gi+crying.jpg)
+yi+sun+shin.jpg)
Work! Or Else!
-
Horatio Nelson hoisted this signal on his flagship, HMS Victory on
October 21, 1805 before the battle of Trafalgar began: ‘England expects
every man to d...
32 minutes ago
Friday, October 18, 2013
On Anarchism: An Interview with Andrew Gavin Marshall I The Hampton Institute
On Anarchism: An Interview with Andrew Gavin Marshall I The Hampton Institute
The following is a transcript of an email interview withAndrew Gavin Marshall , Geopolitics Department Chair at the Hampton Institute and Project Manager of The People's Book Project . In it we discuss anarchism, trace its beginnings, delve into some of its history in both the United States and around the world, and conclude by discussing anarchism's effect on the Occupy movement.
Devon DB: Could you provide a working definition of anarchism?
The following is a transcript of an email interview withAndrew Gavin Marshall , Geopolitics Department Chair at the Hampton Institute and Project Manager of The People's Book Project . In it we discuss anarchism, trace its beginnings, delve into some of its history in both the United States and around the world, and conclude by discussing anarchism's effect on the Occupy movement.Devon DB: Could you provide a working definition of anarchism?
Mr. Marshall : Anarchism is difficult to define simply because it is such a diverse political philosophy, with so many different variants. So the definition tends to alter as the particular brand of anarchism differs. However, at is core, anarchism - in its original Greek wording - means simply to be "without a leader." Running in opposition to traditional Liberal thought, such as that articulated by Hobbes' notion of anarchy as a "state of nature" mired in war and conflict, and thus the State was necessary to maintain order, one of the original anarchist thinkers, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon countered, "Anarchy is Order." Despite the connotation of the word "anarchy" to that of "chaos" and "disorder," anarchism and anarchist societies are highly organized and 'ordered.' The central difference between an anarchist conception of order and others is that anarchy removes the structures of authority, so that society is organized through free association and non-hierarchical organization. It promotes both the individual and the collective, simultaneously. This is opposed to Liberal thought, which promotes the individual above all else, or socialist thought, which promotes the collective above all else. As one of the most influential anarchist thinkers, Mikhail Bakunin, described anarchist thought when he stated, "We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." This has often led anarchism to be synonymous with what is referred to as "Libertarian Socialism," which is where the root of Libertarianism lies, but has strayed quite far from. Ultimately, what underlies all anarchist thought is a heightened and radical critique and questioning of power and authority: if a source of authority cannot legitimize its existence, it should not exist.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Chris Hedges: The Folly of Empire
By Chris Hedges
The final days of empire give ample employment and power to the feckless, the insane and the idiotic. These politicians and court propagandists, hired to be the public faces on the sinking ship, mask the real work of the crew, which is systematically robbing the passengers as the vessel goes down. The mandarins of power stand in the wheelhouse barking ridiculous orders and seeing how fast they can gun the engines. They fight like children over the ship’s wheel as the vessel heads full speed into a giant ice field. They wander the decks giving pompous speeches. They shout that the SS America is the greatest ship ever built. They insist that it has the most advanced technology and embodies the highest virtues. And then, with abrupt and unexpected fury, down we will go into the frigid waters.
The last days of empire are carnivals of folly. We are in the midst of our own, plunging forward as our leaders court willful economic and environmental self-destruction. Sumer and Rome went down like this. So did the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires. Men and women of stunning mediocrity and depravity led the monarchies of Europe and Russia on the eve of World War I. And America has, in its own decline, offered up its share of weaklings, dolts and morons to steer it to destruction. A nation that was still rooted in reality would never glorify charlatans such as Sen. Ted Cruz, House Speaker John Boehner and former Speaker Newt Gingrich as they pollute the airwaves. If we had any idea what was really happening to us we would have turned in fury against Barack Obama, whose signature legacy will be utter capitulation to the demands of Wall Street, the fossil fuel industry, the military-industrial complex and the security and surveillance state. We would have rallied behind those few, such as Ralph Nader, who denounced a monetary system based on gambling and the endless printing of money and condemned the willful wrecking of the ecosystem. We would have mutinied. We would have turned the ship back.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Israeli-Saudi Alliance Slips into View
Exclusive: The Israeli-Saudi détente is slowly emerging from the shadows, with a media report on a secret Jerusalem meeting and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s oblique reference in his UN speech. But this powerhouse collaboration could mean trouble for U.S. diplomacy in the Mideast, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
On Aug. 29, when I published an article entitled “The Saudi-Israeli Superpower” describing an emerging odd-couple alliance between those two traditional enemies, the story was met with skepticism in some quarters. But, increasingly, this secret alliance is going public.
On Oct. 2, Israel’s Channel 2 TV news reportedthat senior Israeli security officials met with a high-level Gulf state counterpart in Jerusalem, believed to be Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States and now head of Saudi intelligence.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Comparing Obama to Kissinger | Consortiumnews
Comparing Obama to Kissinger | Consortiumnews
| One of the first things O did after he became POTUS was to send Dr. Strangelove, excuse me, I meant Dr. Kissinger to Russia of all places. Or did Kissinger send himself? How many people died because of his influence on our presidents. How many soldiers died needlessly in Nam while Kissinger slept in 5 star hotels in Paris. He was a thorn in my boot when I was a young man. Now he is a thorn in my slipper as I become an old man. |
Neocons and other war hawks criticized President Obama for not launching a military assault on Syria, but his decision to apply coercive diplomacy instead fits with many other U.S. precedents and showed a much defter touch than heavy-handed tactics used by Henry Kissinger, writes ex-CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman.
By Melvin A. Goodman
President Barack Obama’s deployment of a naval task force to the Mediterranean appears to be working as part of the coercive diplomacy aimed at removing chemical weapons from Syria. He has demonstrated caution and restraint in the crisis that are consistent with his approach to ending the U.S. presence in Iraq; reducing the U.S. presence in Afghanistan; and “leading from behind” in Libya two years ago.
His actions are very different from those of Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger four decades ago. Kissinger jeopardized Soviet-American detente and antagonized our European allies in NATO by his reckless actions during the October War of 1973.
Henry Kissinger, former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.
One of the riskiest actions Kissinger took was the unnecessary declaration of a high military and nuclear alert – Defense Condition III – that could have worsened the Arab-Israeli War and provoked a Soviet-American confrontation. In view of our reliance on Russian forbearance in the current flash-point situation in the Middle East, it is important to recognize that Moscow’s restraint also was important to diplomatic success in the end game of the October War in 1973.
The National Security Council (NSC) meeting of Oct. 24, 1973, that created Defense Condition III was a particularly unusual, perhaps unprecedented, event. The National Security Act of 1947 that created the NSC stipulates that only the president or the vice president can run an NSC meeting.
The meeting took place just before midnight, and President Richard Nixon’s military aide, General Alexander Haig, refused to awaken the President. Both Kissinger and Haig believed that the President, preoccupied with impeachment, was too distraught to participate in high-stakes foreign policy decision-making. A new vice president had been named – Gerald Ford – but he had not been confirmed and therefore could not attend the meeting
If neither the president nor the vice president is available, the 1947 Act stipulates that the president has to authorize in writing who will be in charge. There is no record of such a letter in 1973. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Kissinger ran the meeting, and the participants were Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, CIA Director William Colby, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Thomas Moorer. Kissinger was the only one present who believed the Soviets were prepared to intervene in the Middle East..
If neither the president nor the vice president is available, the 1947 Act stipulates that the president has to authorize in writing who will be in charge. There is no record of such a letter in 1973. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Kissinger ran the meeting, and the participants were Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, CIA Director William Colby, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Thomas Moorer. Kissinger was the only one present who believed the Soviets were prepared to intervene in the Middle East..
Monday, October 7, 2013
Chris Hedges: The Radical Christian Right and the War on Government - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
Chris Hedges: The Radical Christian Right and the War on Government - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
 |
| AP/J. Scott Applewhite |
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, talks to reporters.
|
By Chris Hedges
Editor’s note: Chris Hedges will speak in the Los Angeles area Oct. 13 on the myth of progress and the collapse of complex societies. Robert Scheer will lead a discussion, with a Q-and-A period to follow. Click here for more information.
There is a desire felt by tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, to destroy the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment, radically diminish the role of government to create a theocratic state based on “biblical law,” and force a recalcitrant world to bend to the will of an imperial and “Christian” America. Its public face is on display in the House of Representatives. This ideology, which is the driving force behind the shutdown of the government, calls for the eradication of social “deviants,” beginning with gay men and lesbians, whose sexual orientation, those in the movement say, is a curse and an illness, contaminating the American family and the country. Once these “deviants” are removed, other “deviants,” including Muslims, liberals, feminists, intellectuals, left-wing activists, undocumented workers, poor African-Americans and those dismissed as “nominal Christians”—meaning Christians who do not embrace this peculiar interpretation of the Bible—will also be ruthlessly repressed. The “deviant” government bureaucrats, the “deviant” media, the “deviant” schools and the “deviant” churches, all agents of Satan, will be crushed or radically reformed. The rights of these “deviants” will be annulled. “Christian values” and “family values” will, in the new state, be propagated by all institutions. Education and social welfare will be handed over to the church. Facts and self-criticism will be replaced with relentless indoctrination. READ MORE
Pope Francis: ‘I Believe In God, Not In A Catholic God’
Pope Francis: ‘I Believe In God, Not In A Catholic God’
...........................“I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation,” the pope said in an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, as quoted by the Inquisitr. “Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being. Do you think we are very far apart?” READ MORE
...........................“I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation,” the pope said in an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, as quoted by the Inquisitr. “Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being. Do you think we are very far apart?” READ MORE
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Saturday, October 5, 2013
The Pan-Asian Anchor: The South Korean leaders who (supposedly) love Kim...
The Pan-Asian Anchor: The South Korean leaders who (supposedly) love Kim...:
The South Korean leaders who (supposedly) love Kim Jong Un | GlobalPost
The South Korean leaders who (supposedly) love Kim Jong Un | GlobalPost
Friday, October 4, 2013
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
NYTimes Again Ignores Israel’s Nukes | Consortiumnews
NYTimes Again Ignores Israel’s Nukes | Consortiumnews
 |
| Israel is the clear and present danger in the region and in the world. It should be treated as such. There should be a boycott on Israel and sanctions should be imposed on them until they allow inspections of their nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Israel has had them all along. Why should this be a secret? Why should Israel be trusted? America should start breaking its puppet strings from Israel We are their client state, not the other way around. Israel bought our congresscritters long ago. Why is there never a debate of the Israeli nukes. What is the N.Y. Times afraid of? |
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
The Pan-Asian Anchor: Food Safety an Issue as China Firm Buys US Pork Pr...
The Pan-Asian Anchor: Food Safety an Issue as China Firm Buys US Pork Pr...:
Food Safety an Issue as China Firm Buys US Pork Producer | China Power | The DiplomChuina bat Just from reading the head line. "Chi...
 |
| Just from reading the head line. "China buys pork producer" I thought China bought our congresscritters. But I forgot, Israel already owns our Congrsscritters. |
A World in Which No One Is Listening to the Planet’s Sole Superpower The Greater Middle East’s Greatest Rebuff to Uncle Sam By Dilip Hiro
What if the sole superpower on the planet makes its will known -- repeatedly -- and finds that no one is listening? Barely a decade ago, that would have seemed like a conundrum from some fantasy Earth in an alternate dimension. Now, it is increasingly a plain description of political life on our globe, especially in the Greater Middle East.In the future, the indecent haste with which Barack Obama sought cover under the umbrella unfurled by his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, in the Syrian chemical weapons crisis will be viewed as a watershed moment when it comes to America’s waning power in that region. In the aptly named “arc of instability,” the lands from the Chinese border to northern Africa that President George W. Bush and his neocon acolytes dreamed of thoroughly pacifying, turmoil is on the rise. Ever fewer countries, allies, or enemies, are paying attention, much less kowtowing, to the once-formidable power of the world’s last superpower. The list of defiant figures -- from Egyptian generals to Saudi princes, Iraqi Shiite leaders to Israeli politicians -- is lengthening.
The signs of this loss of clout have been legion in recent years. In August 2011, for instance, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ignored Obama’s unambiguous call for him “to step aside.” Nothing happened even after an unnamed senior administration official insisted, “We are certain Assad is on the way out.” As the saying goes, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. READ MORE
Chris Hedges: The Sparks of Rebellion - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
Chris Hedges: The Sparks of Rebellion - Chris Hedges - Truthdig
 |
| Photo by Poster Boy NYC (CC-BY) |
By Chris Hedges
Editor’s note: Chris Hedges will be giving a talk titled “The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies” on Oct. 13 in the Los Angeles area. Click here for more information.
I am reading and rereading the debates among some of the great radical thinkers of the 19th and 20th centuries about the mechanisms of social change. These debates were not academic. They were frantic searches for the triggers of revolt.
Vladimir Lenin placed his faith in a violent uprising, a professional, disciplined revolutionary vanguard freed from moral constraints and, like Karl Marx, in the inevitable emergence of the worker’s state. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon insisted that gradual change would be accomplished as enlightened workers took over production and educated and converted the rest of the proletariat. Mikhail Bakunin predicted the catastrophic breakdown of the capitalist order, something we are likely to witness in our lifetimes, and new autonomous worker federations rising up out of the chaos. Pyotr Kropotkin, like Proudhon, believed in an evolutionary process that would hammer out the new society. Emma Goldman, along with Kropotkin, came to be very wary of both the efficacy of violence and the revolutionary potential of the masses. “The mass,” Goldman wrote bitterly toward the end of her life in echoing Marx, “clings to its masters, loves the whip, and is the first to cry Crucify!”
The revolutionists of history counted on a mobilized base of enlightened industrial workers. The building blocks of revolt, they believed, relied on the tool of the general strike, the ability of workers to cripple the mechanisms of production. Strikes could be sustained with the support of political parties, strike funds and union halls. Workers without these support mechanisms had to replicate the infrastructure of parties and unions if they wanted to put prolonged pressure on the bosses and the state. But now, with the decimation of the U.S. manufacturing base, along with the dismantling of our unions and opposition parties, we will have to search for different instruments of rebellion.
We must develop a revolutionary theory that is not reliant on the industrial or agrarian muscle of workers. Most manufacturing jobs have disappeared, and, of those that remain, few are unionized. Our family farms have been destroyed by agro-businesses. Monsanto and its Faustian counterparts on Wall Street rule. They are steadily poisoning our lives and rendering us powerless. The corporate leviathan, which is global, is freed from the constraints of a single nation-state or government. Corporations are beyond regulation or control. Politicians are too anemic, or more often too corrupt, to stand in the way of the accelerating corporate destruction. This makes our struggle different from revolutionary struggles in industrial societies in the past. Our revolt will look more like what erupted in the less industrialized Slavic republics, Russia, Spain and China and uprisings led by a disenfranchised rural and urban working class and peasantry in the liberation movements that swept through Africa and Latin America. The dispossessed working poor, along with unemployed college graduates and students, unemployed journalists, artists, lawyers and teachers, will form our movement. This is why the fight for a higher minimum wage is crucial to uniting service workers with the alienated college-educated sons and daughters of the old middle class. Bakunin, unlike Marx, considered déclassé intellectuals essential for successful revolt. READ MORE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.png)
