Posts Tagged ‘The War Machine’

An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)

By John Halle and Noam Chomsky
JohnHalle.com, June 15, 2016

*****

1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.

2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.

3) One of these candidates, Trump; denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point.

Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.”

Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses.

4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.

5) 4 above, should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state.

6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.

7) Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it.
They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it, as they must.

8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

 

Preamble to the above:

Among the elements of the weak form of democracy enshrined in the U.S constitution, presidential elections continue to pose a dilemma for the left in that any form of participation or non participation appears to impose a significant cost on our capacity to develop a serious opposition to the corporate agenda served by establishment politicians.

The position outlined in this list is that which many regard as the most effective response to this quadrennial Hobson’s choice, namely the so-called “lesser evil” voting strategy or LEV.

Simply put, LEV involves, where you can, i.e. in safe states, voting for the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all. In competitive “swing” states, where you must, one votes for the “lesser evil” Democrat.

Before fielding objections, it will be useful to make certain background stipulations with respect to the points in the list.

The first is to note that since changes in the relevant facts require changes in tactics, proposals having to do with our relationship to the “electoral extravaganza” should be regarded as provisional. This is most relevant with respect to point 3) which some will challenge by citing the claim that Clinton’s foreign policy could pose a more serious menace than that of Trump.

In any case, while conceding as an outside possibility that Trump’s foreign policy is preferable, most of us not already convinced that that is so will need more evidence than can be aired in a discussion involving this statement. Furthermore, insofar as this is the fact of the matter, following the logic through seems to require a vote for Trump, though it’s a bit hard to know whether those making this suggestion are intending it seriously.

Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves the ethical/moral principle addressed in 1), sometimes referred to as the “politics of moral witness.” Generally associated with the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they reject LEV on the grounds that “a lesser of two evils is still evil.” Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the point of lesser evil voting-i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences, specifically those outlined in 4).

The basic moral principle at stake is simple:

not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.

While some would suggest extending the critique by noting that the politics of moral witness can become indistinguishable from narcissistic self-agrandizement, this is substantially more harsh than what was intended and harsher than what is merited. That said, those reflexively denouncing advocates of LEV on a supposed “moral” basis should consider that their footing on the high ground may not be as secure as they often take for granted to be the case.

A third criticism of LEV equates it with a passive acquiescence to the bipartisan status quo under the guise of pragmatism, usually deriving from those who have lost the appetite for radical change. It is surely the case that some of those endorsing LEV are doing so in bad faith-cynical functionaries whose objective is to promote capitulation to a system which they are invested in protecting. Others supporting LEV, however, can hardly be reasonably accused of having made their peace with the establishment.

Their concern, as alluded to in 6) and 7) inheres in the awareness that frivolous and poorly considered electoral decisions impose a cost, their memories extending to the ultra-left faction of the peace movement having minimized the comparative dangers of the Nixon presidency during the 1968 elections. The result was six years of senseless death and destruction in Southeast Asia and also a predictable fracture of the left setting it up for its ultimate collapse during the backlash decades to follow.

The broader lesson to be drawn is not to shy away from confronting the dominance of the political system under the management of the two major parties. Rather, challenges to it need to be issued with a full awareness of their possible consequences. This includes the recognition that far right victories not only impose terrible suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society but also function as a powerful weapon in the hands of the establishment center, which, now in opposition can posture as the “reasonable” alternative.

A Trump presidency, should it materialize, will undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the Sanders campaign, particularly if it is perceived as having minimized the dangers posed by the far right.

A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition is that this sort of cost/benefit strategic accounting is fundamental to any politics which is serious about radical change. Those on the left who ignore it, or dismiss it as irrelevant are engaging in political fantasy and are an obstacle to, rather than ally of, the movement which now seems to be materializing.

Finally, it should be understood that the reigning doctrinal system recognizes the role presidential elections perform in diverting the left from actions which have the potential to be effective in advancing its agenda. These include developing organizations committed to extra-political means, most notably street protest, but also competing for office in potentially winnable races.

The left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not timed to the national electoral cycle.

By John Halle.

 

Advertisements

 

suspends EU Convention after attempted coup

The European Human Rights Convention is suspended during the State of Emergency in Turkey after failed coup attempt, according to Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus.

Turkey will suspend the European Convention on Human Rights as the country enters into a 1.5-month state of emergency following an attempted government overthrow, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus said Thursday.

“We want to end the state of emergency as soon as possible, within a maximum of 1.5 months. The European Human Rights Convention is suspended during the State of Emergency,” Kurtulmus told reporters in Ankara.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (File)
© AFP 2016/ STR / TURKISH PRESIDENTIAL PRESS OFFICE

The state of emergency entered into force Thursday after being announced by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and published later in the official gazette.In the wake of the attempted coup, Turkish authorities have conducted an unprecedented crackdown on individuals believed to be involved, including governors, prosecutors, intelligence officers, judges, and military personnel.

The EU foreign ministers urged Turkey on Monday to abide by the norms of the Convention, including the abolition of death penalty, when punishing participants of a coup attempt numbering in the thousands.


The country had earlier entered into a 1.5 month state of emergency following the

This is a superb documentary about muslim Cartoonists, researching the aftermath of terrorist attacks in Paris from Charlie Hebdo to the Bataclan, well worth 25minutes of your time. It covers Jordanians, Afghani’s, Lebanese and Iranians who risk their lives to create satirical cartoons. They caricature ISIS/Daesh, USA, Saudis & Mohammed.

Literally some of the bravest artists still alive.

A picture is worth a thousand words, as the old saying goes and cartoonists have, for thousands of years, used art as satire, to speak out about what’s wrong with society. By definition, the work discusses, and even ridicules, the hot, current and controversial subjects of the day to draw attention to important issues and provoke dialogue. The objective may simply be to illustrate the funny side of a story or, of course, to precipitate change and make a difference. Because of that potential power and influence, many countries impose strict limits on the topics they allow cartoonists to address, topping the taboo list are politics, religion and sex.

It is not simply because of unwritten rules of local morality that comic illustrators are required to steer clear of cartoons depicting certain subjects if they don’t want to be thrown in jail or get killed by zealous extremists. Not everywhere enjoys freedom of speech as a guaranteed right and in such places, the cost of a simple satirical sketch can even be life itself. In some parts of the world, the job means a constant battle between an artist’s convictions and desire to live.

RT Doc visits Jordan, Lebanon, Iran and Afghanistan to meet local cartoonists and explore how satirists ply their trade against a backdrop of harsh government censorship and death threats from religious fanatics. The film examines the boundaries within which cartoonists often have to work. After the Charlie Hebdo massacre, we ask the cartoonists about their attitudes to their French colleagues’ work and the tragedy that killed them. Our contributors also discuss why the magazine’s cartoons caused such fatal controversy.

https://youtu.be/yJeaRhSg1pA

 

 

 

 

Once Upon A Time…

Weapons were manufactured for Wars.

Now, Wars are manufactured for weapons.

(Arundahti Roy)

 

Aerial bombardment of a Syrian city of 200,000 men, women & children by four UK Tornado warplanes and Brimstone missiles without Syrian government coordination or ground forces back up, now imminent. #SyriaVote #DontBombSyria

 

All 66 Labour MPs who backed bombing Syria

  • Adrian Bailey
  • Alan Campbell
  • Alan Johnson
  • Alison McGovern
  • Angela Eagle
  • Angela Smith
  • Ann Coffey
  • Anna Turley
  • Ben Bradshaw
  • Bridget Phillipson
  • Caroline Flint
  • Chris Bryant
  • Chris Leslie
  • Chuka Umunna
  • Colleen Fletcher
  • Conor McGinn
  • Dan Jarvis
  • Emma Reynolds
  • Frank Field
  • Gareth Thomas
  • Geoffrey Robinson
  • George Howarth
  • Gisela Stuart
  • Gloria De Piero
  • Graham Jones
  • Harriet Harman
  • Heidi Alexander
  • Helen Jones
  • Hilary Benn
  • Holly Lynch
  • Ian Austin
  • Jamie Reed
  • Jenny Chapman
  • Jim Dowd
  • Jim Fitzpatrick
  • Joan Ryan
  • John Spellar
  • John Woodcock
  • Keith Vaz
  • Kevan Jones
  • Kevin Barron
  • Liz Kendall
  • Louise Ellman
  • Luciana Berger
  • Lucy Powell
  • Margaret Beckett
  • Margaret Hodge
  • Maria Eagle
  • Mary Creagh
  • Michael Dugher
  • Neil Coyle
  • Pat McFadden
  • Peter Kyle
  • Phil Wilson
  • Ruth Smeeth
  • Simon Danczuk
  • Siobhain McDonagh
  • Stella Creasy
  • Susan Elan Jones
  • Tom Blenkinsop
  • Tom Watson
  • Tristram Hunt
  • Vernon Coaker
  • Wayne David
  • Yvette Cooper
  • Stephen Doughty

 

Arming ISIS: the hypocrisy of “strutting Napolean” Francois Hollande & his fellow Saudi/Israeli apologists Cameron & Obama…

John Pilger on Paris, ISIS and Media Propaganda

Video Interview
Afshin Rattansi goes underground with John Pilger.

Award winning journalist and author, John Pilger talks to us about how Washington, London and Paris gave birth to ISIS-Daesh. Plus we examine the media’s role in spreading disinformation ahead of a vote in Parliament for UK bombing of Syria. Afshin looks at the Autumn Statement and why in a time of high alert we are cutting the police force and buying drones.

Posted November 25, 2015

Caerphilly MP Wayne David on ITV News today claiming he was “bullied” what a despicable thing to say!
He has no idea what “bullying” actually is and demeans those that are/have been bullied.
He voted with the Tories to drop bombs on children in a city of 200,000 civilians, that’s f***ing bullying!
He chose to join the War Pigs. He should get used to that epithet!

Wayne David (MP Caerphilly) and Chris Bryant (MP Rhondda) – both Labour Friends of Israel.

You will see the Rhondda MP Bryant is busy doing PR for the Brimstone Missiles today!

The unnamed general who has threatened a coup against Jeremy Corbyn if he’s elected prime minister should be careful what he wishes for. (See link http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-army-could-stage-mutiny-under-corbyn-says-senior-serving-general-10509742.html )

Unusually for a senior officer, this as yet anonymous character – who for the record should be identified and court-martialled if the establishment knows what is good for it – sounds politically and historically illiterate.

If this closet rebel knew a thing about history he should know that it’s often the blustering tyrant who gets the chop in such situations, particularly when common soldiers decide to write their own script. Let’s remember that a proto-version of the British Army helped Charles I to his doom, and that the Russian Army marched off the front lines and straight into a leftist revolution in Russia in 1917.

And what about the late Hugo Chavez, a man whose politics aren’t a million miles away from Corbyn’s? He had no problems gaining the support of certain army regiments in Venezuela during his early coup days. He was a colonel after all.

The point is simple: “soldier” does not mean “moron”, despite what the military and Government would like us all to think. They have minds entirely of their own and they know how to use them.

It was veterans, after all, who played a central part in getting rid of Churchill, voting in Atlee and founding the true legacy of Britain’s military men and women: the NHS, welfare state and other wholesome things of which Corbyn is a veritable champion.

Loyalty to daft plots is not a given when it comes to fighting men and women. It’s a mistake to think of the army as a group of apolitical clones, who will unquestioningly adhere to orders, whatever they may be.

Like all social institutions, the army is split along class lines, meaning there is no guarantee that all or part of the army would not mutiny against a coup.

It is one thing to waffle on about “direct action” carried out by fair means or foul, but any good general needs to consider the practicalities: an armed coup would involve killing British citizens, including Corbyn supporters. If push came to shove, would the British Army really mow down the people who back him?

The people who have most to gain from a Corbyn government are those from the less well-off communities of Britain. Incidentally, these are the communities that our predatory military recruits from.

British soldiers shooting their own friends and families at the whim of some would-be dictator? Really? Are you sure you want to go down that road?

And consider this: politicians and the military have been betraying soldiers for years. Thousands have died and been wounded for no good reason.

There’s been pension cuts, job cuts, homelessness and a chronic lack of mental health provision for veterans. So it may be overly optimistic for a general with an eye on dictatorship to think that the army would be on his side.

Source: The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/if-the-british-army-rises-up-against-anyone-it-wont-be-jeremy-corbyn-10511360.html

Just trying to reflect on exactly what the S*n means when it advocates bombing Syria in the name of a dead three year old Syrian toddler…

So which does ‘The Sun’ advocate?
Bombing ISIS so that Syrians can suffer under the misery of Bashar al-Assad’s murderous tyranny, or bombing al-Assad’s forces so that the country can become part of an ultra-reactionary ISIS caliphate where life means nothing and sadistic brutality is regarded as honourable?
Or is ‘Bomb Syria Now’ just an empty, meaningless slogan, like everything else they print in that despicable shit rag run by sabre rattling COWARDS!

libyan-rebels-massacres

THIS IS FOR ALL OF YOU – Please read and SHARE.

This explains how your opinions are being formed, played and manipulated by Foreign Billionaires into clambering for War in Syria.

The source here is from “VETERANS FOR PEACE UK” on Facebook.

This blog link ( https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/09/why-murdoch-pushes-for-war/ ) explains EXACTLY why the PSYCHOPATH Rupert Murdoch and his minions Rebekah Brooks and prime-puppet David Cameron are escalating the push for all out War in Syria.

Rothschild’s Genie Energy ( Link: http://genie.com/media/genie-energy-in-the-media/ ) has “permission” to drill in Syria’s Golan Heights and Rothschild’s GENIE ENERGY in Kurdistan which is now the main exporter of crude oil towards Western refineries in Turkey.

ISIS/ISIL/ DAESH in Iraq conveniently destroyed all Iraqi state pipeline network infrastructures which were enabling Iraqi state to sell its own northern oil around Mossul.
How convenient is Daesh to the Rothschild and Israel???
Before the rise of Daesh (in which the west have the utmost responsibility) Iraq refused to sell oil to Israel in support to the Palestinian struggle.
Now, through GENiE ENERGY, Israel imports 2/3 of its oil from Kurdistan … And guess who is the main supporter for the recognition to an “independant” Kurdistan ? Benyamin Netanyahu of course …

From the Turkish port of Ceyhan, oil is shipped towards Cyprus and then to Ashkelon and Ashodot where it is stocked and refined by PAZ OIL (Which had been created by the Rothschild back in the day and is now bigger than the Israeli state company).

Imagine, an oil rich Kurdistan supplying oil to Israel in the middle of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran of course! What a better excuse for more wars ?

I also read that the Iraqi state complained on what is a blatant theft of Iraq’s resources by the Rothschilds.


Rebekah Brooks, first day back on the job for the heinous ginger c*nt and the shit rag Sun paper begins ramping up the War rhetoric on the orders of her psychopathic FOREIGN boss Rupert Murdoch who is playing this country’s Prime Minister like a fuckin puppet.

Wake Up! We’re sleepwalking into yet another OIL war!


Its all interlinked with US Vanguard Group inc.

Dick Cheney was also a member of Genie Energy Corporation Strategic Advisory Board.

Dick Cheney (Halliburton), had close to $85 million invested in the Vanguard Group.

Rupert Murdoch is Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of News Corp.

Vanguard Group Inc held 85,939,439 shares on 12/31/2012 worth $2,192,315,109 in News Corp.

John Kerrys wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, has over $3,500,001 stake in General Electric Co.

Biggest stakeholder in General Electric Co is Vanguard Group:

Jul 30, 2012
The board of directors of General Electric Co. has elected John J. Brennan as an independent member of the company’s board of directors.

Brennan is chairman emeritus and a senior advisor of The Vanguard Group Inc.

Vangaurd got Investments in every going concern.

Raytheon, for example #5 15,664,626 $920,923,362

This from 2013:

‘Raytheon stock nears all-time high amid news of possible cruise-missile strike in Syria

Stock shares of perennial defense contracting powerhouse Raytheon hit nearly $77 apiece Tuesday as news of a possible US strike in Syria intensified. The US has said if it strikes Syrian government targets for alleged use of chemical weapons, it would likely use Tomahawk cruise missiles from warships positioned in the Mediterranean. Raytheon is responsible for making and selling the bulk of the long-range, subsonic missiles to the US government.’

John Kerry spouse, Teresa Heinz Kerry, holdings.

3. Raytheon Co. $960,010 – $2,200,000

• Raytheon Co. received $11,662,797,975 in government contracts for fiscal year 2007, including a total of approx. $10 billion from the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

US goes to war, they the politicians get return on investments from the very instruments that do the killing.

That’s how the game works.