisi military dictatorship in Egypt. Assad has been targeted for regime change because he is allied with Russia and Iran, and is therefore seen by the United States as an obstacle to its drive for hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East and the Eurasian continent that it borders. It is the task of the Syrian working class to put an end to the rule of Assad by the methods of class struggle and international socialist revolution, in opposition to both imperialism and the local ruling class, not in alliance with imperialism. Marxists do not contract out the struggle against the bourgeoisie anywhere to one or another imperialist power, all of which operate to subjugate, exploit and plunder other countries as well as their “own” working class. The ISO attacks the Marxist conception of imperialism. For Marxists, the term has an objective historical significance. We continue to live in the epoch of imperialism. Lenin defined imperialism as a definite stage in the historical development of capitalism—the highest stage. It was and remains the epoch of wars and revolutions. Its essential features are the monopolization of the economy, the dominance of finance capital, and the carve-up of the entire planet by a handful of advanced countries. It signifies, in Lenin’s words, “reaction all down the line.” On these scientific foundations, not moralistic phrases, Marxists determine their attitude to a given war. The central issues are the class interests being pursued by the various camps, whether the countries involved are oppressor nations or oppressed nations, and what the real war aims are. These questions can be answered only by an examination of the historical background and the international context in which the war has erupted. The ISO says nothing about the historical context of the war being waged by the US and its NATO and regional allies in Syria. In fact, the United States has been engaged in perpetual war for more than a quarter-century, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Each of these wars has been justified on the basis of lies, most notoriously the fabrication of “weapons of mass destruction” used as the pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In all these aggressive wars, the US has employed the propaganda technique of demonizing the leaders of the targeted countries—generally figures who had previously collaborated with Washington in its predatory global activities. The list includes Manuel Noriega of Panama (invaded in 1989), Saddam Hussein of Iraq (1991 and 2003), Mohamed Farrah Aidid of Somalia (1992), Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia (1999), the Taliban of Afghanistan (2001), Muammar Gaddafi of Libya (2011) and now Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Most of these leaders have ended up imprisoned, dead or both, and there is no doubt that Assad remains in the cross hairs of the US military today. Moreover, the US has been intervening in Syria ever since France granted the country nominal independence in 1946, beginning with the CIA-orchestrated ouster of the left bourgeois nationalist regime of Shukri al-Quwatly in March of 1949. In December of the same year, Adib Shishakli came to power in a coup organized with the support of the US. Indicative of the political types leading the anti-Assad opposition today is the fact that Adib Shishakli’s grandson and namesake, Adib Shishakli, a right-wing businessman with close ties to the Saudi royal family, is a leading figure in that opposition. The US has been working to destabilize and ultimately remove the Assad regime for more than 15 years. Despite Syria’s collaboration with the US in the early days of the “war on terror,” Trump’s current national security adviser, John Bolton, then an undersecretary of state in the George W. Bush administration, gave a speech in 2002, “Beyond the Axis of Evil,” in which he added three other countries—Syria, Libya and Cuba—to Bush’s list of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as countries most directly targeted by American imperialism. Washington enacted the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which imposed sanctions against the Assad regime. Following the 2005 assassination of the pro-US business tycoon and former prime minister of Lebanon Rafiq Hariri, which Washington immediately blamed on Assad, the US stepped up its offensive against Syria, forcing the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. According to cables published by WikiLeaks, the US State Department provided $6 million to an Islamic group, the Movement for Justice and Development. This funded the anti-Assad Barada TV and various subversive activities in Syria. The US also funneled $12 million into its Middle East Partnership Initiative between 2005 and 2010. In 2011, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published details of another US-inspired plot against Syria. It reported that in 2008, the Saudi national security adviser and long-time ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and Jeffrey Feltman, a veteran US diplomat in the Middle East and assistant secretary of state for Middle East affairs, had hatched a $2 billion plot to destabilize Syria and overthrow the Assad regime. By the time protests broke out against the Assad regime in March of 2011, the US had in place a far-flung and well-financed infrastructure of CIA assets and émigré politicians to rapidly gain control and channel the opposition behind the intrigues of US imperialism and its regional allies Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf oil sheikdoms. Syria’s CIA-backed “democratic revolution” Central to the ISO’s libel against opposition to the US intervention in Syria is the claim that the civil war in the country is a “democratic revolution.” According to its fraudulent narrative, the US is not backing Islamist militias and the anti-Assad movement is a “genuine expression of popular outrage.” The May 1 article is particularly incensed by the (correct) statement in Jacobin that “The CIA’s effort to oust the Syrian government has been one of the costliest covert-action programs in the agency’s history.” The ISO rejects this statement, though it makes no effort to refute the facts cited to back it up, including an article in the New York Times noting that the CIA has spent $1 billion on its operations in Syria. The ISO attempts to deny what is in fact undeniable—that the main forces arrayed against the Syrian government in Syria are Islamist militias, the most active of which are linked to Al Qaeda. The partisans of this “revolution” vie with one another for money and arms from regional and imperialist powers, mainly the US. They include forces funneled into Syria from Libya, Russia, Turkey and other countries by the CIA and allied Western intelligence agencies. This so-called revolution has not produced a single programmatic document and has no internationally recognized spokespeople. The ISO never seeks to define the class character of its “revolution.” The ISO does not choose to name the political leaders of its “revolution” because they are, virtually without exception, tied to the US government and the governments of the other imperialist powers. The Syrian National Council, which was formed in the summer of 2011 and immediately presented by the American media as the legitimate leadership of the anti-Assad opposition, was politically dominated by the Saudi- and Qatari-backed Muslim Brotherhood and led by émigré businessmen, lawyers and politicians with long ties to the US State Department, the CIA and the intelligence agencies of the European imperialist powers. Its initial head was a wealthy Chicago-based lawyer. Agitating for a war it falsely claims to oppose The ISO presents a grossly distorted account of the events in Syria so as to whitewash Washington’s responsibility for the destruction of an entire society, including the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people and transformation of millions more into homeless refugees. It seeks to legitimize the official US lie that the blame for this bloody catastrophe rests entirely with Assad and his “imperialist” allies Russia and Iran. It slanders opponents of the US war as apologists for Assad and denounces the US government for failing to supply more advanced weapons to the Islamist militias that comprise the “rebels.” Yet at the same time, talking out of both sides of its mouth, it claims to oppose the US intervention in the country. The authors of the May 1 Socialist Worker article write: “As revolutionary socialists, we recognize that US military intervention anywhere is against the interests of all working people. We agree that US intervention in Syria and elsewhere should be opposed unequivocally.” This is a brazen lie. Far from opposing US military intervention, the ISO has for years been campaigning for it to be expanded. The May 1 Socialist Worker article restates the ISO’s oft repeated attack on both the Obama and Trump administrations for failing to supply the so-called “rebels” with sufficient arms, denouncing the government for “denying them anti-aircraft weaponry that would be necessary to combat the regime’s air war.” Just weeks before the April 14 missile strikes against Syria, Eric Ruder, a prominent member of the ISO and socialistworker.org writer, signed an open letter published in the New York Review of Books by some 200 “left” academics, writers and journalists under the headline “The World Must Act Now on Syria.” Issued in the midst of a coordinated propaganda campaign in the Western media over the Russian and Syrian government assault on anti-Assad Islamist holdouts in the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, the letter was an open appeal to the US and the other imperialist powers to launch a direct military intervention against the regime (see: “A new ‘left’ appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria”). Less than seven weeks later, the US, Britain and France used the pretext of the alleged gas attack Douma in eastern Ghouta to launch their missile attack on Syrian facilities. In September of 2013, after the Obama administration pulled back from plans to bomb Syria, having blamed the Assad government for an alleged sarin gas attack in eastern Ghouta without producing any proof of its involvement in the event, the ISO issued an apoplectic denunciation of Washington’s failure to implement its war plans. Socialist Worker published a rant by Michael Karadjis of the Socialist Alliance in Australia. It said, in part: “Terrified of popular revolution, throughout these two-and-a-half years, the US and especially Israel have happily watched the slaughter, and despite hypocritical whining about the regime, the US has made sure to not send a single gun or bullet to the armed opposition up to now… [A]verage Syrians would gladly see a US attack if the US destroyed the ‘conventional’ weapons of mass destruction that Assad has used against them for the last two-and-a-half years… In fact, the idea that the US had ever wanted to intervene at all, including in this current crisis, is, in my opinion, also largely a grand delusion of Western left thinking.” After the US missile attack on Syrian air bases in April of 2017, the ISO published an article by Joseph Daher and Frieda Afary denouncing the attack for not going far enough. They wrote: “However, at this point, we can say that this strike, which was announced in advance to the Russian government, does not indicate any strategic change in US policy concerning the future of Syria or the Assad regime… Clearly, no peaceful and just solution in Syria can be reached with Bashar al-Assad and his clique in power. He is the biggest criminal in Syria and must be prosecuted for his crimes instead of being legitimized by international and regional imperialist powers.” The upcoming “Socialism 2018” conference will take place in the context of a deepening global geopolitical, economic and social crisis; a widening war in the Middle East and a growing danger of world war; and an unprecedented political crisis in the United States, the center of world imperialism. This crisis is being immensely intensified by the revival of the class struggle internationally and in the United States. The bourgeoisie is terrified of the implications of a new period of working-class struggle, under conditions where their main instruments for suppressing the class struggle in the US, the trade unions and the Democratic Party, are losing any credibility in the eyes of working people and youth. The ISO, notwithstanding its socialist pretensions and rhetoric, is a critical part of the bourgeois political establishment in America. Its function is to provide a left face for sections of the foreign policy establishment, primarily those affiliated with the Democratic Party. Above all, it functions as a mechanism for the AFL-CIO, the Democratic Party and the State Department to seek to control oppositional movements in the US. Those who attend the ISO conference in July should be aware of the organization’s pro-war record and oppose attempts to direct growing left-wing sentiment behind American imperialism. The author also recommends: US imperialism and the proxy war in Syria [19 September 2013] [http://www.wsws.org/en/media/photos/legacy/frontpage/201802appeal490.png] Fight Google's censorship! Google is blocking the World Socialist Web Sitefrom search results. To fight this blacklisting: Share this article with friends and coworkers · Facebook · Twitter · E-Mail · Reddit Commenting Discussion Rules » -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 16 13:20:19 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:20:19 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The pseudo-left In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, the PSL /ANSWER who has been slammed by the ISO along with other anti-war activists, were focusing on Syria, and Gaza, as well as all other “war policies” of the USG. Dershowitz is like those before him, whether Nazi’s during the third reich, or all those “journalists” msm pundits, celebrities, who are members of the system, supporting and profiting from war. On May 16, 2018, at 05:52, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This visit {Dershowitz} is sponsored by Gies College of Business; The Program in Constitutional Theory, History, and Law at the College of Law {i.e., Fired and Disgraced Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd and her ConsortCIA/Mossad Torturer-mongerer Mikey Moore}; and the Chabad Center for Jewish {Sic!} Life at University of Illinois. And in light of the Gaza Genocide on Monday, I am glad we had our protest against Dershowitz and what he stands for—which was on manifest display on Monday. Massacre Monday is precisely why we were protesting. We knew it was coming. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 7:36 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: The pseudo-left In our protest against Dershowitz, we also had a nice protest against US Intervention against Syria. Congrats to everyone who put that on. I did not make specific comments about Syria because I was speaking primarily against Dershowitz. But certainly agreed with what everyone else was saying. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 7:23 AM To: Peace-discuss List > Subject: [Peace-discuss] The pseudo-left The ISO and the imperialist politics of the pseudo-left By Barry Grey 16 May 2018 The International Socialist Organization is stepping up its efforts to legitimize American imperialism’s military interventions in the Middle East in the wake of US-British-French missile strikes against Syria, the intensified offensive against Iran signaled by President Donald Trump’s pullout from the Iran nuclear agreement, and the Israeli bombardment of Iranian forces in Syria. The ISO’s longstanding campaign for an escalation of the US-led war for regime change in Syria and a more direct confrontation with Iranian and Russian forces has closely tracked the moves by the American government. The present situation is no exception. In recent days, Socialist Worker, the website of the ISO, has prominently featured an editorial published May 8 titled “Our socialism is international,” which concludes with an attack on opponents of the US intervention and Washington’s proxy forces in Syria, branding them apologists for the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The ISO has also reposted an article by Ashley Smith from August of 2016, at the height of the media propaganda blitz denouncing the Syrian government offensive against US-backed “rebels” in Aleppo, which makes similar arguments (see: “International Socialist Organization backs NATO escalation in Syria” ) On May 1, Socialist Worker published a commentary titled “The left can’t be silent about Assad’s crimes.” The article attacked a piece published in Jacobin under the headline “US Out of Syria.” Jacobin has adopted an eclectic position on the war, publishing articles both pro and con. The ISO felt all the more obliged to publicly reply to this article because Jacobin is co-hosting the ISO’s “Socialism 2018” conference in Chicago in July. Jacobin’s publisher, Bhaskar Sunkara, is a former vice-chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America, with which the ISO appears to be preparing some form of political regroupment. The ISO is concerned that politically radicalized students and youth attracted to socialism are hostile to American military interventions in Syria and elsewhere. The growth of anti-capitalist sentiment among young people coincides with a resurgence of the class struggle among teachers and other sections of workers, which is taking the form of an incipient rebellion against the corporatist trade unions. The ISO wants to ensure that any movement that emerges is subordinated to the agencies of American imperialism such as the unions, the Democratic Party and the State Department. Its May 1 article begins by complaining that the Jacobin article “provides an analysis of the US government role in Syria that is at best misleading and at worst a compilation of dangerous conspiracy theories.” The authors criticize the Jacobin article for “casting doubt on the idea that the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons… With his arguments, Shupak [the author of the Jacobin article] joins a section of the left that apologizes for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and the Russian and Iranian interventions that have propped him up. By taking this position, they ally themselves with forces that have worked to crush the Syrian revolution and the broader Arab Spring.” In other words, anything short of uncritical acceptance of US government claims about alleged crimes by the Syrian government is tantamount to political support for Assad. This is a cynical and dishonest amalgam. The ISO is using a form of moral blackmail to stampede youth and workers appalled by the death and destruction inflicted by the US in Syria into supporting the American intervention. “When the Syrian uprising began,” the authors write, “leftists had to make a choice—support a popular uprising or a murderous dictator. Sections of the left reverted to old paradigms about US imperialism in the Middle East that were always incomplete and that certainly today no longer fit the context of the region.” [Emphasis added] Later on, they return to this theme, writing: “The question is simple. Which side are you on? Assad or the Syrian people resisting his oppressive regime?” This presentation of the situation in Syria and the broader Middle East is a travesty of history and socialist principles. It completely accepts the fraudulent “human rights” framework that US imperialism has used for decades as the pretext to invade countries, overthrow governments and plunder entire regions in the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. What are these “old paradigms about US imperialism in the Middle East” that no longer apply? The ISO is arguing that the long-established hostility of the left to American imperialism is outdated, that the American State Department, Pentagon and CIA can play a progressive and democratic role, and that “leftists” should support their global campaigns against Syria, Iran and Russia. Has the role of American imperialism changed? The ISO would have people believe that the war in Syria represents a new and unprecedented phenomenon. According to it, “some on the left” have “mistakenly viewed the US as the main aggressor in Syria,” when in fact the US is “not pursuing regime change” and has essentially ceded the initiative in the region to Russia and Iran. According to the ISO, these latter states are the principal actors, with the US consigned to the role of a second-rank player with no significant influence. The narrative is absurd from beginning to end. In fact, the United States has a long history of disguising its aggressive military interventions behind talk of defending democracy and human rights and supporting local “insurgencies” for this purpose. The US launched the Korean War, which killed 5 million people, in an effort to strangle the Chinese Revolution, which had triumphed the year before. It was supposedly waged to defend “freedom” against “communist totalitarianism.” Washington carried out the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, using a mercenary force recruited by the CIA, in the name of “democracy.” In Vietnam, the United States killed nearly 3.5 million Vietnamese for the supposed purpose of defending the “Free World” against communist dictatorship. Nor is the use of right-wing Islamist militias, for the most part linked to Al Qaeda, as US proxy forces peculiar to Washington’s intervention in Syria. The CIA armed and funded the Mujahideen (whom Reagan called the moral equals of America’s founding fathers) to overthrow a pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan in the 1980s, giving rise to Al Qaeda, and it resorted to Al Qaeda-linked Islamist forces to bring down and murder Gaddafi in Libya. There is no essential difference between these criminal interventions and the US war to overthrow Assad and establish a puppet regime in Syria. Among the socialist principles jettisoned by the ISO is the distinction drawn by Marxists between oppressor nations and oppressed nations. Syria is an oppressed nation, a former colony of France that has long been subject to subversion and intrigue by the United States. From the days of Marx through Lenin and Trotsky to the present, genuine socialists have not based their attitude to military attacks by imperialist powers on oppressed nations on the democratic credentials of the governments of the targeted countries. The Assad government, as the Iranian government and all of the governments in the Middle East, is a bourgeois regime. It has run afoul of the United States not because it is repressive. Washington has no problem allying itself with and arming the Saudi oil sheiks and the bloody al-Sisi military dictatorship in Egypt. Assad has been targeted for regime change because he is allied with Russia and Iran, and is therefore seen by the United States as an obstacle to its drive for hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East and the Eurasian continent that it borders. It is the task of the Syrian working class to put an end to the rule of Assad by the methods of class struggle and international socialist revolution, in opposition to both imperialism and the local ruling class, not in alliance with imperialism. Marxists do not contract out the struggle against the bourgeoisie anywhere to one or another imperialist power, all of which operate to subjugate, exploit and plunder other countries as well as their “own” working class. The ISO attacks the Marxist conception of imperialism. For Marxists, the term has an objective historical significance. We continue to live in the epoch of imperialism. Lenin defined imperialism as a definite stage in the historical development of capitalism—the highest stage. It was and remains the epoch of wars and revolutions. Its essential features are the monopolization of the economy, the dominance of finance capital, and the carve-up of the entire planet by a handful of advanced countries. It signifies, in Lenin’s words, “reaction all down the line.” On these scientific foundations, not moralistic phrases, Marxists determine their attitude to a given war. The central issues are the class interests being pursued by the various camps, whether the countries involved are oppressor nations or oppressed nations, and what the real war aims are. These questions can be answered only by an examination of the historical background and the international context in which the war has erupted. The ISO says nothing about the historical context of the war being waged by the US and its NATO and regional allies in Syria. In fact, the United States has been engaged in perpetual war for more than a quarter-century, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Each of these wars has been justified on the basis of lies, most notoriously the fabrication of “weapons of mass destruction” used as the pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In all these aggressive wars, the US has employed the propaganda technique of demonizing the leaders of the targeted countries—generally figures who had previously collaborated with Washington in its predatory global activities. The list includes Manuel Noriega of Panama (invaded in 1989), Saddam Hussein of Iraq (1991 and 2003), Mohamed Farrah Aidid of Somalia (1992), Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia (1999), the Taliban of Afghanistan (2001), Muammar Gaddafi of Libya (2011) and now Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Most of these leaders have ended up imprisoned, dead or both, and there is no doubt that Assad remains in the cross hairs of the US military today. Moreover, the US has been intervening in Syria ever since France granted the country nominal independence in 1946, beginning with the CIA-orchestrated ouster of the left bourgeois nationalist regime of Shukri al-Quwatly in March of 1949. In December of the same year, Adib Shishakli came to power in a coup organized with the support of the US. Indicative of the political types leading the anti-Assad opposition today is the fact that Adib Shishakli’s grandson and namesake, Adib Shishakli, a right-wing businessman with close ties to the Saudi royal family, is a leading figure in that opposition. The US has been working to destabilize and ultimately remove the Assad regime for more than 15 years. Despite Syria’s collaboration with the US in the early days of the “war on terror,” Trump’s current national security adviser, John Bolton, then an undersecretary of state in the George W. Bush administration, gave a speech in 2002, “Beyond the Axis of Evil,” in which he added three other countries—Syria, Libya and Cuba—to Bush’s list of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as countries most directly targeted by American imperialism. Washington enacted the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which imposed sanctions against the Assad regime. Following the 2005 assassination of the pro-US business tycoon and former prime minister of Lebanon Rafiq Hariri, which Washington immediately blamed on Assad, the US stepped up its offensive against Syria, forcing the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. According to cables published by WikiLeaks, the US State Department provided $6 million to an Islamic group, the Movement for Justice and Development. This funded the anti-Assad Barada TV and various subversive activities in Syria. The US also funneled $12 million into its Middle East Partnership Initiative between 2005 and 2010. In 2011, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published details of another US-inspired plot against Syria. It reported that in 2008, the Saudi national security adviser and long-time ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and Jeffrey Feltman, a veteran US diplomat in the Middle East and assistant secretary of state for Middle East affairs, had hatched a $2 billion plot to destabilize Syria and overthrow the Assad regime. By the time protests broke out against the Assad regime in March of 2011, the US had in place a far-flung and well-financed infrastructure of CIA assets and émigré politicians to rapidly gain control and channel the opposition behind the intrigues of US imperialism and its regional allies Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf oil sheikdoms. Syria’s CIA-backed “democratic revolution” Central to the ISO’s libel against opposition to the US intervention in Syria is the claim that the civil war in the country is a “democratic revolution.” According to its fraudulent narrative, the US is not backing Islamist militias and the anti-Assad movement is a “genuine expression of popular outrage.” The May 1 article is particularly incensed by the (correct) statement in Jacobin that “The CIA’s effort to oust the Syrian government has been one of the costliest covert-action programs in the agency’s history.” The ISO rejects this statement, though it makes no effort to refute the facts cited to back it up, including an article in the New York Times noting that the CIA has spent $1 billion on its operations in Syria. The ISO attempts to deny what is in fact undeniable—that the main forces arrayed against the Syrian government in Syria are Islamist militias, the most active of which are linked to Al Qaeda. The partisans of this “revolution” vie with one another for money and arms from regional and imperialist powers, mainly the US. They include forces funneled into Syria from Libya, Russia, Turkey and other countries by the CIA and allied Western intelligence agencies. This so-called revolution has not produced a single programmatic document and has no internationally recognized spokespeople. The ISO never seeks to define the class character of its “revolution.” The ISO does not choose to name the political leaders of its “revolution” because they are, virtually without exception, tied to the US government and the governments of the other imperialist powers. The Syrian National Council, which was formed in the summer of 2011 and immediately presented by the American media as the legitimate leadership of the anti-Assad opposition, was politically dominated by the Saudi- and Qatari-backed Muslim Brotherhood and led by émigré businessmen, lawyers and politicians with long ties to the US State Department, the CIA and the intelligence agencies of the European imperialist powers. Its initial head was a wealthy Chicago-based lawyer. Agitating for a war it falsely claims to oppose The ISO presents a grossly distorted account of the events in Syria so as to whitewash Washington’s responsibility for the destruction of an entire society, including the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people and transformation of millions more into homeless refugees. It seeks to legitimize the official US lie that the blame for this bloody catastrophe rests entirely with Assad and his “imperialist” allies Russia and Iran. It slanders opponents of the US war as apologists for Assad and denounces the US government for failing to supply more advanced weapons to the Islamist militias that comprise the “rebels.” Yet at the same time, talking out of both sides of its mouth, it claims to oppose the US intervention in the country. The authors of the May 1 Socialist Worker article write: “As revolutionary socialists, we recognize that US military intervention anywhere is against the interests of all working people. We agree that US intervention in Syria and elsewhere should be opposed unequivocally.” This is a brazen lie. Far from opposing US military intervention, the ISO has for years been campaigning for it to be expanded. The May 1 Socialist Worker article restates the ISO’s oft repeated attack on both the Obama and Trump administrations for failing to supply the so-called “rebels” with sufficient arms, denouncing the government for “denying them anti-aircraft weaponry that would be necessary to combat the regime’s air war.” Just weeks before the April 14 missile strikes against Syria, Eric Ruder, a prominent member of the ISO and socialistworker.org writer, signed an open letter published in the New York Review of Books by some 200 “left” academics, writers and journalists under the headline “The World Must Act Now on Syria.” Issued in the midst of a coordinated propaganda campaign in the Western media over the Russian and Syrian government assault on anti-Assad Islamist holdouts in the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, the letter was an open appeal to the US and the other imperialist powers to launch a direct military intervention against the regime (see: “A new ‘left’ appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria”). Less than seven weeks later, the US, Britain and France used the pretext of the alleged gas attack Douma in eastern Ghouta to launch their missile attack on Syrian facilities. In September of 2013, after the Obama administration pulled back from plans to bomb Syria, having blamed the Assad government for an alleged sarin gas attack in eastern Ghouta without producing any proof of its involvement in the event, the ISO issued an apoplectic denunciation of Washington’s failure to implement its war plans. Socialist Worker published a rant by Michael Karadjis of the Socialist Alliance in Australia. It said, in part: “Terrified of popular revolution, throughout these two-and-a-half years, the US and especially Israel have happily watched the slaughter, and despite hypocritical whining about the regime, the US has made sure to not send a single gun or bullet to the armed opposition up to now… [A]verage Syrians would gladly see a US attack if the US destroyed the ‘conventional’ weapons of mass destruction that Assad has used against them for the last two-and-a-half years… In fact, the idea that the US had ever wanted to intervene at all, including in this current crisis, is, in my opinion, also largely a grand delusion of Western left thinking.” After the US missile attack on Syrian air bases in April of 2017, the ISO published an article by Joseph Daher and Frieda Afary denouncing the attack for not going far enough. They wrote: “However, at this point, we can say that this strike, which was announced in advance to the Russian government, does not indicate any strategic change in US policy concerning the future of Syria or the Assad regime… Clearly, no peaceful and just solution in Syria can be reached with Bashar al-Assad and his clique in power. He is the biggest criminal in Syria and must be prosecuted for his crimes instead of being legitimized by international and regional imperialist powers.” The upcoming “Socialism 2018” conference will take place in the context of a deepening global geopolitical, economic and social crisis; a widening war in the Middle East and a growing danger of world war; and an unprecedented political crisis in the United States, the center of world imperialism. This crisis is being immensely intensified by the revival of the class struggle internationally and in the United States. The bourgeoisie is terrified of the implications of a new period of working-class struggle, under conditions where their main instruments for suppressing the class struggle in the US, the trade unions and the Democratic Party, are losing any credibility in the eyes of working people and youth. The ISO, notwithstanding its socialist pretensions and rhetoric, is a critical part of the bourgeois political establishment in America. Its function is to provide a left face for sections of the foreign policy establishment, primarily those affiliated with the Democratic Party. Above all, it functions as a mechanism for the AFL-CIO, the Democratic Party and the State Department to seek to control oppositional movements in the US. Those who attend the ISO conference in July should be aware of the organization’s pro-war record and oppose attempts to direct growing left-wing sentiment behind American imperialism. The author also recommends: US imperialism and the proxy war in Syria [19 September 2013] [http://www.wsws.org/en/media/photos/legacy/frontpage/201802appeal490.png] Fight Google's censorship! Google is blocking the World Socialist Web Sitefrom search results. To fight this blacklisting: Share this article with friends and coworkers • Facebook • Twitter • E-Mail • Reddit Commenting Discussion Rules » _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Wed May 16 13:38:50 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 13:38:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The pseudo-left In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: PSL/Answer/You did great work getting the anti-Dersh Rally organized. Very successful event. Proud to be part of it. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Karen Aram Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 8:20 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The pseudo-left Yes, the PSL /ANSWER who has been slammed by the ISO along with other anti-war activists, were focusing on Syria, and Gaza, as well as all other “war policies” of the USG. Dershowitz is like those before him, whether Nazi’s during the third reich, or all those “journalists” msm pundits, celebrities, who are members of the system, supporting and profiting from war. On May 16, 2018, at 05:52, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss > wrote: This visit {Dershowitz} is sponsored by Gies College of Business; The Program in Constitutional Theory, History, and Law at the College of Law {i.e., Fired and Disgraced Dean Hurricane Heidi Hurd and her ConsortCIA/Mossad Torturer-mongerer Mikey Moore}; and the Chabad Center for Jewish {Sic!} Life at University of Illinois. And in light of the Gaza Genocide on Monday, I am glad we had our protest against Dershowitz and what he stands for—which was on manifest display on Monday. Massacre Monday is precisely why we were protesting. We knew it was coming. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 7:36 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) > Subject: RE: The pseudo-left In our protest against Dershowitz, we also had a nice protest against US Intervention against Syria. Congrats to everyone who put that on. I did not make specific comments about Syria because I was speaking primarily against Dershowitz. But certainly agreed with what everyone else was saying. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 7:23 AM To: Peace-discuss List > Subject: [Peace-discuss] The pseudo-left The ISO and the imperialist politics of the pseudo-left By Barry Grey 16 May 2018 The International Socialist Organization is stepping up its efforts to legitimize American imperialism’s military interventions in the Middle East in the wake of US-British-French missile strikes against Syria, the intensified offensive against Iran signaled by President Donald Trump’s pullout from the Iran nuclear agreement, and the Israeli bombardment of Iranian forces in Syria. The ISO’s longstanding campaign for an escalation of the US-led war for regime change in Syria and a more direct confrontation with Iranian and Russian forces has closely tracked the moves by the American government. The present situation is no exception. In recent days, Socialist Worker, the website of the ISO, has prominently featured an editorial published May 8 titled “Our socialism is international,” which concludes with an attack on opponents of the US intervention and Washington’s proxy forces in Syria, branding them apologists for the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The ISO has also reposted an article by Ashley Smith from August of 2016, at the height of the media propaganda blitz denouncing the Syrian government offensive against US-backed “rebels” in Aleppo, which makes similar arguments (see: “International Socialist Organization backs NATO escalation in Syria” ) On May 1, Socialist Worker published a commentary titled “The left can’t be silent about Assad’s crimes.” The article attacked a piece published in Jacobin under the headline “US Out of Syria.” Jacobin has adopted an eclectic position on the war, publishing articles both pro and con. The ISO felt all the more obliged to publicly reply to this article because Jacobin is co-hosting the ISO’s “Socialism 2018” conference in Chicago in July. Jacobin’s publisher, Bhaskar Sunkara, is a former vice-chairman of the Democratic Socialists of America, with which the ISO appears to be preparing some form of political regroupment. The ISO is concerned that politically radicalized students and youth attracted to socialism are hostile to American military interventions in Syria and elsewhere. The growth of anti-capitalist sentiment among young people coincides with a resurgence of the class struggle among teachers and other sections of workers, which is taking the form of an incipient rebellion against the corporatist trade unions. The ISO wants to ensure that any movement that emerges is subordinated to the agencies of American imperialism such as the unions, the Democratic Party and the State Department. Its May 1 article begins by complaining that the Jacobin article “provides an analysis of the US government role in Syria that is at best misleading and at worst a compilation of dangerous conspiracy theories.” The authors criticize the Jacobin article for “casting doubt on the idea that the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons… With his arguments, Shupak [the author of the Jacobin article] joins a section of the left that apologizes for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and the Russian and Iranian interventions that have propped him up. By taking this position, they ally themselves with forces that have worked to crush the Syrian revolution and the broader Arab Spring.” In other words, anything short of uncritical acceptance of US government claims about alleged crimes by the Syrian government is tantamount to political support for Assad. This is a cynical and dishonest amalgam. The ISO is using a form of moral blackmail to stampede youth and workers appalled by the death and destruction inflicted by the US in Syria into supporting the American intervention. “When the Syrian uprising began,” the authors write, “leftists had to make a choice—support a popular uprising or a murderous dictator. Sections of the left reverted to old paradigms about US imperialism in the Middle East that were always incomplete and that certainly today no longer fit the context of the region.” [Emphasis added] Later on, they return to this theme, writing: “The question is simple. Which side are you on? Assad or the Syrian people resisting his oppressive regime?” This presentation of the situation in Syria and the broader Middle East is a travesty of history and socialist principles. It completely accepts the fraudulent “human rights” framework that US imperialism has used for decades as the pretext to invade countries, overthrow governments and plunder entire regions in the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. What are these “old paradigms about US imperialism in the Middle East” that no longer apply? The ISO is arguing that the long-established hostility of the left to American imperialism is outdated, that the American State Department, Pentagon and CIA can play a progressive and democratic role, and that “leftists” should support their global campaigns against Syria, Iran and Russia. Has the role of American imperialism changed? The ISO would have people believe that the war in Syria represents a new and unprecedented phenomenon. According to it, “some on the left” have “mistakenly viewed the US as the main aggressor in Syria,” when in fact the US is “not pursuing regime change” and has essentially ceded the initiative in the region to Russia and Iran. According to the ISO, these latter states are the principal actors, with the US consigned to the role of a second-rank player with no significant influence. The narrative is absurd from beginning to end. In fact, the United States has a long history of disguising its aggressive military interventions behind talk of defending democracy and human rights and supporting local “insurgencies” for this purpose. The US launched the Korean War, which killed 5 million people, in an effort to strangle the Chinese Revolution, which had triumphed the year before. It was supposedly waged to defend “freedom” against “communist totalitarianism.” Washington carried out the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, using a mercenary force recruited by the CIA, in the name of “democracy.” In Vietnam, the United States killed nearly 3.5 million Vietnamese for the supposed purpose of defending the “Free World” against communist dictatorship. Nor is the use of right-wing Islamist militias, for the most part linked to Al Qaeda, as US proxy forces peculiar to Washington’s intervention in Syria. The CIA armed and funded the Mujahideen (whom Reagan called the moral equals of America’s founding fathers) to overthrow a pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan in the 1980s, giving rise to Al Qaeda, and it resorted to Al Qaeda-linked Islamist forces to bring down and murder Gaddafi in Libya. There is no essential difference between these criminal interventions and the US war to overthrow Assad and establish a puppet regime in Syria. Among the socialist principles jettisoned by the ISO is the distinction drawn by Marxists between oppressor nations and oppressed nations. Syria is an oppressed nation, a former colony of France that has long been subject to subversion and intrigue by the United States. From the days of Marx through Lenin and Trotsky to the present, genuine socialists have not based their attitude to military attacks by imperialist powers on oppressed nations on the democratic credentials of the governments of the targeted countries. The Assad government, as the Iranian government and all of the governments in the Middle East, is a bourgeois regime. It has run afoul of the United States not because it is repressive. Washington has no problem allying itself with and arming the Saudi oil sheiks and the bloody al-Sisi military dictatorship in Egypt. Assad has been targeted for regime change because he is allied with Russia and Iran, and is therefore seen by the United States as an obstacle to its drive for hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East and the Eurasian continent that it borders. It is the task of the Syrian working class to put an end to the rule of Assad by the methods of class struggle and international socialist revolution, in opposition to both imperialism and the local ruling class, not in alliance with imperialism. Marxists do not contract out the struggle against the bourgeoisie anywhere to one or another imperialist power, all of which operate to subjugate, exploit and plunder other countries as well as their “own” working class. The ISO attacks the Marxist conception of imperialism. For Marxists, the term has an objective historical significance. We continue to live in the epoch of imperialism. Lenin defined imperialism as a definite stage in the historical development of capitalism—the highest stage. It was and remains the epoch of wars and revolutions. Its essential features are the monopolization of the economy, the dominance of finance capital, and the carve-up of the entire planet by a handful of advanced countries. It signifies, in Lenin’s words, “reaction all down the line.” On these scientific foundations, not moralistic phrases, Marxists determine their attitude to a given war. The central issues are the class interests being pursued by the various camps, whether the countries involved are oppressor nations or oppressed nations, and what the real war aims are. These questions can be answered only by an examination of the historical background and the international context in which the war has erupted. The ISO says nothing about the historical context of the war being waged by the US and its NATO and regional allies in Syria. In fact, the United States has been engaged in perpetual war for more than a quarter-century, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. Each of these wars has been justified on the basis of lies, most notoriously the fabrication of “weapons of mass destruction” used as the pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In all these aggressive wars, the US has employed the propaganda technique of demonizing the leaders of the targeted countries—generally figures who had previously collaborated with Washington in its predatory global activities. The list includes Manuel Noriega of Panama (invaded in 1989), Saddam Hussein of Iraq (1991 and 2003), Mohamed Farrah Aidid of Somalia (1992), Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia (1999), the Taliban of Afghanistan (2001), Muammar Gaddafi of Libya (2011) and now Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Most of these leaders have ended up imprisoned, dead or both, and there is no doubt that Assad remains in the cross hairs of the US military today. Moreover, the US has been intervening in Syria ever since France granted the country nominal independence in 1946, beginning with the CIA-orchestrated ouster of the left bourgeois nationalist regime of Shukri al-Quwatly in March of 1949. In December of the same year, Adib Shishakli came to power in a coup organized with the support of the US. Indicative of the political types leading the anti-Assad opposition today is the fact that Adib Shishakli’s grandson and namesake, Adib Shishakli, a right-wing businessman with close ties to the Saudi royal family, is a leading figure in that opposition. The US has been working to destabilize and ultimately remove the Assad regime for more than 15 years. Despite Syria’s collaboration with the US in the early days of the “war on terror,” Trump’s current national security adviser, John Bolton, then an undersecretary of state in the George W. Bush administration, gave a speech in 2002, “Beyond the Axis of Evil,” in which he added three other countries—Syria, Libya and Cuba—to Bush’s list of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as countries most directly targeted by American imperialism. Washington enacted the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which imposed sanctions against the Assad regime. Following the 2005 assassination of the pro-US business tycoon and former prime minister of Lebanon Rafiq Hariri, which Washington immediately blamed on Assad, the US stepped up its offensive against Syria, forcing the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. According to cables published by WikiLeaks, the US State Department provided $6 million to an Islamic group, the Movement for Justice and Development. This funded the anti-Assad Barada TV and various subversive activities in Syria. The US also funneled $12 million into its Middle East Partnership Initiative between 2005 and 2010. In 2011, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz published details of another US-inspired plot against Syria. It reported that in 2008, the Saudi national security adviser and long-time ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and Jeffrey Feltman, a veteran US diplomat in the Middle East and assistant secretary of state for Middle East affairs, had hatched a $2 billion plot to destabilize Syria and overthrow the Assad regime. By the time protests broke out against the Assad regime in March of 2011, the US had in place a far-flung and well-financed infrastructure of CIA assets and émigré politicians to rapidly gain control and channel the opposition behind the intrigues of US imperialism and its regional allies Israel, Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni Gulf oil sheikdoms. Syria’s CIA-backed “democratic revolution” Central to the ISO’s libel against opposition to the US intervention in Syria is the claim that the civil war in the country is a “democratic revolution.” According to its fraudulent narrative, the US is not backing Islamist militias and the anti-Assad movement is a “genuine expression of popular outrage.” The May 1 article is particularly incensed by the (correct) statement in Jacobin that “The CIA’s effort to oust the Syrian government has been one of the costliest covert-action programs in the agency’s history.” The ISO rejects this statement, though it makes no effort to refute the facts cited to back it up, including an article in the New York Times noting that the CIA has spent $1 billion on its operations in Syria. The ISO attempts to deny what is in fact undeniable—that the main forces arrayed against the Syrian government in Syria are Islamist militias, the most active of which are linked to Al Qaeda. The partisans of this “revolution” vie with one another for money and arms from regional and imperialist powers, mainly the US. They include forces funneled into Syria from Libya, Russia, Turkey and other countries by the CIA and allied Western intelligence agencies. This so-called revolution has not produced a single programmatic document and has no internationally recognized spokespeople. The ISO never seeks to define the class character of its “revolution.” The ISO does not choose to name the political leaders of its “revolution” because they are, virtually without exception, tied to the US government and the governments of the other imperialist powers. The Syrian National Council, which was formed in the summer of 2011 and immediately presented by the American media as the legitimate leadership of the anti-Assad opposition, was politically dominated by the Saudi- and Qatari-backed Muslim Brotherhood and led by émigré businessmen, lawyers and politicians with long ties to the US State Department, the CIA and the intelligence agencies of the European imperialist powers. Its initial head was a wealthy Chicago-based lawyer. Agitating for a war it falsely claims to oppose The ISO presents a grossly distorted account of the events in Syria so as to whitewash Washington’s responsibility for the destruction of an entire society, including the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people and transformation of millions more into homeless refugees. It seeks to legitimize the official US lie that the blame for this bloody catastrophe rests entirely with Assad and his “imperialist” allies Russia and Iran. It slanders opponents of the US war as apologists for Assad and denounces the US government for failing to supply more advanced weapons to the Islamist militias that comprise the “rebels.” Yet at the same time, talking out of both sides of its mouth, it claims to oppose the US intervention in the country. The authors of the May 1 Socialist Worker article write: “As revolutionary socialists, we recognize that US military intervention anywhere is against the interests of all working people. We agree that US intervention in Syria and elsewhere should be opposed unequivocally.” This is a brazen lie. Far from opposing US military intervention, the ISO has for years been campaigning for it to be expanded. The May 1 Socialist Worker article restates the ISO’s oft repeated attack on both the Obama and Trump administrations for failing to supply the so-called “rebels” with sufficient arms, denouncing the government for “denying them anti-aircraft weaponry that would be necessary to combat the regime’s air war.” Just weeks before the April 14 missile strikes against Syria, Eric Ruder, a prominent member of the ISO and socialistworker.org writer, signed an open letter published in the New York Review of Books by some 200 “left” academics, writers and journalists under the headline “The World Must Act Now on Syria.” Issued in the midst of a coordinated propaganda campaign in the Western media over the Russian and Syrian government assault on anti-Assad Islamist holdouts in the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta, the letter was an open appeal to the US and the other imperialist powers to launch a direct military intervention against the regime (see: “A new ‘left’ appeal for imperialist intervention in Syria”). Less than seven weeks later, the US, Britain and France used the pretext of the alleged gas attack Douma in eastern Ghouta to launch their missile attack on Syrian facilities. In September of 2013, after the Obama administration pulled back from plans to bomb Syria, having blamed the Assad government for an alleged sarin gas attack in eastern Ghouta without producing any proof of its involvement in the event, the ISO issued an apoplectic denunciation of Washington’s failure to implement its war plans. Socialist Worker published a rant by Michael Karadjis of the Socialist Alliance in Australia. It said, in part: “Terrified of popular revolution, throughout these two-and-a-half years, the US and especially Israel have happily watched the slaughter, and despite hypocritical whining about the regime, the US has made sure to not send a single gun or bullet to the armed opposition up to now… [A]verage Syrians would gladly see a US attack if the US destroyed the ‘conventional’ weapons of mass destruction that Assad has used against them for the last two-and-a-half years… In fact, the idea that the US had ever wanted to intervene at all, including in this current crisis, is, in my opinion, also largely a grand delusion of Western left thinking.” After the US missile attack on Syrian air bases in April of 2017, the ISO published an article by Joseph Daher and Frieda Afary denouncing the attack for not going far enough. They wrote: “However, at this point, we can say that this strike, which was announced in advance to the Russian government, does not indicate any strategic change in US policy concerning the future of Syria or the Assad regime… Clearly, no peaceful and just solution in Syria can be reached with Bashar al-Assad and his clique in power. He is the biggest criminal in Syria and must be prosecuted for his crimes instead of being legitimized by international and regional imperialist powers.” The upcoming “Socialism 2018” conference will take place in the context of a deepening global geopolitical, economic and social crisis; a widening war in the Middle East and a growing danger of world war; and an unprecedented political crisis in the United States, the center of world imperialism. This crisis is being immensely intensified by the revival of the class struggle internationally and in the United States. The bourgeoisie is terrified of the implications of a new period of working-class struggle, under conditions where their main instruments for suppressing the class struggle in the US, the trade unions and the Democratic Party, are losing any credibility in the eyes of working people and youth. The ISO, notwithstanding its socialist pretensions and rhetoric, is a critical part of the bourgeois political establishment in America. Its function is to provide a left face for sections of the foreign policy establishment, primarily those affiliated with the Democratic Party. Above all, it functions as a mechanism for the AFL-CIO, the Democratic Party and the State Department to seek to control oppositional movements in the US. Those who attend the ISO conference in July should be aware of the organization’s pro-war record and oppose attempts to direct growing left-wing sentiment behind American imperialism. The author also recommends: US imperialism and the proxy war in Syria [19 September 2013] [http://www.wsws.org/en/media/photos/legacy/frontpage/201802appeal490.png] Fight Google's censorship! Google is blocking the World Socialist Web Sitefrom search results. To fight this blacklisting: Share this article with friends and coworkers • Facebook • Twitter • E-Mail • Reddit Commenting Discussion Rules » _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 16 14:46:42 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 14:46:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Worthwhile discussion on Crosstalk Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/426851-middle-east-tensions-trump/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 16 20:29:04 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 20:29:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The massacre in Gaza and imperialist war policy. Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » The massacre in Gaza and imperialist war policy 16 May 2018 May 14, 2018, the day the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) carried out the systematic massacre of over 60 unarmed men, women, and children, will live in infamy. For hours on end, Israeli forces fired thousands of rounds of live ammunition at unarmed Palestinian demonstrators, injuring more than 3,000 people and killing eight children, the youngest of whom was just eight months old. As Palestinians buried their dead Tuesday, Israel continued its massacre, injuring scores and killing one. In the course of the past seven weeks, the IDF has shot approximately 6,000 people with live rounds and thousands more with rubber bullets and tear gas. Over that period, some 109 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli sharpshooters, who have been filmed cheering at every headshot. Within the Israeli political establishment, the massacre has prompted not horrified self-reflection and inquiries into how a state supposedly founded in response to the Holocaust could carry out actions worthy of the Nazis, but rather the open language of genocide. “The IDF has enough bullets for everyone,” said Avi Dichter, a chair of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the Knesset, in response to the massacre. Both the language and actions of Tel Aviv give the distinct impression that large sections of the Israeli state and military would not hesitate to implement, in the language of the 1930s, a “final solution” to the Palestinian question. But the reaction of the imperialist powers, which have all issued statements supporting Israel’s “right to defend itself,” has internationalized this crime. By giving legitimacy to Israel’s massacre, the imperialist powers have made themselves complicit in it. In a speech reminiscent of the shameless and blatant lying that characterized international relations in the Nazi period, US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley declared, “No country in this chamber would act with more restraint than Israel has.” She painted the massacre as the fault of the Palestinians themselves, supposedly working in conjunction with Iran. “In recent days, Hamas terrorists, backed by Iran, have incited attacks against Israeli security forces and infrastructure,” she said. Haley’s statements, while particularly vile, were of a piece with the declarations of other imperialist governments. Without exception, every official statement included a variant of the phase used by Israel’s murderous prime minister to justify the mowing down of unarmed Palestinian civilians: “Israel has the right to defend itself.” The German Foreign Ministry, while expressing its “concern” about the use of live rounds against peaceful protesters, declared that “the right to peaceful protest” must “not be abused” by the Palestinian leaders, who, it implied, used the demonstrations as a pretext to “deploy violence.” “Those who wield power in the Gaza Strip must renounce violence and the Palestinian Authority must once again be in control in Gaza,” the Foreign Ministry added. UK Prime Minister Theresa May echoed these sentiments, declaring, “We are concerned that extremist elements” within Gaza “may be seeking to hijack peaceful protests to further their own objectives.” French President Emanuel Macron, who went further in criticizing Israel’s actions than other leaders, reaffirmed his “commitment to the security of Israel.” Within the United States, the entire political establishment lined up behind the Israeli massacre. Even as Israel was slaughtering protesters, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer declared, “In a long overdue move, we have moved our embassy to Jerusalem… I sponsored legislation to do this two decades ago, and I applaud President Trump for doing it.” Bernie Sanders, the leader of the supposed left wing of the Democratic Party, held a town hall discussion Monday on the Middle East featuring a panel of pro-war State Department figures. Lara Friedman, a former US diplomat, declared that Hamas’s actions give Israel "a sometimes legitimate, sometimes not legitimate excuse to say this, all terrorism, this is an act of war, and under the laws of war we have the right to use lethal force against unarmed people, who are near the fence, which if they were to damage that fence and breach it they could come into Israel and be a threat to us.” Rather than denouncing such a statement as a monstrous justification for a horrible war crime, Sanders praised Friedman’s expertise on Israel, which he said she knows “upside down, sideways.” The argument that the murder of Palestinian civilians was effectively a legitimate, if overly aggressive, form of self-defense on the part of the Israelis permeated both the reporting and commentary in the American press. In an article heavily promoted on Google News, the Washington Post declared “the protests appeared to have a more violent edge than in previous weeks. Some young men brought knives and fence cutters… Israeli snipers were determined not to allow a breach.” The New York Times, in an editorial on the massacre, declared, “Israel has every right to defend its borders, including the boundary with Gaza.” It added, “Led too long by men who were corrupt or violent or both, the Palestinians have failed and failed again to make their own best efforts toward peace. Even now, Gazans are undermining their own cause by resorting to violence, rather than keeping their protests strictly peaceful.” What utter hypocrisy! This is a newspaper that has justified war after war on the grounds that civilians either were, or might be, in danger. What has happened to the principle, used to justify countless regime-change operations, bombings and wars, of the “responsibility to protect” civilian life? Seven years ago, the New York Times justified the US-backed regime-change operation in Libya on the grounds that, “Unless some way is found to stop him, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya will slaughter hundreds or even thousands of his own people in his desperation to hang on to power.” The newspaper mustered all of its canned moral outrage, deploying a phalanx of columnists, including David Brooks and Nicholas Kristof, to make the case that the very threat of “hundreds” of civilian deaths justified a bombing campaign that ended up destroying an entire society. Where is their outrage over the massacre in Gaza? There is no greater demonstration of the principle spelled out by Friedrich Engels that “morality has always been class morality.” The moral outrage of the New York Times is deployed only in the service of the interests of American imperialism. Fifty-eight years ago, on March 21, 1960, the Sharpeville Massacre in South Africa, in which forces of the apartheid regime shot dead 69 unarmed demonstrators, was met with international outrage and revulsion. The event marked a turning point in the history of South Africa, setting in motion a colossal radicalization of the masses throughout the African continent. It was the beginning of the end of the apartheid regime. In that period, amid an upsurge of the masses, the oppressed countries of Africa, Asia and the Middle East were undergoing decolonization. Now, recolonization is the order of the day. All of the imperial powers are once again salivating over the carve-up of the Middle East. Israel forms the linchpin of the US-led offensive against Iran, and, as Haley argued, the defense of Israel’s war crimes in Gaza is inseparable from countering Iran’s “destabilizing presence” in the region. There are more than tactical questions at stake. The wars involved in the neocolonial carve-up of the Middle East will be inseparable from mass murder, and even genocide. All of the imperialist powers can envision themselves, in the near future, carrying out similar massacres of restive and subject populations in the Middle East and elsewhere. Marxists have always seen in foreign policy the concentrated expression of domestic class relations. The mass murder of unarmed Palestinians today will become the mass murder of striking American workers tomorrow. After all, if Israel’s actions are justified, would not US forces deployed on the Mexican border be justified in opening fire on refugees walking toward US territory? Would the European border police not be justified in sinking boats of migrants fleeing to Europe? The answer to both of these questions would obviously be "yes." The universal defense of Israel’s actions makes clear that the imperialist powers have adopted the mass murder of unarmed civilians as a legitimate policy tool. Andre Damon WSWS.ORG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 17 20:12:12 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 20:12:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Rick Sterling Message-ID: SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 Socialists Supporting NATO and US Empire: a Response to Ashley Smith by RICK STERLING FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail[https://uziiw38pmyg1ai60732c4011-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/dropzone/2017/09/atoa-print-icon.png] At the recent annual convention of Veterans for Peace, VFP Vice President Jerry Condon said “The US peace movement has been demobilized by disinformation on Syria.” Disinformation and propaganda on Syria takes three distinct forms. The first is the demonization of the Syrian leadership. The second is the romanticization of the opposition. The third form involves attacking anyone questioning the preceding characterizations. There is a recent article which exemplifies all three of these forms. It is titled “Anti-Imperialism and the Syrian Revolution” by Ashley Smith of the International Socialist Organization (ISO). It’s a remarkable piece of misinformation and faulty analysis. Because it is clear and well written, it is likely to mislead people who are not well informed on the facts regarding Syria. Hence the importance of critically reviewing it. Technique 1: Demonize the enemy … “the Syrian regime and its brutal dictator” Smith starts off posing the question: Are you with the Syrian revolution or the brutal Assad dictatorship? The way he frames it, it’s not a difficult choice: yay for the revolution! Like these false options, Ashley Smith’s article is a fairy tale devoid of reality. His bias is shown as he criticizes the Left for ignoring “Assad’s massacre of some 400,000 Syrians”. Included in this death count are 100 – 150 thousand Syrian soldiers and allies. Ashley blames Assad instead of the armed opposition for killing Syrian soldiers! Another example of false propaganda is the discussion of the chemical weapons attack that took place on August 21, 2013 in outer Damascus. Neoconservatives speak of this event as “proving” Assad’s brutality – “killing his own people” – as well as the “failure” of President Obama to enforce his “red line”. Ashley aligns with the neocons as he says “Barack Obama came under pressure to intervene militarily in Syria after the regime carried out a chemical weapons attack in a suburb of Damascus in 2013, but he backed a Russian-brokered resolution that protected Assad.” In reality, the Damascus sarin gas attack was carried out by an opposition group with the goal of forcing the U.S. to directly attack the Syrian government. Soon after the event, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity issued a statement reporting “the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident”. Later on, Seymour Hersh wrote two lengthy investigations pointing to Jabhat al Nusra with Turkish support being culpable. Investigative journalist Robert Parry exposed the Human Rights Watch analysis blaming the Syrian government as a “junk heap of bad evidence”. In the Turkish parliament, Turkish deputies presented documents showing that Turkey provided sarin to Syrian “rebels”. A detailed examination and analysis of all fact based stories in online at whoghouta.blogspot.com. Their conclusion is that “The only plausible scenario that fits the evidence is an attack by opposition forces.” Ashley Smith accuses the Syrian government of widespread torture. His main example is the case of Syrian Canadian Maher Arar who was arrested by US authorities in collusion with Canadian authorities, then rendered to Syria for interrogation in 2002. Arar was beaten during the initial weeks of his interrogation in Syria. After ten months imprisonment, Syrian authorities determined he was not a terrorist and sent him back to Canada. Arar received an official apology and $10 Million from the Canadian government. The most highly publicized accusation of rampant torture and murder by Syrian authorities is the case of “Caesar”. The individual known as “Caesar” was presented as a defecting Syrian photographer who had 55,000 photos documenting 11,000 Syrians tortured by the brutal Assad dictatorship. At the time, among mainstream media only the Christian Science Monitor was skeptical, describing it as “a well timed propaganda exercise”. In the past year it has been discovered that nearly half the photos show the opposite of what is claimed. The Caesar story is essentially a fraud funded by Qatar with ‘for hire’ lawyers giving it a professional veneer and massive mainstream media promotion. While western media routinely refers to Assad as a dictator, in fact he is elected and popular with the majority of Syrians. Although not wealthy, Syria was largely self-sufficient with a semi-socialist state apparatus including free health-care, free education and large industries 51% owned by the state. You do not see pervasive western fast food, banks, and other corporate entities in Syrian cities. In the wake of protests, the government pushed through reforms which ended the one party system. There are now political parties across the political spectrum. These are a genuine ‘moderate opposition’. The June 2014 election confirmed Assad’s popularity despite the denials of those who have never been there. Technique 2: Romanticize the opposition … “the Syrian Revolution” Ashley Smith echoes mainstream media which portrays the conflict as a “civil war” which began with peaceful democratic loving Syrian revolutionaries beaten by a brutal regime. In reality there was a violent faction from the start. In the first protests in Deraa seven police were killed. Two weeks later there was a massacre of 60 security forces in Deraa. In Homs, an eye-witnessrecounted the situation: “From the start, the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.” In the first two months, hundreds of police and security forces were killed. Ashley and company listen to Americans and British citizens and mistakenly believe they are listening to real Syrians. Some of these people left Syria at age 3. Some of them have never lived in Syria. Thus you have fantasy portrayals such as “Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War”. A more realistic picture is given by a Syrian who still lives in Aleppo. He writes under the name “Edward Dark” and describes how he and his friends quickly regretted the take-over of Aleppo by armed groups in summer 2012. He describes one friend’s reaction as the reality was hitting home: “How could we have been so stupid? We were betrayed!”. And another says: “Tell your children someday that we once had a beautiful country, but we destroyed it because of our ignorance and hatred.” Edward Dark is a harsh critic of President Assad and Baath Party. He is also naive regarding the role of US Ambassador Robert Ford. But his description of early protesters and the arrival of armed opposition rings true and more authentic than the portrayal of Yassin-Kassab and Al Shami. In fact many of the idealized “Syrian revolutionaries” promoted by the authors of “Burning Country” are trained and paid agents of the US and UK. The Aleppo Media Center which produces many of the videos is a US creation. The White Helmets which purport to be Syrian, independent and unarmed first responders are a creation of the US and UK. The banner boys from Kafranbel are another western funded operation. In her book about her time as Secretary of State, Clinton boasts of providing “training for more than a thousand activists, students, and independent journalists” (p. 464). Why do the enemies of Syria create such organizations? Partly as a way to channel money and support to the armed opposition. Also to serve as propaganda tools to confuse the situation and generate support for the real goal: regime change. For example, White Helmets mostly work in areas dominated by the Syrian Al Qaeda. Unlike legitimate organizations such as the Red Crescent, they never work in areas controlled by the government. And they are also active on the propaganda front, continually pushing for US / NATO intervention via a “no fly zone”. The misinformation of Ashley Smith and ISO confuses unwitting people and helps the enemies of Syria in their drive for regime change. In contrast with the romanticized delusions of Ashley Smith and the authors of “Burning Country”, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency gave an accurate assessment in August 2012: “ EVENTS ARE TAKING A CLEAR SECTARIAN DIRECTION. THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.” Technique 3: Attack Those who Question the Dogma … “You’re an Assad supporter!” Ashley Smith does not criticize the NATO and Gulf states that are violating international law and the UN charter by funding and supplying a proxy army to attack Syria. Instead, he criticizes left groups who oppose the aggression. That is a sign of how far off track ISO is. They did the same thing regarding Libya and have evidently learned nothing from that disaster. Ashley Smith should go and tour Libya now to savor the “revolution” he promoted. Ashley Smith’s theme with respect to Syria (peaceful popular uprising against brutal dictator) is the same theme promoted by neoconservatives and the mainstream media. When they encounter a different perspective, they cry out, “You are an Assad supporter!”. Never mind that many genuine progressives do not say that. What we say is that it’s for the Syrian people to determine their government, not foreigners. Smith criticizes the British Stop the War coalition for having “adapted to Assad supporters” and for “giving a platform to allies of the dictatorship”, specifically “regime apologist Mother Superior Agnes Mariam”. Smith is misinformed on this issue also, but it is doubly revealing. In fact, Mother Agnes was hosted on the tour by Syria Solidarity Movement. When she was in London, she was invited to speak at a Stop the War rally. To his great discredit, the keynote speaker Jeremy Scahill, who is closely aligned with ISO, threatened to withdraw from the conference if Mother Agnes spoke. Scahill has done great journalistic work exposing Blackwater and Drone Warfare. However that does not excuse the complicity leading to blackmailregarding a Palestinian Lebanese nun who has shown immense courage in promoting reconciliation and peace in Syria. However, that action is typical of some misguided “socialist” groups, the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies. Mother Agnes was verbally attacked and abused by these groups throughout her tour, which otherwise met with great success. Mother Agnes has lived in Syria for over twenty years. She consistently says that Syria needs reform, but you don’t do that by destroying it. Ashley Smith goes on to criticize the US Peace Council for recently sending a delegation to Syria and having the audacity to talk with “Assad and his henchmen”. He sounds like the right wing hawks who denounced Jane Fonda for going to North Vietnam in the 1970’s. Smith displays a dogmatic and closed-minded view; what kind of “international socialism” does he represent? Smith criticizes Green Party candidates Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka for “remaining silent about Putin’s and Assad’s atrocities”. This is another measure of how far off track the ISO is. They evidently are not aware of international law or they don’t care about it. The Assad government has a right to defend itself against terrorist attacks which are sponsored, funded and supplied by foreign governments. Syria also has a right to request help from Russia and Iran. But with tunnel-vision dogma, Ashley Smith and ISO do not care. They seem to be supporting instead of opposing imperialist aggression, violations of international law, and the death and destruction these have led to. Ashley disparages the Syrian government and people who have continued to fight against the forces of sectarianism promoted by NATO, Israel and the Gulf monarchies. Ashley and ISO would do well to send some people to see the reality of Syria. They would find it very different than their fevered imagination or what they have been led to believe by fake Syrians and Muslim Brotherhood dogmatists. Genuine progressives are not “Assad supporters”. Rather, we are opponents of imperialist aggression and supporters of international law–which says it’s the right of Syrians to determine who leads them. That would mean real Syrians, not those raised in or paid by the West. Ashley Smith’s Inaccurate Overall Analysis Ashley Smith gives a very inaccurate analysis of the overall geopolitical situation in Syria and beyond. He says “The US has been seeking a resolution that might push Assad aside, but that above all maintains his regime in power”. He goes on to say ‘U.S. policy from the beginning has been to preserve the core of Assad’s state.” Ashley believes “the U.S. has retreated in general from outright regime change as its strategy in the Middle East”. This is absurd. In reality the US and allies Israel and Saudi Arabia have been pushing for ‘regime change’ in Syria for over a decade. In 2005 CNN host Christiane Amanpour expressed the situation bluntly: “Mr. President, you know the rhetoric of regime change is headed towards you from the United States. They are actively looking for a new Syrian leader. They’re granting visas and visits to Syrian opposition politicians. They’re talking about isolating you diplomatically and, perhaps, a coup d’etat or your regime crumbling. What are you thinking about that?” In 2007, Seymour Hersh wrote about the destabilization efforts in his article “The Redirection”. In 2010, Secretary of State Clinton spoke of “changing Syria’s behavior” and threatened “President Assad is making decisions that could mean war or peace for the region …. We know he’s hearing from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. It is crucial that he also hear directly from us, so that the potential consequences of his actions are clear.” Secretary Clinton appointed Robert Ford to become US Ambassador to Syria. Ford was previously the chief political officer in Baghdad for Ambassador John Negroponte. Who is John Negroponte? He was Ambassador to Honduras overseeing the Nicaraguan Contras and El Salvador death squads in the 1980’s. Negroponte’s arrival in Iraq in 2004 led to ‘the El Salvador option’ (sectarian death squads) in Iraq. Since the conflict in Syria began in 2011 the US has spent many billions of dollars trying to overthrow the Syrian government or force it to change policy. The supply of sophisticated and deadly weaponry continues. In April 2016 it was reported that the US recently supplied 994 TONS of sophisticated rocket launchers, anti tank and other heavy weapons to “moderate rebels” who ally with the Syrian Al Qaeda ( Jabhat al Nusra recently renamed Jabhat Fatah al Sham). Ashley’s theory that the US is intent on “preserving” the Syrian state and the US has “given up” on regime change is not supported by the facts. Ashley continues the faulty analysis by saying “the U.S. is solely and obsessively focused on defeating this counterrevolutionary force (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria” and “the Obama administration has struck a de facto alliance with Russia”. This is more theory without evidence. The US coalition was doing little to stop ISIS and looked the other way as ISIS went across the open desert to attack and occupy Palmyra. They were similarly looking the other way as ISIS sent hundreds of trucks filled with oil from eastern Syria into Turkey each day. It was not until Russia entered the scene in support of Syria one year ago, that the US coalition got embarrassed into actually attacking ISIS. As to a “de facto alliance”, this is what Russia has implored the US to do, largely without response. In the past two weeks the U.S. has threatened Russian and Syrian planes not to attack US ground forces inside Syria and refused to come to agreement with Russia that “moderate rebels” working with acknowledged terrorists are not “moderate” and can be targeted. The Obama administration is trying to prevent the collapse of the regime change project by stalling and delay. Perhaps they wish to keep the project alive for a more aggressive US policy. Hillary Clinton continues to talk about a “no fly zone”. Her allies in Congress have recently initiated HR5732 which will escalate economic and financial sanctions against Syria and assess the implementation of a “no fly zone”. Ashley Smith suggests that large portions of the US left have been avidly supporting “oppressive regimes” such as Syria and Iran. He mocks those on the left who suggested the Iranian ‘green movement’ was US-influenced. His mockery is exposed as ignorance by none other than Hillary Clinton herself. In her book “Hard Choices” she recounts how they arranged for Twitter to postpone a system upgrade which would have taken the social media giant offline at a critical time, right after the 2009 Iranian election. Hillary and her group at the State Dept were actively promoting the protests in Iran. Dangerous Times Ahead Some middle east analysts have made the faulty analysis that Israel is not involved in the aggression against Syria. In reality, Israeli interests are at the core of the US policy against Syria. The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. was explicit: “Israel wanted Assad gone since start of civil war”. He also said “bad guys supported by Iran” are worse than “bad guys not supported by Iran”. In other words, Israel prefers chaos and Al Qaeda to a stable independent Syria. Saudi Arabia is the other key U.S. ally seeking overthrow in Syria. With its close connections to the oil industry, military industrial complex and Wall Street, Saudi Arabia has enormous influence in Washington. It has been mercilessly bombing Yemen for the last 18 months and continues funding and promoting the proxy war against Syria. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel seek the same thing: breaking the resistance alliance which runs from Iran through Syria to Lebanon. They are in alliance with US neoconservatives who still dream of “a new American Century” where the US fights multiple wars to enforce its exceptional and sole supremacy. Along with some other countries, these are the forces of reaction violating international law and promoting the war against Syria. The tide is turning against the forces pushing for ‘regime change’ in Syria. But they have not yet given up and may even escalate. Now is when progressives in the West need to raise our voices in opposition to this aggression. Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka can hopefully bring much more attention to this critical issue. Bernie Sanders and his supporters need to speak out against Hillary Clinton’s statements and plans. There are good people in ISO which does good work in many areas. We hope they will re-examine their assumptions, beliefs and actions regarding Syria. In the dangerous times ahead, we need them to be resisting the drive to war in Syria, not condoning or supporting it. JMore articles by:RICK STERLING Rick Sterling is a retired aerospace engineer who now does research/writing on international issues. He can be contacted at rsterling1 at gmail.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Fri May 18 16:25:00 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 16:25:00 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Shadow War in the Sahara Message-ID: Shadow War in the Sahara 'War on terror' or competition for natural resources? A look at the US and French military presence in Africa. 13 May 2017 07:15 GMT Mali, Africa, Tuareg [Listen to this page using ReadSpeaker] * [https://www.aljazeera.com/Assets/images/facebook.png] * [https://www.aljazeera.com/Assets/images/twitter.png] * * [https://www.aljazeera.com/Assets/images/Reddit.png] * [https://www.aljazeera.com/Assets/images/Print.png] * [https://www.aljazeera.com/Assets/images/SendFeedback.png] [https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/mbdxxlarge/mritems/Images/2016/10/11/5177a333a508407796492ab50d0dc262_18.jpg] FACTS * Africa is the world's fastest-growing region for foreign direct investment * Nearly $2 trillion of investments in African oil and gas are expected by 2036 * The continent's population will more than double to 2.3 billion people by 2050 * Africa has approximately 30 percent of the earth's remaining mineral resources Sources: Al Jazeera, CIA Factbook Editor's note: This film is no longer available online. Africa remains a key territory on the global chessboard of the 21st century. Rich in oil and natural resources, the continent holds a strategic position. Whoever controls Mali, controls West Africa, if not the whole of Africa. Doulaye Konate, Association of African Historians, Sub-Saharan Africa is home to six of the world's 10 fastest growing economies. North Africa counts with vast oil and natural gas deposits, the Sahara holds the most strategic nuclear ore, and resources such as coltan, gold, and copper, among many others, are abundant in the continent. But despite its position and resources, conflict and chaos have spread throughout the continent. At the heart of this turmoil is a strategic territory: the Sahel. The region that straddles the Sahara to the north and the savannas in the south has become an important new front in the so-called war against terrorism. But is the official narrative, the fight against terrorism, masking a larger battle? Have the resource wars of the 21st century already begun? "What we are currently experiencing can be described as 'a new scramble for Africa'," says Jean Batou, Professor of History at Lausanne University. 'Whoever controls Mali, controls West Africa' At the centre of the troubled region of the Sahel is the nation of Mali, which is among the world's poorest. Unemployment is rampant and most people survive hand to mouth. Yet, back in the 13th century, the Mali empire extended over much of West Africa and was extraordinarily wealthy and powerful. Ivory and gold made it a major crossroads for global trade at the time. But inevitably, these resources lead to conquests. "We are the transition between North Africa and Africa that reaches the ocean and the forests. This gives us an important strategic position: whoever controls Mali, controls West Africa - if not the whole of Africa ... That's why this region became so coveted," says Doulaye Konate from the Association of African Historians. RELATED: Mapping Africa's natural resources The imperial European powers unveiled their plans to colonise Mali and the rest of Africa at the Berlin Conference in 1885. Britain, Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Italy and France, each got their share. "The arrival of colonisation tore us apart. It felt like a cut, almost like a surgical operation," Konate says. The French colonial empire extended over much of western and northern Africa, but in the late 1950s the winds of freedom started blowing across Africa, and France was to lose all its colonies. However, the euphoria of independence was short. France retained troops, bases and political influence over its former colonies: the policy of "France-Afrique" was born. "France was Africa's watchdog, defending the West in the region," says Antoine Glaser, author of France-Afrique. [https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2016/10/10/b1e442d3ee314c9fbfc854695c6f0df4_18.jpg] Colonisation of Algeria: the French landing in Algeria in the coastal town of Sidi Ferruch in 1830. [Liebig series: L'origine de diverses colonies/The origin of various colonies, 1922, No 1). (Photo by Culture Club/Getty Images] The US and the threat of 'terrorism' In the 1960s, the discovery of huge oil reserves in the Gulf of Guinea attracted a new player: the United States. The US made military as well as economic investments on the African continent and Africa became a battleground in the Cold War. In 1992, the US launched a so-called humanitarian intervention in the strategic Horn of Africa. The US sent 28,000 soldiers to Somalia to help to put an end to a civil war. The operation ended in disaster two years later after American soldiers were captured and killed, images of their mutilated bodies broadcast around the world. They decided to withdraw. In 2001, the attack on the World Trade Center reconfigured the geopolitics of the world. The US launched a war in Afghanistan - a war that would soon spread far beyond. A few months after September 11, the US military returned to the Horn of Africa with plans to stay. They established their first military base in Djibouti. "The Sahel played a key role in looking at the movement of weapons, the movement of potential foreign fighters, and organised crime ...," says Rudolph Atallah, the former Director of Africa Counter-Terrorism, US Department of Defense. [https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2016/10/10/992ebb11ad2249aeb76837ba22705b7d_18.jpg] American President George Bush visits US soldiers in Somalia [Larry Downing/Sygma/Sygma via Getty Images] The US Africa Command (AFRICOM) The United States is the only country to have divided the world into separate military sectors to monitor and patrol, NORTHCOM, PACOM, SOUTHCOM, EUCOM, CENTCOM and now AFRICOM. Under the stated goals of fighting terrorism and providing humanitarian assistance, AFRICOM implanted itself on the continent, conducting military exercises with a growing number of African countries. OPINION: The consequences of the US war on terrorism in Africa The establishment of AFRICOM was key for the consolidation of US interests in Africa. The Americans sought to establish the headquarters of AFRICOM as well as a headquarters for the CIA in Mali. The problem was that the Africans had a common position of refusing the establishment of new military bases. This opposition forced the US to set up the command of AFRICOM thousands of miles away, in Stuttgart, Germany. Muammar Gaddafi: The 'mad dog of the Middle East' Nelson Mandela's view was almost identical to Gaddafi's that there would be no African forces commanded by foreign military officials, and there would be no foreign militaries occupying any part of Africa or operating within Africa. Maximilian Forte, author African resistance to AFRICOM was spearheaded by Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader. President Ronald Reagan had labelled him the "mad dog of the Middle East" and had tried to assassinate him in 1986 by bombing his palace. The Libyan leader's independence and influence flowed from the vast petroleum reserves, the largest in Africa, which he had nationalised when he took power. Gaddafi wanted to demonstrate that Africa could develop without depending on the Western banking system or the International Monetary Fund. "From the beginning of his political career as a leader, Muammar Gaddafi was opposed to a foreign military presence in Africa. One of the first things he did after coming to power in 1969 was to expel the British and US military bases in Libya itself," Maximilian Forte, the author of Slouching Towards Sirte: Nato's war on Libya and Africa, explains. But in March 2011, as the Arab's Spring spread through North Africa, France and the United States decided to act. This was AFRICOM'S first war and its commander-in-chief was the first African-­American president. WATCH: Orphans of the Sahara The fall of Gaddafi produced a shockwave that would be felt far beyond Libya. "Unfortunately there was not a very good handle on the 40,000-plus weapons that Gaddafi had, so quickly, over 35,000 disappeared," Atallah says. Some of the weapons fell into the hands of the Libyan rebels. Others, including anti-­tank and anti-­aircraft missiles, fell into the hands of Tuareg fighters who fought alongside Gaddafi. The heavily armed Tuaregs formed a new fighting force, the MNLA, and launched an offensive against the government in Bamako in January 2012. Tuareg and other rebel forces invaded the major cities of northern Mali. Despite years of training and millions spent, the West's greatest fear became a reality: a so-called Islamic state was established in northern Mali. "Nobody believed that a few hundred 'Jihadist fighters' would take over [Bamako] a city of three million people where they had no significant presence," says Batou. But soon the French armed forces lent their support to the Malian units. The rebel advance was stopped and in just two weeks, the French regained the north. The French army claimed to have killed hundreds of so-called terrorists. The former colonial power had become the saviour of the country. [https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2016/10/10/5d30c886852c440da1009a696448f0d3_18.jpg] Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi, right, and South African President Nelson Mandela salute the crowd as they arrive at the congress centre in Zuwarah, Libya [AP Photo/Enric Marti] 'The El Dorado of the Sahel' Despite the chaos, wars and revolutions, the interest of Europeans, Americans and the Chinese remains high in what may be the largest untapped oil reserves on the continent, "the El Dorado of the Sahel", which extends from Mauritania to Algeria across north Mali. The interest of major US energy companies in Africa has not decreased. The needs of Asia and Europe will not stop growing. Nearly $2 trillion of investments in African oil and gas are expected in the next two decades. "We all know oil resources are becoming increasingly rare. The last major reserves of oil in Africa will become increasingly important. Pre-positioning oneself with a view to exploiting these resources is vital," says Batou. In May 2014, US President Barack Obama announced that he would allocate an additional $5bn to the fight against global terrorism. An increasing number of African governments have signed on to the AFRICOM programme, like in Niger, where the US military brought together African forces comprising 1,000 soldiers from 17 countries for military exercises. The US have also established drone bases in Djibouti, Niger, Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, Burkina Faso and the Seychelles, and sent troops to Liberia during the Ebola crisis in 2014. Not to be outdone, France also announced plans to increase its presence in the Sahel with a redeployment of 3,000 troops. The increasing militarisation of Africa is a new profit centre, coveted by the military-industrial complex with millions of dollars of contracts for arms manufacturers and private contractors. More than 130 years after the Berlin Conference, a new division of the African continent is underway as new powers seek to ensure oil supplies, strategic minerals, arable land and even the water under the desert sands. "In reality, the big issues are not being addressed. It is as though the West lives off wars, as though wars need to be created, for them to justify their power," says Imam Mahmoud Dicko, president of the Islamic High Council of Mali. [https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2016/10/25/5216afb3a0fe439caf4bbc74c5106bc0_18.jpg] Source: Al Jazeera [https://www.aljazeera.com/mrItems/Assets/Images/NewArticle/SendFeedbackIcon.png]Tell us what you think * [https://www.aljazeera.com/Assets/images/facebook.png] * [https://www.aljazeera.com/Assets/images/twitter.png] * * [https://www.aljazeera.com/Assets/images/Reddit.png] * [https://www.aljazeera.com/Assets/images/Print.png] * [https://www.aljazeera.com/Assets/images/SendFeedback.png] RELATED [Mapping Africa's natural resources] Mapping Africa's natural resources An overview of the continent's main natural resources. Maps, Africa [Orphans of the Sahara: Return] Orphans of the Sahara: Return With the fall of Gaddafi, thousands of Tuaregs return to Mali and Niger and launch their fight for an independent state. Tuareg, Mali, Muammar Gaddafi, Arts & Culture, Niger Commenting has been disabled. To find out more, click here. MORE FROM AL JAZEERA [Interactive: Take a tour through divided Jerusalem] Interactive: Take a tour through divided Jerusalem Take a tour through East and West Jerusalem to see the difference in quality of life for Israelis and Palestinians. Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Middle East, Palestine [Stories from the sex trade] Stories from the sex trade Dutch sex workers, pimps and johns share their stories. Human trafficking, Magazine, Human Rights [Inside the world of India's booming fertility industry] Inside the world of India's booming fertility industry As the stigma associated with being childless persists, some elderly women in India risk it all to become mothers. Human Rights, Health, India [How Britain Destroyed the Palestinian Homeland] How Britain Destroyed the Palestinian Homeland 100 years since Balfour's "promise", Palestinians insist that their rights in Palestine cannot be dismissed. Palestine, Al Nakba, Middle East RELATED [Mapping Africa's natural resources] Mapping Africa's natural resources An overview of the continent's main natural resources. Maps, Africa [Orphans of the Sahara: Return] Orphans of the Sahara: Return With the fall of Gaddafi, thousands of Tuaregs return to Mali and Niger and launch their fight for an independent state. Tuareg, Mali, Muammar Gaddafi, Arts & Culture, Niger * Mali: The forgotten war * Timbuktu: Was Islam taken hostage? LATEST NEWS [{Caption}] EU moves to block US sanctions on Iran EU to activate law that bans European companies from complying with US sanctions against Iran. Iran, European Union, United States, Europe [{Caption}] DRC: Ebola outbreak enters 'new phase' after urban case confirmed 'Game changer' as Ebola outbreak hits urban centre in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ebola, Africa, Health 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. [https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2015/9/10/4e0241289a4c43bc8da1ce42d636101b_6.jpg] [https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2015/9/16/7a89dbe5b46a48dcbf8b9c471b2a5949_6.jpg] [https://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2015/9/10/acd1d73dc2624067b412f75410a46230_6.jpg] MUST-SEE PROGRAMMES FEATURED DOCUMENTARIES [Al-Nakba] Al-Nakba A series on the Palestinian 'catastrophe' of 1948 that led to dispossession and conflict that still endures. Al Nakba, Palestine, Israel AL JAZEERA WORLD [Lost Cities of Palestine] Lost Cities of Palestine An extraordinary insight into Palestinian life in the city before 1948, revealing the loss of a culture and lifestyle. Al Nakba, Palestine, Politics WITNESS [The Great Book Robbery] The Great Book Robbery Was the appropriation of Palestinian books and manuscripts in 1948 a case of cultural theft or preservation? Israel, Palestine, Human Rights AL JAZEERA WORLD [Born in '48] Born in '48 Five women, Israeli and Palestinian, born in the same year but irreconcilably divided by history and events. Politics, Israel, Palestine [Al Jazeera] * Facebook * Twitter * Google+ * RSS * Podcast * YouTube About * About Us * Press Office * Awards * Code of Ethics * Terms and Conditions * Community Guidelines * Work for us * HR Quality Connect * Contact Us * Apps * Social * Channel Finder * TV Schedule * Podcasts * Newsletter Our Channels * Al Jazeera Arabic * Al Jazeera English * Al Jazeera Mubasher * Al Jazeera Documentary * Al Jazeera Balkans * AJ+ Our Network * Jetty * Al Jazeera Centre for Studies * Al Jazeera Media Institute * Al Jazeera Centre for Public Liberties & Human Rights * Al Jazeera Forum * Al Jazeera Film Festival * Al Jazeera Learning * Al Jazeera Hotel Partners © 2018 Al Jazeera Media Network -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Fri May 18 22:15:59 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 22:15:59 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: Haspel Could Be Subject to Arrest Abroad Under Universal Jurisdiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Feed: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Posted on: Thursday, May 17, 2018 4:34 PM Author: "Francis Boyle" - BingNews Subject: Haspel Could Be Subject to Arrest Abroad Under Universal Jurisdiction In this interview, Francis Boyle explains why Haspel could be at risk of arrest on trips abroad. Francis Boyle is professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law. He is the author of many books on International Law and an ... View article... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbn at forestfield.org Sat May 19 06:28:50 2018 From: jbn at forestfield.org (J.B. Nicholson) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 01:28:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Google staff rebel as company embraces military links In-Reply-To: <2A575D45-CD69-428D-A4E3-938333DF6BF0@illinois.edu> References: <2A575D45-CD69-428D-A4E3-938333DF6BF0@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Ron Szoke quoted Bloomberg's article athttps://www.mercurynews.com/2018/05/14/google-staff-rebel-as-company-embraces-military-links/> Google staff rebel as company embraces military links> [...] > The petition cites Google’s history of avoiding military work and its > famous “do no evil” slogan. One of Alphabet’s AI research labs has even > distanced itself from the project. Employees against the deal see it as > an unacceptable link with a U.S. administration many oppose and an > unnerving first step toward autonomous killing machines. About a dozen > staff are resigning in protest over the company’s continued involvement > in Maven, Gizmodo reported on Monday. https://gizmodo.com/google-removes-nearly-all-mentions-of-dont-be-evil-from-1826153393 says Google has recently removed its old motto "Don't be evil" from its code of conduct distributed to its employees. From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat May 19 12:01:43 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 12:01:43 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Imperialism Message-ID: I've been asked "why go after the ISO?" why divide the "left?" Based on my recent posting by the WSWS.Org criticizing the organization. My response: Because its wrong, wrong to mislead the American people about that which is so egregious as the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Especially young people who are the hope of the future, and unless they recognize the truth of American imperialism, our wars of hegemony won't stop. It's up to the members of the ISO, who may not be aware of the support for war in Syria, by the ISO because they are focused on domestic issues, like labor, racism, etc. its up to them to take charge of their leadership, the many writers perverting young minds with their rhetoric. The same rhetoric used by other groups such as "The Black Rose" an anarchist group, the same rhetoric used to vilify political activists opposing war. Diana Johnstone has written an article related to the ISO tar brushing all Trotskyists as supporting phantom uprisings, she presents a good argument but without evidence or data related to other Trotskyists organizations than the ISO. She excludes the WSWS only. Ben Norton and Rick Sterling have written articles related to the ISO support for war in Syria. There is a lot of information out there, one must merely do the research. There are legitimate socialist organizations that oppose imperialism, we should not be supporting or listening to those that do not. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat May 19 14:58:34 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 14:58:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Recent NFN, worth a watch or listen..... Message-ID: https://youtu.be/Oi0NoRUF2eg From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat May 19 15:23:17 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 15:23:17 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: NYT Obit on Dick Pipes Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 10:23 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Obit on Dick Pipes I took Imperial Russian History with Dick Pipes at Harvard and got an A, which I was grateful for and deserved.. So this is not a case of sour grapes. Indeed, I spent ten years at the University of Chicago and Harvard studying everything about Russia and the Soviet Union. This culminated in my passing my Harvard PHD Oral/General Examinations in Russian History with Ned Keenan and Soviet Politics with Adam Ulam, thus qualifying me to teach those two subjects to Harvard undergrads. I did not learn the language because that is not what I intended to do with my academic career. The University of Chicago and Harvard are two of the world's leading centers for the training of Soviet/Russian Experts. Pipes was the very worst teacher I ever had in those two fields. He was an expatriate Pole who hated the Russians/Soviets with a passion. It was so bad that during his course on Imperial Russian History, when he began to lecture on Catherine the Great or Peter the Great etc he would get so worked up that he would begin to sweat and had to take his handkerchief out of his breast pocket to wipe his brow. This is the type of anti-Russian/Soviet paranoid propagandist Harvard had teaching their students for an entire generation. If you are wondering why there is so much paranoia these days against Russia, credit it to Dick Pipes, his students, his acolytes, and his bootlickers throughout the academic world, working for the US government, and in the US media. And there were several others like him at Harvard and Chicago, though not as bad as Pipes. While interviewing for a job as an Ass.Prof at Yale Law School in early January 1977, Gene Rostow asked me to join the Committee on Present Danger. So I began to get all of the propaganda generated by the Committee and in particular by Rostow, Paul Nitze and Dick Pipes. There was Pipes once again holding forth for the COPD with his typical anti-Russian/Soviet propaganda and diatribe. Pure paranoia. And then Pipes went to work for Reagan at the White House as his expert on Russia/Soviet Union. We were lucky we did not get into a war with the Soviet Union during those first two years of the Reagan administration. I breathed a great sigh of relief when Pipes went back to Harvard after two years in order to continue his campaign to poison the minds of Harvard Students against Russia/Soviet Union. That is Pipes Lasting Legacy. Continuing American Paranoia, Bitterness, Spite, Malice and Hatred against Russia and the Russians and all things Russian. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat May 19 16:24:07 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 16:24:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Obit on Dick Pipes Message-ID: His son Dan is just as bad against Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims. Like father, like son. Except Dan is a Failed Academic. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 10:23 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: FW: NYT Obit on Dick Pipes Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 10:23 AM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: NYT Obit on Dick Pipes I took Imperial Russian History with Dick Pipes at Harvard and got an A, which I was grateful for and deserved.. So this is not a case of sour grapes. Indeed, I spent ten years at the University of Chicago and Harvard studying everything about Russia and the Soviet Union. This culminated in my passing my Harvard PHD Oral/General Examinations in Russian History with Ned Keenan and Soviet Politics with Adam Ulam, thus qualifying me to teach those two subjects to Harvard undergrads. I did not learn the language because that is not what I intended to do with my academic career. The University of Chicago and Harvard are two of the world's leading centers for the training of Soviet/Russian Experts. Pipes was the very worst teacher I ever had in those two fields. He was an expatriate Pole who hated the Russians/Soviets with a passion. It was so bad that during his course on Imperial Russian History, when he began to lecture on Catherine the Great or Peter the Great etc he would get so worked up that he would begin to sweat and had to take his handkerchief out of his breast pocket to wipe his brow. This is the type of anti-Russian/Soviet paranoid propagandist Harvard had teaching their students for an entire generation. If you are wondering why there is so much paranoia these days against Russia, credit it to Dick Pipes, his students, his acolytes, and his bootlickers throughout the academic world, working for the US government, and in the US media. And there were several others like him at Harvard and Chicago, though not as bad as Pipes. While interviewing for a job as an Ass.Prof at Yale Law School in early January 1977, Gene Rostow asked me to join the Committee on Present Danger. So I began to get all of the propaganda generated by the Committee and in particular by Rostow, Paul Nitze and Dick Pipes. There was Pipes once again holding forth for the COPD with his typical anti-Russian/Soviet propaganda and diatribe. Pure paranoia. And then Pipes went to work for Reagan at the White House as his expert on Russia/Soviet Union. We were lucky we did not get into a war with the Soviet Union during those first two years of the Reagan administration. I breathed a great sigh of relief when Pipes went back to Harvard after two years in order to continue his campaign to poison the minds of Harvard Students against Russia/Soviet Union. That is Pipes Lasting Legacy. Continuing American Paranoia, Bitterness, Spite, Malice and Hatred against Russia and the Russians and all things Russian. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Sat May 19 19:17:59 2018 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 15:17:59 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: War "games" In-Reply-To: <16379d41029-c8a-51c0@webjas-vab134.srv.aolmail.net> Message-ID: <16379d65406-c8e-4f94@webjas-vaa119.srv.aolmail.net> -----Original Message----- From: Mildred O'brien To: peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sat May 19 22:45:53 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 17:45:53 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Obit on Dick Pipes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54BAB0B2-DC11-4E69-AC75-59A5EA084EF2@gmail.com> Far be it from me to defend the “academy for the passive and obedient in Harvard Square,” especially in the Cold War years, when its history and government faculties garnered little respect, as Francis describes, especially in comparison, say, with the University of Wisconsin, where William Appleman Williams and others were constructing a far more accurate account of US imperialism. There was nevertheless some academic contribution to Harvard students’ uprising in 1969, against US crimes in SE Asia. "By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war as 'fundamentally wrong and immoral,' not 'a mistake,' largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness.” That contribution was perhaps centered in East Asia studies, which featured an ‘Eastern civ’ (cf. ‘Western civ’) course, long taught by John K. Fairbank and Edwin O. Reischauer (the Kennedy administration’s ambassador to Japan) - both Cold War liberals. But that was followed up by even better courses, notably that on the government of contemporary China (in the mid-1960s) taught by the brilliant scholar Benjamin I. Schwartz, author of “Chinese Communism and the Rise of Mao” (1951) . Nobody else in the American academy was giving such an accurate account of the greatest reversal in 20th century US foreign policy, “the loss of China.” Harvard has a lot to do penance for, from the 17th century on, but it occasionally got something right. --CGE (AB ’64, AM ’67, PhD ’77) > On May 19, 2018, at 10:23 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 10:23 AM > To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org > Subject: NYT Obit on Dick Pipes > > I took Imperial Russian History with Dick Pipes at Harvard and got an A, which I was grateful for and deserved.. So this is not a case of sour grapes. Indeed, I spent ten years at the University of Chicago and Harvard studying everything about Russia and the Soviet Union. This culminated in my passing my Harvard PHD Oral/General Examinations in Russian History with Ned Keenan and Soviet Politics with Adam Ulam, thus qualifying me to teach those two subjects to Harvard undergrads. I did not learn the language because that is not what I intended to do with my academic career. The University of Chicago and Harvard are two of the world’s leading centers for the training of Soviet/Russian Experts. Pipes was the very worst teacher I ever had in those two fields. He was an expatriate Pole who hated the Russians/Soviets with a passion. It was so bad that during his course on Imperial Russian History, when he began to lecture on Catherine the Great or Peter the Great etc he would get so worked up that he would begin to sweat and had to take his handkerchief out of his breast pocket to wipe his brow. This is the type of anti-Russian/Soviet paranoid propagandist Harvard had teaching their students for an entire generation. If you are wondering why there is so much paranoia these days against Russia, credit it to Dick Pipes, his students, his acolytes, and his bootlickers throughout the academic world, working for the US government, and in the US media. And there were several others like him at Harvard and Chicago, though not as bad as Pipes. > > While interviewing for a job as an Ass.Prof at Yale Law School in early January 1977, Gene Rostow asked me to join the Committee on Present Danger. So I began to get all of the propaganda generated by the Committee and in particular by Rostow, Paul Nitze and Dick Pipes. There was Pipes once again holding forth for the COPD with his typical anti-Russian/Soviet propaganda and diatribe. Pure paranoia. And then Pipes went to work for Reagan at the White House as his expert on Russia/Soviet Union. We were lucky we did not get into a war with the Soviet Union during those first two years of the Reagan administration. I breathed a great sigh of relief when Pipes went back to Harvard after two years in order to continue his campaign to poison the minds of Harvard Students against Russia/Soviet Union. That is Pipes Lasting Legacy. Continuing American Paranoia, Bitterness, Spite, Malice and Hatred against Russia and the Russians and all things Russian. > > Fab > From fboyle at illinois.edu Sat May 19 23:44:46 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 23:44:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NYT Obit on Dick Pipes In-Reply-To: <54BAB0B2-DC11-4E69-AC75-59A5EA084EF2@gmail.com> References: <54BAB0B2-DC11-4E69-AC75-59A5EA084EF2@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks. I did not really specialize in Asia at UChicago and Harvard.Except that we all had to become experts on Vietnam and Southeast Asia by force of circumstances. Having lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis and thinking that Kennedy was insane to have risked World War 3, I concluded the most important thing I could do was learn everything possible about Russia/Soviet Union. While going along my academic way, I also picked up a second regional area of expertise in the Middle East. But in the Gov Department Middle East Politics was being taught by Nadav Safran, an Israeli who worked for the CIA and probably double-dipped with Mossad. And after his "departure" they tried to hire the token Arab NeoCon Fraudster Warmonger Fouad Ajami. So Harvard was and still is pretty worthless on both Russia and the Middle East. And the Law School is a NeoCon Cesspool---I would not send my dog too. I like my dog. Fab Harvard: JDmcl, AM, PHD, CFIA, Teaching Fellow Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: C G Estabrook [mailto:cgestabrook at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 5:46 PM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] NYT Obit on Dick Pipes Far be it from me to defend the “academy for the passive and obedient in Harvard Square,” especially in the Cold War years, when its history and government faculties garnered little respect, as Francis describes, especially in comparison, say, with the University of Wisconsin, where William Appleman Williams and others were constructing a far more accurate account of US imperialism. There was nevertheless some academic contribution to Harvard students’ uprising in 1969, against US crimes in SE Asia. "By 1969 about 70% of the public had come to regard the war as 'fundamentally wrong and immoral,' not 'a mistake,' largely as a result of the impact of student protest on general consciousness.” That contribution was perhaps centered in East Asia studies, which featured an ‘Eastern civ’ (cf. ‘Western civ’) course, long taught by John K. Fairbank and Edwin O. Reischauer (the Kennedy administration’s ambassador to Japan) - both Cold War liberals. But that was followed up by even better courses, notably that on the government of contemporary China (in the mid-1960s) taught by the brilliant scholar Benjamin I. Schwartz, author of “Chinese Communism and the Rise of Mao” (1951) . Nobody else in the American academy was giving such an accurate account of the greatest reversal in 20th century US foreign policy, “the loss of China.” Harvard has a lot to do penance for, from the 17th century on, but it occasionally got something right. --CGE (AB ’64, AM ’67, PhD ’77) > On May 19, 2018, at 10:23 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > From: Boyle, Francis A > Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2018 10:23 AM > To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org > Subject: NYT Obit on Dick Pipes > > I took Imperial Russian History with Dick Pipes at Harvard and got an A, which I was grateful for and deserved.. So this is not a case of sour grapes. Indeed, I spent ten years at the University of Chicago and Harvard studying everything about Russia and the Soviet Union. This culminated in my passing my Harvard PHD Oral/General Examinations in Russian History with Ned Keenan and Soviet Politics with Adam Ulam, thus qualifying me to teach those two subjects to Harvard undergrads. I did not learn the language because that is not what I intended to do with my academic career. The University of Chicago and Harvard are two of the world’s leading centers for the training of Soviet/Russian Experts. Pipes was the very worst teacher I ever had in those two fields. He was an expatriate Pole who hated the Russians/Soviets with a passion. It was so bad that during his course on Imperial Russian History, when he began to lecture on Catherine the Great or Peter the Great etc he would get so worked up that he would begin to sweat and had to take his handkerchief out of his breast pocket to wipe his brow. This is the type of anti-Russian/Soviet paranoid propagandist Harvard had teaching their students for an entire generation. If you are wondering why there is so much paranoia these days against Russia, credit it to Dick Pipes, his students, his acolytes, and his bootlickers throughout the academic world, working for the US government, and in the US media. And there were several others like him at Harvard and Chicago, though not as bad as Pipes. > > While interviewing for a job as an Ass.Prof at Yale Law School in early January 1977, Gene Rostow asked me to join the Committee on Present Danger. So I began to get all of the propaganda generated by the Committee and in particular by Rostow, Paul Nitze and Dick Pipes. There was Pipes once again holding forth for the COPD with his typical anti-Russian/Soviet propaganda and diatribe. Pure paranoia. And then Pipes went to work for Reagan at the White House as his expert on Russia/Soviet Union. We were lucky we did not get into a war with the Soviet Union during those first two years of the Reagan administration. I breathed a great sigh of relief when Pipes went back to Harvard after two years in order to continue his campaign to poison the minds of Harvard Students against Russia/Soviet Union. That is Pipes Lasting Legacy. Continuing American Paranoia, Bitterness, Spite, Malice and Hatred against Russia and the Russians and all things Russian. > > Fab > From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun May 20 11:33:34 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 11:33:34 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] Class struggle has always been a feature of recent Thai history References: <61854989.2138.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: Complete coverage of Thai political history up to and including today…….. New post on Uglytruth-Thailand [http://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar.png] [http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/b94c98491e599510a5ec039e64af3261?s=50&d=identicon&r=G] Class struggle has always been a feature of recent Thai history by uglytruththailand Giles Ji Ungpakorn Given the recent discussions about the new “Future Forward Party”, whose leading members seem to deny the existence of class struggle [See http://bit.ly/2HAyO59 ], it is worth taking a long term look at class struggle in the country. Since the transformation to a capitalist state in the 1870s, Thai society has been a constant battle ground. It has been a struggle between the rulers and the ruled. Naturally, different factions of the ruling class have also had their conflicts. But intra-ruling class disputes have been about which faction can benefit most from the wealth generated by the class exploitation of workers and farmers. Class struggle also existed in pre-capitalist Thailand. In 1932 a revolution overthrew the capitalist absolute monarchy of King Rama VII. The revolution was staged by the Peoples’ Party, led by the socialist politician Pridi Panomyong. It was staged in the context of rising class discontent associated with the world economic crisis. The royal government brought in austerity measures which affected the civil service. Workers’ wages and farmers’ incomes fell dramatically as a result of the economic down-turn. Farmers’ and workers’ demands for the government to do something about the crisis fell on deaf ears. Although the revolution was staged by a coalition between civilian bureaucrats and the military, it enjoyed mass popular support. A royalist rebellion one year later was defeated by the government armed forces supported by worker volunteers. [1392561573-Pridi2490-o] After the revolution, Pridi proposed a radical economic plan, including land nationalisation and a welfare state. However, he was defeated by forces from the Right. Pridi had failed to build a mass political party of workers and farmers. Instead he relied too much on the military which eventually pushed him out of power. The long-term consolidation of military power in politics came with the Sarit military coup in 1957. The economic development during the subsequent years of the highly corrupt military dictatorship took place in the context of a world economic boom and a localised economic boom created by the Korean and Vietnam wars. This economic growth had a profound impact on the nature of Thai society. The size of the working class increased as factories and businesses were developed. However, under the dictatorship trade union rights were suppressed and wages and conditions of employment were tightly controlled. Illegal strikes had already occurred throughout the period of dictatorship, but strikes increased rapidly due to general economic discontent in the early 1970s. The influence of the Communist Party increased among workers and students. Economic development also resulted in a massive expansion of student numbers and an increased intake of students from working class backgrounds. The new generation of students, in the early 1970s, were influenced by the revolts and revolutions which occurred throughout the world in that period, May 1968 in Paris being a prime example. The struggle against US imperialism in Vietnam was also an important influence. [1968b] In late 1973, the arrest of 11 academics and students for handing out leaflets demanding a democratic constitution resulted in hundreds of thousands of students and workers taking to the streets of Bangkok in October. As troops with tanks fired on unarmed demonstrators, the people of Bangkok began to fight-back. Bus passengers spontaneously alighted from their vehicles to join the demonstrators. Government buildings were set on fire. The “Yellow Tigers”, a militant group of students, sent a jet of high-octane gasoline from a captured fire engine into the police station at Parn-Fa Bridge, setting it on fire. Earlier they had been fired upon by the police. The successful 14th October 1973 mass uprising against the military dictatorship shook the Thai ruling class to its foundations. For the next few days, there was a strange new atmosphere in Bangkok. Uniformed officers of the state disappeared from the streets and ordinary people organised themselves to clean up the city. It was the first time that the pu-noi (little people) had actually started a revolution from below. It was not planned and those that took part had conflicting notions about what kind of democracy and society they wanted. But the Thai ruling class could not shoot enough demonstrators to protect their regime. It was not just a student uprising to demand a democratic constitution. It involved thousands of ordinary working class people and occurred on the crest of a rising wave of workers’ strikes. Success in over-throwing the military dictatorship bred increased confidence. Workers, peasants and students began to fight for more than just parliamentary democracy. In the two months following the uprising, the new Royal appointed civilian government faced a total of 300 workers’ strikes. On the 1st May 1975 a quarter of a million workers rallied in Bangkok and a year later half a million workers took part in a general strike against price increases. In the countryside small farmers began to build organisations and they came to Bangkok to make their voices heard. Workers and peasants wanted social justice and an end to long-held privileges. A Triple Alliance between students, workers and small farmers was created. Some activists wanted an end to exploitation and capitalism itself. The influence of the Communist Party of Thailand (CPT) increased rapidly, especially among activists in urban areas. It was not long before the ruling class and the conservative middle classes fought back. In the early hours of 6th October 1976, Thai uniformed police, stationed in the grounds of the National Museum, next door to Thammasat University, destroyed a peaceful gathering of students and working people on the university campus under a hail of relentless automatic fire. At the same time a large gang of ultra-right-wing “informal forces”, known as the Village Scouts, Krating-Daeng and Nawapon, indulged in an orgy of violence and brutality towards anyone near the front entrance of the university. Students and their supporters were dragged out of the university and hung from the trees around Sanam Luang; others were burnt alive in front of the Ministry of “Justice” while the mob danced round the flames. Women and men, dead or alive, were subjected to the utmost degrading and violent behaviour. [ThuDecember2003-11-17-2-big4] The actions of the police and right-wing mobs on 6th October were the culmination of attempts by the ruling class to stop the further development of a socialist movement in Thailand. The events at Thammasat University were followed by a military coup which brought to power one of the most right-wing governments Thailand has ever known. In the days that followed, offices and houses of organisations and individuals were raided. Trade unionists were arrested and trade union rights were curtailed. Centre-Left and left-wing newspapers were closed and their offices ransacked. Thousands of activists joined the armed struggle led by the Communist Party of Thailand in remote rural areas. However, this struggle was ultimately unsuccessful, but it managed to put a great deal of pressure on the ruling class. Three years after 1976, the government decreed an “amnesty” for those who had left to fight alongside the communists. This coincided with splits and arguments between the student activists and the Stalinist CPT leaders. By 1988 the student activists had all returned to the city as the CPT collapsed. Thailand returned to an almost full parliamentary democracy, but with one special condition: it was a parliamentary democracy without the Left or any political parties representing workers or small farmers. But the economic boom helped to damp down discontent. Three years later the military staged a coup against an elected government which it feared would reduce its role in society. Resistance to the coup took a year to gather momentum, but in May 1992 a mass uprising in Bangkok braved the deadly gunfire from the army and overthrew the junta. Many key activists in this uprising had previously cut their teeth in the struggles in the 1970s. [%e0%b9%80%e0%b8%82%e0%b9%89%e0%b8%b2%e0%b9%80%e0%b8%9d%e0%b9%89%e0%b8%b2] Four years after this uprising, Thailand experienced a deep economic crisis. Activists pushed for a new, more democratic constitution, in the hope that the country could escape from the cycle of corruption, human rights abuses and military coups. There was also an increase in workers’ struggles and one factory was set alight by workers who had had their wages slashed as a result of the crisis. [262284] In the general election of January 2001, Taksin Shinawat’s Thai Rak Thai Party (TRT) won a landslide victory. The election victory was in response to previous government policy under the Democrats, which had totally ignored the plight of the rural and urban poor during the crisis. TRT also made 3 important promises to the electorate. These were (1) a promise to introduce a Universal Health Care Scheme for all citizens, (2) a promise to provide a 1 million baht job creation loan to each village in order to stimulate economic activity and (3) a promise to introduce a debt moratorium for farmers. The policies of TRT arose from a number of factors, mainly the 1997 economic crisis and the influence of some ex-student activists from the 1970s within the party. The government delivered on their promises which resulted in mass support for the party. Eventually, there was a backlash from the conservative sections of the ruling class and most of the middle-classes. By allying himself with workers and farmers, Taksin had built a coalition between them and his modernising section of the capitalist class. TRT policies were threatening the interests of the conservatives and upsetting the ruling class consensus which had determined the nature of Thai politics since the defeat of the Communist Party. This political consensus had managed to exclude the interests of workers and farmers. The conservative backlash re-established the era of military rule which we see today. Anyone who studies this period of Thai history, since 1932, cannot fail to see the importance of class struggle. Denying the importance of class struggle, or a divide between left and right, can only be either sheer ignorance or an excuse to ignore the interests of the majority of citizens. Read more in my book “Thailand’s Crisis”….at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/47097266/Thailand-s-Crisis-and-the-fight-for-Democracy uglytruththailand | May 20, 2018 at 4:33 am | Tags: Class, Communist Party of Thailand, Giles Ji Ungpakorn, Military Dictatorship, Taksin Shinawat, Thai History, Thai politics, Thaksin Shinawatra | Categories: Thai politics | URL: https://wp.me/p4bxj7-yu Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Uglytruth-Thailand. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://uglytruththailand.wordpress.com/2018/05/20/class-struggle-has-always-been-a-feature-of-recent-thai-history/ Thanks for flying with [https://s0.wp.com/i/emails/blavatar-default.png] WordPress.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun May 20 14:08:48 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 14:08:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The problems of gunownershipr Message-ID: For many years, long before the school shootings at Columbine, I have been arguing against US gun ownership. Realizing the high rate of deaths in the US as a result of shootings, accidental or otherwise. Just compare to the UK where the police on the beat didn't carry firearms, Japan, where they make it extremely difficult and time consuming to obtain a weapon. Then we have Australia, a culture of immigrants similar to that of the US, with the same "cowboy mentality" and a record of genocide against their indigenous peoples. Slavery and the need to control, is the major reason for the proliferation of weapons in the US from our very founding. Our Constitution supporting a "well armed militia," was for that very purpose, legitimizing killings and lynchings of rebellious slaves. The one amendment we certainly have upheld while destroying most others. Today the problem of shootings in America is much bigger than just gun ownership. We have gone so far down that road, there is no longer any ability to shut the barn doors. It's tied up with our foreign policy of war, interventions, and the proliferation of weapons, given they are the only thing we manufacture. Our drug wars, our incarceration of those committing victimless crimes, homelessness and debt, global warming, lack of medical care, and poverty is all part and parcel of the same for profit "system." People including our children, unless privileged, are considered expendables. Imperialism is the end stage of capitalism, and we are there, cannibalizing our own. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun May 20 15:03:13 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 15:03:13 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Gaza 2014. Message-ID: https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/427243-gaza-israel-crimes-discussion/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun May 20 15:22:38 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 15:22:38 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The problems of gunownershipr In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: cannibalizing our own. Yeah, eating our own children. The problem is that Scalia and the US Supreme Court really screwed the American People with their bogus Federalist Society (in vogue at Illiniwaks Law School) "originalist" interpretation of the Second Amendment in the Heller decision. The only part about that Opinion I liked is where Scalia actually said that guns would be useful if the US government becomes tyrannical. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:09 AM To: Peace-discuss List Subject: [Peace-discuss] The problems of gunownershipr For many years, long before the school shootings at Columbine, I have been arguing against US gun ownership. Realizing the high rate of deaths in the US as a result of shootings, accidental or otherwise. Just compare to the UK where the police on the beat didn't carry firearms, Japan, where they make it extremely difficult and time consuming to obtain a weapon. Then we have Australia, a culture of immigrants similar to that of the US, with the same "cowboy mentality" and a record of genocide against their indigenous peoples. Slavery and the need to control, is the major reason for the proliferation of weapons in the US from our very founding. Our Constitution supporting a "well armed militia," was for that very purpose, legitimizing killings and lynchings of rebellious slaves. The one amendment we certainly have upheld while destroying most others. Today the problem of shootings in America is much bigger than just gun ownership. We have gone so far down that road, there is no longer any ability to shut the barn doors. It's tied up with our foreign policy of war, interventions, and the proliferation of weapons, given they are the only thing we manufacture. Our drug wars, our incarceration of those committing victimless crimes, homelessness and debt, global warming, lack of medical care, and poverty is all part and parcel of the same for profit "system." People including our children, unless privileged, are considered expendables. Imperialism is the end stage of capitalism, and we are there, cannibalizing our own. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From divisek at yahoo.com Sun May 20 15:42:55 2018 From: divisek at yahoo.com (Dianna Visek) Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 15:42:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Fw=3A_Google=E2=80=99s_Mendacity=3A_The?= =?utf-8?q?_Selfish_Ledger_Decyphered?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <383634686.3311019.1526830975805@mail.yahoo.com> Trouble viewing this email? Click here to read online. | | | Google’s Mendacity: The Selfish Ledger Decyphered | Share this article... | | | | Not yet a subscriber? | | | Few things repulse me more than someone born with a genius brain who then uses it to befuddle others and turn them into tools. A leaked video from Google showed up on my screen this morning. At first I was thrilled that we’d have evidence from the inside, showing what’s really happening at the home of “Don’t Be Evil.” But as I watched the video, my emotions changed dramatically. This video, which was made for Google employees[1], was designed to confuse them into supporting their employer’s plans and to feel like they were smart for doing so. That pissed me off. So, I’m going to decipher this video. Please read this brief explanation and then watch the video yourself. They’re admitting to precisely what Jonathan Logan and I wrote in The New Age of Intelligence, but the admission is wrapped in bullshit that makes people feel smart. So, here’s what was said, all the quotes below are precisely from the video: - The video begins with a lesson on biology. Then (1:20) they jump from epigenetic theory (interesting stuff, though not precisely understood) to data produced by a girl on a smart phone… data that Google sucks from her, mainly without her realizing it. - They rightly say that the data taken from this girl (or anyone using such phones) “describes our actions, decisions, preferences, movement, and relationships,” then compares this data to a “ledger,” being “a constantly evolving representation of who we are.” - Next, the video goes into more biology, saying that “the driving force behind evolution was not the individual but the gene.” It goes on (2:52) to say that “the individual organism is a transient carrier, a survival machine for the gene.” - Now comes a big jump: While showing us the ledger book (and remember, that’s essentially you) they talk about making it “richer… by introducing more sources of information.” (3:12) Then they ask, “What if we thought of ourselves not as owners of our information… but as transient carriers?” So, you are a “transient carrier” of data, like a hard drive, and the ledger is, for lack of a better work, a precise copy of your soul (or psyche or whatever). - They further say that this digitized soul should be given “more inputs.” (3:15) That means that they want to add things to your life and mind. They’re not explaining what or how yet, but they’ve got their foot in the door. - Now (3:40) comes another leap: “Google would be responsible for offering suitable targets for a user’s ledger… topics would likely focus on health or environmental impact, to reflect Google’s values as an organization.” As the discourse continues, it says (4:01), “… if one of these options allows the ledger to move closer to the user’s goal, it is offered up to the user. Over time… the user’s behavior may be modified.” - Then (4:40) the video jumps to what might happen when “the notion of a goal-driven ledger becomes more palatable….” Here they’re admitting that people would be repulsed to know what’s being done to them. And so, it will take time before this becomes “palatable.” This is an echo of a comment from Eric Schmidt (a top-level Google boss), who said he wanted to get Google’s policy “as close as possible to the creepy line.” Here, however, they expect us to get used to creepy, after which they can get what they really want. - The video then describes what happens if you’re not sucking up the right information for Google’s goal. In that case (4:50), they’ll custom design a device for you, according to your “taste and aesthetic sensibility.” This results in “a custom object to trigger the user’s interest.” - At 8:39 the video moves forward into “behavior sequencing,” a reference to sequencing DNA. What they’re talking about is identifying every single thing, internal or external, that drives your behavior. This sequencing ends (7:50) with a system, “which not only tracks our behavior but offers direction toward the desired result.” - The video concludes with a Do it for the children narrative but with college-level vocabulary and sympathetic images. So, let’s recap: - Google sees you as a “transient carrier.” (#3 above.) That is, the data you produce is the essential being, and you’re a mere “container.” You, robot. - You shouldn’t really own your ledger (your most essential self), and they should insert information into your life. (#4, #6) We’ll tell you what to think. - Google will choose what you should want and will modify your behavior accordingly (#5). How? By offering you new options or even designing custom devices that you won’t be able to resist (#8). They will make sure “your behavior” is “modified.” Look at this shiny gadget you really need… and it’s free if you take a short quiz! - If this seems creepy to you, don’t worry; you’ll warm up to it over time. (#7) It’s okay; you’ll come to love Big Brother. - Google will guide you to what’s best for you (#9). You can trust them; they love us and know what’s best for us all. Look little girl; I have candy in the car. This is how Google sees you, and whether you want to believe me or not, this has already begun. And please understand that Facebook does the same… and that the NSA sucks it all in. But, hey, the accounts are free! Right? * * * * * A book that generates comments like these, from actual readers, might be worth your time: - I just finished reading The Breaking Dawn and found it to be one of the most thought-provoking, amazing books I have ever read… It will be hard to read another book now that I've read this book… I want everyone to read it. - Such a tour de force, so many ideas. And I am amazed at the courage to write such a book, that challenges so many people's conceptions. - There were so many points where it was hard to read, I was so choked up. - Holy moly! I was familiar with most of the themes presented in A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, but I am still trying to wrap my head around the concepts you presented at the end of this one. - Get it at Amazon ($18.95) or on Kindle: ($5.99) * * * * * Paul Rosenberg www.freemansperspective.com [1]     I do not believe Google’s response that this was merely a tool for generating discussion. That ranks with “the dog ate my homework” for lame excuses after getting caught. I’m flatly ignoring it. | | We want your feedback! Let us know your thoughts on today's issue. Click here to post your comments. | | If you like this article, feel free to forward to your friends or share: | | Other Articles You Might Like... | | So, You Wanna Get Involved with Crypto… Here’s What You Need to Know After several quiet months, I’m hearing of more and more people who want to get involved with cryptocurrencies, and not just buying and selling. I’m hearing about people who want to start crypto-related businesses, even things like crypto-themed bars. Source: FreemansPerspective.com | | | Justice Condemned: The Ross Ulbricht Case I’ve been in and around the US justice system for most of my life. I’ve always had relatives and friends who were lawyers, and I worked as an expert witness for more than 30 years. And however much I may disregard the state as an institution, I hold great regard for the common law, upon which the US justice system was based. Source: FreemansPerspective.com | | | The Status Quo Is Deathly Boring Most young people know nothing but the world as it is. Their teachers assure them that this is the best form of human organization, all authority agrees, and their parents toe the party line. Source: FreemansPerspective.com | | | Copyright 2018 Vera Verba, Inc. DISCLAIMER: Vera Verba, Inc. does not provide investment, tax, or legal advice, and nothing in this email or any document found at freemansperspective.com should be construed as such. Before undertaking any action, be sure to discuss your options with a qualified advisor. Vera Verba, Inc. P. O. Box 81058 Chicago, 60681 Illinois, USA You are receiving this email because you signed up to receive messages from freemansperspective.com. If you no longer wish to receive our emails, click here: Unsubscribe | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sun May 20 15:46:23 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 15:46:23 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: The problems of gunownershipr References: Message-ID: “if the US government becomes tyrannical” the problem with that statement is, as I have attempted to explain to others. Our assault weapons, lethal as they are, are useless when it comes to the military weapons our government possesses and has continued to supply to our local militia’s known as “police.” Along with training by the Mossad, they wear body armor for protection. Having lived in a nation with a military government, and seen tanks roll into town, with the devastation of which they are capable, I don’t see much hope of armed patrols of the American people fighting off USG forces, in that manner. Begin forwarded message: From: "Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss" > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The problems of gunownershipr Date: May 20, 2018 at 08:22:38 PDT To: "Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net)" > Reply-To: "Boyle, Francis A" > cannibalizing our own. Yeah, eating our own children. The problem is that Scalia and the US Supreme Court really screwed the American People with their bogus Federalist Society (in vogue at Illiniwaks Law School) “originalist” interpretation of the Second Amendment in the Heller decision. The only part about that Opinion I liked is where Scalia actually said that guns would be useful if the US government becomes tyrannical. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:09 AM To: Peace-discuss List > Subject: [Peace-discuss] The problems of gunownershipr For many years, long before the school shootings at Columbine, I have been arguing against US gun ownership. Realizing the high rate of deaths in the US as a result of shootings, accidental or otherwise. Just compare to the UK where the police on the beat didn't carry firearms, Japan, where they make it extremely difficult and time consuming to obtain a weapon. Then we have Australia, a culture of immigrants similar to that of the US, with the same "cowboy mentality" and a record of genocide against their indigenous peoples. Slavery and the need to control, is the major reason for the proliferation of weapons in the US from our very founding. Our Constitution supporting a "well armed militia," was for that very purpose, legitimizing killings and lynchings of rebellious slaves. The one amendment we certainly have upheld while destroying most others. Today the problem of shootings in America is much bigger than just gun ownership. We have gone so far down that road, there is no longer any ability to shut the barn doors. It's tied up with our foreign policy of war, interventions, and the proliferation of weapons, given they are the only thing we manufacture. Our drug wars, our incarceration of those committing victimless crimes, homelessness and debt, global warming, lack of medical care, and poverty is all part and parcel of the same for profit "system." People including our children, unless privileged, are considered expendables. Imperialism is the end stage of capitalism, and we are there, cannibalizing our own. _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun May 20 15:49:25 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 10:49:25 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] From today's N-G Message-ID: <137955B7-A81B-4A25-BA79-4CEA5AFE9865@gmail.com> Sunday Extra | War with Iran is a bad idea Sun, 05/20/2018 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette <> By C.G. ESTABROOK Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn't let it happen. Fifteen years ago, the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people — on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous "weapons of mass destruction." During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: "Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!" A principal instigator of that shameful U.S. war against Iraq was the government of Israel, which wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the U.S. to attack and kill Iranians. The Iran nuclear deal guaranteed that Iran would not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The U.S. has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) But Trump is violating the agreement and withdrew from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the U.S. to attack Iran for their benefit. One commentator writes, "Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt, this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power (like 'Russiagate')?" In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike U.S. troops). An Israeli government adviser has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not allow the Trump administration to expand U.S. wars in the Mideast. The president and our congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran — among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war — even a nuclear war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the U.S. attacked Iraq. As Americans, we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the U.S. and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages — strikes — and street demonstrations across the U.S. In the meantime, write the president and our congressional representatives — Rep. Rodney Davis, Sen. Tammy Duckworth and Sen. Dick Durbin. C.G. Estabrook is a retired visiting professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He conducts the weekly hour of news commentary, "News from Neptune " on Urbana Public Television. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Sun May 20 18:59:15 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 13:59:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] From today's N-G In-Reply-To: <137955B7-A81B-4A25-BA79-4CEA5AFE9865@gmail.com> References: <137955B7-A81B-4A25-BA79-4CEA5AFE9865@gmail.com> Message-ID: Well said, Carl. This precise scenario is prophesied in the Bible, as I'm sure you know. John Wason On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:49 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Sunday Extra | War with Iran is a bad idea > Sun, 05/20/2018 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette > > > > > > *By C.G. ESTABROOK* > > Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn't let it > happen. > > Fifteen years ago, the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million > people — on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous "weapons of mass > destruction." > > During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to > the attack on Iraq: > > "Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have > handled it that way. ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds > and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back > with no arms and legs? > > Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to > pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly > wrong. All this for nothing!" > > A principal instigator of that shameful U.S. war against Iraq was the > government of Israel, which wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in > the Middle East. > > Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the U.S. to attack and > kill Iranians. > > The Iran nuclear deal guaranteed that Iran would not develop even one > nuclear weapon. (The U.S. has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) > > But Trump is violating the agreement and withdrew from the deal. The > Israeli government cheers, because they want the U.S. to attack Iran for > their benefit. > > One commentator writes, "Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's > bogus speech from last week. Without doubt, this effort is coordinated. > Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a > foreign power (like 'Russiagate')?" > > In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria > (who are there legally, unlike U.S. troops). An Israeli government adviser > has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke > an open war with Iran. > > Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including > children and journalists. > > We should not allow the Trump administration to expand U.S. wars in the > Mideast. The president and our congressional representatives should be > urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran — among other > things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, > notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war — even a > nuclear war. > > The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world > before the U.S. attacked Iraq. As Americans, we must do even more to > prevent this new criminal war. > > If the U.S. and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages > — strikes — and street demonstrations across the U.S. > > In the meantime, write the president and our congressional representatives > — Rep. Rodney Davis, Sen. Tammy Duckworth and Sen. Dick Durbin. > > *C.G. Estabrook is a retired visiting professor at the University of > Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He conducts the weekly hour of news > commentary, "News from Neptune " on Urbana Public Television.* > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun May 20 19:39:08 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 19:39:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: DPRK Balks for Good Cause Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 2:36 PM To: 'globenet at yahoogroups.com' Subject: DPRK Balks for Good Cause Don't know if people saw it elsewhere. But yesterday's Wall Street Journal reports that we flew a B-52 Bomber right up to ROK airspace accompanied by a Japanese Jet Fighter. So no wonder DPRK balked. Exactly the opposite of how it is being spinned in the Mainstream Media. Maybe Bolton at work trying to sabotage things like he did before? Fab. Fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun May 20 20:08:55 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 15:08:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] From today's N-G In-Reply-To: References: <137955B7-A81B-4A25-BA79-4CEA5AFE9865@gmail.com> Message-ID: <641BABE4-7CA8-47F1-AD43-0DCB96BAC21F@gmail.com> Thank you, John, but I don’t know that. Prophets in the Hebrew bible and the New Testament are not foretellers so much as forth-tellers. They proclaiming the good news that, against the appearances, we are loved in the universe. —CGE > On May 20, 2018, at 1:59 PM, John W. wrote: > > > Well said, Carl. > > This precise scenario is prophesied in the Bible, as I'm sure you know. > > John Wason > > > > On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:49 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace > wrote: > Sunday Extra | War with Iran is a bad idea > > Sun, 05/20/2018 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette > <> > By C.G. ESTABROOK > > Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn't let it happen. > > Fifteen years ago, the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people — on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous "weapons of mass destruction." > > During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: > > "Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? > > Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!" > > A principal instigator of that shameful U.S. war against Iraq was the government of Israel, which wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. > > Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the U.S. to attack and kill Iranians. > > The Iran nuclear deal guaranteed that Iran would not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The U.S. has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) > > But Trump is violating the agreement and withdrew from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the U.S. to attack Iran for their benefit. > > One commentator writes, "Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt, this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power (like 'Russiagate')?" > > In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike U.S. troops). An Israeli government adviser has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. > > Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. > > We should not allow the Trump administration to expand U.S. wars in the Mideast. The president and our congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran — among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war — even a nuclear war. > > The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the U.S. attacked Iraq. As Americans, we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. > > If the U.S. and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages — strikes — and street demonstrations across the U.S. > > In the meantime, write the president and our congressional representatives — Rep. Rodney Davis, Sen. Tammy Duckworth and Sen. Dick Durbin. > > C.G. Estabrook is a retired visiting professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He conducts the weekly hour of news commentary, "News from Neptune " on Urbana Public Television. > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net Mon May 21 12:20:30 2018 From: davidjohnson1451 at comcast.net (David Johnson) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 07:20:30 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] From today's N-G In-Reply-To: <641BABE4-7CA8-47F1-AD43-0DCB96BAC21F@gmail.com> References: <137955B7-A81B-4A25-BA79-4CEA5AFE9865@gmail.com> <641BABE4-7CA8-47F1-AD43-0DCB96BAC21F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <012701d3f0fe$1ca8f2b0$55fad810$@comcast.net> Excellent letter Carl ! David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 3:09 PM To: John W. Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] From today's N-G Thank you, John, but I don’t know that. Prophets in the Hebrew bible and the New Testament are not foretellers so much as forth-tellers. They proclaiming the good news that, against the appearances, we are loved in the universe. —CGE On May 20, 2018, at 1:59 PM, John W. wrote: Well said, Carl. This precise scenario is prophesied in the Bible, as I'm sure you know. John Wason On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:49 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace wrote: Sunday Extra | War with Iran is a bad idea Sun, 05/20/2018 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette Image removed by sender. Image removed by sender.Image removed by sender. By C.G. ESTABROOK Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn't let it happen. Fifteen years ago, the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people — on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous "weapons of mass destruction." During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: "Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!" A principal instigator of that shameful U.S. war against Iraq was the government of Israel, which wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the U.S. to attack and kill Iranians. The Iran nuclear deal guaranteed that Iran would not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The U.S. has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) But Trump is violating the agreement and withdrew from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the U.S. to attack Iran for their benefit. One commentator writes, "Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt, this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power (like 'Russiagate')?" In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike U.S. troops). An Israeli government adviser has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not allow the Trump administration to expand U.S. wars in the Mideast. The president and our congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran — among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war — even a nuclear war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the U.S. attacked Iraq. As Americans, we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the U.S. and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages — strikes — and street demonstrations across the U.S. In the meantime, write the president and our congressional representatives — Rep. Rodney Davis, Sen. Tammy Duckworth and Sen. Dick Durbin. C.G. Estabrook is a retired visiting professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He conducts the weekly hour of news commentary, "News from Neptune " on Urbana Public Television. Image removed by sender. _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ~WRD000.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon May 21 12:36:39 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 07:36:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] From today's N-G In-Reply-To: <012701d3f0fe$1ca8f2b0$55fad810$@comcast.net> References: <137955B7-A81B-4A25-BA79-4CEA5AFE9865@gmail.com> <641BABE4-7CA8-47F1-AD43-0DCB96BAC21F@gmail.com> <012701d3f0fe$1ca8f2b0$55fad810$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Thank you, David. I hope it incidentally helps to clear up some of the nonsense about antisemitism that’s been circulating on this list. —CGE > On May 21, 2018, at 7:20 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Excellent letter Carl ! > > David J. > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net ] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 3:09 PM > To: John W. > Cc: Peace-discuss List > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] From today's N-G > > Thank you, John, but I don’t know that. > > Prophets in the Hebrew bible and the New Testament are not foretellers so much as forth-tellers. > > They proclaiming the good news that, against the appearances, we are loved in the universe. > > —CGE > > >> On May 20, 2018, at 1:59 PM, John W. > wrote: >> >> >> Well said, Carl. >> >> This precise scenario is prophesied in the Bible, as I'm sure you know. >> >> John Wason >> >> >> >> On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:49 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace > wrote: >> Sunday Extra | War with Iran is a bad idea >> >> Sun, 05/20/2018 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette >> <~WRD000.jpg> <~WRD000.jpg> <~WRD000.jpg> >> By C.G. ESTABROOK >> Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn't let it happen. >> Fifteen years ago, the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people — on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous "weapons of mass destruction." >> During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: >> "Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? >> Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!" >> A principal instigator of that shameful U.S. war against Iraq was the government of Israel, which wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. >> Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the U.S. to attack and kill Iranians. >> The Iran nuclear deal guaranteed that Iran would not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The U.S. has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) >> But Trump is violating the agreement and withdrew from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the U.S. to attack Iran for their benefit. >> One commentator writes, "Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt, this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power (like 'Russiagate')?" >> In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike U.S. troops). An Israeli government adviser has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. >> Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. >> We should not allow the Trump administration to expand U.S. wars in the Mideast. The president and our congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran — among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war — even a nuclear war. >> The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the U.S. attacked Iraq. As Americans, we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. >> If the U.S. and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages — strikes — and street demonstrations across the U.S. >> In the meantime, write the president and our congressional representatives — Rep. Rodney Davis, Sen. Tammy Duckworth and Sen. Dick Durbin. >> C.G. Estabrook is a retired visiting professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He conducts the weekly hour of news commentary, "News from Neptune " on Urbana Public Television. >> <~WRD000.jpg> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 21 13:51:27 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 13:51:27 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US will eventually bomb Iran as it bombed other countries: Wm. Blum April 2015 Message-ID: The US Will Eventually Bomb Iran As It Bombed Other Countries: William Blum By William Blum Global Research, April 19, 2015 RT Region: Middle East & North Africa Theme: US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR? [https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/plugins/print-me/images/printme.png] 0 0 0 New [https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/iran-us-flag.jpg] Obama’s time as leader of the US is coming to an end – his term concludes next year. Wannabe presidents have already joined the race to the White House. And as President Obama goes through the final year of his rule, Washington suddenly changes its tone – now Iran is an appropriate nation to talk to, and it’s okay to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. But what is in that change? Has Washington finally dropped its previous policies? What does Obama want to achieve? And will the new, as yet unknown, leader of America make any difference? We pose these questions to prominent historian, author of bestsellers on US foreign policies, William Blum, who is on Sophie&Co today. Transcript William Blum: I don’t think US foreign policy will change at all, regardless of who is in the White House, Bush or Clinton, or who else is running. Our policy does not change… I can add Obama to that. It wouldn’t even matter which party it is, Republican or Democrat, they have the same foreign policy. SS: Why do you think it’s the same policy for both parties? Why do you think they are not different from each other? WB: Because America, for two centuries has had one basic, overriding goal, and that is world domination, at least from 1890s if not earlier, one can say that. World domination is something which appeals to both Republicans and Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives. The idea that we’re the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism… Each party believes in that very strongly. They don’t argue about that at all, except through their campaign debate, they’ll take certain opposing views just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination. SS: Now back in 2009 President Obama made it clear that the missile shield in Europe would no longer be necessary if the threat from Iran was eliminated – and nuclear deal with Iran was struck. Now, historic deal is close, but NATO is saying there will be no change in missile shield plans – why not? WB: Because NATO shares America’s desire to dominate the world. NATO is just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, there’s no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is its main supporter and financial source, there’s no distinction between US and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesn’t matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone who’s not a lover of the Empire has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not. SS: But, can we be a little bit more precise about this “domination” theory – NATO has been strengthening its eastern borders with military building up on Russia’s doorsteps, and a rapid reaction force to include 30,000 personnel – why this deployment? Who is it aimed against? WB: It is aimed against Russia. The US cannot stand anyone who might stay in the way of the Empire’s expansion – and Russia and China are the only nations which can do that. Other nations, like Cuba or Iran or Venezuela are regarded as enemy just as well, because they have the polity influence: Cuba has influence over all of the Western hemisphere. That makes them a great enemy. But the basic criteria of Empire’s expansion is whether you support Empire or not, and that excludes all the countries I’ve named – from Cuba to Russia. SS: Do you think U.S. would go as far as using force against its enemies? WB: Well, the US has used force against its enemies on a regular basis for two centuries. Of course they would use force! They’ve used force against Cuba, they invaded Cuba and they’ve supported Cuban exiles in all kinds of violent activities for 60 years. Violence is never far removed from the U.S. policy. Let me summarize something for the benefit of listeners: since 1946 the US has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments. In the same time period it has attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders. It has bombed the people of 30 countries, it has suppressed revolutionary parties in at least 20 nations – and I forgot other factors on my list. This is a record unparalleled in all of human history, and there’s no reason to think it is changing of will change, except if some superior force comes on a scene, that can actually defeat U.S. SS: But, you know, French intelligence – and France seems to be an ally of the U.S. – the French intelligence chief has recently said that they found no evidence of Russia planning to invade Ukraine. So why has NATO been pressing these claims of an imminent invasion so hard and for so long? WB: Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washington’s policy, it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. That’s all it takes: you don’t admire us and have military force – that’s all it takes to be an enemy of Washington. SS: The problem is, there’s a ceasefire that seems in place, right? But US paratroopers have arrived in Ukraine to train forces in the country, and it’s not the first such deployment we’ve seen. So, with ceasefire agreement and peace deal on the way, why is Washington sending troops now? WB: They know very well that Ukraine is not…or those who live in Ukraine and support Russia, Washington knows very well that these people are not on their side, and will not be on their side, and there’s no way to make them on our side, so, US is expecting to wipe them out militarily at some point in the near future. As soon as they can get all the politics in place, there’s no backtracking from these policies. I must repeat myself again: Washington wants to dominate the world and anyone, including people in the south-eastern part of Ukraine, who don’t share that view, they are enemies, and at some point they may be met with military force. SS: So are you saying that America doesn’t want peace in Ukraine, because US is sending military personnel to Ukraine – like I’ve said – while Europeans are negotiating peace without America’s involvement? WB: Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – that’s fine. If they can’t, they’ll use war. It’s that simple. SS: So, like you’ve said, America is one of the main financiers of NATO; there’s also Estonia and they meet NATO’s funding goals. Why are the rest of its members lagging behind? Isn’t the alliance important to them as well? WB: They have their own home politics that they deal with, they each have their own financial needs to deal with, they each have their own relation with Washington to deal with, it varies. It is not exactly the same in these countries, but overall, no member of NATO is going to fight against Washington. No member of NATO was going to support the insurgence in Ukraine – not one. So there’s no need to go upon who is not paying and who is paying – none of them will ever go against Washington’s policies in Ukraine or elsewhere. SS: Now, on the other hand, Europe, U.S. and Russia – they share similar security threats, issues like Syria, Islamic State, there’s Afghanistan, and they are not going anywhere. Can these states work together if it is absolutely necessary, for example? WB: They don’t have the same security threats. Washington just announces that people of various countries are enemies of the U.S. – that doesn’t make them a threat. Syria, for example, is no threat to the U.S. Neither was Iraq, neither was Libya. U.S. invades one country after another, totally independent of whether they are threat or not. As long as they don’t believe in the Empire, as long as they are helping enemies of the Empire. I mean, what threat was Libya to Washington? NATO invaded them without mercy, bombed them out of existence, they are a failed state now. What was their threat? There’s no threat. If Russia doesn’t announce Libya as a threat, it’s not because Russia has a different foreign policy – it’s because Russia is not so paranoid as the U.S., and Russia is not looking for world domination. SS: Russia has been criticized many times for its decision to supply air defense missile systems to Iran. Now, why is America so worried about anti-air missile defense Iran may get from Russia? It’s not like Washington got plans to bomb Iran, right? WB: Of course they do, and so does Israel. You can’t put aside those fears. Washington, as I mentioned before, has bombed more than 30 countries. Why would they stop now? Iran is a definite target of the U.S. and Israel, and it’s very understandable that Iran would want to have advanced missile defense systems. SS: But look: US is staying out of Yemen now, it’s not willing to commit ground troops to Iraq or get involved in Syria. It sometimes looks like Washington is growing weary of foreign interventions, lately. WB: They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday it is something different. You can’t just look at today and say “they’re not fighting here and there” and think “Oh, Washington has finally found peace”. No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination. SS: Now, you’ve written in one of your books, the “Rogue State” that if you were President, you’d end all US foreign interventions at once. Can the US do that? Is it that simple? I mean, US left Iraq and look what happened. WB: If I were a President, yes, that’s what I would do. And then I add, to the portion you’ve quoted, I add at the end of paragraph, on my fifth day in the office I would be assassinated. So, that’s what happens to people who want to challenge the Empire’s policies. But I would have great time for the first few days. SS: But can the US realistically do that? End all of their foreign interventions at once? Because, we see an example of Iraq, once they left, ISIS spread. WB: The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular government. Then it’s been in the process now, for some years, attempting to overthrow the secular government in Syria. There’s no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why will they stop now? SS: I see your point. While Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be exactly described as victories for American troops, I mean, the invasions have also resulted, for instance, in girls being able to go to school in Afghanistan, or Kurds finally having a state in Iraq, for instance. WB: I must tell you something and all your listeners. At one time, in 1980s, Afghanistan had a progressive government, where women had full rights; they even wore mini-skirts. And you know what happened to that government? The US overthrew it. So please, don’t tell me about US policy helping the girls or the women of Afghanistan. We are the great enemy of females of Afghanistan. SS: You’ve also said that an end to US interventions would mean an end to terror attacks. What makes you think Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and other terror groups would cease to exist – and I’m talking about right now, I am not talking about “if America hadn’t invaded them back then”. Right now, if American interventions cease, what makes think that these terrorist groups would cease to exist as well? WB: It may be too late now. When I wrote that, it was correct. It may be too late now. After what we’ve done to all secular governments in the Middle East and in South Asia, after all that, I am not sure I would say the same thing again. We’ve unleashed ISIS, and they’re not going to be stopped by any kind words or nice changes of policy by Washington. They have to be wiped out militarily. They are an amazing force of horror, and the U.S. is responsible for them, but the barn door may be closed, it may be too late now to simply change our policy. SS: So do you think US should use military force to eradicate these terrorist groups? WB: Well, I could say “yes”, except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They cannot be trusted, that’s the problem. When they start to use force, there’s no holding them back, and they don’t care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world. SS: When I listen to you, it sounds like America overthrows all these governments and bombs all these countries, and makes revolutions – from people’s point of view, revolutions and overthrows are really impossible if they are not conducive to people’s moods on the ground. So you’re saying the foreign policy has greatly contributed to the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, but I wonder – don’t locals have control over their own direction at all? WB: The locals had no say whatsoever on whether the US would bomb or not, they had no say whatsoever on whether the US would overthrow governments chosen by the people, often – they have no say in these things. Now, they may hate ISIS, or some of them might hate ISIS, but it’s too late. They can’t do anything about it. The world is in terrible position. The world had a chance, 30-40 years ago, to stop the US from all of these interventions. If NATO had been closed, the way the Warsaw Pact was closed, the Soviet Union closed the Warsaw Pact with the expectation that NATO will also go out of business – but the US did not do that, and it’s too late now. I don’t know what to say, what will save the world now. SS: You’ve mentioned Cuba and Venezuela in the beginning of the programme. Now, we witnessed several historic meetings recently, between President Obama and Cuba’s President Raul Castro, also Obama’s meeting with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – why is Obama now talking with states the US has long considered arch-enemies? WB: You must keep in mind, first of all, that nothing whatsoever has changed, as of this moment nothing has changed. We have to wait and see what happens, and I’m very sceptical. For example, with Cuba, the main issue is the US sanctions which have played havoc with Cuban economy and society. That has not changed, and I don’t think it is going to change even in my lifetime. So, you can’t apply some kind of changes taking place. Why Obama is saying these things he’s saying now may have to do with his so-called “legacy”. He knows his time is very limited, and he knows he has many enemies amongst progressives in the US and elsewhere. He may want to cater to them for some reason. I don’t know, neither do you know, no one knows exactly why he’s saying these things – but they don’t mean anything yet. Nothing has changed whatsoever. SS: So you’re saying there’s really no substance in those meetings… Now, looking back, what would you call Obama’s biggest achievements of his two terms – I mean, people say there’s been a reconciliation with Cuba, with Iran, there’s an earnest attempt to end US deployment in Iraq and in Afghanistan, he didn’t move troops into Syria. Would you disagree with all of that? WB: Yes, all of that. There’s no accomplishment whatsoever. He didn’t move troops into Syria because of Russia, and not because of him making any change. He was embarrassed in that. John Kerry made a remark about “it would be nice if Syria would get rid of its chemical weapons – but that’s not going to happen” he said, and then foreign minister Lavrov of Russia jumped in and said “Oh really? We’ll arrange that” – and they arranged Syria to get rid of chemical weapons. That was, yes, a slip of the tongue by John Kerry, and he was embarrassed to challenge Lavrov. We can say the same thing about any of the things you’ve mentioned. There’s no substance involved in any of these policies. The US has not relented at all over Syria. As I’ve mentioned before, they are bombing Syria’s military assets, they are killing civilians every day. Syria is still a prime target of Washington, and they will never escape. SS: Thank you very much for this interesting insight, we were talking to William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers “Rogue State” and “America’s Deadliest Export” discussing matters of the US foreign policy and what would happen if the US decides to end all of its foreign interventions at once. That’s it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 21 14:02:56 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 14:02:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] From today's N-G In-Reply-To: References: <137955B7-A81B-4A25-BA79-4CEA5AFE9865@gmail.com> <641BABE4-7CA8-47F1-AD43-0DCB96BAC21F@gmail.com> <012701d3f0fe$1ca8f2b0$55fad810$@comcast.net> Message-ID: A good article and it received a lot of likes on my FB posting. I just now posted an article/interview by Wm Blum from April 2015, in which he proposes the US will bomb Iran just as we bombed every other country that doesn’t support our “Empire.” So before we go too far down the road placing blame only on Israel for our wars of aggression in the middle east, we do need to look in the mirror. As some have been saying, David Green and Carl Estabrook, is this a case of the tail wagging the dog or ……. Fact: The US could halt Israeli aggression in Palestine in a heartbeat if they wanted to do so. Fact: The US could halt Saudi Arabian aggression and bombing of Yemen in a heartbeat if they wished to do so. Fact: The US could solve poverty, and devastation in a heartbeat if they wished to do so. The USG is behind most aggressions, interventions and wars taking place in the world in pursuit of world domination, during this time of imperialism as capitalism is on the verge of collapse, and as global warming maybe beyond hope of reversing, or halting. On May 21, 2018, at 05:36, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Thank you, David. I hope it incidentally helps to clear up some of the nonsense about antisemitism that’s been circulating on this list. —CGE On May 21, 2018, at 7:20 AM, David Johnson via Peace-discuss > wrote: Excellent letter Carl ! David J. From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2018 3:09 PM To: John W. Cc: Peace-discuss List Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] From today's N-G Thank you, John, but I don’t know that. Prophets in the Hebrew bible and the New Testament are not foretellers so much as forth-tellers. They proclaiming the good news that, against the appearances, we are loved in the universe. —CGE On May 20, 2018, at 1:59 PM, John W. > wrote: Well said, Carl. This precise scenario is prophesied in the Bible, as I'm sure you know. John Wason On Sun, May 20, 2018 at 10:49 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace > wrote: Sunday Extra | War with Iran is a bad idea Sun, 05/20/2018 - 7:00am | The News-Gazette <~WRD000.jpg><~WRD000.jpg><~WRD000.jpg> By C.G. ESTABROOK Israel is pushing the U.S. to go to war with Iran. We shouldn't let it happen. Fifteen years ago, the U.S. government attacked Iraq and killed a million people — on the basis of lies that Iraq had dangerous "weapons of mass destruction." During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump talked of his opposition to the attack on Iraq: "Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. ... What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing!" A principal instigator of that shameful U.S. war against Iraq was the government of Israel, which wished to remove Iraq as a regional rival in the Middle East. Now Israel is trying to repeat that crime, urging the U.S. to attack and kill Iranians. The Iran nuclear deal guaranteed that Iran would not develop even one nuclear weapon. (The U.S. has thousands; Israel has at least 200.) But Trump is violating the agreement and withdrew from the deal. The Israeli government cheers, because they want the U.S. to attack Iran for their benefit. One commentator writes, "Trump cited Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's bogus speech from last week. Without doubt, this effort is coordinated. Will any Democrats call for an investigation of this Trump collusion with a foreign power (like 'Russiagate')?" In order to get its war on, Israel has attacked Iranian troops in Syria (who are there legally, unlike U.S. troops). An Israeli government adviser has all but admitted that killing Iranians in Syria is designed to provoke an open war with Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli snipers kill peaceful protesters in Gaza, including children and journalists. We should not allow the Trump administration to expand U.S. wars in the Mideast. The president and our congressional representatives should be urged to remember the lessons of Iraq and not attack Iran — among other things a more populous and better armed country, with powerful allies, notably Russia and China. War with Iran risks a much larger war — even a nuclear war. The largest anti-war demonstrations in history occurred around the world before the U.S. attacked Iraq. As Americans, we must do even more to prevent this new criminal war. If the U.S. and Israel attack Iran, there should be general work stoppages — strikes — and street demonstrations across the U.S. In the meantime, write the president and our congressional representatives — Rep. Rodney Davis, Sen. Tammy Duckworth and Sen. Dick Durbin. C.G. Estabrook is a retired visiting professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He conducts the weekly hour of news commentary, "News from Neptune " on Urbana Public Television. <~WRD000.jpg> _______________________________________________ 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 rwhelbig at gmail.com Mon May 21 14:36:10 2018 From: rwhelbig at gmail.com (Roger Helbig) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 07:36:10 -0700 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US will eventually bomb Iran as it bombed other countries: Wm. Blum April 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: nothing like Global Research as a source - don't know much about William Blum but if he writes for that sham news/propaganda site in Canada, he is not that much of someone who actually knows much, but you quote anyone who agrees with your preconceived opinion, not people who actually know much about the subject. The US has never sought world domination. If it had, we would have kept a lot of things that we very graciously gave back. Roger I wonder how many of your Jewish list members know about the strong Neo Nazi connection to Global Research On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > The US Will Eventually Bomb Iran As It Bombed Other Countries: William Blum > By William Blum > Global Research, April 19, 2015 > RT > Region: Middle East & North Africa > > Theme: US NATO War Agenda > > In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR? > > > > > > > 0 > 0 0 > > New > > *Obama’s time as leader of the US is coming to an end – his term concludes > next year. Wannabe presidents have already joined the race to the White > House. And as President Obama goes through the final year of his rule, > Washington suddenly changes its tone – now Iran is an appropriate nation to > talk to, and it’s okay to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. But what > is in that change?* > > *Has Washington finally dropped its previous policies? What does Obama > want to achieve? And will the new, as yet unknown, leader of America make > any difference? We pose these questions to prominent historian, author of > bestsellers on US foreign policies, William Blum, who is on Sophie&Co > today.* > > *Transcript* > > *William Blum:* I don’t think US foreign policy will change at all, > regardless of who is in the White House, Bush or Clinton, or who else is > running. Our policy does not change… I can add Obama to that. It wouldn’t > even matter which party it is, Republican or Democrat, they have the same > foreign policy. > > *SS:* *Why do you think it’s the same policy for both parties? Why do you > think they are not different from each other?* > > *WB:* Because America, for two centuries has had one basic, overriding > goal, and that is world domination, at least from 1890s if not earlier, one > can say that. World domination is something which appeals to both > Republicans and Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives. The idea that we’re > the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the > rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism… Each > party believes in that very strongly. They don’t argue about that at all, > except through their campaign debate, they’ll take certain opposing views > just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – > world domination. > > *SS:* *Now back in 2009 President Obama made it clear that the missile > shield in Europe would no longer be necessary if the threat from Iran was > eliminated – and nuclear deal with Iran was struck. Now, historic deal is > close, but NATO is saying there will be no change in missile shield plans – > why not?* > > *WB:* Because NATO shares America’s desire to dominate the world. NATO is > just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, there’s no point actually in making > a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the > same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is > its main supporter and financial source, there’s no distinction between US > and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it > doesn’t matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is > not a lover of an Empire, and anyone who’s not a lover of the Empire has a > short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you > love Empire or not. > > *SS:* *But, can we be a little bit more precise about this “domination” > theory – NATO has been strengthening its eastern borders with military > building up on Russia’s doorsteps, and a rapid reaction force to include > 30,000 personnel – why this deployment? Who is it aimed against?* > > *WB:* It is aimed against Russia. The US cannot stand anyone who might > stay in the way of the Empire’s expansion – and Russia and China are the > only nations which can do that. Other nations, like Cuba or Iran or > Venezuela are regarded as enemy just as well, because they have the polity > influence: Cuba has influence over all of the Western hemisphere. That > makes them a great enemy. But the basic criteria of Empire’s expansion is > whether you support Empire or not, and that excludes all the countries I’ve > named – from Cuba to Russia. > > *SS:* *Do you think U.S. would go as far as using force against its > enemies?* > > *WB:* Well, the US has used force against its enemies on a regular basis > for two centuries. Of course they would use force! They’ve used force > against Cuba, they invaded Cuba and they’ve supported Cuban exiles in all > kinds of violent activities for 60 years. Violence is never far removed > from the U.S. policy. Let me summarize something for the benefit of > listeners: since 1946 the US has attempted to overthrow more than 50 > foreign governments. In the same time period it has attempted to > assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders. It has bombed the people of 30 > countries, it has suppressed revolutionary parties in at least 20 nations – > and I forgot other factors on my list. This is a record unparalleled in all > of human history, and there’s no reason to think it is changing of will > change, except if some superior force comes on a scene, that can actually > defeat U.S. > > *SS:* *But, you know, French intelligence – and France seems to be an > ally of the U.S. – the French intelligence chief has recently said that > they found no evidence of Russia planning to invade Ukraine. So why has > NATO been pressing these claims of an imminent invasion so hard and for so > long?* > > *WB:* Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which > Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military > capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washington’s policy, it is not a > great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. That’s all it > takes: you don’t admire us and have military force – that’s all it takes to > be an enemy of Washington. > > *SS:* *The problem is, there’s a ceasefire that seems in place, right? > But US paratroopers have arrived in Ukraine to train forces in the country, > and it’s not the first such deployment we’ve seen. So, with ceasefire > agreement and peace deal on the way, why is Washington sending troops now?* > > *WB:* They know very well that Ukraine is not…or those who live in > Ukraine and support Russia, Washington knows very well that these people > are not on their side, and will not be on their side, and there’s no way to > make them on our side, so, US is expecting to wipe them out militarily at > some point in the near future. As soon as they can get all the politics in > place, there’s no backtracking from these policies. I must repeat myself > again: Washington wants to dominate the world and anyone, including people > in the south-eastern part of Ukraine, who don’t share that view, they are > enemies, and at some point they may be met with military force. > > *SS:* *So are you saying that America doesn’t want peace in Ukraine, > because US is sending military personnel to Ukraine – like I’ve said – > while Europeans are negotiating peace without America’s involvement?* > > *WB:* Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for > domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – that’s fine. If > they can’t, they’ll use war. It’s that simple. > > *SS:* *So, like you’ve said, America is one of the main financiers of > NATO; there’s also Estonia and they meet NATO’s funding goals. Why are the > rest of its members lagging behind? Isn’t the alliance important to them as > well?* > > *WB:* They have their own home politics that they deal with, they each > have their own financial needs to deal with, they each have their own > relation with Washington to deal with, it varies. It is not exactly the > same in these countries, but overall, no member of NATO is going to fight > against Washington. No member of NATO was going to support the insurgence > in Ukraine – not one. So there’s no need to go upon who is not paying and > who is paying – none of them will ever go against Washington’s policies in > Ukraine or elsewhere. > > *SS:* *Now, on the other hand, Europe, U.S. and Russia – they share > similar security threats, issues like Syria, Islamic State, there’s > Afghanistan, and they are not going anywhere. Can these states work > together if it is absolutely necessary, for example?* > > *WB:* They don’t have the same security threats. Washington just > announces that people of various countries are enemies of the U.S. – that > doesn’t make them a threat. Syria, for example, is no threat to the U.S. > Neither was Iraq, neither was Libya. U.S. invades one country after > another, totally independent of whether they are threat or not. As long as > they don’t believe in the Empire, as long as they are helping enemies of > the Empire. I mean, what threat was Libya to Washington? NATO invaded them > without mercy, bombed them out of existence, they are a failed state now. > What was their threat? There’s no threat. If Russia doesn’t announce Libya > as a threat, it’s not because Russia has a different foreign policy – it’s > because Russia is not so paranoid as the U.S., and Russia is not looking > for world domination. > > *SS:* *Russia has been criticized many times for its decision to supply > air defense missile systems to Iran. Now, why is America so worried about > anti-air missile defense Iran may get from Russia? It’s not like Washington > got plans to bomb Iran, right?* > > *WB:* Of course they do, and so does Israel. You can’t put aside those > fears. Washington, as I mentioned before, has bombed more than 30 > countries. Why would they stop now? Iran is a definite target of the U.S. > and Israel, and it’s very understandable that Iran would want to have > advanced missile defense systems. > > *SS:* *But look: US is staying out of Yemen now, it’s not willing to > commit ground troops to Iraq or get involved in Syria. It sometimes looks > like Washington is growing weary of foreign interventions, lately.* > > *WB:* They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making > sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all > over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not > forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or > yesterday it is something different. You can’t just look at today and say > “they’re not fighting here and there” and think “Oh, Washington has finally > found peace”. No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next > year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination. > > *SS:* *Now, you’ve written in one of your books, the “Rogue State” that > if you were President, you’d end all US foreign interventions at once. Can > the US do that? Is it that simple? I mean, US left Iraq and look what > happened.* > > *WB:* If I were a President, yes, that’s what I would do. And then I add, > to the portion you’ve quoted, I add at the end of paragraph, on my fifth > day in the office I would be assassinated. So, that’s what happens to > people who want to challenge the Empire’s policies. But I would have great > time for the first few days. > > *SS:* *But can the US realistically do that? End all of their foreign > interventions at once? Because, we see an example of Iraq, once they left, > ISIS spread.* > > *WB:* The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, > there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were > secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular > government. Then it’s been in the process now, for some years, attempting > to overthrow the secular government in Syria. There’s no wonder that Middle > East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the > possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why > will they stop now? > > *SS:* *I see your point. While Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be exactly > described as victories for American troops, I mean, the invasions have also > resulted, for instance, in girls being able to go to school in Afghanistan, > or Kurds finally having a state in Iraq, for instance.* > > *WB:* I must tell you something and all your listeners. At one time, in > 1980s, Afghanistan had a progressive government, where women had full > rights; they even wore mini-skirts. And you know what happened to that > government? The US overthrew it. So please, don’t tell me about US policy > helping the girls or the women of Afghanistan. We are the great enemy of > females of Afghanistan. > > *SS:** You’ve also said that an end to US interventions would mean an end > to terror attacks. What makes you think Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and > other terror groups would cease to exist – and I’m talking about right now, > I am not talking about “if America hadn’t invaded them back then”. Right > now, if American interventions cease, what makes think that these terrorist > groups would cease to exist as well?* > > *WB:* It may be too late now. When I wrote that, it was correct. It may > be too late now. After what we’ve done to all secular governments in the > Middle East and in South Asia, after all that, I am not sure I would say > the same thing again. We’ve unleashed ISIS, and they’re not going to be > stopped by any kind words or nice changes of policy by Washington. They > have to be wiped out militarily. They are an amazing force of horror, and > the U.S. is responsible for them, but the barn door may be closed, it may > be too late now to simply change our policy. > > *SS:* *So do you think US should use military force to eradicate these > terrorist groups?* > > *WB:* Well, I could say “yes”, except that the US will cheat. They will > use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the > same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to > suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They > cannot be trusted, that’s the problem. When they start to use force, > there’s no holding them back, and they don’t care about the civilians. The > civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, > for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere > else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world. > > *SS:* *When I listen to you, it sounds like America overthrows all these > governments and bombs all these countries, and makes revolutions – from > people’s point of view, revolutions and overthrows are really impossible if > they are not conducive to people’s moods on the ground. So you’re saying > the foreign policy has greatly contributed to the rise of radical Islam in > the Middle East, but I wonder – don’t locals have control over their own > direction at all?* > > *WB:* The locals had no say whatsoever on whether the US would bomb or > not, they had no say whatsoever on whether the US would overthrow > governments chosen by the people, often – they have no say in these things. > Now, they may hate ISIS, or some of them might hate ISIS, but it’s too > late. They can’t do anything about it. The world is in terrible position. > The world had a chance, 30-40 years ago, to stop the US from all of these > interventions. If NATO had been closed, the way the Warsaw Pact was closed, > the Soviet Union closed the Warsaw Pact with the expectation that NATO will > also go out of business – but the US did not do that, and it’s too late > now. I don’t know what to say, what will save the world now. > > *SS:** You’ve mentioned Cuba and Venezuela in the beginning of the > programme. Now, we witnessed several historic meetings recently, between > President Obama and Cuba’s President Raul Castro, also Obama’s meeting with > Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – why is Obama now talking with states > the US has long considered arch-enemies?* > > *WB:* You must keep in mind, first of all, that nothing whatsoever has > changed, as of this moment nothing has changed. We have to wait and see > what happens, and I’m very sceptical. For example, with Cuba, the main > issue is the US sanctions which have played havoc with Cuban economy and > society. That has not changed, and I don’t think it is going to change even > in my lifetime. So, you can’t apply some kind of changes taking place. Why > Obama is saying these things he’s saying now may have to do with his > so-called “legacy”. He knows his time is very limited, and he knows he has > many enemies amongst progressives in the US and elsewhere. He may want to > cater to them for some reason. I don’t know, neither do you know, no one > knows exactly why he’s saying these things – but they don’t mean anything > yet. Nothing has changed whatsoever. > > *SS:* *So you’re saying there’s really no substance in those meetings… > Now, looking back, what would you call Obama’s biggest achievements of his > two terms – I mean, people say there’s been a reconciliation with Cuba, > with Iran, there’s an earnest attempt to end US deployment in Iraq and in > Afghanistan, he didn’t move troops into Syria. Would you disagree with all > of that?* > > *WB:* Yes, all of that. There’s no accomplishment whatsoever. He didn’t > move troops into Syria because of Russia, and not because of him making any > change. He was embarrassed in that. John Kerry made a remark about “it > would be nice if Syria would get rid of its chemical weapons – but that’s > not going to happen” he said, and then foreign minister Lavrov of Russia > jumped in and said “Oh really? We’ll arrange that” – and they arranged > Syria to get rid of chemical weapons. That was, yes, a slip of the tongue > by John Kerry, and he was embarrassed to challenge Lavrov. We can say the > same thing about any of the things you’ve mentioned. There’s no substance > involved in any of these policies. The US has not relented at all over > Syria. As I’ve mentioned before, they are bombing Syria’s military assets, > they are killing civilians every day. Syria is still a prime target of > Washington, and they will never escape. > > *SS:* *Thank you very much for this interesting insight, we were talking > to William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers “Rogue State” and > “America’s Deadliest Export” discussing matters of the US foreign policy > and what would happen if the US decides to end all of its foreign > interventions at once. That’s it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see > you next time.* > > _______________________________________________ > 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Mon May 21 14:49:58 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 14:49:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: The US will eventually bomb Iran as it bombed other countries: Wm. Blum April 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Roger I wonder how many of your Jewish list members know about the strong Neo Nazi connection to Global Research There goes “military intelligence” {Sic!} once again trying to discredit and smear a legitimate news media source. Global Research was established by, owned and operated by Michel Chossudovsky, who is Jewish. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss On Behalf Of Roger Helbig via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 9:36 AM To: Karen Aram ; Peace-discuss Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] The US will eventually bomb Iran as it bombed other countries: Wm. Blum April 2015 nothing like Global Research as a source - don't know much about William Blum but if he writes for that sham news/propaganda site in Canada, he is not that much of someone who actually knows much, but you quote anyone who agrees with your preconceived opinion, not people who actually know much about the subject. The US has never sought world domination. If it had, we would have kept a lot of things that we very graciously gave back. Roger I wonder how many of your Jewish list members know about the strong Neo Nazi connection to Global Research On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: The US Will Eventually Bomb Iran As It Bombed Other Countries: William Blum By William Blum Global Research, April 19, 2015 RT Region: Middle East & North Africa Theme: US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR? [https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/plugins/print-me/images/printme.png] 0 0 0 New [https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/iran-us-flag.jpg] Obama’s time as leader of the US is coming to an end – his term concludes next year. Wannabe presidents have already joined the race to the White House. And as President Obama goes through the final year of his rule, Washington suddenly changes its tone – now Iran is an appropriate nation to talk to, and it’s okay to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. But what is in that change? Has Washington finally dropped its previous policies? What does Obama want to achieve? And will the new, as yet unknown, leader of America make any difference? We pose these questions to prominent historian, author of bestsellers on US foreign policies, William Blum, who is on Sophie&Co today. Transcript William Blum: I don’t think US foreign policy will change at all, regardless of who is in the White House, Bush or Clinton, or who else is running. Our policy does not change… I can add Obama to that. It wouldn’t even matter which party it is, Republican or Democrat, they have the same foreign policy. SS: Why do you think it’s the same policy for both parties? Why do you think they are not different from each other? WB: Because America, for two centuries has had one basic, overriding goal, and that is world domination, at least from 1890s if not earlier, one can say that. World domination is something which appeals to both Republicans and Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives. The idea that we’re the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism… Each party believes in that very strongly. They don’t argue about that at all, except through their campaign debate, they’ll take certain opposing views just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination. SS: Now back in 2009 President Obama made it clear that the missile shield in Europe would no longer be necessary if the threat from Iran was eliminated – and nuclear deal with Iran was struck. Now, historic deal is close, but NATO is saying there will be no change in missile shield plans – why not? WB: Because NATO shares America’s desire to dominate the world. NATO is just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, there’s no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is its main supporter and financial source, there’s no distinction between US and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesn’t matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone who’s not a lover of the Empire has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not. SS: But, can we be a little bit more precise about this “domination” theory – NATO has been strengthening its eastern borders with military building up on Russia’s doorsteps, and a rapid reaction force to include 30,000 personnel – why this deployment? Who is it aimed against? WB: It is aimed against Russia. The US cannot stand anyone who might stay in the way of the Empire’s expansion – and Russia and China are the only nations which can do that. Other nations, like Cuba or Iran or Venezuela are regarded as enemy just as well, because they have the polity influence: Cuba has influence over all of the Western hemisphere. That makes them a great enemy. But the basic criteria of Empire’s expansion is whether you support Empire or not, and that excludes all the countries I’ve named – from Cuba to Russia. SS: Do you think U.S. would go as far as using force against its enemies? WB: Well, the US has used force against its enemies on a regular basis for two centuries. Of course they would use force! They’ve used force against Cuba, they invaded Cuba and they’ve supported Cuban exiles in all kinds of violent activities for 60 years. Violence is never far removed from the U.S. policy. Let me summarize something for the benefit of listeners: since 1946 the US has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments. In the same time period it has attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders. It has bombed the people of 30 countries, it has suppressed revolutionary parties in at least 20 nations – and I forgot other factors on my list. This is a record unparalleled in all of human history, and there’s no reason to think it is changing of will change, except if some superior force comes on a scene, that can actually defeat U.S. SS: But, you know, French intelligence – and France seems to be an ally of the U.S. – the French intelligence chief has recently said that they found no evidence of Russia planning to invade Ukraine. So why has NATO been pressing these claims of an imminent invasion so hard and for so long? WB: Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washington’s policy, it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. That’s all it takes: you don’t admire us and have military force – that’s all it takes to be an enemy of Washington. SS: The problem is, there’s a ceasefire that seems in place, right? But US paratroopers have arrived in Ukraine to train forces in the country, and it’s not the first such deployment we’ve seen. So, with ceasefire agreement and peace deal on the way, why is Washington sending troops now? WB: They know very well that Ukraine is not…or those who live in Ukraine and support Russia, Washington knows very well that these people are not on their side, and will not be on their side, and there’s no way to make them on our side, so, US is expecting to wipe them out militarily at some point in the near future. As soon as they can get all the politics in place, there’s no backtracking from these policies. I must repeat myself again: Washington wants to dominate the world and anyone, including people in the south-eastern part of Ukraine, who don’t share that view, they are enemies, and at some point they may be met with military force. SS: So are you saying that America doesn’t want peace in Ukraine, because US is sending military personnel to Ukraine – like I’ve said – while Europeans are negotiating peace without America’s involvement? WB: Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – that’s fine. If they can’t, they’ll use war. It’s that simple. SS: So, like you’ve said, America is one of the main financiers of NATO; there’s also Estonia and they meet NATO’s funding goals. Why are the rest of its members lagging behind? Isn’t the alliance important to them as well? WB: They have their own home politics that they deal with, they each have their own financial needs to deal with, they each have their own relation with Washington to deal with, it varies. It is not exactly the same in these countries, but overall, no member of NATO is going to fight against Washington. No member of NATO was going to support the insurgence in Ukraine – not one. So there’s no need to go upon who is not paying and who is paying – none of them will ever go against Washington’s policies in Ukraine or elsewhere. SS: Now, on the other hand, Europe, U.S. and Russia – they share similar security threats, issues like Syria, Islamic State, there’s Afghanistan, and they are not going anywhere. Can these states work together if it is absolutely necessary, for example? WB: They don’t have the same security threats. Washington just announces that people of various countries are enemies of the U.S. – that doesn’t make them a threat. Syria, for example, is no threat to the U.S. Neither was Iraq, neither was Libya. U.S. invades one country after another, totally independent of whether they are threat or not. As long as they don’t believe in the Empire, as long as they are helping enemies of the Empire. I mean, what threat was Libya to Washington? NATO invaded them without mercy, bombed them out of existence, they are a failed state now. What was their threat? There’s no threat. If Russia doesn’t announce Libya as a threat, it’s not because Russia has a different foreign policy – it’s because Russia is not so paranoid as the U.S., and Russia is not looking for world domination. SS: Russia has been criticized many times for its decision to supply air defense missile systems to Iran. Now, why is America so worried about anti-air missile defense Iran may get from Russia? It’s not like Washington got plans to bomb Iran, right? WB: Of course they do, and so does Israel. You can’t put aside those fears. Washington, as I mentioned before, has bombed more than 30 countries. Why would they stop now? Iran is a definite target of the U.S. and Israel, and it’s very understandable that Iran would want to have advanced missile defense systems. SS: But look: US is staying out of Yemen now, it’s not willing to commit ground troops to Iraq or get involved in Syria. It sometimes looks like Washington is growing weary of foreign interventions, lately. WB: They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday it is something different. You can’t just look at today and say “they’re not fighting here and there” and think “Oh, Washington has finally found peace”. No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination. SS: Now, you’ve written in one of your books, the “Rogue State” that if you were President, you’d end all US foreign interventions at once. Can the US do that? Is it that simple? I mean, US left Iraq and look what happened. WB: If I were a President, yes, that’s what I would do. And then I add, to the portion you’ve quoted, I add at the end of paragraph, on my fifth day in the office I would be assassinated. So, that’s what happens to people who want to challenge the Empire’s policies. But I would have great time for the first few days. SS: But can the US realistically do that? End all of their foreign interventions at once? Because, we see an example of Iraq, once they left, ISIS spread. WB: The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular government. Then it’s been in the process now, for some years, attempting to overthrow the secular government in Syria. There’s no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why will they stop now? SS: I see your point. While Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be exactly described as victories for American troops, I mean, the invasions have also resulted, for instance, in girls being able to go to school in Afghanistan, or Kurds finally having a state in Iraq, for instance. WB: I must tell you something and all your listeners. At one time, in 1980s, Afghanistan had a progressive government, where women had full rights; they even wore mini-skirts. And you know what happened to that government? The US overthrew it. So please, don’t tell me about US policy helping the girls or the women of Afghanistan. We are the great enemy of females of Afghanistan. SS: You’ve also said that an end to US interventions would mean an end to terror attacks. What makes you think Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and other terror groups would cease to exist – and I’m talking about right now, I am not talking about “if America hadn’t invaded them back then”. Right now, if American interventions cease, what makes think that these terrorist groups would cease to exist as well? WB: It may be too late now. When I wrote that, it was correct. It may be too late now. After what we’ve done to all secular governments in the Middle East and in South Asia, after all that, I am not sure I would say the same thing again. We’ve unleashed ISIS, and they’re not going to be stopped by any kind words or nice changes of policy by Washington. They have to be wiped out militarily. They are an amazing force of horror, and the U.S. is responsible for them, but the barn door may be closed, it may be too late now to simply change our policy. SS: So do you think US should use military force to eradicate these terrorist groups? WB: Well, I could say “yes”, except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They cannot be trusted, that’s the problem. When they start to use force, there’s no holding them back, and they don’t care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world. SS: When I listen to you, it sounds like America overthrows all these governments and bombs all these countries, and makes revolutions – from people’s point of view, revolutions and overthrows are really impossible if they are not conducive to people’s moods on the ground. So you’re saying the foreign policy has greatly contributed to the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, but I wonder – don’t locals have control over their own direction at all? WB: The locals had no say whatsoever on whether the US would bomb or not, they had no say whatsoever on whether the US would overthrow governments chosen by the people, often – they have no say in these things. Now, they may hate ISIS, or some of them might hate ISIS, but it’s too late. They can’t do anything about it. The world is in terrible position. The world had a chance, 30-40 years ago, to stop the US from all of these interventions. If NATO had been closed, the way the Warsaw Pact was closed, the Soviet Union closed the Warsaw Pact with the expectation that NATO will also go out of business – but the US did not do that, and it’s too late now. I don’t know what to say, what will save the world now. SS: You’ve mentioned Cuba and Venezuela in the beginning of the programme. Now, we witnessed several historic meetings recently, between President Obama and Cuba’s President Raul Castro, also Obama’s meeting with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – why is Obama now talking with states the US has long considered arch-enemies? WB: You must keep in mind, first of all, that nothing whatsoever has changed, as of this moment nothing has changed. We have to wait and see what happens, and I’m very sceptical. For example, with Cuba, the main issue is the US sanctions which have played havoc with Cuban economy and society. That has not changed, and I don’t think it is going to change even in my lifetime. So, you can’t apply some kind of changes taking place. Why Obama is saying these things he’s saying now may have to do with his so-called “legacy”. He knows his time is very limited, and he knows he has many enemies amongst progressives in the US and elsewhere. He may want to cater to them for some reason. I don’t know, neither do you know, no one knows exactly why he’s saying these things – but they don’t mean anything yet. Nothing has changed whatsoever. SS: So you’re saying there’s really no substance in those meetings… Now, looking back, what would you call Obama’s biggest achievements of his two terms – I mean, people say there’s been a reconciliation with Cuba, with Iran, there’s an earnest attempt to end US deployment in Iraq and in Afghanistan, he didn’t move troops into Syria. Would you disagree with all of that? WB: Yes, all of that. There’s no accomplishment whatsoever. He didn’t move troops into Syria because of Russia, and not because of him making any change. He was embarrassed in that. John Kerry made a remark about “it would be nice if Syria would get rid of its chemical weapons – but that’s not going to happen” he said, and then foreign minister Lavrov of Russia jumped in and said “Oh really? We’ll arrange that” – and they arranged Syria to get rid of chemical weapons. That was, yes, a slip of the tongue by John Kerry, and he was embarrassed to challenge Lavrov. We can say the same thing about any of the things you’ve mentioned. There’s no substance involved in any of these policies. The US has not relented at all over Syria. As I’ve mentioned before, they are bombing Syria’s military assets, they are killing civilians every day. Syria is still a prime target of Washington, and they will never escape. SS: Thank you very much for this interesting insight, we were talking to William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers “Rogue State” and “America’s Deadliest Export” discussing matters of the US foreign policy and what would happen if the US decides to end all of its foreign interventions at once. That’s it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time. _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 21 14:57:45 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 14:57:45 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US will eventually bomb Iran as it bombed other countries: Wm. Blum April 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You know we’ve hit a nerve, when Roger enters the fray. Thank you Roger for confirming my article by Wm. Blum to be of value, true, and disturbing to war supporting, trolls. Yes, keeping Roger on our “peace list does serve a purpose.” Just to enlighten those who aren’t familiar with Wm. Blum, from Wikipedia: William Blum [Author William Blum] Blum in 2007 Born March 6, 1933 (age 85) Occupation Journalist, Author, U.S. foreign policy critic, historian Genre Political journalism, history Notable works The CIA: A Forgotten History(1986) Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (2000) Killing Hope (2003) Website williamblum.org William Blum (/blʌm/; born 6 March 1933) is an American author, historian, and critic of United States foreign policy. He worked in a computer related position at the United States Department of State in the mid-1960s. Initially an anti-communist with dreams of becoming a foreign service officer, he became disillusioned by the Vietnam War. He lives in Washington, DC.[1] "Blum left the State Department in 1967 and became a founder and editor of the Washington Free Press, the first "alternative" newspaper in the capital. In 1969, he wrote and published an exposé of the CIA in which were revealed the names and addresses of more than 200 CIA employees. He has worked as freelance journalist in the United States, Europe and South America. In 1972–1973 Blum worked as a journalist in Chile where he reported on the Allende government's "socialist experiment". In the mid-1970s, he worked in London with ex-CIA officer Philip Agee and his associates "on their project of exposing CIA personnel and their misdeeds".[2] He supports himself with his writing and speaking engagements on college campuses.[1] In his books and online columns, Blum devotes substantial attention to CIA interventions and assassination plots. Noam Chomsky has called Blum's book on the CIA, "far and away the best book on the topic."[3] He has supported Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns.[4] He circulates a monthly newsletter by email called "The Anti-Empire Report". Blum has described his life's mission as: "If not ending, at least slowing down the American Empire. At least injuring the beast. It's causing so much suffering around the world."[1]” On May 21, 2018, at 07:36, Roger Helbig > wrote: nothing like Global Research as a source - don't know much about William Blum but if he writes for that sham news/propaganda site in Canada, he is not that much of someone who actually knows much, but you quote anyone who agrees with your preconceived opinion, not people who actually know much about the subject. The US has never sought world domination. If it had, we would have kept a lot of things that we very graciously gave back. Roger I wonder how many of your Jewish list members know about the strong Neo Nazi connection to Global Research On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: The US Will Eventually Bomb Iran As It Bombed Other Countries: William Blum By William Blum Global Research, April 19, 2015 RT Region: Middle East & North Africa Theme: US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR? [https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/plugins/print-me/images/printme.png] 0 0 0 New [https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/iran-us-flag.jpg] Obama’s time as leader of the US is coming to an end – his term concludes next year. Wannabe presidents have already joined the race to the White House. And as President Obama goes through the final year of his rule, Washington suddenly changes its tone – now Iran is an appropriate nation to talk to, and it’s okay to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. But what is in that change? Has Washington finally dropped its previous policies? What does Obama want to achieve? And will the new, as yet unknown, leader of America make any difference? We pose these questions to prominent historian, author of bestsellers on US foreign policies, William Blum, who is on Sophie&Co today. Transcript William Blum: I don’t think US foreign policy will change at all, regardless of who is in the White House, Bush or Clinton, or who else is running. Our policy does not change… I can add Obama to that. It wouldn’t even matter which party it is, Republican or Democrat, they have the same foreign policy. SS: Why do you think it’s the same policy for both parties? Why do you think they are not different from each other? WB: Because America, for two centuries has had one basic, overriding goal, and that is world domination, at least from 1890s if not earlier, one can say that. World domination is something which appeals to both Republicans and Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives. The idea that we’re the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism… Each party believes in that very strongly. They don’t argue about that at all, except through their campaign debate, they’ll take certain opposing views just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination. SS: Now back in 2009 President Obama made it clear that the missile shield in Europe would no longer be necessary if the threat from Iran was eliminated – and nuclear deal with Iran was struck. Now, historic deal is close, but NATO is saying there will be no change in missile shield plans – why not? WB: Because NATO shares America’s desire to dominate the world. NATO is just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, there’s no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is its main supporter and financial source, there’s no distinction between US and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesn’t matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone who’s not a lover of the Empire has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not. SS: But, can we be a little bit more precise about this “domination” theory – NATO has been strengthening its eastern borders with military building up on Russia’s doorsteps, and a rapid reaction force to include 30,000 personnel – why this deployment? Who is it aimed against? WB: It is aimed against Russia. The US cannot stand anyone who might stay in the way of the Empire’s expansion – and Russia and China are the only nations which can do that. Other nations, like Cuba or Iran or Venezuela are regarded as enemy just as well, because they have the polity influence: Cuba has influence over all of the Western hemisphere. That makes them a great enemy. But the basic criteria of Empire’s expansion is whether you support Empire or not, and that excludes all the countries I’ve named – from Cuba to Russia. SS: Do you think U.S. would go as far as using force against its enemies? WB: Well, the US has used force against its enemies on a regular basis for two centuries. Of course they would use force! They’ve used force against Cuba, they invaded Cuba and they’ve supported Cuban exiles in all kinds of violent activities for 60 years. Violence is never far removed from the U.S. policy. Let me summarize something for the benefit of listeners: since 1946 the US has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments. In the same time period it has attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders. It has bombed the people of 30 countries, it has suppressed revolutionary parties in at least 20 nations – and I forgot other factors on my list. This is a record unparalleled in all of human history, and there’s no reason to think it is changing of will change, except if some superior force comes on a scene, that can actually defeat U.S. SS: But, you know, French intelligence – and France seems to be an ally of the U.S. – the French intelligence chief has recently said that they found no evidence of Russia planning to invade Ukraine. So why has NATO been pressing these claims of an imminent invasion so hard and for so long? WB: Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washington’s policy, it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. That’s all it takes: you don’t admire us and have military force – that’s all it takes to be an enemy of Washington. SS: The problem is, there’s a ceasefire that seems in place, right? But US paratroopers have arrived in Ukraine to train forces in the country, and it’s not the first such deployment we’ve seen. So, with ceasefire agreement and peace deal on the way, why is Washington sending troops now? WB: They know very well that Ukraine is not…or those who live in Ukraine and support Russia, Washington knows very well that these people are not on their side, and will not be on their side, and there’s no way to make them on our side, so, US is expecting to wipe them out militarily at some point in the near future. As soon as they can get all the politics in place, there’s no backtracking from these policies. I must repeat myself again: Washington wants to dominate the world and anyone, including people in the south-eastern part of Ukraine, who don’t share that view, they are enemies, and at some point they may be met with military force. SS: So are you saying that America doesn’t want peace in Ukraine, because US is sending military personnel to Ukraine – like I’ve said – while Europeans are negotiating peace without America’s involvement? WB: Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – that’s fine. If they can’t, they’ll use war. It’s that simple. SS: So, like you’ve said, America is one of the main financiers of NATO; there’s also Estonia and they meet NATO’s funding goals. Why are the rest of its members lagging behind? Isn’t the alliance important to them as well? WB: They have their own home politics that they deal with, they each have their own financial needs to deal with, they each have their own relation with Washington to deal with, it varies. It is not exactly the same in these countries, but overall, no member of NATO is going to fight against Washington. No member of NATO was going to support the insurgence in Ukraine – not one. So there’s no need to go upon who is not paying and who is paying – none of them will ever go against Washington’s policies in Ukraine or elsewhere. SS: Now, on the other hand, Europe, U.S. and Russia – they share similar security threats, issues like Syria, Islamic State, there’s Afghanistan, and they are not going anywhere. Can these states work together if it is absolutely necessary, for example? WB: They don’t have the same security threats. Washington just announces that people of various countries are enemies of the U.S. – that doesn’t make them a threat. Syria, for example, is no threat to the U.S. Neither was Iraq, neither was Libya. U.S. invades one country after another, totally independent of whether they are threat or not. As long as they don’t believe in the Empire, as long as they are helping enemies of the Empire. I mean, what threat was Libya to Washington? NATO invaded them without mercy, bombed them out of existence, they are a failed state now. What was their threat? There’s no threat. If Russia doesn’t announce Libya as a threat, it’s not because Russia has a different foreign policy – it’s because Russia is not so paranoid as the U.S., and Russia is not looking for world domination. SS: Russia has been criticized many times for its decision to supply air defense missile systems to Iran. Now, why is America so worried about anti-air missile defense Iran may get from Russia? It’s not like Washington got plans to bomb Iran, right? WB: Of course they do, and so does Israel. You can’t put aside those fears. Washington, as I mentioned before, has bombed more than 30 countries. Why would they stop now? Iran is a definite target of the U.S. and Israel, and it’s very understandable that Iran would want to have advanced missile defense systems. SS: But look: US is staying out of Yemen now, it’s not willing to commit ground troops to Iraq or get involved in Syria. It sometimes looks like Washington is growing weary of foreign interventions, lately. WB: They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday it is something different. You can’t just look at today and say “they’re not fighting here and there” and think “Oh, Washington has finally found peace”. No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination. SS: Now, you’ve written in one of your books, the “Rogue State” that if you were President, you’d end all US foreign interventions at once. Can the US do that? Is it that simple? I mean, US left Iraq and look what happened. WB: If I were a President, yes, that’s what I would do. And then I add, to the portion you’ve quoted, I add at the end of paragraph, on my fifth day in the office I would be assassinated. So, that’s what happens to people who want to challenge the Empire’s policies. But I would have great time for the first few days. SS: But can the US realistically do that? End all of their foreign interventions at once? Because, we see an example of Iraq, once they left, ISIS spread. WB: The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular government. Then it’s been in the process now, for some years, attempting to overthrow the secular government in Syria. There’s no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why will they stop now? SS: I see your point. While Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be exactly described as victories for American troops, I mean, the invasions have also resulted, for instance, in girls being able to go to school in Afghanistan, or Kurds finally having a state in Iraq, for instance. WB: I must tell you something and all your listeners. At one time, in 1980s, Afghanistan had a progressive government, where women had full rights; they even wore mini-skirts. And you know what happened to that government? The US overthrew it. So please, don’t tell me about US policy helping the girls or the women of Afghanistan. We are the great enemy of females of Afghanistan. SS: You’ve also said that an end to US interventions would mean an end to terror attacks. What makes you think Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and other terror groups would cease to exist – and I’m talking about right now, I am not talking about “if America hadn’t invaded them back then”. Right now, if American interventions cease, what makes think that these terrorist groups would cease to exist as well? WB: It may be too late now. When I wrote that, it was correct. It may be too late now. After what we’ve done to all secular governments in the Middle East and in South Asia, after all that, I am not sure I would say the same thing again. We’ve unleashed ISIS, and they’re not going to be stopped by any kind words or nice changes of policy by Washington. They have to be wiped out militarily. They are an amazing force of horror, and the U.S. is responsible for them, but the barn door may be closed, it may be too late now to simply change our policy. SS: So do you think US should use military force to eradicate these terrorist groups? WB: Well, I could say “yes”, except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They cannot be trusted, that’s the problem. When they start to use force, there’s no holding them back, and they don’t care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world. SS: When I listen to you, it sounds like America overthrows all these governments and bombs all these countries, and makes revolutions – from people’s point of view, revolutions and overthrows are really impossible if they are not conducive to people’s moods on the ground. So you’re saying the foreign policy has greatly contributed to the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, but I wonder – don’t locals have control over their own direction at all? WB: The locals had no say whatsoever on whether the US would bomb or not, they had no say whatsoever on whether the US would overthrow governments chosen by the people, often – they have no say in these things. Now, they may hate ISIS, or some of them might hate ISIS, but it’s too late. They can’t do anything about it. The world is in terrible position. The world had a chance, 30-40 years ago, to stop the US from all of these interventions. If NATO had been closed, the way the Warsaw Pact was closed, the Soviet Union closed the Warsaw Pact with the expectation that NATO will also go out of business – but the US did not do that, and it’s too late now. I don’t know what to say, what will save the world now. SS: You’ve mentioned Cuba and Venezuela in the beginning of the programme. Now, we witnessed several historic meetings recently, between President Obama and Cuba’s President Raul Castro, also Obama’s meeting with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – why is Obama now talking with states the US has long considered arch-enemies? WB: You must keep in mind, first of all, that nothing whatsoever has changed, as of this moment nothing has changed. We have to wait and see what happens, and I’m very sceptical. For example, with Cuba, the main issue is the US sanctions which have played havoc with Cuban economy and society. That has not changed, and I don’t think it is going to change even in my lifetime. So, you can’t apply some kind of changes taking place. Why Obama is saying these things he’s saying now may have to do with his so-called “legacy”. He knows his time is very limited, and he knows he has many enemies amongst progressives in the US and elsewhere. He may want to cater to them for some reason. I don’t know, neither do you know, no one knows exactly why he’s saying these things – but they don’t mean anything yet. Nothing has changed whatsoever. SS: So you’re saying there’s really no substance in those meetings… Now, looking back, what would you call Obama’s biggest achievements of his two terms – I mean, people say there’s been a reconciliation with Cuba, with Iran, there’s an earnest attempt to end US deployment in Iraq and in Afghanistan, he didn’t move troops into Syria. Would you disagree with all of that? WB: Yes, all of that. There’s no accomplishment whatsoever. He didn’t move troops into Syria because of Russia, and not because of him making any change. He was embarrassed in that. John Kerry made a remark about “it would be nice if Syria would get rid of its chemical weapons – but that’s not going to happen” he said, and then foreign minister Lavrov of Russia jumped in and said “Oh really? We’ll arrange that” – and they arranged Syria to get rid of chemical weapons. That was, yes, a slip of the tongue by John Kerry, and he was embarrassed to challenge Lavrov. We can say the same thing about any of the things you’ve mentioned. There’s no substance involved in any of these policies. The US has not relented at all over Syria. As I’ve mentioned before, they are bombing Syria’s military assets, they are killing civilians every day. Syria is still a prime target of Washington, and they will never escape. SS: Thank you very much for this interesting insight, we were talking to William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers “Rogue State” and “America’s Deadliest Export” discussing matters of the US foreign policy and what would happen if the US decides to end all of its foreign interventions at once. That’s it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time. _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 21 15:39:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 15:39:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US will eventually bomb Iran as it bombed other countries: Wm. Blum April 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To be clear, I don't think we "plan" to bomb Iran, its not a small, vulnerable nation. We will use sanctions first. We've had sanctions on Iran for years now, further crippling of their economy is the goal, also our support for opposition groups within Iran, to topple the government should be effective. Only when we fail to achieve regime change are we likely to bomb. Does this sound like a familiar strategy? On May 21, 2018, at 07:57, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: You know we’ve hit a nerve, when Roger enters the fray. Thank you Roger for confirming my article by Wm. Blum to be of value, true, and disturbing to war supporting, trolls. Yes, keeping Roger on our “peace list does serve a purpose.” Just to enlighten those who aren’t familiar with Wm. Blum, from Wikipedia: William Blum [Author William Blum] Blum in 2007 Born March 6, 1933 (age 85) Occupation Journalist, Author, U.S. foreign policy critic, historian Genre Political journalism, history Notable works The CIA: A Forgotten History(1986) Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (2000) Killing Hope (2003) Website williamblum.org William Blum (/blʌm/; born 6 March 1933) is an American author, historian, and critic of United States foreign policy. He worked in a computer related position at the United States Department of State in the mid-1960s. Initially an anti-communist with dreams of becoming a foreign service officer, he became disillusioned by the Vietnam War. He lives in Washington, DC.[1] "Blum left the State Department in 1967 and became a founder and editor of the Washington Free Press, the first "alternative" newspaper in the capital. In 1969, he wrote and published an exposé of the CIA in which were revealed the names and addresses of more than 200 CIA employees. He has worked as freelance journalist in the United States, Europe and South America. In 1972–1973 Blum worked as a journalist in Chile where he reported on the Allende government's "socialist experiment". In the mid-1970s, he worked in London with ex-CIA officer Philip Agee and his associates "on their project of exposing CIA personnel and their misdeeds".[2] He supports himself with his writing and speaking engagements on college campuses.[1] In his books and online columns, Blum devotes substantial attention to CIA interventions and assassination plots. Noam Chomsky has called Blum's book on the CIA, "far and away the best book on the topic."[3] He has supported Ralph Nader's presidential campaigns.[4] He circulates a monthly newsletter by email called "The Anti-Empire Report". Blum has described his life's mission as: "If not ending, at least slowing down the American Empire. At least injuring the beast. It's causing so much suffering around the world."[1]” On May 21, 2018, at 07:36, Roger Helbig > wrote: nothing like Global Research as a source - don't know much about William Blum but if he writes for that sham news/propaganda site in Canada, he is not that much of someone who actually knows much, but you quote anyone who agrees with your preconceived opinion, not people who actually know much about the subject. The US has never sought world domination. If it had, we would have kept a lot of things that we very graciously gave back. Roger I wonder how many of your Jewish list members know about the strong Neo Nazi connection to Global Research On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: The US Will Eventually Bomb Iran As It Bombed Other Countries: William Blum By William Blum Global Research, April 19, 2015 RT Region: Middle East & North Africa Theme: US NATO War Agenda In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR? [https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/plugins/print-me/images/printme.png] 0 0 0 New [https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/iran-us-flag.jpg] Obama’s time as leader of the US is coming to an end – his term concludes next year. Wannabe presidents have already joined the race to the White House. And as President Obama goes through the final year of his rule, Washington suddenly changes its tone – now Iran is an appropriate nation to talk to, and it’s okay to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. But what is in that change? Has Washington finally dropped its previous policies? What does Obama want to achieve? And will the new, as yet unknown, leader of America make any difference? We pose these questions to prominent historian, author of bestsellers on US foreign policies, William Blum, who is on Sophie&Co today. Transcript William Blum: I don’t think US foreign policy will change at all, regardless of who is in the White House, Bush or Clinton, or who else is running. Our policy does not change… I can add Obama to that. It wouldn’t even matter which party it is, Republican or Democrat, they have the same foreign policy. SS: Why do you think it’s the same policy for both parties? Why do you think they are not different from each other? WB: Because America, for two centuries has had one basic, overriding goal, and that is world domination, at least from 1890s if not earlier, one can say that. World domination is something which appeals to both Republicans and Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives. The idea that we’re the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism… Each party believes in that very strongly. They don’t argue about that at all, except through their campaign debate, they’ll take certain opposing views just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination. SS: Now back in 2009 President Obama made it clear that the missile shield in Europe would no longer be necessary if the threat from Iran was eliminated – and nuclear deal with Iran was struck. Now, historic deal is close, but NATO is saying there will be no change in missile shield plans – why not? WB: Because NATO shares America’s desire to dominate the world. NATO is just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, there’s no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is its main supporter and financial source, there’s no distinction between US and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesn’t matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone who’s not a lover of the Empire has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not. SS: But, can we be a little bit more precise about this “domination” theory – NATO has been strengthening its eastern borders with military building up on Russia’s doorsteps, and a rapid reaction force to include 30,000 personnel – why this deployment? Who is it aimed against? WB: It is aimed against Russia. The US cannot stand anyone who might stay in the way of the Empire’s expansion – and Russia and China are the only nations which can do that. Other nations, like Cuba or Iran or Venezuela are regarded as enemy just as well, because they have the polity influence: Cuba has influence over all of the Western hemisphere. That makes them a great enemy. But the basic criteria of Empire’s expansion is whether you support Empire or not, and that excludes all the countries I’ve named – from Cuba to Russia. SS: Do you think U.S. would go as far as using force against its enemies? WB: Well, the US has used force against its enemies on a regular basis for two centuries. Of course they would use force! They’ve used force against Cuba, they invaded Cuba and they’ve supported Cuban exiles in all kinds of violent activities for 60 years. Violence is never far removed from the U.S. policy. Let me summarize something for the benefit of listeners: since 1946 the US has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments. In the same time period it has attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders. It has bombed the people of 30 countries, it has suppressed revolutionary parties in at least 20 nations – and I forgot other factors on my list. This is a record unparalleled in all of human history, and there’s no reason to think it is changing of will change, except if some superior force comes on a scene, that can actually defeat U.S. SS: But, you know, French intelligence – and France seems to be an ally of the U.S. – the French intelligence chief has recently said that they found no evidence of Russia planning to invade Ukraine. So why has NATO been pressing these claims of an imminent invasion so hard and for so long? WB: Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washington’s policy, it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. That’s all it takes: you don’t admire us and have military force – that’s all it takes to be an enemy of Washington. SS: The problem is, there’s a ceasefire that seems in place, right? But US paratroopers have arrived in Ukraine to train forces in the country, and it’s not the first such deployment we’ve seen. So, with ceasefire agreement and peace deal on the way, why is Washington sending troops now? WB: They know very well that Ukraine is not…or those who live in Ukraine and support Russia, Washington knows very well that these people are not on their side, and will not be on their side, and there’s no way to make them on our side, so, US is expecting to wipe them out militarily at some point in the near future. As soon as they can get all the politics in place, there’s no backtracking from these policies. I must repeat myself again: Washington wants to dominate the world and anyone, including people in the south-eastern part of Ukraine, who don’t share that view, they are enemies, and at some point they may be met with military force. SS: So are you saying that America doesn’t want peace in Ukraine, because US is sending military personnel to Ukraine – like I’ve said – while Europeans are negotiating peace without America’s involvement? WB: Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – that’s fine. If they can’t, they’ll use war. It’s that simple. SS: So, like you’ve said, America is one of the main financiers of NATO; there’s also Estonia and they meet NATO’s funding goals. Why are the rest of its members lagging behind? Isn’t the alliance important to them as well? WB: They have their own home politics that they deal with, they each have their own financial needs to deal with, they each have their own relation with Washington to deal with, it varies. It is not exactly the same in these countries, but overall, no member of NATO is going to fight against Washington. No member of NATO was going to support the insurgence in Ukraine – not one. So there’s no need to go upon who is not paying and who is paying – none of them will ever go against Washington’s policies in Ukraine or elsewhere. SS: Now, on the other hand, Europe, U.S. and Russia – they share similar security threats, issues like Syria, Islamic State, there’s Afghanistan, and they are not going anywhere. Can these states work together if it is absolutely necessary, for example? WB: They don’t have the same security threats. Washington just announces that people of various countries are enemies of the U.S. – that doesn’t make them a threat. Syria, for example, is no threat to the U.S. Neither was Iraq, neither was Libya. U.S. invades one country after another, totally independent of whether they are threat or not. As long as they don’t believe in the Empire, as long as they are helping enemies of the Empire. I mean, what threat was Libya to Washington? NATO invaded them without mercy, bombed them out of existence, they are a failed state now. What was their threat? There’s no threat. If Russia doesn’t announce Libya as a threat, it’s not because Russia has a different foreign policy – it’s because Russia is not so paranoid as the U.S., and Russia is not looking for world domination. SS: Russia has been criticized many times for its decision to supply air defense missile systems to Iran. Now, why is America so worried about anti-air missile defense Iran may get from Russia? It’s not like Washington got plans to bomb Iran, right? WB: Of course they do, and so does Israel. You can’t put aside those fears. Washington, as I mentioned before, has bombed more than 30 countries. Why would they stop now? Iran is a definite target of the U.S. and Israel, and it’s very understandable that Iran would want to have advanced missile defense systems. SS: But look: US is staying out of Yemen now, it’s not willing to commit ground troops to Iraq or get involved in Syria. It sometimes looks like Washington is growing weary of foreign interventions, lately. WB: They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday it is something different. You can’t just look at today and say “they’re not fighting here and there” and think “Oh, Washington has finally found peace”. No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination. SS: Now, you’ve written in one of your books, the “Rogue State” that if you were President, you’d end all US foreign interventions at once. Can the US do that? Is it that simple? I mean, US left Iraq and look what happened. WB: If I were a President, yes, that’s what I would do. And then I add, to the portion you’ve quoted, I add at the end of paragraph, on my fifth day in the office I would be assassinated. So, that’s what happens to people who want to challenge the Empire’s policies. But I would have great time for the first few days. SS: But can the US realistically do that? End all of their foreign interventions at once? Because, we see an example of Iraq, once they left, ISIS spread. WB: The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular government. Then it’s been in the process now, for some years, attempting to overthrow the secular government in Syria. There’s no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why will they stop now? SS: I see your point. While Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be exactly described as victories for American troops, I mean, the invasions have also resulted, for instance, in girls being able to go to school in Afghanistan, or Kurds finally having a state in Iraq, for instance. WB: I must tell you something and all your listeners. At one time, in 1980s, Afghanistan had a progressive government, where women had full rights; they even wore mini-skirts. And you know what happened to that government? The US overthrew it. So please, don’t tell me about US policy helping the girls or the women of Afghanistan. We are the great enemy of females of Afghanistan. SS: You’ve also said that an end to US interventions would mean an end to terror attacks. What makes you think Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and other terror groups would cease to exist – and I’m talking about right now, I am not talking about “if America hadn’t invaded them back then”. Right now, if American interventions cease, what makes think that these terrorist groups would cease to exist as well? WB: It may be too late now. When I wrote that, it was correct. It may be too late now. After what we’ve done to all secular governments in the Middle East and in South Asia, after all that, I am not sure I would say the same thing again. We’ve unleashed ISIS, and they’re not going to be stopped by any kind words or nice changes of policy by Washington. They have to be wiped out militarily. They are an amazing force of horror, and the U.S. is responsible for them, but the barn door may be closed, it may be too late now to simply change our policy. SS: So do you think US should use military force to eradicate these terrorist groups? WB: Well, I could say “yes”, except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They cannot be trusted, that’s the problem. When they start to use force, there’s no holding them back, and they don’t care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world. SS: When I listen to you, it sounds like America overthrows all these governments and bombs all these countries, and makes revolutions – from people’s point of view, revolutions and overthrows are really impossible if they are not conducive to people’s moods on the ground. So you’re saying the foreign policy has greatly contributed to the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, but I wonder – don’t locals have control over their own direction at all? WB: The locals had no say whatsoever on whether the US would bomb or not, they had no say whatsoever on whether the US would overthrow governments chosen by the people, often – they have no say in these things. Now, they may hate ISIS, or some of them might hate ISIS, but it’s too late. They can’t do anything about it. The world is in terrible position. The world had a chance, 30-40 years ago, to stop the US from all of these interventions. If NATO had been closed, the way the Warsaw Pact was closed, the Soviet Union closed the Warsaw Pact with the expectation that NATO will also go out of business – but the US did not do that, and it’s too late now. I don’t know what to say, what will save the world now. SS: You’ve mentioned Cuba and Venezuela in the beginning of the programme. Now, we witnessed several historic meetings recently, between President Obama and Cuba’s President Raul Castro, also Obama’s meeting with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – why is Obama now talking with states the US has long considered arch-enemies? WB: You must keep in mind, first of all, that nothing whatsoever has changed, as of this moment nothing has changed. We have to wait and see what happens, and I’m very sceptical. For example, with Cuba, the main issue is the US sanctions which have played havoc with Cuban economy and society. That has not changed, and I don’t think it is going to change even in my lifetime. So, you can’t apply some kind of changes taking place. Why Obama is saying these things he’s saying now may have to do with his so-called “legacy”. He knows his time is very limited, and he knows he has many enemies amongst progressives in the US and elsewhere. He may want to cater to them for some reason. I don’t know, neither do you know, no one knows exactly why he’s saying these things – but they don’t mean anything yet. Nothing has changed whatsoever. SS: So you’re saying there’s really no substance in those meetings… Now, looking back, what would you call Obama’s biggest achievements of his two terms – I mean, people say there’s been a reconciliation with Cuba, with Iran, there’s an earnest attempt to end US deployment in Iraq and in Afghanistan, he didn’t move troops into Syria. Would you disagree with all of that? WB: Yes, all of that. There’s no accomplishment whatsoever. He didn’t move troops into Syria because of Russia, and not because of him making any change. He was embarrassed in that. John Kerry made a remark about “it would be nice if Syria would get rid of its chemical weapons – but that’s not going to happen” he said, and then foreign minister Lavrov of Russia jumped in and said “Oh really? We’ll arrange that” – and they arranged Syria to get rid of chemical weapons. That was, yes, a slip of the tongue by John Kerry, and he was embarrassed to challenge Lavrov. We can say the same thing about any of the things you’ve mentioned. There’s no substance involved in any of these policies. The US has not relented at all over Syria. As I’ve mentioned before, they are bombing Syria’s military assets, they are killing civilians every day. Syria is still a prime target of Washington, and they will never escape. SS: Thank you very much for this interesting insight, we were talking to William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers “Rogue State” and “America’s Deadliest Export” discussing matters of the US foreign policy and what would happen if the US decides to end all of its foreign interventions at once. That’s it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time. _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Mon May 21 19:08:05 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 19:08:05 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] FW: For publication: Reply to Gilbert Doctorow References: Message-ID: Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Boyle, Francis A Sent: Monday, May 21, 2018 2:08 PM To: sectns.aals at lists.aals.org Subject: FW: For publication: Reply to Gilbert Doctorow Subject: For publication: Reply to Gilbert Doctorow I would like to reply to the thoughtful comments by Gilbert Doctorow in the 21 May 2018 Issue 2018-#91 about our mutual teacher Richard Pipes. I deliberately graduated from the exact same Harvard PHD Program that produced Kissinger and Brzezinski before me: The Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Department of Government, where Harvard trains its future Professors of Political Science-not the Kennedy School. They even gave me Kissinger's old office at Harvard's Center for International Affairs when I was an Associate there. Kissinger and Brzezinski had left Harvard by the time I matriculated there in the Law School in September of 1971. So I did not study with them. But of course I had to familiarize myself with their writings and their records in order to get my three graduate degrees over my seven year stay at Harvard before becoming an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign. I fully agree with Gilbert that Brzezinski was just as bad as Pipes and for the exact same reasons. I also fully agree with Gilbert that Brzezinski's direct impact on American Foreign Policy was far more deleterious and insidious than anything Pipes did working for Reagan for those two years. My primary grievance against Pipes is Academic: There is no way Harvard should have had Pipes abusing Russian History, Russia, the Russians for his entire generation teaching there. By comparison, I always found Ned Keenan to be fair, balanced and reasonable when it came to Russia and the Russians-RIP. Not to defend Henry Kissinger. But he knew no more and no less about Russia than anyone else getting a Standard PHD in the Harvard Government Department specializing in International Relations--as I did with Stanley Hoffmann, RIP. Francis A. Boyle Professor of Law Kissy and Timmy and Me "You're moving into Kissinger's old office" Said Bud, the wizened old janitor And a decent guy at that "His file cabinets are in there" Sure enough they were So it must be true "And down the hallway there Is Timothy Leary's old office" So that must be true too! Kissy and Timmy Kissing Cousins in the Vanserg Building Amazing! Did they pass in the hall? Glance at each other? Say a few words of greeting? The last probably not Did they piss in the men's room Silently standing next to each other? Staring at the wall Probably so There was only one The counterfactuals of history What if Timmy had given Kissy acid? Timmy turn Kissy on? Maybe the world would have been A more peaceful place With Kissinger on acid It certainly Could not have been worse The Kissinger War Prize for Vietnam Obama got one too Those Norwegians Surely have A wicked sense of humor Timothy Leary's dead No! No! He's on the outside Looking in Say the Moody Blues Bards of My Woodstock Generation Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 21 21:25:11 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 21:25:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Supreme Court Decision Delivers Blow to Workers' Rights Message-ID: LAW Supreme Court Decision Delivers Blow To Workers' Rights Audio will be available later today. * Facebook * Twitter * Flipboard * Email May 21, 201810:55 AM ET Heard on All Things Considered [Nina Totenberg] NINA TOTENBERG FacebookTwitter [https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2018/05/21/gettyimages-950315496_wide-a3c1e35e9933cfefab747d2a61b4365197d3d826-s800-c85.jpg] People wait in line to enter the U.S. Supreme Court last month. The court sided with businesses on not allowing class-action lawsuits for federal labor violations. Mark Wilson/Getty Images In a case involving the rights of tens of millions of private-sector employees, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, delivered a major blow to workers, ruling for the first time that workers may not band together to challenge violations of federal labor laws. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act trumps the National Labor Relations Act and that employees who sign employment agreements to arbitrate claims must do so on an individual basis — and may not band together to enforce claims of wage and hour violations. [A 'Yellow Dog Contract' And Other Jabs During Supreme Court Opening Arguments] LAW A 'Yellow Dog Contract' And Other Jabs During Supreme Court Opening Arguments "The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written," Gorsuch writes. "While Congress is of course always free to amend this judgment, we see nothing suggesting it did so in the NLRA — much less that it manifested a clear intention to displace the Arbitration Act. Because we can easily read Congress's statutes to work in harmony, that is where our duty lies." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the four dissenters, called the majority opinion "egregiously wrong." She said the 1925 arbitration law came well before federal labor laws and should not cover these "arm-twisted," "take-it-or-leave it" provisions that employers are now insisting on. The inevitable result, she warned, is that there will be huge underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of workers. "[T]he edict that employees with wage and hours claims may seek relief only one-by-one does not come from Congress," Ginsburg writes. "It is the result of take-it-or-leave-it labor contracts harking back to the type called 'yellow dog,' and of the readiness of this Court to enforce those unbargained-for agreements. The FAA demands no such suppression of the right of workers to take concerted action for their 'mutual aid or protection.'" She urged Congress to correct the court's elevation of the arbitration act over workers' rights. [The War Over Confirming Federal Judges Is Heating Up — Again] LAW The War Over Confirming Federal Judges Is Heating Up — Again Notably, Ginsburg's dissent is five pages longer than the majority's opinion. And Gorsuch spends time in his opinion to respond point by point to the minority's arguments. The ruling came in three cases — potentially involving tens of thousands of nonunion employees — brought against Ernst & Young LLP, Epic Systems Corp. and Murphy Oil USA Inc. Each required its individual employees, as a condition of employment, to waive their rights to join a class-action suit. In all three cases, employees tried to sue together, maintaining that the amounts they could obtain in individual lawsuits were dwarfed by the legal fees they would have to pay as individuals to bring their cases under the private arbitration procedures required by the company. [Supreme Court Upholds Individual Rights In 2 Key Criminal Justice Cases] LAW Supreme Court Upholds Individual Rights In 2 Key Criminal Justice Cases The employees contended that their right to collective action is guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act. The employers countered that they are entitled to ban collective legal action under the Federal Arbitration Act, which was enacted in 1925 to reverse the judicial hostility to arbitration at the time. A study by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute shows that 56 percent of nonunion private-sector employees are currently subject to mandatory individual arbitration procedures under the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act, which allows employers to bar collective legal actions by employees. The court's decision means that tens of millions of private nonunion employees will be barred from suing collectively over the terms of their employment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon May 21 22:23:40 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 17:23:40 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The US will eventually bomb Iran as it bombed other countries: Wm. Blum April 2015 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6AE0A88B-B464-42D2-B58D-6B8F4A27CBB8@gmail.com> Good line, Karen! And William Blum is important, for the reasons you assert. Thanks for posting this. > On May 21, 2018, at 9:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > You know we’ve hit a nerve, when Roger enters the fray. Thank you Roger for confirming my article by Wm. Blum to be of value, true, and disturbing to war supporting, trolls. Yes, keeping Roger on our “peace list does serve a purpose.” > > Just to enlighten those who aren’t familiar with Wm. Blum, from Wikipedia: > > William Blum > > Blum in 2007 > Born March 6, 1933 (age 85) > Occupation Journalist, Author, U.S. foreign policy critic, historian > Genre Political journalism, history > Notable works The CIA: A Forgotten History(1986) > Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (2000) > Killing Hope (2003) > Website > williamblum.org > William Blum (/blʌm/ ; born 6 March 1933) is an American author, historian, and critic of United States foreign policy . He worked in a computer related position at the United States Department of State in the mid-1960s. Initially an anti-communist with dreams of becoming a foreign service officer , he became disillusioned by the Vietnam War . He lives in Washington, DC .[1] > > "Blum left the State Department in 1967 and became a founder and editor of the Washington Free Press, the first "alternative" newspaper in the capital. In 1969, he wrote and published an exposé of the CIA in which were revealed the names and addresses of more than 200 CIA employees. He has worked as freelance journalist in the United States, Europe and South America. In 1972–1973 Blum worked as a journalist in Chile where he reported on the Allende government's "socialist experiment". In the mid-1970s, he worked in London with ex-CIA officer Philip Agee and his associates "on their project of exposing CIA personnel and their misdeeds".[2] He supports himself with his writing and speaking engagements on college campuses.[1] > In his books and online columns, Blum devotes substantial attention to CIA interventions and assassination plots. Noam Chomsky has called Blum's book on the CIA, "far and away the best book on the topic."[3] He has supported Ralph Nader 's presidential campaigns.[4] He circulates a monthly newsletter by email called "The Anti-Empire Report". Blum has described his life's mission as: "If not ending, at least slowing down the American Empire. At least injuring the beast. It's causing so much suffering around the world."[1] ” > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On May 21, 2018, at 07:36, Roger Helbig > wrote: >> >> nothing like Global Research as a source - don't know much about William Blum but if he writes for that sham news/propaganda site in Canada, he is not that much of someone who actually knows much, but you quote anyone who agrees with your preconceived opinion, not people who actually know much about the subject. The US has never sought world domination. If it had, we would have kept a lot of things that we very graciously gave back. >> >> Roger >> >> I wonder how many of your Jewish list members know about the strong Neo Nazi connection to Global Research >> >> On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> The US Will Eventually Bomb Iran As It Bombed Other Countries: William Blum >> >> By William Blum >> Global Research, April 19, 2015 >> RT >> Region: Middle East & North Africa >> Theme: US NATO War Agenda >> In-depth Report: IRAN: THE NEXT WAR? >> 0 0 0 New >> >> Obama’s time as leader of the US is coming to an end – his term concludes next year. Wannabe presidents have already joined the race to the White House. And as President Obama goes through the final year of his rule, Washington suddenly changes its tone – now Iran is an appropriate nation to talk to, and it’s okay to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan leaders. But what is in that change? >> >> Has Washington finally dropped its previous policies? What does Obama want to achieve? And will the new, as yet unknown, leader of America make any difference? We pose these questions to prominent historian, author of bestsellers on US foreign policies, William Blum, who is on Sophie&Co today. >> >> >> >> Transcript >> >> William Blum: I don’t think US foreign policy will change at all, regardless of who is in the White House, Bush or Clinton, or who else is running. Our policy does not change… I can add Obama to that. It wouldn’t even matter which party it is, Republican or Democrat, they have the same foreign policy. >> >> SS: Why do you think it’s the same policy for both parties? Why do you think they are not different from each other? >> >> WB: Because America, for two centuries has had one basic, overriding goal, and that is world domination, at least from 1890s if not earlier, one can say that. World domination is something which appeals to both Republicans and Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives. The idea that we’re the exceptional nation and have something very important to impart to the rest of the world, our marvelous values, American exceptionalism… Each party believes in that very strongly. They don’t argue about that at all, except through their campaign debate, they’ll take certain opposing views just to appear different. But, in power, they have the exact same policy – world domination. >> >> SS: Now back in 2009 President Obama made it clear that the missile shield in Europe would no longer be necessary if the threat from Iran was eliminated – and nuclear deal with Iran was struck. Now, historic deal is close, but NATO is saying there will be no change in missile shield plans – why not? >> >> WB: Because NATO shares America’s desire to dominate the world. NATO is just an arm of the U.S. foreign policy, there’s no point actually in making a distinction between US foreign policy and NATO policy – they are the same. If US were not in NATO, NATO would not exist. US founded NATO, US is its main supporter and financial source, there’s no distinction between US and NATO, and they share the same view of American world domination. So, it doesn’t matter whether Iran is doing this or that – they know that Iran is not a lover of an Empire, and anyone who’s not a lover of the Empire has a short life span. Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, whatever. That is the test, do you love Empire or not. >> >> SS: But, can we be a little bit more precise about this “domination” theory – NATO has been strengthening its eastern borders with military building up on Russia’s doorsteps, and a rapid reaction force to include 30,000 personnel – why this deployment? Who is it aimed against? >> >> WB: It is aimed against Russia. The US cannot stand anyone who might stay in the way of the Empire’s expansion – and Russia and China are the only nations which can do that. Other nations, like Cuba or Iran or Venezuela are regarded as enemy just as well, because they have the polity influence: Cuba has influence over all of the Western hemisphere. That makes them a great enemy. But the basic criteria of Empire’s expansion is whether you support Empire or not, and that excludes all the countries I’ve named – from Cuba to Russia. >> >> SS: Do you think U.S. would go as far as using force against its enemies? >> >> WB: Well, the US has used force against its enemies on a regular basis for two centuries. Of course they would use force! They’ve used force against Cuba, they invaded Cuba and they’ve supported Cuban exiles in all kinds of violent activities for 60 years. Violence is never far removed from the U.S. policy. Let me summarize something for the benefit of listeners: since 1946 the US has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments. In the same time period it has attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders. It has bombed the people of 30 countries, it has suppressed revolutionary parties in at least 20 nations – and I forgot other factors on my list. This is a record unparalleled in all of human history, and there’s no reason to think it is changing of will change, except if some superior force comes on a scene, that can actually defeat U.S. >> >> SS: But, you know, French intelligence – and France seems to be an ally of the U.S. – the French intelligence chief has recently said that they found no evidence of Russia planning to invade Ukraine. So why has NATO been pressing these claims of an imminent invasion so hard and for so long? >> >> WB: Because Russia has two characteristics of an enemy, which Washington cannot tolerate: one, it has very powerful military capabilities, and two, it is not a kind of Washington’s policy, it is not a great admirer of the Empire. The same applies to China. That’s all it takes: you don’t admire us and have military force – that’s all it takes to be an enemy of Washington. >> >> SS: The problem is, there’s a ceasefire that seems in place, right? But US paratroopers have arrived in Ukraine to train forces in the country, and it’s not the first such deployment we’ve seen. So, with ceasefire agreement and peace deal on the way, why is Washington sending troops now? >> >> WB: They know very well that Ukraine is not…or those who live in Ukraine and support Russia, Washington knows very well that these people are not on their side, and will not be on their side, and there’s no way to make them on our side, so, US is expecting to wipe them out militarily at some point in the near future. As soon as they can get all the politics in place, there’s no backtracking from these policies. I must repeat myself again: Washington wants to dominate the world and anyone, including people in the south-eastern part of Ukraine, who don’t share that view, they are enemies, and at some point they may be met with military force. >> >> SS: So are you saying that America doesn’t want peace in Ukraine, because US is sending military personnel to Ukraine – like I’ve said – while Europeans are negotiating peace without America’s involvement? >> >> WB: Washington is not looking for peace or war. It is looking for domination, and if they can achieve domination peacefully – that’s fine. If they can’t, they’ll use war. It’s that simple. >> >> SS: So, like you’ve said, America is one of the main financiers of NATO; there’s also Estonia and they meet NATO’s funding goals. Why are the rest of its members lagging behind? Isn’t the alliance important to them as well? >> >> WB: They have their own home politics that they deal with, they each have their own financial needs to deal with, they each have their own relation with Washington to deal with, it varies. It is not exactly the same in these countries, but overall, no member of NATO is going to fight against Washington. No member of NATO was going to support the insurgence in Ukraine – not one. So there’s no need to go upon who is not paying and who is paying – none of them will ever go against Washington’s policies in Ukraine or elsewhere. >> >> SS: Now, on the other hand, Europe, U.S. and Russia – they share similar security threats, issues like Syria, Islamic State, there’s Afghanistan, and they are not going anywhere. Can these states work together if it is absolutely necessary, for example? >> >> WB: They don’t have the same security threats. Washington just announces that people of various countries are enemies of the U.S. – that doesn’t make them a threat. Syria, for example, is no threat to the U.S. Neither was Iraq, neither was Libya. U.S. invades one country after another, totally independent of whether they are threat or not. As long as they don’t believe in the Empire, as long as they are helping enemies of the Empire. I mean, what threat was Libya to Washington? NATO invaded them without mercy, bombed them out of existence, they are a failed state now. What was their threat? There’s no threat. If Russia doesn’t announce Libya as a threat, it’s not because Russia has a different foreign policy – it’s because Russia is not so paranoid as the U.S., and Russia is not looking for world domination. >> >> SS: Russia has been criticized many times for its decision to supply air defense missile systems to Iran. Now, why is America so worried about anti-air missile defense Iran may get from Russia? It’s not like Washington got plans to bomb Iran, right? >> >> WB: Of course they do, and so does Israel. You can’t put aside those fears. Washington, as I mentioned before, has bombed more than 30 countries. Why would they stop now? Iran is a definite target of the U.S. and Israel, and it’s very understandable that Iran would want to have advanced missile defense systems. >> >> SS: But look: US is staying out of Yemen now, it’s not willing to commit ground troops to Iraq or get involved in Syria. It sometimes looks like Washington is growing weary of foreign interventions, lately. >> >> WB: They are still supporting the enemies of Syria, and they are making sure that Assad will not come back to power. They are bombing places all over Syria, which can be useful militarily to Syria. They have not forgotten about Syria at all. Iraq is ally at the moment, but tomorrow or yesterday it is something different. You can’t just look at today and say “they’re not fighting here and there” and think “Oh, Washington has finally found peace”. No. Their basic goal is unchanged – today, tomorrow, or next year. I must say, again, for the tenth time, it is world domination. >> >> SS: Now, you’ve written in one of your books, the “Rogue State” that if you were President, you’d end all US foreign interventions at once. Can the US do that? Is it that simple? I mean, US left Iraq and look what happened. >> >> WB: If I were a President, yes, that’s what I would do. And then I add, to the portion you’ve quoted, I add at the end of paragraph, on my fifth day in the office I would be assassinated. So, that’s what happens to people who want to challenge the Empire’s policies. But I would have great time for the first few days. >> >> SS: But can the US realistically do that? End all of their foreign interventions at once? Because, we see an example of Iraq, once they left, ISIS spread. >> >> WB: The US has created ISIS. Let me point this out – a short while ago, there were four major states in the Middle East and South Asia, which were secular. The US invaded Iraq, then invaded Libya and overthrew that secular government. Then it’s been in the process now, for some years, attempting to overthrow the secular government in Syria. There’s no wonder that Middle East and South Asia have been taken over by religious fanatics: all the possible enemies and barriers to that had been wiped out by Washington. Why will they stop now? >> >> SS: I see your point. While Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be exactly described as victories for American troops, I mean, the invasions have also resulted, for instance, in girls being able to go to school in Afghanistan, or Kurds finally having a state in Iraq, for instance. >> >> WB: I must tell you something and all your listeners. At one time, in 1980s, Afghanistan had a progressive government, where women had full rights; they even wore mini-skirts. And you know what happened to that government? The US overthrew it. So please, don’t tell me about US policy helping the girls or the women of Afghanistan. We are the great enemy of females of Afghanistan. >> >> SS: You’ve also said that an end to US interventions would mean an end to terror attacks. What makes you think Islamic State and Al-Qaeda and other terror groups would cease to exist – and I’m talking about right now, I am not talking about “if America hadn’t invaded them back then”. Right now, if American interventions cease, what makes think that these terrorist groups would cease to exist as well? >> >> WB: It may be too late now. When I wrote that, it was correct. It may be too late now. After what we’ve done to all secular governments in the Middle East and in South Asia, after all that, I am not sure I would say the same thing again. We’ve unleashed ISIS, and they’re not going to be stopped by any kind words or nice changes of policy by Washington. They have to be wiped out militarily. They are an amazing force of horror, and the U.S. is responsible for them, but the barn door may be closed, it may be too late now to simply change our policy. >> >> SS: So do you think US should use military force to eradicate these terrorist groups? >> >> WB: Well, I could say “yes”, except that the US will cheat. They will use the same force to attack other people, like in Syria, they will use the same force to help overthrow Assad, and they will use the same force to suppress any segment of Iraq or what have you, which are anti-America. They cannot be trusted, that’s the problem. When they start to use force, there’s no holding them back, and they don’t care about the civilians. The civilian death toll with any bombing of Syria and Iraq is unlimited. So, for those reasons, I cannot support US bombing of Iraq or Syria or anywhere else. The US bombing should cease everywhere in the world. >> >> SS: When I listen to you, it sounds like America overthrows all these governments and bombs all these countries, and makes revolutions – from people’s point of view, revolutions and overthrows are really impossible if they are not conducive to people’s moods on the ground. So you’re saying the foreign policy has greatly contributed to the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, but I wonder – don’t locals have control over their own direction at all? >> >> WB: The locals had no say whatsoever on whether the US would bomb or not, they had no say whatsoever on whether the US would overthrow governments chosen by the people, often – they have no say in these things. Now, they may hate ISIS, or some of them might hate ISIS, but it’s too late. They can’t do anything about it. The world is in terrible position. The world had a chance, 30-40 years ago, to stop the US from all of these interventions. If NATO had been closed, the way the Warsaw Pact was closed, the Soviet Union closed the Warsaw Pact with the expectation that NATO will also go out of business – but the US did not do that, and it’s too late now. I don’t know what to say, what will save the world now. >> >> SS: You’ve mentioned Cuba and Venezuela in the beginning of the programme. Now, we witnessed several historic meetings recently, between President Obama and Cuba’s President Raul Castro, also Obama’s meeting with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro – why is Obama now talking with states the US has long considered arch-enemies? >> >> WB: You must keep in mind, first of all, that nothing whatsoever has changed, as of this moment nothing has changed. We have to wait and see what happens, and I’m very sceptical. For example, with Cuba, the main issue is the US sanctions which have played havoc with Cuban economy and society. That has not changed, and I don’t think it is going to change even in my lifetime. So, you can’t apply some kind of changes taking place. Why Obama is saying these things he’s saying now may have to do with his so-called “legacy”. He knows his time is very limited, and he knows he has many enemies amongst progressives in the US and elsewhere. He may want to cater to them for some reason. I don’t know, neither do you know, no one knows exactly why he’s saying these things – but they don’t mean anything yet. Nothing has changed whatsoever. >> >> SS: So you’re saying there’s really no substance in those meetings… Now, looking back, what would you call Obama’s biggest achievements of his two terms – I mean, people say there’s been a reconciliation with Cuba, with Iran, there’s an earnest attempt to end US deployment in Iraq and in Afghanistan, he didn’t move troops into Syria. Would you disagree with all of that? >> >> WB: Yes, all of that. There’s no accomplishment whatsoever. He didn’t move troops into Syria because of Russia, and not because of him making any change. He was embarrassed in that. John Kerry made a remark about “it would be nice if Syria would get rid of its chemical weapons – but that’s not going to happen” he said, and then foreign minister Lavrov of Russia jumped in and said “Oh really? We’ll arrange that” – and they arranged Syria to get rid of chemical weapons. That was, yes, a slip of the tongue by John Kerry, and he was embarrassed to challenge Lavrov. We can say the same thing about any of the things you’ve mentioned. There’s no substance involved in any of these policies. The US has not relented at all over Syria. As I’ve mentioned before, they are bombing Syria’s military assets, they are killing civilians every day. Syria is still a prime target of Washington, and they will never escape. >> >> SS: Thank you very much for this interesting insight, we were talking to William Blum, historian and author of bestsellers “Rogue State” and “America’s Deadliest Export” discussing matters of the US foreign policy and what would happen if the US decides to end all of its foreign interventions at once. That’s it for this edition of Sophie&Co, I will see you next time. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue May 22 00:56:10 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 19:56:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Antifa or Antiwar: Leftist Exclusionism..." By Diana Johnstone Message-ID: <0D230C86-8D1C-48FC-869B-DB7DCE626CF5@gmail.com> https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/21/antifa-or-antiwar-leftist-exclusionism-against-the-quest-for-peace/ Jeffrey St. Clair has been an informed and erudite friend for years, but Johnstone is correct here. —CGE From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 22 01:35:24 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 01:35:24 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Antifa or Antiwar: Leftist Exclusionism..." By Diana Johnstone In-Reply-To: <0D230C86-8D1C-48FC-869B-DB7DCE626CF5@gmail.com> References: <0D230C86-8D1C-48FC-869B-DB7DCE626CF5@gmail.com> Message-ID: Excellent article, I couldn’t agree more. I have been disturbed for some time with Eric Draitser, and Jeffrey’s inclusion of him along with Louis Proyect as voices of Counterpunch. > On May 21, 2018, at 17:56, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > https://consortiumnews.com/2018/05/21/antifa-or-antiwar-leftist-exclusionism-against-the-quest-for-peace/ > > Jeffrey St. Clair has been an informed and erudite friend for years, but Johnstone is correct here. > > —CGE > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From r-szoke at illinois.edu Tue May 22 03:40:01 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 03:40:01 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Campus Hasbara operatives Message-ID: <493C467D-3168-4B2B-AFE3-70650780C290@illinois.edu> Hasbara Fellowships >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hasbara Fellowships [220px-Israelactivismlogo.jpg] Formation 2001 Headquarters New York City, New York, U.S. Website hasbarafellowships.org Hasbara Fellowships is an organization that brings students to Israel and trains them to be effective pro-Israel activists on college campuses.[1] Based in New York, it was started in 2001 by Aish HaTorah in conjunction with the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The organization claims to have trained nearly 2,000 students on over 220 North American campuses.[2] Activists trained by Hasbara Fellowships have been involved in several campus rallies. In 2002, Hasbara Fellowships organized a rally at the National Student Palestinian Conference at the University of Michigan.[3] In 2007, Hasbara Fellowships members at Brandeis University protested against former US President Jimmy Carter's book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.[4] In May 2007, Hasbara Fellowships (co-sponsored by the Israeli Foreign Ministry) called for volunteers to counter a "dangerous trend" of Wikipedia entries portraying Israel in a "negative light". Interested readers were encouraged to consider "joining a team of Wikipedians to make sure Israel is presented fairly and accurately".[5][6] In 2008, Hasbara Fellowships helped to organize "Islamic State Apartheid Week" at York University to counter the rival "Israeli Apartheid Week".[7] In 2010, Hasbara Fellows created Israel Peace Week as a response to Israel Apartheid Week. In its first year, the program reached 28 campuses in the US and three in Australia.[8][9][10] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 220px-Israelactivismlogo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7333 bytes Desc: 220px-Israelactivismlogo.jpg URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 22 11:33:28 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 11:33:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Coming Collapse, by Chris Hedges in Truthdig Message-ID: Mr. Fish / Truthdig The Trump administration did not rise, prima facie, like Venus on a half shell from the sea. Donald Trump is the result of a long process of political, cultural and social decay. He is a product of our failed democracy. The longer we perpetuate the fiction that we live in a functioning democracy, that Trump and the political mutations around him are somehow an aberrant deviation that can be vanquished in the next election, the more we will hurtle toward tyranny. The problem is not Trump. It is a political system, dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major political parties, in which we don’t count. We will wrest back political control by dismantling the corporate state, and this means massive and sustained civil disobedience, like that demonstrated by teachers around the country this year. If we do not stand up we will enter a new dark age. The Democratic Party, which helped build our system of inverted totalitarianism, is once again held up by many on the left as the savior. Yet the party steadfastly refuses to address the social inequality that led to the election of Trump and the insurgency by Bernie Sanders. It is deaf, dumb and blind to the very real economic suffering that plagues over half the country. It will not fight to pay workers a living wage. It will not defy the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to provide Medicare for all. It will not curb the voracious appetite of the military that is disemboweling the country and promoting the prosecution of futile and costly foreign wars. It will not restore our lost civil liberties, including the right to privacy, freedom from government surveillance, and due process. It will not get corporate and dark money out of politics. It will not demilitarize our police and reform a prison system that has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. It plays to the margins, especially in election seasons, refusing to address substantive political and social problems and instead focusing on narrow cultural issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control in our peculiar species of anti-politics. This is a doomed tactic, but one that is understandable. The leadership of the party, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, are creations of corporate America. In an open and democratic political process, one not dominated by party elites and corporate money, these people would not hold political power. They know this. They would rather implode the entire system than give up their positions of privilege. And that, I fear, is what will happen. The idea that the Democratic Party is in any way a bulwark against despotism defies the last three decades of its political activity. It is the guarantor of despotism. Trump has tapped into the hatred that huge segments of the American public have for a political and economic system that has betrayed them. He may be inept, degenerate, dishonest and a narcissist, but he adeptly ridicules the system they despise. His cruel and demeaning taunts directed at government agencies, laws and the established elites resonate with people for whom these agencies, laws and elites have become hostile forces. And for many who see no shift in the political landscape to alleviate their suffering, Trump’s cruelty and invective are at least cathartic. ADVERTISEMENT [201805 GoFundMe Week2 300x250] Trump, like all despots, has no ethical core. He chooses his allies and appointees based on their personal loyalty and fawning obsequiousness to him. He will sell anyone out. He is corrupt, amassing money for himself—he made $40 million from his Washington, D.C., hotel alone last year—and his corporate allies. He is dismantling government institutions that once provided some regulation and oversight. He is an enemy of the open society. This makes him dangerous. His turbocharged assault on the last vestiges of democratic institutions and norms means there will soon be nothing, even in name, to protect us from corporate totalitarianism. But the warnings from the architects of our failed democracy against creeping fascism, Madeleine Albright among them, are risible. They show how disconnected the elites have become from the zeitgeist. None of these elites have credibility. They built the edifice of lies, deceit and corporate pillage that made Trump possible. And the more Trump demeans these elites, and the more they cry out like Cassandras, the more he salvages his disastrous presidency and enables the kleptocrats pillaging the country as it swiftly disintegrates. The press is one of the principal pillars of Trump’s despotism. It chatters endlessly like 18th-century courtiers at the court of Versailles about the foibles of the monarch while the peasants lack bread. It drones on and on and on about empty topics such as Russian meddling and a payoff to a porn actress that have nothing to do with the daily hell that, for many, defines life in America. It refuses to critique or investigate the abuses by corporate power, which has destroyed our democracy and economy and orchestrated the largest transfer of wealth upward in American history. The corporate press is a decayed relic that, in exchange for money and access, committed cultural suicide. And when Trump attacks it over “fake news,” he expresses, once again, the deep hatred of all those the press ignores. The press worships the idol of Mammon as slavishly as Trump does. It loves the reality-show presidency. The press, especially the cable news shows, keeps the lights on and the cameras rolling so viewers will be glued to a 21st-century version of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.” It is good for ratings. It is good for profits. But it accelerates the decline. All this will soon be compounded by financial collapse. Wall Street banks have been handed $16 trillion in bailouts and other subsidies by the Federal Reserve and Congress at nearly zero percent interest since the 2008 financial collapse. They have used this money, as well as the money saved through the huge tax cuts imposed last year, to buy back their own stock, raising the compensation and bonuses of their managers and thrusting the society deeper into untenable debt peonage. Sheldon Adelson’s casino operations alone got a $670 million tax break under the 2017 legislation. The ratio of CEO to worker pay now averages 339 to 1, with the highest gap approaching 5,000 to 1. This circular use of money to make and hoard money is what Karl Marx called “fictitious capital.” The steady increase in public debt, corporate debt, credit card debt and student loan debt will ultimately lead, as Nomi Prins writes, to “a tipping point—when money coming in to furnish that debt, or available to borrow, simply won’t cover the interest payments. Then debt bubbles will pop, beginning with higher yielding bonds.” An economy reliant on debt for its growth causes our interest rate to jump to 28 percent when we are late on a credit card payment. It is why our wages are stagnant or have declined in real terms—if we earned a sustainable income we would not have to borrow money to survive. It is why a university education, houses, medical bills and utilities cost so much. The system is designed so we can never free ourselves from debt. However, the next financial crash, as Prins points out in her book “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World,” won’t be like the last one. This is because, as she says, “there is no Plan B.” Interest rates can’t go any lower. There has been no growth in the real economy. The next time, there will be no way out. Once the economy crashes and the rage across the country explodes into a firestorm, the political freaks will appear, ones that will make Trump look sagacious and benign. And so, to quote Vladimir Lenin, what must be done? We must invest our energy in building parallel, popular institutions to protect ourselves and to pit power against power. These parallel institutions, including unions, community development organizations, local currencies, alternative political parties and food cooperatives, will have to be constructed town by town. The elites in a time of distress will retreat to their gated compounds and leave us to fend for ourselves. Basic services, from garbage collection to public transportation, food distribution and health care, will collapse. Massive unemployment and underemployment, triggering social unrest, will be dealt with not through government job creation but the brutality of militarized police and a complete suspension of civil liberties. Critics of the system, already pushed to the margins, will be silenced and attacked as enemies of the state. The last vestiges of labor unions will be targeted for abolition, a process that will soon be accelerated given the expected ruling in a case before the Supreme Court that will cripple the ability of public-sector unions to represent workers. The dollar will stop being the world’s reserve currency, causing a steep devaluation. Banks will close. Global warming will extract heavier and heavier costs, especially on the coastal populations, farming and the infrastructure, costs that the depleted state will be unable to address. The corporate press, like the ruling elites, will go from burlesque to absurdism, its rhetoric so patently fictitious it will, as in all totalitarian states, be unmoored from reality. The media outlets will all sound as fatuous as Trump. And, to quote W.H. Auden, “the little children will die in the streets.” As a foreign correspondent I covered collapsed societies, including the former Yugoslavia. It is impossible for any doomed population to grasp how fragile the decayed financial, social and political system is on the eve of implosion. All the harbingers of collapse are visible: crumbling infrastructure; chronic underemployment and unemployment; the indiscriminate use of lethal force by police; political paralysis and stagnation; an economy built on the scaffolding of debt; nihilistic mass shootings in schools, universities, workplaces, malls, concert venues and movie theaters; opioid overdoses that kill some 64,000 people a year; an epidemic of suicides; unsustainable military expansion; gambling as a desperate tool of economic development and government revenue; the capture of power by a tiny, corrupt clique; censorship; the physical diminishing of public institutions ranging from schools and libraries to courts and medical facilities; the incessant bombardment by electronic hallucinations to divert us from the depressing sight that has become America and keep us trapped in illusions. We suffer the usual pathologies of impending death. I would be happy to be wrong. But I have seen this before. I know the warning signs. All I can say is get ready. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Tue May 22 13:52:43 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 08:52:43 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Coming Collapse, by Chris Hedges in Truthdig In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I’m afraid this is accurate. One local implication is that, in our one vote for Congress this year - for the House seat from the 13th Illinois Congressional District - we must oppose Democrat Betsy Londrigan. For the reasons Hedges puts forward, we cannot contribute to giving the Democrats control of the House of Representatives, even if it means voting for the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. As the vote on Haspel showed, individual ‘progressive’ votes are sometimes allowed by a party organization as a safety valve, as it continues to support the most vicious neocon and neolib policies. "Those people were a kind of solution,” it sometimes seems, but they aren’t, as Hedges explains. It’s also worth noting that Davis’ predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, who shared Davis’ politics when elected, became an anti-war vote and even joined a bipartisan suit against the war in Libya. I don’t expect the same from Davis, but then I didn’t expect it from Johnson (whom I ran against as a Green, in 2002), either. But the primary reason to vote against Londrigan is to keep the Democrats from controlling the House. —CGE > On May 22, 2018, at 6:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: “The Coming Collapse” —Chris Hedges > > The Trump administration did not rise, prima facie, like Venus on a half shell from the sea. Donald Trump is the result of a long process of political, cultural and social decay. He is a product of our failed democracy. The longer we perpetuate the fiction that we live in a functioning democracy, that Trump and the political mutations around him are somehow an aberrant deviation that can be vanquished in the next election, the more we will hurtle toward tyranny. The problem is not Trump. It is a political system, dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major political parties, in which we don’t count. We will wrest back political control by dismantling the corporate state, and this means massive and sustained civil disobedience, like that demonstrated by teachers around the country this year. If we do not stand up we will enter a new dark age. > > The Democratic Party, which helped build our system of inverted totalitarianism, is once again held up by many on the left as the savior. Yet the party steadfastly refuses to address the social inequality that led to the election of Trump and the insurgency by Bernie Sanders. It is deaf, dumb and blind to the very real economic suffering that plagues over half the country. It will not fight to pay workers a living wage. It will not defy the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to provide Medicare for all. It will not curb the voracious appetite of the military that is disemboweling the country and promoting the prosecution of futile and costly foreign wars. It will not restore our lost civil liberties, including the right to privacy, freedom from government surveillance, and due process. It will not get corporate and dark money out of politics. It will not demilitarize our police and reform a prison system that has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. It plays to the margins, especially in election seasons, refusing to address substantive political and social problems and instead focusing on narrow cultural issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control in our peculiar species of anti-politics. > > This is a doomed tactic, but one that is understandable. The leadership of the party, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, are creations of corporate America. In an open and democratic political process, one not dominated by party elites and corporate money, these people would not hold political power. They know this. They would rather implode the entire system than give up their positions of privilege. And that, I fear, is what will happen. The idea that the Democratic Party is in any way a bulwark against despotism defies the last three decades of its political activity. It is the guarantor of despotism. > > Trump has tapped into the hatred that huge segments of the American public have for a political and economic system that has betrayed them. He may be inept, degenerate, dishonest and a narcissist, but he adeptly ridicules the system they despise. His cruel and demeaning taunts directed at government agencies, laws and the established elites resonate with people for whom these agencies, laws and elites have become hostile forces. And for many who see no shift in the political landscape to alleviate their suffering, Trump’s cruelty and invective are at least cathartic. > > Trump, like all despots, has no ethical core. He chooses his allies and appointees based on their personal loyalty and fawning obsequiousness to him. He will sell anyone out. He is corrupt, amassing money for himself—he made $40 million from his Washington, D.C., hotel alone last year—and his corporate allies. He is dismantling government institutions that once provided some regulation and oversight. He is an enemy of the open society. This makes him dangerous. His turbocharged assault on the last vestiges of democratic institutions and norms means there will soon be nothing, even in name, to protect us from corporate totalitarianism. > > But the warnings from the architects of our failed democracy against creeping fascism, Madeleine Albright among them, are risible. They show how disconnected the elites have become from the zeitgeist. None of these elites have credibility. They built the edifice of lies, deceit and corporate pillage that made Trump possible. And the more Trump demeans these elites, and the more they cry out like Cassandras, the more he salvages his disastrous presidency and enables the kleptocrats pillaging the country as it swiftly disintegrates. > > The press is one of the principal pillars of Trump’s despotism. It chatters endlessly like 18th-century courtiers at the court of Versailles about the foibles of the monarch while the peasants lack bread. It drones on and on and on about empty topics such as Russian meddling and a payoff to a porn actress that have nothing to do with the daily hell that, for many, defines life in America. It refuses to critique or investigate the abuses by corporate power, which has destroyed our democracy and economy and orchestrated the largest transfer of wealth upward in American history. The corporate press is a decayed relic that, in exchange for money and access, committed cultural suicide. And when Trump attacks it over “fake news,” he expresses, once again, the deep hatred of all those the press ignores. The press worships the idol of Mammon as slavishly as Trump does. It loves the reality-show presidency. The press, especially the cable news shows, keeps the lights on and the cameras rolling so viewers will be glued to a 21st-century version of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.” It is good for ratings. It is good for profits. But it accelerates the decline. > > All this will soon be compounded by financial collapse. Wall Street banks have been handed $16 trillion in bailouts and other subsidies by the Federal Reserve and Congress at nearly zero percent interest since the 2008 financial collapse. They have used this money, as well as the money saved through the huge tax cuts imposed last year, to buy back their own stock, raising the compensation and bonuses of their managers and thrusting the society deeper into untenable debt peonage. Sheldon Adelson’s casino operations alone got a $670 million tax break under the 2017 legislation. The ratio of CEO to worker pay now averages 339 to 1, with the highest gap approaching 5,000 to 1. This circular use of money to make and hoard money is what Karl Marx called “fictitious capital.” The steady increase in public debt, corporate debt, credit card debt and student loan debt will ultimately lead, as Nomi Prins writes, to “a tipping point—when money coming in to furnish that debt, or available to borrow, simply won’t cover the interest payments. Then debt bubbles will pop, beginning with higher yielding bonds.” > > An economy reliant on debt for its growth causes our interest rate to jump to 28 percent when we are late on a credit card payment. It is why our wages are stagnant or have declined in real terms—if we earned a sustainable income we would not have to borrow money to survive. It is why a university education, houses, medical bills and utilities cost so much. The system is designed so we can never free ourselves from debt. > > However, the next financial crash, as Prins points out in her book “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World,” won’t be like the last one. This is because, as she says, “there is no Plan B.” Interest rates can’t go any lower. There has been no growth in the real economy. The next time, there will be no way out. Once the economy crashes and the rage across the country explodes into a firestorm, the political freaks will appear, ones that will make Trump look sagacious and benign. > > And so, to quote Vladimir Lenin, what must be done? > > We must invest our energy in building parallel, popular institutions to protect ourselves and to pit power against power. These parallel institutions, including unions, community development organizations, local currencies, alternative political parties and food cooperatives, will have to be constructed town by town. The elites in a time of distress will retreat to their gated compounds and leave us to fend for ourselves. Basic services, from garbage collection to public transportation, food distribution and health care, will collapse. Massive unemployment and underemployment, triggering social unrest, will be dealt with not through government job creation but the brutality of militarized police and a complete suspension of civil liberties. Critics of the system, already pushed to the margins, will be silenced and attacked as enemies of the state. The last vestiges of labor unions will be targeted for abolition, a process that will soon be accelerated given the expected ruling in a case before the Supreme Court that will cripple the ability of public-sector unions to represent workers. The dollar will stop being the world’s reserve currency, causing a steep devaluation. Banks will close. Global warming will extract heavier and heavier costs, especially on the coastal populations, farming and the infrastructure, costs that the depleted state will be unable to address. The corporate press, like the ruling elites, will go from burlesque to absurdism, its rhetoric so patently fictitious it will, as in all totalitarian states, be unmoored from reality. The media outlets will all sound as fatuous as Trump. And, to quote W.H. Auden, “the little children will die in the streets.” > > As a foreign correspondent I covered collapsed societies, including the former Yugoslavia. It is impossible for any doomed population to grasp how fragile the decayed financial, social and political system is on the eve of implosion. All the harbingers of collapse are visible: crumbling infrastructure; chronic underemployment and unemployment; the indiscriminate use of lethal force by police; political paralysis and stagnation; an economy built on the scaffolding of debt; nihilistic mass shootings in schools, universities, workplaces, malls, concert venues and movie theaters; opioid overdoses that kill some 64,000 people a year; an epidemic of suicides; unsustainable military expansion; gambling as a desperate tool of economic development and government revenue; the capture of power by a tiny, corrupt clique; censorship; the physical diminishing of public institutions ranging from schools and libraries to courts and medical facilities; the incessant bombardment by electronic hallucinations to divert us from the depressing sight that has become America and keep us trapped in illusions. We suffer the usual pathologies of impending death. I would be happy to be wrong. But I have seen this before. I know the warning signs. All I can say is get ready. > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue May 22 14:11:35 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 09:11:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The real reason the U.S. supports Israel Message-ID: <57AE1D75-248D-4906-B2B1-11435566D140@gmail.com> https://www.facebook.com/inthenow/videos/937094676440902/UzpfSTEwNzcwODI2NDU4OjEwMTU1MjQ5MTcyNDY2NDU5/?source_id=172470146144666 From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 22 14:31:09 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 14:31:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Coming Collapse, by Chris Hedges in Truthdig In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To be clear Carl Though Hedges criticizes the Democrat Party, as he does, he doesn’t say anything about supporting Republican candidates as a means of addressing the problem. Just as he points out Trump and the neocons, as I see Davis, as the worse of the problem. They are no more a solution than the Democrats. Hedges, suggestion is “civil resistance” because we have gone so far down the road to doom, there is little hope otherwise. > On May 22, 2018, at 06:52, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > I’m afraid this is accurate. > > One local implication is that, in our one vote for Congress this year - for the House seat from the 13th Illinois Congressional District - we must oppose Democrat Betsy Londrigan. > > For the reasons Hedges puts forward, we cannot contribute to giving the Democrats control of the House of Representatives, even if it means voting for the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. > > As the vote on Haspel showed, individual ‘progressive’ votes are sometimes allowed by a party organization as a safety valve, as it continues to support the most vicious neocon and neolib policies. "Those people were a kind of solution,” it sometimes seems, but they aren’t, as Hedges explains. > > It’s also worth noting that Davis’ predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, who shared Davis’ politics when elected, became an anti-war vote and even joined a bipartisan suit against the war in Libya. I don’t expect the same from Davis, but then I didn’t expect it from Johnson (whom I ran against as a Green, in 2002), either. > > But the primary reason to vote against Londrigan is to keep the Democrats from controlling the House. —CGE > > >> On May 22, 2018, at 6:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: “The Coming Collapse” —Chris Hedges >> >> The Trump administration did not rise, prima facie, like Venus on a half shell from the sea. Donald Trump is the result of a long process of political, cultural and social decay. He is a product of our failed democracy. The longer we perpetuate the fiction that we live in a functioning democracy, that Trump and the political mutations around him are somehow an aberrant deviation that can be vanquished in the next election, the more we will hurtle toward tyranny. The problem is not Trump. It is a political system, dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major political parties, in which we don’t count. We will wrest back political control by dismantling the corporate state, and this means massive and sustained civil disobedience, like that demonstrated by teachers around the country this year. If we do not stand up we will enter a new dark age. >> >> The Democratic Party, which helped build our system of inverted totalitarianism, is once again held up by many on the left as the savior. Yet the party steadfastly refuses to address the social inequality that led to the election of Trump and the insurgency by Bernie Sanders. It is deaf, dumb and blind to the very real economic suffering that plagues over half the country. It will not fight to pay workers a living wage. It will not defy the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to provide Medicare for all. It will not curb the voracious appetite of the military that is disemboweling the country and promoting the prosecution of futile and costly foreign wars. It will not restore our lost civil liberties, including the right to privacy, freedom from government surveillance, and due process. It will not get corporate and dark money out of politics. It will not demilitarize our police and reform a prison system that has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. It plays to the margins, especially in election seasons, refusing to address substantive political and social problems and instead focusing on narrow cultural issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control in our peculiar species of anti-politics. >> >> This is a doomed tactic, but one that is understandable. The leadership of the party, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, are creations of corporate America. In an open and democratic political process, one not dominated by party elites and corporate money, these people would not hold political power. They know this. They would rather implode the entire system than give up their positions of privilege. And that, I fear, is what will happen. The idea that the Democratic Party is in any way a bulwark against despotism defies the last three decades of its political activity. It is the guarantor of despotism. >> >> Trump has tapped into the hatred that huge segments of the American public have for a political and economic system that has betrayed them. He may be inept, degenerate, dishonest and a narcissist, but he adeptly ridicules the system they despise. His cruel and demeaning taunts directed at government agencies, laws and the established elites resonate with people for whom these agencies, laws and elites have become hostile forces. And for many who see no shift in the political landscape to alleviate their suffering, Trump’s cruelty and invective are at least cathartic. >> >> Trump, like all despots, has no ethical core. He chooses his allies and appointees based on their personal loyalty and fawning obsequiousness to him. He will sell anyone out. He is corrupt, amassing money for himself—he made $40 million from his Washington, D.C., hotel alone last year—and his corporate allies. He is dismantling government institutions that once provided some regulation and oversight. He is an enemy of the open society. This makes him dangerous. His turbocharged assault on the last vestiges of democratic institutions and norms means there will soon be nothing, even in name, to protect us from corporate totalitarianism. >> >> But the warnings from the architects of our failed democracy against creeping fascism, Madeleine Albright among them, are risible. They show how disconnected the elites have become from the zeitgeist. None of these elites have credibility. They built the edifice of lies, deceit and corporate pillage that made Trump possible. And the more Trump demeans these elites, and the more they cry out like Cassandras, the more he salvages his disastrous presidency and enables the kleptocrats pillaging the country as it swiftly disintegrates. >> >> The press is one of the principal pillars of Trump’s despotism. It chatters endlessly like 18th-century courtiers at the court of Versailles about the foibles of the monarch while the peasants lack bread. It drones on and on and on about empty topics such as Russian meddling and a payoff to a porn actress that have nothing to do with the daily hell that, for many, defines life in America. It refuses to critique or investigate the abuses by corporate power, which has destroyed our democracy and economy and orchestrated the largest transfer of wealth upward in American history. The corporate press is a decayed relic that, in exchange for money and access, committed cultural suicide. And when Trump attacks it over “fake news,” he expresses, once again, the deep hatred of all those the press ignores. The press worships the idol of Mammon as slavishly as Trump does. It loves the reality-show presidency. The press, especially the cable news shows, keeps the lights on and the cameras rolling so viewers will be glued to a 21st-century version of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.” It is good for ratings. It is good for profits. But it accelerates the decline. >> >> All this will soon be compounded by financial collapse. Wall Street banks have been handed $16 trillion in bailouts and other subsidies by the Federal Reserve and Congress at nearly zero percent interest since the 2008 financial collapse. They have used this money, as well as the money saved through the huge tax cuts imposed last year, to buy back their own stock, raising the compensation and bonuses of their managers and thrusting the society deeper into untenable debt peonage. Sheldon Adelson’s casino operations alone got a $670 million tax break under the 2017 legislation. The ratio of CEO to worker pay now averages 339 to 1, with the highest gap approaching 5,000 to 1. This circular use of money to make and hoard money is what Karl Marx called “fictitious capital.” The steady increase in public debt, corporate debt, credit card debt and student loan debt will ultimately lead, as Nomi Prins writes, to “a tipping point—when money coming in to furnish that debt, or available to borrow, simply won’t cover the interest payments. Then debt bubbles will pop, beginning with higher yielding bonds.” >> >> An economy reliant on debt for its growth causes our interest rate to jump to 28 percent when we are late on a credit card payment. It is why our wages are stagnant or have declined in real terms—if we earned a sustainable income we would not have to borrow money to survive. It is why a university education, houses, medical bills and utilities cost so much. The system is designed so we can never free ourselves from debt. >> >> However, the next financial crash, as Prins points out in her book “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World,” won’t be like the last one. This is because, as she says, “there is no Plan B.” Interest rates can’t go any lower. There has been no growth in the real economy. The next time, there will be no way out. Once the economy crashes and the rage across the country explodes into a firestorm, the political freaks will appear, ones that will make Trump look sagacious and benign. >> >> And so, to quote Vladimir Lenin, what must be done? >> >> We must invest our energy in building parallel, popular institutions to protect ourselves and to pit power against power. These parallel institutions, including unions, community development organizations, local currencies, alternative political parties and food cooperatives, will have to be constructed town by town. The elites in a time of distress will retreat to their gated compounds and leave us to fend for ourselves. Basic services, from garbage collection to public transportation, food distribution and health care, will collapse. Massive unemployment and underemployment, triggering social unrest, will be dealt with not through government job creation but the brutality of militarized police and a complete suspension of civil liberties. Critics of the system, already pushed to the margins, will be silenced and attacked as enemies of the state. The last vestiges of labor unions will be targeted for abolition, a process that will soon be accelerated given the expected ruling in a case before the Supreme Court that will cripple the ability of public-sector unions to represent workers. The dollar will stop being the world’s reserve currency, causing a steep devaluation. Banks will close. Global warming will extract heavier and heavier costs, especially on the coastal populations, farming and the infrastructure, costs that the depleted state will be unable to address. The corporate press, like the ruling elites, will go from burlesque to absurdism, its rhetoric so patently fictitious it will, as in all totalitarian states, be unmoored from reality. The media outlets will all sound as fatuous as Trump. And, to quote W.H. Auden, “the little children will die in the streets.” >> >> As a foreign correspondent I covered collapsed societies, including the former Yugoslavia. It is impossible for any doomed population to grasp how fragile the decayed financial, social and political system is on the eve of implosion. All the harbingers of collapse are visible: crumbling infrastructure; chronic underemployment and unemployment; the indiscriminate use of lethal force by police; political paralysis and stagnation; an economy built on the scaffolding of debt; nihilistic mass shootings in schools, universities, workplaces, malls, concert venues and movie theaters; opioid overdoses that kill some 64,000 people a year; an epidemic of suicides; unsustainable military expansion; gambling as a desperate tool of economic development and government revenue; the capture of power by a tiny, corrupt clique; censorship; the physical diminishing of public institutions ranging from schools and libraries to courts and medical facilities; the incessant bombardment by electronic hallucinations to divert us from the depressing sight that has become America and keep us trapped in illusions. We suffer the usual pathologies of impending death. I would be happy to be wrong. But I have seen this before. I know the warning signs. All I can say is get ready. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From galliher at illinois.edu Tue May 22 14:42:47 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 09:42:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Coming Collapse, by Chris Hedges in Truthdig In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Of course not. I was pointing out the folly of giving the House to the Democrats. That’s why I’ll vote for the local incumbent, a Republican - not because I approve of his politics. Jeffrey St Clair writes, “[Democrat-supporting] MoveOn in full panic mode: 'Trump has his highest approval rating in a year, and the Democrats' lead in the race for Congress is collapsing. Election experts no longer project a blue wave and say the chance of ending GOP control of House now 50-50.' (Please send cash so we can make things worse.)” —CGE > On May 22, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > To be clear Carl > > Though Hedges criticizes the Democrat Party, as he does, he doesn’t say anything about supporting Republican candidates as a means of addressing the problem. Just as he points out Trump and the neocons, as I see Davis, as the worse of the problem. They are no more a solution than the Democrats... > >> On May 22, 2018, at 06:52, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> I’m afraid this is accurate. >> >> One local implication is that, in our one vote for Congress this year - for the House seat from the 13th Illinois Congressional District - we must oppose Democrat Betsy Londrigan. >> >> For the reasons Hedges puts forward, we cannot contribute to giving the Democrats control of the House of Representatives, even if it means voting for the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. >> >> As the vote on Haspel showed, individual ‘progressive’ votes are sometimes allowed by a party organization as a safety valve, as it continues to support the most vicious neocon and neolib policies. "Those people were a kind of solution,” it sometimes seems, but they aren’t, as Hedges explains. >> >> It’s also worth noting that Davis’ predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, who shared Davis’ politics when elected, became an anti-war vote and even joined a bipartisan suit against the war in Libya. I don’t expect the same from Davis, but then I didn’t expect it from Johnson (whom I ran against as a Green, in 2002), either. >> >> But the primary reason to vote against Londrigan is to keep the Democrats from controlling the House. —CGE >> >> >>> On May 22, 2018, at 6:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: “The Coming Collapse” —Chris Hedges >>> >>> The Trump administration did not rise, prima facie, like Venus on a half shell from the sea. Donald Trump is the result of a long process of political, cultural and social decay. He is a product of our failed democracy. The longer we perpetuate the fiction that we live in a functioning democracy, that Trump and the political mutations around him are somehow an aberrant deviation that can be vanquished in the next election, the more we will hurtle toward tyranny. The problem is not Trump. It is a political system, dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major political parties, in which we don’t count. We will wrest back political control by dismantling the corporate state, and this means massive and sustained civil disobedience, like that demonstrated by teachers around the country this year. If we do not stand up we will enter a new dark age. >>> >>> The Democratic Party, which helped build our system of inverted totalitarianism, is once again held up by many on the left as the savior. Yet the party steadfastly refuses to address the social inequality that led to the election of Trump and the insurgency by Bernie Sanders. It is deaf, dumb and blind to the very real economic suffering that plagues over half the country. It will not fight to pay workers a living wage. It will not defy the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to provide Medicare for all. It will not curb the voracious appetite of the military that is disemboweling the country and promoting the prosecution of futile and costly foreign wars. It will not restore our lost civil liberties, including the right to privacy, freedom from government surveillance, and due process. It will not get corporate and dark money out of politics. It will not demilitarize our police and reform a prison system that has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. It plays to the margins, especially in election seasons, refusing to address substantive political and social problems and instead focusing on narrow cultural issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control in our peculiar species of anti-politics. >>> >>> This is a doomed tactic, but one that is understandable. The leadership of the party, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, are creations of corporate America. In an open and democratic political process, one not dominated by party elites and corporate money, these people would not hold political power. They know this. They would rather implode the entire system than give up their positions of privilege. And that, I fear, is what will happen. The idea that the Democratic Party is in any way a bulwark against despotism defies the last three decades of its political activity. It is the guarantor of despotism. >>> >>> Trump has tapped into the hatred that huge segments of the American public have for a political and economic system that has betrayed them. He may be inept, degenerate, dishonest and a narcissist, but he adeptly ridicules the system they despise. His cruel and demeaning taunts directed at government agencies, laws and the established elites resonate with people for whom these agencies, laws and elites have become hostile forces. And for many who see no shift in the political landscape to alleviate their suffering, Trump’s cruelty and invective are at least cathartic. >>> >>> Trump, like all despots, has no ethical core. He chooses his allies and appointees based on their personal loyalty and fawning obsequiousness to him. He will sell anyone out. He is corrupt, amassing money for himself—he made $40 million from his Washington, D.C., hotel alone last year—and his corporate allies. He is dismantling government institutions that once provided some regulation and oversight. He is an enemy of the open society. This makes him dangerous. His turbocharged assault on the last vestiges of democratic institutions and norms means there will soon be nothing, even in name, to protect us from corporate totalitarianism. >>> >>> But the warnings from the architects of our failed democracy against creeping fascism, Madeleine Albright among them, are risible. They show how disconnected the elites have become from the zeitgeist. None of these elites have credibility. They built the edifice of lies, deceit and corporate pillage that made Trump possible. And the more Trump demeans these elites, and the more they cry out like Cassandras, the more he salvages his disastrous presidency and enables the kleptocrats pillaging the country as it swiftly disintegrates. >>> >>> The press is one of the principal pillars of Trump’s despotism. It chatters endlessly like 18th-century courtiers at the court of Versailles about the foibles of the monarch while the peasants lack bread. It drones on and on and on about empty topics such as Russian meddling and a payoff to a porn actress that have nothing to do with the daily hell that, for many, defines life in America. It refuses to critique or investigate the abuses by corporate power, which has destroyed our democracy and economy and orchestrated the largest transfer of wealth upward in American history. The corporate press is a decayed relic that, in exchange for money and access, committed cultural suicide. And when Trump attacks it over “fake news,” he expresses, once again, the deep hatred of all those the press ignores. The press worships the idol of Mammon as slavishly as Trump does. It loves the reality-show presidency. The press, especially the cable news shows, keeps the lights on and the cameras rolling so viewers will be glued to a 21st-century version of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.” It is good for ratings. It is good for profits. But it accelerates the decline. >>> >>> All this will soon be compounded by financial collapse. Wall Street banks have been handed $16 trillion in bailouts and other subsidies by the Federal Reserve and Congress at nearly zero percent interest since the 2008 financial collapse. They have used this money, as well as the money saved through the huge tax cuts imposed last year, to buy back their own stock, raising the compensation and bonuses of their managers and thrusting the society deeper into untenable debt peonage. Sheldon Adelson’s casino operations alone got a $670 million tax break under the 2017 legislation. The ratio of CEO to worker pay now averages 339 to 1, with the highest gap approaching 5,000 to 1. This circular use of money to make and hoard money is what Karl Marx called “fictitious capital.” The steady increase in public debt, corporate debt, credit card debt and student loan debt will ultimately lead, as Nomi Prins writes, to “a tipping point—when money coming in to furnish that debt, or available to borrow, simply won’t cover the interest payments. Then debt bubbles will pop, beginning with higher yielding bonds.” >>> >>> An economy reliant on debt for its growth causes our interest rate to jump to 28 percent when we are late on a credit card payment. It is why our wages are stagnant or have declined in real terms—if we earned a sustainable income we would not have to borrow money to survive. It is why a university education, houses, medical bills and utilities cost so much. The system is designed so we can never free ourselves from debt. >>> >>> However, the next financial crash, as Prins points out in her book “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World,” won’t be like the last one. This is because, as she says, “there is no Plan B.” Interest rates can’t go any lower. There has been no growth in the real economy. The next time, there will be no way out. Once the economy crashes and the rage across the country explodes into a firestorm, the political freaks will appear, ones that will make Trump look sagacious and benign. >>> >>> And so, to quote Vladimir Lenin, what must be done? >>> >>> We must invest our energy in building parallel, popular institutions to protect ourselves and to pit power against power. These parallel institutions, including unions, community development organizations, local currencies, alternative political parties and food cooperatives, will have to be constructed town by town. The elites in a time of distress will retreat to their gated compounds and leave us to fend for ourselves. Basic services, from garbage collection to public transportation, food distribution and health care, will collapse. Massive unemployment and underemployment, triggering social unrest, will be dealt with not through government job creation but the brutality of militarized police and a complete suspension of civil liberties. Critics of the system, already pushed to the margins, will be silenced and attacked as enemies of the state. The last vestiges of labor unions will be targeted for abolition, a process that will soon be accelerated given the expected ruling in a case before the Supreme Court that will cripple the ability of public-sector unions to represent workers. The dollar will stop being the world’s reserve currency, causing a steep devaluation. Banks will close. Global warming will extract heavier and heavier costs, especially on the coastal populations, farming and the infrastructure, costs that the depleted state will be unable to address. The corporate press, like the ruling elites, will go from burlesque to absurdism, its rhetoric so patently fictitious it will, as in all totalitarian states, be unmoored from reality. The media outlets will all sound as fatuous as Trump. And, to quote W.H. Auden, “the little children will die in the streets.” >>> >>> As a foreign correspondent I covered collapsed societies, including the former Yugoslavia. It is impossible for any doomed population to grasp how fragile the decayed financial, social and political system is on the eve of implosion. All the harbingers of collapse are visible: crumbling infrastructure; chronic underemployment and unemployment; the indiscriminate use of lethal force by police; political paralysis and stagnation; an economy built on the scaffolding of debt; nihilistic mass shootings in schools, universities, workplaces, malls, concert venues and movie theaters; opioid overdoses that kill some 64,000 people a year; an epidemic of suicides; unsustainable military expansion; gambling as a desperate tool of economic development and government revenue; the capture of power by a tiny, corrupt clique; censorship; the physical diminishing of public institutions ranging from schools and libraries to courts and medical facilities; the incessant bombardment by electronic hallucinations to divert us from the depressing sight that has become America and keep us trapped in illusions. We suffer the usual pathologies of impending death. I would be happy to be wrong. But I have seen this before. I know the warning signs. All I can say is get ready. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > From galliher at illinois.edu Tue May 22 14:49:55 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 09:49:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: The Drift towards War References: Message-ID: <785DA171-391E-438C-B48F-4856141D1B90@illinois.edu> > Begin forwarded message: > > From: London Review of Books > Subject: The Drift towards War > Date: May 22, 2018 at 9:47:08 AM CDT > To: CARL G ESTABROOK > Reply-To: > > > VIEW EMAIL ONLINE > > > > > > From the blog > > > The Drift towards War > > Adam Shatz > > The possibility of an Israeli-Iranian war is now higher than it has ever been, since Iran feels encircled, and Israel believes that it has a green light from Washington for further military adventures. > > Read more > > > Fifa v. the FBI > > Sam Kinchin-Smith > > Fifa corruption is just one more thing that we don’t talk about when we talk about Russian hacking, and Sepp Blatter has noticed. > > Read more > > > ADVERTISEMENT > > > > > Disease X > > Sophie Cousins > > It isn’t the name of a mysterious new disease that you’ve never heard of. Rather, ‘Disease X represents the knowledge that a serious international epidemic could be caused by a pathogen not currently known to cause human disease,’ the WHO said. > > Read more > > > One Cubit the More > > Jeremy Bernstein > > In my second year at Princeton, a little tired of physics, I was summoned to Oppenheimer’s office for a ‘confessional’. He asked me what I had been doing. I said I was reading Proust. He said that when he was my age he had taken a bicycle trip on Corsica and every night read Proust by flashlight. > > Read more > > > > > > > In Moscow > > Tom Overton > > The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said last month that relations between his country and the West were worse than they had been during the Cold War. But the international art market is aloof from such differences. > > Read more > > > Our Museum Future > > Danny Dorling > > All empires crumble and an afterlife as a tourist attraction is far better than what befell the Ottomans. The worst casualties may be the youngest members of the British royal family, born into a form of slavery from which they can never escape. > > Read more > > > > >   SUBSCRIBE     EMAIL PREFERENCES     CONTACT US   > > > Let us know what you think of this email here > > This email was sent to you by > London Review of Books > 28 Little Russell Street, London WC1A 2HN > > © 2018 London Review of Books > >   FACEBOOK     TWITTER     YOUTUBE     INSTAGRAM   > > Unsubscribe from this email > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 22 14:54:54 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 14:54:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Coming Collapse, by Chris Hedges in Truthdig In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thats fine, vote as you see fit. Jeffrey can say as he wishes. Chris Hedges article is premised on the fact that we can’t solve our problems in the voting booth, we are on the verge of collapse, and the only remedy he suggests is “civil disobedience.” Suggestions otherwise, using his article, is obfuscation, of how serious the situation has become. > On May 22, 2018, at 07:42, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > Of course not. I was pointing out the folly of giving the House to the Democrats. That’s why I’ll vote for the local incumbent, a Republican - not because I approve of his politics. > > Jeffrey St Clair writes, “[Democrat-supporting] MoveOn in full panic mode: 'Trump has his highest approval rating in a year, and the Democrats' lead in the race for Congress is collapsing. Election experts no longer project a blue wave and say the chance of ending GOP control of House now 50-50.' (Please send cash so we can make things worse.)” > > —CGE > > >> On May 22, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >> >> To be clear Carl >> >> Though Hedges criticizes the Democrat Party, as he does, he doesn’t say anything about supporting Republican candidates as a means of addressing the problem. Just as he points out Trump and the neocons, as I see Davis, as the worse of the problem. They are no more a solution than the Democrats... >> >>> On May 22, 2018, at 06:52, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> I’m afraid this is accurate. >>> >>> One local implication is that, in our one vote for Congress this year - for the House seat from the 13th Illinois Congressional District - we must oppose Democrat Betsy Londrigan. >>> >>> For the reasons Hedges puts forward, we cannot contribute to giving the Democrats control of the House of Representatives, even if it means voting for the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. >>> >>> As the vote on Haspel showed, individual ‘progressive’ votes are sometimes allowed by a party organization as a safety valve, as it continues to support the most vicious neocon and neolib policies. "Those people were a kind of solution,” it sometimes seems, but they aren’t, as Hedges explains. >>> >>> It’s also worth noting that Davis’ predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, who shared Davis’ politics when elected, became an anti-war vote and even joined a bipartisan suit against the war in Libya. I don’t expect the same from Davis, but then I didn’t expect it from Johnson (whom I ran against as a Green, in 2002), either. >>> >>> But the primary reason to vote against Londrigan is to keep the Democrats from controlling the House. —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On May 22, 2018, at 6:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: “The Coming Collapse” —Chris Hedges >>>> >>>> The Trump administration did not rise, prima facie, like Venus on a half shell from the sea. Donald Trump is the result of a long process of political, cultural and social decay. He is a product of our failed democracy. The longer we perpetuate the fiction that we live in a functioning democracy, that Trump and the political mutations around him are somehow an aberrant deviation that can be vanquished in the next election, the more we will hurtle toward tyranny. The problem is not Trump. It is a political system, dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major political parties, in which we don’t count. We will wrest back political control by dismantling the corporate state, and this means massive and sustained civil disobedience, like that demonstrated by teachers around the country this year. If we do not stand up we will enter a new dark age. >>>> >>>> The Democratic Party, which helped build our system of inverted totalitarianism, is once again held up by many on the left as the savior. Yet the party steadfastly refuses to address the social inequality that led to the election of Trump and the insurgency by Bernie Sanders. It is deaf, dumb and blind to the very real economic suffering that plagues over half the country. It will not fight to pay workers a living wage. It will not defy the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to provide Medicare for all. It will not curb the voracious appetite of the military that is disemboweling the country and promoting the prosecution of futile and costly foreign wars. It will not restore our lost civil liberties, including the right to privacy, freedom from government surveillance, and due process. It will not get corporate and dark money out of politics. It will not demilitarize our police and reform a prison system that has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. It plays to the margins, especially in election seasons, refusing to address substantive political and social problems and instead focusing on narrow cultural issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control in our peculiar species of anti-politics. >>>> >>>> This is a doomed tactic, but one that is understandable. The leadership of the party, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, are creations of corporate America. In an open and democratic political process, one not dominated by party elites and corporate money, these people would not hold political power. They know this. They would rather implode the entire system than give up their positions of privilege. And that, I fear, is what will happen. The idea that the Democratic Party is in any way a bulwark against despotism defies the last three decades of its political activity. It is the guarantor of despotism. >>>> >>>> Trump has tapped into the hatred that huge segments of the American public have for a political and economic system that has betrayed them. He may be inept, degenerate, dishonest and a narcissist, but he adeptly ridicules the system they despise. His cruel and demeaning taunts directed at government agencies, laws and the established elites resonate with people for whom these agencies, laws and elites have become hostile forces. And for many who see no shift in the political landscape to alleviate their suffering, Trump’s cruelty and invective are at least cathartic. >>>> >>>> Trump, like all despots, has no ethical core. He chooses his allies and appointees based on their personal loyalty and fawning obsequiousness to him. He will sell anyone out. He is corrupt, amassing money for himself—he made $40 million from his Washington, D.C., hotel alone last year—and his corporate allies. He is dismantling government institutions that once provided some regulation and oversight. He is an enemy of the open society. This makes him dangerous. His turbocharged assault on the last vestiges of democratic institutions and norms means there will soon be nothing, even in name, to protect us from corporate totalitarianism. >>>> >>>> But the warnings from the architects of our failed democracy against creeping fascism, Madeleine Albright among them, are risible. They show how disconnected the elites have become from the zeitgeist. None of these elites have credibility. They built the edifice of lies, deceit and corporate pillage that made Trump possible. And the more Trump demeans these elites, and the more they cry out like Cassandras, the more he salvages his disastrous presidency and enables the kleptocrats pillaging the country as it swiftly disintegrates. >>>> >>>> The press is one of the principal pillars of Trump’s despotism. It chatters endlessly like 18th-century courtiers at the court of Versailles about the foibles of the monarch while the peasants lack bread. It drones on and on and on about empty topics such as Russian meddling and a payoff to a porn actress that have nothing to do with the daily hell that, for many, defines life in America. It refuses to critique or investigate the abuses by corporate power, which has destroyed our democracy and economy and orchestrated the largest transfer of wealth upward in American history. The corporate press is a decayed relic that, in exchange for money and access, committed cultural suicide. And when Trump attacks it over “fake news,” he expresses, once again, the deep hatred of all those the press ignores. The press worships the idol of Mammon as slavishly as Trump does. It loves the reality-show presidency. The press, especially the cable news shows, keeps the lights on and the cameras rolling so viewers will be glued to a 21st-century version of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.” It is good for ratings. It is good for profits. But it accelerates the decline. >>>> >>>> All this will soon be compounded by financial collapse. Wall Street banks have been handed $16 trillion in bailouts and other subsidies by the Federal Reserve and Congress at nearly zero percent interest since the 2008 financial collapse. They have used this money, as well as the money saved through the huge tax cuts imposed last year, to buy back their own stock, raising the compensation and bonuses of their managers and thrusting the society deeper into untenable debt peonage. Sheldon Adelson’s casino operations alone got a $670 million tax break under the 2017 legislation. The ratio of CEO to worker pay now averages 339 to 1, with the highest gap approaching 5,000 to 1. This circular use of money to make and hoard money is what Karl Marx called “fictitious capital.” The steady increase in public debt, corporate debt, credit card debt and student loan debt will ultimately lead, as Nomi Prins writes, to “a tipping point—when money coming in to furnish that debt, or available to borrow, simply won’t cover the interest payments. Then debt bubbles will pop, beginning with higher yielding bonds.” >>>> >>>> An economy reliant on debt for its growth causes our interest rate to jump to 28 percent when we are late on a credit card payment. It is why our wages are stagnant or have declined in real terms—if we earned a sustainable income we would not have to borrow money to survive. It is why a university education, houses, medical bills and utilities cost so much. The system is designed so we can never free ourselves from debt. >>>> >>>> However, the next financial crash, as Prins points out in her book “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World,” won’t be like the last one. This is because, as she says, “there is no Plan B.” Interest rates can’t go any lower. There has been no growth in the real economy. The next time, there will be no way out. Once the economy crashes and the rage across the country explodes into a firestorm, the political freaks will appear, ones that will make Trump look sagacious and benign. >>>> >>>> And so, to quote Vladimir Lenin, what must be done? >>>> >>>> We must invest our energy in building parallel, popular institutions to protect ourselves and to pit power against power. These parallel institutions, including unions, community development organizations, local currencies, alternative political parties and food cooperatives, will have to be constructed town by town. The elites in a time of distress will retreat to their gated compounds and leave us to fend for ourselves. Basic services, from garbage collection to public transportation, food distribution and health care, will collapse. Massive unemployment and underemployment, triggering social unrest, will be dealt with not through government job creation but the brutality of militarized police and a complete suspension of civil liberties. Critics of the system, already pushed to the margins, will be silenced and attacked as enemies of the state. The last vestiges of labor unions will be targeted for abolition, a process that will soon be accelerated given the expected ruling in a case before the Supreme Court that will cripple the ability of public-sector unions to represent workers. The dollar will stop being the world’s reserve currency, causing a steep devaluation. Banks will close. Global warming will extract heavier and heavier costs, especially on the coastal populations, farming and the infrastructure, costs that the depleted state will be unable to address. The corporate press, like the ruling elites, will go from burlesque to absurdism, its rhetoric so patently fictitious it will, as in all totalitarian states, be unmoored from reality. The media outlets will all sound as fatuous as Trump. And, to quote W.H. Auden, “the little children will die in the streets.” >>>> >>>> As a foreign correspondent I covered collapsed societies, including the former Yugoslavia. It is impossible for any doomed population to grasp how fragile the decayed financial, social and political system is on the eve of implosion. All the harbingers of collapse are visible: crumbling infrastructure; chronic underemployment and unemployment; the indiscriminate use of lethal force by police; political paralysis and stagnation; an economy built on the scaffolding of debt; nihilistic mass shootings in schools, universities, workplaces, malls, concert venues and movie theaters; opioid overdoses that kill some 64,000 people a year; an epidemic of suicides; unsustainable military expansion; gambling as a desperate tool of economic development and government revenue; the capture of power by a tiny, corrupt clique; censorship; the physical diminishing of public institutions ranging from schools and libraries to courts and medical facilities; the incessant bombardment by electronic hallucinations to divert us from the depressing sight that has become America and keep us trapped in illusions. We suffer the usual pathologies of impending death. I would be happy to be wrong. But I have seen this before. I know the warning signs. All I can say is get ready. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> > From galliher at illinois.edu Tue May 22 15:26:55 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 10:26:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Coming Collapse, by Chris Hedges in Truthdig In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <857905CB-8C51-4106-997C-38AE76BA7C14@illinois.edu> But we should still vote. > On May 22, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Thats fine, vote as you see fit. Jeffrey can say as he wishes. Chris Hedges article is premised on the fact that we can’t solve our problems in the voting booth, we are on the verge of collapse, and the only remedy he suggests is “civil disobedience.” > > Suggestions otherwise, using his article, is obfuscation, of how serious the situation has become. > > >> On May 22, 2018, at 07:42, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> Of course not. I was pointing out the folly of giving the House to the Democrats. That’s why I’ll vote for the local incumbent, a Republican - not because I approve of his politics. >> >> Jeffrey St Clair writes, “[Democrat-supporting] MoveOn in full panic mode: 'Trump has his highest approval rating in a year, and the Democrats' lead in the race for Congress is collapsing. Election experts no longer project a blue wave and say the chance of ending GOP control of House now 50-50.' (Please send cash so we can make things worse.)” >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On May 22, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >>> >>> To be clear Carl >>> >>> Though Hedges criticizes the Democrat Party, as he does, he doesn’t say anything about supporting Republican candidates as a means of addressing the problem. Just as he points out Trump and the neocons, as I see Davis, as the worse of the problem. They are no more a solution than the Democrats... >>> >>>> On May 22, 2018, at 06:52, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>>> >>>> I’m afraid this is accurate. >>>> >>>> One local implication is that, in our one vote for Congress this year - for the House seat from the 13th Illinois Congressional District - we must oppose Democrat Betsy Londrigan. >>>> >>>> For the reasons Hedges puts forward, we cannot contribute to giving the Democrats control of the House of Representatives, even if it means voting for the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. >>>> >>>> As the vote on Haspel showed, individual ‘progressive’ votes are sometimes allowed by a party organization as a safety valve, as it continues to support the most vicious neocon and neolib policies. "Those people were a kind of solution,” it sometimes seems, but they aren’t, as Hedges explains. >>>> >>>> It’s also worth noting that Davis’ predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, who shared Davis’ politics when elected, became an anti-war vote and even joined a bipartisan suit against the war in Libya. I don’t expect the same from Davis, but then I didn’t expect it from Johnson (whom I ran against as a Green, in 2002), either. >>>> >>>> But the primary reason to vote against Londrigan is to keep the Democrats from controlling the House. —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 22, 2018, at 6:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: “The Coming Collapse” —Chris Hedges >>>>> >>>>> The Trump administration did not rise, prima facie, like Venus on a half shell from the sea. Donald Trump is the result of a long process of political, cultural and social decay. He is a product of our failed democracy. The longer we perpetuate the fiction that we live in a functioning democracy, that Trump and the political mutations around him are somehow an aberrant deviation that can be vanquished in the next election, the more we will hurtle toward tyranny. The problem is not Trump. It is a political system, dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major political parties, in which we don’t count. We will wrest back political control by dismantling the corporate state, and this means massive and sustained civil disobedience, like that demonstrated by teachers around the country this year. If we do not stand up we will enter a new dark age. >>>>> >>>>> The Democratic Party, which helped build our system of inverted totalitarianism, is once again held up by many on the left as the savior. Yet the party steadfastly refuses to address the social inequality that led to the election of Trump and the insurgency by Bernie Sanders. It is deaf, dumb and blind to the very real economic suffering that plagues over half the country. It will not fight to pay workers a living wage. It will not defy the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to provide Medicare for all. It will not curb the voracious appetite of the military that is disemboweling the country and promoting the prosecution of futile and costly foreign wars. It will not restore our lost civil liberties, including the right to privacy, freedom from government surveillance, and due process. It will not get corporate and dark money out of politics. It will not demilitarize our police and reform a prison system that has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. It plays to the margins, especially in election seasons, refusing to address substantive political and social problems and instead focusing on narrow cultural issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control in our peculiar species of anti-politics. >>>>> >>>>> This is a doomed tactic, but one that is understandable. The leadership of the party, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, are creations of corporate America. In an open and democratic political process, one not dominated by party elites and corporate money, these people would not hold political power. They know this. They would rather implode the entire system than give up their positions of privilege. And that, I fear, is what will happen. The idea that the Democratic Party is in any way a bulwark against despotism defies the last three decades of its political activity. It is the guarantor of despotism. >>>>> >>>>> Trump has tapped into the hatred that huge segments of the American public have for a political and economic system that has betrayed them. He may be inept, degenerate, dishonest and a narcissist, but he adeptly ridicules the system they despise. His cruel and demeaning taunts directed at government agencies, laws and the established elites resonate with people for whom these agencies, laws and elites have become hostile forces. And for many who see no shift in the political landscape to alleviate their suffering, Trump’s cruelty and invective are at least cathartic. >>>>> >>>>> Trump, like all despots, has no ethical core. He chooses his allies and appointees based on their personal loyalty and fawning obsequiousness to him. He will sell anyone out. He is corrupt, amassing money for himself—he made $40 million from his Washington, D.C., hotel alone last year—and his corporate allies. He is dismantling government institutions that once provided some regulation and oversight. He is an enemy of the open society. This makes him dangerous. His turbocharged assault on the last vestiges of democratic institutions and norms means there will soon be nothing, even in name, to protect us from corporate totalitarianism. >>>>> >>>>> But the warnings from the architects of our failed democracy against creeping fascism, Madeleine Albright among them, are risible. They show how disconnected the elites have become from the zeitgeist. None of these elites have credibility. They built the edifice of lies, deceit and corporate pillage that made Trump possible. And the more Trump demeans these elites, and the more they cry out like Cassandras, the more he salvages his disastrous presidency and enables the kleptocrats pillaging the country as it swiftly disintegrates. >>>>> >>>>> The press is one of the principal pillars of Trump’s despotism. It chatters endlessly like 18th-century courtiers at the court of Versailles about the foibles of the monarch while the peasants lack bread. It drones on and on and on about empty topics such as Russian meddling and a payoff to a porn actress that have nothing to do with the daily hell that, for many, defines life in America. It refuses to critique or investigate the abuses by corporate power, which has destroyed our democracy and economy and orchestrated the largest transfer of wealth upward in American history. The corporate press is a decayed relic that, in exchange for money and access, committed cultural suicide. And when Trump attacks it over “fake news,” he expresses, once again, the deep hatred of all those the press ignores. The press worships the idol of Mammon as slavishly as Trump does. It loves the reality-show presidency. The press, especially the cable news shows, keeps the lights on and the cameras rolling so viewers will be glued to a 21st-century version of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.” It is good for ratings. It is good for profits. But it accelerates the decline. >>>>> >>>>> All this will soon be compounded by financial collapse. Wall Street banks have been handed $16 trillion in bailouts and other subsidies by the Federal Reserve and Congress at nearly zero percent interest since the 2008 financial collapse. They have used this money, as well as the money saved through the huge tax cuts imposed last year, to buy back their own stock, raising the compensation and bonuses of their managers and thrusting the society deeper into untenable debt peonage. Sheldon Adelson’s casino operations alone got a $670 million tax break under the 2017 legislation. The ratio of CEO to worker pay now averages 339 to 1, with the highest gap approaching 5,000 to 1. This circular use of money to make and hoard money is what Karl Marx called “fictitious capital.” The steady increase in public debt, corporate debt, credit card debt and student loan debt will ultimately lead, as Nomi Prins writes, to “a tipping point—when money coming in to furnish that debt, or available to borrow, simply won’t cover the interest payments. Then debt bubbles will pop, beginning with higher yielding bonds.” >>>>> >>>>> An economy reliant on debt for its growth causes our interest rate to jump to 28 percent when we are late on a credit card payment. It is why our wages are stagnant or have declined in real terms—if we earned a sustainable income we would not have to borrow money to survive. It is why a university education, houses, medical bills and utilities cost so much. The system is designed so we can never free ourselves from debt. >>>>> >>>>> However, the next financial crash, as Prins points out in her book “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World,” won’t be like the last one. This is because, as she says, “there is no Plan B.” Interest rates can’t go any lower. There has been no growth in the real economy. The next time, there will be no way out. Once the economy crashes and the rage across the country explodes into a firestorm, the political freaks will appear, ones that will make Trump look sagacious and benign. >>>>> >>>>> And so, to quote Vladimir Lenin, what must be done? >>>>> >>>>> We must invest our energy in building parallel, popular institutions to protect ourselves and to pit power against power. These parallel institutions, including unions, community development organizations, local currencies, alternative political parties and food cooperatives, will have to be constructed town by town. The elites in a time of distress will retreat to their gated compounds and leave us to fend for ourselves. Basic services, from garbage collection to public transportation, food distribution and health care, will collapse. Massive unemployment and underemployment, triggering social unrest, will be dealt with not through government job creation but the brutality of militarized police and a complete suspension of civil liberties. Critics of the system, already pushed to the margins, will be silenced and attacked as enemies of the state. The last vestiges of labor unions will be targeted for abolition, a process that will soon be accelerated given the expected ruling in a case before the Supreme Court that will cripple the ability of public-sector unions to represent workers. The dollar will stop being the world’s reserve currency, causing a steep devaluation. Banks will close. Global warming will extract heavier and heavier costs, especially on the coastal populations, farming and the infrastructure, costs that the depleted state will be unable to address. The corporate press, like the ruling elites, will go from burlesque to absurdism, its rhetoric so patently fictitious it will, as in all totalitarian states, be unmoored from reality. The media outlets will all sound as fatuous as Trump. And, to quote W.H. Auden, “the little children will die in the streets.” >>>>> >>>>> As a foreign correspondent I covered collapsed societies, including the former Yugoslavia. It is impossible for any doomed population to grasp how fragile the decayed financial, social and political system is on the eve of implosion. All the harbingers of collapse are visible: crumbling infrastructure; chronic underemployment and unemployment; the indiscriminate use of lethal force by police; political paralysis and stagnation; an economy built on the scaffolding of debt; nihilistic mass shootings in schools, universities, workplaces, malls, concert venues and movie theaters; opioid overdoses that kill some 64,000 people a year; an epidemic of suicides; unsustainable military expansion; gambling as a desperate tool of economic development and government revenue; the capture of power by a tiny, corrupt clique; censorship; the physical diminishing of public institutions ranging from schools and libraries to courts and medical facilities; the incessant bombardment by electronic hallucinations to divert us from the depressing sight that has become America and keep us trapped in illusions. We suffer the usual pathologies of impending death. I would be happy to be wrong. But I have seen this before. I know the warning signs. All I can say is get ready. >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 22 15:37:04 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 15:37:04 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Coming Collapse, by Chris Hedges in Truthdig In-Reply-To: <857905CB-8C51-4106-997C-38AE76BA7C14@illinois.edu> References: <857905CB-8C51-4106-997C-38AE76BA7C14@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Having lived in China, a nation where the people don’t have a vote nationally, though they do locally, and a nation where people died trying to get the right to vote, Thailand. I’ve also been in Cambodia weeks before the election with people being murdered and or paid off, as well as the Philippines where voting is similar to all the above and here, death and corruption no matter what. Thus I always do vote in elections. However, I won’t vote for either of these two people Davis or Londrigan. I will either do a write in, or leave this position purposely blank, since neither candidate is really a choice. They both represent the same power elites that are providing war, poverty, and environmental degradation. > On May 22, 2018, at 08:26, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > But we should still vote. > > >> On May 22, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Thats fine, vote as you see fit. Jeffrey can say as he wishes. Chris Hedges article is premised on the fact that we can’t solve our problems in the voting booth, we are on the verge of collapse, and the only remedy he suggests is “civil disobedience.” >> >> Suggestions otherwise, using his article, is obfuscation, of how serious the situation has become. >> >> >>> On May 22, 2018, at 07:42, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> Of course not. I was pointing out the folly of giving the House to the Democrats. That’s why I’ll vote for the local incumbent, a Republican - not because I approve of his politics. >>> >>> Jeffrey St Clair writes, “[Democrat-supporting] MoveOn in full panic mode: 'Trump has his highest approval rating in a year, and the Democrats' lead in the race for Congress is collapsing. Election experts no longer project a blue wave and say the chance of ending GOP control of House now 50-50.' (Please send cash so we can make things worse.)” >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On May 22, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>> >>>> To be clear Carl >>>> >>>> Though Hedges criticizes the Democrat Party, as he does, he doesn’t say anything about supporting Republican candidates as a means of addressing the problem. Just as he points out Trump and the neocons, as I see Davis, as the worse of the problem. They are no more a solution than the Democrats... >>>> >>>>> On May 22, 2018, at 06:52, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I’m afraid this is accurate. >>>>> >>>>> One local implication is that, in our one vote for Congress this year - for the House seat from the 13th Illinois Congressional District - we must oppose Democrat Betsy Londrigan. >>>>> >>>>> For the reasons Hedges puts forward, we cannot contribute to giving the Democrats control of the House of Representatives, even if it means voting for the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. >>>>> >>>>> As the vote on Haspel showed, individual ‘progressive’ votes are sometimes allowed by a party organization as a safety valve, as it continues to support the most vicious neocon and neolib policies. "Those people were a kind of solution,” it sometimes seems, but they aren’t, as Hedges explains. >>>>> >>>>> It’s also worth noting that Davis’ predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, who shared Davis’ politics when elected, became an anti-war vote and even joined a bipartisan suit against the war in Libya. I don’t expect the same from Davis, but then I didn’t expect it from Johnson (whom I ran against as a Green, in 2002), either. >>>>> >>>>> But the primary reason to vote against Londrigan is to keep the Democrats from controlling the House. —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2018, at 6:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: “The Coming Collapse” —Chris Hedges >>>>>> >>>>>> The Trump administration did not rise, prima facie, like Venus on a half shell from the sea. Donald Trump is the result of a long process of political, cultural and social decay. He is a product of our failed democracy. The longer we perpetuate the fiction that we live in a functioning democracy, that Trump and the political mutations around him are somehow an aberrant deviation that can be vanquished in the next election, the more we will hurtle toward tyranny. The problem is not Trump. It is a political system, dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major political parties, in which we don’t count. We will wrest back political control by dismantling the corporate state, and this means massive and sustained civil disobedience, like that demonstrated by teachers around the country this year. If we do not stand up we will enter a new dark age. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Democratic Party, which helped build our system of inverted totalitarianism, is once again held up by many on the left as the savior. Yet the party steadfastly refuses to address the social inequality that led to the election of Trump and the insurgency by Bernie Sanders. It is deaf, dumb and blind to the very real economic suffering that plagues over half the country. It will not fight to pay workers a living wage. It will not defy the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to provide Medicare for all. It will not curb the voracious appetite of the military that is disemboweling the country and promoting the prosecution of futile and costly foreign wars. It will not restore our lost civil liberties, including the right to privacy, freedom from government surveillance, and due process. It will not get corporate and dark money out of politics. It will not demilitarize our police and reform a prison system that has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. It plays to the margins, especially in election seasons, refusing to address substantive political and social problems and instead focusing on narrow cultural issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control in our peculiar species of anti-politics. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a doomed tactic, but one that is understandable. The leadership of the party, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, are creations of corporate America. In an open and democratic political process, one not dominated by party elites and corporate money, these people would not hold political power. They know this. They would rather implode the entire system than give up their positions of privilege. And that, I fear, is what will happen. The idea that the Democratic Party is in any way a bulwark against despotism defies the last three decades of its political activity. It is the guarantor of despotism. >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump has tapped into the hatred that huge segments of the American public have for a political and economic system that has betrayed them. He may be inept, degenerate, dishonest and a narcissist, but he adeptly ridicules the system they despise. His cruel and demeaning taunts directed at government agencies, laws and the established elites resonate with people for whom these agencies, laws and elites have become hostile forces. And for many who see no shift in the political landscape to alleviate their suffering, Trump’s cruelty and invective are at least cathartic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump, like all despots, has no ethical core. He chooses his allies and appointees based on their personal loyalty and fawning obsequiousness to him. He will sell anyone out. He is corrupt, amassing money for himself—he made $40 million from his Washington, D.C., hotel alone last year—and his corporate allies. He is dismantling government institutions that once provided some regulation and oversight. He is an enemy of the open society. This makes him dangerous. His turbocharged assault on the last vestiges of democratic institutions and norms means there will soon be nothing, even in name, to protect us from corporate totalitarianism. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the warnings from the architects of our failed democracy against creeping fascism, Madeleine Albright among them, are risible. They show how disconnected the elites have become from the zeitgeist. None of these elites have credibility. They built the edifice of lies, deceit and corporate pillage that made Trump possible. And the more Trump demeans these elites, and the more they cry out like Cassandras, the more he salvages his disastrous presidency and enables the kleptocrats pillaging the country as it swiftly disintegrates. >>>>>> >>>>>> The press is one of the principal pillars of Trump’s despotism. It chatters endlessly like 18th-century courtiers at the court of Versailles about the foibles of the monarch while the peasants lack bread. It drones on and on and on about empty topics such as Russian meddling and a payoff to a porn actress that have nothing to do with the daily hell that, for many, defines life in America. It refuses to critique or investigate the abuses by corporate power, which has destroyed our democracy and economy and orchestrated the largest transfer of wealth upward in American history. The corporate press is a decayed relic that, in exchange for money and access, committed cultural suicide. And when Trump attacks it over “fake news,” he expresses, once again, the deep hatred of all those the press ignores. The press worships the idol of Mammon as slavishly as Trump does. It loves the reality-show presidency. The press, especially the cable news shows, keeps the lights on and the cameras rolling so viewers will be glued to a 21st-century version of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.” It is good for ratings. It is good for profits. But it accelerates the decline. >>>>>> >>>>>> All this will soon be compounded by financial collapse. Wall Street banks have been handed $16 trillion in bailouts and other subsidies by the Federal Reserve and Congress at nearly zero percent interest since the 2008 financial collapse. They have used this money, as well as the money saved through the huge tax cuts imposed last year, to buy back their own stock, raising the compensation and bonuses of their managers and thrusting the society deeper into untenable debt peonage. Sheldon Adelson’s casino operations alone got a $670 million tax break under the 2017 legislation. The ratio of CEO to worker pay now averages 339 to 1, with the highest gap approaching 5,000 to 1. This circular use of money to make and hoard money is what Karl Marx called “fictitious capital.” The steady increase in public debt, corporate debt, credit card debt and student loan debt will ultimately lead, as Nomi Prins writes, to “a tipping point—when money coming in to furnish that debt, or available to borrow, simply won’t cover the interest payments. Then debt bubbles will pop, beginning with higher yielding bonds.” >>>>>> >>>>>> An economy reliant on debt for its growth causes our interest rate to jump to 28 percent when we are late on a credit card payment. It is why our wages are stagnant or have declined in real terms—if we earned a sustainable income we would not have to borrow money to survive. It is why a university education, houses, medical bills and utilities cost so much. The system is designed so we can never free ourselves from debt. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, the next financial crash, as Prins points out in her book “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World,” won’t be like the last one. This is because, as she says, “there is no Plan B.” Interest rates can’t go any lower. There has been no growth in the real economy. The next time, there will be no way out. Once the economy crashes and the rage across the country explodes into a firestorm, the political freaks will appear, ones that will make Trump look sagacious and benign. >>>>>> >>>>>> And so, to quote Vladimir Lenin, what must be done? >>>>>> >>>>>> We must invest our energy in building parallel, popular institutions to protect ourselves and to pit power against power. These parallel institutions, including unions, community development organizations, local currencies, alternative political parties and food cooperatives, will have to be constructed town by town. The elites in a time of distress will retreat to their gated compounds and leave us to fend for ourselves. Basic services, from garbage collection to public transportation, food distribution and health care, will collapse. Massive unemployment and underemployment, triggering social unrest, will be dealt with not through government job creation but the brutality of militarized police and a complete suspension of civil liberties. Critics of the system, already pushed to the margins, will be silenced and attacked as enemies of the state. The last vestiges of labor unions will be targeted for abolition, a process that will soon be accelerated given the expected ruling in a case before the Supreme Court that will cripple the ability of public-sector unions to represent workers. The dollar will stop being the world’s reserve currency, causing a steep devaluation. Banks will close. Global warming will extract heavier and heavier costs, especially on the coastal populations, farming and the infrastructure, costs that the depleted state will be unable to address. The corporate press, like the ruling elites, will go from burlesque to absurdism, its rhetoric so patently fictitious it will, as in all totalitarian states, be unmoored from reality. The media outlets will all sound as fatuous as Trump. And, to quote W.H. Auden, “the little children will die in the streets.” >>>>>> >>>>>> As a foreign correspondent I covered collapsed societies, including the former Yugoslavia. It is impossible for any doomed population to grasp how fragile the decayed financial, social and political system is on the eve of implosion. All the harbingers of collapse are visible: crumbling infrastructure; chronic underemployment and unemployment; the indiscriminate use of lethal force by police; political paralysis and stagnation; an economy built on the scaffolding of debt; nihilistic mass shootings in schools, universities, workplaces, malls, concert venues and movie theaters; opioid overdoses that kill some 64,000 people a year; an epidemic of suicides; unsustainable military expansion; gambling as a desperate tool of economic development and government revenue; the capture of power by a tiny, corrupt clique; censorship; the physical diminishing of public institutions ranging from schools and libraries to courts and medical facilities; the incessant bombardment by electronic hallucinations to divert us from the depressing sight that has become America and keep us trapped in illusions. We suffer the usual pathologies of impending death. I would be happy to be wrong. But I have seen this before. I know the warning signs. All I can say is get ready. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From r-szoke at illinois.edu Tue May 22 21:02:46 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 21:02:46 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Technological hubris References: <0BFEC969-71AD-430C-A823-0911E9B84AB0@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <56378797-94DA-4376-8666-36E4071A30D7@illinois.edu> From: "Szoke, Ron" > Subject: Israel F-35 Airstrikes Are World's First Test Of The 'Mighty One,' Top Commander Says Date: May 22, 2018 Israel F-35 Airstrikes Are World's First Test Of The 'Mighty One,' Top Commander Says https://www.yahoo.com/news/israel-f-35-airstrikes-world-104603111.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=ma -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 23 00:28:00 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 19:28:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House Message-ID: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. —CGE From brussel at illinois.edu Wed May 23 00:59:39 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 00:59:39 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <9F3A812B-271C-478D-B5D4-70DB2BD16525@illinois.edu> Carl, I find your arguments for voting for Davis truly bizarre, contorted. On foreign issues Davis will take typical administration positions [e.g., on Cuba, Venezuela, Israel-Palestine, Iran, N. Korea, Ukraine, Honduras, S. America, …empire and militarism,…] , given the evidence available. On domestic social issues Davis is worse than most of the Democrats (but against abortion, a stance with which you no doubt agree! Aha!). Neither candidate inspires confidence (in me). The obvious choice is not to vote for either. > On May 22, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? > > John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” > > The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. > > They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. > > —CGE > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 23 01:44:24 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 20:44:24 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <9F3A812B-271C-478D-B5D4-70DB2BD16525@illinois.edu> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <9F3A812B-271C-478D-B5D4-70DB2BD16525@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <2E3FCBE4-5842-4972-9228-FC990EA31661@illinois.edu> Mort-- I have no brief for Davis. (The way to prevent abortion includes providing single-payer healthcare, child allowances, housing & education - not just unfunding it.) How do you stand on my real (not rhetorical) question: "Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one?” On war issues, I don’t think the Democratic party should be given control of the House. So I‘ll vote in the most effective way to discourage the election of a Democrat in the 13th IL CD. That means voting for the Republican candidate, rather than abstaining. —CGE > On May 22, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl, > > I find your arguments for voting for Davis truly bizarre, contorted. On foreign issues Davis will take typical administration positions [e.g., on Cuba, Venezuela, Israel-Palestine, Iran, N. Korea, Ukraine, Honduras, S. America, …empire and militarism,…] , given the evidence available. On domestic social issues Davis is worse than most of the Democrats (but against abortion, a stance with which you no doubt agree! Aha!). > > Neither candidate inspires confidence (in me). > > The obvious choice is not to vote for either. > >> On May 22, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? >> >> John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >> >> The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. >> >> They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. >> >> —CGE >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 23 02:25:23 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 21:25:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <2E3FCBE4-5842-4972-9228-FC990EA31661@illinois.edu> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <9F3A812B-271C-478D-B5D4-70DB2BD16525@illinois.edu> <2E3FCBE4-5842-4972-9228-FC990EA31661@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <91FF1583-CBEC-4691-BCE8-92770F1F8082@gmail.com> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156535093661518&set=a.45670806517.69941.612626517&type=3&theater [Jeffrey St Clair] 33 Democrats just voted to roll back rather meager Dodd-Frank restrictions on the banking industry. > On May 22, 2018, at 8:44 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Mort-- > > I have no brief for Davis. (The way to prevent abortion includes providing single-payer healthcare, child allowances, housing & education - not just unfunding it.) > > How do you stand on my real (not rhetorical) question: "Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one?” > > On war issues, I don’t think the Democratic party should be given control of the House. > > So I‘ll vote in the most effective way to discourage the election of a Democrat in the 13th IL CD. > > That means voting for the Republican candidate, rather than abstaining. —CGE > > >> On May 22, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Carl, >> >> I find your arguments for voting for Davis truly bizarre, contorted. On foreign issues Davis will take typical administration positions [e.g., on Cuba, Venezuela, Israel-Palestine, Iran, N. Korea, Ukraine, Honduras, S. America, …empire and militarism,…] , given the evidence available. On domestic social issues Davis is worse than most of the Democrats (but against abortion, a stance with which you no doubt agree! Aha!). >> >> Neither candidate inspires confidence (in me). >> >> The obvious choice is not to vote for either. >> >>> On May 22, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? >>> >>> John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >>> >>> The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. >>> >>> They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. >>> >>> —CGE >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 23 02:44:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 02:44:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <91FF1583-CBEC-4691-BCE8-92770F1F8082@gmail.com> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <9F3A812B-271C-478D-B5D4-70DB2BD16525@illinois.edu> <2E3FCBE4-5842-4972-9228-FC990EA31661@illinois.edu> <91FF1583-CBEC-4691-BCE8-92770F1F8082@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carl, yes 33 Democrats, but 225 Republicans voted to roll back rather meager Dodd-Frank restrictions on the banking industry. > On May 22, 2018, at 19:25, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156535093661518&set=a.45670806517.69941.612626517&type=3&theater > > [Jeffrey St Clair] 33 Democrats just voted to roll back rather meager Dodd-Frank restrictions on the banking industry. > > >> On May 22, 2018, at 8:44 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Mort-- >> >> I have no brief for Davis. (The way to prevent abortion includes providing single-payer healthcare, child allowances, housing & education - not just unfunding it.) >> >> How do you stand on my real (not rhetorical) question: "Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one?” >> >> On war issues, I don’t think the Democratic party should be given control of the House. >> >> So I‘ll vote in the most effective way to discourage the election of a Democrat in the 13th IL CD. >> >> That means voting for the Republican candidate, rather than abstaining. —CGE >> >> >>> On May 22, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Carl, >>> >>> I find your arguments for voting for Davis truly bizarre, contorted. On foreign issues Davis will take typical administration positions [e.g., on Cuba, Venezuela, Israel-Palestine, Iran, N. Korea, Ukraine, Honduras, S. America, …empire and militarism,…] , given the evidence available. On domestic social issues Davis is worse than most of the Democrats (but against abortion, a stance with which you no doubt agree! Aha!). >>> >>> Neither candidate inspires confidence (in me). >>> >>> The obvious choice is not to vote for either. >>> >>>> On May 22, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? >>>> >>>> John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >>>> >>>> The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. >>>> >>>> They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 23 02:46:58 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 21:46:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <9F3A812B-271C-478D-B5D4-70DB2BD16525@illinois.edu> <2E3FCBE4-5842-4972-9228-FC990EA31661@illinois.edu> <91FF1583-CBEC-4691-BCE8-92770F1F8082@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4944729D-0C9A-4860-ACDB-1219F2480FBD@illinois.edu> But the Democrats as a party could have stopped it, had they wanted to. They didn’t. Which party should run the Congress? > On May 22, 2018, at 9:44 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Carl, yes 33 Democrats, but 225 Republicans voted to roll back rather meager Dodd-Frank restrictions on the banking industry. > > >> On May 22, 2018, at 19:25, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10156535093661518&set=a.45670806517.69941.612626517&type=3&theater >> >> [Jeffrey St Clair] 33 Democrats just voted to roll back rather meager Dodd-Frank restrictions on the banking industry. >> >> >>> On May 22, 2018, at 8:44 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Mort-- >>> >>> I have no brief for Davis. (The way to prevent abortion includes providing single-payer healthcare, child allowances, housing & education - not just unfunding it.) >>> >>> How do you stand on my real (not rhetorical) question: "Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one?” >>> >>> On war issues, I don’t think the Democratic party should be given control of the House. >>> >>> So I‘ll vote in the most effective way to discourage the election of a Democrat in the 13th IL CD. >>> >>> That means voting for the Republican candidate, rather than abstaining. —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On May 22, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Carl, >>>> >>>> I find your arguments for voting for Davis truly bizarre, contorted. On foreign issues Davis will take typical administration positions [e.g., on Cuba, Venezuela, Israel-Palestine, Iran, N. Korea, Ukraine, Honduras, S. America, …empire and militarism,…] , given the evidence available. On domestic social issues Davis is worse than most of the Democrats (but against abortion, a stance with which you no doubt agree! Aha!). >>>> >>>> Neither candidate inspires confidence (in me). >>>> >>>> The obvious choice is not to vote for either. >>>> >>>>> On May 22, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? >>>>> >>>>> John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >>>>> >>>>> The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. >>>>> >>>>> They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 daenstrom at gmail.com Wed May 23 03:43:23 2018 From: daenstrom at gmail.com (David Enstrom) Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 23:43:23 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican > House, or a Democratic one? > > John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war > New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual > war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which > the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does > a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi > Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking > peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not > so dire…” > > The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war > provocations produced Russiagate. > > They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. > > —CGE > _______________________________________________ > 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 galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 23 05:44:44 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 00:44:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> What would it mean to have “given up on electoral politics”? And why do you think I’d done it? But I have yet to hear an answer to the question, 'Which is to be preferred in 2019, a House controlled by the Democrat or by the Republican party, and why?' Your answer should be well-spelt, grammatical, and contain the term ‘Russiagate’… —CGE > On May 22, 2018, at 10:43 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? > > John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” > > The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. > > They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. > > —CGE > _______________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed May 23 06:25:00 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 08:25:00 +0200 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I promise that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is elected to the House, she will vote against unauthorized U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. She and her staff have given me personal commitments to this effect. I would not be supporting her so strongly otherwise. I promise that if Democrats retake the House, we will get more votes in the House on war and peace. Just now the House Rules Committee blocked floor consideration of Rep. Khanna's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited U.S. refueling of Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen. If Dems retake the House, Jim McGovern will be chair of the Rules Committee. It's going to be an anti-war amendment Jamboree. I'm totally in favor of giving Democrats a hard time on war and peace. But ultra-left electoral abstentionism hasn't done squat and isn't going to do squat to give Democrats a hard time on war and peace. Democratic politicians care about ultra-left electoral abstentionism like the ocean cares about the discharge of a squirt gun. Some people may find ultra-left electoral abstentionism emotionally satisfying personally, but then we should understand that what is driving them is a selfish personal desire for self-actualization, not an informed desire to make the world less unjust. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > What would it mean to have “given up on electoral politics”? And why do > you think I’d done it? > > But I have yet to hear an answer to the question, 'Which is to be > preferred in 2019, a House controlled by the Democrat or by the Republican > party, and why?' > > Your answer should be well-spelt, grammatical, and contain the term > ‘Russiagate’… > > —CGE > > On May 22, 2018, at 10:43 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I > thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. > > On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a >> Republican House, or a Democratic one? >> >> John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war >> New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual >> war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which >> the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does >> a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi >> Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking >> peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not >> so dire…” >> >> The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war >> provocations produced Russiagate. >> >> They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. >> >> —CGE >> _______________________ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 23 06:28:42 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 01:28:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <2E3FCBE4-5842-4972-9228-FC990EA31661@illinois.edu> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <9F3A812B-271C-478D-B5D4-70DB2BD16525@illinois.edu> <2E3FCBE4-5842-4972-9228-FC990EA31661@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <8245AFE0-36DC-45D0-81A0-2026DC9BEF3E@gmail.com> "What Happens If Republicans Keep Control Of The House And Senate?" > Did I miss it, or did this establishment site write 2,000 words on this subject without mentioning war? The US government has succeeded for more than a decade in obfuscating its war-making in the eyes of the only enemy it really fears - the US populace. —CGE > On May 22, 2018, at 8:44 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Mort-- > > I have no brief for Davis. (The way to prevent abortion includes providing single-payer healthcare, child allowances, housing & education - not just unfunding it.) > > How do you stand on my real (not rhetorical) question: "Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one?” > > On war issues, I don’t think the Democratic party should be given control of the House. > > So I‘ll vote in the most effective way to discourage the election of a Democrat in the 13th IL CD. > > That means voting for the Republican candidate, rather than abstaining. —CGE > > >> On May 22, 2018, at 7:59 PM, Brussel, Morton K via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Carl, >> >> I find your arguments for voting for Davis truly bizarre, contorted. On foreign issues Davis will take typical administration positions [e.g., on Cuba, Venezuela, Israel-Palestine, Iran, N. Korea, Ukraine, Honduras, S. America, …empire and militarism,…] , given the evidence available. On domestic social issues Davis is worse than most of the Democrats (but against abortion, a stance with which you no doubt agree! Aha!). >> >> Neither candidate inspires confidence (in me). >> >> The obvious choice is not to vote for either. >> >>> On May 22, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? >>> >>> John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >>> >>> The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. >>> >>> They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. >>> >>> —CGE >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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 galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 23 06:39:33 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 01:39:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <9571D3D3-4E47-4BCD-8B82-1427C25AB59C@illinois.edu> I agree that electoral abstentionism (“ultra-left” or otherwise) is not correct. Instead, we should actively oppose Democratic control of the House (that means voting for Rodney, here). They haven’t used it well. And ‘Russiagate’ now disqualifies them from controlling foreign policy, despite the budding anti-warriors you find. The flowers that bloom in the spring have nothing to do with the case. —CGE > On May 23, 2018, at 1:25 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I promise that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is elected to the House, she will vote against unauthorized U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. She and her staff have given me personal commitments to this effect. I would not be supporting her so strongly otherwise. > > I promise that if Democrats retake the House, we will get more votes in the House on war and peace. Just now the House Rules Committee blocked floor consideration of Rep. Khanna's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited U.S. refueling of Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen. If Dems retake the House, Jim McGovern will be chair of the Rules Committee. It's going to be an anti-war amendment Jamboree. > > I'm totally in favor of giving Democrats a hard time on war and peace. But ultra-left electoral abstentionism hasn't done squat and isn't going to do squat to give Democrats a hard time on war and peace. Democratic politicians care about ultra-left electoral abstentionism like the ocean cares about the discharge of a squirt gun. Some people may find ultra-left electoral abstentionism emotionally satisfying personally, but then we should understand that what is driving them is a selfish personal desire for self-actualization, not an informed desire to make the world less unjust. > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > What would it mean to have “given up on electoral politics”? And why do you think I’d done it? > > But I have yet to hear an answer to the question, 'Which is to be preferred in 2019, a House controlled by the Democrat or by the Republican party, and why?' > > Your answer should be well-spelt, grammatical, and contain the term ‘Russiagate’… > > —CGE > >> On May 22, 2018, at 10:43 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. >> >> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? >> >> John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >> >> The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. >> >> They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. >> >> —CGE >> _______________________ > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 23 11:32:25 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 11:32:25 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Robert, while I commend you for acquiring those promises from Democrats, the fact that they are personal promises. and they aren’t willing to “put it in writing” so to speak on their website etc., not that it’s a guarantee either, it doesn’t make one feel anymore secure or confident. While I generally agree with your statement in relation to “those choosing not to vote,” I no longer support the whole electoral process as anything more than an exercise in futility and distraction, the reason I posted the Chris Hedges article in the first place, and especially when the distinction between candidates being little different. However, given the abysmal record of Rodney Davis, almost anyone would likely be better and it would be a true miscarriage of justice if he were to be re-elected. On May 22, 2018, at 23:25, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: I promise that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is elected to the House, she will vote against unauthorized U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. She and her staff have given me personal commitments to this effect. I would not be supporting her so strongly otherwise. I promise that if Democrats retake the House, we will get more votes in the House on war and peace. Just now the House Rules Committee blocked floor consideration of Rep. Khanna's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited U.S. refueling of Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen. If Dems retake the House, Jim McGovern will be chair of the Rules Committee. It's going to be an anti-war amendment Jamboree. I'm totally in favor of giving Democrats a hard time on war and peace. But ultra-left electoral abstentionism hasn't done squat and isn't going to do squat to give Democrats a hard time on war and peace. Democratic politicians care about ultra-left electoral abstentionism like the ocean cares about the discharge of a squirt gun. Some people may find ultra-left electoral abstentionism emotionally satisfying personally, but then we should understand that what is driving them is a selfish personal desire for self-actualization, not an informed desire to make the world less unjust. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: What would it mean to have “given up on electoral politics”? And why do you think I’d done it? But I have yet to hear an answer to the question, 'Which is to be preferred in 2019, a House controlled by the Democrat or by the Republican party, and why?' Your answer should be well-spelt, grammatical, and contain the term ‘Russiagate’… —CGE On May 22, 2018, at 10:43 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. —CGE _______________________ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 23 12:35:18 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:35:18 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Way to go!!! #"MeToo" movement Message-ID: Low-Paid Women Get Hollywood Money to File Harassment Suits Image[https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/05/21/business/00timesup/merlin_137390355_8cc62385-cc05-4d67-917c-8b20c93190e8-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale] Gina Pitre is suing Walmart and one of its managers, alleging harassment at a store in D’Iberville, Miss. It is one of the first cases backed by the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, started by female Hollywood stars and producers seeking to broaden the #MeToo movement.CreditWilliam Widmer for The New York Times By Michael Corkery * May 22, 2018 * * * * * * * 20 Gina Pitre had come to dread working at Walmart. A manager, she said, used to touch her inappropriately and make suggestive comments. Ms. Pitre, 56, who earned $11.50 an hour fulfilling online orders in D’Iberville, Miss., said she felt degraded and angry. Ms. Pitre saw a television news segment this winter about how female Hollywood stars and producers had started Time’s Up, a group to help women combat harassment. A related initiative, the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, connected Ms. Pitre with a lawyer and is helping fund her lawsuit against Walmart and one of its managers. Hollywood, it appears, is starting to make good on its promise to focus on women outside the limelight and broaden the #MeToo movement. ADVERTISEMENT Filed last month, the lawsuit, one of the first to arise from the Time’s Up fund, is part of a multipronged approach. Beyond the various legal aspects, the group is working with labor and social activists, as well as communications specialists and others, to publicize the struggles of working women facing harassment on the job. The actress Susan Sarandon, along with Ms. Pitre, female Walmart workers and labor activists, signed a letter to the retailer’s chief executive, demanding changes in the company’s policies and procedures around harassment. You have 4 free articles remaining. Subscribe to The Times “I don’t care who you are,” said Ms. Pitre, who left her job at Walmart last month. “There is no cause for disrespect.” In a statement, Walmart said it had conducted a “comprehensive investigation” into Ms. Pitre’s complaints and “could not substantiate a violation of our Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy.” “We do not tolerate discrimination or harassment of any kind and thoroughly investigate all sexual harassment allegations,” the statement added. EDITORS’ PICKS [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/05/10/us/subway-crisis-mta-decisions-signals-rules-promo-1524685890782/subway-crisis-mta-decisions-signals-rules-promo-1524685890782-threeByTwoSmallAt2X.png?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale] How 2 M.T.A. Decisions Pushed the Subway Into Crisis [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/05/05/magazine/05mag-lottery-image1/05mag-lottery-image1-threeByTwoSmallAt2X-v4.png?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale] The Man Who Cracked the Lottery [https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/05/20/arts/20royal-tillet4/20royal-tillet4-threeByTwoSmallAt2X-v2.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale] The Bicultural Blackness of the Royal Wedding ADVERTISEMENT Since its launch in January, the Time’s Up fund — which is administered by the National Women’s Law Center in Washington — has raised about $22 million in donations to help pay for legal representation and other assistance for women facing harassment. So far, about 2,700 workers have contacted the fund, saying they have been harassed. The largest number of complaints, about 9 percent, have come from the arts industry, followed by workers in the federal government, education and health care. Retail workers made roughly 5 percent of the complaints. Volunteers at the National Women’s Law Center, an advocacy group focused on women’s rights, have been reviewing the online complaints and providing many workers with names of lawyers who might be willing to take on their case. The law center does not vet the facts of each case, but relies on the workers’ lawyers to make sure the claims are sound. When deciding on funding, the staff uses a set of “priorities,” including whether the worker is in a low-wage job or in a male-dominated occupation. “We hope to send a message to employers,” said Emily Martin, the law center’s general counsel. “Just because a woman doesn’t have a lot of money or connections doesn’t mean someone isn’t going to stand up for them.” The assistance from Time’s Up is relatively modest — about $3,000 to help pay the initial lawyer fees. If the case goes to trial, the fund will provide up to $100,000 for fees. 20Comments The Times needs your voice. We welcome your on-topic commentary, criticism and expertise. The money is meant to help defray some of the financial risks that lawyers face when taking a harassment case. Lawyers typically work on a contingency basis — meaning they are paid only if there is a settlement or they are successful at trial. Even then, some damages are capped in federal court, and judges in certain states may be inclined to rule against plaintiffs. Image[https://static01.nyt.com/images/2018/05/21/business/00timesup-2/merlin_137389989_f04fbea4-5576-466e-ab02-e8bc88a79b44-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale] The National Women’s Law Center, which administers the Time’s Up fund, connected Ms. Pitre with a lawyer and helped fund her lawsuit, which she filed last month.CreditWilliam Widmer for The New York Times Ms. Martin said it was difficult to track how many lawsuits had arisen from the Time’s Up campaign in the roughly five months since it was started. One of the early lawsuits was filed by a medical resident who said she had been forced out of her program after reporting harassment. Ms. Martin said the woman did not want her name disclosed. In some cases, publicity is part of the strategy. The National Women’s Law Center will provide “communications support” — connecting women with public relations specialists — to help them call attention to their story. Ms. Martin said publicity could help “broaden the impact” of the legal cases in combating harassment. Toward that end, the law center connected Ms. Pitre with Our Walmart, a worker advocacy group. This month, Our Walmart sent the letter signed by Ms. Pitre and Ms. Sarandon to Walmart’s chief executive, Doug McMillon, calling on the retailer to revamp its harassment procedures. A Walmart spokesman said in a statement, “We have strong policies and procedures in place to address allegations of sexual harassment, and we believe our current practices meet or exceed many of the requests in the letter.” When Ms. Pitre started working at Walmart in June 2016, she liked the job, she said. But after a few months, a supervisor started to harass her, including instances when he grabbed her breasts and made “unwelcome sexual comments,” according to her lawsuit. ADVERTISEMENT Last July, she reported the harassment to a company ethics department, her lawsuit says. Ms. Pitre said she was eventually told that the company’s investigation was closed, but was never told the outcome. A Walmart spokesman said the company does not disclose the outcomes of its harassment investigations to anyone, including the employee filing the complaint. The spokesman said this policy is aimed at the “privacy and confidentiality of all concerned.” In its letter, Our Walmart demands that the company start informing employees about the results of its harassment investigations. Ms. Pitre had previous experience with harassment. In 2008, she filed a lawsuit in federal court, accusing her former managers at the Boomtown Casino in Biloxi, Miss. of groping her and making sexually suggestive comments, according to her lawsuit. The case resulted in a confidential settlement and “the termination and/or discipline of certain parties at Boomtown Casino,” a company spokesman said in an email. Ms. Martin said she was not aware of Ms. Pitre’s earlier lawsuit when the Time’s Up fund approved funding for her Walmart case. But Ms. Martin said it would not have been a factor in the decision. “It is not shocking that this job is not the first job where Gina has experienced some sort of harassment,” Ms. Martin said. ADVERTISEMENT The Jackson, Miss., office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said it had been “unable to conclude” that the “information obtained” in Ms. Pitre’s case showed that Walmart had broken the law. The agency added that its ruling did not mean Walmart was “in compliance with the statutes,” either. Ms. Pitre had hired a previous lawyer, but parted ways with her after, she said, the lawyer was hesitant about pursuing a case against Walmart. The National Women’s Law Center put Ms. Pitre in touch with Louis H. Watson Jr., who has had success with harassment claims. A few years ago, he represented a group of female firefighters who said they faced unwanted advances and crude taunts by male supervisors in Jackson. After a jury found in the women’s favor, the city agreed to pay them tens of thousands of dollars each and improve its harassment policies. Still, harassment cases face an uphill battle in places like Mississippi, Mr. Watson said. “It is such a conservative state,” he said. “There are not many lawyers who want to take on these claims.” * * * * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed May 23 12:50:30 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 14:50:30 +0200 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: All you have to know about Rodney Davis is this sentence: "Sir, I knew Tim Johnson, and you are no Tim Johnson." Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > Robert, while I commend you for acquiring those promises from Democrats, > the fact that they are personal promises. and they aren’t willing to “put > it in writing” so to speak on their website etc., not that it’s a guarantee > either, it doesn’t make one feel anymore secure or confident. > > While I generally agree with your statement in relation to “those choosing > not to vote,” I no longer support the whole electoral process as anything > more than an exercise in futility and distraction, the reason I posted the > Chris Hedges article in the first place, and especially when the > distinction between candidates being little different. > > However, given the abysmal record of Rodney Davis, almost anyone would > likely be better and it would be a true miscarriage of justice if he were > to be re-elected. > > > On May 22, 2018, at 23:25, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > I promise that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is elected to the House, she > will vote against unauthorized U.S. participation in the Saudi war in > Yemen. She and her staff have given me personal commitments to this effect. > I would not be supporting her so strongly otherwise. > > I promise that if Democrats retake the House, we will get more votes in > the House on war and peace. Just now the House Rules Committee blocked > floor consideration of Rep. Khanna's amendment to the National Defense > Authorization Act that would have prohibited U.S. refueling of Saudi > warplanes bombing Yemen. If Dems retake the House, Jim McGovern will be > chair of the Rules Committee. It's going to be an anti-war amendment > Jamboree. > > I'm totally in favor of giving Democrats a hard time on war and peace. But > ultra-left electoral abstentionism hasn't done squat and isn't going to do > squat to give Democrats a hard time on war and peace. Democratic > politicians care about ultra-left electoral abstentionism like the ocean > cares about the discharge of a squirt gun. Some people may find ultra-left > electoral abstentionism emotionally satisfying personally, but then we > should understand that what is driving them is a selfish personal desire > for self-actualization, not an informed desire to make the world less > unjust. > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> What would it mean to have “given up on electoral politics”? And why do >> you think I’d done it? >> >> But I have yet to hear an answer to the question, 'Which is to be >> preferred in 2019, a House controlled by the Democrat or by the Republican >> party, and why?' >> >> Your answer should be well-spelt, grammatical, and contain the term >> ‘Russiagate’… >> >> —CGE >> >> On May 22, 2018, at 10:43 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I >> thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. >> >> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a >>> Republican House, or a Democratic one? >>> >>> John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war >>> New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual >>> war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which >>> the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does >>> a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi >>> Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking >>> peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not >>> so dire…” >>> >>> The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war >>> provocations produced Russiagate. >>> >>> They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. >>> >>> —CGE >>> _______________________ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 23 13:05:00 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 08:05:00 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: You mean that it makes no difference whether the Democratic party or the Republican party runs the House of Representatives? > On May 23, 2018, at 7:13 AM, David Enstrom wrote: > > Thanks for all the insight, Carl, and I sincerely mean that. > That said, the question you pose means nothing to me. > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:44 AM Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > What would it mean to have “given up on electoral politics”? And why do you think I’d done it? > > But I have yet to hear an answer to the question, 'Which is to be preferred in 2019, a House controlled by the Democrat or by the Republican party, and why?' > > Your answer should be well-spelt, grammatical, and contain the term ‘Russiagate’… > > —CGE > >> On May 22, 2018, at 10:43 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. >> >> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? >> >> John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >> >> The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. >> >> They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. >> >> —CGE >> _______________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 23 13:50:34 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 08:50:34 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: And all you have to know about Robert Naiman is his disingenuous work for the neoconservative (more war) and neoliberal (more inequality) Democratic candidate in the last election: >. —CGE > On May 23, 2018, at 7:50 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > All you have to know about Rodney Davis is this sentence: > > "Sir, I knew Tim Johnson, and you are no Tim Johnson." > > > > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org > (202) 448-2898 x1 > > > > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: > Robert, while I commend you for acquiring those promises from Democrats, the fact that they are personal promises. and they aren’t willing to “put it in writing” so to speak on their website etc., not that it’s a guarantee either, it doesn’t make one feel anymore secure or confident. > > While I generally agree with your statement in relation to “those choosing not to vote,” I no longer support the whole electoral process as anything more than an exercise in futility and distraction, the reason I posted the Chris Hedges article in the first place, and especially when the distinction between candidates being little different. > > However, given the abysmal record of Rodney Davis, almost anyone would likely be better and it would be a true miscarriage of justice if he were to be re-elected. > > >> On May 22, 2018, at 23:25, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> I promise that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is elected to the House, she will vote against unauthorized U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. She and her staff have given me personal commitments to this effect. I would not be supporting her so strongly otherwise. >> >> I promise that if Democrats retake the House, we will get more votes in the House on war and peace. Just now the House Rules Committee blocked floor consideration of Rep. Khanna's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited U.S. refueling of Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen. If Dems retake the House, Jim McGovern will be chair of the Rules Committee. It's going to be an anti-war amendment Jamboree. >> >> I'm totally in favor of giving Democrats a hard time on war and peace. But ultra-left electoral abstentionism hasn't done squat and isn't going to do squat to give Democrats a hard time on war and peace. Democratic politicians care about ultra-left electoral abstentionism like the ocean cares about the discharge of a squirt gun. Some people may find ultra-left electoral abstentionism emotionally satisfying personally, but then we should understand that what is driving them is a selfish personal desire for self-actualization, not an informed desire to make the world less unjust. >> >> >> Robert Naiman >> Policy Director >> Just Foreign Policy >> www.justforeignpolicy.org >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >> (202) 448-2898 x1 >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> What would it mean to have “given up on electoral politics”? And why do you think I’d done it? >> >> But I have yet to hear an answer to the question, 'Which is to be preferred in 2019, a House controlled by the Democrat or by the Republican party, and why?' >> >> Your answer should be well-spelt, grammatical, and contain the term ‘Russiagate’… >> >> —CGE >> >>> On May 22, 2018, at 10:43 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. >>> >>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? >>> >>> John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >>> >>> The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. >>> >>> They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. >>> >>> —CGE >>> _______________________ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 23 14:12:26 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 14:12:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Bloody waste of time, distracting us from doing what we should be doing, rising up against the imperialist oligarchs, in order to have the last word. “Have a nice day y’all." On May 23, 2018, at 06:50, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: And all you have to know about Robert Naiman is his disingenuous work for the neoconservative (more war) and neoliberal (more inequality) Democratic candidate in the last election: . —CGE On May 23, 2018, at 7:50 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: All you have to know about Rodney Davis is this sentence: "Sir, I knew Tim Johnson, and you are no Tim Johnson." Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Robert, while I commend you for acquiring those promises from Democrats, the fact that they are personal promises. and they aren’t willing to “put it in writing” so to speak on their website etc., not that it’s a guarantee either, it doesn’t make one feel anymore secure or confident. While I generally agree with your statement in relation to “those choosing not to vote,” I no longer support the whole electoral process as anything more than an exercise in futility and distraction, the reason I posted the Chris Hedges article in the first place, and especially when the distinction between candidates being little different. However, given the abysmal record of Rodney Davis, almost anyone would likely be better and it would be a true miscarriage of justice if he were to be re-elected. On May 22, 2018, at 23:25, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: I promise that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is elected to the House, she will vote against unauthorized U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. She and her staff have given me personal commitments to this effect. I would not be supporting her so strongly otherwise. I promise that if Democrats retake the House, we will get more votes in the House on war and peace. Just now the House Rules Committee blocked floor consideration of Rep. Khanna's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited U.S. refueling of Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen. If Dems retake the House, Jim McGovern will be chair of the Rules Committee. It's going to be an anti-war amendment Jamboree. I'm totally in favor of giving Democrats a hard time on war and peace. But ultra-left electoral abstentionism hasn't done squat and isn't going to do squat to give Democrats a hard time on war and peace. Democratic politicians care about ultra-left electoral abstentionism like the ocean cares about the discharge of a squirt gun. Some people may find ultra-left electoral abstentionism emotionally satisfying personally, but then we should understand that what is driving them is a selfish personal desire for self-actualization, not an informed desire to make the world less unjust. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: What would it mean to have “given up on electoral politics”? And why do you think I’d done it? But I have yet to hear an answer to the question, 'Which is to be preferred in 2019, a House controlled by the Democrat or by the Republican party, and why?' Your answer should be well-spelt, grammatical, and contain the term ‘Russiagate’… —CGE On May 22, 2018, at 10:43 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. —CGE _______________________ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 23 14:14:47 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 09:14:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Deciding whom to vote for is a bloody waste of time? > On May 23, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Karen Aram wrote: > > Bloody waste of time, distracting us from doing what we should be doing, rising up against the imperialist oligarchs, in order to have the last word. > > “Have a nice day y’all." > > >> On May 23, 2018, at 06:50, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> And all you have to know about Robert Naiman is his disingenuous work for the neoconservative (more war) and neoliberal (more inequality) Democratic candidate in the last election: >> >> >. —CGE >> >> >> >>> On May 23, 2018, at 7:50 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: >>> >>> All you have to know about Rodney Davis is this sentence: >>> >>> "Sir, I knew Tim Johnson, and you are no Tim Johnson." >>> >>> >>> >>> Robert Naiman >>> Policy Director >>> Just Foreign Policy >>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>> Robert, while I commend you for acquiring those promises from Democrats, the fact that they are personal promises. and they aren’t willing to “put it in writing” so to speak on their website etc., not that it’s a guarantee either, it doesn’t make one feel anymore secure or confident. >>> >>> While I generally agree with your statement in relation to “those choosing not to vote,” I no longer support the whole electoral process as anything more than an exercise in futility and distraction, the reason I posted the Chris Hedges article in the first place, and especially when the distinction between candidates being little different. >>> >>> However, given the abysmal record of Rodney Davis, almost anyone would likely be better and it would be a true miscarriage of justice if he were to be re-elected. >>> >>> >>>> On May 22, 2018, at 23:25, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> I promise that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is elected to the House, she will vote against unauthorized U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. She and her staff have given me personal commitments to this effect. I would not be supporting her so strongly otherwise. >>>> >>>> I promise that if Democrats retake the House, we will get more votes in the House on war and peace. Just now the House Rules Committee blocked floor consideration of Rep. Khanna's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited U.S. refueling of Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen. If Dems retake the House, Jim McGovern will be chair of the Rules Committee. It's going to be an anti-war amendment Jamboree. >>>> >>>> I'm totally in favor of giving Democrats a hard time on war and peace. But ultra-left electoral abstentionism hasn't done squat and isn't going to do squat to give Democrats a hard time on war and peace. Democratic politicians care about ultra-left electoral abstentionism like the ocean cares about the discharge of a squirt gun. Some people may find ultra-left electoral abstentionism emotionally satisfying personally, but then we should understand that what is driving them is a selfish personal desire for self-actualization, not an informed desire to make the world less unjust. >>>> >>>> >>>> Robert Naiman >>>> Policy Director >>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> What would it mean to have “given up on electoral politics”? And why do you think I’d done it? >>>> >>>> But I have yet to hear an answer to the question, 'Which is to be preferred in 2019, a House controlled by the Democrat or by the Republican party, and why?' >>>> >>>> Your answer should be well-spelt, grammatical, and contain the term ‘Russiagate’… >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> >>>>> On May 22, 2018, at 10:43 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? >>>>> >>>>> John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >>>>> >>>>> The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. >>>>> >>>>> They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. >>>>> >>>>> —CGE >>>>> _______________________ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 23 14:16:08 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 14:16:08 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] I'm unable to access the VDO or text of this movement from "The Real News, " wonder why? Message-ID: Poor People’s Movement Continues Wave of Nonviolent Civil Disobedience May 22, 2018 Protesters demand sweeping overhaul of nation’s voting rights laws, policies to address poverty, ecological devastation, and the war economy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 23 14:33:58 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 14:33:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: You are not only, not convincing anyone to vote for Rodney, you’ve convinced me to support the Democrat opponent, I will choke while voting for her, but nothing you have said is related to the record of Rodney as a candidate. You continually focus on some fantasy that he is more apt to become anti-war than the Democrat candidate. Wishing it so won’t make it so. Anyone wishing to contact me, that I care to hear from, has my email address. I am removing myself from Peace Disguss, pun intended. On May 23, 2018, at 07:14, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: Deciding whom to vote for is a bloody waste of time? On May 23, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: Bloody waste of time, distracting us from doing what we should be doing, rising up against the imperialist oligarchs, in order to have the last word. “Have a nice day y’all." On May 23, 2018, at 06:50, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: And all you have to know about Robert Naiman is his disingenuous work for the neoconservative (more war) and neoliberal (more inequality) Democratic candidate in the last election: . —CGE On May 23, 2018, at 7:50 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: All you have to know about Rodney Davis is this sentence: "Sir, I knew Tim Johnson, and you are no Tim Johnson." Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Robert, while I commend you for acquiring those promises from Democrats, the fact that they are personal promises. and they aren’t willing to “put it in writing” so to speak on their website etc., not that it’s a guarantee either, it doesn’t make one feel anymore secure or confident. While I generally agree with your statement in relation to “those choosing not to vote,” I no longer support the whole electoral process as anything more than an exercise in futility and distraction, the reason I posted the Chris Hedges article in the first place, and especially when the distinction between candidates being little different. However, given the abysmal record of Rodney Davis, almost anyone would likely be better and it would be a true miscarriage of justice if he were to be re-elected. On May 22, 2018, at 23:25, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: I promise that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is elected to the House, she will vote against unauthorized U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. She and her staff have given me personal commitments to this effect. I would not be supporting her so strongly otherwise. I promise that if Democrats retake the House, we will get more votes in the House on war and peace. Just now the House Rules Committee blocked floor consideration of Rep. Khanna's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited U.S. refueling of Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen. If Dems retake the House, Jim McGovern will be chair of the Rules Committee. It's going to be an anti-war amendment Jamboree. I'm totally in favor of giving Democrats a hard time on war and peace. But ultra-left electoral abstentionism hasn't done squat and isn't going to do squat to give Democrats a hard time on war and peace. Democratic politicians care about ultra-left electoral abstentionism like the ocean cares about the discharge of a squirt gun. Some people may find ultra-left electoral abstentionism emotionally satisfying personally, but then we should understand that what is driving them is a selfish personal desire for self-actualization, not an informed desire to make the world less unjust. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: What would it mean to have “given up on electoral politics”? And why do you think I’d done it? But I have yet to hear an answer to the question, 'Which is to be preferred in 2019, a House controlled by the Democrat or by the Republican party, and why?' Your answer should be well-spelt, grammatical, and contain the term ‘Russiagate’… —CGE On May 22, 2018, at 10:43 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. —CGE _______________________ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 23 14:36:54 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 14:36:54 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Please remove me from the List Message-ID: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 23 14:42:58 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 09:42:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> I’ve been talking about parties and their control of the House - not individual candidates or their records. I have no reason to believe that either Davis or his opponent will become anti-war. > On May 23, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > You are not only, not convincing anyone to vote for Rodney, you’ve convinced me to support the Democrat opponent, I will choke while voting for her, but nothing you have said is related to the record of Rodney as a candidate. You continually focus on some fantasy that he is more apt to become anti-war than the Democrat candidate. Wishing it so won’t make it so. > > Anyone wishing to contact me, that I care to hear from, has my email address. I am removing myself from Peace Disguss, pun intended. > > >> On May 23, 2018, at 07:14, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> Deciding whom to vote for is a bloody waste of time? >> >> >>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>> >>> Bloody waste of time, distracting us from doing what we should be doing, rising up against the imperialist oligarchs, in order to have the last word. >>> >>> “Have a nice day y’all." >>> >>> >>>> On May 23, 2018, at 06:50, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >>>> >>>> And all you have to know about Robert Naiman is his disingenuous work for the neoconservative (more war) and neoliberal (more inequality) Democratic candidate in the last election: >>>> >>>> >. —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 7:50 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> All you have to know about Rodney Davis is this sentence: >>>>> >>>>> "Sir, I knew Tim Johnson, and you are no Tim Johnson." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>> Policy Director >>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>>>> Robert, while I commend you for acquiring those promises from Democrats, the fact that they are personal promises. and they aren’t willing to “put it in writing” so to speak on their website etc., not that it’s a guarantee either, it doesn’t make one feel anymore secure or confident. >>>>> >>>>> While I generally agree with your statement in relation to “those choosing not to vote,” I no longer support the whole electoral process as anything more than an exercise in futility and distraction, the reason I posted the Chris Hedges article in the first place, and especially when the distinction between candidates being little different. >>>>> >>>>> However, given the abysmal record of Rodney Davis, almost anyone would likely be better and it would be a true miscarriage of justice if he were to be re-elected. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2018, at 23:25, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I promise that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is elected to the House, she will vote against unauthorized U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. She and her staff have given me personal commitments to this effect. I would not be supporting her so strongly otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>>> I promise that if Democrats retake the House, we will get more votes in the House on war and peace. Just now the House Rules Committee blocked floor consideration of Rep. Khanna's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited U.S. refueling of Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen. If Dems retake the House, Jim McGovern will be chair of the Rules Committee. It's going to be an anti-war amendment Jamboree. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm totally in favor of giving Democrats a hard time on war and peace. But ultra-left electoral abstentionism hasn't done squat and isn't going to do squat to give Democrats a hard time on war and peace. Democratic politicians care about ultra-left electoral abstentionism like the ocean cares about the discharge of a squirt gun. Some people may find ultra-left electoral abstentionism emotionally satisfying personally, but then we should understand that what is driving them is a selfish personal desire for self-actualization, not an informed desire to make the world less unjust. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>>> Policy Director >>>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>> What would it mean to have “given up on electoral politics”? And why do you think I’d done it? >>>>>> >>>>>> But I have yet to hear an answer to the question, 'Which is to be preferred in 2019, a House controlled by the Democrat or by the Republican party, and why?' >>>>>> >>>>>> Your answer should be well-spelt, grammatical, and contain the term ‘Russiagate’… >>>>>> >>>>>> —CGE >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 22, 2018, at 10:43 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>>> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 23 17:29:15 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:29:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/21/chuck-schumer-is-the-worst-possible-democratic-leader-on-foreign-policy-at-the-worst-possible-time/ —CGE > On May 23, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I’ve been talking about parties and their control of the House - not individual candidates or their records. > > I have no reason to believe that either Davis or his opponent will become anti-war. > > >> On May 23, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> You are not only, not convincing anyone to vote for Rodney, you’ve convinced me to support the Democrat opponent, I will choke while voting for her, but nothing you have said is related to the record of Rodney as a candidate. You continually focus on some fantasy that he is more apt to become anti-war than the Democrat candidate. Wishing it so won’t make it so. >> >> Anyone wishing to contact me, that I care to hear from, has my email address. I am removing myself from Peace Disguss, pun intended. >> >> >>> On May 23, 2018, at 07:14, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >>> >>> Deciding whom to vote for is a bloody waste of time? >>> >>> >>>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>>> >>>> Bloody waste of time, distracting us from doing what we should be doing, rising up against the imperialist oligarchs, in order to have the last word. >>>> >>>> “Have a nice day y’all." >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 06:50, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> And all you have to know about Robert Naiman is his disingenuous work for the neoconservative (more war) and neoliberal (more inequality) Democratic candidate in the last election: >>>>> >>>>> >. —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 7:50 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> All you have to know about Rodney Davis is this sentence: >>>>>> >>>>>> "Sir, I knew Tim Johnson, and you are no Tim Johnson." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>>> Policy Director >>>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>>>>> Robert, while I commend you for acquiring those promises from Democrats, the fact that they are personal promises. and they aren’t willing to “put it in writing” so to speak on their website etc., not that it’s a guarantee either, it doesn’t make one feel anymore secure or confident. >>>>>> >>>>>> While I generally agree with your statement in relation to “those choosing not to vote,” I no longer support the whole electoral process as anything more than an exercise in futility and distraction, the reason I posted the Chris Hedges article in the first place, and especially when the distinction between candidates being little different. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, given the abysmal record of Rodney Davis, almost anyone would likely be better and it would be a true miscarriage of justice if he were to be re-elected. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 22, 2018, at 23:25, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I promise that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is elected to the House, she will vote against unauthorized U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. She and her staff have given me personal commitments to this effect. I would not be supporting her so strongly otherwise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I promise that if Democrats retake the House, we will get more votes in the House on war and peace. Just now the House Rules Committee blocked floor consideration of Rep. Khanna's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited U.S. refueling of Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen. If Dems retake the House, Jim McGovern will be chair of the Rules Committee. It's going to be an anti-war amendment Jamboree. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm totally in favor of giving Democrats a hard time on war and peace. But ultra-left electoral abstentionism hasn't done squat and isn't going to do squat to give Democrats a hard time on war and peace. Democratic politicians care about ultra-left electoral abstentionism like the ocean cares about the discharge of a squirt gun. Some people may find ultra-left electoral abstentionism emotionally satisfying personally, but then we should understand that what is driving them is a selfish personal desire for self-actualization, not an informed desire to make the world less unjust. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robert Naiman >>>>>>> Policy Director >>>>>>> Just Foreign Policy >>>>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org >>>>>>> (202) 448-2898 x1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>>> What would it mean to have “given up on electoral politics”? And why do you think I’d done it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I have yet to hear an answer to the question, 'Which is to be preferred in 2019, a House controlled by the Democrat or by the Republican party, and why?' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your answer should be well-spelt, grammatical, and contain the term ‘Russiagate’… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 22, 2018, at 10:43 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>>>> Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> —CGE >>>>>>>> _______________________ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed May 23 20:01:50 2018 From: brussel at illinois.edu (Brussel, Morton K) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:01:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> "and Netanyahu has made it clear that he prefers Republicans to Democrats." You and Netanyahu. From https://dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/iran-sanctions-a-prelude-to-war/ —mkb On May 23, 2018, at 12:29 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The Democrats should not be given control of Congress: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/21/chuck-schumer-is-the-worst-possible-democratic-leader-on-foreign-policy-at-the-worst-possible-time/ —CGE On May 23, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: I’ve been talking about parties and their control of the House - not individual candidates or their records. I have no reason to believe that either Davis or his opponent will become anti-war. On May 23, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: You are not only, not convincing anyone to vote for Rodney, you’ve convinced me to support the Democrat opponent, I will choke while voting for her, but nothing you have said is related to the record of Rodney as a candidate. You continually focus on some fantasy that he is more apt to become anti-war than the Democrat candidate. Wishing it so won’t make it so. Anyone wishing to contact me, that I care to hear from, has my email address. I am removing myself from Peace Disguss, pun intended. On May 23, 2018, at 07:14, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: Deciding whom to vote for is a bloody waste of time? On May 23, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: Bloody waste of time, distracting us from doing what we should be doing, rising up against the imperialist oligarchs, in order to have the last word. “Have a nice day y’all." On May 23, 2018, at 06:50, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: And all you have to know about Robert Naiman is his disingenuous work for the neoconservative (more war) and neoliberal (more inequality) Democratic candidate in the last election: . —CGE On May 23, 2018, at 7:50 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: All you have to know about Rodney Davis is this sentence: "Sir, I knew Tim Johnson, and you are no Tim Johnson." Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: Robert, while I commend you for acquiring those promises from Democrats, the fact that they are personal promises. and they aren’t willing to “put it in writing” so to speak on their website etc., not that it’s a guarantee either, it doesn’t make one feel anymore secure or confident. While I generally agree with your statement in relation to “those choosing not to vote,” I no longer support the whole electoral process as anything more than an exercise in futility and distraction, the reason I posted the Chris Hedges article in the first place, and especially when the distinction between candidates being little different. However, given the abysmal record of Rodney Davis, almost anyone would likely be better and it would be a true miscarriage of justice if he were to be re-elected. On May 22, 2018, at 23:25, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: I promise that if Betsy Dirksen Londrigan is elected to the House, she will vote against unauthorized U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen. She and her staff have given me personal commitments to this effect. I would not be supporting her so strongly otherwise. I promise that if Democrats retake the House, we will get more votes in the House on war and peace. Just now the House Rules Committee blocked floor consideration of Rep. Khanna's amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited U.S. refueling of Saudi warplanes bombing Yemen. If Dems retake the House, Jim McGovern will be chair of the Rules Committee. It's going to be an anti-war amendment Jamboree. I'm totally in favor of giving Democrats a hard time on war and peace. But ultra-left electoral abstentionism hasn't done squat and isn't going to do squat to give Democrats a hard time on war and peace. Democratic politicians care about ultra-left electoral abstentionism like the ocean cares about the discharge of a squirt gun. Some people may find ultra-left electoral abstentionism emotionally satisfying personally, but then we should understand that what is driving them is a selfish personal desire for self-actualization, not an informed desire to make the world less unjust. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (202) 448-2898 x1 On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: What would it mean to have “given up on electoral politics”? And why do you think I’d done it? But I have yet to hear an answer to the question, 'Which is to be preferred in 2019, a House controlled by the Democrat or by the Republican party, and why?' Your answer should be well-spelt, grammatical, and contain the term ‘Russiagate’… —CGE On May 22, 2018, at 10:43 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: Bizzare and contorted about sums this string up bery nicely. Carl I thought you and given up on electoral politics. I guess I was mistaken. On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 8:28 PM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Which is more likely to hesitate at Deep State war-mongering, a Republican House, or a Democratic one? John Pilger wrote in 2016, “The CIA, Pentagon generals, and the pro-war New York Times demand Trump not be elected. These tribunes of 'perpetual war' are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Russian president Putin, then with China’s president Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world’s great power talking peace – however unlikely – would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire…” The Democrats' panic at the threat that Trump would abandon Obama's war provocations produced Russiagate. They should not be rewarded for that with control of the House. —CGE _______________________ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 23 20:07:56 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 15:07:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> Last week I was an antisemite, Mort. Make up your mind. > On May 23, 2018, at 3:01 PM, Brussel, Morton K wrote: > > "and Netanyahu has made it clear that he prefers Republicans to Democrats." > > You and Netanyahu. > > From https://dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/iran-sanctions-a-prelude-to-war/ > > —mkb > >> On May 23, 2018, at 12:29 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress: >> >> https://theintercept.com/2018/05/21/chuck-schumer-is-the-worst-possible-democratic-leader-on-foreign-policy-at-the-worst-possible-time/ >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>> I’ve been talking about parties and their control of the House - not individual candidates or their records. >>> >>> I have no reason to believe that either Davis or his opponent will become anti-war. >>> >>> >>>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> You are not only, not convincing anyone to vote for Rodney, you’ve convinced me to support the Democrat opponent, I will choke while voting for her, but nothing you have said is related to the record of Rodney as a candidate. You continually focus on some fantasy that he is more apt to become anti-war than the Democrat candidate. Wishing it so won’t make it so. >>>> >>>> Anyone wishing to contact me, that I care to hear from, has my email address. I am removing myself from Peace Disguss, pun intended. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 07:14, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Deciding whom to vote for is a bloody waste of time? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Bloody waste of time, distracting us from doing what we should be doing, rising up against the imperialist oligarchs, in order to have the last word. >>>>>> >>>>>> “Have a nice day y’all." >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 06:50, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And all you have to know about Robert Naiman is his disingenuous work for the neoconservative (more war) and neoliberal (more inequality) Democratic candidate in the last election: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> . —CGE >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 7:50 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All you have to know about Rodney Davis is this sentence: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Sir, I knew Tim Johnson, and you are no Tim Johnson." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Wed May 23 23:07:50 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 01:07:50 +0200 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> Message-ID: List members, please raise your hand if Carl has convinced you to vote for Rodney Davis. On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:07 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Last week I was an antisemite, Mort. Make up your mind. > > > > On May 23, 2018, at 3:01 PM, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: > > > > "and Netanyahu has made it clear that he prefers Republicans to > Democrats." > > > > You and Netanyahu. > > > > From https://dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/iran- > sanctions-a-prelude-to-war/ > > > > —mkb > > > >> On May 23, 2018, at 12:29 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> > >> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress: > >> > >> https://theintercept.com/2018/05/21/chuck-schumer-is-the- > worst-possible-democratic-leader-on-foreign-policy-at- > the-worst-possible-time/ > >> > >> —CGE > >> > >> > >>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> I’ve been talking about parties and their control of the House - not > individual candidates or their records. > >>> > >>> I have no reason to believe that either Davis or his opponent will > become anti-war. > >>> > >>> > >>>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> You are not only, not convincing anyone to vote for Rodney, you’ve > convinced me to support the Democrat opponent, I will choke while voting > for her, but nothing you have said is related to the record of Rodney as a > candidate. You continually focus on some fantasy that he is more apt to > become anti-war than the Democrat candidate. Wishing it so won’t make it so. > >>>> > >>>> Anyone wishing to contact me, that I care to hear from, has my email > address. I am removing myself from Peace Disguss, pun intended. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 07:14, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Deciding whom to vote for is a bloody waste of time? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Bloody waste of time, distracting us from doing what we should be > doing, rising up against the imperialist oligarchs, in order to have the > last word. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> “Have a nice day y’all." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 06:50, Carl G. Estabrook < > galliher at illinois.edu> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And all you have to know about Robert Naiman is his disingenuous > work for the neoconservative (more war) and neoliberal (more inequality) > Democratic candidate in the last election: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> prime-time-green/>. —CGE > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 7:50 AM, Robert Naiman < > naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> All you have to know about Rodney Davis is this sentence: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "Sir, I knew Tim Johnson, and you are no Tim Johnson." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 23 23:32:31 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 18:32:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> Message-ID: <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> And list members, raise your other hand (and put it over your eyes) if Bob has convinced you to support the Democrats... > On May 23, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > List members, please raise your hand if Carl has convinced you to vote for Rodney Davis. > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:07 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > Last week I was an antisemite, Mort. Make up your mind. > > > > On May 23, 2018, at 3:01 PM, Brussel, Morton K > wrote: > > > > "and Netanyahu has made it clear that he prefers Republicans to Democrats." > > > > You and Netanyahu. > > > > From https://dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/iran-sanctions-a-prelude-to-war/ > > > > —mkb > > > >> On May 23, 2018, at 12:29 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >> > >> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress: > >> > >> https://theintercept.com/2018/05/21/chuck-schumer-is-the-worst-possible-democratic-leader-on-foreign-policy-at-the-worst-possible-time/ > >> > >> —CGE > >> > >> > >>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >>> > >>> I’ve been talking about parties and their control of the House - not individual candidates or their records. > >>> > >>> I have no reason to believe that either Davis or his opponent will become anti-war. > >>> > >>> > >>>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> You are not only, not convincing anyone to vote for Rodney, you’ve convinced me to support the Democrat opponent, I will choke while voting for her, but nothing you have said is related to the record of Rodney as a candidate. You continually focus on some fantasy that he is more apt to become anti-war than the Democrat candidate. Wishing it so won’t make it so. > >>>> > >>>> Anyone wishing to contact me, that I care to hear from, has my email address. I am removing myself from Peace Disguss, pun intended. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 07:14, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Deciding whom to vote for is a bloody waste of time? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Karen Aram > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Bloody waste of time, distracting us from doing what we should be doing, rising up against the imperialist oligarchs, in order to have the last word. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> “Have a nice day y’all." > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 06:50, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And all you have to know about Robert Naiman is his disingenuous work for the neoconservative (more war) and neoliberal (more inequality) Democratic candidate in the last election: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >. —CGE > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 7:50 AM, Robert Naiman > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> All you have to know about Rodney Davis is this sentence: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "Sir, I knew Tim Johnson, and you are no Tim Johnson." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org Thu May 24 06:45:58 2018 From: naiman at justforeignpolicy.org (Robert Naiman) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 08:45:58 +0200 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> Message-ID: I haven't set myself a goal of convincing list members to "support the Democrats" [*sic*]. You, on the other hand, opened the thread with an appeal for list members to support Rodney Davis. That's the whole premise of your side of the discussion. You claim not to be advocating for electoral abstention, but I'm pretty sure that you're lying, based on the evidence at hand, even if I didn't already know you as a pathological liar, as most people here also know you. I can't imagine that you actually believe you can convince anyone here to support Rodney Davis. Everyone here knows who Rodney Davis is. People here are politically active, follow the news. Rodney Davis has made no secret of who he is. He's a Paul Ryan-Mitch McConnell Republican. Not a Rand Paul-Mike Lee-Justin Amash Republican. Rodney Davis always votes with Paul Ryan on war and peace. I'm well aware, because I've appealed to Rodney Davis many times to vote and advocate like Justin Amash, and have been rebuffed by Rodney Davis every time. Nobody here has tried harder than me to get Rodney Davis to vote and advocate more like Justin Amash. Therefore, you must have some other goal than the impossible goal of getting people here to support Rodney Davis. I suspect that your goal is to turn people off of practical engagement in electoral politics in the hopes that they will eventually join your little cult. In your lying fantasy story, my project is to get people to "support the Democrats," no matter what. But in the world of objective reality, nobody here has tried harder than me to get Rodney Davis to act on war and peace like a libertarian Republican. I would have been delighted if you ran against Rodney Davis in the Republican primary as a libertarian Republican. I publicly encouraged you to run, right here, on this list. You were too lazy. On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:32 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > And list members, raise your other hand (and put it over your eyes) if Bob > has convinced you to support the Democrats... > > On May 23, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > List members, please raise your hand if Carl has convinced you to vote for > Rodney Davis. > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:07 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Last week I was an antisemite, Mort. Make up your mind. >> >> >> > On May 23, 2018, at 3:01 PM, Brussel, Morton K >> wrote: >> > >> > "and Netanyahu has made it clear that he prefers Republicans to >> Democrats." >> > >> > You and Netanyahu. >> > >> > From https://dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/23/ >> iran-sanctions-a-prelude-to-war/ >> > >> > —mkb >> > >> >> On May 23, 2018, at 12:29 PM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> The Democrats should not be given control of Congress: >> >> >> >> https://theintercept.com/2018/05/21/chuck-schumer-is-the-wor >> st-possible-democratic-leader-on-foreign-policy-at-the- >> worst-possible-time/ >> >> >> >> —CGE >> >> >> >> >> >>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:42 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I’ve been talking about parties and their control of the House - not >> individual candidates or their records. >> >>> >> >>> I have no reason to believe that either Davis or his opponent will >> become anti-war. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> You are not only, not convincing anyone to vote for Rodney, you’ve >> convinced me to support the Democrat opponent, I will choke while voting >> for her, but nothing you have said is related to the record of Rodney as a >> candidate. You continually focus on some fantasy that he is more apt to >> become anti-war than the Democrat candidate. Wishing it so won’t make it so. >> >>>> >> >>>> Anyone wishing to contact me, that I care to hear from, has my email >> address. I am removing myself from Peace Disguss, pun intended. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 07:14, Carl G. Estabrook >> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Deciding whom to vote for is a bloody waste of time? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 9:12 AM, Karen Aram >> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Bloody waste of time, distracting us from doing what we should be >> doing, rising up against the imperialist oligarchs, in order to have the >> last word. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> “Have a nice day y’all." >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 06:50, Carl G. Estabrook < >> galliher at illinois.edu> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> And all you have to know about Robert Naiman is his disingenuous >> work for the neoconservative (more war) and neoliberal (more inequality) >> Democratic candidate in the last election: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> > me-time-green/>. —CGE >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 7:50 AM, Robert Naiman < >> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> All you have to know about Rodney Davis is this sentence: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> "Sir, I knew Tim Johnson, and you are no Tim Johnson." >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 24 13:01:18 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 08:01:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> Message-ID: <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> Bob— My argument (as you know) has been that the Democrats shouldn’t be given control of the House. I’ll let list members judge if I am a "pathological liar.” My judgement is that you need to get your prescription refilled… And I’m not sure what you think “my little cult” is. I haven’t received instructions from Moscow in weeks now… As a Green (and former candidate for Congress) I supported and voted for Jill Stein in the last election. Your position was accurately captured by John Stauber, "author of 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You' and a leading expert on the politics of propaganda and disinformation. Stauber knows a smear when he sees one” (CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St Clair): “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein. These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary lied America into attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a damned Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance” >. You haven’t "set [yourself] a goal of convincing list members [and others] to 'support the Democrats’”? Really? Regards, Carl > On May 24, 2018, at 1:45 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I haven't set myself a goal of convincing list members to "support the Democrats" [sic]. > > You, on the other hand, opened the thread with an appeal for list members to support Rodney Davis. That's the whole premise of your side of the discussion. > > You claim not to be advocating for electoral abstention, but I'm pretty sure that you're lying, based on the evidence at hand, even if I didn't already know you as a pathological liar, as most people here also know you. > > I can't imagine that you actually believe you can convince anyone here to support Rodney Davis. Everyone here knows who Rodney Davis is. People here are politically active, follow the news. Rodney Davis has made no secret of who he is. He's a Paul Ryan-Mitch McConnell Republican. Not a Rand Paul-Mike Lee-Justin Amash Republican. Rodney Davis always votes with Paul Ryan on war and peace. I'm well aware, because I've appealed to Rodney Davis many times to vote and advocate like Justin Amash, and have been rebuffed by Rodney Davis every time. Nobody here has tried harder than me to get Rodney Davis to vote and advocate more like Justin Amash. > > Therefore, you must have some other goal than the impossible goal of getting people here to support Rodney Davis. I suspect that your goal is to turn people off of practical engagement in electoral politics in the hopes that they will eventually join your little cult. > > In your lying fantasy story, my project is to get people to "support the Democrats," no matter what. > > But in the world of objective reality, nobody here has tried harder than me to get Rodney Davis to act on war and peace like a libertarian Republican. > > I would have been delighted if you ran against Rodney Davis in the Republican primary as a libertarian Republican. I publicly encouraged you to run, right here, on this list. You were too lazy. > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:32 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > And list members, raise your other hand (and put it over your eyes) if Bob has convinced you to support the Democrats... > >> On May 23, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> List members, please raise your hand if Carl has convinced you to vote for Rodney Davis. >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 24 14:04:28 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 14:04:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] War, propaganda and smears: Part one In-Reply-To: <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » War, propaganda and smears: An interview with Professor Piers Robinson Part one By Julie Hyland 24 May 2018 Professor Piers Robinson is the chair in politics, society and political journalism at the University of Sheffield. Much of his research focusses on the interface between propaganda and war. His 2002 book, The CNN Effect: The Myth of News Media, Foreign Policy and Intervention, examined news reporting in a series of “humanitarian” interventions in Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Rwanda. He was the lead author of Pockets of Resistance: British News Media, War and Theory in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq (2010), an ambitious and meticulous analysis of television and press coverage during the invasion. The Routledge Handbook of Media, Conflict and Security(2016), which Robinson authored with Philip Seib and Romy Frohlich, links the growing body of media and conflict research with the field of security studies. [http://www.wsws.org/asset/65a406cb-8b77-4fbb-9455-f8775ebd821B/image.jpg?rendition=image480]Professor Piers Robinson As a member of the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (WGSPM), founded in 2017, Robinson and fellow academics such as Professor Tim Hayward (environmental political theory, University of Edinburgh) have questioned the official narrative in relation to the Skripal poisoning and the role of the White Helmets in Syria that is being promoted by the media and the US and British governments. For this, they have been the subject of a witch hunt initiated by the Guardian and taken up last month by the Times, smearing them as “Assad’s Apologists.” Earlier this month, Labour-run Leeds City Council announced it was cancelling a Media on Trial event at which Robinson and Hayward were due to speak. The event has been relocated. Professor Robinson spoke to Julie Hyland for the World Socialist Web Site in a wide-ranging interview on war, lies and censorship, beginning with the Times smear. Piers Robinson: My personal experience over the last two years, and especially the last eight or nine months, is that the attack is not spontaneous. It didn’t start with the Times. I was attacked by Padraig Reidy of Little Atoms two years ago after I wrote an article for the Guardian on Russian and Western propagandaand how people need to think for themselves. I was attacked by Oliver Kamm [a Times lead columnist] over Twitter a long time before the Times articles. Tim Hayward had a lot of run-ins with [Guardian journalist] George Monbiot over Twitter. [Investigative journalists] Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett have been attacked and derided as “conspiracy theorists” and pro-Assad “apologists” for a long time. We were aware as we started doing the Media on Trial events, which were very successful, that more attention was coming to us. In December 2017, the Guardian ran a hit piece on Vanessa and Eva. Two days later, George Monbiot tweeted that myself and Tim Hayward had “disgraced” ourselves over Syria. We wrote an open letter which the Guardian wouldn’t publish. We spoke to journalists, but they refused to publish it. Once we put that out we got more attacks over Twitter. We set up the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media and that’s when Brian Whitaker (formerly of the Guardian) started attacking us. Then the Times focussed in on the Working Group. There was a lot of chatter going on, and it wasn’t low-grade chatter. You are suddenly aware of more and more attacks, and it was getting more intense. The more organised we were, the more intense the attacks became. I think it’s naive to think all this is happening spontaneously. It feels as if it is being driven. That’s the only way I can logically explain the scale of the attack. Four articles in the Times all on one day. Why does that happen? Throughout all this time I always tried to return to “What questions are we asking?” We are asking questions about propaganda and the war on Syria. For me as an academic, the obvious explanation is that we are hitting an area that some people don’t want us to touch. That’s the bottom line. Some people don’t want us to talk about or research the [Syrian] White Helmets. They certainly don’t want us to research or talk about what has been happening in Syria with respect to chemical weapons attacks. Julie Hyland: You said Britain is far more involved in Syria than many would realise. Can you expand on this? PR: The last set of air strikes after the Douma chemical weapon event, Tony Blair said something along the lines that “Doing nothing is not an option.” We know that is not true. We have not been doing nothing! That’s such a profound misunderstanding of the reality of where we are now in Syria. We’ve been intervening for a long time. It’s public record. It’s not disputed. As Professor Jeffrey Sachs (Columbia University) told MSNBC on April 12, “We need to understand how we got to where we are today. We are the cause of half a million dead.” He said, and I’m paraphrasing, that this was the result of a covert operation called Timber Sycamore between the CIA and Saudi Arabia to overthrow the Syrian government. He said it has been covert, not approved by Congress, against international law and it has led to the destruction of that country. The public perception is that Syria is an almost incomprehensible Middle East conflict and that we’re sitting on the sidelines. If it is possible for Tony Blair to say “non-intervention is not an option” that shows straight away that people have a deeply flawed understanding of what is going on, because we have been intervening and for a long time. The Stop the War Coalition seem to have even been doing that as well, demanding that “We shouldn’t intervene.” I was a member and I gave a talk in Sheffield. I think that Stop the War should not talk about “non-intervention” in the way they sometimes do because there is an intervention already underway. I thought there was a problem in the way they are presenting this, because my impression was that they were not really getting to the root of what was going on. Millions have been poured into supporting militant groups, some of whom are extremists and linked to Al Qaeda. These are the groups that have been major factors in propelling the war. That’s the major gap in public awareness and political awareness. I think that gap is reducing now. When I say on TV that we have been supporting militant groups and pouring money in, I don’t seem to have anyone disagreeing with me. We now know more about information operations and the White Helmets, and there is increasing public awareness of the latter. Overall, I think there is a large propaganda operation in relation to Syria and there’s a lot of money going into that. It’s very organised. In 2016 there was a Guardian scoop in which Ian Cobain identified the company, InCoStrat in Turkey, set up to do PR for militant groups. You have a lot of British involvement, whether it’s the so-called White Helmets or InCoStrat. That is all now in the public domain. In terms of what I am involved in with a PhD researcher, Jake Mason, and also with Professor David Miller (Bath), Britain seems to be quite involved in so-called “information operations” regarding Syria. So, we are looking into how Britain has been involved in shaping understanding of the conflict, including the issue of who has been carrying out chemical attacks and whether there has been an attempt to exaggerate Syrian government crimes and downplay those of militant groups. People have been talking for a number of years about the Ghouta chemical attack [2013]. Is it the Syrian government or militant groups? This is one of the questions that some of us are looking at. With Douma more recently, there have been a lot of questions. Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov said it was Jaysh al-Islam [a coalition of Islamic extremists] that was responsible and even intimated that the order came from the British: Maybe Lavrov is lying, maybe he is not. Major-General Jonathan Shaw, [formerly senior commander in the British Army] was on Sky News and he appeared to be raising questions as to why the Assad government would do it just at the point when it was negotiating the last transfer of Jaysh al-Islam to Idlib. Hamish de Bretton-Gordon is a source for journalists. He is ex-British military [and former commander of NATO’s Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion] and set up a company, SecureBio, in 2011 [now dissolved]. He is regularly talking to the media and he seems to be never very far from the government line on this issue. If Britain is involved in the presentation regarding these attacks, it means we are very involved. We are very important in helping to shape the perceptions of the war and the question is how much might those perceptions have been distorted or manipulated? How accurate are they? WSWS.ORG To be continued -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Thu May 24 15:14:23 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 10:14:23 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Review of Anti-war concert Message-ID: John Frayne | Ending the Krannert season with a (big) bang Thu, 05/24/2018 - 7:00am | John Frayne On May 1, the audience for Benjamin Britten's "War Requiem" in the Foellinger Great Hall was very large in number, more than I have ever seen for a concert by the University of Illinois Symphony Orchestra. The number of performers on the Foellinger Great Hall stage was as high as any concert I have attended in the past. And aside from the throngs on the stage, part of the balcony was set aside for the Central Illinois Children's Chorus. All these musical legions were there to perform Britten's massive and complex 1962 "War Requiem." In 1958, Britten was asked to provide a choral work to be performed at the consecration of the new St. Michael's Cathedral in Coventry, England. The previous cathedral, which dated back to the 14th century, had been destroyed in a German bombing raid in 1940. Britten, a man of strong pacifist convictions, had chosen not to serve in World War II. Indeed, from 1939 to 1942, he had been with his partner Peter Pears in the United States. Upon their return to Britain in 1942, Britten and Pears were given conscientious objector status. In planning this work, Britten made a fundamental choice that ended up as a stroke of genius. He would set the Roman Catholic Mass for the Dead, in Latin, and juxtapose the familiar, general statements about death, judgment and possible salvation of the just with poems by Wilfrid Owen (1893-1918), who had served on the Western Front in World War I and was killed in action on Nov. 4, one week before the Nov. 11, 1918, Armistice. The Owen poems serve as a contrast to the liturgical text, and in some cases the Owen poems are in opposition to the promised salvation and resurrection of the just in the Latin text. But aside from this, the Owen poems give agonized personal impact to the brutal reality of life and death in battle. The final Owen poem, "Strange Meeting," provides in the reconciliation and mutual sympathy of a British soldier and a dead German soldier a dramatically superb climax and ending to this mighty work. This Britten work is unusually complicated in the division of the performers into separate units that must be kept in balance over a long period of time. The UI Symphony Orchestra, Donald S. Schleicher director, was skillfully conducted by Andrew Megill, the Director of Choral Activities at UIUC. The student members of the orchestra were joined by assisting musicians. The orchestra members performed excellently, both in the main ensemble as well as in the chamber group at the side of the stage, which accompanied the tenor and baritone soloists who sang the texts of the Owen poems. This 13-member ensemble included the members of the Jupiter Quartet and Bernhard Scully, horn. The very large chorus on stage included members of the UI Chamber Singers and UI Oratorio Society, both directed by Megill, and the UI Women's Glee Club, Andrea Solya, director, as well as the UI Varsity Men's Glee Club, Michael Schmidt, director. In the balcony, the Central Illinois Children's Chorus, whose director is Solya, was conducted by Fernando Salvar-Ruiz. My tally, based on the list of performers in the program, was that there were 272 choristers and 96 instrumentalists involved, for a grand total of 368. All of these choruses performed magnificently, and the Children's Chorus especially offered a touching note of innocence in contrast to the sometimes grim subjects treated by the main stage performers. Soprano soloist Courtenay Budd, seated up amid the choruses, sang with admirable authority passages of the Latin text. The Owen poems were sung with vibrant intensity by Sumner Thompson, tenor, and David Newman, baritone, and their final duet in the poem "Strange Meeting" was a breathtaking moment of emotional release. The audience erupted in applause at the end of this 85-minute performance, with strong cheers for the Children's Chorus and at the entry onstage of the various choral directors. With a final note of congratulations to all who took part, let me also note the superb work of director Megill in molding the various forces into this successful performance. This was a deeply moving and satisfying end to the 2017-18 season. *John Frayne hosts "Classics of the Phonograph" on Saturdays at WILL-FM and, in retirement, teaches at the UI. Reach him at frayne at illinois.edu .* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu May 24 15:39:12 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 11:39:12 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Personal Activism Message-ID: Waiting for plane in Ronald Reagan airport wearing anti-war T-SHIRT. :) Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: David Green via Peace-discussDate: Thu, May 24, 2018 11:14 AMTo: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss]  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Message_1527174657418_resized.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 383979 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Thu May 24 16:27:07 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 12:27:07 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The Coming Collapse, by Chris Hedges in Truthdig Message-ID: I agree that I can no longer vote for members of either mainstream political party, both having proven themselves to be different heads of Hydra, as the Marvel comic book fans say.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Karen Aram via Peace-discussDate: Tue, May 22, 2018 11:37 AMTo: Carl G. Estabrook;Cc: Peace-discuss List;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] The Coming Collapse, by Chris Hedges in Truthdig Having lived in China, a nation where the people don’t have a vote nationally, though they do locally, and a nation where people died trying to get the right to vote, Thailand. I’ve also been in Cambodia weeks before the election with people being murdered and or paid off, as well as the Philippines where voting is similar to all the above and here, death and corruption no matter what. Thus I always do vote in elections. However, I won’t vote for either of these two people Davis or Londrigan. I will either do a write in, or leave this position purposely blank, since neither candidate is really a choice. They both represent the same power elites that are providing war, poverty, and environmental degradation. > On May 22, 2018, at 08:26, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > But we should still vote. > > >> On May 22, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Thats fine, vote as you see fit. Jeffrey can say as he wishes. Chris Hedges article is premised on the fact that we can’t solve our problems in the voting booth, we are on the verge of collapse, and the only remedy he suggests is “civil disobedience.” >> >> Suggestions otherwise, using his article, is obfuscation, of how serious the situation has become. >> >> >>> On May 22, 2018, at 07:42, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> Of course not. I was pointing out the folly of giving the House to the Democrats. That’s why I’ll vote for the local incumbent, a Republican - not because I approve of his politics. >>> >>> Jeffrey St Clair writes, “[Democrat-supporting] MoveOn in full panic mode: 'Trump has his highest approval rating in a year, and the Democrats' lead in the race for Congress is collapsing. Election experts no longer project a blue wave and say the chance of ending GOP control of House now 50-50.' (Please send cash so we can make things worse.)” >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On May 22, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Karen Aram wrote: >>>> >>>> To be clear Carl >>>> >>>> Though Hedges criticizes the Democrat Party, as he does, he doesn’t say anything about supporting Republican candidates as a means of addressing the problem. Just as he points out Trump and the neocons, as I see Davis, as the worse of the problem. They are no more a solution than the Democrats... >>>> >>>>> On May 22, 2018, at 06:52, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I’m afraid this is accurate. >>>>> >>>>> One local implication is that, in our one vote for Congress this year - for the House seat from the 13th Illinois Congressional District - we must oppose Democrat Betsy Londrigan. >>>>> >>>>> For the reasons Hedges puts forward, we cannot contribute to giving the Democrats control of the House of Representatives, even if it means voting for the Republican incumbent, Rodney Davis. >>>>> >>>>> As the vote on Haspel showed, individual ‘progressive’ votes are sometimes allowed by a party organization as a safety valve, as it continues to support the most vicious neocon and neolib policies. "Those people were a kind of solution,” it sometimes seems, but they aren’t, as Hedges explains. >>>>> >>>>> It’s also worth noting that Davis’ predecessor, Republican Tim Johnson, who shared Davis’ politics when elected, became an anti-war vote and even joined a bipartisan suit against the war in Libya. I don’t expect the same from Davis, but then I didn’t expect it from Johnson (whom I ran against as a Green, in 2002), either. >>>>> >>>>> But the primary reason to vote against Londrigan is to keep the Democrats from controlling the House. —CGE >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 22, 2018, at 6:33 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: “The Coming Collapse” —Chris Hedges >>>>>> >>>>>> The Trump administration did not rise, prima facie, like Venus on a half shell from the sea. Donald Trump is the result of a long process of political, cultural and social decay. He is a product of our failed democracy. The longer we perpetuate the fiction that we live in a functioning democracy, that Trump and the political mutations around him are somehow an aberrant deviation that can be vanquished in the next election, the more we will hurtle toward tyranny. The problem is not Trump. It is a political system, dominated by corporate power and the mandarins of the two major political parties, in which we don’t count. We will wrest back political control by dismantling the corporate state, and this means massive and sustained civil disobedience, like that demonstrated by teachers around the country this year. If we do not stand up we will enter a new dark age. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Democratic Party, which helped build our system of inverted totalitarianism, is once again held up by many on the left as the savior. Yet the party steadfastly refuses to address the social inequality that led to the election of Trump and the insurgency by Bernie Sanders. It is deaf, dumb and blind to the very real economic suffering that plagues over half the country. It will not fight to pay workers a living wage. It will not defy the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to provide Medicare for all. It will not curb the voracious appetite of the military that is disemboweling the country and promoting the prosecution of futile and costly foreign wars. It will not restore our lost civil liberties, including the right to privacy, freedom from government surveillance, and due process. It will not get corporate and dark money out of politics. It will not demilitarize our police and reform a prison system that has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners although the United S tates has only 5 percent of the world’s population. It plays to the margins, especially in election seasons, refusing to address substantive political and social problems and instead focusing on narrow cultural issues like gay rights, abortion and gun control in our peculiar species of anti-politics. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a doomed tactic, but one that is understandable. The leadership of the party, the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, are creations of corporate America. In an open and democratic political process, one not dominated by party elites and corporate money, these people would not hold political power. They know this. They would rather implode the entire system than give up their positions of privilege. And that, I fear, is what will happen. The idea that the Democratic Party is in any way a bulwark against despotism defies the last three decades of its political activity. It is the guarantor of despotism. >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump has tapped into the hatred that huge segments of the American public have for a political and economic system that has betrayed them. He may be inept, degenerate, dishonest and a narcissist, but he adeptly ridicules the system they despise. His cruel and demeaning taunts directed at government agencies, laws and the established elites resonate with people for whom these agencies, laws and elites have become hostile forces. And for many who see no shift in the political landscape to alleviate their suffering, Trump’s cruelty and invective are at least cathartic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Trump, like all despots, has no ethical core. He chooses his allies and appointees based on their personal loyalty and fawning obsequiousness to him. He will sell anyone out. He is corrupt, amassing money for himself—he made $40 million from his Washington, D.C., hotel alone last year—and his corporate allies. He is dismantling government institutions that once provided some regulation and oversight. He is an enemy of the open society. This makes him dangerous. His turbocharged assault on the last vestiges of democratic institutions and norms means there will soon be nothing, even in name, to protect us from corporate totalitarianism. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the warnings from the architects of our failed democracy against creeping fascism, Madeleine Albright among them, are risible. They show how disconnected the elites have become from the zeitgeist. None of these elites have credibility. They built the edifice of lies, deceit and corporate pillage that made Trump possible. And the more Trump demeans these elites, and the more they cry out like Cassandras, the more he salvages his disastrous presidency and enables the kleptocrats pillaging the country as it swiftly disintegrates. >>>>>> >>>>>> The press is one of the principal pillars of Trump’s despotism. It chatters endlessly like 18th-century courtiers at the court of Versailles about the foibles of the monarch while the peasants lack bread. It drones on and on and on about empty topics such as Russian meddling and a payoff to a porn actress that have nothing to do with the daily hell that, for many, defines life in America. It refuses to critique or investigate the abuses by corporate power, which has destroyed our democracy and economy and orchestrated the largest transfer of wealth upward in American history. The corporate press is a decayed relic that, in exchange for money and access, committed cultural suicide. And when Trump attacks it over “fake news,” he expresses, once again, the deep hatred of all those the press ignores. The press worships the idol of Mammon as slavishly as Trump does. It loves the reality-show presidency. The press, especially the cable news shows, keeps the lights on and the c ameras rolling so viewers will be glued to a 21st-century version of “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.” It is good for ratings. It is good for profits. But it accelerates the decline. >>>>>> >>>>>> All this will soon be compounded by financial collapse. Wall Street banks have been handed $16 trillion in bailouts and other subsidies by the Federal Reserve and Congress at nearly zero percent interest since the 2008 financial collapse. They have used this money, as well as the money saved through the huge tax cuts imposed last year, to buy back their own stock, raising the compensation and bonuses of their managers and thrusting the society deeper into untenable debt peonage. Sheldon Adelson’s casino operations alone got a $670 million tax break under the 2017 legislation. The ratio of CEO to worker pay now averages 339 to 1, with the highest gap approaching 5,000 to 1. This circular use of money to make and hoard money is what Karl Marx called “fictitious capital.” The steady increase in public debt, corporate debt, credit card debt and student loan debt will ultimately lead, as Nomi Prins writes, to “a tipping point—when money coming in to furnish that debt, or available to borrow, simply won’t cover the interest payments. Then debt bubbles will pop, beginning with higher yielding bonds.” >>>>>> >>>>>> An economy reliant on debt for its growth causes our interest rate to jump to 28 percent when we are late on a credit card payment. It is why our wages are stagnant or have declined in real terms—if we earned a sustainable income we would not have to borrow money to survive. It is why a university education, houses, medical bills and utilities cost so much. The system is designed so we can never free ourselves from debt. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, the next financial crash, as Prins points out in her book “Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World,” won’t be like the last one. This is because, as she says, “there is no Plan B.” Interest rates can’t go any lower. There has been no growth in the real economy. The next time, there will be no way out. Once the economy crashes and the rage across the country explodes into a firestorm, the political freaks will appear, ones that will make Trump look sagacious and benign. >>>>>> >>>>>> And so, to quote Vladimir Lenin, what must be done? >>>>>> >>>>>> We must invest our energy in building parallel, popular institutions to protect ourselves and to pit power against power. These parallel institutions, including unions, community development organizations, local currencies, alternative political parties and food cooperatives, will have to be constructed town by town. The elites in a time of distress will retreat to their gated compounds and leave us to fend for ourselves. Basic services, from garbage collection to public transportation, food distribution and health care, will collapse. Massive unemployment and underemployment, triggering social unrest, will be dealt with not through government job creation but the brutality of militarized police and a complete suspension of civil liberties. Critics of the system, already pushed to the margins, will be silenced and attacked as enemies of the state. The last vestiges of labor unions will be targeted for abolition, a process that will soon be accelerated given the expected ruling in a case before the Supreme Court that will cripple the ability of public-sector unions to represent workers. The dollar will stop being the world’s reserve currency, causing a steep devaluation. Banks will close. Global warming will extract heavier and heavier costs, especially on the coastal populations, farming and the infrastructure, costs that the depleted state will be unable to address. The corporate press, like the ruling elites, will go from burlesque to absurdism, its rhetoric so patently fictitious it will, as in all totalitarian states, be unmoored from reality. The media outlets will all sound as fatuous as Trump. And, to quote W.H. Auden, “the little children will die in the streets.” >>>>>> >>>>>> As a foreign correspondent I covered collapsed societies, including the former Yugoslavia. It is impossible for any doomed population to grasp how fragile the decayed financial, social and political system is on the eve of implosion. All the harbingers of collapse are visible: crumbling infrastructure; chronic underemployment and unemployment; the indiscriminate use of lethal force by police; political paralysis and stagnation; an economy built on the scaffolding of debt; nihilistic mass shootings in schools, universities, workplaces, malls, concert venues and movie theaters; opioid overdoses that kill some 64,000 people a year; an epidemic of suicides; unsustainable military expansion; gambling as a desperate tool of economic development and government revenue; the capture of power by a tiny, corrupt clique; censorship; the physical diminishing of public institutions ranging from schools and libraries to courts and medical facilities; the incessant bombardment by electronic h allucinations to divert us from the depressing sight that has become America and keep us trapped in illusions. We suffer the usual pathologies of impending death. I would be happy to be wrong. But I have seen this before. I know the warning signs. All I can say is get ready. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > _______________________________________________ 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 daenstrom at gmail.com Thu May 24 17:35:28 2018 From: daenstrom at gmail.com (David Enstrom) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 13:35:28 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carl, I don't mind your campaigning for Reblicans on this site, but I do very much mind you doing it "as a Green". I will say to the group that Carl's views regarding the US House and Rep. Davis do not represent the views of the GPUS at ANY level. On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:01 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Bob— > > My argument (as you know) has been that the Democrats shouldn’t be given > control of the House. > > I’ll let list members judge if I am a "pathological liar.” My judgement is > that you need to get your prescription refilled… > > And I’m not sure what you think “my little cult” is. I haven’t received > instructions from Moscow in weeks now… > > As a Green (and former candidate for Congress) I supported and voted for > Jill Stein in the last election. > > Your position was accurately captured by John Stauber, "author of 'Toxic > Sludge is Good for You' and a leading expert on the politics of propaganda > and disinformation. Stauber knows a smear when he sees one” (CounterPunch > editor Jeffrey St Clair): > > “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat > progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein. These shills see no > hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by Wall Street, the Koch > brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary lied America into > attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion while a woman > running on the most progressive platform in America is just a damned > Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he doubled > down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman is not > an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive elite who > since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats > liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance” < > https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/roaming-charges-prime-time-green/ > >. > > You haven’t "set [yourself] a goal of convincing list members [and others] > to 'support the Democrats’”? Really? > > Regards, Carl > > > On May 24, 2018, at 1:45 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > I haven't set myself a goal of convincing list members to "support the > Democrats" [*sic*]. > > You, on the other hand, opened the thread with an appeal for list members > to support Rodney Davis. That's the whole premise of your side of the > discussion. > > You claim not to be advocating for electoral abstention, but I'm pretty > sure that you're lying, based on the evidence at hand, even if I didn't > already know you as a pathological liar, as most people here also know you. > > I can't imagine that you actually believe you can convince anyone here to > support Rodney Davis. Everyone here knows who Rodney Davis is. People here > are politically active, follow the news. Rodney Davis has made no secret of > who he is. He's a Paul Ryan-Mitch McConnell Republican. Not a Rand > Paul-Mike Lee-Justin Amash Republican. Rodney Davis always votes with Paul > Ryan on war and peace. I'm well aware, because I've appealed to Rodney > Davis many times to vote and advocate like Justin Amash, and have been > rebuffed by Rodney Davis every time. Nobody here has tried harder than me > to get Rodney Davis to vote and advocate more like Justin Amash. > > Therefore, you must have some other goal than the impossible goal of > getting people here to support Rodney Davis. I suspect that your goal is to > turn people off of practical engagement in electoral politics in the hopes > that they will eventually join your little cult. > > In your lying fantasy story, my project is to get people to "support the > Democrats," no matter what. > > But in the world of objective reality, nobody here has tried harder than > me to get Rodney Davis to act on war and peace like a libertarian > Republican. > > I would have been delighted if you ran against Rodney Davis in the > Republican primary as a libertarian Republican. I publicly encouraged you > to run, right here, on this list. You were too lazy. > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:32 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> And list members, raise your other hand (and put it over your eyes) if >> Bob has convinced you to support the Democrats... >> >> On May 23, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> List members, please raise your hand if Carl has convinced you to vote >> for Rodney Davis. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 24 17:49:57 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 12:49:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9D795C89-57AB-4EF2-8D46-B4131038C159@gmail.com> You’re not reading very closely, David. I was in fact defending the Green presidential candidate against Robert Naiman, “a paid, professional Democrat progressive attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein.” And there is in fact a debate among members and friends of the Green party about what Greens should do this year in the 13th IL CD, where there is no Green candidate - (1) abstain, (2) vote for the Democrat, or (3) vote for the Republican. I take it your choice is (2). —CGE > On May 24, 2018, at 12:35 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl, I don't mind your campaigning for Reblicans on this site, but I do very much mind you doing it "as a Green". > > I will say to the group that Carl's views regarding the US House and Rep. Davis do not represent the views of the GPUS at ANY level. > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:01 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > Bob— > > My argument (as you know) has been that the Democrats shouldn’t be given control of the House. > > I’ll let list members judge if I am a "pathological liar.” My judgement is that you need to get your prescription refilled… > > And I’m not sure what you think “my little cult” is. I haven’t received instructions from Moscow in weeks now… > > As a Green (and former candidate for Congress) I supported and voted for Jill Stein in the last election. > > Your position was accurately captured by John Stauber, "author of 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You' and a leading expert on the politics of propaganda and disinformation. Stauber knows a smear when he sees one” (CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St Clair): > > “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein. These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary lied America into attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a damned Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance” >. > > You haven’t "set [yourself] a goal of convincing list members [and others] to 'support the Democrats’”? Really? > > Regards, Carl > > >> On May 24, 2018, at 1:45 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> I haven't set myself a goal of convincing list members to "support the Democrats" [sic]. >> >> You, on the other hand, opened the thread with an appeal for list members to support Rodney Davis. That's the whole premise of your side of the discussion. >> >> You claim not to be advocating for electoral abstention, but I'm pretty sure that you're lying, based on the evidence at hand, even if I didn't already know you as a pathological liar, as most people here also know you. >> >> I can't imagine that you actually believe you can convince anyone here to support Rodney Davis. Everyone here knows who Rodney Davis is. People here are politically active, follow the news. Rodney Davis has made no secret of who he is. He's a Paul Ryan-Mitch McConnell Republican. Not a Rand Paul-Mike Lee-Justin Amash Republican. Rodney Davis always votes with Paul Ryan on war and peace. I'm well aware, because I've appealed to Rodney Davis many times to vote and advocate like Justin Amash, and have been rebuffed by Rodney Davis every time. Nobody here has tried harder than me to get Rodney Davis to vote and advocate more like Justin Amash. >> >> Therefore, you must have some other goal than the impossible goal of getting people here to support Rodney Davis. I suspect that your goal is to turn people off of practical engagement in electoral politics in the hopes that they will eventually join your little cult. >> >> In your lying fantasy story, my project is to get people to "support the Democrats," no matter what. >> >> But in the world of objective reality, nobody here has tried harder than me to get Rodney Davis to act on war and peace like a libertarian Republican. >> >> I would have been delighted if you ran against Rodney Davis in the Republican primary as a libertarian Republican. I publicly encouraged you to run, right here, on this list. You were too lazy. >> >> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:32 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> And list members, raise your other hand (and put it over your eyes) if Bob has convinced you to support the Democrats... >> >>> On May 23, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> List members, please raise your hand if Carl has convinced you to vote for Rodney Davis. >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > _______________________________________________ > 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 daenstrom at gmail.com Thu May 24 18:28:22 2018 From: daenstrom at gmail.com (David Enstrom) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 14:28:22 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <9D795C89-57AB-4EF2-8D46-B4131038C159@gmail.com> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> <9D795C89-57AB-4EF2-8D46-B4131038C159@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carl, you hold a few un-green values. Advicate in your name for republicans and leave the GPUS out of it. You have a history of attempting to insert your very un-green ideas into the GPUS and hurting the party in Champaign County in the process. Your anti-choice sentiments, I understand, drove Greens away locally. On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:50 PM C G Estabrook wrote: > You’re not reading very closely, David. > > I was in fact defending the Green presidential candidate against Robert > Naiman, “a paid, professional Democrat progressive attacking the Green > Party and Jill Stein.” > > And there is in fact a debate among members and friends of the Green party > about what Greens should do this year in the 13th IL CD, where there is no > Green candidate - (1) abstain, (2) vote for the Democrat, or (3) vote for > the Republican. I take it your choice is (2). > > —CGE > > > On May 24, 2018, at 12:35 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Carl, I don't mind your campaigning for Reblicans on this site, but I do > very much mind you doing it "as a Green". > > I will say to the group that Carl's views regarding the US House and Rep. > Davis do not represent the views of the GPUS at ANY level. > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:01 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> Bob— >> >> My argument (as you know) has been that the Democrats shouldn’t be given >> control of the House. >> >> I’ll let list members judge if I am a "pathological liar.” My judgement >> is that you need to get your prescription refilled… >> >> And I’m not sure what you think “my little cult” is. I haven’t received >> instructions from Moscow in weeks now… >> >> As a Green (and former candidate for Congress) I supported and voted for >> Jill Stein in the last election. >> >> Your position was accurately captured by John Stauber, "author of 'Toxic >> Sludge is Good for You' and a leading expert on the politics of propaganda >> and disinformation. Stauber knows a smear when he sees one” (CounterPunch >> editor Jeffrey St Clair): >> >> “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat >> progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein. These shills see no >> hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by Wall Street, the Koch >> brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary lied America into >> attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion while a woman >> running on the most progressive platform in America is just a damned >> Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he doubled >> down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman is not >> an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive elite who >> since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats >> liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance” < >> https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/roaming-charges-prime-time-green/ >> >. >> >> You haven’t "set [yourself] a goal of convincing list members [and >> others] to 'support the Democrats’”? Really? >> >> Regards, Carl >> >> >> On May 24, 2018, at 1:45 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> I haven't set myself a goal of convincing list members to "support the >> Democrats" [*sic*]. >> >> You, on the other hand, opened the thread with an appeal for list members >> to support Rodney Davis. That's the whole premise of your side of the >> discussion. >> >> You claim not to be advocating for electoral abstention, but I'm pretty >> sure that you're lying, based on the evidence at hand, even if I didn't >> already know you as a pathological liar, as most people here also know you. >> >> I can't imagine that you actually believe you can convince anyone here to >> support Rodney Davis. Everyone here knows who Rodney Davis is. People here >> are politically active, follow the news. Rodney Davis has made no secret of >> who he is. He's a Paul Ryan-Mitch McConnell Republican. Not a Rand >> Paul-Mike Lee-Justin Amash Republican. Rodney Davis always votes with Paul >> Ryan on war and peace. I'm well aware, because I've appealed to Rodney >> Davis many times to vote and advocate like Justin Amash, and have been >> rebuffed by Rodney Davis every time. Nobody here has tried harder than me >> to get Rodney Davis to vote and advocate more like Justin Amash. >> >> Therefore, you must have some other goal than the impossible goal of >> getting people here to support Rodney Davis. I suspect that your goal is to >> turn people off of practical engagement in electoral politics in the hopes >> that they will eventually join your little cult. >> >> In your lying fantasy story, my project is to get people to "support the >> Democrats," no matter what. >> >> But in the world of objective reality, nobody here has tried harder than >> me to get Rodney Davis to act on war and peace like a libertarian >> Republican. >> >> I would have been delighted if you ran against Rodney Davis in the >> Republican primary as a libertarian Republican. I publicly encouraged you >> to run, right here, on this list. You were too lazy. >> >> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:32 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> And list members, raise your other hand (and put it over your eyes) if >>> Bob has convinced you to support the Democrats... >>> >>> On May 23, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> List members, please raise your hand if Carl has convinced you to vote >>> for Rodney Davis. >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 24 19:54:05 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 14:54:05 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> <9D795C89-57AB-4EF2-8D46-B4131038C159@gmail.com> Message-ID: <876DE009-E4C8-4115-86FC-BF21EF5DFAB4@gmail.com> David, you seem unaware that the founding principles of the Prairie Greens explicitly recognize that there are a variety of views among Greens on abortion. > On May 24, 2018, at 1:28 PM, David Enstrom wrote: > > Carl, you hold a few un-green values. Advicate in your name for republicans and leave the GPUS out of it. You have a history of attempting to insert your very un-green ideas into the GPUS and hurting the party in Champaign County in the process. Your anti-choice sentiments, I understand, drove Greens away locally. > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:50 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: > You’re not reading very closely, David. > > I was in fact defending the Green presidential candidate against Robert Naiman, “a paid, professional Democrat progressive attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein.” > > And there is in fact a debate among members and friends of the Green party about what Greens should do this year in the 13th IL CD, where there is no Green candidate - (1) abstain, (2) vote for the Democrat, or (3) vote for the Republican. I take it your choice is (2). > > —CGE > > >> On May 24, 2018, at 12:35 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Carl, I don't mind your campaigning for Reblicans on this site, but I do very much mind you doing it "as a Green". >> >> I will say to the group that Carl's views regarding the US House and Rep. Davis do not represent the views of the GPUS at ANY level. >> >> >> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:01 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> Bob— >> >> My argument (as you know) has been that the Democrats shouldn’t be given control of the House. >> >> I’ll let list members judge if I am a "pathological liar.” My judgement is that you need to get your prescription refilled… >> >> And I’m not sure what you think “my little cult” is. I haven’t received instructions from Moscow in weeks now… >> >> As a Green (and former candidate for Congress) I supported and voted for Jill Stein in the last election. >> >> Your position was accurately captured by John Stauber, "author of 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You' and a leading expert on the politics of propaganda and disinformation. Stauber knows a smear when he sees one” (CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St Clair): >> >> “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein. These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary lied America into attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a damned Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance” >. >> >> You haven’t "set [yourself] a goal of convincing list members [and others] to 'support the Democrats’”? Really? >> >> Regards, Carl >> >> >>> On May 24, 2018, at 1:45 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> I haven't set myself a goal of convincing list members to "support the Democrats" [sic]. >>> >>> You, on the other hand, opened the thread with an appeal for list members to support Rodney Davis. That's the whole premise of your side of the discussion. >>> >>> You claim not to be advocating for electoral abstention, but I'm pretty sure that you're lying, based on the evidence at hand, even if I didn't already know you as a pathological liar, as most people here also know you. >>> >>> I can't imagine that you actually believe you can convince anyone here to support Rodney Davis. Everyone here knows who Rodney Davis is. People here are politically active, follow the news. Rodney Davis has made no secret of who he is. He's a Paul Ryan-Mitch McConnell Republican. Not a Rand Paul-Mike Lee-Justin Amash Republican. Rodney Davis always votes with Paul Ryan on war and peace. I'm well aware, because I've appealed to Rodney Davis many times to vote and advocate like Justin Amash, and have been rebuffed by Rodney Davis every time. Nobody here has tried harder than me to get Rodney Davis to vote and advocate more like Justin Amash. >>> >>> Therefore, you must have some other goal than the impossible goal of getting people here to support Rodney Davis. I suspect that your goal is to turn people off of practical engagement in electoral politics in the hopes that they will eventually join your little cult. >>> >>> In your lying fantasy story, my project is to get people to "support the Democrats," no matter what. >>> >>> But in the world of objective reality, nobody here has tried harder than me to get Rodney Davis to act on war and peace like a libertarian Republican. >>> >>> I would have been delighted if you ran against Rodney Davis in the Republican primary as a libertarian Republican. I publicly encouraged you to run, right here, on this list. You were too lazy. >>> >>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:32 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> And list members, raise your other hand (and put it over your eyes) if Bob has convinced you to support the Democrats... >>> >>>> On May 23, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> List members, please raise your hand if Carl has convinced you to vote for Rodney Davis. >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 24 20:05:50 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 15:05:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <876DE009-E4C8-4115-86FC-BF21EF5DFAB4@gmail.com> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> <9D795C89-57AB-4EF2-8D46-B4131038C159@gmail.com> <876DE009-E4C8-4115-86FC-BF21EF5DFAB4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <69CD4B83-75DD-48CF-B4DF-AF4B7372DD08@gmail.com> David— see section 7. =================================== THE PLATFORM OF THE PRAIRIE GREENS. Approved at the regular monthly meeting of the Prairie Greens on September 21, 2015, the last day of of summer. Thanks to David Green and other members who contributed to its drafting. This Prairie Green platform is an extension of the 10 Key Values of the Green Party US and the Illinois Green Party: . [1] GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY The Prairie Green Party… ~ supports democratic electoral processes through universal voting rights and proportional party representation at all levels of government. ~ supports local and participatory democratic processes to utilize our communities’ productive capacity, financial wealth, vocational skills, and natural resources to provide for the basic needs of all citizens and residents. ~ supports public education systems democratically governed by parents, teachers, local community members, and students as they mature. [2] SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY The Prairie Green Party… ~ understands that the wealth of our society has historically been produced by the labor of the vast majority of its citizens and workers—including slaves—not by the financial investments of a small minority which has gained ownership of most of its productive capacity. ~ understands that class oppression and racial oppression have historically been and continue to be integrally related in our society. ~ understands that equal opportunity and social justice depend on full employment at living wages. ~ supports government programs to provide full employment at living wages at the national, state, and local levels. ~ supports a public banking system at the state level, with an emphasis on investment in local communities. ~ supports a Financial Transaction Tax (LaSalle Street tax) in Illinois: a small fee imposed on the trading of commodities, paid primarily by the wealthiest citizens, which will generously fund government programs—especially education--at state and local levels. ~ opposes regressive state and local tax structures in Illinois, and supports measures to address the injustice of poorer people paying larger shares of their incomes in state and local taxes. supports single-payer, universal healthcare provided at the state or national level as a human right and foundation for social justice and equal opportunity. ~ supports the development and broad availability of affordable, well-maintained public housing, provided in localized and innovative ways, as a human right and foundation for social justice and equal opportunity. ~ supports free education from preschool through college, with a particular emphasis on the minimization of student indebtedness, as a human right and foundation for equal opportunity. [3] ECOLOGICAL WISDOM The Prairie Green Party… ~ recognizes that the crisis created by climate change presents opportunities for promoting a sustainable society in relation to energy, resource and water conservation, agricultural, urban development, and other public policies. ~ supports an honest and critical evaluation of the role of biofuels, including corn- and soy-based fuels, regardless of local and regional economic interests, in moving towards a post-carbon-based fuel future. ~ opposes hydraulic fracturing “fracking” as a means to extract natural gas. ~ recognizes that pro-corporate economic policies that have engendered extreme economic inequality have also been exploitative and destructive of the environment, and that environmental sustainability, democratic and local governance, and economic justice are inseparable from and dependent upon one another. [4] NON-VIOLENCE The Prairie Green Party… ~ recognizes that the U.S. Government’s militarism and imperialism are extensions of corporate- and profit-driven economic policies—including weapons production itself and international weapons sales—that have been enacted at home and around the world. opposes America’s ongoing imperial wars, and supports international law and the diplomatic mediation of all geopolitical conflicts that become or threaten to become violent; this includes conflicts in the Middle East, Eurasia, and Asia in general; and Israel/Palestine, Iran, Russia, Ukraine, and the South China Sea in particular. ~ supports a major re-allocation of military and “national security” spending to meeting human needs, both domestically and abroad. ~ opposes domestic state-sponsored violence and structural racism at national, state, and local levels, especially pertaining to the criminalization of drugs and related policies that facilitate the disproportionate and unjust incarceration of African-Americans. [5] DECENTRALIZATION The Prairie Green Party… ~ supports local decision-making regarding utilization of public funding and resources for schools, libraries, parks and recreation, local public media, transportation systems, and connectivity. ~ supports local decision-making regarding agriculture and food distribution systems, with an emphasis on policies and practices oriented to local and regional farmers and suppliers. ~ supports local control and democratic accountability of the police in relation to neighborhoods and communities, including and especially minority and immigrant communities. [6] COMMUNITY-BASED ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE The Prairie Green Party… ~ supports progressive taxation of income and wealth at federal and state levels, with significant amounts of revenue shared with local levels of government for the provision of social services, especially according to need, and with maximum local democratic participation regarding the disbursement of those expenditures. ~ supports workers’ rights to organize labor unions, opposes “right to work” laws at the state level, and supports the preference of unionized workplaces regarding government contracts. ~ supports public policies that promote worker-owned and worker-managed enterprises, and ~ supports the preference of such enterprises in the awarding of government contracts. [7] FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY The Prairie Green Party… ~ supports equal wages for men and women within occupational categories, and between categories that have historically been unequally compensated as a result of the predominance of women, including the caring and other human service professions. ~ supports generous maternity leave and family leave, publicly and generously funded daycare and preschool, and other policies that facilitate equality for women and men in families and workplaces. ~ includes some who assert the right of women to have safe and legal abortions, as well as others who support a “consistent ethic of life” in opposing abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia. [8] RESPECT FOR DIVERSITY The Prairie Green Party... ~ supports public educational curricula that positively represent diverse cultural, ethnic, racial, gender, sexual, religious, and spiritual groups, while honestly reflecting on these groups’ various historical struggles, achievements, and goals. ~ supports public policies in particular that address historical, social, and economic injustices in relation to the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and the African slave trade. ~ understands that ecological wisdom incorporates a concern for diversity and survival in the natural environment, including animals, plants, and natural resources, which should be addressed in public policies, including agricultural policies. [9] PERSONAL AND GLOBAL RESPONSIBILITY The Prairie Green Party… ~ supports a global response to climate change that recognizes the proportionate responsibility of the United States and other developed countries as both historical polluters and technological innovators. ~ recognizes the proportionate responsibility of the United States and other developed countries to fairly and generously disseminate the technologies necessary to address climate change and to promote conservation and sustainable development. ~ recognizes the proportionate responsibility of the United States and other developed and historically colonialist countries in addressing their ongoing contributions to war, militarism, the arms trade, and other violent aspects of modern capitalism. [10] FUTURE FOCUS AND SUSTAINABILITY The Prairie Green Party… ~ recognizes that grassroots and informed democratic processes at all levels of government are fundamental to addressing inequality, militarism and the threat of nuclear war, and climate change. ~ recognizes that economic growth for general prosperity is reflected not in the rate of return on Wall Street, but on the increased ability to meet the basic needs of the entire population without despoiling the environment and endangering the planet. ~ recognizes that sustainable and equitable growth and development are incompatible with an economic system primarily driven by corporate profits; and that such growth and development require an expanded public sector of regulation and services that is democratically accountable to the citizenry. ### > On May 24, 2018, at 2:54 PM, C G Estabrook wrote: > > David, you seem unaware that the founding principles of the Prairie Greens explicitly recognize that there are a variety of views among Greens on abortion. > > >> On May 24, 2018, at 1:28 PM, David Enstrom > wrote: >> >> Carl, you hold a few un-green values. Advicate in your name for republicans and leave the GPUS out of it. You have a history of attempting to insert your very un-green ideas into the GPUS and hurting the party in Champaign County in the process. Your anti-choice sentiments, I understand, drove Greens away locally. >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daenstrom at gmail.com Thu May 24 20:14:04 2018 From: daenstrom at gmail.com (David Enstrom) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 16:14:04 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: <876DE009-E4C8-4115-86FC-BF21EF5DFAB4@gmail.com> References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> <9D795C89-57AB-4EF2-8D46-B4131038C159@gmail.com> <876DE009-E4C8-4115-86FC-BF21EF5DFAB4@gmail.com> Message-ID: Carl you appear to be unaware of the GPUS platform on which Jill Stein stood, and which you claimed to have supported a couple of posts ago. You seem also to be unaware of other developments in the GPUS. On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:54 PM C G Estabrook wrote: > David, you seem unaware that the founding principles of the Prairie Greens > explicitly recognize that there are a variety of views among Greens on > abortion. > > > On May 24, 2018, at 1:28 PM, David Enstrom wrote: > > Carl, you hold a few un-green values. Advicate in your name for > republicans and leave the GPUS out of it. You have a history of attempting > to insert your very un-green ideas into the GPUS and hurting the party in > Champaign County in the process. Your anti-choice sentiments, I > understand, drove Greens away locally. > > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:50 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: > >> You’re not reading very closely, David. >> >> I was in fact defending the Green presidential candidate against Robert >> Naiman, “a paid, professional Democrat progressive attacking the Green >> Party and Jill Stein.” >> >> And there is in fact a debate among members and friends of the Green >> party about what Greens should do this year in the 13th IL CD, where there >> is no Green candidate - (1) abstain, (2) vote for the Democrat, or (3) vote >> for the Republican. I take it your choice is (2). >> >> —CGE >> >> >> On May 24, 2018, at 12:35 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >> Carl, I don't mind your campaigning for Reblicans on this site, but I do >> very much mind you doing it "as a Green". >> >> I will say to the group that Carl's views regarding the US House and >> Rep. Davis do not represent the views of the GPUS at ANY level. >> >> >> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:01 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >> >>> Bob— >>> >>> My argument (as you know) has been that the Democrats shouldn’t be given >>> control of the House. >>> >>> I’ll let list members judge if I am a "pathological liar.” My judgement >>> is that you need to get your prescription refilled… >>> >>> And I’m not sure what you think “my little cult” is. I haven’t received >>> instructions from Moscow in weeks now… >>> >>> As a Green (and former candidate for Congress) I supported and voted for >>> Jill Stein in the last election. >>> >>> Your position was accurately captured by John Stauber, "author of 'Toxic >>> Sludge is Good for You' and a leading expert on the politics of propaganda >>> and disinformation. Stauber knows a smear when he sees one” (CounterPunch >>> editor Jeffrey St Clair): >>> >>> “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, >>> professional Democrat progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill >>> Stein. These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by >>> Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary >>> lied America into attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion >>> while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a >>> damned Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he >>> doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman >>> is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive >>> elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats >>> liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance” < >>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/roaming-charges-prime-time-green/ >>> >. >>> >>> You haven’t "set [yourself] a goal of convincing list members [and >>> others] to 'support the Democrats’”? Really? >>> >>> Regards, Carl >>> >>> >>> On May 24, 2018, at 1:45 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> I haven't set myself a goal of convincing list members to "support the >>> Democrats" [*sic*]. >>> >>> You, on the other hand, opened the thread with an appeal for list >>> members to support Rodney Davis. That's the whole premise of your side of >>> the discussion. >>> >>> You claim not to be advocating for electoral abstention, but I'm pretty >>> sure that you're lying, based on the evidence at hand, even if I didn't >>> already know you as a pathological liar, as most people here also know you. >>> >>> I can't imagine that you actually believe you can convince anyone here >>> to support Rodney Davis. Everyone here knows who Rodney Davis is. People >>> here are politically active, follow the news. Rodney Davis has made no >>> secret of who he is. He's a Paul Ryan-Mitch McConnell Republican. Not a >>> Rand Paul-Mike Lee-Justin Amash Republican. Rodney Davis always votes with >>> Paul Ryan on war and peace. I'm well aware, because I've appealed to Rodney >>> Davis many times to vote and advocate like Justin Amash, and have been >>> rebuffed by Rodney Davis every time. Nobody here has tried harder than me >>> to get Rodney Davis to vote and advocate more like Justin Amash. >>> >>> Therefore, you must have some other goal than the impossible goal of >>> getting people here to support Rodney Davis. I suspect that your goal is to >>> turn people off of practical engagement in electoral politics in the hopes >>> that they will eventually join your little cult. >>> >>> In your lying fantasy story, my project is to get people to "support the >>> Democrats," no matter what. >>> >>> But in the world of objective reality, nobody here has tried harder than >>> me to get Rodney Davis to act on war and peace like a libertarian >>> Republican. >>> >>> I would have been delighted if you ran against Rodney Davis in the >>> Republican primary as a libertarian Republican. I publicly encouraged you >>> to run, right here, on this list. You were too lazy. >>> >>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:32 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> And list members, raise your other hand (and put it over your eyes) if >>>> Bob has convinced you to support the Democrats... >>>> >>>> On May 23, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> List members, please raise your hand if Carl has convinced you to vote >>>> for Rodney Davis. >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 24 20:21:47 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 15:21:47 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> <9D795C89-57AB-4EF2-8D46-B4131038C159@gmail.com> <876DE009-E4C8-4115-86FC-BF21EF5DFAB4@gmail.com> Message-ID: I supported and voted for Stein, but, like many people who did, I found there were aspects of her campaign - notably the post election suits - that I didn’t support. The Platform of the Prairie Greens explicitly states “The Praire Green Party … includes some who assert the right of women to have safe and legal abortions, as well as others who support a 'consistent ethic of life' in opposing abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia." —CGE > On May 24, 2018, at 3:14 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl you appear to be unaware of the GPUS platform on which Jill Stein stood, and which you claimed to have supported a couple of posts ago. You seem also to be unaware of other developments in the GPUS. > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:54 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: > David, you seem unaware that the founding principles of the Prairie Greens explicitly recognize that there are a variety of views among Greens on abortion. > > >> On May 24, 2018, at 1:28 PM, David Enstrom > wrote: >> >> Carl, you hold a few un-green values. Advicate in your name for republicans and leave the GPUS out of it. You have a history of attempting to insert your very un-green ideas into the GPUS and hurting the party in Champaign County in the process. Your anti-choice sentiments, I understand, drove Greens away locally. >> >> >> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:50 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: >> You’re not reading very closely, David. >> >> I was in fact defending the Green presidential candidate against Robert Naiman, “a paid, professional Democrat progressive attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein.” >> >> And there is in fact a debate among members and friends of the Green party about what Greens should do this year in the 13th IL CD, where there is no Green candidate - (1) abstain, (2) vote for the Democrat, or (3) vote for the Republican. I take it your choice is (2). >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On May 24, 2018, at 12:35 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Carl, I don't mind your campaigning for Reblicans on this site, but I do very much mind you doing it "as a Green". >>> >>> I will say to the group that Carl's views regarding the US House and Rep. Davis do not represent the views of the GPUS at ANY level. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:01 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> Bob— >>> >>> My argument (as you know) has been that the Democrats shouldn’t be given control of the House. >>> >>> I’ll let list members judge if I am a "pathological liar.” My judgement is that you need to get your prescription refilled… >>> >>> And I’m not sure what you think “my little cult” is. I haven’t received instructions from Moscow in weeks now… >>> >>> As a Green (and former candidate for Congress) I supported and voted for Jill Stein in the last election. >>> >>> Your position was accurately captured by John Stauber, "author of 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You' and a leading expert on the politics of propaganda and disinformation. Stauber knows a smear when he sees one” (CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St Clair): >>> >>> “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein. These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary lied America into attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a damned Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance” >. >>> >>> You haven’t "set [yourself] a goal of convincing list members [and others] to 'support the Democrats’”? Really? >>> >>> Regards, Carl >>> >>> >>>> On May 24, 2018, at 1:45 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> I haven't set myself a goal of convincing list members to "support the Democrats" [sic]. >>>> >>>> You, on the other hand, opened the thread with an appeal for list members to support Rodney Davis. That's the whole premise of your side of the discussion. >>>> >>>> You claim not to be advocating for electoral abstention, but I'm pretty sure that you're lying, based on the evidence at hand, even if I didn't already know you as a pathological liar, as most people here also know you. >>>> >>>> I can't imagine that you actually believe you can convince anyone here to support Rodney Davis. Everyone here knows who Rodney Davis is. People here are politically active, follow the news. Rodney Davis has made no secret of who he is. He's a Paul Ryan-Mitch McConnell Republican. Not a Rand Paul-Mike Lee-Justin Amash Republican. Rodney Davis always votes with Paul Ryan on war and peace. I'm well aware, because I've appealed to Rodney Davis many times to vote and advocate like Justin Amash, and have been rebuffed by Rodney Davis every time. Nobody here has tried harder than me to get Rodney Davis to vote and advocate more like Justin Amash. >>>> >>>> Therefore, you must have some other goal than the impossible goal of getting people here to support Rodney Davis. I suspect that your goal is to turn people off of practical engagement in electoral politics in the hopes that they will eventually join your little cult. >>>> >>>> In your lying fantasy story, my project is to get people to "support the Democrats," no matter what. >>>> >>>> But in the world of objective reality, nobody here has tried harder than me to get Rodney Davis to act on war and peace like a libertarian Republican. >>>> >>>> I would have been delighted if you ran against Rodney Davis in the Republican primary as a libertarian Republican. I publicly encouraged you to run, right here, on this list. You were too lazy. >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:32 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> And list members, raise your other hand (and put it over your eyes) if Bob has convinced you to support the Democrats... >>>> >>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> List members, please raise your hand if Carl has convinced you to vote for Rodney Davis. >>>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 daenstrom at gmail.com Thu May 24 20:58:24 2018 From: daenstrom at gmail.com (David Enstrom) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 16:58:24 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> <9D795C89-57AB-4EF2-8D46-B4131038C159@gmail.com> <876DE009-E4C8-4115-86FC-BF21EF5DFAB4@gmail.com> Message-ID: I know about this but that is YOUR language. That language, which is not in line with the Illinois Green party OR the GPUS. Get back to your orginal point, we should vote for Rodney Davis because... If you realy want Davis elected Canvas in Calhoun County. The audiance should be more receptive. Others on the list, if you haven't already I suggest you read the GPUS platform. On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:14 PM David Enstrom wrote: > Carl you appear to be unaware of the GPUS platform on which Jill Stein > stood, and which you claimed to have supported a couple of posts ago. You > seem also to be unaware of other developments in the GPUS. > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:54 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: > >> David, you seem unaware that the founding principles of the Prairie >> Greens explicitly recognize that there are a variety of views among Greens >> on abortion. >> >> >> On May 24, 2018, at 1:28 PM, David Enstrom wrote: >> >> Carl, you hold a few un-green values. Advicate in your name for >> republicans and leave the GPUS out of it. You have a history of attempting >> to insert your very un-green ideas into the GPUS and hurting the party in >> Champaign County in the process. Your anti-choice sentiments, I >> understand, drove Greens away locally. >> >> >> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:50 PM C G Estabrook >> wrote: >> >>> You’re not reading very closely, David. >>> >>> I was in fact defending the Green presidential candidate against Robert >>> Naiman, “a paid, professional Democrat progressive attacking the Green >>> Party and Jill Stein.” >>> >>> And there is in fact a debate among members and friends of the Green >>> party about what Greens should do this year in the 13th IL CD, where there >>> is no Green candidate - (1) abstain, (2) vote for the Democrat, or (3) vote >>> for the Republican. I take it your choice is (2). >>> >>> —CGE >>> >>> >>> On May 24, 2018, at 12:35 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>> Carl, I don't mind your campaigning for Reblicans on this site, but I do >>> very much mind you doing it "as a Green". >>> >>> I will say to the group that Carl's views regarding the US House and >>> Rep. Davis do not represent the views of the GPUS at ANY level. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:01 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Bob— >>>> >>>> My argument (as you know) has been that the Democrats shouldn’t be >>>> given control of the House. >>>> >>>> I’ll let list members judge if I am a "pathological liar.” My judgement >>>> is that you need to get your prescription refilled… >>>> >>>> And I’m not sure what you think “my little cult” is. I haven’t received >>>> instructions from Moscow in weeks now… >>>> >>>> As a Green (and former candidate for Congress) I supported and voted >>>> for Jill Stein in the last election. >>>> >>>> Your position was accurately captured by John Stauber, "author of >>>> 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You' and a leading expert on the politics of >>>> propaganda and disinformation. Stauber knows a smear when he sees one” >>>> (CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St Clair): >>>> >>>> “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, >>>> professional Democrat progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill >>>> Stein. These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by >>>> Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary >>>> lied America into attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion >>>> while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a >>>> damned Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he >>>> doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman >>>> is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive >>>> elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats >>>> liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance” < >>>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/roaming-charges-prime-time-green/ >>>> >. >>>> >>>> You haven’t "set [yourself] a goal of convincing list members [and >>>> others] to 'support the Democrats’”? Really? >>>> >>>> Regards, Carl >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 24, 2018, at 1:45 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> I haven't set myself a goal of convincing list members to "support the >>>> Democrats" [*sic*]. >>>> >>>> You, on the other hand, opened the thread with an appeal for list >>>> members to support Rodney Davis. That's the whole premise of your side of >>>> the discussion. >>>> >>>> You claim not to be advocating for electoral abstention, but I'm pretty >>>> sure that you're lying, based on the evidence at hand, even if I didn't >>>> already know you as a pathological liar, as most people here also know you. >>>> >>>> I can't imagine that you actually believe you can convince anyone here >>>> to support Rodney Davis. Everyone here knows who Rodney Davis is. People >>>> here are politically active, follow the news. Rodney Davis has made no >>>> secret of who he is. He's a Paul Ryan-Mitch McConnell Republican. Not a >>>> Rand Paul-Mike Lee-Justin Amash Republican. Rodney Davis always votes with >>>> Paul Ryan on war and peace. I'm well aware, because I've appealed to Rodney >>>> Davis many times to vote and advocate like Justin Amash, and have been >>>> rebuffed by Rodney Davis every time. Nobody here has tried harder than me >>>> to get Rodney Davis to vote and advocate more like Justin Amash. >>>> >>>> Therefore, you must have some other goal than the impossible goal of >>>> getting people here to support Rodney Davis. I suspect that your goal is to >>>> turn people off of practical engagement in electoral politics in the hopes >>>> that they will eventually join your little cult. >>>> >>>> In your lying fantasy story, my project is to get people to "support >>>> the Democrats," no matter what. >>>> >>>> But in the world of objective reality, nobody here has tried harder >>>> than me to get Rodney Davis to act on war and peace like a libertarian >>>> Republican. >>>> >>>> I would have been delighted if you ran against Rodney Davis in the >>>> Republican primary as a libertarian Republican. I publicly encouraged you >>>> to run, right here, on this list. You were too lazy. >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:32 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> And list members, raise your other hand (and put it over your eyes) if >>>>> Bob has convinced you to support the Democrats... >>>>> >>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> List members, please raise your hand if Carl has convinced you to vote >>>>> for Rodney Davis. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 daenstrom at gmail.com Thu May 24 21:11:40 2018 From: daenstrom at gmail.com (David Enstrom) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 17:11:40 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> <9D795C89-57AB-4EF2-8D46-B4131038C159@gmail.com> <876DE009-E4C8-4115-86FC-BF21EF5DFAB4@gmail.com> Message-ID: Good luck with all of your agends Mr. Estabrook. On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:58 PM David Enstrom wrote: > I know about this but that is YOUR language. That language, which is not > in line with the Illinois Green party OR the GPUS. > > Get back to your orginal point, we should vote for Rodney Davis because... > If you realy want Davis elected Canvas in Calhoun County. The audiance > should be more receptive. > > Others on the list, if you haven't already I suggest you read the GPUS > platform. > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:14 PM David Enstrom wrote: > >> Carl you appear to be unaware of the GPUS platform on which Jill Stein >> stood, and which you claimed to have supported a couple of posts ago. You >> seem also to be unaware of other developments in the GPUS. >> >> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:54 PM C G Estabrook >> wrote: >> >>> David, you seem unaware that the founding principles of the Prairie >>> Greens explicitly recognize that there are a variety of views among Greens >>> on abortion. >>> >>> >>> On May 24, 2018, at 1:28 PM, David Enstrom wrote: >>> >>> Carl, you hold a few un-green values. Advicate in your name for >>> republicans and leave the GPUS out of it. You have a history of attempting >>> to insert your very un-green ideas into the GPUS and hurting the party in >>> Champaign County in the process. Your anti-choice sentiments, I >>> understand, drove Greens away locally. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:50 PM C G Estabrook >>> wrote: >>> >>>> You’re not reading very closely, David. >>>> >>>> I was in fact defending the Green presidential candidate against Robert >>>> Naiman, “a paid, professional Democrat progressive attacking the Green >>>> Party and Jill Stein.” >>>> >>>> And there is in fact a debate among members and friends of the Green >>>> party about what Greens should do this year in the 13th IL CD, where there >>>> is no Green candidate - (1) abstain, (2) vote for the Democrat, or (3) vote >>>> for the Republican. I take it your choice is (2). >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 24, 2018, at 12:35 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> Carl, I don't mind your campaigning for Reblicans on this site, but I >>>> do very much mind you doing it "as a Green". >>>> >>>> I will say to the group that Carl's views regarding the US House and >>>> Rep. Davis do not represent the views of the GPUS at ANY level. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:01 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Bob— >>>>> >>>>> My argument (as you know) has been that the Democrats shouldn’t be >>>>> given control of the House. >>>>> >>>>> I’ll let list members judge if I am a "pathological liar.” My >>>>> judgement is that you need to get your prescription refilled… >>>>> >>>>> And I’m not sure what you think “my little cult” is. I haven’t >>>>> received instructions from Moscow in weeks now… >>>>> >>>>> As a Green (and former candidate for Congress) I supported and voted >>>>> for Jill Stein in the last election. >>>>> >>>>> Your position was accurately captured by John Stauber, "author of >>>>> 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You' and a leading expert on the politics of >>>>> propaganda and disinformation. Stauber knows a smear when he sees one” >>>>> (CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St Clair): >>>>> >>>>> “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, >>>>> professional Democrat progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill >>>>> Stein. These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by >>>>> Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary >>>>> lied America into attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion >>>>> while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a >>>>> damned Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he >>>>> doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman >>>>> is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive >>>>> elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats >>>>> liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance” < >>>>> https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/19/roaming-charges-prime-time-green/ >>>>> >. >>>>> >>>>> You haven’t "set [yourself] a goal of convincing list members [and >>>>> others] to 'support the Democrats’”? Really? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Carl >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 24, 2018, at 1:45 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I haven't set myself a goal of convincing list members to "support the >>>>> Democrats" [*sic*]. >>>>> >>>>> You, on the other hand, opened the thread with an appeal for list >>>>> members to support Rodney Davis. That's the whole premise of your side of >>>>> the discussion. >>>>> >>>>> You claim not to be advocating for electoral abstention, but I'm >>>>> pretty sure that you're lying, based on the evidence at hand, even if I >>>>> didn't already know you as a pathological liar, as most people here also >>>>> know you. >>>>> >>>>> I can't imagine that you actually believe you can convince anyone here >>>>> to support Rodney Davis. Everyone here knows who Rodney Davis is. People >>>>> here are politically active, follow the news. Rodney Davis has made no >>>>> secret of who he is. He's a Paul Ryan-Mitch McConnell Republican. Not a >>>>> Rand Paul-Mike Lee-Justin Amash Republican. Rodney Davis always votes with >>>>> Paul Ryan on war and peace. I'm well aware, because I've appealed to Rodney >>>>> Davis many times to vote and advocate like Justin Amash, and have been >>>>> rebuffed by Rodney Davis every time. Nobody here has tried harder than me >>>>> to get Rodney Davis to vote and advocate more like Justin Amash. >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, you must have some other goal than the impossible goal of >>>>> getting people here to support Rodney Davis. I suspect that your goal is to >>>>> turn people off of practical engagement in electoral politics in the hopes >>>>> that they will eventually join your little cult. >>>>> >>>>> In your lying fantasy story, my project is to get people to "support >>>>> the Democrats," no matter what. >>>>> >>>>> But in the world of objective reality, nobody here has tried harder >>>>> than me to get Rodney Davis to act on war and peace like a libertarian >>>>> Republican. >>>>> >>>>> I would have been delighted if you ran against Rodney Davis in the >>>>> Republican primary as a libertarian Republican. I publicly encouraged you >>>>> to run, right here, on this list. You were too lazy. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:32 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < >>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> And list members, raise your other hand (and put it over your eyes) >>>>>> if Bob has convinced you to support the Democrats... >>>>>> >>>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss < >>>>>> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> List members, please raise your hand if Carl has convinced you to >>>>>> vote for Rodney Davis. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Thu May 24 21:30:11 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 16:30:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't send a Democrat to the House In-Reply-To: References: <2E07096F-06CD-48B6-B45E-DE360DD8F910@illinois.edu> <331BC55A-4C84-414B-A878-FF8119639E2B@illinois.edu> <70D0AF58-195D-4894-904C-8EF359F93CBA@illinois.edu> <57E25444-41CD-4824-B15B-10748E8EE153@gmail.com> <1339F525-93A2-4FC4-B9DD-DBC5AB3EE043@illinois.edu> <7C0DBD99-F34C-465D-A82B-DE28D47A7A71@gmail.com> <14A6547B-1496-4A46-BBFF-380BDF9AC335@gmail.com> <892B5618-4E3D-482C-969B-9B6C8C5332EB@gmail.com> <9D795C89-57AB-4EF2-8D46-B4131038C159@gmail.com> <876DE009-E4C8-4115-86FC-BF21EF5DFAB4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C8CE344-0498-4A81-9C98-0D2A62FCDA94@gmail.com> I suggested voting for Davis in order to avoid contributing to the Democrats’ taking over control of the House. Which party is more likely to support the continuation of the eight wars the US government is presently engaged in, and the war provocations - which have already resulted in thousands of deaths - from Ukraine to the S. China Sea? The answer isn’t clear, but the malign ‘Russiagate' nonsense suggests it's the Democrats. I don’t think control of the House should be transferred to them. —CGE > On May 24, 2018, at 3:58 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I know about this but that is YOUR language. That language, which is not in line with the Illinois Green party OR the GPUS. > > Get back to your orginal point, we should vote for Rodney Davis because... > If you realy want Davis elected Canvas in Calhoun County. The audiance should be more receptive. > > Others on the list, if you haven't already I suggest you read the GPUS platform. > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:14 PM David Enstrom > wrote: > Carl you appear to be unaware of the GPUS platform on which Jill Stein stood, and which you claimed to have supported a couple of posts ago. You seem also to be unaware of other developments in the GPUS. > > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:54 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: > David, you seem unaware that the founding principles of the Prairie Greens explicitly recognize that there are a variety of views among Greens on abortion. > > >> On May 24, 2018, at 1:28 PM, David Enstrom > wrote: >> >> Carl, you hold a few un-green values. Advicate in your name for republicans and leave the GPUS out of it. You have a history of attempting to insert your very un-green ideas into the GPUS and hurting the party in Champaign County in the process. Your anti-choice sentiments, I understand, drove Greens away locally. >> >> >> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:50 PM C G Estabrook > wrote: >> You’re not reading very closely, David. >> >> I was in fact defending the Green presidential candidate against Robert Naiman, “a paid, professional Democrat progressive attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein.” >> >> And there is in fact a debate among members and friends of the Green party about what Greens should do this year in the 13th IL CD, where there is no Green candidate - (1) abstain, (2) vote for the Democrat, or (3) vote for the Republican. I take it your choice is (2). >> >> —CGE >> >> >>> On May 24, 2018, at 12:35 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Carl, I don't mind your campaigning for Reblicans on this site, but I do very much mind you doing it "as a Green". >>> >>> I will say to the group that Carl's views regarding the US House and Rep. Davis do not represent the views of the GPUS at ANY level. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:01 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> Bob— >>> >>> My argument (as you know) has been that the Democrats shouldn’t be given control of the House. >>> >>> I’ll let list members judge if I am a "pathological liar.” My judgement is that you need to get your prescription refilled… >>> >>> And I’m not sure what you think “my little cult” is. I haven’t received instructions from Moscow in weeks now… >>> >>> As a Green (and former candidate for Congress) I supported and voted for Jill Stein in the last election. >>> >>> Your position was accurately captured by John Stauber, "author of 'Toxic Sludge is Good for You' and a leading expert on the politics of propaganda and disinformation. Stauber knows a smear when he sees one” (CounterPunch editor Jeffrey St Clair): >>> >>> “Robert Naiman epitomizes the attitude of the paid, professional Democrat progressives attacking the Green Party and Jill Stein. These shills see no hypocrisy in embracing a candidate supported by Wall Street, the Koch brothers and the neoconservatives who with Hillary lied America into attacking Iraq. So there it is, Hillary is his champion while a woman running on the most progressive platform in America is just a damned Communist. Rather than back down when he himself was exposed, he doubled down with a smear befitting the worst of American politics. Naiman is not an aberration however; indeed, he embodies the funded progressive elite who since 2000 have become a front group for the Democrats liberal oligarchs such as George Soros and his Democracy Alliance” >. >>> >>> You haven’t "set [yourself] a goal of convincing list members [and others] to 'support the Democrats’”? Really? >>> >>> Regards, Carl >>> >>> >>>> On May 24, 2018, at 1:45 AM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> I haven't set myself a goal of convincing list members to "support the Democrats" [sic]. >>>> >>>> You, on the other hand, opened the thread with an appeal for list members to support Rodney Davis. That's the whole premise of your side of the discussion. >>>> >>>> You claim not to be advocating for electoral abstention, but I'm pretty sure that you're lying, based on the evidence at hand, even if I didn't already know you as a pathological liar, as most people here also know you. >>>> >>>> I can't imagine that you actually believe you can convince anyone here to support Rodney Davis. Everyone here knows who Rodney Davis is. People here are politically active, follow the news. Rodney Davis has made no secret of who he is. He's a Paul Ryan-Mitch McConnell Republican. Not a Rand Paul-Mike Lee-Justin Amash Republican. Rodney Davis always votes with Paul Ryan on war and peace. I'm well aware, because I've appealed to Rodney Davis many times to vote and advocate like Justin Amash, and have been rebuffed by Rodney Davis every time. Nobody here has tried harder than me to get Rodney Davis to vote and advocate more like Justin Amash. >>>> >>>> Therefore, you must have some other goal than the impossible goal of getting people here to support Rodney Davis. I suspect that your goal is to turn people off of practical engagement in electoral politics in the hopes that they will eventually join your little cult. >>>> >>>> In your lying fantasy story, my project is to get people to "support the Democrats," no matter what. >>>> >>>> But in the world of objective reality, nobody here has tried harder than me to get Rodney Davis to act on war and peace like a libertarian Republican. >>>> >>>> I would have been delighted if you ran against Rodney Davis in the Republican primary as a libertarian Republican. I publicly encouraged you to run, right here, on this list. You were too lazy. >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 1:32 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> And list members, raise your other hand (and put it over your eyes) if Bob has convinced you to support the Democrats... >>>> >>>>> On May 23, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Robert Naiman via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> List members, please raise your hand if Carl has convinced you to vote for Rodney Davis. >>>>> >>> >>> ______ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From r-szoke at illinois.edu Fri May 25 03:58:12 2018 From: r-szoke at illinois.edu (Szoke, Ron) Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 03:58:12 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Democracy vs. populism Message-ID: Some notes on how democracy is being destroyed by populism worldwide — > From a comment on Jan-Werner Muller, What is Populism? (U.Penn. 2016), on Amazon. [Populism] is a particular moralistic imagination of politics, a way of perceiving the political world that sets a morally pure and fully unified...people against elites who are deemed corrupt or in some other way morally inferior. This is the core claim of populism: only some of the people are really the people. At a campaign rally in May, Trump announced that "the only important thing is the unification of the people--because the other people don't mean anything." — Melanie D. Typaldos, 2017 > I ask: Who gets to choose which people are really “the people”? Am I one of “the people”? Are you? What makes you think so? Same for “the working class.” How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky Cp. other books on populism & the reviews — positive & negative — on Amazon. ~~ Ron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Fri May 25 10:39:21 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 05:39:21 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Democracy vs. populism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <64AF9B79-70DF-4C75-8E3E-199EAA6F082D@illinois.edu> Ron’s subject line is misleading: populism is democracy, but not the simulacrum of democracy of modern capitalist states, controlled in the interest of the economic elite (the one percent, the ruling class). We see today a tendentious use of ‘populism’ to denigrate democratic demands that have slipped out of the control of the political organizations (Republicans and Democrats in this country) meant to contain them, in the interest of the ruling class. Populist impulses include the Sanders and Trump campaigns, Brexit and Corbynistas, Le Pen and Mélenchon, the Lega and M5S, even the AfD. Much effort is spent trying to divide populist movements into 'left' and ‘right,’ but as the new Italian government shows, that’s largely an attempt to force the populist genie back into the bottle of ruling-class-controlled categories. Chomsky wrote a generation ago, "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” Populist movements depart from that spectrum, and the political establishment is desperate to force them back into it. Heaven forfend that ‘left populism’ and 'right populism' get together. But that’s what they're doing, as Italy shows. Meanwhile, orthodox leftists are losing it over the threat of a ‘red-brown alliance.’ Won’t people on the left learn to stay in their lanes?! ‘Populism' is worth recovering as an analytic category (and not a term of abuse), not easily translated as 'left' or 'right.’ In "Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy" (2008), Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell say populism "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice.” Only by establishment convention are these movements frequently described as 'right-wing,' which normally means support for the wealthy. But populism supports the opponents of wealth. The US political establishment (the major party organizations, the ‘intelligence community,’ the leading media [NYT, WaPo et al.] and their pundits) understands this, as their sneers at ‘populism’ shows… Se now . > On May 24, 2018, at 10:58 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Some notes on how democracy is being destroyed by populism worldwide — > > > From a comment on Jan-Werner Muller, What is Populism? (U.Penn. 2016), on Amazon. > > [Populism] is a particular moralistic imagination of politics, a way of perceiving the political world that sets a morally pure and fully unified...people against elites who are deemed corrupt or in some other way morally inferior. > > This is the core claim of populism: only some of the people are really the people. > > At a campaign rally in May, Trump announced that "the only important thing is the unification of the people--because the other people don't mean anything." > — Melanie D. Typaldos, 2017 > > > I ask: Who gets to choose which people are really “the people”? > Am I one of “the people”? Are you? What makes you think so? > Same for “the working class.” > > How Democracies Die > by Steven Levitsky > > Cp. other books on populism & the reviews — positive & negative — on Amazon. > > ~~ Ron > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Fri May 25 11:06:17 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 06:06:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Democracy vs. populism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6FA1768E-E68C-4F83-A45B-9BE3EC5598A9@illinois.edu> A more accurate account: "Populism is the cure, not the disease,” by Thomas Frank. > On May 24, 2018, at 10:58 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Some notes on how democracy is being destroyed by populism worldwide — > > > From a comment on Jan-Werner Muller, What is Populism? (U.Penn. 2016), on Amazon. > > [Populism] is a particular moralistic imagination of politics, a way of perceiving the political world that sets a morally pure and fully unified...people against elites who are deemed corrupt or in some other way morally inferior. > > This is the core claim of populism: only some of the people are really the people. > > At a campaign rally in May, Trump announced that "the only important thing is the unification of the people--because the other people don't mean anything." > — Melanie D. Typaldos, 2017 > > > I ask: Who gets to choose which people are really “the people”? > Am I one of “the people”? Are you? What makes you think so? > Same for “the working class.” > > How Democracies Die > by Steven Levitsky > > Cp. other books on populism & the reviews — positive & negative — on Amazon. > > ~~ Ron > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Fri May 25 12:11:26 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 07:11:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Democracy vs. populism In-Reply-To: References: <64AF9B79-70DF-4C75-8E3E-199EAA6F082D@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <3DCD28A9-884E-40CD-9950-4C0D3A56D7A1@illinois.edu> The main designer of our state capitalist democracy was an astute political thinker, James Madison, whose views largely prevailed. In the debates on the Constitution, Madison pointed out that if elections in England "were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place," giving land to the landless. The Constitutional system must be designed to prevent such injustice and "secure the permanent interests of the country," which are property rights. Among Madisonian scholars, there is a consensus that "the Constitution was intrinsically an aristocratic document designed to check the democratic tendencies of the period," delivering power to a "better sort" of people and excluding those who were not rich, well born, or prominent from exercising political power. The primary responsibility of government is "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority," Madison declared. That has been the guiding principle of the democratic system from its origins until today. [Noam Chomsky] > On May 25, 2018, at 7:01 AM, David Enstrom wrote: > > A demagogue can exploit a populist movement, but only if the lack of democracy in the existing institutions, and other conditions, permit it. > I agree that populism is democracy. We're all a little afraid of real democracy. The much recently sainted Mr. Hamilton (and Mr. Jay) laid out thise fears and their path to our pseudo democracy in Federalist 10. > > > On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:41 AM Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > Ron’s subject line is misleading: populism is democracy, but not the simulacrum of democracy of modern capitalist states, controlled in the interest of the economic elite (the one percent, the ruling class). > > We see today a tendentious use of ‘populism’ to denigrate democratic demands that have slipped out of the control of the political organizations (Republicans and Democrats in this country) meant to contain them, in the interest of the ruling class. > > Populist impulses include the Sanders and Trump campaigns, Brexit and Corbynistas, Le Pen and Mélenchon, the Lega and M5S, even the AfD. > > Much effort is spent trying to divide populist movements into 'left' and ‘right,’ but as the new Italian government shows, that’s largely an attempt to force the populist genie back into the bottle of ruling-class-controlled categories. > > Chomsky wrote a generation ago, "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” > > Populist movements depart from that spectrum, and the political establishment is desperate to force them back into it. Heaven forfend that ‘left populism’ and 'right populism' get together. But that’s what they're doing, as Italy shows. Meanwhile, orthodox leftists are losing it over the threat of a ‘red-brown alliance.’ Won’t people on the left learn to stay in their lanes?! > > ‘Populism' is worth recovering as an analytic category (and not a term of abuse), not easily translated as 'left' or 'right.’ In "Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy" (2008), Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell say populism "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice.” > > Only by establishment convention are these movements frequently described as 'right-wing,' which normally means support for the wealthy. But populism supports the opponents of wealth. > > The US political establishment (the major party organizations, the ‘intelligence community,’ the leading media [NYT, WaPo et al.] and their pundits) understands this, as their sneers at ‘populism’ shows… > > Se now >. > > > > On May 24, 2018, at 10:58 PM, Szoke, Ron via Peace-discuss > wrote: > > > > Some notes on how democracy is being destroyed by populism worldwide — > > > > > From a comment on Jan-Werner Muller, What is Populism? (U.Penn. 2016), on Amazon. > > > > [Populism] is a particular moralistic imagination of politics, a way of perceiving the political world that sets a morally pure and fully unified...people against elites who are deemed corrupt or in some other way morally inferior. > > > > This is the core claim of populism: only some of the people are really the people. > > > > At a campaign rally in May, Trump announced that "the only important thing is the unification of the people--because the other people don't mean anything." > > — Melanie D. Typaldos, 2017 > > > > > I ask: Who gets to choose which people are really “the people”? > > Am I one of “the people”? Are you? What makes you think so? > > Same for “the working class.” > > > > How Democracies Die > > by Steven Levitsky > > > > Cp. other books on populism & the reviews — positive & negative — on Amazon. > > > > ~~ Ron > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Peace-discuss mailing list > > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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 davegreen84 at yahoo.com Fri May 25 15:51:04 2018 From: davegreen84 at yahoo.com (David Green) Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 15:51:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Michael Rogin on populism via Corey Robin References: <2140165055.1217215.1527263464923.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2140165055.1217215.1527263464923@mail.yahoo.com> What Michael Rogin means to me, particularly in the Age of Trump: Traditional politics matters! | | | | | | | | | | | What Michael Rogin means to me, particularly in the Age of Trump: Tradit... | | | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat May 26 01:41:42 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 20:41:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] NEWS FROM NEPTUNE, May 25, 2018 Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQrW3vo0oPk Good evening, & welcome to News from Neptune for the 21st week of 2018 {MAY 25} ~ I’m Carl Estabrook - described by liberal colleagues this last week as [1] “a scoundrel,” [2] “a pathological liar,” and [3] not a true Green. So be careful what you listen to, from me! SINCE 1990, I have apparently been annoying liberal comrades in a weekly hour of spontaneous & unrehearsed discussion of the news of the week and its coverage by the media - first, on a so-called community radio station - and now via Urbana Public TV and YouTube. (Earlier editions of this program are available at . ) ~ Our program’s name, News from Neptune, comes from Noam Chomsky, who’s been writing sensible things about U.S. politics for twice as long as we’ve been on the air. ~ Chomsky says that in the U.S. media, “Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it’s from Neptune.” TONIGHT David Green & I - will try to say some true things, with thanks to Dr Know, J. B. Nicholson, for research. *KNOW’S NOTES are posted on the NEWS FROM NEPTUNE fb page.* WE TRY to bear in mind the murdered Rosa Luxemburg’s remark, from a century ago: “The most revolutionary thing one can do is always to proclaim loudly what is happening.” THIS is a “KING’S EVIL ADVISERS’’ edition of News from Neptune, WE'LL START with David Green, clearly a True Green (but not to be walked over)… ### -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat May 26 10:33:26 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 05:33:26 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Democrats' Russiagate Message-ID: <7B6FBC14-3FBE-450F-87FE-7B732E0B618D@illinois.edu> http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/24/im-democrat-lefts-russia-gaslighting-scares-trump/#.WwkwBzhMKCw.facebook "...my fellow Democrats ... are increasingly becoming the kind of low-information voters they despise and think are only on the other side. For instance, a 2017 poll showed that a majority of Democrats (52 percent) believed Russia tampered with vote tallies in the 2016 election to help elect Trump, despite no evidence. That is akin to 69 percent of Americans believing in September 2003 that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.” —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat May 26 10:39:45 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 05:39:45 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Abortion and eugenics Message-ID: <43C02D75-BD90-4AE1-A5DF-C8719AB68423@illinois.edu> "My political views: I'm basically against anything that kills people or destroys the planet we live on.” > The late Alexander Cockburn frequently pointed out that America, not Nazi Germany, was the modern home of eugenics. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recognized eugenics as a motive for the 'liberalization' of laws on abortion: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat May 26 10:44:46 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 05:44:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Democrats & Russiagate Message-ID: <476865B6-CB61-4EA8-AEA1-5F37D9A0CA0B@illinois.edu> https://www.rt.com/news/427804-skripal-case-putin-remarks/ Do both the Skripal matter and the murder of Seth Rich lead back to the Clinton campaign? The former in regard to the Steele dossier, the latter showing that Russia was not Wikileaks' source for the DNC emails. —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sat May 26 10:48:44 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 05:48:44 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?Washington=E2=80=99s_Provocations_in_th?= =?utf-8?q?e_South_China_Sea?= Message-ID: <6600074F-4C82-4075-BF2F-A5C246D87AF8@illinois.edu> https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/25/washingtons-provocations-in-the-south-china-sea/ These were significantly ramped up by Clinton as Secretary of State in the Obama administration. —CGE From galliher at illinois.edu Sat May 26 11:46:19 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 06:46:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Entitlements' Message-ID: <0EBF422C-E615-4832-A0B6-32EF55BC01E5@illinois.edu> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/25/house-is-revolting.html Republicans in the House ('Freedom Caucus') - not the Democrats - defeat Ryan's wretched farm bill? If the Democrats controlled the House, that would not happpen? —CGE From daenstrom at gmail.com Sat May 26 19:00:01 2018 From: daenstrom at gmail.com (David Enstrom) Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 14:00:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Entitlements' In-Reply-To: <0EBF422C-E615-4832-A0B6-32EF55BC01E5@illinois.edu> References: <0EBF422C-E615-4832-A0B6-32EF55BC01E5@illinois.edu> Message-ID: That's on way to spin it. Have you had a statistics course, Carl? Your spinning goes along with your other magical thinking tendencies. On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/25/house-is-revolting.html > > Republicans in the House ('Freedom Caucus') - not the Democrats - defeat > Ryan's wretched farm bill? If the Democrats controlled the House, that > would not happpen? > > —CGE > _______________________________________________ > 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 daenstrom at gmail.com Sat May 26 19:00:17 2018 From: daenstrom at gmail.com (David Enstrom) Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 14:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] 'Entitlements' In-Reply-To: References: <0EBF422C-E615-4832-A0B6-32EF55BC01E5@illinois.edu> Message-ID: one On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 2:00 PM, David Enstrom wrote: > That's on way to spin it. Have you had a statistics course, Carl? Your > spinning goes along with your other magical thinking tendencies. > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 6:46 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/25/house-is-revolting.html >> >> Republicans in the House ('Freedom Caucus') - not the Democrats - defeat >> Ryan's wretched farm bill? If the Democrats controlled the House, that >> would not happpen? >> >> —CGE >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 galliher at illinois.edu Sat May 26 21:51:58 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 16:51:58 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't give Democrats control of the House (1 of a series) Message-ID: <6F0B7CB1-00C9-44C8-BCB4-6BA3666D2639@illinois.edu> https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/05/26/adam-schiff-is-an-evil-bug-eyed-fascist/ "Adam Schiff is the ranking Democrat in the House Intelligence Committee, one of the numerous federal institutions which has investigated the alleged Russian election meddling and the possibility of the Trump campaign's collusion therewith… "Adam Schiff is a virulent interventionist who has never met a war he didn't like, receives large amounts of funding from the arms industry and votes in lockstep with the American supremacist neoconservatives on all foreign policy matters. He has dedicated the last year and a half to helping to advance longstanding neocon agendas against Russia with the aim of crippling America's rivals. Adam Schiff would like nothing better than to see US soldiers goose-stepping victoriously into the capital of every nation on earth, switching out their flags, and throwing their dissident journalists into prison…" —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat May 26 22:45:58 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 22:45:58 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Don't give Democrats control of the House (1 of a series) In-Reply-To: <6F0B7CB1-00C9-44C8-BCB4-6BA3666D2639@illinois.edu> References: <6F0B7CB1-00C9-44C8-BCB4-6BA3666D2639@illinois.edu> Message-ID: A good article making it very clear that Adam Schiff, a Democrat, is in cahoots with the Republican neocons. No where does the author suggest that voting for a republican or democrat will make any difference. Perhaps when she suggests we shouldn’t let the Adam Schiff’s have their way, she is as I, suggesting a systemic change brought about by the American people utilizing civil resistance as the tool. Not electoral politics which are responsible for bringing us to the brink of collapse as we are now. On May 26, 2018, at 14:51, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/05/26/adam-schiff-is-an-evil-bug-eyed-fascist/ "Adam Schiff is the ranking Democrat in the House Intelligence Committee, one of the numerous federal institutions which has investigated the alleged Russian election meddling and the possibility of the Trump campaign's collusion therewith… "Adam Schiff is a virulent interventionist who has never met a war he didn't like, receives large amounts of funding from the arms industry and votes in lockstep with the American supremacist neoconservatives on all foreign policy matters. He has dedicated the last year and a half to helping to advance longstanding neocon agendas against Russia with the aim of crippling America's rivals. Adam Schiff would like nothing better than to see US soldiers goose-stepping victoriously into the capital of every nation on earth, switching out their flags, and throwing their dissident journalists into prison…" —CGE _______________________________________________ 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 galliher at illinois.edu Sat May 26 23:27:17 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 18:27:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Prairiegreens] Don't give Democrats control of the House (1 of a series) In-Reply-To: References: <6F0B7CB1-00C9-44C8-BCB4-6BA3666D2639@illinois.edu> Message-ID: He would be chair of the House Intelligence Committee, were the Democrats to re-take the House. > On May 26, 2018, at 5:45 PM, Karen Aram wrote: > > A good article making it very clear that Adam Schiff, a Democrat, is in cahoots with the Republican neocons. No where does the author suggest that voting for a republican or democrat will make any difference. > > Perhaps when she suggests we shouldn’t let the Adam Schiff’s have their way, she is as I, suggesting a systemic change brought about by the American people utilizing civil resistance as the tool. Not electoral politics which are responsible for bringing us to the brink of collapse as we are now. > > >> On May 26, 2018, at 14:51, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/05/26/adam-schiff-is-an-evil-bug-eyed-fascist/ >> >> "Adam Schiff is the ranking Democrat in the House Intelligence Committee, one of the numerous federal institutions which has investigated the alleged Russian election meddling and the possibility of the Trump campaign's collusion therewith… >> >> "Adam Schiff is a virulent interventionist who has never met a war he didn't like, receives large amounts of funding from the arms industry and votes in lockstep with the American supremacist neoconservatives on all foreign policy matters. He has dedicated the last year and a half to helping to advance longstanding neocon agendas against Russia with the aim of crippling America's rivals. Adam Schiff would like nothing better than to see US soldiers goose-stepping victoriously into the capital of every nation on earth, switching out their flags, and throwing their dissident journalists into prison…" >> >> —CGE >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Prairiegreens mailing list > Prairiegreens at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/prairiegreens > http://www.prairienet.org/greens/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Sat May 26 23:35:02 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 23:35:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Prairiegreens] Don't give Democrats control of the House (1 of a series) In-Reply-To: References: <6F0B7CB1-00C9-44C8-BCB4-6BA3666D2639@illinois.edu> Message-ID: But how does that differ from what we have had previously under the Obama or Bush Administration, as we know foreign policy continues regardless of who is in power. All of those in power are supported and beholden to the corporate funding from the elites. On May 26, 2018, at 16:27, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: He would be chair of the House Intelligence Committee, were the Democrats to re-take the House. On May 26, 2018, at 5:45 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: A good article making it very clear that Adam Schiff, a Democrat, is in cahoots with the Republican neocons. No where does the author suggest that voting for a republican or democrat will make any difference. Perhaps when she suggests we shouldn’t let the Adam Schiff’s have their way, she is as I, suggesting a systemic change brought about by the American people utilizing civil resistance as the tool. Not electoral politics which are responsible for bringing us to the brink of collapse as we are now. On May 26, 2018, at 14:51, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/05/26/adam-schiff-is-an-evil-bug-eyed-fascist/ "Adam Schiff is the ranking Democrat in the House Intelligence Committee, one of the numerous federal institutions which has investigated the alleged Russian election meddling and the possibility of the Trump campaign's collusion therewith… "Adam Schiff is a virulent interventionist who has never met a war he didn't like, receives large amounts of funding from the arms industry and votes in lockstep with the American supremacist neoconservatives on all foreign policy matters. He has dedicated the last year and a half to helping to advance longstanding neocon agendas against Russia with the aim of crippling America's rivals. Adam Schiff would like nothing better than to see US soldiers goose-stepping victoriously into the capital of every nation on earth, switching out their flags, and throwing their dissident journalists into prison…" —CGE _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Prairiegreens mailing list Prairiegreens at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/prairiegreens http://www.prairienet.org/greens/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Sun May 27 00:07:42 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 19:07:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Prairiegreens] Don't give Democrats control of the House (1 of a series) In-Reply-To: References: <6F0B7CB1-00C9-44C8-BCB4-6BA3666D2639@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Russiagate. The political establishment was profoundly scared by Trump’s attacks on neolib & neocon policies. They were afraid he might actually act on his condign criticisms. But the danger seems to have passed. > On May 26, 2018, at 6:35 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > But how does that differ from what we have had previously under the Obama or Bush Administration, as we know foreign policy continues regardless of who is in power. All of those in power are supported and beholden to the corporate funding from the elites. > > >> On May 26, 2018, at 16:27, Carl G. Estabrook > wrote: >> >> He would be chair of the House Intelligence Committee, were the Democrats to re-take the House. >> >> >>> On May 26, 2018, at 5:45 PM, Karen Aram > wrote: >>> >>> A good article making it very clear that Adam Schiff, a Democrat, is in cahoots with the Republican neocons. No where does the author suggest that voting for a republican or democrat will make any difference. >>> >>> Perhaps when she suggests we shouldn’t let the Adam Schiff’s have their way, she is as I, suggesting a systemic change brought about by the American people utilizing civil resistance as the tool. Not electoral politics which are responsible for bringing us to the brink of collapse as we are now. >>> >>> >>>> On May 26, 2018, at 14:51, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/05/26/adam-schiff-is-an-evil-bug-eyed-fascist/ >>>> >>>> "Adam Schiff is the ranking Democrat in the House Intelligence Committee, one of the numerous federal institutions which has investigated the alleged Russian election meddling and the possibility of the Trump campaign's collusion therewith… >>>> >>>> "Adam Schiff is a virulent interventionist who has never met a war he didn't like, receives large amounts of funding from the arms industry and votes in lockstep with the American supremacist neoconservatives on all foreign policy matters. He has dedicated the last year and a half to helping to advance longstanding neocon agendas against Russia with the aim of crippling America's rivals. Adam Schiff would like nothing better than to see US soldiers goose-stepping victoriously into the capital of every nation on earth, switching out their flags, and throwing their dissident journalists into prison…" >>>> >>>> —CGE >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Prairiegreens mailing list >>> Prairiegreens at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/prairiegreens >>> http://www.prairienet.org/greens/ >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 daenstrom at gmail.com Sun May 27 04:10:54 2018 From: daenstrom at gmail.com (David Enstrom) Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 23:10:54 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi Message-ID: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun May 27 10:45:07 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 05:45:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills." > On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: > > https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Sun May 27 13:39:21 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 13:39:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives. On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills." On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun May 27 13:50:38 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 08:50:38 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3170CF92-6E1A-46C6-9AD7-158AA9C21FAB@gmail.com> The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. > On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives. > > >> On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) >> >> Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills." >> >> >>> On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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 daenstrom at gmail.com Sun May 27 14:06:50 2018 From: daenstrom at gmail.com (David Enstrom) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 09:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: <3170CF92-6E1A-46C6-9AD7-158AA9C21FAB@gmail.com> References: <3170CF92-6E1A-46C6-9AD7-158AA9C21FAB@gmail.com> Message-ID: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR. Che clearly not a demographer. On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the > population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, > particularly in Latin America. > > Hence Che’s remark. > > > > On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s > choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from > forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and > fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, > living their lives. > > > On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin > America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization > programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) > > Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s > easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills." > > > On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun May 27 14:17:46 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 09:17:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: References: <3170CF92-6E1A-46C6-9AD7-158AA9C21FAB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6120D1FF-3BA3-47AE-B009-5EE39373205C@gmail.com> Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poor - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice. > On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR. > Che clearly not a demographer. > > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. > > Hence Che’s remark. > > > >> On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives. >> >> >>> On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) >>> >>> Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills." >>> >>> >>>> On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > _______________________________________________ > 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 ewj at pigs.ag Sun May 27 14:32:16 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 22:32:16 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1527431530962.jikqsjj1e0y5w2g45pl2yjjv@android.mail.163.com> if there were such a thing as an Iron Womb project something on the scale of sending a handful of newspaper clippings to Alpha Centauri one could build an artificial womb. maybe the early models would be half borgs using a replaceable liner from a manatee. later full borg models could be massproduced and sold online or at walmart or ace hardware. baby matics become all the rage and popular wedding gifts. Oh, Cori it's so over with me and Parker. She hacked my cryptcode and turned off the matic. when i got home from my canasta meet it was beeping and flashing error code. Well it is her problen now.... On 2018-05-27 21:39 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives.  On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills."   On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Sun May 27 14:49:46 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 09:49:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi Message-ID: <7a3oaie5v3scb074as0b1o68.1527432566986@email.lge.com> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sun, May 27, 2018 9:18 AMTo: David Enstrom;Cc: Peace-discuss List;Karen Aram;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poor - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice.  On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR.  Che clearly not a demographer.   On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives.  On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills."   On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Sun May 27 15:03:36 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 10:03:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi Message-ID: <4430irhvaghlq1sckbi35bgl.1527432599694@email.lge.com> Personal views on what the appropriate size of one's family ought to be, and how many children one can support, both from the father's perspective and the mother's perspective, vary greatly from economic cycle to country, cultural, religious viewpoint, and especially in wartime as we know. Views on how many children can be supported also frequently vary between the father and the mother. (In which case, I, of course, am on the side of the person having or choosing to co-operate with God, aka the Life Force of the Universe, the Higher Power, the 9-10 months of growing a zygote-fetus-into a beautiful child.) I am interested in how agendas on contraception & sterilization change over different countries, political parties & oppressed peoples. One would think fundamentalist Christians seeing Revelation being fulfilled would look at the verse saying Woe to those with child and be for contraception. Cognition dissonance is their strength. Or am I projecting again? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sun, May 27, 2018 9:18 AMTo: David Enstrom;Cc: Peace-discuss List;Karen Aram;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poor - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice.  On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR.  Che clearly not a demographer.   On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives.  On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills."   On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 ewj at pigs.ag Sun May 27 15:11:48 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 23:11:48 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: <6120D1FF-3BA3-47AE-B009-5EE39373205C@gmail.com> References: <3170CF92-6E1A-46C6-9AD7-158AA9C21FAB@gmail.com> <6120D1FF-3BA3-47AE-B009-5EE39373205C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1527433905853.5iur4ktwm1i4spokrsbwc2cn@android.mail.163.com> Everything I needed to know about populations i learned from hop hornbeam and Escherichia coli That there social justice stuff must be some powerful shit if it can overturn laws of physics. There must be a catch. I bet it is expensive or illegal or both. About large families being the result of poverty...are you saying that avarice is linked to hating children. wait wasnt that what wcfields was trying to tell us all.along? On 2018-05-27 22:17 , C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Wrote: Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poor - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice.  On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR.   Che clearly not a demographer.   On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives.  On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills."   On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Sun May 27 15:14:55 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C. G. Estabrook ) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 10:14:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: <1527433905853.5iur4ktwm1i4spokrsbwc2cn@android.mail.163.com> References: <3170CF92-6E1A-46C6-9AD7-158AA9C21FAB@gmail.com> <6120D1FF-3BA3-47AE-B009-5EE39373205C@gmail.com> <1527433905853.5iur4ktwm1i4spokrsbwc2cn@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: A prophet w/o honor in his own country... Sent from my iPhone > On May 27, 2018, at 10:11 AM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Everything I needed to know about populations i learned from hop hornbeam and Escherichia coli That there social justice stuff must be some powerful shit if it can overturn laws of physics. There must be a catch. I bet it is expensive or illegal or both. > > About large families being the result of poverty...are you saying that avarice is linked to hating children. wait wasnt that what wcfields was trying to tell us all.along? > > > > > > On 2018-05-27 22:17 , C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Wrote: > > Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. > > People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poor - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice. > > >> On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR. >> Che clearly not a demographer. >> >>> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. >>> >>> Hence Che’s remark. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>> Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) >>>>> >>>>> Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun May 27 15:46:33 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 10:46:33 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent column by Cha-Jua Message-ID: (Although I would question the lumping in together of black radicals and black nationalists) - DG Sundiata Cha-Jua/Real Talk | I still see us: African-American solidarity with Palestine Sun, 05/27/2018 - 7:00am | Sundiata Cha-Jua Do African-American radicals still support the Palestinian struggle? Alaina Morgan, a scholar of Islam in the African Diaspora, recently posed this question regarding black radicals' alleged silence in the face of the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians during the "Great March of Return" protests between the Land Day (March 30) and Al-Nakba (Day of Catastrophe, May 15). This alleged silence would contrast sharply with African-American radicals' response in 2014. Then, in the wake of the Ferguson and Baltimore uprisings, a coalition of radical black organizations issued the "When I See Them, I See Us" video connecting the police killings of African-Americans with the Israeli military killings of Palestinians. Bill Fletcher Jr., a senior scholar at the Institute of Policy Studies who led a delegation of African-American activists to occupied Palestine compared it to being in apartheid South Africa or the pre-1965 U.S. South. He observed, "It felt like being in a huge prison." Silence would diverge from the history of African-American engagement with the Palestinian question. The roots of African-American involvement with Palestine go back to Israel's formation. Ralph Bunche, an African-American, led the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, its secretariat on the Palestine Question and the negotiations that produced the armistice between the Zionists and Arab states. Due to his concern for the Palestinians, Bunche opposed the establishment of a Jewish state, failing that he worked to "restrict" Israel's sovereignty and to protect Arab interests. A former Marxist, the then liberal Bunche identified with both the Jews and the Arabs. Stating, "I know the flavor of racial prejudice and racial persecution," and he added, "A wise Negro can never be an anti-Semite." Yet, Bunche feared the fate of the Palestinians under a partition, so he worked unsuccessfully against an independent Israel. By the mid-1960s, as black nationalism and radicalism became more prominent, some African-Americans began to condemn Israel as a white settler colony. In 1964, Malcolm X asked, "Did the Zionists have the legal and moral right to invade Arab Palestine, uproot Arab citizens from their homes and seize all Arab property for themselves just based on the 'religious' claim that their forefathers lived their thousands of years ago?" Malcolm's perspective grew exponentially after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. During the Black Power era, Bunche's attempt at an even-handed approach was replaced among the most progressive sectors of Afro-America with strong support for the Palestinian cause. In part, the shift was motivated by Israel's vicious repression of the Palestinians and its imperialist excesses during the war. In part, it was the product of radical African-Americans accepting the United Nation's interpretation of Zionism as a form of racism. And it was partly due to U.S. blacks' belief that they shared a common experience of colonialism with the Palestinians. They experienced settler colonialism and African-Americans internal colonialism. Thus, since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, African-American radicals have routinely voiced solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. At both the 1967 Black Power Conference and the 1972 Black National Political Convention, more than 1,000 and 5,000 delegates, respectively, affirmed resolutions supporting the Palestinian struggle. Huey P. Newton, leader of the Black Panther Party, best stated the black radical position. In 1970, Newton offered a complex analysis in which he argued, "We would like to make it clear the Black Panther Party is not anti-Semitic ... As far as the Israeli people are concerned, we are not against the Jewish people; we are against that government that would persecute the Palestinian people ... we support the Palestinian's just struggle for liberation 100 percent." In fact, if anything, support has grown stronger as African-Americans have learned about relationships between the Israeli military and U.S. police. Since 2001, the Israeli military has trained thousands of U.S. police in urban warfare. This provides a direct link between the two colonized peoples. Philosophically and politically, black radicals have not moved from the Newton location. For instance, Fletcher, a former leader of the Black Radical Congress, has consistently defended the Palestinian struggle, including condemning the most recent Israeli repression during "the Great March of Return." The New Afrikan Peoples Organization, the Malcolm X Grass Roots Movement, perhaps the leading black nationalist organizations and the Black Alliance for Peace have all issued powerful statements condemning the Israeli massacres. Contrary to silence, black radicals have continued to declare support for the Palestinian liberation movement. The problem is not silence, but that black radicals and nationalists are marginalized from the mainstream media. Their statements are not reported, and their leading activists are not interviewed on CNN or MSNBC. The exclusion and marginalization of black radicals and nationalists does not reflect their presence or influence in the African-American community. Black radicals and nationalists greatly outnumber black conservatives. Yet, representatives of an ideology that represents 2 to 4 percent of the black community is routinely represented in mainstream media. No, black radicals have not lost their voice, you just have to look hard for their viewpoints. *Sundiata Cha-Jua is a professor of African-American studies and history at the University of Illinois and is a member of the North End Breakfast Club. His email is schajua at gmail.com .* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Sun May 27 15:50:16 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 15:50:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent column by Cha-Jua In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Right of African Americans to Self-Determination* By Francis A. Boyle Before the IHRAAM Conference on Civil Rights, Human Rights, & Self-Determination East-West University, Chicago Illinois April 20, 2012 *Check against oral delivery. ©2012 by Francis A. Boyle. All rights reserved. In order to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Columbus's invasion of the Americas, in early 1992 I was asked by the Organizers of the International Tribunal of Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the U.S.A. to serve as Special Prosecutor of the United States of America for committing international crimes against Indigenous Peoples, People of Color, and Oppressed Nationalities, including and especially African Americans. For the purposes of these proceedings, the Organizers asked me to call African Americans the New Afrikan People. The Tribunal was initiated by the American Indian Movement (AIM) with the support of representatives of the Puerto Rican People, the New Afrikan People, the Mexicano People, and “progressive White North Americans.” Of course, I do not consider myself to be a "White North American." I was born Irish. During the past 840 years of resisting one of the most brutal and cruel colonial occupations in the history of humankind, we Irish know what the denial of self-determination, genocide, and gross violations of our most fundamental human rights are all about in our beloved Ireland and abroad, which atrocities still continue as of today. In my capacity as Special Prosecutor of the United States Federal Government, I drew up an Indictment under international law that was served upon the Attorney General of the United States and the United States Attorney in San Francisco prior to the convening of the Tribunal in that city just before "Columbus Day" on October 2-4, 1992 with a demand that they appear to defend the United States government from the charges. I take it they saw no point in trying to defend the indefensible because no one showed up to defend the United States government, though they did publicly acknowledge receipt of our service of process. I will not go through all 37 charges of my Indictment here. But the proceedings of this pathbreaking International Tribunal have been recorded in a formal Verdict by the Tribunal; in a Video of the Tribunal; and in a Book on the Tribunal--all under the title U.S.A. On Trial: The International Tribunal on Indigenous Peoples and Oppressed Nations in the United States. Six months after the conclusion of these San Francisco Tribunal proceedings, I was the Lawyer and Ambassador for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina arguing its case for genocide against Yugoslavia before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the World Court of the United Nations System. There I would singlehandedly win two World Court Orders overwhelmingly in favor of Bosnia against Yugoslavia to cease and desist from committing all acts of genocide against the Bosnians on 8 April 1993 and 13 September 1993. I treated the San Francisco Tribunal proceedings with as much care, attention, dignity, respect, and professionalism as I did the World Court proceedings for Bosnia. And the results were the same: massive, overwhelming, crushing victories for my clients in both the World Court and the San Francisco Tribunal! For the purpose of this Conference, I want to briefly discuss the nine charges that I filed against the United States government for committing international crimes against African Americans. I believe that these nine charges succinctly state the fundamental principles of international law and human rights concerning African Americans. Obviously, these nine charges of my Indictment cannot answer all the questions African Americans might have with respect to their rights under international law and human rights law. But I do submit that these nine charges provide a solid foundation for providing guidance to African Americans as to their basic rights under international law that can be used in the future in order to navigate problems and issues as they arise to confront them today. The Distinguished Judges composing this International Tribunal consisted of seven independent Experts on human rights drawn from all over the world. In their Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order of 4 October 1992, the Indigenous Peoples' Tribunal did not accept all of the 37 charges that I filed in my Indictment against the United States government for perpetrating international crimes against Indigenous Peoples, People of Color, and Oppressed Nations. But in their own words, the exact findings of this Tribunal on African Americans were as follows: New Afrikans 7. With respect to the charges brought by the New Afrikan People, the Defendant, the Federal Government of the United States of America is, by unanimous vote, guilty as charged in: The Defendant has perpetrated the International Crime of Slavery upon the New Afrikan People as recognized in part by the 1926 Slavery Convention and the 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery. The Defendant has perpetrated innumerable Crimes Against Humanity against the New Afrikan People as recognized by the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles. The Defendant has perpetrated the International Crime of Genocide against the New Afrikan People as recognized by the 1948 Genocide Convention. The Defendant has perpetrated the International Crime of Apartheid against the New Afrikan People as recognized by the 1973 Apartheid Convention. The Defendant has perpetrated a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the most fundamental human rights of the New Afrikan People as recognized by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two United Nations Human Rights Covenants of 1966. The Defendant has perpetrated a gross and consistent pattern of violations of the 1965 Racism Convention against the New Afrikan People. The Defendant is the paradigmatic example of an irremediably racist state in international relations today. (my emphasis added) The Defendant has denied and violated the international legal right of the New Afrikan People to self-determination as recognized by the United Nations Charter, the two United Nations Human Rights Covenants of 1966, customary international law, and jus cogens. [Let me repeat that: By unanimous vote, Ibid.] The Defendant has illegally refused to accord full-scope protections as Prisoners-of-War to captured New Afrikan independence fighters in violation of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 and Additional Protocol I thereto of 1977. The Defendant's treatment of captured New Afrikan independence fighters as “common criminals” and “terrorists” constitutes a “grave breach” of the Geneva Accords and thus a serious war crime. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS 11. In light of the foregoing findings, this Tribunal also, by unanimous vote, finds the Defendant guilty as charged in paragraph 37, which, as amended, reads: In light of the foregoing international crimes, the Defendant constitutes a Criminal Conspiracy and a Criminal Organization in accordance with the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles and the other sources of public international law specified above, and the Federal Government of the United States of America is similar to the Nazi government of World War II Germany. [This powerful Finding speaks for itself and requires no explanation by me.] …. 13. With respect to the following charges brought by the New African People: a. four members of the Tribunal find the Defendant guilty as charged in paragraph 11, which, as amended, reads: The Defendant has illegally refused to pay reparations to the New Afrikan People for the commission of the International Crime of Slavery against Them in violation of basic norms of customary international law requiring such reparations to be paid. Three members of the Tribunal reserve the right to consider the documentary evidence further before making a final determination. [In all honesty, I do not know what more evidence these three members of the Tribunal wanted to see before they were willing to order that the United States government must pay reparations for slavery to African Americans -- with all due respect to these three Judges. To the best of my knowledge, this was the first time ever that any Lawyer had argued in favor of reparations for slavery for African Americans before an International Tribunal. A 4 in favor to 0 against to 3 abstentions Verdict was not a bad outcome for the first time through, though it was disappointing to me personally—it should have been unanimous. I and others lawyers will have to learn from this experience in order to do a better job the next time around on this critical issue of obtaining Reparations for Slavery to African Americans. But in retrospect, however, I should have argued to the San Francisco Trubunal that African Americans today suffer from intergenerational post-traumatic stress disorder (P.T.S.D.) in order to drive home to the Judges the direct and immediate deleterious and debilitating effects that Slavery still now afflicts upon African Americans personally and as a People with a right of self-determination. ] b. Three members of the Tribunal find the Defendant guilty as charged in paragraph 18, which reads: The Defendant has illegally refused to apply the United Nations Decolonization Resolution of 1960 to the New Afrikan People and to the Territories that they principally inhabit. Pursuant thereto, the Defendant has an absolute international legal obligation to decolonize New Afrikan Territories immediately and to transfer all powers it currently exercises there to the New Afrikan People. Four members of the Tribunal reserve the right to consider the documentary evidence further before making a final determination. Obviously, I lost this Land “Reparations” argument by 3 in favor to 0 against to 4 abstaining. The Organizers of the San Francisco Tribunal had requested me to argue for this Land “Reparations” form of relief for African Americans, and I did that to the best of my ability. I suspect it appeared to be too “radical” a proposition for a majority of Judges on the Tribunal to endorse. But I take some consolation from the fact that at least three Judges agreed with me and none dissented. The Tribunal concluded its Verdict with the following Order to the United States government: "Now therefore, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Defendant cease and desist from the commission of the crimes it has been found guilty of herein." Pursuant thereto, I then filed a copy of this San Francisco Verdict with its Cease and Desist Order upon the Attorney General of the United States of America in Washington, D.C. In return, I later received a 5 February 1993 Letter from the U.S. Department of Justice that acknowledged the receipt of the San Francisco Tribunal Verdict and its Cease and Desist Order against the United States government. This U.S. D.O.J Letter then advised me: “If you, or the Tribunal, have any evidence of the violation of federal criminal law, we ask that you provide that information to your local office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” As I saw it at the time, and still see it as of today, historically this would be analogous to the Nazi Ministry of “Justice” advising a German lawyer representing the Jews to file his Complaint of criminal law violations by the Nazi government against the Jews with the Gestapo. The F.B.I is and has always been the American Gestapo -- especially for all Peoples of Color living within its imperial domain, and in particular against African Americans.[1] I also make that statement on the basis of first-hand personal experience. In the summer of 2004 the F.B.I. and the C.I.A/F.B.I Joint Terrorist Task Force in Springfield, Illinois put me on all of the U.S. government’s so-called “terrorist watch lists” because I refused to become an informant for them against my Arab and Muslim Clients, which would have violated their Constitutional Rights and my Ethical Obligation as an attorney. That is what the U.S. government’s “war on terrorism” is really all about: It is a War by the White Racist Judeo-Christian Financial Power Elite of America against Arabs and Muslims--many of whom are African Americans--both in this country and abroad. The Crusades all over again! As Special Prosecutor for the San Francisco Tribunal, it came as no surprise to me that the Judges unanimously endorsed most of my charges against the United States government with respect to African Americans. This is because the principles of international law with respect to African Americans are incontestable, and thus so glaringly obvious for the entire world to see. I most respectfully submit that African Americans should use the Tribunal's Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order in order to support, promote, and defend their basic rights under international law, including and especially African Americans’ right to self-determination as found unanimously by the San Francisco Tribunal in 1992. In this regard, the Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order of this San Francisco Tribunal qualify as a "judicial decision" within the meaning of Article 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Pursuant thereto, this Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order constitute "subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law" for international law and practice. Furthermore, the Statute of the International Court of Justice is an "integral part" of the United Nations Charter under Article 92 thereof. Hence the San Francisco Tribunal's Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order can be relied upon by the International Court of Justice itself, by the International Criminal Court, by some other International Tribunal, or by any other Court in the world today, as well as by any People or State of the World Community -- including and especially by African Americans. The Verdict of the San Francisco Tribunal still serves as adequate notice to the appropriate officials in the United States Federal Government that they bear personal criminal responsibility under international law and the domestic legal systems of all Peoples and States in the World Community for designing and implementing these illegal, criminal and reprehensible policies and practices against Indigenous Peoples and Peoples of Color living in North America, including and especially against African Americans. Obviously, in my brief presentation here today, I do not have the time to go through each and every one of these nine charges; to discuss all of the factual evidence that supported these nine charges; or to provide you with an analysis of the international legal bases for each one of these nine charges. For that type of information, I refer you to the Video and the Book on the San Francisco Tribunal as well as to its Verdict, Preliminary Findings, and Order itself. But in the discussions that follow tonight and tomorrow, I will be happy to respond to any questions you might have. Thank you. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (voice) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of David Green via Peace-discuss Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2018 10:47 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent column by Cha-Jua (Although I would question the lumping in together of black radicals and black nationalists) - DG Sundiata Cha-Jua/Real Talk | I still see us: African-American solidarity with Palestine Sun, 05/27/2018 - 7:00am | Sundiata Cha-Jua [http://www.news-gazette.com/sites/all/themes/custom/ng_fbg/images/32-facebook.png][http://www.news-gazette.com/sites/all/themes/custom/ng_fbg/images/32-twitter.png][http://www.news-gazette.com/sites/all/themes/custom/ng_fbg/images/print.png] Do African-American radicals still support the Palestinian struggle? Alaina Morgan, a scholar of Islam in the African Diaspora, recently posed this question regarding black radicals' alleged silence in the face of the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians during the "Great March of Return" protests between the Land Day (March 30) and Al-Nakba (Day of Catastrophe, May 15). This alleged silence would contrast sharply with African-American radicals' response in 2014. Then, in the wake of the Ferguson and Baltimore uprisings, a coalition of radical black organizations issued the "When I See Them, I See Us" video connecting the police killings of African-Americans with the Israeli military killings of Palestinians. Bill Fletcher Jr., a senior scholar at the Institute of Policy Studies who led a delegation of African-American activists to occupied Palestine compared it to being in apartheid South Africa or the pre-1965 U.S. South. He observed, "It felt like being in a huge prison." Silence would diverge from the history of African-American engagement with the Palestinian question. The roots of African-American involvement with Palestine go back to Israel's formation. Ralph Bunche, an African-American, led the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, its secretariat on the Palestine Question and the negotiations that produced the armistice between the Zionists and Arab states. Due to his concern for the Palestinians, Bunche opposed the establishment of a Jewish state, failing that he worked to "restrict" Israel's sovereignty and to protect Arab interests. A former Marxist, the then liberal Bunche identified with both the Jews and the Arabs. Stating, "I know the flavor of racial prejudice and racial persecution," and he added, "A wise Negro can never be an anti-Semite." Yet, Bunche feared the fate of the Palestinians under a partition, so he worked unsuccessfully against an independent Israel. By the mid-1960s, as black nationalism and radicalism became more prominent, some African-Americans began to condemn Israel as a white settler colony. In 1964, Malcolm X asked, "Did the Zionists have the legal and moral right to invade Arab Palestine, uproot Arab citizens from their homes and seize all Arab property for themselves just based on the 'religious' claim that their forefathers lived their thousands of years ago?" Malcolm's perspective grew exponentially after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. During the Black Power era, Bunche's attempt at an even-handed approach was replaced among the most progressive sectors of Afro-America with strong support for the Palestinian cause. In part, the shift was motivated by Israel's vicious repression of the Palestinians and its imperialist excesses during the war. In part, it was the product of radical African-Americans accepting the United Nation's interpretation of Zionism as a form of racism. And it was partly due to U.S. blacks' belief that they shared a common experience of colonialism with the Palestinians. They experienced settler colonialism and African-Americans internal colonialism. Thus, since the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, African-American radicals have routinely voiced solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. At both the 1967 Black Power Conference and the 1972 Black National Political Convention, more than 1,000 and 5,000 delegates, respectively, affirmed resolutions supporting the Palestinian struggle. Huey P. Newton, leader of the Black Panther Party, best stated the black radical position. In 1970, Newton offered a complex analysis in which he argued, "We would like to make it clear the Black Panther Party is not anti-Semitic ... As far as the Israeli people are concerned, we are not against the Jewish people; we are against that government that would persecute the Palestinian people ... we support the Palestinian's just struggle for liberation 100 percent." In fact, if anything, support has grown stronger as African-Americans have learned about relationships between the Israeli military and U.S. police. Since 2001, the Israeli military has trained thousands of U.S. police in urban warfare. This provides a direct link between the two colonized peoples. Philosophically and politically, black radicals have not moved from the Newton location. For instance, Fletcher, a former leader of the Black Radical Congress, has consistently defended the Palestinian struggle, including condemning the most recent Israeli repression during "the Great March of Return." The New Afrikan Peoples Organization, the Malcolm X Grass Roots Movement, perhaps the leading black nationalist organizations and the Black Alliance for Peace have all issued powerful statements condemning the Israeli massacres. Contrary to silence, black radicals have continued to declare support for the Palestinian liberation movement. The problem is not silence, but that black radicals and nationalists are marginalized from the mainstream media. Their statements are not reported, and their leading activists are not interviewed on CNN or MSNBC. The exclusion and marginalization of black radicals and nationalists does not reflect their presence or influence in the African-American community. Black radicals and nationalists greatly outnumber black conservatives. Yet, representatives of an ideology that represents 2 to 4 percent of the black community is routinely represented in mainstream media. No, black radicals have not lost their voice, you just have to look hard for their viewpoints. Sundiata Cha-Jua is a professor of African-American studies and history at the University of Illinois and is a member of the North End Breakfast Club. His email is schajua at gmail.com. ________________________________ [1] See M. Wesley Swearingen, FBI Secrets: An Agent’s Expose (1995). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daenstrom at gmail.com Sun May 27 16:05:55 2018 From: daenstrom at gmail.com (David Enstrom) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 11:05:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent column by Cha-Jua In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, David. I was not aware of the police exchange (as well as other points). https://theintercept.com/2017/09/15/police-israel-cops-training-adl-human-rights-abuses-dc-washington/ On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:46 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > (Although I would question the lumping in together of black radicals and > black nationalists) - DG > > Sundiata Cha-Jua/Real Talk | I still see us: African-American solidarity > with Palestine > Sun, 05/27/2018 - 7:00am | Sundiata Cha-Jua > > > > > > Do African-American radicals still support the Palestinian struggle? > Alaina Morgan, a scholar of Islam in the African Diaspora, recently posed > this question regarding black radicals' alleged silence in the face of the > Israeli slaughter of Palestinians during the "Great March of Return" > protests between the Land Day (March 30) and Al-Nakba (Day of Catastrophe, > May 15). > > This alleged silence would contrast sharply with African-American > radicals' response in 2014. Then, in the wake of the Ferguson and Baltimore > uprisings, a coalition of radical black organizations issued the "When I > See Them, I See Us" video connecting the police killings of > African-Americans with the Israeli military killings of Palestinians. > > Bill Fletcher Jr., a senior scholar at the Institute of Policy Studies who > led a delegation of African-American activists to occupied Palestine > compared it to being in apartheid South Africa or the pre-1965 U.S. South. > He observed, "It felt like being in a huge prison." > > Silence would diverge from the history of African-American engagement with > the Palestinian question. The roots of African-American involvement with > Palestine go back to Israel's formation. > > Ralph Bunche, an African-American, led the United Nations Special > Committee on Palestine, its secretariat on the Palestine Question and the > negotiations that produced the armistice between the Zionists and Arab > states. > > Due to his concern for the Palestinians, Bunche opposed the establishment > of a Jewish state, failing that he worked to "restrict" Israel's > sovereignty and to protect Arab interests. A former Marxist, the then > liberal Bunche identified with both the Jews and the Arabs. Stating, "I > know the flavor of racial prejudice and racial persecution," and he added, > "A wise Negro can never be an anti-Semite." Yet, Bunche feared the fate of > the Palestinians under a partition, so he worked unsuccessfully against an > independent Israel. > > By the mid-1960s, as black nationalism and radicalism became more > prominent, some African-Americans began to condemn Israel as a white > settler colony. In 1964, Malcolm X asked, "Did the Zionists have the legal > and moral right to invade Arab Palestine, uproot Arab citizens from their > homes and seize all Arab property for themselves just based on the > 'religious' claim that their forefathers lived their thousands of years > ago?" > > Malcolm's perspective grew exponentially after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. > During the Black Power era, Bunche's attempt at an even-handed approach was > replaced among the most progressive sectors of Afro-America with strong > support for the Palestinian cause. > > In part, the shift was motivated by Israel's vicious repression of the > Palestinians and its imperialist excesses during the war. In part, it was > the product of radical African-Americans accepting the United Nation's > interpretation of Zionism as a form of racism. And it was partly due to > U.S. blacks' belief that they shared a common experience of colonialism > with the Palestinians. They experienced settler colonialism and > African-Americans internal colonialism. Thus, since the 1967 Arab-Israeli > War, African-American radicals have routinely voiced solidarity with the > Palestinian struggle. > > At both the 1967 Black Power Conference and the 1972 Black National > Political Convention, more than 1,000 and 5,000 delegates, respectively, > affirmed resolutions supporting the Palestinian struggle. > > Huey P. Newton, leader of the Black Panther Party, best stated the black > radical position. In 1970, Newton offered a complex analysis in which he > argued, "We would like to make it clear the Black Panther Party is not > anti-Semitic ... As far as the Israeli people are concerned, we are not > against the Jewish people; we are against that government that would > persecute the Palestinian people ... we support the Palestinian's just > struggle for liberation 100 percent." > > In fact, if anything, support has grown stronger as African-Americans have > learned about relationships between the Israeli military and U.S. police. > Since 2001, the Israeli military has trained thousands of U.S. police in > urban warfare. This provides a direct link between the two colonized > peoples. > > Philosophically and politically, black radicals have not moved from the > Newton location. > > For instance, Fletcher, a former leader of the Black Radical Congress, has > consistently defended the Palestinian struggle, including condemning the > most recent Israeli repression during "the Great March of Return." The New > Afrikan Peoples Organization, the Malcolm X Grass Roots Movement, perhaps > the leading black nationalist organizations and the Black Alliance for > Peace have all issued powerful statements condemning the Israeli massacres. > Contrary to silence, black radicals have continued to declare support for > the Palestinian liberation movement. > > The problem is not silence, but that black radicals and nationalists are > marginalized from the mainstream media. Their statements are not reported, > and their leading activists are not interviewed on CNN or MSNBC. The > exclusion and marginalization of black radicals and nationalists does not > reflect their presence or influence in the African-American community. > Black radicals and nationalists greatly outnumber black conservatives. Yet, > representatives of an ideology that represents 2 to 4 percent of the black > community is routinely represented in mainstream media. > > No, black radicals have not lost their voice, you just have to look hard > for their viewpoints. > > *Sundiata Cha-Jua is a professor of African-American studies and history > at the University of Illinois and is a member of the North End Breakfast > Club. His email is schajua at gmail.com .* > > _______________________________________________ > 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Sun May 27 16:20:36 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 11:20:36 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi Message-ID: Y'all are funny.  I get So tired of men debating women bearing children without having had the experience of  debating/choosing every morsel of food and drink going into one's mouth for 9 -1/2  months AND the entire period of breastfeeding. Also the experience of the severe discomfort that can result from an unfortunate food choice: both in a woman's body, the baby who is breastfeedings' body, which therefore makes the woman and possibly her family extremely unhappy, and some choices of which might have developmental repercussions for months and years. I get tired of people who have not been sexually, physically, emotionally or verbally abused as children having absolutely no idea what Complex PTSD, that almost always arises from such abuse, does to an adult's ability to make proper adult decisions, such as whether or not they are capable of being in a relationship or raising an emotionally stable child. Making laws and  judgments to curtail someone with C-PTSD from accessing c ontraception, abortion, mental & physical health care, only leads to more violence in this country. Breedin' and birthin' and belongin' to the human race are heavy, man. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Sun, May 27, 2018 10:15 AMTo: ewj;Cc: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi A prophet w/o honor in his own country... Sent from my iPhone On May 27, 2018, at 10:11 AM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: Everything I needed to know about populations i learned from hop hornbeam and Escherichia coli   That there social justice stuff must be some powerful shit if it can overturn laws of physics.  There must be a catch.  I bet it is expensive or illegal or both.   About large families being the result of poverty...are you saying that avarice is linked to hating children.  wait wasnt that what wcfields was trying to tell us all.along? On 2018-05-27 22:17 , C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Wrote: Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poor - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice.  On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR.  Che clearly not a demographer.   On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives.  On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills."   On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun May 27 16:22:04 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 11:22:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] America by Allen Ginsburg Message-ID: (A reflection on Philip Roth at Jacobin led me back to this -- DG) America By Allen Ginsberg America I’ve given you all and now I’m nothing. America two dollars and twentyseven cents January 17, 1956. I can’t stand my own mind. America when will we end the human war? Go fuck yourself with your atom bomb. I don’t feel good don’t bother me. I won’t write my poem till I’m in my right mind. America when will you be angelic? When will you take off your clothes? When will you look at yourself through the grave? When will you be worthy of your million Trotskyites? America why are your libraries full of tears? America when will you send your eggs to India? I’m sick of your insane demands. When can I go into the supermarket and buy what I need with my good looks? America after all it is you and I who are perfect not the next world. Your machinery is too much for me. You made me want to be a saint. There must be some other way to settle this argument. Burroughs is in Tangiers I don’t think he’ll come back it’s sinister. Are you being sinister or is this some form of practical joke? I’m trying to come to the point. I refuse to give up my obsession. America stop pushing I know what I’m doing. America the plum blossoms are falling. I haven’t read the newspapers for months, everyday somebody goes on trial for murder. America I feel sentimental about the Wobblies. America I used to be a communist when I was a kid I’m not sorry. I smoke marijuana every chance I get. I sit in my house for days on end and stare at the roses in the closet. When I go to Chinatown I get drunk and never get laid. My mind is made up there’s going to be trouble. You should have seen me reading Marx. My psychoanalyst thinks I’m perfectly right. I won’t say the Lord’s Prayer. I have mystical visions and cosmic vibrations. America I still haven’t told you what you did to Uncle Max after he came over from Russia. I’m addressing you. Are you going to let your emotional life be run by Time Magazine? I’m obsessed by Time Magazine. I read it every week. Its cover stares at me every time I slink past the corner candystore. I read it in the basement of the Berkeley Public Library. It’s always telling me about responsibility. Businessmen are serious. Movie producers are serious. Everybody’s serious but me. It occurs to me that I am America. I am talking to myself again. Asia is rising against me. I haven’t got a chinaman’s chance. I’d better consider my national resources. My national resources consist of two joints of marijuana millions of genitals an unpublishable private literature that jetplanes 1400 miles an hour and twentyfive-thousand mental institutions. I say nothing about my prisons nor the millions of underprivileged who live in my flowerpots under the light of five hundred suns. I have abolished the whorehouses of France, Tangiers is the next to go. My ambition is to be President despite the fact that I’m a Catholic. America how can I write a holy litany in your silly mood? I will continue like Henry Ford my strophes are as individual as his automobiles more so they’re all different sexes. America I will sell you strophes $2500 apiece $500 down on your old strophe America free Tom Mooney America save the Spanish Loyalists America Sacco & Vanzetti must not die America I am the Scottsboro boys. America when I was seven momma took me to Communist Cell meetings they sold us garbanzos a handful per ticket a ticket costs a nickel and the speeches were free everybody was angelic and sentimental about the workers it was all so sincere you have no idea what a good thing the party was in 1835 Scott Nearing was a grand old man a real mensch Mother Bloor the Silk-strikers’ Ewig-Weibliche made me cry I once saw the Yiddish orator Israel Amter plain. Everybody must have been a spy. America you don’t really want to go to war. America its them bad Russians. Them Russians them Russians and them Chinamen. And them Russians. The Russia wants to eat us alive. The Russia’s power mad. She wants to take our cars from out our garages. Her wants to grab Chicago. Her needs a Red *Reader’s Digest.* Her wants our auto plants in Siberia. Him big bureaucracy running our fillingstations. That no good. Ugh. Him make Indians learn read. Him need big black niggers. Hah. Her make us all work sixteen hours a day. Help. America this is quite serious. America this is the impression I get from looking in the television set. America is this correct? I’d better get right down to the job. It’s true I don’t want to join the Army or turn lathes in precision parts factories, I’m nearsighted and psychopathic anyway. America I’m putting my queer shoulder to the wheel. *Berkeley, January 17, 1956* Allen Ginsberg, “America” from *Collected Poems, 1947-1980.* Copyright © 1984 by Allen Ginsberg. Used with the permission of HarperCollins Publishers. Source: *Selected Poems 1947-1995* (HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Sun May 27 16:39:50 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 00:39:50 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1527439188767.5j14bjapkuyrfb1vkx34hdky@android.mail.163.com> Now that i think about it there likely are women who 'don't pack the gear to be mamas'. no eugenics here they just drop out of the gene pool after awhile. probably cold northern climates and long hard winters eh? On 2018-05-28 00:20 , bjornsona at ameritech.net Wrote: Y'all are funny.  I get So tired of men debating women bearing children without having had the experience of  debating/choosing every morsel of food and drink going into one's mouth for 9 -1/2  months AND the entire period of breastfeeding. Also the experience of the severe discomfort that can result from an unfortunate food choice: both in a woman's body, the baby who is breastfeedings' body, which therefore makes the woman and possibly her family extremely unhappy, and some choices of which might have developmental repercussions for months and years. I get tired of people who have not been sexually, physically, emotionally or verbally abused as children having absolutely no idea what Complex PTSD, that almost always arises from such abuse, does to an adult's ability to make proper adult decisions, such as whether or not they are capable of being in a relationship or raising an emotionally stable child. Making laws and  judgments to curtail someone with C-PTSD from accessing contraception, abortion, mental & physical health care, only leads to more violence in this country.  Breedin' and birthin' and belongin' to the human race are heavy, man. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, May 27, 2018 10:15 AM To: ewj; Cc: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi A prophet w/o honor in his own country... Sent from my iPhone On May 27, 2018, at 10:11 AM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: Everything I needed to know about populations i learned from hop hornbeam and Escherichia coli   That there social justice stuff must be some powerful shit if it can overturn laws of physics.  There must be a catch.  I bet it is expensive or illegal or both.   About large families being the result of poverty...are you saying that avarice is linked to hating children.  wait wasnt that what wcfields was trying to tell us all.along? On 2018-05-27 22:17 , C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Wrote: Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poor - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice.  On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR.   Che clearly not a demographer.   On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives.  On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills."   On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 ewj at pigs.ag Sun May 27 16:44:02 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 00:44:02 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] America by Allen Ginsburg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1527439441128.2mtigeie5bgfelu1yxjahusq@android.mail.163.com> Bravo. On 2018-05-28 00:22 , David Green via Peace-discuss Wrote: (A reflection on Philip Roth at Jacobin led me back to this -- DG) America By Allen Ginsberg America I’ve given you all and now I’m nothing. America two dollars and twentyseven cents January 17, 1956.    I can’t stand my own mind. America when will we end the human war? Go fuck yourself with your atom bomb. I don’t feel good don’t bother me. I won’t write my poem till I’m in my right mind. America when will you be angelic? When will you take off your clothes? When will you look at yourself through the grave? When will you be worthy of your million Trotskyites? America why are your libraries full of tears? America when will you send your eggs to India? I’m sick of your insane demands. When can I go into the supermarket and buy what I need with my good looks? America after all it is you and I who are perfect not the next world.    Your machinery is too much for me. You made me want to be a saint. There must be some other way to settle this argument.    Burroughs is in Tangiers I don’t think he’ll come back it’s sinister.    Are you being sinister or is this some form of practical joke?    I’m trying to come to the point. I refuse to give up my obsession. America stop pushing I know what I’m doing. America the plum blossoms are falling. I haven’t read the newspapers for months, everyday somebody goes on trial for murder. America I feel sentimental about the Wobblies. America I used to be a communist when I was a kid I’m not sorry.    I smoke marijuana every chance I get. I sit in my house for days on end and stare at the roses in the closet.    When I go to Chinatown I get drunk and never get laid.    My mind is made up there’s going to be trouble. You should have seen me reading Marx. My psychoanalyst thinks I’m perfectly right. I won’t say the Lord’s Prayer. I have mystical visions and cosmic vibrations. America I still haven’t told you what you did to Uncle Max after he came over from Russia. I’m addressing you. Are you going to let your emotional life be run by Time Magazine?    I’m obsessed by Time Magazine. I read it every week. Its cover stares at me every time I slink past the corner candystore.    I read it in the basement of the Berkeley Public Library. It’s always telling me about responsibility. Businessmen are serious. Movie producers are serious. Everybody’s serious but me.    It occurs to me that I am America. I am talking to myself again. Asia is rising against me. I haven’t got a chinaman’s chance. I’d better consider my national resources. My national resources consist of two joints of marijuana millions of genitals an unpublishable private literature that jetplanes 1400 miles an hour and twentyfive-thousand mental institutions. I say nothing about my prisons nor the millions of underprivileged who live in my flowerpots under the light of five hundred suns. I have abolished the whorehouses of France, Tangiers is the next to go. My ambition is to be President despite the fact that I’m a Catholic. America how can I write a holy litany in your silly mood? I will continue like Henry Ford my strophes are as individual as his automobiles more so they’re all different sexes. America I will sell you strophes $2500 apiece $500 down on your old strophe America free Tom Mooney America save the Spanish Loyalists America Sacco & Vanzetti must not die America I am the Scottsboro boys. America when I was seven momma took me to Communist Cell meetings they sold us garbanzos a handful per ticket a ticket costs a nickel and the speeches were free everybody was angelic and sentimental about the workers it was all so sincere you have no idea what a good thing the party was in 1835 Scott Nearing was a grand old man a real mensch Mother Bloor the Silk-strikers’ Ewig-Weibliche made me cry I once saw the Yiddish orator Israel Amter plain. Everybody must have been a spy. America you don’t really want to go to war. America its them bad Russians. Them Russians them Russians and them Chinamen. And them Russians.    The Russia wants to eat us alive. The Russia’s power mad. She wants to take our cars from out our garages. Her wants to grab Chicago. Her needs a Red Reader’s Digest. Her wants our auto plants in Siberia. Him big bureaucracy running our fillingstations. That no good. Ugh. Him make Indians learn read. Him need big black niggers. Hah. Her make us all work sixteen hours a day. Help.    America this is quite serious. America this is the impression I get from looking in the television set.    America is this correct? I’d better get right down to the job. It’s true I don’t want to join the Army or turn lathes in precision parts factories, I’m nearsighted and psychopathic anyway. America I’m putting my queer shoulder to the wheel. Berkeley, January 17, 1956 Allen Ginsberg, “America” from Collected Poems, 1947-1980. Copyright © 1984 by Allen Ginsberg. Used with the permission of HarperCollins Publishers. Source: Selected Poems 1947-1995 (HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2001) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun May 27 16:47:16 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 11:47:16 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Excellent column by Cha-Jua In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes--and the Durham NC city council recently passed a resolution prohibiting such relationships. On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:05 AM, David Enstrom wrote: > Thanks, David. I was not aware of the police exchange (as well as other > points). > > https://theintercept.com/2017/09/15/police-israel-cops- > training-adl-human-rights-abuses-dc-washington/ > > > > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:46 AM, David Green via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > >> (Although I would question the lumping in together of black radicals and >> black nationalists) - DG >> >> Sundiata Cha-Jua/Real Talk | I still see us: African-American solidarity >> with Palestine >> Sun, 05/27/2018 - 7:00am | Sundiata Cha-Jua >> >> >> >> >> >> Do African-American radicals still support the Palestinian struggle? >> Alaina Morgan, a scholar of Islam in the African Diaspora, recently posed >> this question regarding black radicals' alleged silence in the face of the >> Israeli slaughter of Palestinians during the "Great March of Return" >> protests between the Land Day (March 30) and Al-Nakba (Day of Catastrophe, >> May 15). >> >> This alleged silence would contrast sharply with African-American >> radicals' response in 2014. Then, in the wake of the Ferguson and Baltimore >> uprisings, a coalition of radical black organizations issued the "When I >> See Them, I See Us" video connecting the police killings of >> African-Americans with the Israeli military killings of Palestinians. >> >> Bill Fletcher Jr., a senior scholar at the Institute of Policy Studies >> who led a delegation of African-American activists to occupied Palestine >> compared it to being in apartheid South Africa or the pre-1965 U.S. South. >> He observed, "It felt like being in a huge prison." >> >> Silence would diverge from the history of African-American engagement >> with the Palestinian question. The roots of African-American involvement >> with Palestine go back to Israel's formation. >> >> Ralph Bunche, an African-American, led the United Nations Special >> Committee on Palestine, its secretariat on the Palestine Question and the >> negotiations that produced the armistice between the Zionists and Arab >> states. >> >> Due to his concern for the Palestinians, Bunche opposed the establishment >> of a Jewish state, failing that he worked to "restrict" Israel's >> sovereignty and to protect Arab interests. A former Marxist, the then >> liberal Bunche identified with both the Jews and the Arabs. Stating, "I >> know the flavor of racial prejudice and racial persecution," and he added, >> "A wise Negro can never be an anti-Semite." Yet, Bunche feared the fate of >> the Palestinians under a partition, so he worked unsuccessfully against an >> independent Israel. >> >> By the mid-1960s, as black nationalism and radicalism became more >> prominent, some African-Americans began to condemn Israel as a white >> settler colony. In 1964, Malcolm X asked, "Did the Zionists have the legal >> and moral right to invade Arab Palestine, uproot Arab citizens from their >> homes and seize all Arab property for themselves just based on the >> 'religious' claim that their forefathers lived their thousands of years >> ago?" >> >> Malcolm's perspective grew exponentially after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War. >> During the Black Power era, Bunche's attempt at an even-handed approach was >> replaced among the most progressive sectors of Afro-America with strong >> support for the Palestinian cause. >> >> In part, the shift was motivated by Israel's vicious repression of the >> Palestinians and its imperialist excesses during the war. In part, it was >> the product of radical African-Americans accepting the United Nation's >> interpretation of Zionism as a form of racism. And it was partly due to >> U.S. blacks' belief that they shared a common experience of colonialism >> with the Palestinians. They experienced settler colonialism and >> African-Americans internal colonialism. Thus, since the 1967 Arab-Israeli >> War, African-American radicals have routinely voiced solidarity with the >> Palestinian struggle. >> >> At both the 1967 Black Power Conference and the 1972 Black National >> Political Convention, more than 1,000 and 5,000 delegates, respectively, >> affirmed resolutions supporting the Palestinian struggle. >> >> Huey P. Newton, leader of the Black Panther Party, best stated the black >> radical position. In 1970, Newton offered a complex analysis in which he >> argued, "We would like to make it clear the Black Panther Party is not >> anti-Semitic ... As far as the Israeli people are concerned, we are not >> against the Jewish people; we are against that government that would >> persecute the Palestinian people ... we support the Palestinian's just >> struggle for liberation 100 percent." >> >> In fact, if anything, support has grown stronger as African-Americans >> have learned about relationships between the Israeli military and U.S. >> police. Since 2001, the Israeli military has trained thousands of U.S. >> police in urban warfare. This provides a direct link between the two >> colonized peoples. >> >> Philosophically and politically, black radicals have not moved from the >> Newton location. >> >> For instance, Fletcher, a former leader of the Black Radical Congress, >> has consistently defended the Palestinian struggle, including condemning >> the most recent Israeli repression during "the Great March of Return." The >> New Afrikan Peoples Organization, the Malcolm X Grass Roots Movement, >> perhaps the leading black nationalist organizations and the Black Alliance >> for Peace have all issued powerful statements condemning the Israeli >> massacres. Contrary to silence, black radicals have continued to declare >> support for the Palestinian liberation movement. >> >> The problem is not silence, but that black radicals and nationalists are >> marginalized from the mainstream media. Their statements are not reported, >> and their leading activists are not interviewed on CNN or MSNBC. The >> exclusion and marginalization of black radicals and nationalists does not >> reflect their presence or influence in the African-American community. >> Black radicals and nationalists greatly outnumber black conservatives. Yet, >> representatives of an ideology that represents 2 to 4 percent of the black >> community is routinely represented in mainstream media. >> >> No, black radicals have not lost their voice, you just have to look hard >> for their viewpoints. >> >> *Sundiata Cha-Jua is a professor of African-American studies and history >> at the University of Illinois and is a member of the North End Breakfast >> Club. His email is schajua at gmail.com .* >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Sun May 27 17:31:29 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 12:31:29 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Do Communists have better sex? Message-ID: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x222wl0 This charming and informative 53 minute video was referenced in an interview that Kristen Ghodsee did with Doug Henwood. http://web.sas.upenn.edu/ghodseek/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Sun May 27 20:45:51 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 15:45:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Aware Meeting Today? Message-ID: <11cbcaca9jfntc4itscb47gc.1527453755766@email.lge.com> I am guessing no Aware meeting today because of the Memorial Day weekend? I am, however and as ever, enjoying the poetry and culture encountered here...:) Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: David Green via Peace-discussDate: Sun, May 27, 2018 12:31 PMTo: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Sun May 27 23:17:02 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 07:17:02 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: <4430irhvaghlq1sckbi35bgl.1527432599694@email.lge.com> References: <4430irhvaghlq1sckbi35bgl.1527432599694@email.lge.com> Message-ID: <1527463020509.bgnkbyqqofuhpfkqolldomls@android.mail.163.com> The tootsiepop owl method suggests four as minimum number of children with seven or eight being a full complement. As to whether or not they can be afforded the answer is always no. No one knows how it will turn out. Don't let them tell you that your personal restriction of family size is doing good. It is nonsense. those same folk would seek to tell you that your vote means anything in the mass scale of things. On 2018-05-27 23:03 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: Personal views on what the appropriate size of one's family ought to be, and how many children one can support, both from the father's perspective and the mother's perspective, vary greatly from economic cycle to country, cultural, religious viewpoint, and especially in wartime as we know. Views on how many children can be supported also frequently vary between the father and the mother. (In which case, I, of course, am on the side of the person having or choosing to co-operate with God, aka the Life Force of the Universe, the Higher Power, the 9-10 months of growing a zygote-fetus-into a beautiful child.) I am interested in how agendas on contraception & sterilization change over different countries, political parties & oppressed peoples. One would think fundamentalist Christians seeing Revelation being fulfilled would look at the verse saying Woe to those with child and be for contraception. Cognition dissonance is their str ength. Or am I projecting again? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, May 27, 2018 9:18 AM To: David Enstrom; Cc: Peace-discuss List;Karen Aram; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poo r - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice.  On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR.   Che clearly not a demographer.   On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives.  On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills."   On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Sun May 27 23:24:02 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 23:24:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: <1527463020509.bgnkbyqqofuhpfkqolldomls@android.mail.163.com> References: <4430irhvaghlq1sckbi35bgl.1527432599694@email.lge.com> <1527463020509.bgnkbyqqofuhpfkqolldomls@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: Ignore him, a friend of Carl’s, living in Beijing, just undergone surgery and on meds. He’s really a nice guy, but like Carl,,,,,, On May 27, 2018, at 16:17, ewj > wrote: The tootsiepop owl method suggests four as minimum number of children with seven or eight being a full complement. As to whether or not they can be afforded the answer is always no. No one knows how it will turn out. Don't let them tell you that your personal restriction of family size is doing good. It is nonsense. those same folk would seek to tell you that your vote means anything in the mass scale of things. On 2018-05-27 23:03 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: Personal views on what the appropriate size of one's family ought to be, and how many children one can support, both from the father's perspective and the mother's perspective, vary greatly from economic cycle to country, cultural, religious viewpoint, and especially in wartime as we know. Views on how many children can be supported also frequently vary between the father and the mother. (In which case, I, of course, am on the side of the person having or choosing to co-operate with God, aka the Life Force of the Universe, the Higher Power, the 9-10 months of growing a zygote-fetus-into a beautiful child.) I am interested in how agendas on contraception & sterilization change over different countries, political parties & oppressed peoples. One would think fundamentalist Christians seeing Revelation being fulfilled would look at the verse saying Woe to those with child and be for contraception. Cognition dissonance is their str ength. Or am I projecting again? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, May 27, 2018 9:18 AM To: David Enstrom; Cc: Peace-discuss List;Karen Aram; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poo r - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice. On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR. Che clearly not a demographer. On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives. On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills." On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 ewj at pigs.ag Sun May 27 23:51:14 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 07:51:14 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: References: <4430irhvaghlq1sckbi35bgl.1527432599694@email.lge.com> <1527463020509.bgnkbyqqofuhpfkqolldomls@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: <1527465072749.dbpo3k2ifwq1nbwkb4uedwhp@android.mail.163.com> i am not on "meds" postsurgery that have deranged me if that is the implication . No pain meds. I am always like this. On 2018-05-28 07:24 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: Ignore him, a friend of Carl’s, living in Beijing, just undergone surgery and on meds. He’s really a nice guy, but like Carl,,,,,, On May 27, 2018, at 16:17, ewj wrote: The tootsiepop owl method suggests four as minimum number of children with seven or eight being a full complement. As to whether or not they can be afforded the answer is always no.  No one knows how it will turn out.   Don't let them tell you that your personal restriction of family size is doing good.  It is nonsense.  those same folk would seek to tell you that your vote means anything in the mass scale of things. On 2018-05-27 23:03 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: Personal views on what the appropriate size of one's family ought to be, and how many children one can support, both from the father's perspective and the mother's perspective, vary greatly from economic cycle to country, cultural, religious viewpoint, and especially in wartime as we know. Views on how many children can be supported also frequently vary between the father and the mother. (In which case, I, of course, am on the side of the person having or choosing to co-operate with God, aka the Life Force of the Universe, the Higher Power, the 9-10 months of growing a zygote-fetus-into a beautiful child.) I am interested in how agendas on contraception & sterilization change over different countries, political parties & oppressed peoples. One would think fundamentalist Christians seeing Revelation being fulfilled would look at the verse saying Woe to those with child and be for contraception. Cognition dissonance is their str ength. Or am I projecting again? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, May 27, 2018 9:18 AM To: David Enstrom; Cc: Peace-discuss List;Karen Aram; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poo r - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice.  On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR.   Che clearly not a demographer.   On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives.  On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills."   On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Sun May 27 23:59:02 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 23:59:02 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: <1527465072749.dbpo3k2ifwq1nbwkb4uedwhp@android.mail.163.com> References: <4430irhvaghlq1sckbi35bgl.1527432599694@email.lge.com> <1527463020509.bgnkbyqqofuhpfkqolldomls@android.mail.163.com> <1527465072749.dbpo3k2ifwq1nbwkb4uedwhp@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: I do know that, you are always like this, true. You and Carl quoting philosophers, intertwining with politics, and skirting over questions. David E. and Anne are new to AWARE, the Peace List, and all this, you’re an added twist in the kettle. I don’t know about anyone else but I have no idea what you said below, tootsiepop? On May 27, 2018, at 16:51, ewj via Peace-discuss > wrote: i am not on "meds" postsurgery that have deranged me if that is the implication . No pain meds. I am always like this. On 2018-05-28 07:24 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: Ignore him, a friend of Carl’s, living in Beijing, just undergone surgery and on meds. He’s really a nice guy, but like Carl,,,,,, On May 27, 2018, at 16:17, ewj > wrote: The tootsiepop owl method suggests four as minimum number of children with seven or eight being a full complement. As to whether or not they can be afforded the answer is always no. No one knows how it will turn out. Don't let them tell you that your personal restriction of family size is doing good. It is nonsense. those same folk would seek to tell you that your vote means anything in the mass scale of things. On 2018-05-27 23:03 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: Personal views on what the appropriate size of one's family ought to be, and how many children one can support, both from the father's perspective and the mother's perspective, vary greatly from economic cycle to country, cultural, religious viewpoint, and especially in wartime as we know. Views on how many children can be supported also frequently vary between the father and the mother. (In which case, I, of course, am on the side of the person having or choosing to co-operate with God, aka the Life Force of the Universe, the Higher Power, the 9-10 months of growing a zygote-fetus-into a beautiful child.) I am interested in how agendas on contraception & sterilization change over different countries, political parties & oppressed peoples. One would think fundamentalist Christians seeing Revelation being fulfilled would look at the verse saying Woe to those with child and be for contraception. Cognition dissonance is their str ength. Or am I projecting again? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, May 27, 2018 9:18 AM To: David Enstrom; Cc: Peace-discuss List;Karen Aram; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poo r - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice. On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR. Che clearly not a demographer. On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives. On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills." On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon May 28 00:02:51 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 19:02:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: <1527465072749.dbpo3k2ifwq1nbwkb4uedwhp@android.mail.163.com> References: <4430irhvaghlq1sckbi35bgl.1527432599694@email.lge.com> <1527463020509.bgnkbyqqofuhpfkqolldomls@android.mail.163.com> <1527465072749.dbpo3k2ifwq1nbwkb4uedwhp@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: <5F818BD5-7817-459B-AA87-5708A5C90EEB@gmail.com> A friend indeed, and a clever and well-informed one - whom I don't always agree with but always learn from. —CGE > On May 27, 2018, at 6:51 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: > > i am not on "meds" postsurgery that have deranged me if that is the implication . No pain meds. > I am always like this. > > > On 2018-05-28 07:24 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: > > Ignore him, a friend of Carl’s, living in Beijing, just undergone surgery and on meds. He’s really a nice guy, but like Carl,,,,,, > >> On May 27, 2018, at 16:17, ewj > wrote: >> >> The tootsiepop owl method suggests four as minimum number of children with seven or eight being a full complement. >> As to whether or not they can be afforded the answer is always no. No one knows how it will turn out. >> Don't let them tell you that your personal restriction of family size is doing good. It is nonsense. those same folk would seek to tell you that your vote means anything in the mass scale of things. >> >> >> >> >> On 2018-05-27 23:03 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: >> >> Personal views on what the appropriate size of one's family ought to be, and how many children one can support, both from the father's perspective and the mother's perspective, vary greatly from economic cycle to country, cultural, religious viewpoint, and especially in wartime as we know. Views on how many children can be supported also frequently vary between the father and the mother. (In which case, I, of course, am on the side of the person having or choosing to co-operate with God, aka the Life Force of the Universe, the Higher Power, the 9-10 months of growing a zygote-fetus-into a beautiful child.) I am interested in how agendas on contraception & sterilization change over different countries, political parties & oppressed peoples. One would think fundamentalist Christians seeing Revelation being fulfilled would look at the verse saying Woe to those with child and be for contraception. Cognition dissonance is their str ength. Or am I projecting again? >> >> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >> >> ------ Original message------ >> From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Date: Sun, May 27, 2018 9:18 AM >> To: David Enstrom; >> Cc: Peace-discuss List;Karen Aram; >> Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi >> >> Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. >> >> People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poo r - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice. >> >> >>> On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR. >>> Che clearly not a demographer. >>> >>> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. >>> >>> Hence Che’s remark. >>> >>> >>> >>>> On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>> >>>> Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) >>>>> >>>>> Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 28 00:06:56 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 00:06:56 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: <5F818BD5-7817-459B-AA87-5708A5C90EEB@gmail.com> References: <4430irhvaghlq1sckbi35bgl.1527432599694@email.lge.com> <1527463020509.bgnkbyqqofuhpfkqolldomls@android.mail.163.com> <1527465072749.dbpo3k2ifwq1nbwkb4uedwhp@android.mail.163.com> <5F818BD5-7817-459B-AA87-5708A5C90EEB@gmail.com> Message-ID: I might learn from him too, if I could just understand him. I guess he doesn’t appreciate my giving him an out, you know with drugs due to pain. I often don’t understand you either, but I know I can always look up Chomsky or Macabe. On May 27, 2018, at 17:02, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: A friend indeed, and a clever and well-informed one - whom I don't always agree with but always learn from. —CGE On May 27, 2018, at 6:51 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss > wrote: i am not on "meds" postsurgery that have deranged me if that is the implication . No pain meds. I am always like this. On 2018-05-28 07:24 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: Ignore him, a friend of Carl’s, living in Beijing, just undergone surgery and on meds. He’s really a nice guy, but like Carl,,,,,, On May 27, 2018, at 16:17, ewj > wrote: The tootsiepop owl method suggests four as minimum number of children with seven or eight being a full complement. As to whether or not they can be afforded the answer is always no. No one knows how it will turn out. Don't let them tell you that your personal restriction of family size is doing good. It is nonsense. those same folk would seek to tell you that your vote means anything in the mass scale of things. On 2018-05-27 23:03 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: Personal views on what the appropriate size of one's family ought to be, and how many children one can support, both from the father's perspective and the mother's perspective, vary greatly from economic cycle to country, cultural, religious viewpoint, and especially in wartime as we know. Views on how many children can be supported also frequently vary between the father and the mother. (In which case, I, of course, am on the side of the person having or choosing to co-operate with God, aka the Life Force of the Universe, the Higher Power, the 9-10 months of growing a zygote-fetus-into a beautiful child.) I am interested in how agendas on contraception & sterilization change over different countries, political parties & oppressed peoples. One would think fundamentalist Christians seeing Revelation being fulfilled would look at the verse saying Woe to those with child and be for contraception. Cognition dissonance is their str ength. Or am I projecting again? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, May 27, 2018 9:18 AM To: David Enstrom; Cc: Peace-discuss List;Karen Aram; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poo r - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice. On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR. Che clearly not a demographer. On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives. On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills." On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Mon May 28 00:20:57 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 19:20:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: References: <4430irhvaghlq1sckbi35bgl.1527432599694@email.lge.com> <1527463020509.bgnkbyqqofuhpfkqolldomls@android.mail.163.com> <1527465072749.dbpo3k2ifwq1nbwkb4uedwhp@android.mail.163.com> <5F818BD5-7817-459B-AA87-5708A5C90EEB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6D5CFEB4-158F-492A-971D-0B2BA7B6E45A@gmail.com> Where would you get that idea? (Here, maybe: >. > On May 27, 2018, at 7:06 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I might learn from him too, if I could just understand him. I guess he doesn’t appreciate my giving him an out, you know with drugs due to pain. I often don’t understand you either, but I know I can always look up Chomsky or Macabe. > >> On May 27, 2018, at 17:02, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >> >> A friend indeed, and a clever and well-informed one - whom I don't always agree with but always learn from. —CGE >> >> >>> On May 27, 2018, at 6:51 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>> >>> i am not on "meds" postsurgery that have deranged me if that is the implication . No pain meds. >>> I am always like this. >>> >>> >>> On 2018-05-28 07:24 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: >>> >>> Ignore him, a friend of Carl’s, living in Beijing, just undergone surgery and on meds. He’s really a nice guy, but like Carl,,,,,, >>> >>>> On May 27, 2018, at 16:17, ewj > wrote: >>>> >>>> The tootsiepop owl method suggests four as minimum number of children with seven or eight being a full complement. >>>> As to whether or not they can be afforded the answer is always no. No one knows how it will turn out. >>>> Don't let them tell you that your personal restriction of family size is doing good. It is nonsense. those same folk would seek to tell you that your vote means anything in the mass scale of things. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2018-05-27 23:03 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: >>>> >>>> Personal views on what the appropriate size of one's family ought to be, and how many children one can support, both from the father's perspective and the mother's perspective, vary greatly from economic cycle to country, cultural, religious viewpoint, and especially in wartime as we know. Views on how many children can be supported also frequently vary between the father and the mother. (In which case, I, of course, am on the side of the person having or choosing to co-operate with God, aka the Life Force of the Universe, the Higher Power, the 9-10 months of growing a zygote-fetus-into a beautiful child.) I am interested in how agendas on contraception & sterilization change over different countries, political parties & oppressed peoples. One would think fundamentalist Christians seeing Revelation being fulfilled would look at the verse saying Woe to those with child and be for contraception. Cognition dissonance is their str ength. Or am I projecting again? >>>> >>>> Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>> >>>> ------ Original message------ >>>> From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss >>>> Date: Sun, May 27, 2018 9:18 AM >>>> To: David Enstrom; >>>> Cc: Peace-discuss List;Karen Aram; >>>> Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi >>>> >>>> Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. >>>> >>>> People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poo r - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR. >>>>> Che clearly not a demographer. >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>> The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. >>>>> >>>>> Hence Che’s remark. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 28 00:26:52 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 00:26:52 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Scientists reveal global warming's impact on Great Barrier Reef Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Scientists reveal global warming’s impact on Great Barrier Reef By Frank Gaglioti 23 May 2018 The Great Barrier Reef, one of the great natural wonders of the world, is being damaged and destroyed by the combined impact of global warming, pollution and over-exploitation. But a recent study by Professor Terry Hughes and his colleagues from James Cook University in Townsville, Australia, revealed that global warming is playing the primary role in the reef’s degradation. The reef is in the Coral Sea, off the coast of the Australian northeastern state of Queensland. It is the largest coral reef in the world, consisting of 2,900 individual reefs and 900 islands, spread over 2,300 kilometres. It is considered one of the planet’s richest and most bio-diverse habitats. [http://www.wsws.org/asset/df6ab3b1-7a93-4dd3-8d32-4ae4d58d96bD/image.jpg?rendition=image480]Bleached coral: CC BY 3.0, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid Hughes’ team conducted a major study of the reef in 2016, examining mass coral bleaching events in 1998, 2010 and 2015-2016. Bleaching occurs due to stress during heatwaves. The 1998 and 2015-16 events were exacerbated by El Niño, but subsequent bleaching in 2017 occurred without its effects. El Niño is a broad weather pattern associated with shifts in ocean currents and atmospheric conditions over the Pacific and is usually accompanied by rising temperatures in Australia. Global surface temperatures during the first six months of 2016 were the warmest since records started in 1880, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The six-month period was also the warmest half-year on record, with an average temperature 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees F) warmer than the late 19th century. Extreme heat disrupts the symbiotic relationship between corals and their algal symbionts, which give the corals their colour and provide food. The heat drives the algae out, resulting in the coral bleaching from starvation, and ultimately dying if the situation is prolonged. Hughes’s study was unprecedented in its scope. It involved the use of satellite imagery, an aerial survey and dives at 63 locations along the reef in early 2016, which was then repeated nine months later. The study concluded that the 2016 bleaching was more extensive and more severe than in earlier bleaching events. The proportion of the reef experiencing bleaching was over four times higher than in 1998 and 2002. Only 9 percent of the 1,156 reefs that were studied escaped with no bleaching. Many corals, particularly in the northern third of the reef, died rapidly without experiencing substantial bleaching—suggesting death occurred due to the sustained extreme heat. This was the first time this phenomenon was reported on such a scale. The demise of the coral population has a disastrous impact on fish species and invertebrates that live on the reef, as they use the corals as refuges. “The conventional thinking is that after bleaching corals died slowly of … starvation,” Hughes stated. “That’s not what we found. We were surprised that about half of the mortality we measured occurred very quickly … In fact, many of the corals died in two to three weeks—essentially cooking to death.” Warming events are becoming more frequent, giving coral insufficient time to recover. It takes coral between 10 to 15 years to recover from bleaching and much longer for more heat-sensitive species. Approximately one third of coral reefs globally experienced bleaching in 2016. According to Hughes, the number of years between severe bleaching events has decreased fivefold in the past four decades, from once every 25 to 30 years in the early 1980s, to once every 5.9 years in 2016. The report concluded that the chances of the reef returning to its pre-bleaching status are slim, due to the extent of the 2016 event and the probability of subsequent extreme warming because of the continued rise in global temperatures. The study showed that global warming is the greatest cause of the degradation of the reef, with local management of water quality and fishing pressure having little impact. “Securing a future for coral reefs, including intensively managed ones such as the Great Barrier Reef, requires urgent and rapid action to reduce global warming,” it stated. Hughes called the 2015-2016 bleaching event a “watershed for the Great Barrier Reef” and other reefs across the Indo-Pacific region. He predicted that reefs throughout the tropics will continue to degrade unless climate change stabilises and allows more heat-tolerant species to establish themselves. “The Great Barrier Reef is certainly threatened by climate change, but it is not doomed if we deal very quickly with greenhouse gas emissions. Our study shows that coral reefs are already shifting radically in response to unprecedented heatwaves,” Hughes said. Prime responsibility for the reef damage has to be placed on the corporate and political elite internationally for refusing to take any meaningful action to curb greenhouse gas production. According to the World Meteorological Association, the 2016 heatwave was caused by unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases, attributable primarily to human activity, and the effect of a strong El Niño. The Paris agreement signed in 2015 did not commit any of the 196 signatories, including Australia, to anything. Greenhouse gases and global temperatures have continued to rise as a consequence. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull initially denied any damage to the Great Barrier Reef. He said in January that the reef is “alive” and “resilient,” declaring that “there is a lot of negativity out there.” This month, for electoral reasons, his government’s budget promised $444 million to improve the resilience of the reef, tackle water quality and control the crown of thorns starfish, which eats coral. Even if the promised spending ever eventuates, such actions are merely palliative if the question of global warming remains unresolved. Furthermore, the government bypassed the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which is charged with overseeing the wellbeing of the reef system. Instead, the money was earmarked for the Great Barrier Reef Foundation (GBRF). The GBRF has numerous ties to profit-driven corporations such as mining giants BHP and Rio Tinto and the National Australia Bank. The GBRF is chaired by John Schubert, a businessman who was formerly the head of the Business Council of Australia and the managing director of the oil exploration company Esso Australia. The opposition Labor Party and the Greens are equally complicit in the ongoing decline of the Great Barrier Reef. Both peddled the lie that greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced through the market via a carbon trading scheme. In fact, such systems set up valuable opportunities for business to profit without curbing emissions at all. Scientists understand how global warming can be reversed. However, the necessary, economic, social and political changes needed to reverse climate change cannot occur while every aspect of society is subordinated to the accumulation of private profit. What is urgently required is rational and scientific planning on an international scale. The Great Barrier Reef and other precious coral reefs internationally can be protected only through the abolition of the capitalist profit system. WSWS.ORG The author also recommends: Climate change and the struggle against capitalism [14 July 2017] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Mon May 28 02:35:42 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 10:35:42 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: References: <4430irhvaghlq1sckbi35bgl.1527432599694@email.lge.com> <1527463020509.bgnkbyqqofuhpfkqolldomls@android.mail.163.com> <1527465072749.dbpo3k2ifwq1nbwkb4uedwhp@android.mail.163.com> <5F818BD5-7817-459B-AA87-5708A5C90EEB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1527474940723.wqsfzsuyxhy22crgmdgqpyl5@android.mail.163.com> Surely you recall the old tootsie pop ads where they tried to convince the consuner not to bite to reach the center . The owl tested how many licks It should take. Verifying a number by personal experience . We have 4 children and that number is perfect for us. we are pleased with each one. Psalms says that seven is a full quiver with children like arrows. eight is fullness number. I have friends with 7 and 8 and none desire fewer. psalms also says children are a blessing. my owl test says that is right. everyone can decide how many is good for them. Don't be defrauded by various ideologies. Karen is cool and has a merciful heart On 2018-05-28 08:06 , Karen Aram Wrote: I might learn from him too, if I could just understand him. I guess he doesn’t appreciate my giving him an out, you know with drugs due to pain. I often don’t understand you either, but I know I can always look up Chomsky or Macabe. On May 27, 2018, at 17:02, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: A friend indeed, and a clever and well-informed one - whom I don't always agree with but always learn from. —CGE On May 27, 2018, at 6:51 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: i am not on "meds" postsurgery that have deranged me if that is the implication .  No pain meds. I am always  like this. On 2018-05-28 07:24 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: Ignore him, a friend of Carl’s, living in Beijing, just undergone surgery and on meds. He’s really a nice guy, but like Carl,,,,,, On May 27, 2018, at 16:17, ewj wrote: The tootsiepop owl method suggests four as minimum number of children with seven or eight being a full complement. As to whether or not they can be afforded the answer is always no.  No one knows how it will turn out.   Don't let them tell you that your personal restriction of family size is doing good.  It is nonsense.  those same folk would seek to tell you that your vote means anything in the mass scale of things. On 2018-05-27 23:03 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: Personal views on what the appropriate size of one's family ought to be, and how many children one can support, both from the father's perspective and the mother's perspective, vary greatly from economic cycle to country, cultural, religious viewpoint, and especially in wartime as we know. Views on how many children can be supported also frequently vary between the father and the mother. (In which case, I, of course, am on the side of the person having or choosing to co-operate with God, aka the Life Force of the Universe, the Higher Power, the 9-10 months of growing a zygote-fetus-into a beautiful child.) I am interested in how agendas on contraception & sterilization change over different countries, political parties & oppressed peoples. One would think fundamentalist Christians seeing Revelation being fulfilled would look at the verse saying Woe to those with child and be for contraception. Cognition dissonance is their str ength. Or am I projecting again? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, May 27, 2018 9:18 AM To: David Enstrom; Cc: Peace-discuss List;Karen Aram; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poo r - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice.  On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR.   Che clearly not a demographer.   On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives.  On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills."   On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 28 03:35:40 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 03:35:40 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: <1527474940723.wqsfzsuyxhy22crgmdgqpyl5@android.mail.163.com> References: <4430irhvaghlq1sckbi35bgl.1527432599694@email.lge.com> <1527463020509.bgnkbyqqofuhpfkqolldomls@android.mail.163.com> <1527465072749.dbpo3k2ifwq1nbwkb4uedwhp@android.mail.163.com> <5F818BD5-7817-459B-AA87-5708A5C90EEB@gmail.com> <1527474940723.wqsfzsuyxhy22crgmdgqpyl5@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: I don’t remember tootsie pop ads, nor owls tasting them, sorry. LOL I’m glad you’re happy with your four children, I wish everyone be happy with the children they have. I agree everyone should decide how many is good for them. Thank you for considering me cool and merciful, I don’t think I’ve ever received a better compliment than that Wayne. On May 27, 2018, at 19:35, ewj > wrote: Surely you recall the old tootsie pop ads where they tried to convince the consuner not to bite to reach the center . The owl tested how many licks It should take. Verifying a number by personal experience . We have 4 children and that number is perfect for us. we are pleased with each one. Psalms says that seven is a full quiver with children like arrows. eight is fullness number. I have friends with 7 and 8 and none desire fewer. psalms also says children are a blessing. my owl test says that is right. everyone can decide how many is good for them. Don't be defrauded by various ideologies. Karen is cool and has a merciful heart On 2018-05-28 08:06 , Karen Aram Wrote: I might learn from him too, if I could just understand him. I guess he doesn’t appreciate my giving him an out, you know with drugs due to pain. I often don’t understand you either, but I know I can always look up Chomsky or Macabe. On May 27, 2018, at 17:02, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: A friend indeed, and a clever and well-informed one - whom I don't always agree with but always learn from. —CGE On May 27, 2018, at 6:51 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss > wrote: i am not on "meds" postsurgery that have deranged me if that is the implication . No pain meds. I am always like this. On 2018-05-28 07:24 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: Ignore him, a friend of Carl’s, living in Beijing, just undergone surgery and on meds. He’s really a nice guy, but like Carl,,,,,, On May 27, 2018, at 16:17, ewj > wrote: The tootsiepop owl method suggests four as minimum number of children with seven or eight being a full complement. As to whether or not they can be afforded the answer is always no. No one knows how it will turn out. Don't let them tell you that your personal restriction of family size is doing good. It is nonsense. those same folk would seek to tell you that your vote means anything in the mass scale of things. On 2018-05-27 23:03 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: Personal views on what the appropriate size of one's family ought to be, and how many children one can support, both from the father's perspective and the mother's perspective, vary greatly from economic cycle to country, cultural, religious viewpoint, and especially in wartime as we know. Views on how many children can be supported also frequently vary between the father and the mother. (In which case, I, of course, am on the side of the person having or choosing to co-operate with God, aka the Life Force of the Universe, the Higher Power, the 9-10 months of growing a zygote-fetus-into a beautiful child.) I am interested in how agendas on contraception & sterilization change over different countries, political parties & oppressed peoples. One would think fundamentalist Christians seeing Revelation being fulfilled would look at the verse saying Woe to those with child and be for contraception. Cognition dissonance is their str ength. Or am I projecting again? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, May 27, 2018 9:18 AM To: David Enstrom; Cc: Peace-discuss List;Karen Aram; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poo r - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice. On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR. Che clearly not a demographer. On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives. On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills." On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss > wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 ewj at pigs.ag Mon May 28 03:49:17 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (ewj) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 11:49:17 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: References: <4430irhvaghlq1sckbi35bgl.1527432599694@email.lge.com> <1527463020509.bgnkbyqqofuhpfkqolldomls@android.mail.163.com> <1527465072749.dbpo3k2ifwq1nbwkb4uedwhp@android.mail.163.com> <5F818BD5-7817-459B-AA87-5708A5C90EEB@gmail.com> <1527474940723.wqsfzsuyxhy22crgmdgqpyl5@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: <1527479354897.qfrhhh5nuwbnoka41atub4uf@android.mail.163.com> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tootsie_Pop https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=Awr9NVXRewtbDWkAvCc8nIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByZ2N0cmxpBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDBGdwb3MDMg--?p=tootsie+pop+owl&vid=7e7043bc1892738e96fa83dbcc06933f&turl=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOVP.3O2mr6co9WRJvUwKT_PJSwEsDd%26pid%3D15.1%26h%3D221%26w%3D300%26c%3D7%26rs%3D1&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DO6rHeD5x2tI&tit=Classic+Tootsie+Roll+Commercial+-+%26quot%3BHow+Many+Licks%26quot%3B&c=1&h=221&w=300&l=62&sigr=11b7qa67p&sigt=11sphdjl5&sigi=12rluf7o1&age=1345013166&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Av&norw=1&hsimp=yhsm-002&hspart=mozilla&tt=b On 2018-05-28 11:35 , Karen Aram Wrote: I don’t remember tootsie pop ads, nor owls tasting them, sorry. LOL I’m glad you’re happy with your four children, I wish everyone be happy with the children they have. I agree everyone should decide how many is good for them. Thank you for considering me cool and merciful, I don’t think I’ve ever received a better compliment than that Wayne.  On May 27, 2018, at 19:35, ewj wrote: Surely you recall the old tootsie pop ads where they  tried to convince the consuner not to bite to reach the center . The owl tested how many licks  It should take. Verifying a number by personal experience . We have 4 children and that number is perfect for us.  we are pleased with each one. Psalms says that seven is a full quiver with children like arrows.  eight is fullness number. I have friends with 7 and 8 and none desire fewer.  psalms also says children are a blessing.  my owl test says that is right. everyone can decide how many is good for them.  Don't be defrauded by various ideologies. Karen is cool and has a merciful heart On 2018-05-28 08:06 , Karen Aram Wrote: I might learn from him too, if I could just understand him. I guess he doesn’t appreciate my giving him an out, you know with drugs due to pain. I often don’t understand you either, but I know I can always look up Chomsky or Macabe. On May 27, 2018, at 17:02, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: A friend indeed, and a clever and well-informed one - whom I don't always agree with but always learn from. —CGE On May 27, 2018, at 6:51 PM, ewj via Peace-discuss wrote: i am not on "meds" postsurgery that have deranged me if that is the implication .  No pain meds. I am always  like this. On 2018-05-28 07:24 , Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Wrote: Ignore him, a friend of Carl’s, living in Beijing, just undergone surgery and on meds. He’s really a nice guy, but like Carl,,,,,, On May 27, 2018, at 16:17, ewj wrote: The tootsiepop owl method suggests four as minimum number of children with seven or eight being a full complement. As to whether or not they can be afforded the answer is always no.  No one knows how it will turn out.   Don't let them tell you that your personal restriction of family size is doing good.  It is nonsense.  those same folk would seek to tell you that your vote means anything in the mass scale of things. On 2018-05-27 23:03 , bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss Wrote: Personal views on what the appropriate size of one's family ought to be, and how many children one can support, both from the father's perspective and the mother's perspective, vary greatly from economic cycle to country, cultural, religious viewpoint, and especially in wartime as we know. Views on how many children can be supported also frequently vary between the father and the mother. (In which case, I, of course, am on the side of the person having or choosing to co-operate with God, aka the Life Force of the Universe, the Higher Power, the 9-10 months of growing a zygote-fetus-into a beautiful child.) I am interested in how agendas on contraception & sterilization change over different countries, political parties & oppressed peoples. One would think fundamentalist Christians seeing Revelation being fulfilled would look at the verse saying Woe to those with child and be for contraception. Cognition dissonance is their str ength. Or am I projecting again? Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Sun, May 27, 2018 9:18 AM To: David Enstrom; Cc: Peace-discuss List;Karen Aram; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with development and social justice. People aren’t poor because they have too many children. People have too many children because they’re poo r - an extended family in the only form of social security in societies lacking social justice.  On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: Che's remark shows an ignorance of the relationships between over population, individual suffering, environmental degradation and WAR.   Che clearly not a demographer.   On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies were meant to reduce the population pressures for social justice in America’s semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. Hence Che’s remark. On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: Fear of forced sterilization is not an excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is little different from forced sterilization. Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds and fetuses not babies, is not the same thing as killing children already born, living their lives.  On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: The US has long sponsored contraceptive and anti-natal policies in Latin America. (Not, for the most part, so brutally as Israel’s sterilization programs for Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked those programs by saying, “It’s easier to kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the hills."   On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David Enstrom via Peace-discuss wrote: https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon May 28 05:17:07 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 00:17:07 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Memorial Day - Andy Piascik (2014) Message-ID: *Memorial Day and* *Everywhere is War* by Andy Piascik Summer approaches and the stench of war is all around. Or, as the great Bob Marley put it, Everywhere is War. Start with the commemorations over a five-week span of Memorial Day, Flag Day and Independence Day, all presented varyingly as celebrations of our war dead, symbols of our greatness, the freedoms we love so dearly and seek to export to every corner of the world and, perhaps most important, the unquestioned rightness of our cause. In reality, the celebrations are of imperialist war, with the talk about the hallowed dead just so much cover for the murderous nature of US foreign policy. Celebrating the dead – note that the dead celebrated are just the American dead, not any of the millions killed by US aggression or client states – is a no-lose proposition designed to render anyone who asks the wrong questions a traitor or a terrorist. The notion that the US regularly commits war crimes and that polished, well-educated men like John Kennedy and Barack Obama are war criminals is unthinkable; war criminals look like Osama bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein and those other nasty people far away, over there. *World War One Centennial* It’s also the summer of the centennial of the start of what in its time was known as the Great War, the greatest blood-letting in history except for that of the Second Great War barely two decades later. Of one thing we can be sure and that is that the lessons drawn from mainstream discussions of World War One will be all the wrong ones. Worse, the spectacle of the intelligentsia waxing eloquent about the horrors of war while unflinchingly cheering on the warmakers in Washington will be accepted by one and all of their kind as perfectly reasonable – as beyond discussion, in fact. In recent weeks, meanwhile, mainstream commentators have been shocked to discover that things in Iraq are not alright, in fact are worse than at any time since the second US blitzkrieg in 2003. Gee, who knew. Who knew that an invasion predicated on a lie of weapons of mass destruction, designed to secure control of massive oil supplies, would go wrong? The political class and intelligentsia didn’t, or at least they pretended they didn’t, but millions around the world who demonstrated against the invasion in the weeks before it was launched certainly did. And one of the points those demonstrators underscored was that a US invasion would fuel sectarian divisions and violence, precisely as has happened. Al-Qaeda, which did not exist in Iraq prior to the invasion, now flourishes while a new group, the Islamist State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), rampages through the country. The response of many elites in the US, naturally, is for more war. Calls from certain factions for a third US invasion are growing louder and, true to his preference for violence over diplomacy, Obama has sent a strike force to Iraq. Whether the people of the United States can come together as we did last summer when we rose up and prevented Obama from attacking Syria remains to be seen. We must at least try. *Disgraceful Treatment of Veterans* Also on the war front is the Veterans Affairs’ disgraceful neglect of ex-soldiers in need of medical care. For years, political elites have been slashing benefits for veterans while increasing spending on weapons and cutting taxes for the Super Rich. That the problem came to a head with a Democrat in the White House is simply an accident of timing, and it is especially outrageous that the most enthusiastic cheerleaders of the illegal Bush-Cheney invasions, as well as reductions to the VA’s budgets and the tax cuts for 1%, now pretend that they care about soldiers. Equally farcical is the commencement of yet another round of hearings on the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Such hearings would certainly be valuable if everything related to US actions in Libya since the launch of the 2011 assault were up for review, but there is virtually no chance of that happening. The deaths of tens of thousands of Libyans in yet one more illegal military strike, as well as the resulting chaos and violence in that country, is of no concern to those who long for the good old days of Bush-Cheney and are interested only in scoring political points. *Bowe Bergdhal* Then there is the saga of the much-vilified Bowe Bergdhal, a heroic young man who came to see the criminal nature of the US invasion of Afghanistan. The refusal of working class youth to fight for Empire is the ruling class’s biggest nightmare and the attacks on Bergdahl, like the show trial that convicted Chelsea Manning, show how far they will go to punish those in uniform who dare challenge their objectives. A hidden aspect of the movement that ended US carnage in Southeast Asia is that it was the widespread opposition of soldiers, both as embodied by organizations like Vietnam Veterans Against the War as well as active duty resisters, that decisively turned the tide. So alarming was this development that two massive disinformation campaigns were immediately launched: the myth of the hostility of the anti-war movement for returning soldiers that sought to drive a wedge between active duty and homefront resistance (see, for example, Jerry Lembcke’s outstanding book *The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam*); and the completely fraudulent MIA blitz (expertly exposed by Bruce Franklin in *MIA, or Mythmaking in America)* concocted by the Nixon Administration to shift attention away from the death and destruction wrought by the US to the plight of nonexistent prisoners of war. Because preventing any similar development of resistance among soldiers is central to imperial objectives, discussion has largely avoided what Bergdahl actually said about his service in Afghanistan, including his telling declaration in a 2009 e-mail to his parents, as quoted by Amy Goodman on *Democracy Now!*: “The future is too good to waste on lies and life is way too short to care for the damnation of others as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I've seen their ideas, I'm ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self righteous arrogance that they thrive in.” Rather than joining in the Bowe Bergdhal lynch mob, US soldiers everywhere, not to mention those with loved ones in the military, would do well to heed his words and experience. *The Supreme International Crime* Lastly, the same standard that applies to the war crimes of others applies to the US. As articulated by Robert H. Jackson, chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, a war of aggression such as committed by the US against Afghanistan and Iraq “is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from all other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” In such a circumstance, what Bergdahl did was proper and, it could be argued, *obligatory* for anyone party to war crimes. So amidst the flag waving and speechifying that glorifies imperialism, we should support him and prisoners of conscience like Chelsea Manning. We should demand that all services veterans require be provided, that US bases around the world be closed, that soldiers be returned home and that the US cease its campaign of endless aggression. And as enticing as the military may seem in such desperate economic times, we should counsel young people to stay away no matter how bleak the alternatives may be. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon May 28 14:17:49 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 09:17:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic References: Message-ID: <19883180-0110-4469-8FF4-B37E2A80A843@illinois.edu> Begin forwarded message: > > From: Louis Proyect via Marxism > Subject: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic > Date: May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT > To: "C. G. Estabrook" > Reply-To: Louis Proyect , "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" > > > Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. > > https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crtique-wellness-culture > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From moboct1 at aim.com Mon May 28 14:23:40 2018 From: moboct1 at aim.com (Mildred O'brien) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 10:23:40 -0400 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Virginia Gilmore, RIP Message-ID: <163a7221d71-c92-529b@webjas-vac183.srv.aolmail.net> It was with great fondness and sadness do I recall the profound effect of the Gilmores when I read the May 23 News-Gazette obituary of Virginia "Ginny" Gilmore at age 93.  Virginia and Gene, U.I. professor of journalism who died last year at age 96, were devoted members of the Society of  Friends, WILF, and backbone of the active peace and civil rights movements and opponents of nuclear arms in Champaign-Urbana. Their tireless commitment to social justice was a profound influence and inspiration in the local community until they moved to California to live with children.  I was surprised to learn that they were not cradle Quakers, in fact, Ginny became a "Rosie the Riveter" after high school in Michigan during the WW II defense effort and later joined the Women's Army Corp which provided the GI Bill for her education at Alma College, where she met and married Gene, a graduate of Michigan Univ. and also a WW II veteran.  While Gene was a professor at Syracuse University they became members of the Society of Friends when they visited a Pennsylvania Meeting House and converted to peace and social justice issues.  Those of us fortunate to have known and enjoyed their company are left with respect for their lives and fond memories they left in the community. Midge O'Brien   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon May 28 14:29:35 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 14:29:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic In-Reply-To: <19883180-0110-4469-8FF4-B37E2A80A843@illinois.edu> References: <19883180-0110-4469-8FF4-B37E2A80A843@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Jeeze Carl. I dropped my subscription to and stopped reading TNR when Marty Peretz’s wife bought it out for him to play with when he was going nowhere at Harvard and he then turned it into the American House Organ for Likhud. It has had absolutely ZERO credibility since then. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:18 AM To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic Begin forwarded message: From: Louis Proyect via Marxism > Subject: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic Date: May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT To: "C. G. Estabrook" > Reply-To: Louis Proyect >, "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" > Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crtique-wellness-culture _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon May 28 14:45:18 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 09:45:18 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic In-Reply-To: References: <19883180-0110-4469-8FF4-B37E2A80A843@illinois.edu> Message-ID: But Barbara Ehrenreich is well worth reading (and debated) even if the New Republic is usually not (I agree). Even the irascible Louis Proyect sees that. —CGE > On May 28, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Jeeze Carl. I dropped my subscription to and stopped reading TNR when Marty Peretz’s wife bought it out for him to play with when he was going nowhere at Harvard and he then turned it into the American House Organ for Likhud. It has had absolutely ZERO credibility since then. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:18 AM > To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Louis Proyect via Marxism > Subject: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic > Date: May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT > To: "C. G. Estabrook" > Reply-To: Louis Proyect , "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" > > > Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. > > https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crtique-wellness-culture > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon May 28 14:47:11 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 14:47:11 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic In-Reply-To: References: <19883180-0110-4469-8FF4-B37E2A80A843@illinois.edu> Message-ID: People who write for TNR are Likudnik Fellow Travellers. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:45 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic But Barbara Ehrenreich is well worth reading (and debated) even if the New Republic is usually not (I agree). Even the irascible Louis Proyect sees that. —CGE > On May 28, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Jeeze Carl. I dropped my subscription to and stopped reading TNR when Marty Peretz’s wife bought it out for him to play with when he was going nowhere at Harvard and he then turned it into the American House Organ for Likhud. It has had absolutely ZERO credibility since then. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] > On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:18 AM > To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net > Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical > Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Louis Proyect via Marxism > Subject: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness > Culture | The New Republic > Date: May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT > To: "C. G. Estabrook" > Reply-To: Louis Proyect , "Activists and scholars in > Marxist tradition" > > > Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. > > https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crti > que-wellness-culture > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your > options at: > http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From galliher at illinois.edu Mon May 28 14:49:31 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 09:49:31 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic In-Reply-To: References: <19883180-0110-4469-8FF4-B37E2A80A843@illinois.edu> Message-ID: <74A884A3-A64B-407E-9A1B-79D935A89FF5@illinois.edu> No one can be wrong all the time. —CGE > On May 28, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > People who write for TNR are Likudnik Fellow Travellers. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:45 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic > > But Barbara Ehrenreich is well worth reading (and debated) even if the New Republic is usually not (I agree). > > Even the irascible Louis Proyect sees that. —CGE > > >> On May 28, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Jeeze Carl. I dropped my subscription to and stopped reading TNR when Marty Peretz’s wife bought it out for him to play with when he was going nowhere at Harvard and he then turned it into the American House Organ for Likhud. It has had absolutely ZERO credibility since then. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:18 AM >> To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical >> Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Louis Proyect via Marxism >> Subject: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness >> Culture | The New Republic >> Date: May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT >> To: "C. G. Estabrook" >> Reply-To: Louis Proyect , "Activists and scholars in >> Marxist tradition" >> >> >> Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. >> >> https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crti >> que-wellness-culture >> _________________________________________________________ >> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your >> options at: >> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon May 28 14:50:53 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 14:50:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic In-Reply-To: <74A884A3-A64B-407E-9A1B-79D935A89FF5@illinois.edu> References: <19883180-0110-4469-8FF4-B37E2A80A843@illinois.edu> <74A884A3-A64B-407E-9A1B-79D935A89FF5@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Yeah, even a dead clock is right twice a day. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:50 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic No one can be wrong all the time. —CGE > On May 28, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > People who write for TNR are Likudnik Fellow Travellers. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:45 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's > Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic > > But Barbara Ehrenreich is well worth reading (and debated) even if the New Republic is usually not (I agree). > > Even the irascible Louis Proyect sees that. —CGE > > >> On May 28, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Jeeze Carl. I dropped my subscription to and stopped reading TNR when Marty Peretz’s wife bought it out for him to play with when he was going nowhere at Harvard and he then turned it into the American House Organ for Likhud. It has had absolutely ZERO credibility since then. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:18 AM >> To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical >> Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Louis Proyect via Marxism >> Subject: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness >> Culture | The New Republic >> Date: May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT >> To: "C. G. Estabrook" >> Reply-To: Louis Proyect , "Activists and scholars in >> Marxist tradition" >> >> >> Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. >> >> https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crt >> i >> que-wellness-culture >> _________________________________________________________ >> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your >> options at: >> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From bjornsona at ameritech.net Mon May 28 14:54:55 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 09:54:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic Message-ID: Love Barbara.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discussDate: Mon, May 28, 2018 9:51 AMTo: Estabrook, Carl G;Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic Yeah, even a dead clock is right twice a day. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:50 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic No one can be wrong all the time. —CGE > On May 28, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > People who write for TNR are Likudnik Fellow Travellers. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:45 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's > Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic > > But Barbara Ehrenreich is well worth reading (and debated) even if the New Republic is usually not (I agree). > > Even the irascible Louis Proyect sees that. —CGE > > >> On May 28, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Jeeze Carl. I dropped my subscription to and stopped reading TNR when Marty Peretz’s wife bought it out for him to play with when he was going nowhere at Harvard and he then turned it into the American House Organ for Likhud. It has had absolutely ZERO credibility since then. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:18 AM >> To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical >> Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Louis Proyect via Marxism >> Subject: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness >> Culture | The New Republic >> Date: May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT >> To: "C. G. Estabrook" >> Reply-To: Louis Proyect , "Activists and scholars in >> Marxist tradition" >> >> >> Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. >> >> https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crt >> i >> que-wellness-culture >> _________________________________________________________ >> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your >> options at: >> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Mon May 28 14:54:55 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 09:54:55 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic Message-ID: Love Barbara.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discussDate: Mon, May 28, 2018 9:51 AMTo: Estabrook, Carl G;Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic Yeah, even a dead clock is right twice a day. Fab. Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:50 AM To: Boyle, Francis A Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic No one can be wrong all the time. —CGE > On May 28, 2018, at 9:47 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: > > People who write for TNR are Likudnik Fellow Travellers. Fab. > > Francis A. Boyle > Law Building > 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. > Champaign IL 61820 USA > 217-333-7954 (phone) > 217-244-1478 (fax) > (personal comments only) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at illinois.edu] > Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:45 AM > To: Boyle, Francis A > Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's > Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic > > But Barbara Ehrenreich is well worth reading (and debated) even if the New Republic is usually not (I agree). > > Even the irascible Louis Proyect sees that. —CGE > > >> On May 28, 2018, at 9:29 AM, Boyle, Francis A via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Jeeze Carl. I dropped my subscription to and stopped reading TNR when Marty Peretz’s wife bought it out for him to play with when he was going nowhere at Harvard and he then turned it into the American House Organ for Likhud. It has had absolutely ZERO credibility since then. Fab. >> >> Francis A. Boyle >> Law Building >> 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. >> Champaign IL 61820 USA >> 217-333-7954 (phone) >> 217-244-1478 (fax) >> (personal comments only) >> >> From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] >> On Behalf Of Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 9:18 AM >> To: peace-discuss at anti-war.net >> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical >> Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Louis Proyect via Marxism >> Subject: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness >> Culture | The New Republic >> Date: May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT >> To: "C. G. Estabrook" >> Reply-To: Louis Proyect , "Activists and scholars in >> Marxist tradition" >> >> >> Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. >> >> https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crt >> i >> que-wellness-culture >> _________________________________________________________ >> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your >> options at: >> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Mon May 28 14:58:19 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 09:58:19 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Memorial Day - Andy Piascik (2014) Message-ID: Today's anti-war T-shirt says "Stop Wars" in Star Wars font. And Illini Orange. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: David Green via Peace-discussDate: Mon, May 28, 2018 12:17 AMTo: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net);Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] Memorial Day - Andy Piascik (2014)  Memorial Day and Everywhere is War                                                                                                                by Andy Piascik             Summer approaches and the stench of war is all around. Or, as the great Bob Marley put it, Everywhere is War. Start with the commemorations over a five-week span of Memorial Day, Flag Day and Independence Day, all presented varyingly as celebrations of our war dead, symbols of our greatness, the freedoms we love so dearly and seek to export to every corner of the world and, perhaps most important, the unquestioned rightness of our cause.             In reality, the celebrations are of imperialist war, with the talk about the hallowed dead just so much cover for the murderous nature of US foreign policy. Celebrating the dead – note that the dead celebrated are just the American dead, not any of the millions killed by US aggression or client states – is a no-lose proposition designed to render anyone who asks the wrong questions a traitor or a terrorist. The notion that the US regularly commits war crimes and that polished, well-educated men like John Kennedy and Barack Obama are war criminals is unthinkable; war criminals look like Osama bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein and those other nasty people far away, over there.  World War One Centennial            It’s also the summer of the centennial of the start of what in its time was known as the Great War, the greatest blood-letting in history except for that of the Second Great War barely two decades later. Of one thing we can be sure and that is that the lessons drawn from mainstream discussions of World War One will be all the wrong ones. Worse, the spectacle of the intelligentsia waxing eloquent about the horrors of war while unflinchingly cheering on the warmakers in Washington will be accepted by one and all of their kind as perfectly reasonable – as beyond discussion, in fact.            In recent weeks, meanwhile, mainstream commentators have been shocked to discover that things in Iraq are not alright, in fact are worse than at any time since the second US blitzkrieg in 2003. Gee, who knew. Who knew that an invasion predicated on a lie of weapons of mass destruction, designed to secure control of massive oil supplies, would go wrong? The political class and intelligentsia didn’t, or at least they pretended they didn’t, but millions around the world who demonstrated against the invasion in the weeks before it was launched certainly did. And one of the points those demonstrators underscored was that a US invasion would fuel sectarian divisions and violence, precisely as has happened. Al-Qaeda, which did not exist in Iraq prior to the invasion, now flourishes while a new group, the Islamist State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), rampages through the country.            The response of many elites in the US, naturally, is for more war. Calls from certain factions for a third US invasion are growing louder and, true to his preference for violence over diplomacy, Obama has sent a strike force to Iraq. Whether the people of the United States can come together as we did last summer when we rose up and prevented Obama from attacking Syria remains to be seen. We must at least try.Disgraceful Treatment of Veterans            Also on the war front is the Veterans Affairs’ disgraceful neglect of ex-soldiers in need of medical care. For years, political elites have been slashing benefits for veterans while increasing spending on weapons and cutting taxes for the Super Rich. That the problem came to a head with a Democrat in the White House is simply an accident of timing, and it is especially outrageous that the most enthusiastic cheerleaders of the illegal Bush-Cheney invasions, as well as reductions to the VA’s budgets and the tax cuts for 1%, now pretend that they care about soldiers.             Equally farcical is the commencement of yet another round of hearings on the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Such hearings would certainly be valuable if everything related to US actions in Libya since the launch of the 2011 assault were up for review, but there is virtually no chance of that happening. The deaths of tens of thousands of Libyans in yet one more illegal military strike, as well as the resulting chaos and violence in that country, is of no concern to those who long for the good old days of Bush-Cheney and are interested only in scoring political points.   Bowe Bergdhal            Then there is the saga of the much-vilified Bowe Bergdhal, a heroic young man who came to see the criminal nature of the US invasion of Afghanistan. The refusal of working class youth to fight for Empire is the ruling class’s biggest nightmare and the attacks on Bergdahl, like the show trial that convicted Chelsea Manning, show how far they will go to punish those in uniform who dare challenge their objectives. A hidden aspect of the movement that ended US carnage in Southeast Asia is that it was the widespread opposition of soldiers, both as embodied by organizations like Vietnam Veterans Against the War as well as active duty resisters, that decisively turned the tide.             So alarming was this development that two massive disinformation campaigns were immediately launched: the myth of the hostility of the anti-war movement for returning soldiers that sought to drive a wedge between active duty and homefront resistance (see, for example, Jerry Lembcke’s outstanding book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam); and the completely fraudulent MIA blitz (expertly exposed by Bruce Franklin in MIA, or Mythmaking in America) concocted by the Nixon Administration to shift attention away from the death and destruction wrought by the US to the plight of nonexistent prisoners of war.              Because preventing any similar development of resistance among soldiers is central to imperial objectives, discussion has largely avoided what Bergdahl actually said about his service in Afghanistan, including his telling declaration in a 2009 e-mail to his parents, as quoted by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!: “The future is too good to waste on lies and life is way too short to care for the damnation of others as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I've seen their ideas, I'm ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self righteous arrogance that they thrive in.” Rather than joining in the Bowe Bergdhal lynch mob, US soldiers everywhere, not to mention those with loved ones in the military, would do well to heed his words and experience. The Supreme International Crime            Lastly, the same standard that applies to the war crimes of others applies to the US. As articulated by Robert H. Jackson, chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, a war of aggression such as committed by the US against Afghanistan and Iraq “is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from all other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” In such a circumstance, what Bergdahl did was proper and, it could be argued, obligatory for anyone party to war crimes. So amidst the flag waving and speechifying that glorifies imperialism, we should support him and prisoners of conscience like Chelsea Manning. We should demand that all services veterans require be provided, that US bases around the world be closed, that soldiers be returned home and that the US cease its campaign of endless aggression. And as enticing as the military may seem in such desperate economic times, we should counsel young people to stay away no matter how bleak the alternatives may be.      -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1527519398195_resized.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 313354 bytes Desc: not available URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Mon May 28 15:01:03 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 10:01:03 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Memorial Day - Andy Piascik (2014) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6402248D-FBEA-4DD2-AD88-B2C20E435755@illinois.edu> You always have the best costumes... > On May 28, 2018, at 9:58 AM, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Today's anti-war T-shirt says "Stop Wars" in Star Wars font. And Illini Orange. > > Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > ------ Original message------ > From: David Green via Peace-discuss > Date: Mon, May 28, 2018 12:17 AM > To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net ); > Cc: > Subject:[Peace-discuss] Memorial Day - Andy Piascik (2014) > > Memorial Day and Everywhere is War > by Andy Piascik > > Summer approaches and the stench of war is all around. Or, as the great Bob Marley put it, Everywhere is War. Start with the commemorations over a five-week span of Memorial Day, Flag Day and Independence Day, all presented varyingly as celebrations of our war dead, symbols of our greatness, the freedoms we love so dearly and seek to export to every corner of the world and, perhaps most important, the unquestioned rightness of our cause. > In reality, the celebrations are of imperialist war, with the talk about the hallowed dead just so much cover for the murderous nature of US foreign policy. Celebrating the dead – note that the dead celebrated are just the American dead, not any of the millions killed by US aggression or client states – is a no-lose proposition designed to render anyone who asks the wrong questions a traitor or a terrorist. The notion that the US regularly commits war crimes and that polished, well-educated men like John Kennedy and Barack Obama are war criminals is unthinkable; war criminals look like Osama bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein and those other nasty people far away, over there. > World War One Centennial > It’s also the summer of the centennial of the start of what in its time was known as the Great War, the greatest blood-letting in history except for that of the Second Great War barely two decades later. Of one thing we can be sure and that is that the lessons drawn from mainstream discussions of World War One will be all the wrong ones. Worse, the spectacle of the intelligentsia waxing eloquent about the horrors of war while unflinchingly cheering on the warmakers in Washington will be accepted by one and all of their kind as perfectly reasonable – as beyond discussion, in fact. > In recent weeks, meanwhile, mainstream commentators have been shocked to discover that things in Iraq are not alright, in fact are worse than at any time since the second US blitzkrieg in 2003. Gee, who knew. Who knew that an invasion predicated on a lie of weapons of mass destruction, designed to secure control of massive oil supplies, would go wrong? The political class and intelligentsia didn’t, or at least they pretended they didn’t, but millions around the world who demonstrated against the invasion in the weeks before it was launched certainly did. And one of the points those demonstrators underscored was that a US invasion would fuel sectarian divisions and violence, precisely as has happened. Al-Qaeda, which did not exist in Iraq prior to the invasion, now flourishes while a new group, the Islamist State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), rampages through the country. > The response of many elites in the US, naturally, is for more war. Calls from certain factions for a third US invasion are growing louder and, true to his preference for violence over diplomacy, Obama has sent a strike force to Iraq. Whether the people of the United States can come together as we did last summer when we rose up and prevented Obama from attacking Syria remains to be seen. We must at least try. > Disgraceful Treatment of Veterans > Also on the war front is the Veterans Affairs’ disgraceful neglect of ex-soldiers in need of medical care. For years, political elites have been slashing benefits for veterans while increasing spending on weapons and cutting taxes for the Super Rich. That the problem came to a head with a Democrat in the White House is simply an accident of timing, and it is especially outrageous that the most enthusiastic cheerleaders of the illegal Bush-Cheney invasions, as well as reductions to the VA’s budgets and the tax cuts for 1%, now pretend that they care about soldiers. > Equally farcical is the commencement of yet another round of hearings on the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Such hearings would certainly be valuable if everything related to US actions in Libya since the launch of the 2011 assault were up for review, but there is virtually no chance of that happening. The deaths of tens of thousands of Libyans in yet one more illegal military strike, as well as the resulting chaos and violence in that country, is of no concern to those who long for the good old days of Bush-Cheney and are interested only in scoring political points. > Bowe Bergdhal > Then there is the saga of the much-vilified Bowe Bergdhal, a heroic young man who came to see the criminal nature of the US invasion of Afghanistan. The refusal of working class youth to fight for Empire is the ruling class’s biggest nightmare and the attacks on Bergdahl, like the show trial that convicted Chelsea Manning, show how far they will go to punish those in uniform who dare challenge their objectives. A hidden aspect of the movement that ended US carnage in Southeast Asia is that it was the widespread opposition of soldiers, both as embodied by organizations like Vietnam Veterans Against the War as well as active duty resisters, that decisively turned the tide. > So alarming was this development that two massive disinformation campaigns were immediately launched: the myth of the hostility of the anti-war movement for returning soldiers that sought to drive a wedge between active duty and homefront resistance (see, for example, Jerry Lembcke’s outstanding book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam); and the completely fraudulent MIA blitz (expertly exposed by Bruce Franklin in MIA, or Mythmaking in America) concocted by the Nixon Administration to shift attention away from the death and destruction wrought by the US to the plight of nonexistent prisoners of war. > Because preventing any similar development of resistance among soldiers is central to imperial objectives, discussion has largely avoided what Bergdahl actually said about his service in Afghanistan, including his telling declaration in a 2009 e-mail to his parents, as quoted by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!: “The future is too good to waste on lies and life is way too short to care for the damnation of others as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I've seen their ideas, I'm ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self righteous arrogance that they thrive in.” Rather than joining in the Bowe Bergdhal lynch mob, US soldiers everywhere, not to mention those with loved ones in the military, would do well to heed his words and experience. > The Supreme International Crime > Lastly, the same standard that applies to the war crimes of others applies to the US. As articulated by Robert H. Jackson, chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, a war of aggression such as committed by the US against Afghanistan and Iraq “is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from all other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” In such a circumstance, what Bergdahl did was proper and, it could be argued, obligatory for anyone party to war crimes. So amidst the flag waving and speechifying that glorifies imperialism, we should support him and prisoners of conscience like Chelsea Manning. We should demand that all services veterans require be provided, that US bases around the world be closed, that soldiers be returned home and that the US cease its campaign of endless aggression. And as enticing as the military may seem in such desperate economic times, we should counsel young people to stay away no matter how bleak the alternatives may be. > <1527519398195_resized.jpg>_______________________________________________ > 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 davidgreen50 at gmail.com Mon May 28 15:05:06 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 10:05:06 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic In-Reply-To: <19883180-0110-4469-8FF4-B37E2A80A843@illinois.edu> References: <19883180-0110-4469-8FF4-B37E2A80A843@illinois.edu> Message-ID: https://thisishell.com/guests/barbara-ehrenreich A good interview can be found here. On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > > > *From: *Louis Proyect via Marxism > *Subject: **[Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness > Culture | The New Republic* > *Date: *May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT > *To: *"C. G. Estabrook" > *Reply-To: *Louis Proyect , "Activists and scholars in > Marxist tradition" > > > Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of > her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have > aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American > culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. > Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the > culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings > of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, > encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of > “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich > observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative > obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, > and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its > sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. > > https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crtique- > wellness-culture > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher% > 40illinois.edu > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ewj at pigs.ag Mon May 28 15:33:57 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 23:33:57 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] fyi In-Reply-To: References: <1527439188767.5j14bjapkuyrfb1vkx34hdky@android.mail.163.com> <1527442120612.2tatctl1jzjyqp1ywsk3ejtx@android.mail.163.com> Message-ID: <72e4e588-f816-aaf6-1bb7-2e6c8d166fad@pigs.ag> Kids.. they give us a chance to be better than we are.. better than we used to be. - Vanessa (Deadpool2) It's why I was wondering if y'all had seen it. I got hold of a sort of crummy cam download and got the quote I was after. Deadpool (1) was not approved for theatres in China because it was believed that the local audiences wouldnt understand it. (not to mention that it would have been 3 minutes long after the Bowdlerizations.) I suppose Deadpool2 also wont make it here. David Enstrom wrote: > ewj, > Deadpool? > > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 12:28 PM, ewj > wrote: > > David. > Since you live in the States I suppose you have seen Deadpool2 at > least once or twice already.   Is it as good as they say?  as good > as the first one?  Man you sooo lucky. > > I am so jealous because I will to wait for dvd or a crummy camera > pirate torrent. > > > > > On 2018-05-28 00:52 , David Enstrom > Wrote: > > I'm sorry you're tired. > > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:40 AM ewj via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > > Now that i think about it there likely are women who > 'don't pack the gear to be mamas'.  no eugenics here they > just drop out of the gene pool after awhile.  probably > cold northern climates and long hard winters eh? > > > > > > On 2018-05-28 00:20 , bjornsona at ameritech.net > Wrote: > > Y'all are funny. >  I get So tired of men debating women bearing children > without having had the experience of debating/choosing > every morsel of food and drink going into one's mouth > for 9 -1/2  months AND the entire period of > breastfeeding. Also the experience of the severe > discomfort that can result from an unfortunate food > choice: both in a woman's body, the baby who is > breastfeedings' body, which therefore makes the woman > and possibly her family extremely unhappy, and some > choices of which might have developmental > repercussions for months and years. I get tired of > people who have not been sexually, physically, > emotionally or verbally abused as children having > absolutely no idea what Complex PTSD, that almost > always arises from such abuse, does to an adult's > ability to make proper adult decisions, such as > whether or not they are capable of being in a > relationship or raising an emotionally stable child. > Making laws and  judgments to curtail someone with > C-PTSD from accessing contraception, abortion, mental > & physical health care, only leads to more violence in > this country. > > Breedin' and birthin' and belongin' to the human race > are heavy, man. > > /Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone/ > > > ------ Original message------ > *From: *C. G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > *Date: *Sun, May 27, 2018 10:15 AM > *To: *ewj; > *Cc: *C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss;Karen Aram; > *Subject:*Re: [Peace-discuss] fyi > > A prophet w/o honor in his own country... > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 27, 2018, at 10:11 AM, ewj via Peace-discuss > > wrote: > >> Everything I needed to know about populations i >> learned from hop hornbeam and Escherichia coli   That >> there social justice stuff must be some powerful shit >> if it can overturn laws of physics.  There must be a >> catch.  I bet it is expensive or illegal or both. >> >> About large families being the result of >> poverty...are you saying that avarice is linked to >> hating children.  wait wasnt that what wcfields was >> trying to tell us all.al ong? >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2018-05-27 22 :17 , C G >> Estabrook via Peace-discuss >> Wrote: >> >> Don’t be ridiculous. Population stabilizes with >> development and social justice. >> >> People aren’t poor because they have too many >> children. People have too many children because >> they’re poor - an extended family in the only >> form of social security in societies lacking >> social justice. >> >>> On May 27, 2018, at 9:06 AM, David Enstrom via >>> Peace-discuss >> > wrote: >>> >>> Che's remark shows an ignorance of the >>> relationships between over population, >>> individual suffering, environmental degradation >>> and WAR. >>> Che clearly not a demographer. >> >>> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 8:51 AM C G Estabrook >>> via Peace-discuss >>> >> > wrote: >> >>> The US contraceptive and anti-natal policies >>> were meant to reduce the population >>> pressures for social justice in America’s >>> semi-colonies, particularly in Latin America. >>> >>> Hence Che’s remark. >>> >>>> On May 27, 2018, at 8:39 AM, Karen Aram via >>>> Peace-discuss >>>> >>> > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Fear of forced sterilization is not an >>>> excuse for preventing a woman’s choice over >>>> her body. In fact, forcing childbirth is >>>> little different from forced sterilization. >>>> Killing the unborn, we’re speaking of seeds >>>> and fetuses not babies, is not the same >>>> thing as killing children already born, >>>> living their lives. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On May 27, 2018, at 03:45, C G Estabrook >>>>> via Peace-discuss >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The US has long sponsored contraceptive >>>>> and anti-natal policies in Latin America. >>>>> (Not, for the most part, so brutally as >>>>> Israel’s sterilization programs for >>>>> Bedouins, African refugees, etc.) >>>>> >>>>> Che Guevara is supposed to have attacked >>>>> those programs by saying, “It’s easier to >>>>> kill a guerrilla in the womb than in the >>>>> hills." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On May 26, 2018, at 11:10 PM, David >>>>>> Enstrom via Peace-discuss >>>>>> >>>>> > >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://theintercept.com/2018/05/26/uganda-american-aid-birth-control/ >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>>> >>>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 galliher at illinois.edu Mon May 28 17:28:52 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 12:28:52 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Memorial Day and the US war in SE Asia Message-ID: <1587E43B-9C69-4273-9298-983918A06F09@illinois.edu> > A WILL interview with a Vietnam war draft resister, who was imprisoned for his resistance. —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fboyle at illinois.edu Mon May 28 18:18:41 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 18:18:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] GI Resisters to War Message-ID: ...Since those student days I have personally appeared pro bono publico in five U.S. military courts-martial proceedings involving warfare that were organized in accordance with the Congress's Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.)--which still does not apply to the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts despite the ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court in Hamdan that the U.C.M.J. should be applied in Guantanamo--on behalf of five U. S. military personnel who each acted as matters of courage, integrity, principle, conscience and at great risk to their own freedom: 1. U. S. Marine Corporal Jeff Paterson, the first U.S. military resister to President Bush Sr.'s genocidal war against Iraq; {got him off} 2. Army Captain Doctor Yolanda Huet-Vaughn, the highest ranking U. S. commissioned officer to be court-martialed for refusing to participate in President Bush Sr.'s genocidal war against Iraq; {facing 5 years, got her out of Leavenworth after 8 months and adopted a Prisoner of Conscience by Amnesty International} 3. Captain Lawrence Rockwood, who was court-martialed by the U. S. Army for trying to stop torture in Haiti after the Clinton administration had illegally invaded that country in 1994; {got him off} 4. Army Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, the first U. S. military resister to be court-martialed for refusing to participate in President Bush Jr.'s war of aggression against Iraq; {facing 2 years, got 8 months and adopted a Prisoner of Conscience by Amnesty International}; and 5. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, the first U. S. commissioned officer to be court-martialed for his refusal to participate in President Bush Jr.'s war of aggression against Iraq.{got him off} How we defended them is explained in my book "Protesting Power: War, Resistance and Law," Rowman and Littlefield Inc. 2008. Fab. ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD 4501 Forbes Blvd., Suite 200 Lanham, Maryland 20706 LITTLEFIELD (800) 462-6420 www.RowmanLittlefield.com PROTESTING POWER WAR, RESISTANCE, AND LAW By Francis A. Boyle "If you believe Dante may be right, that "the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of moral crisis, remain neutral," you need this book.If you are concerned that our country lives by its Constitution and laws, its often-proclaimed principles . . . you too should read this book. . . If you cherish freedom, here is your chance to learn how much you have. A person ignorant of her rights has little advantage over those who have none."-Ramsey Clark, Former U.S. Attorney General "Francis Boyle, who has distinguished himself again and again as a fierce and brilliant defender of international law and human rights, now takes his mission one step further. He lays out a comprehensive argument in defense of citizens who commit civil resistance to protest illegal governmental aggressions and war crimes. He does so with impeccable research, stylistic elegance, and devastating evidence. This is an invaluable and powerful handbook for citizens who dare to challenge our war-makers." -Howard Zinn "In this expert and lucid manual, international lawyer Francis Boyle focuses his attention on civil resistance, a category that he distinguishes sharply from civil disobedience. Civil resistance, he persuasively argues, is a 'basic right' of American citizens under international and domestic law, as 'it is the civil-resisters who are the sheriffs, and the U.S. government officials committing state crimes are the outlaws.' The historical and legal analysis provides information and understanding of inestimable value to all citizens who care about their country." -Noam Chomsky "Francis Boyle has, once again, given us a valuable lesson in current history and invaluable insight into the role that lawyers must now play in defending human rights. He reminds us also that the significant cases are not 'about the lawyers.' We lawyers are called upon to give voice to the struggles and aspirations of others. This book will help us learn to play that role." -Michael F. Tigar, Washington College of Law and Chair, ABA Section of Litigation, 1989-1990 In this indispensable book, distinguished activist lawyer Francis Boyle sounds an impassioned clarion call to citizen action against Bush administration policies, both domestic and international. Especially since the Reagan Administration, hundreds of thousands of Americans have used non-violent civil resistance to protest against elements of U.S. policy that violate basic principles of international law, the United States Constitution, and human rights. Such citizen protests have led to an unprecedented number of arrests and prosecutions by federal, state, and local governments around the country. Boyle, who has spent his career advising and defending civil resisters, explores how international law can be used to question the legality of specific U.S. government foreign and domestic policies. He focuses especially on the aftermath of 9/11 and the implications of the war on Afghanistan, the war on terrorism, the war on Iraq, the doctrine of preventive warfare, and the domestic abridgement of civil rights. Written for concerned citizens, activists, NGOs, civil resisters, their supporters, and their lawyers, Protesting Power provides the best legal and constitutional arguments to support and defend civil resistance activities. Including a number of compelling excerpts from his own trial appearances as an expert witness and as counsel, the author offers inspirational and practical advice for protesters who find themselves in court. This invaluable book stands alone as the only guide available on how to use international law, constitutional law, and the laws of war to defend peaceful non-violent protesters against governmental policies that are illegal and criminal. About the Author Francis Boyle is professor of law at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. A Harvard law graduate, for the past twenty years he has been involved as lawyer and/or witness in the major cases challenging U.S. defense policy, notably nuclear issues, and, in recent years, preemptive wars. He speaks and writes regularly on civil resistance and antiwar issues. War and Peace Library series November 2007, 256 pages ISBN 0-7425-3892-3 / 978-0-7425-3892-4 $24.95 paper ISBN 0-7425-3891-5 / 978-0-7425-3891-7 $75.00 cloth Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) -----Original Message----- From: Boyle, Francis [mailto:FBOYLE at law.illinois.edu] Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 8:58 AM To: Killeacle Subject: Harvard's Gitmo Kangaroo Law School Copyright 2010 Newstex LLC All Rights Reserved Newstex Web Blogs Copyright 2010 Atlantic Free Press Atlantic Free Press April 2, 2010 Friday 12:27 AM EST LENGTH: 2153 words HEADLINE: Harvard's Gitmo Kangaroo Law School: The School for Torturers BYLINE: Francis A Boyle BODY:     Apr. 2, 2010 (Atlantic Free Press delivered by Newstex) -- by Francis A. Boyle Ph.D. Not surprisingly, the January 2007 issue of the American Journal of Imperial Law--otherwise known as the self-styled American Journal of International Law but originally founded a century ago and still operated by U. S. War and State Department legal apparatchiks and their law professorial fellow-travelers-- published an article by Harvard Law School's recently retired Bemis Professor of International Law Detlev Vagts (who only taught me the required course on Legal Accounting) arguing in favor of the Pentagon's Kangaroo Courts System on Guantanamo despite the fact that they have been soundly condemned by every human rights organization and every human rights official and leader in the entire world as well as by the United States Supreme Court itself in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).     I am not going to bother to recite here all the grievous deficiencies of the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts under International Law and U.S. Constitutional Law. But suffice it to say that the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts constitute war crimes under the Laws of War, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and even the U. S. Army's own Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare (1956). Field Manual 27-10 was drafted for the Pentagon by my Laws of War teacher Richard R. Baxter, who was generally recognized as the world's leading expert on that subject. That is precisely why I voluntarily chose to study International Law with him and his long-time collaborator Louis B. Sohn, and not with the bean-counter Vagts. For the entire post-World War II generation of international law students at Harvard Law School, Louis Sohn shall always be our real Bemis Professor of International Law and never the False Pretender to that Throne known as Detlev Vagts. Since those student days I have personally appeared pro bono publico in five U.S. military courts-martial proceedings involving warfare that were organized in accordance with the Congress's Uniform Code of Military Justice (U.C.M.J.)--which still does not apply to the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts despite the ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court in Hamdan that the U.C.M.J. should be applied in Guantanamo--on behalf of five U. S. military personnel who each acted as matters of courage, integrity, principle, conscience and at great risk to their own freedom: 1. U. S. Marine Corporal Jeff Paterson, the first U.S. military resister to President Bush Sr.'s genocidal war against Iraq; 2. Army Captain Doctor Yolanda Huet-Vaughn, the highest ranking U. S. commissioned officer to be court-martialed for refusing to participate in President Bush Sr.'s genocidal war against Iraq; 3. Captain Lawrence Rockwood, who was court-martialed by the U. S. Army for trying to stop torture in Haiti after the Clinton administration had illegally invaded that country in 1994; 4. Army Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejia, the first U. S. military resister to be court-martialed for refusing to participate in President Bush Jr.'s war of aggression against Iraq; and 5. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, the first U. S. commissioned officer to be court-martialed for his refusal to participate in President Bush Jr.'s war of aggression against Iraq. As I can attest from my direct personal involvement, each and every one of these five courts-martial under the U.C.M.J. were Stalinist show-trials produced and directed by the Pentagon that predictably and readily degenerated into travesties of justice. These five U.C.M.J. courts-martial involving U.S. warfare each proved correct the old adage attributed to Groucho Marx that military justice is to justice as military music is to music. By comparison, the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts will not even be run in accordance with the U.C.M.J. despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan that they should be. The Marx Brothers are running the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts. Whenever they are up and fully operating the Gitmo Courts will constitute Stalinist Show Trials as well as Kangaroo Courts, and their preliminary proceedings have already proven them to be Travesties of Justice. Even worse yet, fully-functioning Stalinist Gitmo Kangaroo Courts will quickly become conveyor-belts of death for alleged and already tortured terrorist suspects along the lines of the Texas execution chamber operated by George Bush Jr. when he was the "governor" of that state and tortured to death 152 victims by means of lethal injection. Gitmo and/or Gitmo-North in Illinois will become Americas first-ever Nazi-style death camp. But today under the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, executing persons detained as a result of armed conflict without a fair trial before a regularly constituted court constitutes a grave war crime. To be sure, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution Harvard Law Professor Vagts has the freedom to advocate war crimes so long as he does not participate in their commission, or incite them, or aid and abet them. But precisely where is that line to be drawn for law professors? In this regard, the Harvard Law School Faculty currently has at least five professors who have advocated torture and war crimes: 1. Vagts himself, who supported abusing the then recently captured President of Iraq Saddam Hussein despite his being publicly acknowledged to be a Prisoner of War by the Bush Jr. administration itself and thus absolutely protected by the Third Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Convention against Torture; 2. the infamous Alan Dershowitz, a self-incriminated war criminal in his own right. Dersh publicly acknowledged being a member of a Mossad Committee for approving the murder and assassination of Palestinians, which violates the Geneva Conventions and is thus a grave war crime; 3. the Neo-Con Con Law non-entity known as Richard Parker; 4. Another one of my teachers, Waco Phil Heymann. Previously, Waco Phil had been Deputy to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco. Reno ordered the Waco Massacre, while Heymann ordered its cover-up and thus earned his well-deserved sobriquet of Waco Phil as an Accessory After The Fact. All those incinerated women and children! 5. The war criminal Jack Goldsmith who while working as a lawyer for the Bush Jr. administration at both the Pentagon and later its Department of In-Justice did much of the legal spade-work designing, justifying and approving the hideous human rights atrocities that the Bush Jr. administration inflicted on everyone after 9/11. Goldsmith and his co-felon accomplice and co-conspirator from the Bush Jr. administration Professor John Yoo--now desecrating Berkeley's Law School where my friend and colleague the late, great Dean Frank Newman had taught Human Rights and International Law--are functionally analogous to Nazi Law Professor Carl Schmitt, who justified every hideous atrocity that Hitler and the Nazis inflicted on anyone, including the Jews. Despite my best efforts to prevent it, the Harvard Law School Faculty and Deans hired the war criminal Goldsmith right out of the Bush Jr. administration knowing full well that he was up to his eyeballs in the Gitmo Kangaroo Courts, torture, war crimes, enforced disappearances, murder, kidnapping, and crimes against humanity, at a minimum. And when Goldsmith's proverbial "smoking-gun" Department of In-Justice Memorandum was published by the Washington Post, then Harvard Law School's Dean Elena Kagan contemptuously boasted in response about how "proud" she was to have hired this notorious war criminal. Previously Kagan had also publicly bragged that the future of International Legal Studies at Harvard Law School would be in the "good hands" of their resident war criminal Goldsmith. How perversely and tragically true! The Neo-Conservative Harvard Law School Faculty and Deans deliberately hired this Neo-Nazi legal architect of the Bush Jr. administration's bogus and nefarious "war against terrorism" because they fully support it together with all its essential accouterments of torture, kangaroo courts, war crimes, murder, kidnapping, enforced disappearances, crimes against humanity, and Nuremburg crimes against peace. By contrast, after the terrorist bombing of the Murrah Federal Building by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in alleged revenge for the Waco Massacre and Cover-up by Janet Reno and Waco Phil Heymann, to the best of my recollection I do not remember that the Neo-Conservative Harvard Law School Faculty and Deans advocated kangaroo courts, torture, war crimes, and racist profiling for America's population of White Judeo-Christian Males. Yet after 9/11 the fundamentally White Racist Harvard Law School Faculty and Deans have no problem with inflicting torture, kangaroo courts, war crimes, and racist profiling upon Muslims/Arabs/Asians of Color, which is exactly why they hired the war criminal Goldsmith to teach such criminal practices to their own law students and thus someday turn them into racist U. S. governmental war criminals in their own right. This is because for the most part the Harvard Law School Faculty and Deans have always been viscerally bigoted and racist against Muslims/Arabs/Asians and other People of Color since at least when I first matriculated there in September of 1971. The Harvard Law School (H.L.S.) Faculty and Deans are no longer fit to educate Lawyers, Members of the Bar, and Officers of the Court. They are a sick joke and a demented fraud. Groucho Marx would have had a field day with them: Harvard is to Law School as Torture is to Law. The Harvard Law School Faculty and Deans torture the Law. Do not send your children or students to Harvard Law School where they will grow up to become racist war criminals! Harvard Law School is a Neo-Con cesspool. As for Harvard Laws Neo-Con Dean Kagan, Harvard Law Graduate President Barack Obama appointed her Solicitor General in his Department of Justice as the third highest ranking official in that department and thus as the proverbial oeTenth Justice for the 9-Justice U.S. Supreme Court. In this capacity Kagan has quarter-backed, supervised, and defended in all U.S. federal courts the Obama administrations continuation of the Bush Jr. administrations hideous atrocities perpetrated against human rights, international law, civil rights, civil liberties, the U.S. Constitution, and Americas Bill of Rights. As payback for her yeoman Neo-Con efforts, Kagan is now reportedly at the top of a very short list for President Obama to nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court upon the expected retirement of Mr. Justice Stevens, the reputed leader of the Courts oeliberal wing. Of course Stevens widespread denomination as a oeliberal just proves how far to the reactionary right the Supreme Court has moved since Stevens was recommended for the Supremes to President Gerald Ford by the arch-reactionary jurist Edward Hirsh Levi, then U.S. Attorney General and previously Dean of the arch-reactionary University of Chicago Law School where Antonin Scalia, Obama, Kagan, and her pet war criminal Goldsmith would all teach. As President of the entire arch-reactionary University of Chicago itself, Levi drove out about 30% of my undergraduate class that in 1968 had unwittingly entered this Birthplace and Warren for the Neo-Con Movement that was founded there by Chicago Professor Leo Strauss, a protégé of Nazi Law Professor Carl Schmitt. Americas Neo-Cons are Neo-Nazis. In an interview she recently gave to National Public Radio, Obamas Neo-Con Solicitor General Kagan went out of her way to proclaim: oeI love the Federalist Society! (Emphasis in the original.) The Federalist Society is a gang of lawyers, law professors, and judges who for the most part are right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, elitist, war-mongering, and totalitarian. For example, almost all of the Bush Jr. administration lawyers responsible for its war criminal torture scandal were and still are members of the Federalist Society. Likewise, five Justices on the current U.S. Supreme Court were/are members of the Federalist Society: Harvard Law Graduate Roberts; Harvard Law Graduate Scalia; Harvard Law Graduate Kennedy; Yale Law Graduate Thomas; and Yale Law Graduate Alito. Thats what an oeelite legal education will do for you. In any event, H.L.S. President Obamas elevation of the H.L.S. Neo-Con Kagan to the Supremes would cement the Federalist Societys Neo-Con stranglehold over the U.S. Supreme Court for the next generation. As for another publicly touted Supremes candidate, the Neo-Con Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School and Harvard Law School, who is currently working at the White House as Obamas Disinformation and Infiltration Czar, would be just as lethal as Kagan to the American Constitution and Republic if sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court. Time for the Ordinary People of America to get organized against these Neo-Con legal elites! From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 28 19:03:07 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 19:03:07 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic In-Reply-To: <19883180-0110-4469-8FF4-B37E2A80A843@illinois.edu> References: <19883180-0110-4469-8FF4-B37E2A80A843@illinois.edu> Message-ID: I won’t read the article, as I don’t like the TNR either. As someone who has been working out since age 14 on a regular basis, given my Father was obsessed with working out with weights, I am not excessive but I do use make up, and slather myself in cream morning and night, not to mention staying out of the sun. None of this is to keep young but just to keep “me” an aging me, but me nonetheless, given I’ve been doing it all since an early age. Hair color more recent. Drugs no, irritating doctors, and hippy’s in the past, attempting to push…..alcohol minimal, cigarettes no. Consuming veggies not as much as I should, given I am a semi vegetarian. However, I agree with the paragraph below, assumed to be written by Barbara Ehrenreich. Keeping the brain fit, is the most important, though I will not take up crossword puzzles even though it kept my aunts brain functioning into her nineties, unlike her sister, my Mother, whose brain was gone long ago. Yes, its big business, big bucks even back in the day, sixties before Jane Fonda VDO’s hit the market, when my Father ran a health club, it was all about the money, the kick backs doctors receive from the pharmaceuticals for the prescriptions they write also go back to the sixties, I know this from experience. Some things never change and the baby boomers, those who were sure they should never listen to anyone over the age of 30, aka Mick Jagger, maybe why we have left the mess for future generations as we have. Now, please don’t send anything more that I might agree with, from that Syria war supporter Louis Proyect, who turns my stomach with his war mongering propaganda. His influence on the younger generations who believe a Marxist would also be an imperialist, is beyond nonsense. On May 28, 2018, at 07:17, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Louis Proyect via Marxism > Subject: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic Date: May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT To: "C. G. Estabrook" > Reply-To: Louis Proyect >, "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" > Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crtique-wellness-culture _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 28 19:14:26 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 19:14:26 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Memorial Day - Andy Piascik (2014) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nice going Ann On May 28, 2018, at 07:58, bjornsona--- via Peace-discuss > wrote: Today's anti-war T-shirt says "Stop Wars" in Star Wars font. And Illini Orange. Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------ From: David Green via Peace-discuss Date: Mon, May 28, 2018 12:17 AM To: Peace-discuss List (peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net); Cc: Subject:[Peace-discuss] Memorial Day - Andy Piascik (2014) Memorial Day and Everywhere is War by Andy Piascik Summer approaches and the stench of war is all around. Or, as the great Bob Marley put it, Everywhere is War. Start with the commemorations over a five-week span of Memorial Day, Flag Day and Independence Day, all presented varyingly as celebrations of our war dead, symbols of our greatness, the freedoms we love so dearly and seek to export to every corner of the world and, perhaps most important, the unquestioned rightness of our cause. In reality, the celebrations are of imperialist war, with the talk about the hallowed dead just so much cover for the murderous nature of US foreign policy. Celebrating the dead – note that the dead celebrated are just the American dead, not any of the millions killed by US aggression or client states – is a no-lose proposition designed to render anyone who asks the wrong questions a traitor or a terrorist. The notion that the US regularly commits war crimes and that polished, well-educated men like John Kennedy and Barack Obama are war criminals is unthinkable; war criminals look like Osama bin-Laden and Saddam Hussein and those other nasty people far away, over there. World War One Centennial It’s also the summer of the centennial of the start of what in its time was known as the Great War, the greatest blood-letting in history except for that of the Second Great War barely two decades later. Of one thing we can be sure and that is that the lessons drawn from mainstream discussions of World War One will be all the wrong ones. Worse, the spectacle of the intelligentsia waxing eloquent about the horrors of war while unflinchingly cheering on the warmakers in Washington will be accepted by one and all of their kind as perfectly reasonable – as beyond discussion, in fact. In recent weeks, meanwhile, mainstream commentators have been shocked to discover that things in Iraq are not alright, in fact are worse than at any time since the second US blitzkrieg in 2003. Gee, who knew. Who knew that an invasion predicated on a lie of weapons of mass destruction, designed to secure control of massive oil supplies, would go wrong? The political class and intelligentsia didn’t, or at least they pretended they didn’t, but millions around the world who demonstrated against the invasion in the weeks before it was launched certainly did. And one of the points those demonstrators underscored was that a US invasion would fuel sectarian divisions and violence, precisely as has happened. Al-Qaeda, which did not exist in Iraq prior to the invasion, now flourishes while a new group, the Islamist State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), rampages through the country. The response of many elites in the US, naturally, is for more war. Calls from certain factions for a third US invasion are growing louder and, true to his preference for violence over diplomacy, Obama has sent a strike force to Iraq. Whether the people of the United States can come together as we did last summer when we rose up and prevented Obama from attacking Syria remains to be seen. We must at least try. Disgraceful Treatment of Veterans Also on the war front is the Veterans Affairs’ disgraceful neglect of ex-soldiers in need of medical care. For years, political elites have been slashing benefits for veterans while increasing spending on weapons and cutting taxes for the Super Rich. That the problem came to a head with a Democrat in the White House is simply an accident of timing, and it is especially outrageous that the most enthusiastic cheerleaders of the illegal Bush-Cheney invasions, as well as reductions to the VA’s budgets and the tax cuts for 1%, now pretend that they care about soldiers. Equally farcical is the commencement of yet another round of hearings on the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Such hearings would certainly be valuable if everything related to US actions in Libya since the launch of the 2011 assault were up for review, but there is virtually no chance of that happening. The deaths of tens of thousands of Libyans in yet one more illegal military strike, as well as the resulting chaos and violence in that country, is of no concern to those who long for the good old days of Bush-Cheney and are interested only in scoring political points. Bowe Bergdhal Then there is the saga of the much-vilified Bowe Bergdhal, a heroic young man who came to see the criminal nature of the US invasion of Afghanistan. The refusal of working class youth to fight for Empire is the ruling class’s biggest nightmare and the attacks on Bergdahl, like the show trial that convicted Chelsea Manning, show how far they will go to punish those in uniform who dare challenge their objectives. A hidden aspect of the movement that ended US carnage in Southeast Asia is that it was the widespread opposition of soldiers, both as embodied by organizations like Vietnam Veterans Against the War as well as active duty resisters, that decisively turned the tide. So alarming was this development that two massive disinformation campaigns were immediately launched: the myth of the hostility of the anti-war movement for returning soldiers that sought to drive a wedge between active duty and homefront resistance (see, for example, Jerry Lembcke’s outstanding book The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam); and the completely fraudulent MIA blitz (expertly exposed by Bruce Franklin in MIA, or Mythmaking in America) concocted by the Nixon Administration to shift attention away from the death and destruction wrought by the US to the plight of nonexistent prisoners of war. Because preventing any similar development of resistance among soldiers is central to imperial objectives, discussion has largely avoided what Bergdahl actually said about his service in Afghanistan, including his telling declaration in a 2009 e-mail to his parents, as quoted by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!: “The future is too good to waste on lies and life is way too short to care for the damnation of others as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I've seen their ideas, I'm ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self righteous arrogance that they thrive in.” Rather than joining in the Bowe Bergdhal lynch mob, US soldiers everywhere, not to mention those with loved ones in the military, would do well to heed his words and experience. The Supreme International Crime Lastly, the same standard that applies to the war crimes of others applies to the US. As articulated by Robert H. Jackson, chief US prosecutor at Nuremberg, a war of aggression such as committed by the US against Afghanistan and Iraq “is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from all other crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” In such a circumstance, what Bergdahl did was proper and, it could be argued, obligatory for anyone party to war crimes. So amidst the flag waving and speechifying that glorifies imperialism, we should support him and prisoners of conscience like Chelsea Manning. We should demand that all services veterans require be provided, that US bases around the world be closed, that soldiers be returned home and that the US cease its campaign of endless aggression. And as enticing as the military may seem in such desperate economic times, we should counsel young people to stay away no matter how bleak the alternatives may be. <1527519398195_resized.jpg>_______________________________________________ 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 fboyle at illinois.edu Mon May 28 20:02:44 2018 From: fboyle at illinois.edu (Boyle, Francis A) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 20:02:44 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic In-Reply-To: References: <19883180-0110-4469-8FF4-B37E2A80A843@illinois.edu> Message-ID: Now, please don’t send anything more that I might agree with, from that Syria war supporter Louis Proyect, who turns my stomach with his war mongering propaganda. His influence on the younger generations who believe a Marxist would also be an imperialist, is beyond nonsense. For sure! fab Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax) (personal comments only) From: Peace-discuss [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Karen Aram via Peace-discuss Sent: Monday, May 28, 2018 2:03 PM To: Estabrook, Carl G Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic I won’t read the article, as I don’t like the TNR either. As someone who has been working out since age 14 on a regular basis, given my Father was obsessed with working out with weights, I am not excessive but I do use make up, and slather myself in cream morning and night, not to mention staying out of the sun. None of this is to keep young but just to keep “me” an aging me, but me nonetheless, given I’ve been doing it all since an early age. Hair color more recent. Drugs no, irritating doctors, and hippy’s in the past, attempting to push…..alcohol minimal, cigarettes no. Consuming veggies not as much as I should, given I am a semi vegetarian. However, I agree with the paragraph below, assumed to be written by Barbara Ehrenreich. Keeping the brain fit, is the most important, though I will not take up crossword puzzles even though it kept my aunts brain functioning into her nineties, unlike her sister, my Mother, whose brain was gone long ago. Yes, its big business, big bucks even back in the day, sixties before Jane Fonda VDO’s hit the market, when my Father ran a health club, it was all about the money, the kick backs doctors receive from the pharmaceuticals for the prescriptions they write also go back to the sixties, I know this from experience. Some things never change and the baby boomers, those who were sure they should never listen to anyone over the age of 30, aka Mick Jagger, maybe why we have left the mess for future generations as we have. Now, please don’t send anything more that I might agree with, from that Syria war supporter Louis Proyect, who turns my stomach with his war mongering propaganda. His influence on the younger generations who believe a Marxist would also be an imperialist, is beyond nonsense. On May 28, 2018, at 07:17, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Louis Proyect via Marxism > Subject: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic Date: May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT To: "C. G. Estabrook" > Reply-To: Louis Proyect >, "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" > Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crtique-wellness-culture _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu _______________________________________________ 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 jbw292002 at gmail.com Mon May 28 20:38:10 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 15:38:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fwd: Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I read the New Republic article and thoroughly enjoyed it. The quote in Carl's original post is a paragraph from the article, not a quote by Barbara Ehrenreich herself. John Wason On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Karen Aram via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: In addition to my long diatribe below, I would like to suggest that baby > boomers attempts to to stay young, healthy and alive also started in the > sixties, the whole “Sex, drugs, rock & roll” culture” as I’ve said > previously may have been creative, and yes it helped to galvanize the young > at anti-war protests, nonetheless when the focus on the “self” took over, > which we know Edward Bernays was involved in creating, that ended interest > in the “collective” moving us into the eighties which was the “greed is > good” era. > > So there are many young people out there, probably joyful at the thought > of baby boomers demise given what they have inherited from us. > > PS I’m also reminded of the fact that many of the baby boomers, spent > their lives in segregated communities, so it’s only natural that many still > have attitudes that today reflect racism, something we are less apt to see > among the younger generations. > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > *Subject: **Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's > Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic* > *Date: *May 28, 2018 at 12:03:07 PDT > *To: *"Carl G. Estabrook" > *Cc: *"peace-discuss at anti-war.net" > *Reply-To: *Karen Aram > > I won’t read the article, as I don’t like the TNR either. > > As someone who has been working out since age 14 on a regular basis, given > my Father was obsessed with working out with weights, I am not excessive > but I do use make up, and slather myself in cream morning and night, not to > mention staying out of the sun. None of this is to keep young but just to > keep “me” an aging me, but me nonetheless, given I’ve been doing it all > since an early age. Hair color more recent. > > Drugs no, irritating doctors, and hippy’s in the past, attempting to > push…..alcohol minimal, cigarettes no. Consuming veggies not as much as I > should, given I am a semi vegetarian. > > However, I agree with the paragraph below, assumed to be written by > Barbara Ehrenreich. Keeping the brain fit, is the most important, though I > will not take up crossword puzzles even though it kept my aunts brain > functioning into her nineties, unlike her sister, my Mother, whose brain > was gone long ago. > > Yes, its big business, big bucks even back in the day, sixties before Jane > Fonda VDO’s hit the market, when my Father ran a health club, it was all > about the money, the kick backs doctors receive from the pharmaceuticals > for the prescriptions they write also go back to the sixties, I know this > from experience. Some things never change and the baby boomers, those who > were sure they should never listen to anyone over the age of 30, aka Mick > Jagger, maybe why we have left the mess for future generations as we have. > > Now, please don’t send anything more that I might agree with, from that > Syria war supporter *Louis Proyect*, who turns my stomach with his war > mongering propaganda. His influence on the younger generations who believe > a Marxist would also be an imperialist, is beyond nonsense. > > > On May 28, 2018, at 07:17, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > > *From: *Louis Proyect via Marxism > *Subject: **[Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness > Culture | The New Republic* > *Date: *May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT > *To: *"C. G. Estabrook" > *Reply-To: *Louis Proyect , "Activists and scholars in > Marxist tradition" > > > Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of > her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have > aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American > culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. > Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the > culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings > of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, > encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of > “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich > observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative > obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, > and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its > sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. > > https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crtique- > wellness-culture > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher% > 40illinois.edu > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbw292002 at gmail.com Mon May 28 20:38:10 2018 From: jbw292002 at gmail.com (John W.) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 15:38:10 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fwd: Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I read the New Republic article and thoroughly enjoyed it. The quote in Carl's original post is a paragraph from the article, not a quote by Barbara Ehrenreich herself. John Wason On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Karen Aram via Peace < peace at lists.chambana.net> wrote: In addition to my long diatribe below, I would like to suggest that baby > boomers attempts to to stay young, healthy and alive also started in the > sixties, the whole “Sex, drugs, rock & roll” culture” as I’ve said > previously may have been creative, and yes it helped to galvanize the young > at anti-war protests, nonetheless when the focus on the “self” took over, > which we know Edward Bernays was involved in creating, that ended interest > in the “collective” moving us into the eighties which was the “greed is > good” era. > > So there are many young people out there, probably joyful at the thought > of baby boomers demise given what they have inherited from us. > > PS I’m also reminded of the fact that many of the baby boomers, spent > their lives in segregated communities, so it’s only natural that many still > have attitudes that today reflect racism, something we are less apt to see > among the younger generations. > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > *Subject: **Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's > Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic* > *Date: *May 28, 2018 at 12:03:07 PDT > *To: *"Carl G. Estabrook" > *Cc: *"peace-discuss at anti-war.net" > *Reply-To: *Karen Aram > > I won’t read the article, as I don’t like the TNR either. > > As someone who has been working out since age 14 on a regular basis, given > my Father was obsessed with working out with weights, I am not excessive > but I do use make up, and slather myself in cream morning and night, not to > mention staying out of the sun. None of this is to keep young but just to > keep “me” an aging me, but me nonetheless, given I’ve been doing it all > since an early age. Hair color more recent. > > Drugs no, irritating doctors, and hippy’s in the past, attempting to > push…..alcohol minimal, cigarettes no. Consuming veggies not as much as I > should, given I am a semi vegetarian. > > However, I agree with the paragraph below, assumed to be written by > Barbara Ehrenreich. Keeping the brain fit, is the most important, though I > will not take up crossword puzzles even though it kept my aunts brain > functioning into her nineties, unlike her sister, my Mother, whose brain > was gone long ago. > > Yes, its big business, big bucks even back in the day, sixties before Jane > Fonda VDO’s hit the market, when my Father ran a health club, it was all > about the money, the kick backs doctors receive from the pharmaceuticals > for the prescriptions they write also go back to the sixties, I know this > from experience. Some things never change and the baby boomers, those who > were sure they should never listen to anyone over the age of 30, aka Mick > Jagger, maybe why we have left the mess for future generations as we have. > > Now, please don’t send anything more that I might agree with, from that > Syria war supporter *Louis Proyect*, who turns my stomach with his war > mongering propaganda. His influence on the younger generations who believe > a Marxist would also be an imperialist, is beyond nonsense. > > > On May 28, 2018, at 07:17, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss < > peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > > *From: *Louis Proyect via Marxism > *Subject: **[Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness > Culture | The New Republic* > *Date: *May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT > *To: *"C. G. Estabrook" > *Reply-To: *Louis Proyect , "Activists and scholars in > Marxist tradition" > > > Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of > her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have > aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American > culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. > Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the > culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings > of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, > encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of > “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich > observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative > obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, > and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its > sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. > > https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crtique- > wellness-culture > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher% > 40illinois.edu > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Peace mailing list > Peace at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 28 22:15:33 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 22:15:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on Trump in Truthout of April this year. Message-ID: * ABOUT US * DONATE * "A Complete Disaster": Noam Chomsky on Trump and the Future of US Politics Tuesday, April 24, 2018By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout | Interview * * font size [decrease font size] [increase font size] * Print * [US President Donald Trump speaks during a joint presser with Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida on April 18, 2018. (Photo: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)]President Donald Trump speaks during a joint presser with Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, on April 18, 2018. (Photo: Mandel Ngan / AFP / Getty Images) Truthout is your go-to source for news about the most critical issues of our time. If you want to see more stories like this one, make a tax-deductible donation today! Just how bad are things with Donald Trump in the White House? And what does having a racist, misogynist, xenophobic and erratic president who continues to enjoy unquestionable support from his base tell us about the state of US politics and the dangers to the future of democracy in the US and in the world on the whole? Noam Chomsky shares his thoughts on these and other related questions in an exclusive interview with C. J. Polychroniou for Truthout. C.J. Polychroniou: Noam, it's been already 14 months into Donald Trump's turbulent White House tenure, but sometimes we still need to pinch ourselves to make sure that it's not a nightmare that a racist, misogynist, homophobic man who apparently cares only about himself runs the world's most powerful nation. But, really, how bad is it having Trump in the White House? Very bad. As Trump began his second year in office, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists advanced their Doomsday Clock to two minutes to midnight, citing increasing concerns over nuclear weapons and climate change. That's the closest it has been to terminal disaster since 1953, when the US and USSR exploded thermonuclear weapons. That was before the release of Trump's Nuclear Posture Review, which significantly increases the dangers by lowering the threshold for nuclear attack and by developing new weapons that increase the danger of terminal war. On climate change, Trump is a complete disaster, along with the entire Republican leadership. Every candidate in the Republican primaries either denied that what is happening is happening or said ... we shouldn't do anything about it. And these attitudes infect the Republican base. Half of Republicans deny that global warming is taking place, while 70 percent say that whether it is or not, humans are not responsible. Such figures would be shocking anywhere, but are remarkably so in a developed country with unparalleled resources and easy access to information. It is hard to find words to describe the fact that the most powerful country in world history is not only withdrawing from global efforts to address a truly existential threat, but is also dedicating itself to accelerating the race to disaster, all to put more dollars in overstuffed pockets. No less astounding is the limited attention paid to the phenomenon. When we turn to matters of great though lesser import, the conclusion is the same: disaster. While Trump's antics occupy the attention of the media, his associates in Congress have been working intensively to advance the interests of their actual constituency -- extreme wealth and corporate power -- while dismantling what is of value to the general population and future generations. With justice, the Republican leadership regard the tax bill as their greatest triumph. Joseph Stiglitz rightly describes the triumph as "The US Donor Relief Act of 2017," a vast giveaway to their actual constituency -- and to themselves. As he points out, the Republican leaders "are stuffing themselves at the trough -- Trump, Kushner and many others in his administration are among the biggest winners -- thinking that this may be their last chance at such a feast." And "Après moi, le deluge" -- literally in this case. The grand triumph brings an extra advantage. It explodes the deficit (a trademark of Republicans since Reagan), which means that they can move on to cut away at entitlements, as the chief architect, Paul Ryan, announced happily at once. The US already ranks near the bottom of the [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries -- the 35 richer and more developed countries -- in social justice measures. The Republican triumph will sink it even lower. The tax scam is only the most prominent of the devices being implemented under the cover of Trump buffoonery to serve wealth and corporate power while harming the irrelevant population. Many other policies are simply [unconscionable], such as Trump's initiative to have the Department of Homeland Security separate children, even infants, from their mothers in order to discourage immigration -- 700 families have been split in this fashion since October, a New York Times investigation found. Many of these families are fleeing from the murderous consequences of US policies: Honduras has been the main source of refugee flight since the US, almost alone, endorsed the military coup that ousted the elected president and the fraudulent election that followed, initiating a reign of terror. We also must endure the sight of Trump wailing in terror because a caravan of victims reached Mexico, most hoping to settle there. Trump's suggestion that these victims are threatening the security of the US is reminiscent of Reagan strapping on his cowboy boots and calling a national emergency because Nicaraguan troops were a two days march from Texas, and about to overwhelm us. It's amazing that such performances do not evoke profound national embarrassment. To the extent that politics is the art of the possible, would you say that Trump has been consistent so far with the promises he made to voters during the 2016 campaign? In some cases, yes. He is fulfilling the wishes of the Evangelicals who are a large part of his voting base. He is greatly increasing the military budget, as he promised. ... Most of his promises are about as close to fulfillment as his commitment to "drain the swamp," which is now overflowing. [Scott] Pruitt's [Environmental Protection Agency] alone is a cesspool, though its dismantling of efforts to deal with the impact of climate change are far more serious than the wholesale robbery, which seems to be a Pruitt specialty from well before he was handed the wrecking ball. We don't need Comey to tell us that Trump is morally unfit. On trade, though the policies, insofar as they are coherent, are generally harmful, the rhetoric is not completely false. Thus it is true that China is using devices that violate World Trade Organization rules -- devices that were critical to the growth of the rich societies, from England to the US and beyond, and are now banned by the investor rights agreements mislabeled "free trade agreements." This is a textbook illustration of what economic historians call "kicking away the ladder": First we climb up, then we kick the ladder away so that you can't follow. And Trump is right that the [North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)] should be revised. Some sensible proposals have been put forth by the partners in NAFTA. For example, Canada has proposed that the revised NAFTA should ban harsh US anti-labor laws, like the right-to-scrounge laws called "right-to-work" in contemporary Newspeak. These laws are soon to become federal policy, it seems, under the reactionary Roberts Court, which was made more extreme by [Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell's shameful parliamentary maneuvers to prevent even consideration of Obama's nomination, opening the way to the appointment of Neil Gorsuch -- another gift to the far right. The Canadian proposal was prominently reported in the major Canadian press, but, oddly, is missing from the discussions of NAFTA revision here, which keep to Trump proposals. Allegations of collusion continue to haunt Donald Trump's presidency, primarily over his alleged ties to Russia and Putin, and former FBI Director James Comey said in a recent interview with ABC News that Trump is "morally unfit" to be president. What's your take on all this, and what does Trump's disrespect for law and the fact that his base is refusing to abandon him tell us about the current state of American democracy and US politics in general? We don't need Comey to tell us that Trump is morally unfit. He made that abundantly clear in the primaries, if not before. The fact that the Oval Office is coming to resemble a schoolyard on a bad day may be obnoxious, but it doesn't rank high among the misdeeds of the administration, in my opinion. ... Same with his alleged ties to Russia and Putin. Much more serious is the clique that now surrounds him. It's a sad day when one has to hope that General [James] Mattis will keep the ... [rest] in check. The [John] Bolton appointment in particular should send shivers up the spine of any person. As for Trump's base, they are indeed quite loyal. Most Trump voters were relatively affluent and probably are fairly satisfied with the ultra-reactionary policies. Another important segment was non-college-educated whites, a group that voted overwhelmingly for Trump (a 40 percent advantage). There is a close analysis of this group in the current (Spring 2018) issue of the Political Science Quarterly. It found that racism and sexism were far more significant factors in their vote than economic issues. If so, this group has little reason to object to the scene that is unfolding, and the same with the white Evangelicals who gave Trump 80 percent of their vote. Among justly angry, white, working-class Trump voters, many apparently enjoy watching him stick his thumb in the eyes of the hated elites even if he doesn't fufill his promises to [working-class voters], which many never believed in the first place. What all this tells us, yet again, is that the neoliberal programs that have concentrated wealth in a few hands while the majority stagnate or decline have also severely undermined functioning democracy by familiar mechanisms, leading to anger, contempt for the dominant centrist political forces and institutions, and often anti-social attitudes and behavior -- alongside of very promising popular reactions, like the remarkable [Bernie] Sanders phenomenon, [Jeremy] Corbyn in England and positive developments elsewhere as well. Ryan, an influential architect of the Republican economic platform, announced that he is stepping down from Congress. Do you think his decision was motivated by the fear that a "blue wave" may be coming in November as a result of a growing backlash against Trump and Trumpism? There is much talk about how this "admirable" figure, who bedazzled the media with fraudulent spreadsheets, wants to spend time with his family. Much more likely, I think, is that he decided to leave Congress because he had achieved his long-standing goals, particularly with the "Donor Relief Act of 2017" and the deficit cuts that open the way to sharp reduction of entitlements: health, social security, pensions -- whatever matters to the people beyond the very privileged. And perhaps he prefers to be out of town when it becomes too hard to conceal what's being done to the general population and someone will have to face the music. With regard to foreign affairs, what do you consider to be the most menacing elements of Trump's handling of US foreign policy? Trump inherited multiple crises. His own policies have been largely incoherent, but he has been consistent in some areas, primarily the Middle East. He has provided strong support for the Saudi war in Yemen, a major catastrophe, and is exulting in the huge arms sales to the dictatorship. Last December, UN agencies warned that the Saudi blockade of Yemen could lead to "one of the largest famines in modern times." Yemen already has the world's worst cholera outbreak, which is not under control. The Saudi blockade is hindering desperately needed imports of food, medicine and fuel. "Make America great" means great at destroying, and that's where the greatness ends. Apart from the human disaster it is creating, the Saudi dictatorship, always with firm US backing, seems intent on carrying forward the Taliban and ISIS projects of destroying precious antiquities. Reviewing the systematic Saudi destruction, the chair of Yemen's Organization of Antiquities and Museums charges that the attacks on 60 sites are "a conscious campaign to wreck Yemen's heritage and demoralize its citizens." Western experts agree that the destruction seems deliberate, using information provided by the [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] on cultural heritage sites to direct bombing attacks, with no military objective. The US-led attack on ISIS in Raqqa destroyed the city, and nothing is being done to reconstruct or help the victims. Under the influence of [US-UN Ambassador] Nikki Haley, one of the more sinister (and, it seems, ambitious) figures in the administration, Trump has sharply cut funding to the [United Nations Relief and Works Agency], which barely keeps millions of Palestinian refugees alive. In general, "make America great" means great at destroying, and that's where the greatness ends. It's by no means entirely new, but is now raised to a higher level and becoming a matter of principle. In May, Trump will presumably refuse to renew sanctions relief for Iran, as required by the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA). That does not constitute formal withdrawal, though that's the likely effect. Even if the European signers formally persist, the consequences will be severe because of the central role of the US in the international financial system -- not to speak of the danger that their persistence might arouse the ire of the unpredictable Trump, who can do a great deal of damage if crossed. Effective withdrawal might provide an opening for the new national security adviser, Bolton, a genuine war criminal who publicly calls for bombing Iran, presumably in collaboration with Israel and with tacit Saudi approval. Consequences could be horrendous. There is much fevered debate as to whether Iran might have violated the JCPOA, contrary to the firm conclusion of [the International Atomic Energy Agency] Director General Yukiya Amano on March 5, 2018, that "Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments." But we hear virtually nothing about US violations, though these have been clear enough. Thus the JCPOA commits the signers to support the successful implementation of the agreement, including in their public statements, and to refrain from any adverse effect on trade and economic relations with Iran that conflict with their commitments to successful implementation of the JCPOA. The US has been in flat violation of all of these commitments, which have serious consequences. Unmentionable as always is the obvious way to alleviate whatever threat Iranian nuclear programs are imagined to pose: establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region. The way is clear. The proposal is strongly supported by Iran, the Arab states and the world generally. But there is an impediment. It has regularly been blocked by the US, for familiar reasons: Israel's nuclear weapons. Also ignored is that the US [and] UK have a special commitment to work for this goal, having committed themselves to it in the UN [Security Council] resolution they invoked in an effort to find some thread of justification for their invasion of Iraq. Trumpism is one of many manifestations of the effects of the neoliberal policies of the past generation. There is more to say about this troubled region, but there are crises elsewhere as well. One involves North Korea, and here there might be some rays of light. Trump has so far accepted the moves of the two Koreas toward improving relations, and has agreed to negotiations with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un that so far look promising. If these initiatives succeed, they might go as far as the September 2005 agreement in which North Korea pledged to abandon "all nuclear weapons and existing weapons programs." Unfortunately, the Bush administration immediately violated all of its commitments under the agreement, and North Korea proceeded with its nuclear weapons programs. We may hope that Trump will be willing to accept success in denuclearizing the peninsula and in further steps toward accommodation. And if he wants to brag about the achievement as a demonstration of his brilliance as a deal-maker, just fine. This by no means exhausts the foreign policy issues that should be seriously addressed -- topics that would carry us far afield. What's your overall sense about Trumpism? What is it really all about, and do you think Trumpism is showing us the future of right-wing politics in the US? The Democratic Party is now split between the donor-oriented New Democrat managers and a growing activist social democratic base. Trumpism is one of many manifestations of the effects of the neoliberal policies of the past generation. These have led to extreme concentration of wealth along with stagnation for the majority. There have been repeated crashes of the deregulated financial institutions, each worse than the last. Bursting bubbles have been followed by huge public bailouts for the perpetrators while the victims have been abandoned. Globalization has been designed to set working people throughout the world in competition with one another while private capital is lavished with benefits. Democratic institutions have eroded. As already mentioned, all of this has led to anger, bitterness, often desperation -- one remarkable effect is the increasing mortality among middle-age whites discovered by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, analyzed as "deaths of despair," a phenomenon unknown in functioning societies. While there are variations from place to place, some features are common. One is the decline of the centrist parties that have long dominated political life, as we see in election after election. In the US, in recent years, whenever candidates arose from the base in the Republican primaries, the established powers were able to crush them and impose their own choice: Mitt Romney, most recently. In 2016, for the first time they were unable to do so, but they quickly rallied to the winning candidate, who proved quite willing to front for the more brutal wing of the traditional party. The real surprise in the election was the Sanders campaign, which broke with a long tradition of pretty much bought elections, and was stopped only by machinations of the Obama-Clinton party managers. The Democratic Party is now split between the donor-oriented New Democrat managers and a growing activist social democratic base. What all of this portends, worldwide, is far from clear. Though there are also significant signs of hope, some commentators have -- with good reason -- been quoting Gramsci's observation from his prison cell: "The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear." Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission. C.J. POLYCHRONIOU C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. His main research interests are in European economic integration, globalization, the political economy of the United States and the deconstruction of neoliberalism's politico-economic project. He is a regular contributor to Truthout as well as a member of Truthout's Public Intellectual Project. He has published several books and his articles have appeared in a variety of journals, magazines, newspapers and popular news websites. Many of his publications have been translated into several foreign languages, including Croatian, French, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish. He is the author of Optimism Over Despair: Noam Chomsky On Capitalism, Empire, and Social Change, an anthology of interviews with Chomsky originally published at Truthout and collected by Haymarket Books. RELATED STORIES Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin: Breaking Through the Political Barriers to Free Education By C.J. Polychroniou, Truthout | Interview Noam Chomsky on Our "Wonderful" Indonesian Moderates By Dan Falcone, Speakout | News Analysis Noam Chomsky on the Populist Groundswell, US Elections and the Future of Humanity By Lynn Parramore, Institute for New Economic Thinking | Interview -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 28 22:41:35 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 22:41:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John You’re quite right, it is a good read. I just found it buried among the conversations. The article is a critique of Barbara Ehrenreich’s, of whom I’m unfamilar, book, written by a G. Winent, and has nothing to do with Louis Proyect. I like the final statement: “There’s the tacit lesson of Natural Causes, conveyed by the author’s biography as much as the book’s content: To sustain political commitment and to manifest social solidarity—fundamentally humble and collective ways of being in the world—is the best self-care." On May 28, 2018, at 13:38, John W. > wrote: I read the New Republic article and thoroughly enjoyed it. The quote in Carl's original post is a paragraph from the article, not a quote by Barbara Ehrenreich herself. John Wason On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: In addition to my long diatribe below, I would like to suggest that baby boomers attempts to to stay young, healthy and alive also started in the sixties, the whole “Sex, drugs, rock & roll” culture” as I’ve said previously may have been creative, and yes it helped to galvanize the young at anti-war protests, nonetheless when the focus on the “self” took over, which we know Edward Bernays was involved in creating, that ended interest in the “collective” moving us into the eighties which was the “greed is good” era. So there are many young people out there, probably joyful at the thought of baby boomers demise given what they have inherited from us. PS I’m also reminded of the fact that many of the baby boomers, spent their lives in segregated communities, so it’s only natural that many still have attitudes that today reflect racism, something we are less apt to see among the younger generations. Begin forwarded message: From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic Date: May 28, 2018 at 12:03:07 PDT To: "Carl G. Estabrook" > Cc: "peace-discuss at anti-war.net" > Reply-To: Karen Aram > I won’t read the article, as I don’t like the TNR either. As someone who has been working out since age 14 on a regular basis, given my Father was obsessed with working out with weights, I am not excessive but I do use make up, and slather myself in cream morning and night, not to mention staying out of the sun. None of this is to keep young but just to keep “me” an aging me, but me nonetheless, given I’ve been doing it all since an early age. Hair color more recent. Drugs no, irritating doctors, and hippy’s in the past, attempting to push…..alcohol minimal, cigarettes no. Consuming veggies not as much as I should, given I am a semi vegetarian. However, I agree with the paragraph below, assumed to be written by Barbara Ehrenreich. Keeping the brain fit, is the most important, though I will not take up crossword puzzles even though it kept my aunts brain functioning into her nineties, unlike her sister, my Mother, whose brain was gone long ago. Yes, its big business, big bucks even back in the day, sixties before Jane Fonda VDO’s hit the market, when my Father ran a health club, it was all about the money, the kick backs doctors receive from the pharmaceuticals for the prescriptions they write also go back to the sixties, I know this from experience. Some things never change and the baby boomers, those who were sure they should never listen to anyone over the age of 30, aka Mick Jagger, maybe why we have left the mess for future generations as we have. Now, please don’t send anything more that I might agree with, from that Syria war supporter Louis Proyect, who turns my stomach with his war mongering propaganda. His influence on the younger generations who believe a Marxist would also be an imperialist, is beyond nonsense. On May 28, 2018, at 07:17, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Louis Proyect via Marxism > Subject: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic Date: May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT To: "C. G. Estabrook" > Reply-To: Louis Proyect >, "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" > Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crtique-wellness-culture _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Mon May 28 22:41:35 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 22:41:35 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Peace] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John You’re quite right, it is a good read. I just found it buried among the conversations. The article is a critique of Barbara Ehrenreich’s, of whom I’m unfamilar, book, written by a G. Winent, and has nothing to do with Louis Proyect. I like the final statement: “There’s the tacit lesson of Natural Causes, conveyed by the author’s biography as much as the book’s content: To sustain political commitment and to manifest social solidarity—fundamentally humble and collective ways of being in the world—is the best self-care." On May 28, 2018, at 13:38, John W. > wrote: I read the New Republic article and thoroughly enjoyed it. The quote in Carl's original post is a paragraph from the article, not a quote by Barbara Ehrenreich herself. John Wason On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Karen Aram via Peace > wrote: In addition to my long diatribe below, I would like to suggest that baby boomers attempts to to stay young, healthy and alive also started in the sixties, the whole “Sex, drugs, rock & roll” culture” as I’ve said previously may have been creative, and yes it helped to galvanize the young at anti-war protests, nonetheless when the focus on the “self” took over, which we know Edward Bernays was involved in creating, that ended interest in the “collective” moving us into the eighties which was the “greed is good” era. So there are many young people out there, probably joyful at the thought of baby boomers demise given what they have inherited from us. PS I’m also reminded of the fact that many of the baby boomers, spent their lives in segregated communities, so it’s only natural that many still have attitudes that today reflect racism, something we are less apt to see among the younger generations. Begin forwarded message: From: Karen Aram via Peace-discuss > Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic Date: May 28, 2018 at 12:03:07 PDT To: "Carl G. Estabrook" > Cc: "peace-discuss at anti-war.net" > Reply-To: Karen Aram > I won’t read the article, as I don’t like the TNR either. As someone who has been working out since age 14 on a regular basis, given my Father was obsessed with working out with weights, I am not excessive but I do use make up, and slather myself in cream morning and night, not to mention staying out of the sun. None of this is to keep young but just to keep “me” an aging me, but me nonetheless, given I’ve been doing it all since an early age. Hair color more recent. Drugs no, irritating doctors, and hippy’s in the past, attempting to push…..alcohol minimal, cigarettes no. Consuming veggies not as much as I should, given I am a semi vegetarian. However, I agree with the paragraph below, assumed to be written by Barbara Ehrenreich. Keeping the brain fit, is the most important, though I will not take up crossword puzzles even though it kept my aunts brain functioning into her nineties, unlike her sister, my Mother, whose brain was gone long ago. Yes, its big business, big bucks even back in the day, sixties before Jane Fonda VDO’s hit the market, when my Father ran a health club, it was all about the money, the kick backs doctors receive from the pharmaceuticals for the prescriptions they write also go back to the sixties, I know this from experience. Some things never change and the baby boomers, those who were sure they should never listen to anyone over the age of 30, aka Mick Jagger, maybe why we have left the mess for future generations as we have. Now, please don’t send anything more that I might agree with, from that Syria war supporter Louis Proyect, who turns my stomach with his war mongering propaganda. His influence on the younger generations who believe a Marxist would also be an imperialist, is beyond nonsense. On May 28, 2018, at 07:17, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Louis Proyect via Marxism > Subject: [Marxism] Barbara Ehrenreich's Radical Critique of Wellness Culture | The New Republic Date: May 28, 2018 at 7:04:22 AM CDT To: "C. G. Estabrook" > Reply-To: Louis Proyect >, "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" > Ehrenreich contemplates with some satisfaction not just the approach of her own death but also the passing of her generation. As the boomers have aged, denial of death, she argues, has moved to the center of American culture, and a vast industrial ecosystem has bloomed to capitalize on it. Across twelve chapters, Ehrenreich surveys the health care system, the culture of old age, the world of “mindfulness,” and the interior workings of the body itself, and finds a fixation on controlling the body, encouraged by cynical and self-interested professionals in the name of “wellness.” Without opposing reasonable, routine maintenance, Ehrenreich observes that the care of the self has become a coercive and exploitative obligation: a string of endless medical tests, drugs, wellness practices, and exercise fads that threaten to become the point of life rather than its sustenance. Someone, obviously, is profiting from all this. https://newrepublic.com/article/148296/barbara-ehrenreich-radical-crtique-wellness-culture _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/galliher%40illinois.edu _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace-discuss mailing list Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ Peace mailing list Peace at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ewj at pigs.ag Tue May 29 07:24:03 2018 From: ewj at pigs.ag (E. Wayne Johnson) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 15:24:03 +0800 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on Trump in Truthout of April this year. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9b114958-ac51-7ba5-da9a-968b8fa07c83@pigs.ag> It is an interesting piece to reflect upon. I never liked Donald Trump at all during the 30 or so years that he has been in the public eye. I would have voted for him because of the unfathomable contempt that I hold toward the Clintons and their ilk. I didnt bother to vote, as it is a real pain at the embassy and in Illinois my opinion would have been negated by "10,000 dumbasses in Chicago who dont know shit from Shinola" as Dr. Ott was fond of saying. I like living in Beijing.  Life is very good here, much better than anything I experienced in the USA. I was here in the 90's and I lived like the graduate students do which is a pretty low level. "People in China ain't got nothin'" Forrest Gump said, or something like that, and it really was still true in the 90's.  If you found a good solid fruit jar with a lid, that was your teacup and a prized possession. I ate breakfast for 12 cents a day in 1996-98.  My income was low enough that I could demonstrate that I really didnt need to file a 1040.  I do recall scouring my desk and bags for enough money to eat breakfast.  There were few cars in Beijing and your bicycle was your car. Contrast that a few days ago I ordered a Wacom Cintiq 13hd monitor to assist my training lectures from JD.com after 5 pm and it arrived at the doorstep of my home in Changping (northwest Beijing near the mountains) in 18 hours. I ordered it from my cell phone from my hospital bed in the PLA's 309th Hospital in Haidian (north of the summer palace). Robert Crumb's Zap #0 City of the Future is largely a reality in many ways but I still have to use the toilet, albeit that is much more comfortable than in the 90s. If I were back in Urbana I would have to contend with the Lawn Police and the Woodpile Police who steal your woodpile and fine you for having one. If I were in an elevator in Chicago, chances are that I would be outnumbered 3 to 1 by people who by their own free will voted for HC.  Not a pretty thought. Talk about being a Stranger in a Strange Land! More like Frodo and Sam in passive-aggressive Mordor, if ya ask me. Most of my ancestors arrived in Virginia and the Carolinas in the mid to late 1700s from England and Scotland. They fought the bloody Brits in the Revolutionary War.  One was a officer under Mad Anthony Wayne which is how that name got into the Johnson family tree, same place where Marion Morrison waxed mad. One branch goes back to New York and the Sidowskys (Sandusky) from Poland and the fur trader for whom Sandusky Ohio is named, and Gilliaume Greig (aka Killian Creek) who was a sort of stone and brick guy from Germany, and the McGhees who built the first grain mill in Illinois.  My mothers family is a long line of teachers going back many generations.   The Johnsons settled in White county IL and the other parts of the family settled in Saline and Hamilton counties.  They were Baptists and Methodists. Most of 'em are laid to rest in Little Springs Cemetery at Little Springs Church in now remote Flannigan Township.  The first ones to arrive there had fought the bloody Brits, others were farmers, storekeepers, physicians, botanists, university researchers, schoolteachers.  Little Springs Baptsts had shaped note hymnals with wrinkly brown covers and four-part harmonies that smelled like old hymnals in an old Baptist church.  Most had pianos at home but hardshells sang a-capella.  They always ate together after church, what they call potluck nowadays but they didnt have a name for it that I recall.  They baptized in farm ponds and deep spots in the creek. My sons visited the cemetery there during the spring festival and live streamed video back to my cell phone here in Beijing as they walked among the tombstones. It was surreal that such technology is available. I was moved to something way past tears.  I had helped carry my greatgrandmother there in 1974.  There are the stones that mark the graves of my parents, grandparents, near and distant relatives, neighbors.  When i was a small boy we used to play in the cemetery while our elders cooked and talked.  We looked to see who could find the oldest graves or the most illegible stones or marvel at the rocks that marked some.  As children we didnt understand what was going on there but we were beneficiaries of it.  Deadpool called it the F-word. Family.  What the Greeks called στοργή storge. Most of the folk around there have died off like my ancestors or moved away like me. These communities are near 100% white not so much because they are racist or xenophobic but more because there is nothing there for non-whites to eat. Such counties in southern Illinois have roughly the same population that they had 100 years ago. Lots of those folk dont generally bother to vote as it aint their concern. They turned out in record numbers to vote Against The Bitch. They voted as high as 85-87% for Trump (against HC). * The author of the article says that Trump is racist, misogynist, xenophobic and erratic. There isnt much evidence that he is racist.  Perhaps he is less so than the average New York White Guy. Misogynist?  The press is fond of saying that he likes the ladies too much.  They have a way of saying it in Arkansas that I cant quite express here. Xenophobic?  There are bad guys in the world. Go on, invite 'em into your treasure room, Hezekiah, you dipshit. And dont ya know that those pistachios dont pick themselves. Just drive into LA with your pickup truck and recruit some help... Erratic? or Machiavellian? Homophobic?  In my opinion Trump is pretty much in the Fag-Enabler category. The real issue seems to be lascivious behaviour and a breakdown in the fabric of the society.  The monkeys seem willing. * I have been an admirer of Chomsky's frankness and intellect.. He has done a lot of good for the people. He rightly goes after McConnell and Ryan the Weinermobile boy. McConnell reminds me of some sort of evil deep sea creature from an alternative universe. If you look up feminine hygiene device in the dictionary Ryan's picture should be there. Nozzle sold separately. I am genuinely surprised to see Chomsky attacking Trump from the standpoint that Trump is doing this president thing for the money.  I never much liked Trump but I dont see that this is for the money. Is Chomsky genuinely suggesting that the world would be better off with the The Bitch (and Bill) back in the White House. I heard Ian Anderson croaking out Locomotive Breath on YouTube. There comes a time to hang it up for some.  He can still play the flute like anything. I think the key issue with Chomsky has become the whole global warming euphemistically Climate Change thing.  Protecting the environment is everybody's business.  Sometimes Beijing is like Granite City in 1964.  Things are better. It aint worse than 1996 but it is nightmarishly bad on the south of Beijing on cool damp days with no breeze.  a bit better now. Pollution is bad.  Global warming seems to be meteorism not meteorology. Fang pi they say in the local dialect. Chomsky is not a meteorologist and he has become oversold on the idea of climate change, tragically. Something falling from the sky. Must be swastikas. Chomsky really thinks we'd all be better off with The Evil Bitch? Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 29 12:00:48 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 12:00:48 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky on Trump in Truthout of April this year. In-Reply-To: <9b114958-ac51-7ba5-da9a-968b8fa07c83@pigs.ag> References: <9b114958-ac51-7ba5-da9a-968b8fa07c83@pigs.ag> Message-ID: I have to apologize for the Chomsky article below, it’s not the one I meant to post. He has a more recent one, though similar, it did have some upto date concerns, unfortunately I lost it on FB and upon googling got this one which I didn’t deem worth posting last month. The russiagate nonsense is turning into a Chinagate nonsense, I’ve seen some of it already. We knew it was coming but I didn’t expect it this soon with, given the focus on Iran. It’s been obvious to me that Trump was elected due to people across the country not wanting Hillary, but most of all not wanting the Democrat Party, who has done absolutely nothing for them. It’s the economics, not racism though this is what is being promoted by the media. You have a very interesting family history, and now spending your life in China. I was only there two years and loved it, the people, the place, of course I was in Shanghai which is the Paris of the east, only so much better these days. The rapid development is phenomenal, and unlike most developing nations, the people have kept up. I see this as due to the Chinese leadership recognizing what is important going forward. The U of I, is now the largest recipient of students from China in the US. That won’t be the case for too much longer, as China improves their educational system, they will want to keep the money in China rather than spend it overseas, especially in the US. At least thats what I’ve been told. There are many mainlanders now living in Thailand, doing business there, and many Thai’s and expats resenting it, nothing new of course, but I also see the propaganda in play which gives me cause for concern. Thailand has been the one place where Chinese have always been welcome and treated well, compared to some of their S.E. Asian neighbors. > On May 29, 2018, at 00:24, E. Wayne Johnson wrote: > > It is an interesting piece to reflect upon. > > I never liked Donald Trump at all during the 30 or so years that he has been in the public eye. > I would have voted for him because of the unfathomable contempt that I hold toward the Clintons and their ilk. > I didnt bother to vote, as it is a real pain at the embassy and in Illinois my opinion would have been > negated by "10,000 dumbasses in Chicago who dont know shit from Shinola" as Dr. Ott was fond of saying. > > I like living in Beijing. Life is very good here, much better than anything I experienced in the USA. > > I was here in the 90's and I lived like the graduate students do which is a pretty low level. > "People in China ain't got nothin'" Forrest Gump said, or something like that, and it really was > still true in the 90's. If you found a good solid fruit jar with a lid, that was your teacup and a prized > possession. I ate breakfast for 12 cents a day in 1996-98. My income was low enough that I could demonstrate > that I really didnt need to file a 1040. I do recall scouring my desk and bags for > enough money to eat breakfast. There were few cars in Beijing and your bicycle was your car. > > Contrast that a few days ago I ordered a Wacom Cintiq 13hd monitor to assist my training lectures from JD.com > after 5 pm and it arrived at the doorstep of my home in Changping (northwest Beijing near the mountains) in 18 hours. > I ordered it from my cell phone from my hospital bed in the PLA's 309th Hospital in Haidian (north of the summer palace). > Robert Crumb's Zap #0 City of the Future is largely a reality in many ways but I still have to use the toilet, > albeit that is much more comfortable than in the 90s. > > If I were back in Urbana I would have to contend with the Lawn Police and the Woodpile Police > who steal your woodpile and fine you for having one. > If I were in an elevator in Chicago, chances are that I would be outnumbered 3 to 1 by people > who by their own free will voted for HC. Not a pretty thought. Talk about being a Stranger in a Strange Land! > More like Frodo and Sam in passive-aggressive Mordor, if ya ask me. > > Most of my ancestors arrived in Virginia and the Carolinas in the mid to late 1700s from England and Scotland. > They fought the bloody Brits in the Revolutionary War. One was a officer under Mad Anthony Wayne which is > how that name got into the Johnson family tree, same place where Marion Morrison waxed mad. > One branch goes back to New York and the Sidowskys (Sandusky) from Poland and the fur trader for whom Sandusky > Ohio is named, and Gilliaume Greig (aka Killian Creek) who was a sort of stone and brick guy from Germany, > and the McGhees who built the first grain mill in Illinois. My mothers family is a long line of teachers > going back many generations. The Johnsons settled in White county IL and the other parts of the > family settled in Saline and Hamilton counties. They were Baptists and Methodists. > Most of 'em are laid to rest in Little Springs Cemetery at Little Springs Church in now remote > Flannigan Township. The first ones to arrive there had fought the bloody Brits, others were farmers, > storekeepers, physicians, botanists, university researchers, schoolteachers. Little Springs Baptsts > had shaped note hymnals with wrinkly brown covers and four-part harmonies that smelled like old > hymnals in an old Baptist church. Most had pianos at home but hardshells sang a-capella. They > always ate together after church, what they call potluck nowadays but they didnt have a name for it that > I recall. They baptized in farm ponds and deep spots in the creek. > > My sons visited the cemetery there during the spring festival and live streamed video back to my cell phone > here in Beijing as they walked among the tombstones. It was surreal that such technology is available. > I was moved to something way past tears. I had helped carry > my greatgrandmother there in 1974. There are the stones that mark the graves of my parents, grandparents, > near and distant relatives, neighbors. When i was a small boy we used to play in the cemetery while > our elders cooked and talked. We looked to see who could find the oldest graves or the most illegible stones > or marvel at the rocks that marked some. As children we didnt understand what was going on there but > we were beneficiaries of it. Deadpool called it the F-word. Family. What the Greeks called στοργή storge. > > Most of the folk around there have died off like my ancestors or moved away like me. > These communities are near 100% white not so much because they are racist or xenophobic > but more because there is nothing there for non-whites to eat. > Such counties in southern Illinois have roughly the same population that they had 100 years ago. > Lots of those folk dont generally bother to vote as it aint their concern. > They turned out in record numbers to vote Against The Bitch. > They voted as high as 85-87% for Trump (against HC). > > * > The author of the article says that Trump is racist, misogynist, xenophobic and erratic. > There isnt much evidence that he is racist. Perhaps he is less so than the average New York White Guy. > Misogynist? The press is fond of saying that he likes the ladies too much. They have a way of saying > it in Arkansas that I cant quite express here. > > Xenophobic? There are bad guys in the world. > Go on, invite 'em into your treasure room, Hezekiah, you dipshit. > And dont ya know that those pistachios dont pick themselves. > Just drive into LA with your pickup truck and recruit some help... > > Erratic? or Machiavellian? > > Homophobic? In my opinion Trump is pretty much in the Fag-Enabler category. > The real issue seems to be lascivious behaviour and a breakdown in the fabric of > the society. The monkeys seem willing. > > * > I have been an admirer of Chomsky's frankness and intellect.. > He has done a lot of good for the people. > > He rightly goes after McConnell and Ryan the Weinermobile boy. McConnell reminds > me of some sort of evil deep sea creature from an alternative universe. > If you look up feminine hygiene device in the dictionary Ryan's picture should be there. > Nozzle sold separately. > > I am genuinely surprised to see Chomsky attacking Trump from the standpoint > that Trump is doing this president thing for the money. I never much liked Trump > but I dont see that this is for the money. > > Is Chomsky genuinely suggesting that the world would be better off > with the The Bitch (and Bill) back in the White House. > I heard Ian Anderson croaking out Locomotive Breath on YouTube. > There comes a time to hang it up for some. He can still play the flute > like anything. > > I think the key issue with Chomsky has become the whole global warming > euphemistically Climate Change thing. Protecting the environment is everybody's > business. Sometimes Beijing is like Granite City in 1964. Things are better. > It aint worse than 1996 but it is nightmarishly bad on the south of Beijing > on cool damp days with no breeze. a bit better now. > > Pollution is bad. Global warming seems to be meteorism not meteorology. > Fang pi they say in the local dialect. > Chomsky is not a meteorologist and he has become oversold > on the idea of climate change, tragically. > Something falling from the sky. > Must be swastikas. > > Chomsky really thinks we'd all be better off with The Evil Bitch? > > > > Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > From karenaram at hotmail.com Tue May 29 14:57:16 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 14:57:16 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ireland's vote Message-ID: I’m not interested in peoples personal opinions on abortion. This article has more to do with Ireland and class than anything else. I know of course it will break down to discussions of personal opinions on abortion, especially from men, who really should have no say in the matter, but I think the issue of what is taking place in Ireland to be significant. Not mentioned in this article is the fight back on the part of the Irish people against the privatization of their “water.” In short they aren’t called the “fighting Irish” for nothing. PS Nor do I care to discuss religion pro or con. So I will not be responding to anything said in respect to this article, knock yourselves out folks. * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » The abortion vote in Ireland: A blow against reaction By Patrick Martin 29 May 2018 The overwhelming “Yes” vote in the Irish referendum on abortion rights, by a margin of 1,429,981 votes for to 723,632 votes against, is a landmark victory both for the Irish working class and for the defense of democratic rights internationally. In a country that for centuries has been synonymous with domination by the medieval backwardness of the Roman Catholic Church, where as recently as 20 years ago both contraception and divorce were illegal, two-thirds of those voting in a heavy turnout supported the legalization of abortion. It is a demonstration that, while the official parties of bourgeois Europe are all moving to the right, the working class and sections of the middle class are moving to the left. Last Friday’s vote is an exact reversal of the 1983 referendum that enacted the Eighth Amendment to the Irish constitution, formally prohibiting abortion by giving the unborn fetus legal rights equal to those of a pregnant woman. That referendum, backed by the Catholic hierarchy and Ireland’s major parties, passed by a two-to-one margin. The referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment was opposed by the hierarchy, but the bishops avoided a prominent public role because of a series of major scandals that have shattered the Church’s claims to infallibility and moral superiority, involving sexual abuse by priests, enslavement of women in convent enterprises, and the discovery of a mass grave of at least 800 children born “out of wedlock” over many decades in rural Tuam, dumped in the septic tank of a Catholic home for unwed mothers. The main bourgeois parties—Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Labour and Sinn Fein—all officially endorsed a “yes” vote, although the two largest, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, were deeply split. In any case, as observers noted, these parties were not leading the campaign to legalize abortion. They were trailing behind a popular movement that was manifested in a major influx of new voters, the Internet-based crowd-funding of the “yes” campaign, and enthusiastic participation among youth, and particularly young women. Vote tabulations found that only one district out of 40, Donegal, on the border with Northern Ireland, reported a majority “no” vote, and that by a narrow margin. Even the most rural and conservative areas, such as Roscommon and Mayo, posted majorities for “yes.” Exit polls revealed that support for abortion rights won a majority among every age group except those over 65 (with 80 percent or more among young people voting “yes”), and among urban, suburban and rural voters. Irish farmers voted by 52.5 percent to defy the Catholic Church, which had branded every “yes” vote a sin requiring confession and repentance. There are both short-term and long-term social factors at work in the shift in public opinion in Ireland. As one Irish commentator noted, the campaign to repeal the Eighth Amendment was spearheaded by the youth: “[T]his campaign has been largely won by a generation that had good reason to give up on Ireland. It is the generation of 2008, the generation that was handed a massive bank debt, that was told there were no jobs, that had its wages and welfare payments cut, that was informed, in so many words, that it would be greatly appreciated if it would kindly remove itself to somewhere else.” Real wages plummeted after the 2008 financial crash, which put an end to widespread illusions in Ireland as the “Celtic Tiger,” but have recovered somewhat since 2012. Meanwhile, the cost of living has continued its relentless rise. Dublin, which accounts for one quarter of the country’s population, is now a more expensive place to live than London. Economic inequality in Ireland, as in all the major capitalist countries, has risen to previously unheard-of levels. Not since Anglo-Irish landlords feasted while their peasant tenants starved during the Great Famine of 1847–48 has the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population been so vast. But there is another social transformation, of a longer-term and more profound character, that is manifested in the Irish vote. Once a country consisting overwhelmingly of poor farmers, usually tenants at the mercy of the landlord and priest, Ireland has undergone an industrial development and economic modernization over the past half century. In 1960, only 46 percent of Ireland’s 2.8 million population lived in urban areas, while 54 percent were rural. In 2018, 67 percent of Ireland’s 4.8 million population lives in urban areas, with only 33 percent rural. The transformation in raw numbers is even more remarkable: Ireland’s urban population has risen 150 percent, from 1,288,000 in 1960 to 3,216,000; the rural population has risen by only 11 percent over the same period, from 1,512,000 to 1,684,000. What the influx of capital investment in factories, offices and research centers means in class terms is unmistakable: the urban working class, once a relatively small minority in Ireland, albeit with a remarkable revolutionary history, is now the largest social force in the country. The rural tenantry and farmers, long dominated by the Catholic Church, have become a minority. And it is the working class, of all classes in modern capitalist society, which is the bedrock for the defense of democratic rights. Over the past quarter-century, in a series of referendums that have allowed the people to override the bourgeois parties that kowtow to the Church, Ireland has legalized contraception, divorce, gay marriage and now abortion. As the New York Timesnoted Monday, “The culture of silence and deference to religious authority that long dominated Ireland is gone.” It is instructive to contrast the advances in democratic rights recorded in what was once the most backward country in Western Europe with the frontal assault on those rights in the United States, the richest and most powerful capitalist country in the world. Once legislation is enacted by the Irish parliament—already presented in draft form before the referendum—women in small towns and rural areas of Ireland will have greater access to reproductive health care, including abortion, than their counterparts in similar areas of the United States. In 2014, according to the Guttmacher Institute, there was no abortion provider in 90 percent of US counties, accounting for 39 percent of the women of reproductive age. This included 99 percent of counties in Missouri, 98 percent in the Dakotas and Kentucky, 97 percent in Arkansas and 96 percent in Wisconsin. One-quarter of women who needed abortion services had to travel at least 25 miles to find a clinic. In parts of Texas and the Great Plains, the distance to be traveled comes to hundreds of miles each way. The right to abortion is being destroyed by stealth, through a combination of state harassment of clinics, such as requirements that they be affiliated to hospitals (even when the only local hospital is Catholic), and obstacles placed in the way of women, such as the requirement for multiple visits to receive “counseling” before they obtain the procedure. Heavy pressure has been placed on insurance companies, most recently by the Trump administration, not to cover abortion services in any government-linked insurance plan, such as Obamacare. Medicaid will not pay for the procedure, and funding for the largest provider of abortion services, Planned Parenthood, is under systematic attack. This assault on democratic rights affects primarily women of the working class. Women of higher income and social position have no problem obtaining abortion and other reproductive health services when they need them. That accounts for the indifference with which the well-heeled advocates of the #MeToo campaign treat the destruction of abortion rights in America. While the New York Times, the New Yorker, the television networks and Hollywood obsess about the supposed crimes against millionaire actresses and television personalities, they have no time for the plight of women workers who are denied this fundamental right to determine what happens within their own bodies. This indifference carries over to the media coverage of the Irish referendum. It has dropped from the newspaper headlines after one day. It barely registered in the network news broadcasts. The World Socialist Web Site sees this issue differently. We hail the actions of the Irish people, who have dealt a blow to reaction. This vote reinforces our conviction that the defense of democratic rights, and of all progressive developments in modern society, requires the mobilization of the strength of the working class as an independent political force. Patrick Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Tue May 29 15:12:17 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:12:17 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Powerful piece by Patrick Cockburn Message-ID: * - www.counterpunch.org - https://www.counterpunch.org - * The Manchester Bomber was Only Able to Massacre People Because of the Mistakes Made by the British Government Posted By Patrick Cockburn On May 29, 2018 @ 1:56 am In articles 2015 | Comments Disabled Photo by Pete | CC BY 2.0 The culpability of the British government and its intelligence agencies in enabling suicide bomber Salman Abedi to blow himself up at a pop concert in Manchester is being masked one year later by the mood of grief and mourning over the death and injury of so many people. It is heartrending to hear injured children and the relatives of the dead say they do not hate anybody as a result of their terrible experiences and, if they feel anger at all, it is only directed towards the bomber himself. Victims repeatedly say that they did not want the slaughter at the Manchester Arena to be used to create divisions in their city. The downside of this praiseworthy attitude is that it unintentionally lets off the hook those British authorities whose flawed policies and mistaken actions really did pave the way towards this atrocity. Appeals against divisiveness and emphasis on the courage of survivors have muted attacks on the government, enabling it to accuse those who criticise it of mitigating the sole guilt of Abedi. This attitude is highly convenient for former prime minister David Cameron who decided in 2011 on military intervention against Muammar Gaddafi. His purported aim was humanitarian concern for the people of Benghazi, but – as a devastatingly critical report by the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs said last year – this swiftly turned into “an opportunistic policy of regime change”. The military intervention succeeded and by the end of the year Gaddafi was dead. Real power in Libya passed to Islamist militias, including those with which the Abedi family were already associated. Pictures show Salman’s brothers posing with guns in their hands. Libya was plunged into an endless civil war and Benghazi, whose people Cameron and former French president Nicolas Sarkozy were so keen to save, is today a sea of ruins. Inevitably, Isis took advantage of the anarchy in Libya to spread its murderous influence. This is the Libyan reality which was created by Cameron and Sarkozy, with sceptical support from Barack Obama, the then US president, who famously referred to the Libyan debacle as a “shit show”. Libya became a place where the Abedi family, returning from their long exile in Manchester, were able put their militant Islamist beliefs into practice. They absorbed the toxic variant of Islam espoused by the al-Qaeda clones, taking advantage of their military experience honed in the Iraq war, such as how to construct a bomb studded with pieces of metal designed to tear holes in human flesh. The bomb materials were easily available in countries like Britain. Salman Abedi was responsible for what he did, but he could not have killed 22 people and maimed another 139 others, half of them children, if the British government had not acted as it did in Libya in 2011. And its responsibility goes well beyond its disastrous policy of joining the Libyan civil war, overthrowing Gaddafi and replacing him with warring tribes and militias. Manchester had since the 1990s become a centre for a small but dangerous group of exiled Libyans belonging to anti-Gaddafi groups, such as the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, originally formed by Libyans fighting the communists in Afghanistan. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, strict measures were taken by MI5 and the police against Libyans thought likely to sympathise with al-Qaeda in Iraq and, later, Isis. They were subject to counter-terrorism control orders monitoring and restricting their movements and often had their passports confiscated. But no sooner had Britain joined the war against Gaddafi than these suspected terrorists became useful allies. Their control-orders were lifted, their passports returned and they were told that the British government had no problem with them going to Libya to fight against Gaddafi. In place of past restrictions, they were allowed to pass to and fro at British airports. Some militants are reported as saying that when they had problems with counter-terrorism police when flying to Libya, the MI5 officers with whom they were in touch were willing to vouch for them and ease their way to the battlefront in Libya, where MI6 was cooperating with Qatar and UAE as financiers of the armed opposition. This opportunistic alliance between the British security services and Libyan Salafi-jihadis may explain why Salman Abedi, though by now high up on the list of potential terrorists, was able to fly back to Manchester from Libya unimpeded a few days before he blew himself up. There should be far more public and media outrage about the British government’s role in the destruction of Libya, especially its tolerance of dangerous Islamists living in Britain to pursue its foreign policy ends. The damaging facts about what happened are now well established thanks to parliamentary scrutiny and journalistic investigation. The official justification for British military intervention in Libya is that it was to prevent the massacre of civilians in Benghazi by Gaddafi’s advancing forces. The reason for expecting this would happen was a sanguinary speech by Gaddafi which might mean that he intended to kill them all. David Cameron, along with Liam Fox as defence minister at the time and William Hague as foreign secretary, have wisely stuck with this explanation and, as a defence of their actions, they are probably right to do so. But a report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee says that the belief that Gaddafi would “massacre the civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence”. It points out that he had retaken other towns from the rebels and not attacked the civilian population. The British followed the French lead in military intervention and Sarkozy similarly justified his policy as being in defence of the people of Benghazi. We are a little better informed about the real French motives thanks to a report, revealed through the Freedom of Information Act, made in early 2011 by Sidney Blumenthal, an unofficial advisor to Hillary Clinton, the then US secretary of state, after a meeting he had had with French intelligence officials about Sarkozy’s motives for intervention. The officials told Blumenthal that Sarkozy’s plans were driven by five main causes, the first being “a desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production” and the next being to increase French influence in North Africa. His other aims were to improve his own political standing in France, enable the French military to reassert their position in the world, and prevent Gaddafi supplanting France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa. The intelligence officials make no mention of any concern on the part of Sarkozy for the safety of the Libyan people. Conceivably Cameron, Hague and Fox had much purer and more altruistic motives than their French counterparts. But it is more likely that the aim was always regime change in the national interest of those foreign powers who brought it about. It is easy enough to convict Cameron and Sarkozy of hypocrisy, but a more telling accusation is that they betrayed the very national interests that they were seeking to advance. They destroyed Libya as a country, reduced its six million people to misery and played into the hands of men like Salman Abedi. Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: * https://www.counterpunch.org * URL to article: * https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/29/the-manchester-bomber-was-only-able-to-massacre-people-because-of-the-mistakes-made-by-the-british-government/ * Click here to print. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Tue May 29 15:26:57 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 10:26:57 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ireland's vote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The conventional, bien pensant view of "the medieval backwardness of the Roman Catholic Church" is more a matter of settled liberal prejudice than historical analysis. It's inaccurate in regard to both the European 'middle ages' and the contemporary RCC. "My political views: I'm basically against anything that kills people [even in the womb] or destroys the planet we live on." Our work in common - including analysis of the present situation - should be directed against that. —CGE > On May 29, 2018, at 9:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I’m not interested in peoples personal opinions on abortion. This article has more to do with Ireland and class than anything else. I know of course it will break down to discussions of personal opinions on abortion, especially from men, who really should have no say in the matter, but I think the issue of what is taking place in Ireland to be significant. > Not mentioned in this article is the fight back on the part of the Irish people against the privatization of their “water.” In short they aren’t called the “fighting Irish” for nothing. > > PS Nor do I care to discuss religion pro or con. So I will not be responding to anything said in respect to this article, knock yourselves out folks. > > > The abortion vote in Ireland: A blow against reaction > > By Patrick Martin > 29 May 2018 > The overwhelming “Yes” vote in the Irish referendum on abortion rights, by a margin of 1,429,981 votes for to 723,632 votes against, is a landmark victory both for the Irish working class and for the defense of democratic rights internationally. In a country that for centuries has been synonymous with domination by the medieval backwardness of the Roman Catholic Church, where as recently as 20 years ago both contraception and divorce were illegal, two-thirds of those voting in a heavy turnout supported the legalization of abortion. It is a demonstration that, while the official parties of bourgeois Europe are all moving to the right, the working class and sections of the middle class are moving to the left. > Last Friday’s vote is an exact reversal of the 1983 referendum that enacted the Eighth Amendment to the Irish constitution, formally prohibiting abortion by giving the unborn fetus legal rights equal to those of a pregnant woman. That referendum, backed by the Catholic hierarchy and Ireland’s major parties, passed by a two-to-one margin. The referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment was opposed by the hierarchy, but the bishops avoided a prominent public role because of a series of major scandals that have shattered the Church’s claims to infallibility and moral superiority, involving sexual abuse by priests, enslavement of women in convent enterprises, and the discovery of a mass grave of at least 800 children born “out of wedlock” over many decades in rural Tuam, dumped in the septic tank of a Catholic home for unwed mothers. > The main bourgeois parties—Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Labour and Sinn Fein—all officially endorsed a “yes” vote, although the two largest, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, were deeply split. In any case, as observers noted, these parties were not leading the campaign to legalize abortion. They were trailing behind a popular movement that was manifested in a major influx of new voters, the Internet-based crowd-funding of the “yes” campaign, and enthusiastic participation among youth, and particularly young women. > Vote tabulations found that only one district out of 40, Donegal, on the border with Northern Ireland, reported a majority “no” vote, and that by a narrow margin. Even the most rural and conservative areas, such as Roscommon and Mayo, posted majorities for “yes.” Exit polls revealed that support for abortion rights won a majority among every age group except those over 65 (with 80 percent or more among young people voting “yes”), and among urban, suburban and rural voters. Irish farmers voted by 52.5 percent to defy the Catholic Church, which had branded every “yes” vote a sin requiring confession and repentance. > There are both short-term and long-term social factors at work in the shift in public opinion in Ireland. As one Irish commentator noted, the campaign to repeal the Eighth Amendment was spearheaded by the youth: “[T]his campaign has been largely won by a generation that had good reason to give up on Ireland. It is the generation of 2008, the generation that was handed a massive bank debt, that was told there were no jobs, that had its wages and welfare payments cut, that was informed, in so many words, that it would be greatly appreciated if it would kindly remove itself to somewhere else.” > Real wages plummeted after the 2008 financial crash, which put an end to widespread illusions in Ireland as the “Celtic Tiger,” but have recovered somewhat since 2012. Meanwhile, the cost of living has continued its relentless rise. Dublin, which accounts for one quarter of the country’s population, is now a more expensive place to live than London. Economic inequality in Ireland, as in all the major capitalist countries, has risen to previously unheard-of levels. Not since Anglo-Irish landlords feasted while their peasant tenants starved during the Great Famine of 1847–48 has the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population been so vast. > But there is another social transformation, of a longer-term and more profound character, that is manifested in the Irish vote. Once a country consisting overwhelmingly of poor farmers, usually tenants at the mercy of the landlord and priest, Ireland has undergone an industrial development and economic modernization over the past half century. In 1960, only 46 percent of Ireland’s 2.8 million population lived in urban areas, while 54 percent were rural. In 2018, 67 percent of Ireland’s 4.8 million population lives in urban areas, with only 33 percent rural. The transformation in raw numbers is even more remarkable: Ireland’s urban population has risen 150 percent, from 1,288,000 in 1960 to 3,216,000; the rural population has risen by only 11 percent over the same period, from 1,512,000 to 1,684,000. > What the influx of capital investment in factories, offices and research centers means in class terms is unmistakable: the urban working class, once a relatively small minority in Ireland, albeit with a remarkable revolutionary history, is now the largest social force in the country. The rural tenantry and farmers, long dominated by the Catholic Church, have become a minority. And it is the working class, of all classes in modern capitalist society, which is the bedrock for the defense of democratic rights. > Over the past quarter-century, in a series of referendums that have allowed the people to override the bourgeois parties that kowtow to the Church, Ireland has legalized contraception, divorce, gay marriage and now abortion. As the New York Timesnoted Monday, “The culture of silence and deference to religious authority that long dominated Ireland is gone.” > It is instructive to contrast the advances in democratic rights recorded in what was once the most backward country in Western Europe with the frontal assault on those rights in the United States, the richest and most powerful capitalist country in the world. Once legislation is enacted by the Irish parliament—already presented in draft form before the referendum—women in small towns and rural areas of Ireland will have greater access to reproductive health care, including abortion, than their counterparts in similar areas of the United States. > In 2014, according to the Guttmacher Institute, there was no abortion provider in 90 percent of US counties, accounting for 39 percent of the women of reproductive age. This included 99 percent of counties in Missouri, 98 percent in the Dakotas and Kentucky, 97 percent in Arkansas and 96 percent in Wisconsin. One-quarter of women who needed abortion services had to travel at least 25 miles to find a clinic. In parts of Texas and the Great Plains, the distance to be traveled comes to hundreds of miles each way. > The right to abortion is being destroyed by stealth, through a combination of state harassment of clinics, such as requirements that they be affiliated to hospitals (even when the only local hospital is Catholic), and obstacles placed in the way of women, such as the requirement for multiple visits to receive “counseling” before they obtain the procedure. Heavy pressure has been placed on insurance companies, most recently by the Trump administration, not to cover abortion services in any government-linked insurance plan, such as Obamacare. Medicaid will not pay for the procedure, and funding for the largest provider of abortion services, Planned Parenthood, is under systematic attack. > This assault on democratic rights affects primarily women of the working class. Women of higher income and social position have no problem obtaining abortion and other reproductive health services when they need them. That accounts for the indifference with which the well-heeled advocates of the #MeToo campaign treat the destruction of abortion rights in America. While the New York Times, the New Yorker, the television networks and Hollywood obsess about the supposed crimes against millionaire actresses and television personalities, they have no time for the plight of women workers who are denied this fundamental right to determine what happens within their own bodies. > This indifference carries over to the media coverage of the Irish referendum. It has dropped from the newspaper headlines after one day. It barely registered in the network news broadcasts. The World Socialist Web Site sees this issue differently. We hail the actions of the Irish people, who have dealt a blow to reaction. This vote reinforces our conviction that the defense of democratic rights, and of all progressive developments in modern society, requires the mobilization of the strength of the working class as an independent political force. > Patrick Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 30 01:45:50 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 01:45:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] The arrogance of Northwestern U. roundtable discussing regime change in Russia. Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Northwestern University roundtable discusses regime change in Russia By Marcus Day and Kristina Betinis 25 May 2018 The Northwestern University Buffett Institute for Global Studies hosted a roundtable event in the Chicago area on May 23 titled, “The Kremlin’s Global Reach,” moderated by Medill journalism professor and Washington Post veteran Peter Slevin. The panel showcased the institute’s first “Distinguished Visitor,” Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, president of the Brookings Institution think tank from 2002 to 2017, and a key architect of US imperialist strategy in relation to the breakup of the USSR in the 1990s. Also present were political science professor Jordan Gans-Morse, public opinion pollster Dina Smeltz, lecturer and former US ambassador to Georgia Ian Kelly and historian John Bushnell. The event took place amid a steady escalation of US militarism against Syria, Iran and Russia. Just two days earlier, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered an ultimatum to Iran demanding a capitulation to the US in the face of additional sanctions. This followed on the heels of the Trump administration’s scrapping of a nuclear agreement reached in 2015 between Iran and the P5+1 group, the US, UK, France, Germany, China and Russia. Earlier this month, the US relaunched a naval force, the Second Fleet, in the North Atlantic in preparation for military confrontation with Russia. The political perspective of the event was clear from Slevin’s opening questions: “What is to be done? How do you solve a problem like Vladimir Putin?” Strobe Talbott outlined three main challenges faced by the current Russian government: its internal problems, including economic and demographic decline; the “threat from the Islamic world, it’s the southern belly and it’s very vulnerable;” and finally, potential conflict with China over access to natural resources. “They know Russia has resource wealth and human poverty that could spell trouble down the line,” Talbott said. To the question, “Do we have another Cold War?” Talbott answered, “Yes, we’ve got a Cold War. It’s the old McCarthy line: If it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, it’s a Cold War.” In line with this reactionary narrative, Talbott presented the conflict between the US and Russia as one between “democracy” and “tyranny,” while some of the other panelists admitted that is not the way the conflict is viewed in Russia and Europe. Later, Talbott emphasized the challenge to US hegemony posed by the Balkans, particularly Serbia, citing their cultural and religious affinities with Russia. In 2015, Montenegro entered NATO. Historian John Bushnell raised only one objection against the panel’s official State Department line. Referring to the 2014 US-German-led coup in Ukraine, he said, “The Russians, I think with some justification, point out that John McCain didn’t need to show up in Kiev. There was no reason for a top State Department official [Victoria Nuland] to be caught giving advice, deciding who would sit in the next Ukrainian cabinet. There clearly was a direct American intervention in Ukrainian politics. ” A number of the panelists interrupted at this point, some laughing nervously, others strongly protesting. Slevin, in concluding the discussion, posed the question of regime change in Russia, stating, “How does this end? How does Putin ... fall? Retire? Get replaced? What is the fate of Vladimir Putin?” The main obstacle to regime change in Russia was, according to the panelists, the chaos it would inevitably unleash. Kelly emphasized at different points in the discussion that there is no plan for succession in Russia after Putin. He said, “There really is no succession plan. … And in many ways, that is absolutely terrifying. Because if everything does depend on one man, do we really want to push Russia to the edge with more sanctions, and try and undermine their regime? Because if there is no successor, then you have a similar situation without any kind of management of the transition that we had in ’91, with a country that has thousands of nuclear weapons and chaos.” However, expressing the position of significant sections of the Democratic Party, aligned with the US state-military-intelligence apparatus, Talbott concluded, “Putin has presided over Russia in a way that is very, very much like the Soviet Union. That didn’t work. This won’t work. He will be an aberration. It would also help if we had a different president in the United States.” A notable feature of the event was its casual militarism. In introducing himself, Kelly noted that the US has recently provided both Georgia and Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank weaponry. In line with the propaganda pumped out about the US media and political establishment, the panel speakers presented a picture of reality turned upside down: Russia was presented as an aggressive, expansionist power, and a growing threat to the American way of life. In fact, it is the US government and its imperialist allies which have increasingly encircled Russia via NATO expansion, crippled its economy with sanctions and sought to provoke a military conflict. As US Defense Secretary James Mattis noted in releasing the Pentagon’s new National Security Strategy, “Great power competition—not terrorism—is now the primary focus of US national security.” Before the audience assembled by this national security institute, which appeared to include only a handful of undergraduate students, these leading political figures spoke more bluntly about imperialist foreign policy than they would normally do on national television or in supposedly democratic arenas like the US Congress. The WSWS wrote in 2016 that the establishment of the Buffett Institute at Northwestern—with the assistance of a $101 million donation from Roberta Buffett Elliott, the sister of billionaire Warren Buffett—was part of an international effort of the capitalist elite to transform leading universities into ideological centers of imperialist military strategy. At the time of the Buffett Institute’s founding, university students and faculty protested the appointment as its head of former the US commander in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, whose qualifications were based on military rank and bellicose politics, rather than any academic credentials. Northwestern faculty members charged that he “advocates instrumentalizing the humanities and social sciences research to advance US soft power.” The International Youth and Students for Social Equality are leading the opposition internationally to the transformation of colleges and universities into think tanks for imperialism and militarism. Contact the Socialist Equality Party to start an IYSSE chapter on your campus. The author also recommends: Northwestern University faculty oppose selection of US general to head global studies institute [23 March 2016] New York University: A center of militarism, mass surveillance [19 March 2018] Foreword to Scholarship or war propaganda? The return of German militarism and the dispute at Berlin’s Humboldt University [10 August 2015] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 30 03:10:42 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 22:10:42 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Dr. Know on Roseanne and Russiagate Message-ID: News from Neptune I wouldn't ordinarily bring news of this kind to your attention, but I think there's a chance this is another instance of censorship via TV show cancellation. Roseanne Barr, stand-up comic & former presidential contender (she lost the Green Party's nomination to Dr. Jill Stein), had a popular TV show in the 1980s on ABC called "Roseanne", about a working-class family in fictional Lanford, Illinois. The show went off the air and recently had a revival -- all of the original cast came back to their roles and their first season aired to great commercial success[1]. The revival show featured Barr playing a character (Roseanne Conner) who supported Donald Trump for president, thus causing some friction within the Conner family. Recently Barr falsely alleged that former Obama White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, who was born in Iran to American parents, has connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, and compared her to an ape. Barr wrote: "Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj" referencing Jarrett's initials[2]. ABC president Channing Dungey announced "Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show.". "Roseanne" stars and people associated with the show quickly joined the chorus distancing themselves from Barr's comment. Barr's agency (ICM Partners) dropped her saying her tweet was "antithetical to our core values". Streaming networks (such as Hulu) and rerun TV networks canceled re-runs of the "Roseanne" show as well. There was more back and forth between Barr and others[2], Barr apologized, then announced she was quitting Twitter. I can't help but notice the convenience of the distancing here for the Russiagate-pushing corporate media: The revival program was noted for being a commercial success which didn't get into Trump Derangement Syndrome -- making fun of Pres. Trump for things that were unlikely to challenge power in any substantive way including looks and weight-based jokes while not addressing the continuity of policy across American administrations such as the growing number of wars the US conducts or the extrajudicial means of assassinating people around the world such as the drone war. Roseanne's revival show didn't echo the Russiagate narrative; whatever passed for political debate on the revival show (which was low-quality and not really worth much viewing frankly) did a better job of showing Trump supporters as human beings capable of holding different opinions. Trump supporters weren't the "basket of deplorables" they were said and shown as elsewhere on mainstream corporate TV. There's no end to the number of Trump-hating shows out there; that is clearly what modern-day American TV networks are fine with putting on. If you're a stand-up comic with a passable hour-long set and you're willing to add some anti-Trump jokes, Netflix has a lot of money to spend on recording your set for a show. The revival "Roseanne" thus held the highest chance of critiquing the Clinton campaign and Clinton's record on prime-time American mainstream TV. Could these be reasons why the show was so swiftly (perhaps opportunistically) canceled and so many took the chance to distance themselves from Barr? Could it be that making money on a show that didn't cater to pushing Trump Derangement Syndrome means less than pushing the TDS agenda? After all, the revival show isn't being replaced with some show that runs stuff akin to what RT or teleSUR show. I'm reminded of why Phil Donahue and Jesse Ventura lost their respective MSNBC shows during the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq[3] -- they put on people who challenged that invasion. Or could this be something far less interesting to people such as Roseanne Barr's attempt at renegotiating contract terms with another network? Or is Barr giving simply inchoate comments rooted in far too little fact and this amounts to nothing but coincidentally beneficial to Russiagate-supporting networks? _____________________________________ [1] Articles describing the success: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/…/tv-ratings-roseanne-fin… https://www.forbes.com/…/roseanne-ratings-hold-steady-as-t…/ https://deadline.com/…/nielsen-roseanne-total-content-rati…/ https://screenrant.com/roseanne-revival-ratings-low/ -- points out that the show's ratings dropped to 10.42 million viewers by the end of the 1st season but the article calls 10.42 million viewers "a respectable number". [2] https://www.theguardian.com/…/roseanne-barr-tweet-valerie-j… [3] https://www.nytimes.com/…/msnbc-cancels-the-phil-donahue-ta… tries to downplay Donahue's MSNBC ratings and then says "Donahue's show had been growing slightly over the past few months, and he was actually attracting more viewers than any other show on MSNBC, even the channel's signature prime-time program ''Hardball With Chris Matthews.'' Mr. Matthews's show has averaged 413,000 viewers over the last month" and https://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/phil-donahue-chris-matthew… quotes NBC execs saying Donahue was a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war". Ventura's MSNBC show is discussed in https://www.newsbusters.org/…/jesse-ventura-msnbc-canceled-… and said to be not so well-viewed. But this gives me the impression that ratings don't really matter when faced with a conflict between what a shows says and what the network wants to say -- high or low ratings, shows that don't get in line are canceled. --J. B. Nicholson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bjornsona at ameritech.net Wed May 30 10:01:35 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 05:01:35 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ireland's vote Message-ID: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/27/world/europe/savita-halappanavar-ireland-abortion.html.    "Savita's law" This woman's  unnecessary, painful death in 2012 was horrific. I am happy the Irish are changing their laws to allow life-saving medical care for women. !!!!! On a somewhat related note, not sure if this is because I am a woman, or have been socialized as a woman in Western culture, etc., yet I have had the experience numerous times of not being heard when asking for medical care. I have found that with some doctors, I need to go back two or three times with the same complaint before it is deemed serious enough to be investigated. Not so with my husband. His doctor visits: Boom! Everything is handled immediately! When I recognize this dynamic, I address it or switch doctors, now that I am old enough to catch it. Point being, not just in my life, in many other women's lives, I have seen substandard medical based on the woman just being a woman.  Sent from my LG Phoenix 2, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone ------ Original message------From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discussDate: Tue, May 29, 2018 10:27 AMTo: Karen Aram;Cc: Peace-discuss List;Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Ireland's vote The conventional, bien pensant view of "the medieval backwardness of the Roman Catholic Church" is more a matter of settled liberal prejudice than historical analysis. It's inaccurate in regard to both the European 'middle ages' and the contemporary RCC. "My political views: I'm basically against anything that kills people [even in the womb] or destroys the planet we live on." Our work in common - including analysis of the present situation - should be directed against that. —CGE > On May 29, 2018, at 9:57 AM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > I’m not interested in peoples personal opinions on abortion. This article has more to do with Ireland and class than anything else. I know of course it will break down to discussions of personal opinions on abortion, especially from men, who really should have no say in the matter, but I think the issue of what is taking place in Ireland to be significant. > Not mentioned in this article is the fight back on the part of the Irish people against the privatization of their “water.” In short they aren’t called the “fighting Irish” for nothing. > > PS Nor do I care to discuss religion pro or con. So I will not be responding to anything said in respect to this article, knock yourselves out folks. > > > The abortion vote in Ireland: A blow against reaction > > By Patrick Martin > 29 May 2018 > The overwhelming “Yes” vote in the Irish referendum on abortion rights, by a margin of 1,429,981 votes for to 723,632 votes against, is a landmark victory both for the Irish working class and for the defense of democratic rights internationally. In a country that for centuries has been synonymous with domination by the medieval backwardness of the Roman Catholic Church, where as recently as 20 years ago both contraception and divorce were illegal, two-thirds of those voting in a heavy turnout supported the legalization of abortion. It is a demonstration that, while the official parties of bourgeois Europe are all moving to the right, the working class and sections of the middle class are moving to the left. > Last Friday’s vote is an exact reversal of the 1983 referendum that enacted the Eighth Amendment to the Irish constitution, formally prohibiting abortion by giving the unborn fetus legal rights equal to those of a pregnant woman. That referendum, backed by the Catholic hierarchy and Ireland’s major parties, passed by a two-to-one margin. The referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment was opposed by the hierarchy, but the bishops avoided a prominent public role because of a series of major scandals that have shattered the Church’s claims to infallibility and moral superiority, involving sexual abuse by priests, enslavement of women in convent enterprises, and the discovery of a mass grave of at least 800 children born “out of wedlock” over many decades in rural Tuam, dumped in the septic tank of a Catholic home for unwed mothers. > The main bourgeois parties—Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Labour and Sinn Fein—all officially endorsed a “yes” vote, although the two largest, Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, were deeply split. In any case, as observers noted, these parties were not leading the campaign to legalize abortion. They were trailing behind a popular movement that was manifested in a major influx of new voters, the Internet-based crowd-funding of the “yes” campaign, and enthusiastic participation among youth, and particularly young women. > Vote tabulations found that only one district out of 40, Donegal, on the border with Northern Ireland, reported a majority “no” vote, and that by a narrow margin. Even the most rural and conservative areas, such as Roscommon and Mayo, posted majorities for “yes.” Exit polls revealed that support for abortion rights won a majority among every age group except those over 65 (with 80 percent or more among young people voting “yes”), and among urban, suburban and rural voters. Irish farmers voted by 52.5 percent to defy the Catholic Church, which had branded every “yes” vote a sin requiring confession and repentance. > There are both short-term and long-term social factors at work in the shift in public opinion in Ireland. As one Irish commentator noted, the campaign to repeal the Eighth Amendment was spearheaded by the youth: “[T]his campaign has been largely won by a generation that had good reason to give up on Ireland. It is the generation of 2008, the generation that was handed a massive bank debt, that was told there were no jobs, that had its wages and welfare payments cut, that was informed, in so many words, that it would be greatly appreciated if it would kindly remove itself to somewhere else.” > Real wages plummeted after the 2008 financial crash, which put an end to widespread illusions in Ireland as the “Celtic Tiger,” but have recovered somewhat since 2012. Meanwhile, the cost of living has continued its relentless rise. Dublin, which accounts for one quarter of the country’s population, is now a more expensive place to live than London. Economic inequality in Ireland, as in all the major capitalist countries, has risen to previously unheard-of levels. Not since Anglo-Irish landlords feasted while their peasant tenants starved during the Great Famine of 1847–48 has the gap between the wealthy and the rest of the population been so vast. > But there is another social transformation, of a longer-term and more profound character, that is manifested in the Irish vote. Once a country consisting overwhelmingly of poor farmers, usually tenants at the mercy of the landlord and priest, Ireland has undergone an industrial development and economic modernization over the past half century. In 1960, only 46 percent of Ireland’s 2.8 million population lived in urban areas, while 54 percent were rural. In 2018, 67 percent of Ireland’s 4.8 million population lives in urban areas, with only 33 percent rural. The transformation in raw numbers is even more remarkable: Ireland’s urban population has risen 150 percent, from 1,288,000 in 1960 to 3,216,000; the rural population has risen by only 11 percent over the same period, from 1,512,000 to 1,684,000. > What the influx of capital investment in factories, offices and research centers means in class terms is unmistakable: the urban working class, once a relatively small minority in Ireland, albeit with a remarkable revolutionary history, is now the largest social force in the country. The rural tenantry and farmers, long dominated by the Catholic Church, have become a minority. And it is the working class, of all classes in modern capitalist society, which is the bedrock for the defense of democratic rights. > Over the past quarter-century, in a series of referendums that have allowed the people to override the bourgeois parties that kowtow to the Church, Ireland has legalized contraception, divorce, gay marriage and now abortion. As the New York Timesnoted Monday, “The culture of silence and deference to religious authority that long dominated Ireland is gone.” > It is instructive to contrast the advances in democratic rights recorded in what was once the most backward country in Western Europe with the frontal assault on those rights in the United States, the richest and most powerful capitalist country in the world. Once legislation is enacted by the Irish parliament—already presented in draft form before the referendum—women in small towns and rural areas of Ireland will have greater access to reproductive health care, including abortion, than their counterparts in similar areas of the United States. > In 2014, according to the Guttmacher Institute, there was no abortion provider in 90 percent of US counties, accounting for 39 percent of the women of reproductive age. This included 99 percent of counties in Missouri, 98 percent in the Dakotas and Kentucky, 97 percent in Arkansas and 96 percent in Wisconsin. One-quarter of women who needed abortion services had to travel at least 25 miles to find a clinic. In parts of Texas and the Great Plains, the distance to be traveled comes to hundreds of miles each way. > The right to abortion is being destroyed by stealth, through a combination of state harassment of clinics, such as requirements that they be affiliated to hospitals (even when the only local hospital is Catholic), and obstacles placed in the way of women, such as the requirement for multiple visits to receive “counseling” before they obtain the procedure. Heavy pressure has been placed on insurance companies, most recently by the Trump administration, not to cover abortion services in any government-linked insurance plan, such as Obamacare. Medicaid will not pay for the procedure, and funding for the largest provider of abortion services, Planned Parenthood, is under systematic attack. > This assault on democratic rights affects primarily women of the working class. Women of higher income and social position have no problem obtaining abortion and other reproductive health services when they need them. That accounts for the indifference with which the well-heeled advocates of the #MeToo campaign treat the destruction of abortion rights in America. While the New York Times, the New Yorker, the television networks and Hollywood obsess about the supposed crimes against millionaire actresses and television personalities, they have no time for the plight of women workers who are denied this fundamental right to determine what happens within their own bodies. > This indifference carries over to the media coverage of the Irish referendum. It has dropped from the newspaper headlines after one day. It barely registered in the network news broadcasts. The World Socialist Web Site sees this issue differently. We hail the actions of the Irish people, who have dealt a blow to reaction. This vote reinforces our conviction that the defense of democratic rights, and of all progressive developments in modern society, requires the mobilization of the strength of the working class as an independent political force. > Patrick Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 30 12:04:21 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 12:04:21 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [ufpj-activist] Jonathan Cook: "The flames that killed Fathi Harb should make us all burn with guilt and shame" (THE NATIONAL) References: Message-ID: From Robert Naiman: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/2018-05-27/immolation-gaza-fathi-harb/ [https://www.thenational.ae/polopoly_fs/7.107!/file/logo.png] The flames that killed Fathi Harb should make us all burn with guilt and shame The world's lack of action drove the 21-year-old father-to-be to commit an act of pure desperation. [A funeral in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip. Haitham Imad / EPA] A funeral in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip. Haitham Imad / EPA Jonathan Cook May 27, 2018 Fathi Harb should have had something to live for, not least the imminent arrival of a new baby. But last week the 21-year-old extinguished his life in an inferno of flames in central Gaza. It is believed to be the first example of a public act of self-immolation in the enclave. Harb doused himself in petrol and set himself alight on a street in Gaza City shortly before dawn prayers during the holy month of Ramadan. In part, Harb was driven to this terrible act of self-destruction out of despair. After a savage, decade-long Israeli blockade by land, sea and air, Gaza is like a car running on fumes. The United Nations has repeatedly warned that the enclave will be uninhabitable within a few years. Over that same decade, Israel has intermittently pounded Gaza into ruins, in line with the Israeli army’s Dahiya doctrine. The goal is to decimate the targeted area, turning life back to the Stone Age so that the population is too preoccupied with making ends meet to care about the struggle for freedom. Both of these kinds of assault have had a devastating impact on inhabitants’ psychological health. Harb would have barely remembered a time before Gaza was an open-air prison and one where a 1,000kg Israeli bomb might land near his home. In an enclave where two-thirds of young men are unemployed, he had no hope of finding work. He could not afford a home for his young family and he was about to have another mouth to feed. Doubtless, all of this contributed to his decision to burn himself to death. But self-immolation is more than suicide. That can be done quietly, out of sight, less gruesomely. In fact, figures suggest that suicide rates in Gaza have rocketed in recent years. But public self-immolation is associated with protest. A Buddhist monk famously turned himself into a human fireball in Vietnam in 1963 in protest at the persecution of his co-religionists. Tibetans have used self-immolation to highlight Chinese oppression, Indians to decry the caste system, and Poles, Ukrainians and Czechs once used it to protest Soviet rule. But more likely for Harb, the model was Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor who set himself on fire in late 2010 after officials humiliated him once too often. His public death triggered a wave of protests across the Middle East that became the Arab Spring. Bouazizi’s self-immolation suggests its power to set our consciences on fire. It is the ultimate act of individual self-sacrifice, one that is entirely non-violent except to the victim himself, performed altruistically in a greater, collective cause. Who did Harb hope to speak to with his shocking act? In part, according to his family, he was angry with the Palestinian leadership. His family was trapped in the unresolved feud between Gaza’s rulers, Hamas, and the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank. That dispute has led the PA to cut the salaries of its workers in Gaza, including Harb’s father. But Harb undoubtedly had a larger audience in mind too. Until a few years ago, Hamas regularly fired rockets out of the enclave in a struggle both to end Israel’s continuing colonisation of Palestinian land and to liberate the people of Gaza from their Israeli-made prison. But the world rejected the Palestinians’ right to resist violently and condemned Hamas as “terrorists”. Israel’s series of military rampages in Gaza to silence Hamas were meekly criticised in the West as “disproportionate”. The Palestinians of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where there is still direct contact with Israeli Jews, usually as settlers or soldiers, watched as Gaza’s armed resistance failed to prick the world’s conscience. So some took up the struggle as individuals, targeting Israelis or soldiers at checkpoints. They grabbed a kitchen knife to attack Israelis or soldiers at checkpoints, or rammed them with a car, bus or bulldozer. Again, the world sided with Israel. Resistance was not only futile, it was denounced as illegitimate. Since late March, the struggle for liberation has shifted back to Gaza. Tens of thousands of unarmed Palestinians have massed weekly close to Israel’s fence encaging them. The protests are intended as confrontational civil disobedience, a cry to the world for help and a reminder that Palestinians are being slowly choked to death. Israel has responded repeatedly by spraying the demonstrators with live ammunition, seriously wounding many thousands and killing more than 100. Yet again, the world has remained largely impassive. In fact, worse still, the demonstrators have been cast as Hamas stooges. The United States ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, blamed the victims under occupation, saying Israel had a right to “defend its border”, while the British government claimed the protests were “hijacked by terrorists”. None of this can have passed Harb by. When Palestinians are told they can “protest peacefully”, western governments mean quietly, in ways that Israel can ignore, in ways that will not trouble consciences or require any action. In Gaza, the Israeli army is renewing the Dahiya doctrine, this time by shattering thousands of Palestinian bodies rather than infrastructure. Harb understood only too well the West’s hypocrisy in denying Palestinians any right to meaningfully resist Israel’s campaign of destruction. The flames that engulfed him were intended also to consume us with guilt and shame. And doubtless more in Gaza will follow his example. Will Harb be proved right? Can the West be shamed into action? Or will we continue blaming the victims to excuse our complicity in seven decades of outrages committed against the Palestinian people? _______________________________________________ ufpj-activist mailing list Guidelines: %(http://www.unitedforpeace.org/listserv-community-guidelines) Post: ufpj-activist at lists.mayfirst.org List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-activist To Unsubscribe Send email to: ufpj-activist-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj-activist/karenaram%40hotmail.com You are subscribed as: karenaram at hotmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.png Type: image/png Size: 7149 bytes Desc: image008.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image009.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 39197 bytes Desc: image009.jpg URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 30 12:30:15 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 07:30:15 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Neolibs v. populists in Italy (& Europe) Message-ID: <0C13E927-6341-4F6D-9AA0-DDFE0750D005@gmail.com> [The best comment I've seen on the populist-neolib face-off in Italy (and Europe)] The news out of Italy over the last two days has the potential to completely change the game as it could end in the destruction of the EU. The original Euro Community was an admirable ideal as it emphasised the rights of all citizens of member states, guaranteeing them a range of protections from unjust and stupid demagogues. Unfortunately the neolib corporatist globalists took over the machinery and turned it over to a gang of cold-hearted technocrats who used the once estimable governance structure to enforce a draconian monetarist policy. - see Greece. Now Italy has finally jacked up and the EU, mimicking Amerikan methods that have wreaked so much havoc upon the world (see the 1975 dismissal of the elected Australian Labour Government by the englander queen), the EU has bribed, blackmailed or extorted the Italian president Mattarella, into destroying Italy's newly elected government just because he suspects this government sees Italy's future outside the Franco-German dominated Eurozone (Germany bludgeons with money, France has the military power)... The new government is a strange marriage of left and right which perplexes neolibs but makes sense to voters who aren't over the moon about the innate racism of the rightists or the old school leftists regard for centralisation, but who consider that the extreme tendencies will be cancelled out with the new government unifying around their shared belief in the primacy of the Italian people. Mattarella has completely ignored the election result and is trying to install an IMF technocrat as the leader of an unelected government. Even that worthless neolib whore england's grauniad sees Matarella's move as problematic: “Privately, some analysts who were supportive of Mattarella said it was far from clear whether he had made the right moves and whether his actions would inflame populist sentiment at a fragile moment in Italian history.” It pays to remember that unlike Greece who had suffered the effect of being oppressed and robbed by the Amerikan installed fascist military junta for 40 years, a junta which simply took control of the pre-1945 German Nazi machinery, Italy has been somewhat luckier. Although Amerika used the likes of heroin pushers/pimps Meyer Lansky and Charlie 'Lucky' Luciano to install a mafia government, Italians successfully used their system, which was freer than Greece’s, to push back. The Italian economy is number 3 after Germany and France in the EU. The EU needs Italy. Remember when the same stunt was attempted in Greece, the people chucked out the cold hearted arsehole at first opportunity (even though they reckoned without the spineless puppet Tsipras (of course the Italians have checked out their nominees thoroughly to ensure there should be no repetition), but the Italian constitution which Mattarella has so shamelessly used and perverted to pull his stroke, will bring his strategy undone. That same constitution gives parliament the power to veto the President's pick, which it almost certainly will do, meaning there will be an immediate new election, one where a majority of Italians appalled by their President’s tyranny will swing behind M5S and the Northern League with a vengeance and the odds of Italy staying in an unreformed EU must be considered to be extremely slim. The real question is will Merkel and Macron have the good sense, will, and political control to recognise that the jig is up and it is long past time to make the remote Brussels EU mechanism far more responsive to the wants and needs of its members' citizens? Such a move would almost certainly take the momentum out of the little englander's Brexit as while it wouldn't do a thing for that dying out breed of "Let's put the 'Great' back into Great Britain" mob, it would slice off the somewhat conflicted humanist base who are torn between a desire to be a part of Europe and the need to GTFO of such a crudely undemocratic mess that is the EU in 2018. I reckon that although Merkel has the balls to force a change she now lacks the political power and though Macron may be able to convince his neolib cronies, every one of whom owes his/her gig to Macron's corrupt deceit skills, Macron lacks the strength of purpose to make changes and save the EU. Unfortunately that means that Europe is likely to fall into the millennia old warring factions that finally kippered it from 1914 onwards. Amerika will be happy in the short term, but without a unified Europe to back it up, the Amerikan empire will be buggered pretty quick. http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/05/italy-the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-european-union-by-debs-is-dead.html#more https://www.rt.com/news/428220-oettinger-slammed-colony-italy/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 30 12:45:14 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 07:45:14 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Support & critique of BDS Message-ID: A cogent statement from a prophet without honor in his own country and elsewhere: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/bds-one-state-two-states-tactics-goals-and-resistance/ —CGE -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 30 13:24:33 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 13:24:33 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] [Prairiegreens] Support & critique of BDS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carl You’re right, he’s brilliant, he convinced me a two state solution is the only answer, plus….. I especially liked his quotation from Mao Zedong, one of my favorites which is: “He was obviously a smart guy and a shrewd political analyst and a shrewd military analyst, and he said the object of politics is to unite the many to defeat the few. You have to create as big a coalition as possible in order to isolate your enemy. And then if you want to isolate your enemy, you have to look at the place where they’re weakest, what you might call the line of least resistance.” On May 30, 2018, at 05:45, C G Estabrook > wrote: A cogent statement from a prophet without honor in his own country and elsewhere: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/bds-one-state-two-states-tactics-goals-and-resistance/ —CGE _______________________________________________ Prairiegreens mailing list Prairiegreens at lists.chambana.net https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/prairiegreens http://www.prairienet.org/greens/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From davidgreen50 at gmail.com Wed May 30 15:19:39 2018 From: davidgreen50 at gmail.com (David Green) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 10:19:39 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Support & critique of BDS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For the record, I submitted this transcript to both Counterpunch and Mondoweiss prior to sending it to ZNet yesterday, which put it right up. Given the current events in Gaza, perhaps the timing of entering these comments (from earlier this year) into the discussion was problematic; nevertheless, I feel it's important that they be considered. In addition, here is my letter to the N-G which was put up this morning: Settler-colonialism still taking place Just as the settler-colonialist movement in the U.S. extended at least 114 years beyond independence (Wounded Knee), the movement that has promoted 136 years of Jewish/Zionist settlement in Palestine continues to struggle with indigenous Arabs, 70 years after Israel’s independence. Israel continues to deploy well-established means of settler-colonialism: expulsion (i.e., ethnic cleansing, including Bedouins within Israel proper, ongoing), occupation, confinement, imprisonment, deprivation and killing. Zionism, like other settler-colonialist movements, justifies its actions in terms of historical and religious destiny, civilizational and technological (European) progress, seemingly contradictory persecution by incorrigible European cultures (anti-Protestantism, anti-Semitism) and cultural superiority over the indigenous (barbaric, economically undeveloped) population. Familiar racist stereotypes of Palestinians, in reference to their indigeneity and ascribed (if updated) characteristics as Arabs and Muslims — backward, stubborn, resistant, irrational, fanatical, hateful, cunning, violent, terrorist — have developed accordingly and continue to flourish, even in the liberal Jewish-American (and local academic, Steven Salaita) context. These stereotypes were wellarticulated, with all avuncular seriousness and sincerity as well as predictable bombast, by Alan Dershowitz in his recent comments on campus. For good measure, Dershowitz described Malcolm X, in unqualified terms, as a “criminal and bigot,” thus reassuring the audience that, history aside, a statue of any slaveowner is tantamount to a school named after an uppity black radical. This background is consistent with Gaza’s past 70 years, in relation to ethnic cleansing, refugees, occupation, dedevelopment, blockade, siege and (since 2005) regular, unprovoked massacres by Israeli forces. These historical precedents should be considered prologue as current events unfold. DAVID GREEN Champaign On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 7:45 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss < peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net> wrote: > A cogent statement from a prophet without honor in his own country and > elsewhere: > > https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/bds-one-state-two-states- > tactics-goals-and-resistance/ > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 30 15:24:48 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 10:24:48 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Support & critique of BDS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <33CED481-3718-4887-813D-39D9E11F9711@gmail.com> Nice work. It’s important that it be available. (Louis Proyect has already attacked it.) > On May 30, 2018, at 10:19 AM, David Green wrote: > > For the record, I submitted this transcript to both Counterpunch and Mondoweiss prior to sending it to ZNet yesterday, which put it right up. > > Given the current events in Gaza, perhaps the timing of entering these comments (from earlier this year) into the discussion was problematic; nevertheless, I feel it's important that they be considered. > > In addition, here is my letter to the N-G which was put up this morning: > > Settler-colonialism still taking place > Just as the settler-colonialist movement in the U.S. extended at least 114 years beyond independence (Wounded Knee), the movement that has promoted 136 years of Jewish/Zionist settlement in Palestine continues to struggle with indigenous Arabs, 70 years after Israel’s independence. > Israel continues to deploy well-established means of settler-colonialism: expulsion (i.e., ethnic cleansing, including Bedouins within Israel proper, ongoing), occupation, confinement, imprisonment, deprivation and killing. > Zionism, like other settler-colonialist movements, justifies its actions in terms of historical and religious destiny, civilizational and technological (European) progress, seemingly contradictory persecution by incorrigible European cultures (anti-Protestantism, anti-Semitism) and cultural superiority over the indigenous (barbaric, economically undeveloped) population. > Familiar racist stereotypes of Palestinians, in reference to their indigeneity and ascribed (if updated) characteristics as Arabs and Muslims — backward, stubborn, resistant, irrational, fanatical, hateful, cunning, violent, terrorist — have developed accordingly and continue to flourish, even in the liberal Jewish-American (and local academic, Steven Salaita) context. These stereotypes were wellarticulated, with all avuncular seriousness and sincerity as well as predictable bombast, by Alan Dershowitz in his recent comments on campus. > For good measure, Dershowitz described Malcolm X, in unqualified terms, as a “criminal and bigot,” thus reassuring the audience > that, history aside, a statue of any slaveowner is tantamount to a school named after an uppity black radical. > This background is consistent with Gaza’s past 70 years, in relation to ethnic cleansing, refugees, occupation, dedevelopment, blockade, siege and (since 2005) regular, unprovoked massacres by Israeli forces. These historical precedents should be considered prologue as current events unfold. DAVID GREEN Champaign > > > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 7:45 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: > A cogent statement from a prophet without honor in his own country and elsewhere: > > https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/bds-one-state-two-states-tactics-goals-and-resistance/ > > —CGE > > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 30 15:29:30 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 15:29:30 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Support & critique of BDS In-Reply-To: <33CED481-3718-4887-813D-39D9E11F9711@gmail.com> References: , <33CED481-3718-4887-813D-39D9E11F9711@gmail.com> Message-ID: Davids letter to the NG is brilliant. Thank you Sent on my Virgin Mobile Phone. ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Wed, May 30, 2018 10:25 AM To: David Green; Cc: Peace Discuss; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Support & critique of BDS Nice work. It’s important that it be available. (Louis Proyect has already attacked it.) On May 30, 2018, at 10:19 AM, David Green > wrote: For the record, I submitted this transcript to both Counterpunch and Mondoweiss prior to sending it to ZNet yesterday, which put it right up. Given the current events in Gaza, perhaps the timing of entering these comments (from earlier this year) into the discussion was problematic; nevertheless, I feel it's important that they be considered. In addition, here is my letter to the N-G which was put up this morning: Settler-colonialism still taking place Just as the settler-colonialist movement in the U.S. extended at least 114 years beyond independence (Wounded Knee), the movement that has promoted 136 years of Jewish/Zionist settlement in Palestine continues to struggle with indigenous Arabs, 70 years after Israel’s independence. Israel continues to deploy well-established means of settler-colonialism: expulsion (i.e., ethnic cleansing, including Bedouins within Israel proper, ongoing), occupation, confinement, imprisonment, deprivation and killing. Zionism, like other settler-colonialist movements, justifies its actions in terms of historical and religious destiny, civilizational and technological (European) progress, seemingly contradictory persecution by incorrigible European cultures (anti-Protestantism, anti-Semitism) and cultural superiority over the indigenous (barbaric, economically undeveloped) population. Familiar racist stereotypes of Palestinians, in reference to their indigeneity and ascribed (if updated) characteristics as Arabs and Muslims — backward, stubborn, resistant, irrational, fanatical, hateful, cunning, violent, terrorist — have developed accordingly and continue to flourish, even in the liberal Jewish-American (and local academic, Steven Salaita) context. These stereotypes were wellarticulated, with all avuncular seriousness and sincerity as well as predictable bombast, by Alan Dershowitz in his recent comments on campus. For good measure, Dershowitz described Malcolm X, in unqualified terms, as a “criminal and bigot,” thus reassuring the audience that, history aside, a statue of any slaveowner is tantamount to a school named after an uppity black radical. This background is consistent with Gaza’s past 70 years, in relation to ethnic cleansing, refugees, occupation, dedevelopment, blockade, siege and (since 2005) regular, unprovoked massacres by Israeli forces. These historical precedents should be considered prologue as current events unfold. DAVID GREEN Champaign On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 7:45 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss > wrote: A cogent statement from a prophet without honor in his own country and elsewhere: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/bds-one-state-two-states-tactics-goals-and-resistance/ —CGE _______________________________________________ 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 bjornsona at ameritech.net Wed May 30 18:52:46 2018 From: bjornsona at ameritech.net (bjornsona at ameritech.net) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 13:52:46 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] It took a student to say it Message-ID: <3gm5hmvpnhsvc49f4mc4l4kg.1527705915327@email.lge.com> https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/05/30/the-culture-behind-school-shootings/ Thank you all for introducing me to CounterPunch. I agreed with much of Nick Pemberton's ideas here- it took a college student to say many of us too much in the  mainstream  have been reluctant to say and he does it in a more comprehensive fashion. ------ Original message------From: Karen Aram via Peace-discussDate: Wed, May 30, 2018 10:29 AMTo: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net;Cc: Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Support & critique of BDS Davids letter to the NG is brilliant. Thank you Sent on my Virgin Mobile Phone. ------ Original message------ From: C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss Date: Wed, May 30, 2018 10:25 AM To: David Green; Cc: Peace Discuss; Subject:Re: [Peace-discuss] Support & critique of BDS Nice work. It’s important that it be available. (Louis Proyect has already attacked it.) On May 30, 2018, at 10:19 AM, David Green wrote: For the record, I submitted this transcript to both Counterpunch and Mondoweiss prior to sending it to ZNet yesterday, which put it right up. Given the current events in Gaza, perhaps the timing of entering these comments (from earlier this year) into the discussion was problematic; nevertheless, I feel it's important that they be considered. In addition, here is my letter to the N-G which was put up this morning: Settler-colonialism still taking place Just as the settler-colonialist movement in the U.S. extended at least 114 years beyond independence (Wounded Knee), the movement that has promoted 136 years of Jewish/Zionist settlement in Palestine continues to struggle with indigenous Arabs, 70 years after Israel’s independence. Israel continues to deploy well-established means of settler-colonialism: expulsion (i.e., ethnic cleansing, including Bedouins within Israel proper, ongoing), occupation, confinement, imprisonment, deprivation and killing. Zionism, like other settler-colonialist movements, justifies its actions in terms of historical and religious destiny, civilizational and technological (European) progress, seemingly contradictory persecution by incorrigible European cultures (anti-Protestantism, anti-Semitism) and cultural superiority over the indigenous (barbaric, economically undeveloped) population. Familiar racist stereotypes of Palestinians, in reference to their indigeneity and ascribed (if updated) characteristics as Arabs and Muslims — backward, stubborn, resistant, irrational, fanatical, hateful, cunning, violent, terrorist — have developed accordingly and continue to flourish, even in the liberal Jewish-American (and local academic, Steven Salaita) context. These stereotypes were wellarticulated, with all avuncular seriousness and sincerity as well as predictable bombast, by Alan Dershowitz in his recent comments on campus. For good measure, Dershowitz described Malcolm X, in unqualified terms, as a “criminal and bigot,” thus reassuring the audience that, history aside, a statue of any slaveowner is tantamount to a school named after an uppity black radical. This background is consistent with Gaza’s past 70 years, in relation to ethnic cleansing, refugees, occupation, dedevelopment, blockade, siege and (since 2005) regular, unprovoked massacres by Israeli forces. These historical precedents should be considered prologue as current events unfold. DAVID GREEN Champaign On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 7:45 AM, C G Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: A cogent statement from a prophet without honor in his own country and elsewhere: https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/bds-one-state-two-states-tactics-goals-and-resistance/ —CGE _______________________________________________ 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 cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 30 18:57:51 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 13:57:51 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] =?utf-8?q?=22What_Happened_to_Jill_Stein=E2=80=99?= =?utf-8?q?s_Recount_Millions=3F=22?= Message-ID: <1595CD15-4B7E-45F9-921A-FC38E719A7CF@gmail.com> https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-happened-to-jill-steins-recount-millions Louis Proyect's comment is harsh but perhaps correct: "If Stein and her pal David Cobb had the slightest interest in building the GP …, they would have used the money to create a professional national office and field organizers [as] SDS did in 1965. What a waste." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 30 21:05:56 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 16:05:56 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] "Why Our Green Parties Haven't Taken Off" In-Reply-To: <1595CD15-4B7E-45F9-921A-FC38E719A7CF@gmail.com> References: <1595CD15-4B7E-45F9-921A-FC38E719A7CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1989CF3E-175D-4C0D-9DD0-8B2F827334AF@gmail.com> https://blackagendareport.com/why-our-green-parties-havent-taken "The Green Party does get many important things right. The biggest thing it gets right is its adamant insistence on independence from the two ruling class parties. They know you cannot ride to freedom on Pharaoh's chariot. That’s vitally important. The best among them, like Howie Hawkins, the current Green candidate for NY governor have also preached for years that a sustainable Green Party has to be built on a dues-based membership, with all officers directly responsible to the members who pay those dues.” —CGE > On May 30, 2018, at 1:57 PM, C G Estabrook wrote: > > https://www.thedailybeast.com/what-happened-to-jill-steins-recount-millions > > Louis Proyect's comment is harsh but perhaps correct: > > "If Stein and her pal David Cobb had the slightest interest in building the GP …, > they would have used the money to create a professional national office and field organizers > [as] SDS did in 1965. What a waste." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 30 21:51:53 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 21:51:53 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Crisis in Italy Message-ID: * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » Naming of technocratic government plunges Italy into crisis of class rule By Alex Lantier 30 May 2018 A mounting financial and political crisis is spreading across Europe after Italian President Sergio Mattarella named a technocratic government on Monday, effectively nullifying the March 2018 elections. Financial markets are panicking and protests are being called, as bitter divisions inside the Italian bourgeoisie, particularly over the euro currency, erupt to the surface. Initially, financial markets sent Italian interest rates lower on Monday, marking their approval of Mattarella’s decision not to allow the right-wing populist Five Star Movement (M5S) and the far-right Lega party to form a government. Yesterday, however, financial markets continued to push interest rates on Italian debt higher, to 1.937 percent for the first time since 2013, and sent the euro falling to below $1.16. It is ever clearer that deep conflicts in the Italian and the whole European ruling class that underlay the euro crisis following the 2008 Wall Street crash have not been resolved. The market turmoil spread to the United States, where the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 391 points, or 1.58 percent. On Monday night, designated Prime Minister Carlo Cottarelli indicated that he would oversee a brief technocratic government pledged to austerity and the euro. He said, “My government will be neutral, will ensure prudent management of the state budget and will treat as essential Italy’s participation in the euro.” He also indicated that he would nominate non-partisan state officials as ministers and ask them to sign a pledge not to seek election in the next parliamentary elections. On Tuesday, however, markets and European bank stocks fell, as it became clearer that Italy is set for a protracted period of government instability and political crisis. The Cottarelli government faces opposition from the M5S and Lega, who hold a majority of seats in parliament, so it is unclear whether it can survive a confidence vote or pass a budget. There are widespread expectations that Mattarella will call new elections in early 2019 or even as soon as early September. In the meantime, bitter political conflicts are erupting inside the ruling class between supporters of the EU and the euro and their far-right critics inside Italy and across Europe. However, both factions of the ruling class—the defenders of the EU and the euro grouped behind Mattarella, and the M5S, Lega and their far-right allies across Europe—are reactionary and have nothing to offer to workers. Differences between the two factions are exclusively over monetary and European policy, under conditions in which the entire ruling class is unanimous on militarism and austerity. As he announced his refusal to allow M5S and Lega to form a government, Mattarella stressed that the only reason for his opposition was that the M5S and Lega administration planned to nominate economist Paolo Savona as economy minister. Savona is hostile to Germany and to the euro, having written that Berlin “planned and created the euro in order to control and exploit other European countries in colonial fashion.” He has called the euro a “German cage” and pressed for other European countries to demand different monetary policies, saying: “There is no Europe, only Germany surrounded by cowards.” Mattarella said such comments were unacceptable to the banks: “The designation of the economy minister always constitutes an immediate message of confidence or alarm for economic and financial decision-makers. I requested for this ministry a politician … who would not be seen as the supporter of a line that would inevitably provoke Italy’s exit from the euro.” When this turned out not to be possible, Mattarella added, he ended the government talks because, in his view, “Euro membership is of fundamental importance for the perspectives of Italy and its youth.” Mattarella indicated that he might soon call new elections that could be essentially a referendum on the euro. “If we want to discuss this,” Mattarella said, referring to Italy’s membership in the euro zone, “it should be done openly. I have been informed that some political forces want to rapidly move to new elections. This is a decision I reserve the right to take, based on whatever happens in parliament.” Powerful factions in the EU are supporting Mattarella. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, who is Italian, told reporters in Brussels: “I have full trust, as I believe all Italians have, in the Italian institutions, starting with the Italian president. That is the guarantor of the Italian constitution. I am confident that the Italian institutions and the president of the republic will prove to be as always serving the interests of the Italian citizens, which by the way coincides also with the strength of the European Union.” The positions of Mattarella and Mogherini were echoed by the Democratic Party (PD), the social democratic formation that emerged from the collapse of the Stalinist Italian Communist Party. The PD has called protests for June 1 in support of the institutions—that is, in support of the intervention by Mattarella and the banks to block the formation of a M5S-Lega government. More provocatively, EU Budget Commissioner Günther Öttinger declared in a Deutsche Welle interview yesterday, “The markets will teach the Italians to vote for the right thing.” Amid a firestorm of protest in Italy, M5S and Lega officials demanded a retraction from Öttinger, who subsequently apologized after criticism from EU Council President Donald Tusk and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The EU Commission issued a formal statement declaring, “Italy’s fate does not lie in the hands of the financial markets.” While Mattarella stands openly for the diktat of the EU and the banks, M5S and Lega are no less reactionary. Any government they form would be the most right-wing in Italy since the World War II-era fascist regime of Benito Mussolini. They have pledged deep cuts to public spending and mass raids and expulsions of immigrants, provoking mass protests in defense of immigrant rights across Italy in the lead-up to the March 2018 elections. The only way forward for workers and youth in Italy is the development of a socialist and internationalist movement in opposition to both the PD and other supporters of the EU, and the far-right forces grouped around the M5S-Lega alliance. Mattarella’s anti-democratic intervention into the Italian elections notwithstanding, these far-right forces will prove just as hostile to the working class as the EU and the banks. Far-right politicians across Europe are now making statements in support of M5S and its alliance with Lega. Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s neo-fascist National Front (FN) and an ally of the Lega, has called Mattarella’s intervention a “coup d’état” by the EU. Nigel Farage of the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party denounced Mattarella’s intervention and denounced the EU in the EU parliament: “In the last 48 hours, their democracy has been traduced. In the past you have managed to bully the Danes, you bullied the Irish, you bullied the Greeks into submission. I suspect with Italy today you have now bitten off more than you can chew. Bring on more elections and bigger eurosceptic victories.” There is growing fear in PD circles that Mattarella’s intervention may have handed the victory to Lega, which is now surging in the polls past 25 percent support. On a hidden camera, former PD prime minister Massimo d’Alema declared that if there were new elections after Mattarella’s decision, the M5S-Lega alliance would win a landslide 80 percent of the vote. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From galliher at illinois.edu Wed May 30 22:22:01 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:22:01 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Crisis in Italy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: However, both factions of the ruling class—the defenders of the EU and the euro grouped behind Mattarella, and the M5S, Lega and their far-right allies across Europe—are reactionary and have nothing to offer to workers. Differences between the two factions are exclusively over monetary and European policy, under conditions in which the entire ruling class is unanimous on militarism and austerity. As he announced his refusal to allow M5S and Lega to form a government, Mattarella stressed that the only reason for his opposition was that the M5S and Lega administration planned to nominate economist Paolo Savona as economy minister. Savona is hostile to Germany and to the euro, having written that Berlin “planned and created the euro in order to control and exploit other European countries in colonial fashion.” He has called the euro a “German cage” and pressed for other European countries to demand different monetary policies, saying: “There is no Europe, only Germany surrounded by cowards.” Mattarella said such comments were unacceptable to the banks: “The designation of the economy minister always constitutes an immediate message of confidence or alarm for economic and financial decision-makers. I requested for this ministry a politician … who would not be seen as the supporter of a line that would inevitably provoke Italy’s exit from the euro.” When this turned out not to be possible, Mattarella added, he ended the government talks because, in his view, “Euro membership is of fundamental importance for the perspectives of Italy and its youth.” Mattarella indicated that he might soon call new elections that could be essentially a referendum on the euro. “If we want to discuss this,” Mattarella said, referring to Italy’s membership in the euro zone, “it should be done openly. I have been informed that some political forces want to rapidly move to new elections. This is a decision I reserve the right to take, based on whatever happens in parliament.” Powerful factions in the EU are supporting Mattarella. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, who is Italian, told reporters in Brussels: “I have full trust, as I believe all Italians have, in the Italian institutions, starting with the Italian president. That is the guarantor of the Italian constitution. I am confident that the Italian institutions and the president of the republic will prove to be as always serving the interests of the Italian citizens, which by the way coincides also with the strength of the European Union.” The positions of Mattarella and Mogherini were echoed by the Democratic Party (PD), the social democratic formation that emerged from the collapse of the Stalinist Italian Communist Party. The PD has called protests for June 1 in support of the institutions—that is, in support of the intervention by Mattarella and the banks to block the formation of a M5S-Lega government. More provocatively, EU Budget Commissioner Günther Öttinger declared in a Deutsche Welle interview yesterday, “The markets will teach the Italians to vote for the right thing.” Amid a firestorm of protest in Italy, M5S and Lega officials demanded a retraction from Öttinger, who subsequently apologized after criticism from EU Council President Donald Tusk and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The EU Commission issued a formal statement declaring, “Italy’s fate does not lie in the hands of the financial markets.” It’s quite wrong to say, "While Mattarella stands openly for the diktat of the EU and the banks, M5S and Lega are no less reactionary. Any government they form would be the most right-wing in Italy since the World War II-era fascist regime of Benito Mussolini.” They are in fact populist parties that carried the last election, overwhelming the center-left and center-right parties, who support EU neoliberalism (and neoconservatism). "Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s ... National Front (FN) and an ally of the Lega, has called Mattarella’s intervention a 'coup d’état' by the EU.” She’s obviously correct. "Nigel Farage of the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party denounced Mattarella’s intervention and denounced the EU in the EU parliament: 'In the last 48 hours, their democracy has been traduced. In the past you have managed to bully the Danes, you bullied the Irish, you bullied the Greeks into submission. I suspect with Italy today you have now bitten off more than you can chew. Bring on more elections and bigger eurosceptic victories.’” I think he’s right, on this point. No one can be wrong all the time. "There is growing fear in PD circles that Mattarella’s intervention may have handed the victory to Lega [and M5S], which is now surging in the polls past 25 percent support … former PD prime minister Massimo d’Alema declared that if there were new elections after Mattarella’s decision, the M5S-Lega alliance would win a landslide 80 percent of the vote.” Populism looks like overwhelming EU neoliberalism, sooner rather than later. The EU and the US are capable of enormities to counter that. > On May 30, 2018, at 4:51 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Naming of technocratic government plunges Italy into crisis of class rule > By Alex Lantier > 30 May 2018 > A mounting financial and political crisis is spreading across Europe after Italian President Sergio Mattarella named a technocratic government on Monday, effectively nullifying the March 2018 elections. Financial markets are panicking and protests are being called, as bitter divisions inside the Italian bourgeoisie, particularly over the euro currency, erupt to the surface. > Initially, financial markets sent Italian interest rates lower on Monday, marking their approval of Mattarella’s decision not to allow the right-wing populist Five Star Movement (M5S) and the far-right Lega party to form a government. Yesterday, however, financial markets continued to push interest rates on Italian debt higher, to 1.937 percent for the first time since 2013, and sent the euro falling to below $1.16. It is ever clearer that deep conflicts in the Italian and the whole European ruling class that underlay the euro crisis following the 2008 Wall Street crash have not been resolved. > The market turmoil spread to the United States, where the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 391 points, or 1.58 percent. > On Monday night, designated Prime Minister Carlo Cottarelli indicated that he would oversee a brief technocratic government pledged to austerity and the euro. He said, “My government will be neutral, will ensure prudent management of the state budget and will treat as essential Italy’s participation in the euro.” He also indicated that he would nominate non-partisan state officials as ministers and ask them to sign a pledge not to seek election in the next parliamentary elections. > On Tuesday, however, markets and European bank stocks fell, as it became clearer that Italy is set for a protracted period of government instability and political crisis. The Cottarelli government faces opposition from the M5S and Lega, who hold a majority of seats in parliament, so it is unclear whether it can survive a confidence vote or pass a budget. There are widespread expectations that Mattarella will call new elections in early 2019 or even as soon as early September. > In the meantime, bitter political conflicts are erupting inside the ruling class between supporters of the EU and the euro and their far-right critics inside Italy and across Europe. However, both factions of the ruling class—the defenders of the EU and the euro grouped behind Mattarella, and the M5S, Lega and their far-right allies across Europe—are reactionary and have nothing to offer to workers. > Differences between the two factions are exclusively over monetary and European policy, under conditions in which the entire ruling class is unanimous on militarism and austerity. As he announced his refusal to allow M5S and Lega to form a government, Mattarella stressed that the only reason for his opposition was that the M5S and Lega administration planned to nominate economist Paolo Savona as economy minister. > Savona is hostile to Germany and to the euro, having written that Berlin “planned and created the euro in order to control and exploit other European countries in colonial fashion.” He has called the euro a “German cage” and pressed for other European countries to demand different monetary policies, saying: “There is no Europe, only Germany surrounded by cowards.” > Mattarella said such comments were unacceptable to the banks: “The designation of the economy minister always constitutes an immediate message of confidence or alarm for economic and financial decision-makers. I requested for this ministry a politician … who would not be seen as the supporter of a line that would inevitably provoke Italy’s exit from the euro.” When this turned out not to be possible, Mattarella added, he ended the government talks because, in his view, “Euro membership is of fundamental importance for the perspectives of Italy and its youth.” > Mattarella indicated that he might soon call new elections that could be essentially a referendum on the euro. “If we want to discuss this,” Mattarella said, referring to Italy’s membership in the euro zone, “it should be done openly. I have been informed that some political forces want to rapidly move to new elections. This is a decision I reserve the right to take, based on whatever happens in parliament.” > Powerful factions in the EU are supporting Mattarella. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, who is Italian, told reporters in Brussels: “I have full trust, as I believe all Italians have, in the Italian institutions, starting with the Italian president. That is the guarantor of the Italian constitution. I am confident that the Italian institutions and the president of the republic will prove to be as always serving the interests of the Italian citizens, which by the way coincides also with the strength of the European Union.” > The positions of Mattarella and Mogherini were echoed by the Democratic Party (PD), the social democratic formation that emerged from the collapse of the Stalinist Italian Communist Party. The PD has called protests for June 1 in support of the institutions—that is, in support of the intervention by Mattarella and the banks to block the formation of a M5S-Lega government. > More provocatively, EU Budget Commissioner Günther Öttinger declared in a Deutsche Welle interview yesterday, “The markets will teach the Italians to vote for the right thing.” > Amid a firestorm of protest in Italy, M5S and Lega officials demanded a retraction from Öttinger, who subsequently apologized after criticism from EU Council President Donald Tusk and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The EU Commission issued a formal statement declaring, “Italy’s fate does not lie in the hands of the financial markets.” > While Mattarella stands openly for the diktat of the EU and the banks, M5S and Lega are no less reactionary. Any government they form would be the most right-wing in Italy since the World War II-era fascist regime of Benito Mussolini. They have pledged deep cuts to public spending and mass raids and expulsions of immigrants, provoking mass protests in defense of immigrant rights across Italy in the lead-up to the March 2018 elections. > The only way forward for workers and youth in Italy is the development of a socialist and internationalist movement in opposition to both the PD and other supporters of the EU, and the far-right forces grouped around the M5S-Lega alliance. Mattarella’s anti-democratic intervention into the Italian elections notwithstanding, these far-right forces will prove just as hostile to the working class as the EU and the banks. > Far-right politicians across Europe are now making statements in support of M5S and its alliance with Lega. Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s neo-fascist National Front (FN) and an ally of the Lega, has called Mattarella’s intervention a “coup d’état” by the EU. > Nigel Farage of the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party denounced Mattarella’s intervention and denounced the EU in the EU parliament: “In the last 48 hours, their democracy has been traduced. In the past you have managed to bully the Danes, you bullied the Irish, you bullied the Greeks into submission. I suspect with Italy today you have now bitten off more than you can chew. Bring on more elections and bigger eurosceptic victories.” > There is growing fear in PD circles that Mattarella’s intervention may have handed the victory to Lega, which is now surging in the polls past 25 percent support. On a hidden camera, former PD prime minister Massimo d’Alema declared that if there were new elections after Mattarella’s decision, the M5S-Lega alliance would win a landslide 80 percent of the vote. > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Wed May 30 22:29:29 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 22:29:29 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] New Malaysian government Message-ID: A couple weeks ago, at the AWARE meeting, Malaysia was brought up, and I mentioned the issue of Mahathir’s re-election, with Anwar Ibrahim in the wings to take control as Mahathirs’ successor. I see it as problematic given Anwar is in the back pocket of the US. This article confirms my fears, and it also contains the details related to the internal disputes among the Party’s and the various elites within that nation. One of two nations bordering the Malacca Straits * Print * Leaflet * Feedback * Share » New Malaysian government formed amid internal and global tensions By John Roberts 30 May 2018 Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has begun to form the country’s new cabinet, following the historic defeat of Prime Minister Najib Razak’s United Malays National Organisation (UMNO)-dominated Barisan Nasional coalition government (BN) in the May 9 election. The 92-year-old Mahathir leads the Pakatan Harapan (PH) four-party coalition. The PH received 47.92 percent of the popular vote, winning a clear majority in the 222-member lower house of the parliament. This compares with 33.8 percent for the BN and 16.99 percent for the Islamist Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS). UMNO’s electoral defeat was the outcome of immense discontent over social inequality, entrenched ruling nepotism and corruption, and the suppression of the democratic aspirations of the mass of the population. Six-decade-old mechanisms to maintain virtual one-party rule in Malaysia failed to deliver victory to UMNO and its coalition, for the first time since the country gained independence in 1963. These included the use of race and religion to divide the electorate, the flagrant channelling of state funds to business cronies, tight control of the media, political control of the courts and massive gerrymandering. The PH coalition, however, is far from a homogeneous political grouping. It consists of Mahathir’s United Malaysian Indigenous Party (PPBM), which has 13 seats; Anwar Ibrahim’s People’s Justice Party (PKR), with 47; the ethnic Chinese-based Democratic Action Party (DAP) with 42; and Amanah, a breakaway from the Islamist PAS, with 11 seats. The PH is a disparate collection of ruling-class elements whose interests clashed with UMNO’s predatory rule. The only unifying position they have is the fear that Najib’s brazen corruption, expressed most clearly in the billions of dollars looted from the state-owned investment fund 1MDB, was fuelling the underlying social discontent and threatening the ruling class as whole. Mahathir was the BN prime minister and UMNO leader from 1981 to 2003. Anwar Ibrahim was his deputy prime minister until they fell out over the economic response to the 1997–1998 Asian financial crisis. At the time, to silence Anwar’s opposition to his policies, Mahathir presided over the frame-up of his deputy on fabricated sodomy charges. Anwar was arrested in September 1998 and sentenced in 2001 to nine years’ imprisonment. He was not released from solidarity confinement until 2004. New charges were laid against him in 2008 under Najib’s government, which ultimately resulted in his re-imprisonment in 2015. The ruling coalition is wracked with conflicts over major domestic and international issues. On May 10, Mahathir was supposed to announce 10 of the up to 25 ministers to join himself and Wan Azizah, the PKR leader and deputy prime minister, in the cabinet. Mahathir was able to name only three: Muhyiddin Yassin (PPBM) as home affairs minister; Lim Guan Eng (DAP) as finance minister; and Mohamad Sabu (Amanah) as defence minister. On May 13, Mahathir declared that while “deliberation” would take place inside PH, he could appoint the cabinet at his discretion. More than a week later, only 13 ministers from the four parties had been sworn in. Among the positions still not filled was that of foreign minister. Mahathir quickly established a 12-member “Council of Elders,” stacked with some close political and business associates, operating independently of the parliament. It is drawing up the government’s plans to implement various populist measures that PH pledged to carry out in its first 100 days in office. These include the abolition of the unpopular goods and services tax, an increase in the minimum wage, with an automatic review every two years, and the prosecution of Najib and others over the 1MDB scandal. Mahathir claimed his return as prime minister would have a transitional character. In a pact worked out in January, Anwar’s PKR agreed to support Mahathir on the condition that Mahathir would move immediately to have the Anwar pardoned and released. After an interim period, Anwar, now 70, would re-enter the parliament and take over the premiership. King Muhammad V, the head of state, pardoned Anwar on May 16. Anwar told the media upon on his release he was “happy” with the transition period. He said he would give “complete support” to the government “on the understanding that we are committed to the reform agenda, beginning with the judiciary, media and the entire apparatus.” Both Anwar and Mahathir have declared that their “feud,” which erupted in 1998, is over. But the two represent rival sections of the Malay ruling elite. In 1997–98, Anwar supported the demands of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the United States that Malaysia dismantle the various means it employed to protect national-based corporations and exclude foreign competition—a decades-long regime denounced by global finance as “crony capitalism.” His PKR continues to advocate the end of economic protectionism. Mahathir only broke with UMNO after his faction of the party failed to remove Najib. Mahathir and his supporters formed the PPBM in 2016. Far from denouncing protectionism, the PPBM attacked Najib for making too many pro-market concessions, including the agreement to join the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). In demagogic and nationalist fashion, Mahathir said the TPP would see Malaysia “colonised again” by US imperialism. The PPBM remains committed to the defence of the New Economic Policy, which for decades has served the interests of a thin layer of ethnic Malay capitalists, at the expense of the mass of the population, as well as the ethnic Chinese and Indian business elite. Mahathir also made it clear that he will seek closer relations with China and align with Beijing’s efforts to counter Washington’s influence in the region. On May 24, he sent Council of Elders member Robert Kuok, Malaysia’s richest man, to the Chinese embassy to discuss cooperation between the two countries. The next day, Mahathir met with Chinese ambassador Bai Tian. US interests have expressed concern. In a May 11 article, the Pentagon-connected Center for International and Strategic Studies (CSIS) declared that Mahathir’s anti-American track record “creates a risk for bilateral relations.” In contrast, the think tank stressed that Anwar Ibrahim “enjoys deep and warm ties in Washington” and the US had supported him throughout his “travails.” In reality, the Bush and Obama administrations supported Najib and did nothing to oppose the persecution of Anwar. Nevertheless, the CSIS assessment is that the PKR’s economic outlook pushes it to politically lean toward Washington, and against China. Beside its military predominance in the region, Washington still has immense economic clout, despite Beijing’s growing trade and investment. The American total stock of foreign direct investment in the southeast Asian economies is $US226 billion—more than China, the European Union and Japan combined. Differences over foreign policy, fuelled by the intrigues of the US, China and other powers, are likely to mesh with domestic issues and cause ruptures within the fragile coalition. At the same time, the inability of the Malaysian ruling class and its new government to meet the economic and political demands of the working class portends the eruption of massive social struggles. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 30 22:46:49 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:46:49 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Crisis in Italy [CORRECTED] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [The following post included material I though excised. Here’s a corrected version.] > It’s quite wrong to say [as Alex Lantier does, below], "While Mattarella stands openly for the diktat of the EU and the banks, M5S and Lega are no less reactionary. Any government they form would be the most right-wing in Italy since the World War II-era fascist regime of Benito Mussolini.” > > M5S & Lega are in fact populist parties that carried the last election, overwhelming the center-left and center-right parties, who support EU neoliberalism (and neoconservatism). > > "Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s ... National Front (FN) and an ally of the Lega, has called Mattarella’s intervention a 'coup d’état' by the EU.” She’s obviously correct. > > "Nigel Farage of the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party denounced Mattarella’s intervention and denounced the EU in the EU parliament: 'In the last 48 hours, their democracy has been traduced. In the past you have managed to bully the Danes, you bullied the Irish, you bullied the Greeks into submission. I suspect with Italy today you have now bitten off more than you can chew. Bring on more elections and bigger eurosceptic victories.’” I think he’s right, on this point. No one can be wrong all the time. > > "There is growing fear in PD circles that Mattarella’s intervention may have handed the victory to Lega [and M5S], which is now surging in the polls past 25 percent support … former PD prime minister Massimo d’Alema declared that if there were new elections after Mattarella’s decision, the M5S-Lega alliance would win a landslide 80 percent of the vote.” > > Populism looks like overwhelming EU neoliberalism, sooner rather than later. The EU and the US are capable of enormities to counter that. —CGE > > >> On May 30, 2018, at 4:51 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Naming of technocratic government plunges Italy into crisis of class rule >> By Alex Lantier >> 30 May 2018 >> A mounting financial and political crisis is spreading across Europe after Italian President Sergio Mattarella named a technocratic government on Monday, effectively nullifying the March 2018 elections. Financial markets are panicking and protests are being called, as bitter divisions inside the Italian bourgeoisie, particularly over the euro currency, erupt to the surface. >> Initially, financial markets sent Italian interest rates lower on Monday, marking their approval of Mattarella’s decision not to allow the right-wing populist Five Star Movement (M5S) and the far-right Lega party to form a government. Yesterday, however, financial markets continued to push interest rates on Italian debt higher, to 1.937 percent for the first time since 2013, and sent the euro falling to below $1.16. It is ever clearer that deep conflicts in the Italian and the whole European ruling class that underlay the euro crisis following the 2008 Wall Street crash have not been resolved. >> The market turmoil spread to the United States, where the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 391 points, or 1.58 percent. >> On Monday night, designated Prime Minister Carlo Cottarelli indicated that he would oversee a brief technocratic government pledged to austerity and the euro. He said, “My government will be neutral, will ensure prudent management of the state budget and will treat as essential Italy’s participation in the euro.” He also indicated that he would nominate non-partisan state officials as ministers and ask them to sign a pledge not to seek election in the next parliamentary elections. >> On Tuesday, however, markets and European bank stocks fell, as it became clearer that Italy is set for a protracted period of government instability and political crisis. The Cottarelli government faces opposition from the M5S and Lega, who hold a majority of seats in parliament, so it is unclear whether it can survive a confidence vote or pass a budget. There are widespread expectations that Mattarella will call new elections in early 2019 or even as soon as early September. >> In the meantime, bitter political conflicts are erupting inside the ruling class between supporters of the EU and the euro and their far-right critics inside Italy and across Europe. However, both factions of the ruling class—the defenders of the EU and the euro grouped behind Mattarella, and the M5S, Lega and their far-right allies across Europe—are reactionary and have nothing to offer to workers. >> Differences between the two factions are exclusively over monetary and European policy, under conditions in which the entire ruling class is unanimous on militarism and austerity. As he announced his refusal to allow M5S and Lega to form a government, Mattarella stressed that the only reason for his opposition was that the M5S and Lega administration planned to nominate economist Paolo Savona as economy minister. >> Savona is hostile to Germany and to the euro, having written that Berlin “planned and created the euro in order to control and exploit other European countries in colonial fashion.” He has called the euro a “German cage” and pressed for other European countries to demand different monetary policies, saying: “There is no Europe, only Germany surrounded by cowards.” >> Mattarella said such comments were unacceptable to the banks: “The designation of the economy minister always constitutes an immediate message of confidence or alarm for economic and financial decision-makers. I requested for this ministry a politician … who would not be seen as the supporter of a line that would inevitably provoke Italy’s exit from the euro.” When this turned out not to be possible, Mattarella added, he ended the government talks because, in his view, “Euro membership is of fundamental importance for the perspectives of Italy and its youth.” >> Mattarella indicated that he might soon call new elections that could be essentially a referendum on the euro. “If we want to discuss this,” Mattarella said, referring to Italy’s membership in the euro zone, “it should be done openly. I have been informed that some political forces want to rapidly move to new elections. This is a decision I reserve the right to take, based on whatever happens in parliament.” >> Powerful factions in the EU are supporting Mattarella. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, who is Italian, told reporters in Brussels: “I have full trust, as I believe all Italians have, in the Italian institutions, starting with the Italian president. That is the guarantor of the Italian constitution. I am confident that the Italian institutions and the president of the republic will prove to be as always serving the interests of the Italian citizens, which by the way coincides also with the strength of the European Union.” >> The positions of Mattarella and Mogherini were echoed by the Democratic Party (PD), the social democratic formation that emerged from the collapse of the Stalinist Italian Communist Party. The PD has called protests for June 1 in support of the institutions—that is, in support of the intervention by Mattarella and the banks to block the formation of a M5S-Lega government. >> More provocatively, EU Budget Commissioner Günther Öttinger declared in a Deutsche Welle interview yesterday, “The markets will teach the Italians to vote for the right thing.” >> Amid a firestorm of protest in Italy, M5S and Lega officials demanded a retraction from Öttinger, who subsequently apologized after criticism from EU Council President Donald Tusk and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The EU Commission issued a formal statement declaring, “Italy’s fate does not lie in the hands of the financial markets.” >> While Mattarella stands openly for the diktat of the EU and the banks, M5S and Lega are no less reactionary. Any government they form would be the most right-wing in Italy since the World War II-era fascist regime of Benito Mussolini. They have pledged deep cuts to public spending and mass raids and expulsions of immigrants, provoking mass protests in defense of immigrant rights across Italy in the lead-up to the March 2018 elections. >> The only way forward for workers and youth in Italy is the development of a socialist and internationalist movement in opposition to both the PD and other supporters of the EU, and the far-right forces grouped around the M5S-Lega alliance. Mattarella’s anti-democratic intervention into the Italian elections notwithstanding, these far-right forces will prove just as hostile to the working class as the EU and the banks. >> Far-right politicians across Europe are now making statements in support of M5S and its alliance with Lega. Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s neo-fascist National Front (FN) and an ally of the Lega, has called Mattarella’s intervention a “coup d’état” by the EU. >> Nigel Farage of the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party denounced Mattarella’s intervention and denounced the EU in the EU parliament: “In the last 48 hours, their democracy has been traduced. In the past you have managed to bully the Danes, you bullied the Irish, you bullied the Greeks into submission. I suspect with Italy today you have now bitten off more than you can chew. Bring on more elections and bigger eurosceptic victories.” >> There is growing fear in PD circles that Mattarella’s intervention may have handed the victory to Lega, which is now surging in the polls past 25 percent support. On a hidden camera, former PD prime minister Massimo d’Alema declared that if there were new elections after Mattarella’s decision, the M5S-Lega alliance would win a landslide 80 percent of the vote. >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From cgestabrook at gmail.com Wed May 30 22:51:11 2018 From: cgestabrook at gmail.com (C G Estabrook) Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 17:51:11 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Crisis in Italy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <95665B1B-0173-4777-A47A-F2E42A0AEB38@gmail.com> This is an unedited version of a comment about , posted by mistake. A corrected version is now posted to . Apologies. > On May 30, 2018, at 5:22 PM, Carl G. Estabrook via Peace-discuss wrote: > > However, both factions of the ruling class—the defenders of the EU and the euro grouped behind Mattarella, and the M5S, Lega and their far-right allies across Europe—are reactionary and have nothing to offer to workers. > Differences between the two factions are exclusively over monetary and European policy, under conditions in which the entire ruling class is unanimous on militarism and austerity. As he announced his refusal to allow M5S and Lega to form a government, Mattarella stressed that the only reason for his opposition was that the M5S and Lega administration planned to nominate economist Paolo Savona as economy minister. > Savona is hostile to Germany and to the euro, having written that Berlin “planned and created the euro in order to control and exploit other European countries in colonial fashion.” He has called the euro a “German cage” and pressed for other European countries to demand different monetary policies, saying: “There is no Europe, only Germany surrounded by cowards.” > Mattarella said such comments were unacceptable to the banks: “The designation of the economy minister always constitutes an immediate message of confidence or alarm for economic and financial decision-makers. I requested for this ministry a politician … who would not be seen as the supporter of a line that would inevitably provoke Italy’s exit from the euro.” When this turned out not to be possible, Mattarella added, he ended the government talks because, in his view, “Euro membership is of fundamental importance for the perspectives of Italy and its youth.” > Mattarella indicated that he might soon call new elections that could be essentially a referendum on the euro. “If we want to discuss this,” Mattarella said, referring to Italy’s membership in the euro zone, “it should be done openly. I have been informed that some political forces want to rapidly move to new elections. This is a decision I reserve the right to take, based on whatever happens in parliament.” > Powerful factions in the EU are supporting Mattarella. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, who is Italian, told reporters in Brussels: “I have full trust, as I believe all Italians have, in the Italian institutions, starting with the Italian president. That is the guarantor of the Italian constitution. I am confident that the Italian institutions and the president of the republic will prove to be as always serving the interests of the Italian citizens, which by the way coincides also with the strength of the European Union.” > The positions of Mattarella and Mogherini were echoed by the Democratic Party (PD), the social democratic formation that emerged from the collapse of the Stalinist Italian Communist Party. The PD has called protests for June 1 in support of the institutions—that is, in support of the intervention by Mattarella and the banks to block the formation of a M5S-Lega government. > More provocatively, EU Budget Commissioner Günther Öttinger declared in a Deutsche Welle interview yesterday, “The markets will teach the Italians to vote for the right thing.” > Amid a firestorm of protest in Italy, M5S and Lega officials demanded a retraction from Öttinger, who subsequently apologized after criticism from EU Council President Donald Tusk and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The EU Commission issued a formal statement declaring, “Italy’s fate does not lie in the hands of the financial markets.” > It’s quite wrong to say, "While Mattarella stands openly for the diktat of the EU and the banks, M5S and Lega are no less reactionary. Any government they form would be the most right-wing in Italy since the World War II-era fascist regime of Benito Mussolini.” > > They are in fact populist parties that carried the last election, overwhelming the center-left and center-right parties, who support EU neoliberalism (and neoconservatism). > > "Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s ... National Front (FN) and an ally of the Lega, has called Mattarella’s intervention a 'coup d’état' by the EU.” She’s obviously correct. > > "Nigel Farage of the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party denounced Mattarella’s intervention and denounced the EU in the EU parliament: 'In the last 48 hours, their democracy has been traduced. In the past you have managed to bully the Danes, you bullied the Irish, you bullied the Greeks into submission. I suspect with Italy today you have now bitten off more than you can chew. Bring on more elections and bigger eurosceptic victories.’” I think he’s right, on this point. No one can be wrong all the time. > > "There is growing fear in PD circles that Mattarella’s intervention may have handed the victory to Lega [and M5S], which is now surging in the polls past 25 percent support … former PD prime minister Massimo d’Alema declared that if there were new elections after Mattarella’s decision, the M5S-Lega alliance would win a landslide 80 percent of the vote.” > > Populism looks like overwhelming EU neoliberalism, sooner rather than later. The EU and the US are capable of enormities to counter that. > > >> On May 30, 2018, at 4:51 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Naming of technocratic government plunges Italy into crisis of class rule >> By Alex Lantier >> 30 May 2018 >> A mounting financial and political crisis is spreading across Europe after Italian President Sergio Mattarella named a technocratic government on Monday, effectively nullifying the March 2018 elections. Financial markets are panicking and protests are being called, as bitter divisions inside the Italian bourgeoisie, particularly over the euro currency, erupt to the surface. >> Initially, financial markets sent Italian interest rates lower on Monday, marking their approval of Mattarella’s decision not to allow the right-wing populist Five Star Movement (M5S) and the far-right Lega party to form a government. Yesterday, however, financial markets continued to push interest rates on Italian debt higher, to 1.937 percent for the first time since 2013, and sent the euro falling to below $1.16. It is ever clearer that deep conflicts in the Italian and the whole European ruling class that underlay the euro crisis following the 2008 Wall Street crash have not been resolved. >> The market turmoil spread to the United States, where the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 391 points, or 1.58 percent. >> On Monday night, designated Prime Minister Carlo Cottarelli indicated that he would oversee a brief technocratic government pledged to austerity and the euro. He said, “My government will be neutral, will ensure prudent management of the state budget and will treat as essential Italy’s participation in the euro.” He also indicated that he would nominate non-partisan state officials as ministers and ask them to sign a pledge not to seek election in the next parliamentary elections. >> On Tuesday, however, markets and European bank stocks fell, as it became clearer that Italy is set for a protracted period of government instability and political crisis. The Cottarelli government faces opposition from the M5S and Lega, who hold a majority of seats in parliament, so it is unclear whether it can survive a confidence vote or pass a budget. There are widespread expectations that Mattarella will call new elections in early 2019 or even as soon as early September. >> In the meantime, bitter political conflicts are erupting inside the ruling class between supporters of the EU and the euro and their far-right critics inside Italy and across Europe. However, both factions of the ruling class—the defenders of the EU and the euro grouped behind Mattarella, and the M5S, Lega and their far-right allies across Europe—are reactionary and have nothing to offer to workers. >> Differences between the two factions are exclusively over monetary and European policy, under conditions in which the entire ruling class is unanimous on militarism and austerity. As he announced his refusal to allow M5S and Lega to form a government, Mattarella stressed that the only reason for his opposition was that the M5S and Lega administration planned to nominate economist Paolo Savona as economy minister. >> Savona is hostile to Germany and to the euro, having written that Berlin “planned and created the euro in order to control and exploit other European countries in colonial fashion.” He has called the euro a “German cage” and pressed for other European countries to demand different monetary policies, saying: “There is no Europe, only Germany surrounded by cowards.” >> Mattarella said such comments were unacceptable to the banks: “The designation of the economy minister always constitutes an immediate message of confidence or alarm for economic and financial decision-makers. I requested for this ministry a politician … who would not be seen as the supporter of a line that would inevitably provoke Italy’s exit from the euro.” When this turned out not to be possible, Mattarella added, he ended the government talks because, in his view, “Euro membership is of fundamental importance for the perspectives of Italy and its youth.” >> Mattarella indicated that he might soon call new elections that could be essentially a referendum on the euro. “If we want to discuss this,” Mattarella said, referring to Italy’s membership in the euro zone, “it should be done openly. I have been informed that some political forces want to rapidly move to new elections. This is a decision I reserve the right to take, based on whatever happens in parliament.” >> Powerful factions in the EU are supporting Mattarella. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, who is Italian, told reporters in Brussels: “I have full trust, as I believe all Italians have, in the Italian institutions, starting with the Italian president. That is the guarantor of the Italian constitution. I am confident that the Italian institutions and the president of the republic will prove to be as always serving the interests of the Italian citizens, which by the way coincides also with the strength of the European Union.” >> The positions of Mattarella and Mogherini were echoed by the Democratic Party (PD), the social democratic formation that emerged from the collapse of the Stalinist Italian Communist Party. The PD has called protests for June 1 in support of the institutions—that is, in support of the intervention by Mattarella and the banks to block the formation of a M5S-Lega government. >> More provocatively, EU Budget Commissioner Günther Öttinger declared in a Deutsche Welle interview yesterday, “The markets will teach the Italians to vote for the right thing.” >> Amid a firestorm of protest in Italy, M5S and Lega officials demanded a retraction from Öttinger, who subsequently apologized after criticism from EU Council President Donald Tusk and EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. The EU Commission issued a formal statement declaring, “Italy’s fate does not lie in the hands of the financial markets.” >> While Mattarella stands openly for the diktat of the EU and the banks, M5S and Lega are no less reactionary. Any government they form would be the most right-wing in Italy since the World War II-era fascist regime of Benito Mussolini. They have pledged deep cuts to public spending and mass raids and expulsions of immigrants, provoking mass protests in defense of immigrant rights across Italy in the lead-up to the March 2018 elections. >> The only way forward for workers and youth in Italy is the development of a socialist and internationalist movement in opposition to both the PD and other supporters of the EU, and the far-right forces grouped around the M5S-Lega alliance. Mattarella’s anti-democratic intervention into the Italian elections notwithstanding, these far-right forces will prove just as hostile to the working class as the EU and the banks. >> Far-right politicians across Europe are now making statements in support of M5S and its alliance with Lega. Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s neo-fascist National Front (FN) and an ally of the Lega, has called Mattarella’s intervention a “coup d’état” by the EU. >> Nigel Farage of the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party denounced Mattarella’s intervention and denounced the EU in the EU parliament: “In the last 48 hours, their democracy has been traduced. In the past you have managed to bully the Danes, you bullied the Irish, you bullied the Greeks into submission. I suspect with Italy today you have now bitten off more than you can chew. Bring on more elections and bigger eurosceptic victories.” >> There is growing fear in PD circles that Mattarella’s intervention may have handed the victory to Lega, which is now surging in the polls past 25 percent support. On a hidden camera, former PD prime minister Massimo d’Alema declared that if there were new elections after Mattarella’s decision, the M5S-Lega alliance would win a landslide 80 percent of the vote. >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From alxraii13 at att.net Thu May 31 10:06:36 2018 From: alxraii13 at att.net (Alexander Ravenel, II) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 10:06:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Peace-discuss] Cancel References: <821939314.599769.1527761196739.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <821939314.599769.1527761196739@mail.yahoo.com> Good day to you. Please take my address from your mailing list. Thank you. Alexander  Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 31 14:19:09 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 14:19:09 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: [New post] Going Rogue, Episode 82: The Real Revolution Has Nothing To Do With Donald Trump References: <139971992.4697.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: New post on Caitlin Johnstone [https://i1.wp.com/caitlinjohnstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/cropped-caitlinpic1.jpg?resize=32%2C32&ssl=1] [http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/12152988a68a6d4dae7506812444c18f?s=50&d=monsterid&r=G] Going Rogue, Episode 82: The Real Revolution Has Nothing To Do With Donald Trump by Caitlin Johnstone The real power in the United States rests with the unelected alliance of plutocrats and intelligence/defense agencies, so true revolution has nothing to do with impeaching or supporting the US president. Article: The Real Revolution Has Nothing To Do With Donald Trump Caitlin Johnstone | May 31, 2018 at 11:48 am | Tags: #Trump, MAGA, qanon, resistance, Russiagate, The Storm | Categories: podcast | URL: https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1dL Comment See all comments Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Caitlin Johnstone. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/05/31/going-rogue-episode-82-the-real-revolution-has-nothing-to-do-with-donald-trump/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 31 18:24:50 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:24:50 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My thoughts on books Message-ID: While shamelessly promoting my daughters first novel, I am told by some, as an excuse perhaps," that "they never read fiction." Though all fiction has some base in reality. I admit that I rarely read fiction these days, as a political activist I have so much to learn, and so many books yet to read. However, its fiction that made me who I am today. "Red Badge of Courage" by Steven Crane, convinced me that war is the greatest of all evils. "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Hemingway convinced me that resisting oppression, occupation, exploitation and destruction, was necessary and an identity I chose as my own, even when working for corporations I never backed down from my principles regardless of the costs. "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, saved me from the era of "Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll" though I do see the wisdom in music as long as it doesn't become the "end all" thus a distraction. The opioid epidemic we have now is a result of those years of convincing a generation that drugs whether RX or entertainment were "harmless and cool." More recent in 2000 the book "Ismael" by Daniel Quinn, about a talking gorilla of all things, did convince me not to be too discouraged with the state of humanity, given we were a "work in progress" and there still was hope. I no longer remember anything I read in those books so long ago, other than the "lesson learned," and there are so many books over so many years, they become lost in memory. However, I do still once in a while treat myself to a book of fiction knowing that a picture is worth a thousand words and fiction often creates a picture that will stay with me, if only in the abstract. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 31 18:27:28 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:27:28 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: My thoughts on books References: Message-ID: While shamelessly promoting my daughters first novel, I am told by some, as an excuse perhaps," that "they never read fiction." Though all fiction has some base in reality. I admit that I rarely read fiction these days, as a political activist I have so much to learn, and so many books yet to read. However, its fiction that made me who I am today. "Red Badge of Courage" by Steven Crane, convinced me that war is the greatest of all evils. "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Hemingway convinced me that resisting oppression, occupation, exploitation and destruction, was necessary and an identity I chose as my own, even when working for corporations I never backed down from my principles regardless of the costs. "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, saved me from the era of "Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll" though I do see the wisdom in music as long as it doesn't become the "end all" thus a distraction. The opioid epidemic we have now is a result of those years of convincing a generation that drugs whether RX or entertainment were "harmless and cool." More recent in 2000 the book "Ismael" by Daniel Quinn, about a talking gorilla of all things, did convince me not to be too discouraged with the state of humanity, given we were a "work in progress" and there still was hope. I no longer remember anything I read in those books so long ago, other than the "lesson learned," and there are so many books over so many years, they become lost in memory. However, I do still once in a while treat myself to a book of fiction knowing that a picture is worth a thousand words and fiction often creates a picture that will stay with me, if only in the abstract. _______________________________________________ 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 galliher at illinois.edu Thu May 31 19:21:04 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 14:21:04 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My thoughts on books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting question. I recently had an occasion to reflect on it. My friend Jeffrey St. Clair sent the following note: “My friend, a librarian at PSU, asked: what book changed your life? So many books, so many life changes. The Little Prince made me want to read, The Catcher in the Rye allowed me to tell adults to fuck off, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee ignited a rage that hasn't died, Ulysses disabused any notion of becoming a novelist, since it obviously couldn't be topped. What about you?” My answer concerned things I read before college; from matriculation on, it's a more difficult question... ~ Edith Hamilton’s MYTHOLOGY (1942) introduced other times and climes, as did ~ Howard Pyle’s MERRY ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1883), MEN OF IRON (1892), THE STORY OF KING ARTHUR AND HIS KNIGHTS (1903) et seq.; ~ Mark Twain’s A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT (1889), with Hamilton and Pyle, suggested that an easy dismissal of the pre-modern and ’medievalism’ wasn’t possible. ~ The forgotten historical novels of Louis de Wohl (1903-61) and the forgotten verse of Robert Service (1874-1958), on the Yukon and the First World War, presented other questions about the past, unasked in my education, while ~ Kenneth Roberts’ OLIVER WISWELL (1940) offered a corrective to the nonsensical US history I was being taught in school; meanwhile ~ Evelyn Waugh’s BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (1945) told me what being grown up would be like. ~ HAMLET was substituted for the syllabus by a half-mad English teacher in my sophomore year: I can’t thank her enough. Meanwhile I was reading ~ Isaac Asimov’s FOUNDATION series (1951-53), which led me to his inspiration, Arnold Toynbee’s A STUDY OF HISTORY (abr. D. C. Somervell) - which led me to Marx (and eventually degrees in history and theology). (Then, when I got to college, I read Faulkner and realized I was Quentin Compson; from there I frantically searched for myself thru fiction…) —CGE > On May 31, 2018, at 1:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > >> While shamelessly promoting my daughters first novel, I am told by some, as an excuse perhaps," that "they never read fiction." Though all fiction has some base in reality. >> >> I admit that I rarely read fiction these days, as a political activist I have so much to learn, and so many books yet to read. However, its fiction that made me who I am today. >> >> "Red Badge of Courage" by Steven Crane, convinced me that war is the greatest of all evils. "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Hemingway convinced me that resisting oppression, occupation, exploitation >> and destruction, was necessary and an identity I chose as my own, even when working for corporations I never backed down from my principles regardless of the costs. "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, saved me from the era of "Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll" >> though I do see the wisdom in music as long as it doesn't become the "end all" thus a distraction. The opioid epidemic we have now is a result of those years of convincing a generation that drugs whether RX or entertainment were "harmless and cool." More recent >> in 2000 the book "Ismael" by Daniel Quinn, about a talking gorilla of all things, did convince me not to be too discouraged with the state of humanity, given we were a "work in progress" and there still was hope. >> >> I no longer remember anything I read in those books so long ago, other than the "lesson learned," and there are so many books over so many years, they become lost in memory. However, I >> do still once in a while treat myself to a book of fiction knowing that a picture is worth a thousand words and fiction often creates a picture that will stay with me, if only in the abstract. >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 31 21:03:42 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 21:03:42 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My thoughts on books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carl I knew you would have a very long list, you mention: > “~ Edith Hamilton’s MYTHOLOGY (1942) introduced other times and climes,” I came to that one by way of The Iliad, and before that The Odyssey, but it was Edgar Rice Burrough’s “ arzan" before Homer that opened up new worlds for me. > On May 31, 2018, at 12:21, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > Interesting question. I recently had an occasion to reflect on it. My friend Jeffrey St. Clair sent the following note: “My friend, a librarian at PSU, asked: what book changed your life? So many books, so many life changes. The Little Prince made me want to read, The Catcher in the Rye allowed me to tell adults to fuck off, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee ignited a rage that hasn't died, Ulysses disabused any notion of becoming a novelist, since it obviously couldn't be topped. What about you?” > > My answer concerned things I read before college; from matriculation on, it's a more difficult question... > > ~ Edith Hamilton’s MYTHOLOGY (1942) introduced other times and climes, as did > ~ Howard Pyle’s MERRY ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1883), MEN OF IRON (1892), THE STORY OF KING ARTHUR AND HIS KNIGHTS (1903) et seq.; > ~ Mark Twain’s A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT (1889), with Hamilton and Pyle, suggested that an easy dismissal of the pre-modern and ’medievalism’ wasn’t possible. > > ~ The forgotten historical novels of Louis de Wohl (1903-61) and the forgotten verse of Robert Service (1874-1958), on the Yukon and the First World War, presented other questions about the past, unasked in my education, while > ~ Kenneth Roberts’ OLIVER WISWELL (1940) offered a corrective to the nonsensical US history I was being taught in school; meanwhile > ~ Evelyn Waugh’s BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (1945) told me what being grown up would be like. > > ~ HAMLET was substituted for the syllabus by a half-mad English teacher in my sophomore year: I can’t thank her enough. Meanwhile I was reading > ~ Isaac Asimov’s FOUNDATION series (1951-53), which led me to his inspiration, Arnold Toynbee’s A STUDY OF HISTORY (abr. D. C. Somervell) - which led me to Marx (and eventually degrees in history and theology). > > (Then, when I got to college, I read Faulkner and realized I was Quentin Compson; from there I frantically searched for myself thru fiction…) —CGE > > >> On May 31, 2018, at 1:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >>> While shamelessly promoting my daughters first novel, I am told by some, as an excuse perhaps," that "they never read fiction." Though all fiction has some base in reality. >>> >>> I admit that I rarely read fiction these days, as a political activist I have so much to learn, and so many books yet to read. However, its fiction that made me who I am today. >>> >>> "Red Badge of Courage" by Steven Crane, convinced me that war is the greatest of all evils. "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Hemingway convinced me that resisting oppression, occupation, exploitation >>> and destruction, was necessary and an identity I chose as my own, even when working for corporations I never backed down from my principles regardless of the costs. "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, saved me from the era of "Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll" >>> though I do see the wisdom in music as long as it doesn't become the "end all" thus a distraction. The opioid epidemic we have now is a result of those years of convincing a generation that drugs whether RX or entertainment were "harmless and cool." More recent >>> in 2000 the book "Ismael" by Daniel Quinn, about a talking gorilla of all things, did convince me not to be too discouraged with the state of humanity, given we were a "work in progress" and there still was hope. >>> >>> I no longer remember anything I read in those books so long ago, other than the "lesson learned," and there are so many books over so many years, they become lost in memory. However, I >>> do still once in a while treat myself to a book of fiction knowing that a picture is worth a thousand words and fiction often creates a picture that will stay with me, if only in the abstract. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >> From galliher at illinois.edu Thu May 31 21:18:12 2018 From: galliher at illinois.edu (Carl G. Estabrook) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 16:18:12 -0500 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My thoughts on books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The new translation of THE ODYSSEY, by Emily Wilson, is quite brilliant. Ans, in a different register, Gary Brecher, who blogs as “The War Nerd,” has a new translation of THE ILIAD. (His FB postings are not to be missed.) > On May 31, 2018, at 4:03 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: > > Carl > > I knew you would have a very long list, you mention: >> “~ Edith Hamilton’s MYTHOLOGY (1942) introduced other times and climes,” I came to that one by way of The Iliad, and before that The Odyssey, but it was Edgar Rice Burrough’s “ arzan" before Homer that opened up new worlds for me. > > > > > >> On May 31, 2018, at 12:21, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >> >> Interesting question. I recently had an occasion to reflect on it. My friend Jeffrey St. Clair sent the following note: “My friend, a librarian at PSU, asked: what book changed your life? So many books, so many life changes. The Little Prince made me want to read, The Catcher in the Rye allowed me to tell adults to fuck off, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee ignited a rage that hasn't died, Ulysses disabused any notion of becoming a novelist, since it obviously couldn't be topped. What about you?” >> >> My answer concerned things I read before college; from matriculation on, it's a more difficult question... >> >> ~ Edith Hamilton’s MYTHOLOGY (1942) introduced other times and climes, as did >> ~ Howard Pyle’s MERRY ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1883), MEN OF IRON (1892), THE STORY OF KING ARTHUR AND HIS KNIGHTS (1903) et seq.; >> ~ Mark Twain’s A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT (1889), with Hamilton and Pyle, suggested that an easy dismissal of the pre-modern and ’medievalism’ wasn’t possible. >> >> ~ The forgotten historical novels of Louis de Wohl (1903-61) and the forgotten verse of Robert Service (1874-1958), on the Yukon and the First World War, presented other questions about the past, unasked in my education, while >> ~ Kenneth Roberts’ OLIVER WISWELL (1940) offered a corrective to the nonsensical US history I was being taught in school; meanwhile >> ~ Evelyn Waugh’s BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (1945) told me what being grown up would be like. >> >> ~ HAMLET was substituted for the syllabus by a half-mad English teacher in my sophomore year: I can’t thank her enough. Meanwhile I was reading >> ~ Isaac Asimov’s FOUNDATION series (1951-53), which led me to his inspiration, Arnold Toynbee’s A STUDY OF HISTORY (abr. D. C. Somervell) - which led me to Marx (and eventually degrees in history and theology). >> >> (Then, when I got to college, I read Faulkner and realized I was Quentin Compson; from there I frantically searched for myself thru fiction…) —CGE >> >> >>> On May 31, 2018, at 1:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>> >>>> While shamelessly promoting my daughters first novel, I am told by some, as an excuse perhaps," that "they never read fiction." Though all fiction has some base in reality. >>>> >>>> I admit that I rarely read fiction these days, as a political activist I have so much to learn, and so many books yet to read. However, its fiction that made me who I am today. >>>> >>>> "Red Badge of Courage" by Steven Crane, convinced me that war is the greatest of all evils. "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Hemingway convinced me that resisting oppression, occupation, exploitation >>>> and destruction, was necessary and an identity I chose as my own, even when working for corporations I never backed down from my principles regardless of the costs. "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, saved me from the era of "Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll" >>>> though I do see the wisdom in music as long as it doesn't become the "end all" thus a distraction. The opioid epidemic we have now is a result of those years of convincing a generation that drugs whether RX or entertainment were "harmless and cool." More recent >>>> in 2000 the book "Ismael" by Daniel Quinn, about a talking gorilla of all things, did convince me not to be too discouraged with the state of humanity, given we were a "work in progress" and there still was hope. >>>> >>>> I no longer remember anything I read in those books so long ago, other than the "lesson learned," and there are so many books over so many years, they become lost in memory. However, I >>>> do still once in a while treat myself to a book of fiction knowing that a picture is worth a thousand words and fiction often creates a picture that will stay with me, if only in the abstract. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Peace-discuss mailing list > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net > https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 31 21:43:06 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 21:43:06 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] My thoughts on books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Nice, but books I read in my childhood I’m not really interested in reading again, especially revisions. I might remember more of them if I did, but there are so many new books…its rather like travel, I have rarely returned to places I liked as a tourist, only once to Paris a lifelong dream and Italy. Just as there is so much to read, there is so much to see in this world. > On May 31, 2018, at 14:18, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: > > The new translation of THE ODYSSEY, by Emily Wilson, is quite brilliant. > > Ans, in a different register, Gary Brecher, who blogs as “The War Nerd,” has a new translation of THE ILIAD. > > (His FB postings are not to be missed.) > > >> On May 31, 2018, at 4:03 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >> >> Carl >> >> I knew you would have a very long list, you mention: >>> “~ Edith Hamilton’s MYTHOLOGY (1942) introduced other times and climes,” I came to that one by way of The Iliad, and before that The Odyssey, but it was Edgar Rice Burrough’s “Tarzan” before Homer that opened up new worlds for me. >> >> >> >> >> >>> On May 31, 2018, at 12:21, Carl G. Estabrook wrote: >>> >>> Interesting question. I recently had an occasion to reflect on it. My friend Jeffrey St. Clair sent the following note: “My friend, a librarian at PSU, asked: what book changed your life? So many books, so many life changes. The Little Prince made me want to read, The Catcher in the Rye allowed me to tell adults to fuck off, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee ignited a rage that hasn't died, Ulysses disabused any notion of becoming a novelist, since it obviously couldn't be topped. What about you?” >>> >>> My answer concerned things I read before college; from matriculation on, it's a more difficult question... >>> >>> ~ Edith Hamilton’s MYTHOLOGY (1942) introduced other times and climes, as did >>> ~ Howard Pyle’s MERRY ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD (1883), MEN OF IRON (1892), THE STORY OF KING ARTHUR AND HIS KNIGHTS (1903) et seq.; >>> ~ Mark Twain’s A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT (1889), with Hamilton and Pyle, suggested that an easy dismissal of the pre-modern and ’medievalism’ wasn’t possible. >>> >>> ~ The forgotten historical novels of Louis de Wohl (1903-61) and the forgotten verse of Robert Service (1874-1958), on the Yukon and the First World War, presented other questions about the past, unasked in my education, while >>> ~ Kenneth Roberts’ OLIVER WISWELL (1940) offered a corrective to the nonsensical US history I was being taught in school; meanwhile >>> ~ Evelyn Waugh’s BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (1945) told me what being grown up would be like. >>> >>> ~ HAMLET was substituted for the syllabus by a half-mad English teacher in my sophomore year: I can’t thank her enough. Meanwhile I was reading >>> ~ Isaac Asimov’s FOUNDATION series (1951-53), which led me to his inspiration, Arnold Toynbee’s A STUDY OF HISTORY (abr. D. C. Somervell) - which led me to Marx (and eventually degrees in history and theology). >>> >>> (Then, when I got to college, I read Faulkner and realized I was Quentin Compson; from there I frantically searched for myself thru fiction…) —CGE >>> >>> >>>> On May 31, 2018, at 1:27 PM, Karen Aram via Peace-discuss wrote: >>>> >>>>> While shamelessly promoting my daughters first novel, I am told by some, as an excuse perhaps," that "they never read fiction." Though all fiction has some base in reality. >>>>> >>>>> I admit that I rarely read fiction these days, as a political activist I have so much to learn, and so many books yet to read. However, its fiction that made me who I am today. >>>>> >>>>> "Red Badge of Courage" by Steven Crane, convinced me that war is the greatest of all evils. "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Hemingway convinced me that resisting oppression, occupation, exploitation >>>>> and destruction, was necessary and an identity I chose as my own, even when working for corporations I never backed down from my principles regardless of the costs. "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, saved me from the era of "Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll" >>>>> though I do see the wisdom in music as long as it doesn't become the "end all" thus a distraction. The opioid epidemic we have now is a result of those years of convincing a generation that drugs whether RX or entertainment were "harmless and cool." More recent >>>>> in 2000 the book "Ismael" by Daniel Quinn, about a talking gorilla of all things, did convince me not to be too discouraged with the state of humanity, given we were a "work in progress" and there still was hope. >>>>> >>>>> I no longer remember anything I read in those books so long ago, other than the "lesson learned," and there are so many books over so many years, they become lost in memory. However, I >>>>> do still once in a while treat myself to a book of fiction knowing that a picture is worth a thousand words and fiction often creates a picture that will stay with me, if only in the abstract. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list >>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Peace-discuss mailing list >> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net >> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss > From karenaram at hotmail.com Thu May 31 22:02:41 2018 From: karenaram at hotmail.com (Karen Aram) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 22:02:41 +0000 Subject: [Peace-discuss] Fwd: A very long read on Russia US relations References: Message-ID: http://npetro.net/resources/Petro-FF+Spring+2018.pdf] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: