Two Suns in the Sunset

I had an idea to make an album of all the songs we did as encores on the US and Them tour.

We did “Mother” first. Had to do it remotely because of Covid 19.

“Two Suns in The Sunset” is #2.

Hope you like it.

I love it.

What a beautiful band they are. Love R.

PS. That we allow Nuclear Weapons to exist in a world controlled by deranged sociopaths is, in itself, a deranged arrangement.

We are many they are few.

We could just say no, to the whole MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) insanity. It makes zero sense and is potentially omnicidal.

Roger Waters: Guitar and Vocal Dave Kilminster: Guitar Joey Waronker: Drums Lucius- Jess Wolfe and Holly Laessig: Vocals Gus Seyffert: Bass Jonathan Wilson: Guitar Jon Carin: Piano and Keys Bo Koster: Hammond Ian Ritchie: Saxophone Wrangled together by Sean Evans & Roger Waters Mixed by Gus Seyffert Assisted by Sean Cook Edited by Andy Jennison

Hate vs. Peace and Harmony

hate & peace.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

We learned today that Israel’s UN ambassador Danny Dannon told AIPAC that Bernie Sanders is an ‘ignorant fool, a liar or both. “We don’t want Sanders at AIPAC. We don’t want him in Israel…Whoever calls the prime minister of Israel a  ‘racist’ is either a liar, an ignorant fool, or both,”  Ambassador Dannon announced.

The evidence of Israel’s racism and Netanyahu’s government’s racialist policies is, unfortunately, conclusive. One can look at Netanyahu’s government’s approach to Black migrants. Or examine the racist Israeli national bill. This leads one to wonder what motivated Ambassador Dannon to act so ‘undiplomatically,’ by attacking the Democratic Party frontrunner for expressing a reasoned criticism of Israel and its PM?

But even before we can get to that question, we have to consider what the same Israeli media outlets have informed us. In a leaked recording, Netanyahu senior adviser Natan Eshel, revealed that “hate is what unites” the Israeli right-wing and it “works well on non-Ashkenazi voters.”

Eshel, a former Netanyahu chief of staff who resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct, continues to work with the Israeli PM, and last year led the two coalition negotiations. 

In the recording, Eshel explains that Likud minister (and former IDF Spokeswoman) Miri Regev  is “excellent” at “stirring up” Likud supporters. Eshel refers to Regev as “an animal,” but notes her tactics work very well in  “drumming up the crowd.”

It is reasonable to think  that Ambassador Dannon’s description of Sen. Sanders served a similar purpose: to drum up the AIPAC crowd. And, of course, the British Jewish media together with Jewish pressure groups and the Israeli Lobby  have, since 2017,  also used this technique to ignite  their crowd’s hatred of the Labour party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn. Some people, so it seems, are united by hate.

Netanyahu’s senior adviser’s leaked recording shines a light on the ever- growing Jewish fear of antisemitism. Those who are so easily ‘united by hate’ tend to believe that others are also similarly hateful. The Jewish fear of antisemitism can be seen as projection. Those who are ‘united by hate,’ may well attribute their own hatefulness to their neighbours whether they are Palestinians, Labour voters, or even the Democratic frontrunner.

What we see is a lethal snowball of loathing and fear: the more hateful one happens to be, the more one is tormented by imagining that the Other is afflicted by the same hatefulness.

Jesus Christ diagnosed this very dangerous trait amongst his brethren. His solution was shocking, if simple. Instead of stockpiling weapons, he preached that his followers turn the other cheek: take a step forward, love your neighbour, break away from the vicious circle, seek peace and harmony.

The fate of Jesus is known to us all. The fate of those who try to preach peace to Israelis and Zionists isn’t exactly a secret either.

Happy New Year and Long Live Palestine from River to See

 

 

Only time in history where ally bombs its ally’: Imran Khan on US & Pakistan relations (EXCLUSIVE)

Related Videos

Related Articles

Silencing Diversity in the Name of Diversity

July 16, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

islamophbia_edited-1.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

In my latest book, Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto, I explored different tactics used by the New Left – a loose collective of Frankfurt School graduates — to destroy political diversity and intellectual exchange.  I concluded that the ‘new order’ is maintained by ensuring that so-called ‘correctness’ dominates our vocabulary.  We are drowning in jargon, slogans and sound bites designed to suppress authentic thinking and more important, to suppress humane intellectual exchange. As I finished writing the book, I understood that this new language is a well-orchestrated attempt to obliterate our Western Athenian ethos in favor of a new Jerusalemite regime of ‘correctness.’

Yesterday I was interviewed  by Pakistani Journalist Tazeen Hasan. She was interested in my take on Islamophobia.  Hasan, I guess, expected me to denounce Islamophobia.  Since I am opposed to any form of bigotry*, hatred of Muslims is no exception. Though I am obviously troubled and strongly disagree with the views that are voiced with the so-called ‘Islamophbes,’  I am also troubled by the notion of ‘Islamophobia’. As opposed to the Identitarian Left, I contend that we humans should seek what unites us as humans. We should refuse to be shoved into biologically oriented (like gender, skin colour, sexual orientation etc.) boxes. I was probably expected to criticise Islamophobia by recycling a few tired slogans, but that was not my approach to the question. Instead of dealing with ‘Islamophobia,’ I decided that we should first dissect the notion of ‘phobia.’ I asked why some activists attribute ‘phobic’ inclinations (Islamophobia, homophobia, Judeophobia, etc.) to those with whom they disagree.

‘Phobia’ is defined as an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Accordingly, the notion of ‘Islamophobia,’ attributes irrationality or even madness to those who oppose Muslims and Islam. It suggests that ‘fear of Islam’ is an irrational hatred. This turns Islamophobia into a crazy fear of Islam that doesn’t deserve intellectual scrutiny, let alone an intellectual debate.

But fear of Musilms might be rational. As things stand, we in the West have been actively engaged in the destruction of Muslims and their countries for at least a century. We plunder their resources, we invade their lands, and we even gave some of their land to the so called ‘people of the book,’ and when those people committed a brutal ethnic cleansing, consistent with their ‘book,’ the West turned a blind eye. For the last three decades this genocidal war against Muslims and Arabs has intensified and become an official Western policy. This transition is the achievement of the Neocon school, who have attempted to redefine Zionism as the struggle for a promised planet instead of just a promised land. 

 Within the context of the global war we have declared on Muslims and Arabs on behalf of Zion, in the name of Coca Cola and Gay Rights, it is rational to expect that at some point Muslims may retaliate. So those who fear Muslims are not necessarily crazy or mad, they may even be more ethically aware or even guilt ridden than the progressives who castigate them for having ‘phobias’.’ If we are looking to dismantle ‘Islamic danger’  then we should find a rational and peaceful solution to the war we declared on Muslims. It will be probably more effective not to drop bombs on Arabs than to label fear of Muslims as irrational. Obliterating Israel’s nuclear facilities could also be a reasonable path to peace. A total embargo on Israel would probably be  the most effective way to calm the Middle East. That would certainly induce some deep thinking in the Jewish State that has been the catalyst in this developing global war.

It seems the term ‘phobia’ is routinely attached to anyone who disagrees with the new order. Are all those who oppose gay rights driven by ‘phobia’? Is it really ‘irrational’ for pious people (Christians, Muslims and Jews, etc.) to detect that gay culture may interfere with their churches or family values? Instead of addressing these conservative concerns, the New Left prefers to employ tyrannical abusive language designed to delegitimise the opposition. Similarly, those who look into organised Jewry and its political lobbying are reduced to ‘Judeophobes.’  But given the growing number of studies of the domineering effect of the Jewish Lobby in the USA, Britain and France, is it really ‘irrational’ or an act of ‘madness’ to scrutinise this lobby’s activity and the culture that fuels it?

However, in spite of these Orwellian ‘phobic’ tactics, awareness of its effects has grown. Increasingly, people see that the New Left corrosive agenda is driving these divisive Identitarian tactics. The tyrannical regime of correctness is a Machiavellian operation that in the name of ‘diversity,’ attempts to eliminate diversity all together. It dismisses the concerns of the so called ‘enemy’ by labelling them as irrational fears.

My message here is simple. The war against us is facilitated by cultural means. We are constantly subjected to terminological manipulations. To win this war we must first spot the terminological shifts as they appear. Then we have to identify those who put such manipulative tactics into play.

To support Gilad’s legal costs

Muhammad & Friends with Gilad Atzmon

israel: The Real Middle East Nuclear Threat

Source

There is in fact a Middle Eastern nation that is in fact in control of a vast, undeclared stockpile of nuclear weapons. This nation does have the capability of deploying those weapons anywhere in the region. It is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and its arsenal has never been inspected by any international agency. But this nation is not Iran. It’s Israel.

Source: www.corbettreport.com

 

The United Nations and the moral degeneration: from Yemen to Syria  الأمم المتحدة والانحطاط الأخلاقي: من اليمن إلى سورية

 The United Nations and the moral degeneration: from Yemen to Syria 

مارس 8, 2018

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Those who are in charge of the United Nations had no longer any reaction for the actions of the UN Organization towards everything related to Israel after they found ready answer that it is the politics and the superpowers. Everyone remembers how the United Nations abolished a resolution for forming a commission of inquiry into the massacres of Jenin camp in 2002, simply because Israel announced its refusal of that commission. Therefore it is enough to see the UN’s actions in other issues that are not related to Israel. Even if the UN resolutions that condemn it remained mere useless actions.

If we read the two wars that are taking place in one time and in one region, in Syria and Yemen in the eyes of the walleyed United Nations, the scene will be like that: an opposition and a legitimate rule that are fighting, external forces that support both sides, massacres against the civilians, open humanitarian  tragedy, and external supportive forces of legitimacy that are accused of using the excessive force, which are in Yemen (Saudi Arabia), while in Syria (Russia and Iran). This is according to the UN reports issued by the same bodies, especially the International Council for Human Rights and the international organizations that work under the humanitarian name. While the difference according to the UN is that in Yemen the ceiling of the demands of the armed opposition is the partnership in a unified government that takes over the responsibility of implementing a political solution, that includes restricting the weapons with the state, putting a new constitution, and on its basis it holds the presidential and the parliamentary elections. While in Syria the solution posed by the legitimacy is based on a draft that is similar to the demands of the opposition in Yemen. The United Nations at the spokesman of its two deputies said publicly that the Yemeni opposition is exaggerated in its demand, because it must deliver the weapons first. But at the same time it is an unrealistic demand by the legitimacy in Syria, because it does not lead to a political solution, on the contrary it calls for the transition of power which means the stepping down of the Syrian President or at least his pledge not to run for the elections. Any UN official does not feel ashamed in front of this moral degeneration which causes the continuation of war in Syria and Yemen; the injustice towards the opposition in Yemen and the bias towards the opposition in Syria. We did not mention the clear realistic and the objective differences between the opposition of Yemen which fights the terrorism and the false opposition that has a role as the cover of terrorism, or between the two legitimacies; which one is false in Yemen that fell in one day, where the Saudi integration came to give it a mask, and the other in Syria that has loyalty at least of more than half of the Syrian people, so democratically, it is the necessary quorum of any rule.

Every time when the war rages in Yemen, and when the alliance which is so-called the legitimacy alliance got affected the UN alerted, as happened after the fall of the missile on Riyadh, while in Syria, the UN gets alerted when what so-called the armed opposition is in trouble, although these formations are known  for their interaction with the terrorism as recognized by the UN, and where the International Security Council remains in semi-permanent session for their sake; one draft in circulation and another under preparation. There was no UN official or deputy or even respectful journalist who came to inquire about this disgusting doubleness and about a deviation in the task of preserving the international security and peace, this is not explained but only by the political positioning along with the tools of the hegemony, in other words, when the opposition is a tool to affect the state of independence it becomes good and the state of independence becomes criminal, whereas when the opposition becomes a tool to get its independence it is criminalized and the sanctions are issued against its leaders.

Unfortunately the UN is not an organization for the nations, it was and still a tool to deprive the rights and the wills of the nations, it does not feel ashamed of its moral degeneration or its disrespect among the nations.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

الأمم المتحدة والانحطاط الأخلاقي: من اليمن إلى سورية

مارس 7, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– لم يعد تذكير القيّمين على الأمم المتحدة بما تثيره في الذاكرة تصرفات المنظمة الأممية تجاه كلّ ما يتعلق بـ«إسرائيل» من قرف، يثير في هؤلاء أيّ ردّ فعل بعدما وجدوا جواباً جاهزاً، بفرك اليدين والقول، إنها السياسة والقوى العظمى وليس بيدينا حيلة. والكلّ يذكر كيف ألغت الأمم المتحدة قراراً بتشكيل لجنة تحقيق في مجازر مخيم جنين عام 2002، لمجرد أنّ «إسرائيل» أعلنت رفض اللجنة، لذلك يكفي تناول التصرّفات الأممية في ملفات أخرى لا تطال قدس الأقداس المحرّم، الذي تمثله «إسرائيل»، ولو بقيت القرارات الأممية التي تطالبها وتدينها وتلزمها، مجرد أرشيف بلا لون ولا طعم ولا رائحة.

– في توقيت واحد ومنطقة واحدة تدور حربان، واحدة في سورية والأخرى في اليمن، وإذا قرأناهما بعين الأمم المتحدة الحولاء وارتضينا، فسيكون المشهد كما يلي، معارضة وحكم شرعي وبينهما حرب، وقوى خارجية تدعم كلاً من الفريقين، ومجازر بحق المدنيين ومأساة إنسانية مفتوحة، والجهة التي تتجه نحوها الأنظار الأممية في المسؤولية عن استخدام القوة المفرطة هي القوى الخارجية الداعمة للشرعية، في اليمن هي السعودية وفي سورية هي إيران وروسيا. وهذا وفق ما تقوله التقارير الأممية الصادرة عن الجهات ذاتها، خصوصاً المجلس العالمي لحقوق الإنسان والمنظمات الدولية العاملة تحت المسمّى الإنساني، أما الفوارق أيضاً بعيون أممية، فهي أنّ سقف مطالب المعارضة المسلحة في اليمن هو الشراكة بحكومة موحّدة تتولى تطبيق حلّ سياسي يتضمّن حصر السلاح بيد الدولة وتضع دستوراً جديداً وتجري على أساسه الانتخابات الرئاسية والبرلمانية، بينما في سورية فالحلّ الذي تطرحه الشرعية يقوم على مشروع يشبه ما تطلبه المعارضة في اليمن، وتقف الأمم المتحدة لتقول علناً بلسان مبعوثيها إنّ هذا الحلّ طلب مبالغ به من جانب المعارضة اليمنية التي يجب عليها إلقاء السلاح أولاً، وهو نفسه عرض غير واقعي ومتواضع من جانب الشرعية في سورية لا يصلح لتحقيق حلّ سياسي وتدعو لما تسمّيه انتقالاً للسلطة لا يُخفي المبعوثون الأمميون أنه يجب تضمينه تنحي الرئيس السوري أو على الأقلّ تعهّده بعدم الترشح للانتخابات. ولا يرفّ جفن لمسؤول أممي أمام هذا الانحطاط الأخلاقي الذي بسببه تستمرّ الحرب في سورية وفي اليمن، وهو الإجحاف بحق المعارضة في اليمن والدلع للمعارضة في سورية، ولم نذكر أبداً الفوارق الواقعية والموضوعية التي تسهل رؤيتها بين حال معارضة اليمن، التي تقاتل الإرهاب، ومعارضة وهمية في سورية تشكل الغطاء للإرهاب، ولا بين الشرعيتين، واحدة وهمية في اليمن، انتهت وسقطت في يوم واحد، وجاء التدخل السعودي يحملها قناعاً، وشرعية في سورية تملك على الأقلّ تأييداً من أكثر من نصف الشعب السوري، وهو النصاب اللازم ديمقراطياً لأيّ حكم.

– في كلّ مرة تحتدم الحرب في جولة من جولاتها في سورية أو في اليمن، إذا كان المتضرّر في اليمن من التصعيد الحلف المسمّى حلف الشرعية، تقوم قيامة الأمم المتحدة ولا تقعد، كما حدث يوم سقوط صاروخ واحد على الرياض، أما في سورية فتقوم القيامة ولا تقعد عندما تكون ما تسمّى بالمعارضة المسلحة في مأزق. وهي تشكيلات تقرّ الأمم المتحدة بتداخلها مع الإرهاب، ويبقى لأجلها مجلس الأمن الدولي في شبه انعقاد دائم، ومشروع قرار في التداول وآخر قيد الإعداد، ولا يخجل لا مسؤول أممي ولا مبعوث أممي ولا يخرج صحافي محترم ليتساءل عن هذا الازدواج الفاقع وما يثيره من غثيان، وما يكشفه من انحراف في مهمة الحفاظ على الأمن والسلم الدوليين، لا يفسّره إلا تموضع سياسي إلى جانب أدوات الهيمنة فحيث المعارضة أداة لضرب دولة الاستقلال تصير ولداً مدلّلاً وتجري شيطنة وتجريم دولة الاستقلال، وحيث المعارضة أداة لنيل هذا الاستقلال تشيطن وتجرَّم، وتُصدَر العقوبات بحق قادتها.

– الأمم المتحدة بكلّ أسف ليست منظمة للشعوب، بل كانت ولا تزال أداة لسلب الشعوب حقوقها وإرادتها، ولا مكان للخجل فيها من انحطاط أخلاقي ينخر فيها ولا يبقي لها أيّ احترام عند الشعوب.

Related Videos

Related Articles

سنة على ترامب: المهزلة تناسب الإخفاق

ناصر قنديل

تشكّل السنة الأولى فرصة للتعرّف على ماهية الجديد لكلّ رئيس في أيّ بلد في العالم، خصوصاً في البلدان الصانعة للسياسة والحروب، وبصورة أخصّ في بلد كأميركا تتبدّل فيه مع الرئاسات بعض السياسات، للتعرّف على حدود التغيير والجديد الذي سيقدّمه الرئيس الجديد، قياساً بالمقارنة بين وعود الانتخابات وتطبيق السياسات. ولا تكون السنة الأولى موضوع كشف حساب مؤسّس على جدول مقارن بين ما كان قبل وما صار بعد، ولا بين الوعود والصدقية، بقدر ما تتشكل مع نهايتها انطباعات لدى الرأي العام في الداخل والخارج، لدى النخب والقادة تصنع صورة إجمالية عن رئيس خارق أو عادي أو أقلّ من عادي، وبحالات نادرة عن رئيس سيّئ وفاشل وغير جدير بالاحترام.

قلة هم الرؤساء الأميركيون الذين تركوا الانطباع بأنهم رؤساء خارقون بعد سنتهم الأولى، بل إنّ أغلبهم اكتسب هذه الصفة بعد خروجه من البيت الأبيض، خصوصاً بالمقارنة مع خلفه وما يقدّم. ولعلّ هذه هي حال الرئيس السابق باراك أوباما بعد السنة الأولى من عهد الرئيس الحالي دونالد ترامب، حيث ظهر الرئيس المثقف والمهذّب واللائق والديمقراطي والعقلاني والحضاري والإنساني والمتمدّن، لأنّ المقارنة تمّت وتتمّ مع رئيس وقح وقليل التهذيب وطويل اللسان وبذيء التعابير وعنصري التفكير ومعادٍ لغير البيض والمرأة، وتافه ثقافياً، عديم القراءة والمتابعة والاطلاع، وحادّ الطباع وعدواني لا يعترف بحق الإعلام ولا بحق الاختلاف، وعلى المستوى البشري قليل الذوق في اللباس والطعام.

في السياسة مرّت السنة الأولى وانتهت بإحباطات لكلّ الذين توقعوا منها المتناقضات. فهي محبطة للذين توقعوا حروباً تحسم الصراعات لصالح مفهوم العظمة الاستعمارية الأميركية المعادية للشعوب وقوى المقاومة والحرية، بقدر ما هي محبطة للذين تأمّلوا انفتاحاً على لغة التسويات والحلول السياسية تأخذ بالاعتبار التوازنات التي فرضتها المواجهات وتجنّب العالم المزيد من التوترات بلا جدوى، فجاء جباناً بنظر طالبي الحرب، وجباناً بنظر طالبي التسويات، كاذباً بنظر هؤلاء وكاذباً بنظر أولئك. كثير الأقوال قليل الأفعال بحساب مَن وعدهم بالحروب، وكذلك لمن وعدهم بالحلول. وفي الشق الداخلي تبخّرت أميركا أولاً، فلا خرج من حروب وعد بالخروج منها، ولا خفض الإنفاق العسكري بل زاده، ولا أعاد بناء وترتيب المنشآت العمرانية، ولا أصلح النظام التعليمي ولا صحّح النظام الصحي.

لا يبدو دونالد ترامب كغلطة أميركية بقدر ما يبدو التعبير الأقرب عن حال أميركا، فهي تحتاجه لاعب كلام يعوّض ضعفها وعجزها، وتحتاج عنترياته على تويتر تُرضي به شيخوختها، بادّعاء الفتوة الكاذبة، لكن المهزلة التي تضجّ بالحديث عنها صالونات السياسة والصحافة والمقالات والتعليقات، تبدو متناسبة مع حجم الإخفاق الذي تحتاج أميركا أن ترى من خلاله نفسها في المرآة، ويكفي مثالاً قرار اعتماد القدس عاصمة لـ«إسرائيل وزيارة نائب الرئيس الأميركي إلى المنطقة لتسويقها كمثال على الهزال الأميركي الذي كان دوماً يقف مع إسرائيل ، لكنه لم يكن يوماً يقف وحده كما هو اليوم، وفقاً لوقائع اجتماعات مجلس الأمن الدولي وتصويت الجمعية العامة للأمم المتحدة، وصولاً لوقائع زيارة مايك بينس إلى المنطقة، والتي لا تعادل قيمتها ما تعبّر عنه قيمة اسم صاحبها.

TIME MONK RADIO NETWORK’S THE PLAIN TRUTH INTERVIEWS THE SAKER

North Korea Does Not Threaten World Peace, the US Does

Source

By William Boardman,

Petulant leadership risks war to what end?

President Donald Trump is 71 and Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un is 33 [35 according to DPRK sources], but if they ever met, would there be a grown-up in the room?

One of them knows full well that North Korea is not a threat to world peace and is not even a serious threat to South Korea. The one who knows that is not Donald Trump. Or if he does know it, he’s choosing to inflate the North Korean “threat” even more than some of his predecessors.

But wait, didn’t North Korea just fire a missile in the general direction of the United States? Yes indeed, and like every other North Korean missile (except the ones that blew up on launch), it hit smack dab in the Sea of Japan, unpleasantly for aquatic life but a danger to no one else. This is, after all, exactly what the US does periodically to the Pacific Ocean from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base, generally causing yawns around the world.

Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work witnessed just such a US test (the 15th or so in five years) in February 2016, after telling reporters the purpose was to demonstrate an effective US nuclear arsenal to Russia, China, and North Korea:

That’s exactly why we do this. We and the Russians and the Chinese routinely do test shots to prove that the operational missiles that we have are reliable. And that is a signal … that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons in defense of our country if necessary.

Not only is that perspective less than comforting, it includes a major tell. For reasons that may be obvious but unspoken, North Korea is not allowed to do what the US, Russia, and China do. That’s the price of being a member of the US-determined Axis of Evil. That may be a stupid foreign policy position (Exhibit A: Iraq), but it’s American stupidity, not Korean stupidity. The North Koreans are well aware that they do not have “operational missiles that … are reliable.”

Do as US says, not as US does

US-imposed rules forbid other countries like North Korea or Iran from following rational patterns of self-defense, even in the face of overt US threats. And when North Korea ignores US rules and hits the ocean with another rocket, the US ratchets up the hysteria as if the North Korean launch were a hostile act while the Vandenberg launches are only benign peace-keeping splashes. The US framing of the world is clearly nuts, but we’re so used to it we hardly notice anymore.

Not only does North Korea pose no serious threat now, its hypothetical future threat is largely imaginary. Whatever military might North Korea has is unlikely to be used outside its own country unless the US or someone else attacks it first. That might well lead to all hell breaking loose, but it’s the only thing that will as far as North Korea is concerned. Washington is baffled: What doesn’t North Korea understand about its duty to do what the US tells it to do?

Fear-mongering over North Korea hasn’t worked — ever

Assessed objectively, North Korea’s missile tests demonstrate a missile program proceeding haltingly, with frequent failures as well as “terrifying” successes. What terrified Washington about the July 3 North Korean missile launch is the presently imaginary threat that the Independence Day ICBM prototype could deliver a nuclear warhead to the United States. It can’t. That’s a pure future threat, if it’s a threat at all.

Capturing the widely proclaimed fear with merely modest hype, Business Insider led its report on the new North Korean missile with this: “North Korea claims that it has launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, which experts say could have the ability to reach Alaska.” (Reuters upped the ante, reporting that “some experts believe [the missile] has the range to reach Alaska and Hawaii and perhaps the U.S. Pacific Northwest.” As with other reports, these experts go unnamed and unchallenged.)

Unpack all that and what do you have?

A North Korean claim, inflated by anonymous experts, selling a worst-case scenario. The North Koreans also claimed that the missile could hit any location on the planet. So nobody’s even trying to tell the truth here. The missile actually went about 580 miles, which isn’t even close to qualifying as an ICBM. The nearest point in Alaska (not target, just rocks) is about 3,000 miles away. Any point on the planet is 12,000 miles away, give or take a few thousand.

But the North Koreans have nuclear weapons. Yes they do, maybe even 20 of them, all smaller than the one the US dropped on Hiroshima. At this point there’s no evidence North Korea can deliver its nuclear weapons anywhere by any technology much more advanced than donkey cart. By comparison, the US nuclear arsenal, which was once over 31,000 warheads, is now down to 4,000, with about 1,900 methods of delivery to anywhere on the planet, and almost all those warheads are many times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. For all that some worry about aging nuclear weapons, the US is not even close to being an inviting target to attack with impunity.

Not to minimize nuclear weapons of any sort, but seriously, some sense of proportion is expected of mature leadership. Chicken Little cluckings of impending doom is not mature leadership.

Isn’t 64 years long enough to get a peace treaty?

The Korean War began June 27, 1950, when North Korea invaded the south. The armistice was signed July 27, 1953, ending hostilities, but not the war. There is a cease-fire but no peace treaty. The US entered the war under UN auspices. Congress never declared war, but supported the war with appropriations. Currently, some in Congress are seeking legislation to prevent the president from taking any military action against North Korea without explicit permission from Congress. That hardly seems to matter.

The new president of South Korea wants to negotiate with North Korea, but that hardly seems to matter either. South Korea engaged in perennial massive war games with the US that North Korea deems threatening, as would any neighboring country facing the same reality. Worse, the US has introduced anti-missile weapons into South Korea without telling the South Korean president.

And President Trump publicly blames China for not bringing North Korea to heel, as if China had either that responsibility or ability. China has increased trade with North Korea by a reported 40 percent, which should be a stabilizing factor, especially over the long term. But the US is demanding short-term results.

What could the world community do to reverse this growing threat, real or imagined, from North Korea? It would help to allow North Korea to feel safe and unthreatened, maybe even as safe and unthreatened as Vermont. That, as Korea expert Christine Ahn argued on Democracy NOW, would require President Trump to do what he claims to be good at: negotiating, making a deal. Something very like this view was formally articulated to President Trump in a June 28 letter from such policy experts as former secretary of state George Schultz, former defense secretary William Perry, and former senator Richard Lugar:

As experts with decades of military, political, and technical involvement with North Korean issues, we strongly urge your administration to begin discussions with North Korea…. Talking is not a reward or a concession to Pyongyang and should not be construed as signaling acceptance of a nuclear-armed North Korea. It is a necessary step to establishing communication to avoid a nuclear catastrophe. The key danger today is not that North Korea would launch a surprise nuclear attack. Kim Jong Un is not irrational and highly values preserving his regime. Instead the primary danger is a miscalculation or mistake that could lead to war. [emphasis added]

A more colloquial way of saying much the same thing might be that you don’t control a bratty child by burning down the house, unless you’re another bratty child yourself, and you don’t really care all that much about the house.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Featured image from Medium

A rare opportunity: World Peace Trio in the UK

June 23, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Tue 4th July,   World Peace Trio at the Vortex Jazz Club, London

Wed 5th July, World Peace Trio   Ropetackle Centre, Shoreham-by-Sea

With the drums of war beating and peace feeling more and more like an exotic dream, the World Peace Trio bridges the divide. Indonesian piano maestro Dwiki Dharmawan, Oud star Kamal Musallam (Palestine-Jordan)  and woodwind virtuoso Gilad Atzmon have united to give beauty a new transforming meaning. Three world class musicians have united to make peace and harmony into a new poetic reality and totally new sound. Gamelan, Andalusian, the Orient blend into inspirational waves of fresh improvisational spirit.

Don’t miss…

Truth Has Become Un-American

By Paul Craig Roberts

May 25, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – Those of us who have exited The Matrix are concerned that there are no checks on Washington’s use of nuclear weapons in the interest of US hegemony over the world.

Washington and Israel are the threats to peace. Washington demands world hegemony, and Israel demands hegemony in the Middle East.

There are two countries that stand in the way of Washington’s world hegemony—Russia and China. Consequently, Washington has plans for preemptive nuclear strikes against both countries. It is difficult to imagine a more serious threat to mankind, and there is no awareness or acknowledgment of this threat among the Congress, the presstitute media, and the general public in the United States and Washington’s European vassal populations.

Two countries and a part of a third stand in the way of Greater Israel. Israel wants the water resources of southern Lebanon, but cannot get them, despite twice sending in the Israeli Army, because of the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, which is supplied by Syria and Iran. This is why Syria and Iran are on Washington’s hit list. Washington serves the military/security complex, Wall Street and the over-sized US banks, and Israel.

It is unclear if the Russians and Chinese understand that Washington’s hostility toward them is not just some sort of misunderstanding that diplomacy can work out.

Clearly, Russia hasn’t interfered in the US presidential election or invaded Ukraine, and does not intend to invade Poland or the Baltics. Russia let go the Soviet empire and is glad to see it gone, as the empire was expensive and of little benefit. The Soviet Eastern European empire comprised Stalin’s buffer against another Western invasion. The Warsaw Pact had no offensive meaning. It was not the beginning, as misrepresented in Washington, of Soviet world domination.

I see a lack of clarity about the threat that Russia faces in Russian media reports and articles posted on Russian English language websites. I see a lack of clarity in Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s continued efforts to work out an accommodation with Washington. How can Lavrov work out an accommodation with Washington when Washington intends to dominate or isolate Russia?

Lavrov and Russian media organizations do not always show awareness that it is not Washington’s intention to accommodate other national interests.

It cannot be otherwise for these three reasons:

  1. The budget for the US military/security complex is the largest in the world. It is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of many countries. It includes not only the Pentagon’s budget but also the budgets of 16 US intelligence agencies and the Department of Energy, which is the location of the Oak Ridge nuclear weapons plant and 16 other national laboratories. When all the elements are added together, the military/security complex has annually the power and profit from $1,000 billion. An empire of this sort just doesn’t give up and go away because some president or some part of the electorate want peace. The “Russian Threat” is essential to the power and profit of the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned Americans 56 years ago. Just imagine how entrenched this power is now.
  2. The neoconservatives, who control both US foreign policy and the Western media’s explanation of it, are mainly Jews of Zionist persuasion. Some are dual Israeli-US citizens. The neoconservatives believe that the collapse of Soviet communism means that History has chosen the United States as the socio-politico-economic system, and that the US government has the responsibility to assert the hegemony of America over the earth. Just read the neocon documents. They assert this over and over. This is what it means that America is the exceptional and indispensable nation. If you are the indispensable nation, every other nation is dispensable. If you are exceptional, everyone else is unexceptional. The claim that the neoconservatives make for the US is similar to the claim that Hitler made for Germany.
  3. As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate obstacles to Israel’s expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s government and chaos in Iraq, Washington’s war on Syria, and Washington’s demonization of Iran in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war.

For the Russian Foreign Minister to believe that it is possible to reach an accommodation with Washington, other than a Russian surrender, is nonsense. Perhaps this is Lavrov’s use of diplomacy to delay the US attack while Russia prepares. Or perhaps Lavrov is just a diplomat who sticks to his last, despite the facts.

Much of the Russian media, both in Russian and foreign language broadcasts and websites, thinks that the Western misrepresentation of Russia is just a mistake and that that facts, once they are established, can rectify the mistake. These Russian journalists don’t understand that Washington could not care less about facts. Washington desperately needs an enemy, and Russia is the enemy of choice.

The Chinese government seems to think that Wall Street and US corporations are too dependent on the cheap Chinese manufacturing labor, which keeps the US system fueled with profits, to jeopardize these profits by going to war.

By underplaying the risk of war, Russia and China fail to mobilize world opposition to Washington’s recklessness and, thereby, enable Washington’s move toward war.

The presstitutes serving the National Security State continue to drive toward conflict. Consider Newsweek’s May 26, 2017, cover story with Putin on the cover and the caption: “The Plot Against America: Inside Putin’s Campaign to Destroy Democracy in the U.S.”

It is difficult to imagine such ignorant nonsense from a mainstream news magazine. Democracy in America has been destroyed by special interest groups, by a US Supreme Court decision that gave the reins of power to special interest groups, and by a hoax war on terror that has destroyed the US Constitution. And here we have the presstitutes saying that Putin is destroying American democracy. Clearly, there is no extant intelligence anywhere in the Western media. The Western presstitutes are either corrupt beyond belief or ignorant beyond belief. Nothing else can be said for them.

Consider Time magazine’s cover. It depicts Trump turning the White House into the foundation for the Kremlin and St. Basil’s Cathedral, which rise above the White House, symbolizing America’s subservience to Russia under President Trump. This extraordinary propaganda seems to be readily accepted by the bulk of the Western populations, peoples who will die as a result of their insouciance.

Even writers critical of Washington, such as Paul Street’s recent article on CounterPunch and the English language Russian website, Strategic Culture Foundation, cannot bring themselves to state the truth that the US military/security complex needs a major enemy, has elected Russia for that role, and intends to defend this orchestration to the end of humanity on earth.

Street writes about “How Russia Became ‘Our Adversary’ Again.” According to Street, Russia became the enemy of choice because Russia protected part of the world’s population and resources from being exploited by global capital. Russia became the number one enemy of the US also because Putin stopped the American exploitation of Russia economically. Putin is in the way of Washington’s exploitation of the world.

Much of what Street says is correct, but he is hesitant to state it in a straightforward manner. He has to dilute his message by repeating the obligatory propaganda. Street calls Trump, who originally wanted normal relations with Russia, an “orange-haired brute . . . [who admires] Putin’s authoritarian manliness.”

Trump’s problems originated in his goal of normalizing relations with Russia. Hillary is the brute who intended to worsen the relations.

Putin is a democrat, not an authoritarian. The authoritarians are in Washington. Surely Paul Street and CounterPunch know this. But Street has to protect himself from speaking some politically incorrect truths about the US and Russia by throwing in some anti-Putin propaganda and denigrating President Trump.

That peace with Russia and China would undermine the justification of the $1,000 billion military/security budget, and that the military/security complex is the American government, is too much truth for most writers to state.

Truth is the most rare element in the Western world, and we will not be permitted to have much of it much longer. Increasingly, truth is difficult to find. Soak it up while it is still available.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Trump is a Danger to the World, says Jeremy Corbyn

Source

‘The US is the strongest military power on the planet by a very long way. It has a special responsibility to use its power with care and to support international efforts to resolve conflicts collectively and peacefully,’ Mr Corbyn said

Donald Trump risks making the world a more dangerous place, Jeremy Corbyn has said, as he cited the US President’s increasingly hard-line rhetoric in relation to North Korea.

Posted May 15, 2017

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. ”

Full Transcript

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Ave Maria

The music is by Franz Schubert, sung by Dolores O’Riordan, while the images are from the film The Passion of the Christ.

Ave Maria, gratia plena,
Maria, gratia plena
Maria, gratia plena
Ave Ave Dominus
Dominus tecum,
Benedicta tu in mulieribus,
et benedictus
et benedictus fructus ventris
ventris tui, Iesus.
Ave Maria.
Ave Maria, full of thanksgiving
Maria, full of thanksgiving
Maria, full of thanksgiving
Ave Ave God
Your God
Be blessed among the women
And blessed
And blessed be the product of your womb
Your womb, Jesus.
Ave Maria.

The Passion of the Christ came out in 2004 and was immediately labeled as “anti-Semitic” by its detractors. Though it never won an Academy Award, it holds the all time box office record for an R-rated film, having grossed $370,782,930 in the US and a whopping $611,899,420 worldwide. To the surprise of many, it became a major hit among audiences in the Arab world:

Mel Gibson’s controversial movie “The Passion of the Christ,” is breaking box office records across the Middle East. With the approach of Easter, Arab Christians identify primarily with the religious message. But it’s the film’s popularity among Muslims – even though it flouts Islamic taboos – that’s turning it into a phenomenon.

Islam forbids the depiction of a prophet, and Koranic verses deny the crucifixion ever occurred. For those reasons, the film is banned in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain. It’s also banned in Israel – but for other reasons.

“Banned in Israel–but for other reasons.” The above is from an article about The Passion that was published in the Christian Science Monitor on April 9, 2004. You’ll notice that the countries which banned the film–Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain–are today all allied with each other in the support of terrorists in Syria…where the film was not banned.

But to get back to the Christian Science Monitor piece. The article includes a quote from an Israeli Jew, who damns the film as anti-Semitic “both in intent and effect.”

“I have no doubt that the film is anti-Semitic both in intent and effect, but I’m very wary of some Jewish organizations’ reactions to it,” said Yossi Klein Halevi, who is identified as being affiliated with the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.

“It needs to be more nuanced,” Halevi complained. “When an evangelical in Colorado Springs sees it, he doesn’t see anti-Semitism. But when Yasser Arafat sees it and calls it an important historic event, he’s responding to that anti-Semitism. And the fact that it’s becoming a major hit in the Arab world, that has consequences… ‘The Passion’ is where Mel Gibson and Yasser Arafat meet, and it isn’t bound by a love of Jesus.”

As alluded to in Halevi’s quote, The Passion was commented upon by former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who is said to have attended a screening of the film along with Christian leaders. After the screening, an aide to Arafat remarked, “The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.”

Here again, the passage of history is deeply significant. In October of 2004, Arafat came down with a severe illness, and on November 11 he died at a hospital in Paris. There was suspicion the death was not due to natural causes, but it wasn’t until 2013 that a team of Swiss scientists released the results of a months-long investigation showing Arafat most likely had died of polonium poisoning. Many today speculate that Israel was behind the assassination.

Ariel Sharon, who himself came to a bad end, was the leader of Israel at the time Arafat was poisoned. The former Israeli prime minister suffered from obesity and weighed 254 pounds, and on January 4, 2006, he was overcome by a hemorrhagic stroke. The last eight years of his life were spent in a coma.

“The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.” When we recall what the people of Gaza in particularly have endured over the years, the analogy has validity. While I am not comparing Yasser Arafat to Jesus, the latter’s words from the Gospel of John, chapter 15, are worth recalling:

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father.  You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.

Jesus was sent by God to teach humanity how to live in peace. He was born among the Jews not because Jews are “chosen” by God, but because Jews especially were in need of hearing this message. Jesus was the long-awaited Jewish messiah, but because he preached a message of peace rather than war and conquest, the Jews rejected him. Here are the words of Mary in the first chapter of Luke–a passage that is often referred to as the “song of Mary.”

My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for the Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
His mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever.

Ave Maria, gratia. And if you think about it, you’ll notice another deeply significant sequence of events. Mary’s words that God “helped his servant Israel,” is of course an allusion to the Old Testament narrative. But then came the birth of Jesus; his rejection and the calls for his crucifixion in 30 A.D.; followed by a stupendously stunning Jewish downfall just 40 years later–in 70 A.D.–when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. One wonders if a somewhat similar type downfall may await the modern Jewish state.

My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. Here is another rendition of Ave Maria sung by Dolores O’Riordan, this time accompanied by Luciano Pavarotti:

Ave Maria, gratia. Gratia.

Blessed Are the Peacemakers

[ Ed. note – The video above is of a townhall meeting conducted last week by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard in her home state of Hawaii. If you want to hear the congresswoman discuss the situation in Syria, fast forward the video to about 10 minutes in. Gabbard, who introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists act in Congress and who has drawn fire for challenging the media lies about Syria (most recently for questioning the narrative that the Assad government was behind the April 4 chemical weapons attack), is one of a number of a small number of prominent Americans who have been a voice of sanity in a world seemingly gone mad and moving closer and closer to war.

The article below,

“Blessed Are the Peacemakers,” holds up Gabbard, along with Professor Stephen Cohen, as models of modern-day peacemakers, and encourages Christians to follow their example. The irony of course: Gabbard is Hindu and Cohen is Jewish. The writer of the article, Yvonne Lorenzo, makes the point that there are “too few Americans who value the teachings of Christ on the primacy of peace—or at least value them enough to fight for them.” She is right. Something like 70 percent of Americans identify in some manner as “Christian.”

Blessed are the peacemakers,
    for they will be called children of God.

So said Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. If we truly want to be children of God, it is our duty to be peacemakers. And this means challenging the war mongers and speaking out as Cohen and Gabbard have done. We owe it to ourselves, our families, and to the planet we live on. ]

Blessed Are the Peacemakers

By Yvonne Lorenzo

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Matthew 5:9 

I am writing these words before Good Friday (including Orthodox Christian) 2017. Tensions between nations have never been greater. Although there are tens of millions of people in America who profess the Christian faith, there appears to be very little in the way of public protests against military actions and incipient war.

Recently, conservative talk show host Michael Savage publicly criticized President Trump’s decision to attack Syria. His conversation with author and columnist Pat Buchannan is on this YouTube of his broadcast on April 11th. In his book, Trump’s War, Mr. Savage wrote in the chapter “Trump’s War against the War Machine” these wise observations:

Just after the election, I saw Mel Gibson’s movie Hacksaw Ridge. It’s about the U.S. Army medic Desmond T. Doss, who served at the vicious Battle of Okinawa in World War II but refused to kill anyone. He became the first man in American history to win the Medal of Honor without firing a single shot.

This was the perfect movie to see in the context of Donald Trump as an anti-war President. While I was watching this moving film, Trump was speaking to Russian president Vladimir Putin, even though Trump hadn’t been sworn in yet. The two men vowed to work together…

One of the reasons I worked so hard to get Trump elected is I believe he will be a man of peace. Put everything else aside. The most important thing in this world is not the economy. It’s peace.

I’ve written about Desmond T. Doss and there are several excellent articles on Lew Rockwell’s site; I’ve also written about the work and writing of Professor Stephen Cohen. In his appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show on April 12th, 2017, he discussed the bombing of Syria:

[Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev] said American-Russian relations are absolutely ruined—ruined. He’s considered the most pro-Western member of the Russian leadership…and the politics in Russia today as we talk is if not the conviction the concern that America is preparing for war against Russia…my concern is that Russia will overreact…

(In forty years as a Russia expert) I’ve never been as worried as I am today about war with Russia.”

Yet far from most of the political leadership agreeing with Professor Cohen, they react with outrage against those who challenge their agenda; witness the attacks against Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard:

Sporting a sweet new “Resist” picture on Twitter, Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress and author of numerous embarrassing email exchanges with John Podesta, called on Hawaiians to oust their Representative, Tulsi Gabbard, for having the audacity to question whether Assad was responsible for the recent chemical weapons attacks in Syria…

Gabbard told CNN on Friday that she wants to achieve peace in Syria, “Why should we just blindly follow this escalation of a counterproductive regime-change war?”

“There’s responsibility that goes around,” Gabbard said. “Standing here pointing fingers does not accomplish peace for the Syrian people. It will not bring about an end to this war.”

Meanwhile, former DNC chair Howard Dean also decided to join in on ganging up on Gabbard, but he immediately got shut down by a follower who asked the obvious question of why engaging in dialogue was disqualifying for Gabbard but violating federal record retention laws and a Congressional subpoena was perfectly fine for Hillary.

Here is Gabbard’s official statement that enraged so many of our elected representatives:

It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia—which could lead to nuclear war.

This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning.  If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder.

I am not a Russia expert like Professor Cohen yet I believe we ignore his warning at our peril. Right now, there is the potential for military conflict with North Korea, Syria, Russia and Iran. Yet for a few righteous voices crying out and being either scorned or ignored, there are sadly too few Americans who value the teachings of Christ on the primacy of peace—or at least value them enough to fight for them. How will God judge us for not taking a stand when now more than ever it matters so much and literally the world is at stake?


Gabbard versus CNN


US Veteran Stands With Assad Government

US Marine Corps Veteran Angelo John Gage

60 Percent of Swedes View US as a Major Threat to World Peace

[ Ed. note – In a post I put up on Monday I wrote, “The US government’s unquenchable thirst for overturning other governments is the greatest threat to world peace today.” Apparently 60 percent of the people of Sweden agree with me. Below is a news story on a recent poll conducted in Sweden; the video above supplies an analysis on the conflict in Syria, but also mentions the poll. ]

RT

The number of Swedes who believe the US is one of the major threats to world peace and security has jumped to 60 percent, an annual poll has shown, with officials noting a 6 percentage points jump since last year.

The biggest changes in the way the Swedes see the world’s civil preparedness, security policy and defense have occurred in their attitude towards the United States, the recent poll carried out by the Sweden’s Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) suggests.

The MSB poll was conducted from December 9-14, after Donald Trump’s win in the US presidential elections in November.

“That is a significant change,” MSB general director Helena Lindberg said of the jump from 54 percent in 2015 to 60 percent in 2016, according to Swedish daily Sydsvenska.

Swedes generally (73 percent) express great concern and fear over the current situation in the world, as well as their future. However, nine out of 10 Swedes confirm that Sweden is still “a good country to live in.”

At the same time, 58 percent of people believe that Sweden is likely to see a terrorist attack in the next five years, a slight uptick of 1 percentage point higher than in 2015.

Despite that, the proportion of those who believe that Sweden in five years will be a better country to live in increased from 2015’s 13 percent to 18 percent, while the proportion of those who think that living conditions will be worse decreased from 54 percent to 42 percent.

A political threat from another country seems likely to occur by 47 percent of Swedes, while propaganda or false information spread by foreign states looks probable to 44 percent.

Swedes’ negative perception of Russia has relaxed a bit, with 77 percent calling Russia a threat to the world peace – 5 percentage points less than last year.

More than half of the people who took part in the poll welcomed Sweden’s participation in the EU’s foreign and security policy work, saying it promotes peace and security inside the country. Among the factors affecting peace and security negatively, 55 percent named the influx of asylum-seekers.

More than 1,000 people aged between 18 to 74 took part in the survey.

Fidel Castro Ruz. His Legacy Will Live Forever

Global Research, November 26, 2016
Fidel-Castro 2

Today, November 25, 2016 Fidel Castro Ruz, leader of the Cuban Revolution has passed. His legacy will live forever. 

The Cuban Revolution constitutes a fundamental landmark in the history of humanity, which challenges the legitimacy of global capitalism.

In all major regions of the World, the Cuban revolution has been a source of inspiration in the relentless struggle against colonial domination and US imperialism.

Fidel Castro was the embodiment of these struggles against global capitalism, committed to a World of Peace, a World of truth, where people join hands,  a World of understanding, a World of tolerance and respect.

Fidel Castro was “a man of tremendous integrity, with an acute mind and sense of humor, committed in the minute detail of his speech to social progress and the advancement of humankind, conscious of the dangers of the US led war and the Worldwide crisis, with exceptional skills of analysis and understanding of his fellow human beings, with a true sprit of internationalism and a tremendous knowledge of history, economics and geopolitics.” (quoted from my 2o10 introduction)

Fidel’s passing occurs at a time of crisis and upheaval of the World capitalist system.  

The World is at a critical crossroads. At this juncture of our history, most progressive movements towards socialism have been destroyed and defeated through US led wars, military interventions, destabilization campaigns, coups d’etats.

The socialist project in Cuba prevails despite the US economic blockade, CIA intelligence ops and dirty politics.

Let us be under no illusions. Washington’s intent is not only to destroy and undermine the Cuban Revolution but also to erase the history of socialism.

Fidel Lives.

The battle against war and neoliberalism nonetheless prevails. 

For the concurrent demise of neoliberalism and militarization which destroy people’s lives,

For the outright criminalization of America’s imperial wars,

For a World of Social Justice with a true “responsibility to protect” our fellow human beings,

Long Live Fidel Castro  

Fidel Castro Ruz at the United Nations General Assembly in 1960 (left)

*      *      *

Below is the introduction of my conversations with Fidel Castro on World War III and the Dangers of Nuclear War followed by the transcript of Fidel’s statement on the Dangers o Nuclear War

To read the full text of the conversations click here

Conversations with Fidel Castro: The Dangers of a Nuclear War

first published in November 2010

In October 2010, I had the opportunity of spending several days at Fidel Castro`s home in the suburbs of Havana. Our conversation and exchange which was subsequently published focussed on the dangers of nuclear war.

I had read Fidel Castro and Che Guevara during my high school days in Geneva, Switzerland and later at university in Britain and the US. When meeting him in person, I discovered a man of tremendous integrity, with an acute mind and sense of humor, committed in the minute detail of his speech to social progress and the advancement of humankind, conscious of the dangers of the US led war and the Worldwide crisis, with exceptional skills of analysis and understanding of his fellow human beings, with a true sprit of internationalism and a tremendous knowledge of history, economics and geopolitics.

On a daily basis, Fidel spends several hours reading a large number of detailed international press reports (As he mentioned to me with a smile, “I frequently consult articles from the Global Research website”…).

We focussed in large part on the dangers of nuclear war. Fidel Castro has the knack of addressing political details while relating them to key concepts. We also covered numerous complex international issues, focussing on the role of prominent political personalities, heads of State, authors and intellectuals. On the first day, when I met Fidel at his home, he was reading Bob Woodward’s best-seller The Obama Wars which had just been released. (See Picture below).

In this broad exchange of ideas, Fidel was invariably assertive in his views but at the same time respectful of those whom he condemned or criticized, particularly when discussing US presidential politics.

Fidel is acutely aware of the mechanisms of media disinformation and war propaganda and how they are used to undermine civil rights and social progress, not to mention the smear campaign directed against the Cuban revolution.

A central concept put forth by Fidel Castro in our discussions was the ‘Battle of Ideas”.  The leader of the Cuban Revolution believes that only a far-reaching “Battle of Ideas” can change the course of World history.

In addressing and understanding this Worldwide crisis, commitment to the Truth and analysis of the lies and fabrications which sustain the corporate and financial elites is of utmost importance.

The overriding powers of the Truth can, under appropriate conditions, be used as a revolutionary instrument, as a catalyst to unseat the war criminals in high office, whose role and position is sustained by propaganda and media disinformation.

In relation to 9/11, Fidel  had expressed his solidarity, on behalf of the Cuban people, with the victims of the tragic events of September 11 2001, while underscoring the lies and fabrications behind the official 9/11 narrative and how 9/11 has been used as a pretext to wage war.

Our focus was on nuclear war, which since our meeting last October [2010] has motivated me to write a book on the Dangers of Nuclear War. (Michel Chossudovsky, Towards a World War III Scenario. Global Research, Montreal, 2011)

The corporate media is involved in acts of camouflage. The devastating impacts of a nuclear war are either trivialized or not mentioned. Against this backdrop, Fidel’s message to the World must be heard; people across the land, nationally and internationally, should understand the gravity of the present situation and act forcefully at all levels of society to reverse the tide of war.

The “Battle of Ideas” is part of a revolutionary process. Against a barrage of media disinformation, Fidel Castro’s resolve is to spread the word far and wide, to inform world public opinion, to “make the impossible possible”, to thwart a military adventure which in the real sense of the word threatens the future of humanity.

When a US sponsored nuclear war becomes an “instrument of peace”, a “responsibility to protect” condoned and accepted by the World’s institutions and the highest authority including the United Nations, there is no turning back:  human society has indelibly been precipitated headlong onto the path of self-destruction.


Fidel Castro Ruz, October 15, 2010

Fidel’s “Battle of Ideas” must be translated into a worldwide movement. People must mobilize against this diabolical military agenda.

This war can be prevented if people pressure their governments and elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens regarding the implications of a thermonuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.

What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people’s movement which criminalizes war.

In his October 15, 2010 speech, Fidel Castro warned the World on the dangers of nuclear war:

“There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people. In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.

Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!”

The “Battle of Ideas” consists in confronting the war criminals in high office, in breaking the US-led consensus in favor of a global war, in changing the mindset of hundreds of millions of people, in abolishing nuclear weapons. In essence, the “Battle of Ideas” consists in restoring the truth and establishing the foundations of World peace.

“The Battle of Ideas” must be developed as a mass movement, nationally and internationally, waged by people across the land.

Fidel Castro Ruz has indelibly marked the history of both the Twentieth and Twenty-first Century.

Below is the transcript and video of Fidel’s historic October 15 2010 speech focussing on the dangers of a nuclear war, recorded by Global Research and Cuba Debate in his home in Havana in October 2010.

The American and European media in October 2010 decided in chorus not to acknowledge or even comment on Fidel Castro’s October 15, 2010 speech on the Dangers of Nuclear War. The evolving media consensus is that neither nuclear war nor nuclear energy constitute a threat to “the surrounding civilian population”.

*       *       *

Fidel Castro’s October 15, 2010 Message on the Dangers of Nuclear War

The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity. This was candidly foreseen by scientist Albert Einstein who was able to measure their destructive capability to generate millions of degrees of heat, which would vaporize everything within a wide radius of action. This brilliant researcher had promoted the development of this weapon so that it would not become available to the genocidal Nazi regime.

Each and every government in the world has the obligation to respect the right to life of each and every nation and of the totality of all the peoples on the planet.

Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don’t harbour the least doubt that an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.

The World’s peoples have an obligation to demand of their political leaders their Right to Live. When the life of humankind, of your people and your most beloved human beings run such a risk, nobody can afford to be indifferent; not one minute can be lost in demanding respect for that right; tomorrow will be too late.

Albert Einstein himself stated unmistakably: “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”. We fully comprehend what he wanted to convey, and he was absolutely right, yet in the wake of a global nuclear war, there wouldn’t be anybody around to make use of those sticks and stones.

There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people.

In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.

Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!

Fidel Castro Ruz

October 15, 2010

The following pictures wer taken after the filming of Fidel’s speech against Nuclear war, October 15, 2010 . Below is a Toast to World Peace.


Left to Right. Fidel Castro, Film Crew, Michel Chossudovsky, Randy Alonso Falcon


From Right to Left: Fidel Castro Ruz, Dalia Soto del Valle, Michel Chossudovsky. A Toast for World Peace. 


From Right to Left: Fidel Castro Ruz, Dalia Soto del Valle, Alexis Castro Soto del Valle, Randy Alonso Falcon and Michel Chossudovsky (Left)

Right to Left: Fidel Castro Ruz, Randy Alonso Falcon, Michel Chossudovsky, October 15, 2010. Copyright Global Research 2010

Photos: Copyright Global Research 2010

Putin on Obama’s regime which routinely is ignoring international law and international protocols


While the US is pointing fingers at all kinds of ‘violations’ on behalf of other countries, it is one of few countries in the world (besides perhaps, their most devoted vassals) that routinely ignore international law and international protocols, while accusing their opponent of exactly that.
(Translated by Inessa Sinchougova)

A Russian warning

A Russian warning

The Saker

June 01, 2016

We, the undersigned, are Russians living and working in the USA. We have been watching with increasing anxiety as the current US and NATO policies have set us on an extremely dangerous collision course with the Russian Federation, as well as with China. Many respected, patriotic Americans, such as Paul Craig Roberts, Stephen Cohen, Philip Giraldi, Ray McGovern and many others have been issuing warnings of a looming a Third World War. But their voices have been all but lost among the din of a mass media that is full of deceptive and inaccurate stories that characterize the Russian economy as being in shambles and the Russian military as weak—all based on no evidence. But we—knowing both Russian history and the current state of Russian society and the Russian military, cannot swallow these lies. We now feel that it is our duty, as Russians living in the US, to warn the American people that they are being lied to, and to tell them the truth. And the truth is simply this:

If there is going to be a war with Russia, then the United States
will most certainly be destroyed, and most of us will end up dead
.

Let us take a step back and put what is happening in a historical context. Russia has suffered a great deal at the hands of foreign invaders, losing 22 million people in World War II. Most of the dead were civilians, because the country was invaded, and the Russians have vowed to never let such a disaster happen again. Each time Russia had been invaded, she emerged victorious. In 1812 Napoleon invaded Russia; in 1814 Russian cavalry rode into Paris. On June 22, 1941, Hitler’s Luftwaffe bombed Kiev; On May 8, 1945, Soviet troops rolled into Berlin.

But times have changed since then. If Hitler were to attack Russia today, he would be dead 20 to 30 minutes later, his bunker reduced to glowing rubble by a strike from a Kalibr supersonic cruise missile launched from a small Russian navy ship somewhere in the Baltic Sea. The operational abilities of the new Russian military have been most persuasively demonstrated during the recent action against ISIS, Al Nusra and other foreign-funded terrorist groups operating in Syria. A long time ago Russia had to respond to provocations by fighting land battles on her own territory, then launching a counter-invasion; but this is no longer necessary. Russia’s new weapons make retaliation instant, undetectable, unstoppable and perfectly lethal.

Thus, if tomorrow a war were to break out between the US and Russia, it is guaranteed that the US would be obliterated. At a minimum, there would no longer be an electric grid, no Internet, no oil and gas pipelines, no interstate highway system, no air transportation or GPS-based navigation. Financial centers would lie in ruins. Government at every level would cease to function. US armed forces, stationed all around the globe, would no longer be resupplied. At a maximum, the entire landmass of the US would be covered by a layer of radioactive ash. We tell you this not to be alarmist, but because, based on everything we know, we are ourselves alarmed. If attacked, Russia will not back down; she will retaliate, and she will utterly annihilate the United States.

The US leadership has done everything it could to push the situation to the brink of disaster. First, its anti-Russian policies have convinced the Russian leadership that making concessions or negotiating with the West is futile. It has become apparent that the West will always support any individual, movement or government that is anti-Russian, be it tax-cheating Russian oligarchs, convicted Ukrainian war criminals, Saudi-supported Wahhabi terrorists in Chechnya or cathedral-desecrating punks in Moscow. Now that NATO, in violation of its previous promises, has expanded right up to the Russian border, with US forces deployed in the Baltic states, within artillery range of St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city, the Russians have nowhere left to retreat. They will not attack; nor will they back down or surrender. The Russian leadership enjoys over 80% of popular support; the remaining 20% seems to feel that it is being too soft in opposing Western encroachment. But Russia will retaliate, and a provocation or a simple mistake could trigger a sequence of events that will end with millions of Americans dead and the US in ruins.

Unlike many Americans, who see war as an exciting, victorious foreign adventure, the Russians hate and fear war. But they are also ready for it, and they have been preparing for war for several years now. Their preparations have been most effective. Unlike the US, which squanders untold billions on dubious overpriced arms programs such as the F-35 joint task fighter, the Russians are extremely stingy with their defense rubles, getting as much as 10 times the bang for the buck compared to the bloated US defense industry. While it is true that the Russian economy has suffered from low energy prices, it is far from being in shambles, and a return to growth is expected as early as next year. Senator John McCain once called Russia “A gas station masquerading as a country.” Well, he lied. Yes, Russia is the world’s largest oil producer and second-largest oil exporter, but it is also world’s largest exporter of grain and nuclear power technology. It is as advanced and sophisticated a society as the United States. Russia’s armed forces, both conventional and nuclear, are now ready to fight, and they are more than a match for the US and NATO, especially if a war erupts anywhere near the Russian border.

But such a fight would be suicidal for all sides. We strongly believe that a conventional war in Europe runs a strong chance of turning nuclear very rapidly, and that any US/NATO nuclear strike on Russian forces or territory will automatically trigger a retaliatory Russian nuclear strike on the continental US. Contrary to irresponsible statements made by some American propagandists, American antiballistic missile systems are incapable of shielding the American people from a Russian nuclear strike. Russia has the means to strike at targets in the USA with long-range nuclear as well as conventional weapons.

The sole reason why the USA and Russia have found themselves on a collision course, instead of defusing tensions and cooperating on a wide range of international problems, is the stubborn refusal by the US leadership to accept Russia as an equal partner: Washington is dead set on being the “world leader” and the “indispensable nation,” even as its influence steadily dwindles in the wake of a string of foreign policy and military disasters such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and the Ukraine. Continued American global leadership is something that neither Russia, nor China, nor most of the other countries are willing to accept. This gradual but apparent loss of power and influence has caused the US leadership to become hysterical; and it is but a small step from hysterical to suicidal. America’s political leaders need to be placed under suicide watch.

First and foremost, we are appealing to the commanders of the US Armed Forces to follow the example of Admiral William Fallon, who, when asked about a war with Iran, reportedly replied “not on my watch. We know that you are not suicidal, and that you do not wish to die for the sake of out-of-touch imperial hubris. If possible, please tell your staff, colleagues and, especially, your civilian superiors that a war with Russia will not happen on your watch. At the very least, take that pledge to yourself, and, should the day ever come when the suicidal order is issued, simply refuse to execute it on the grounds that it is criminal.

Remember that according to the Nuremberg Tribunal

To initiate a war of aggression… is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

Since Nuremberg, “I was just following orders” is no longer a valid defense; please don’t be war criminals.

We also appeal to the American people to take peaceful but forceful action to oppose any politician or party that engages in irresponsible, provocative Russia-baiting, and that condones and supports a policy of needless confrontation with a nuclear superpower that is capable of destroying the US in about an hour. Speak up, break through the barrier of mass media propaganda, and make your fellow Americans aware of the immense danger of a confrontation between Russia and the US.

There is no objective reason why US and Russia should consider each other as adversaries. The current confrontation is entirely the result of the extremist views of the neoconservative movement, whose members have infiltrated the US Federal government, and who consider any country that refuses to obey their dictates as an enemy to be crushed. Thanks to their tireless efforts, over a million innocent people have already died in the former Yugoslavia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, the Ukraine, Yemen, Somalia and in many other countries—all because of their maniacal insistence that the USA must be a world empire, not a just a regular, normal country, and that every national leader must either bow down before it, or be overthrown. In Russia, the irresistible force that is the neocon movement has finally encountered the immovable object. They must be forced to back down before they destroy us all.

We are absolutely and categorically certain that Russia will never attack the US, nor any EU member state, that Russia is not at all interested in recreating the USSR, and that there is no “Russian threat” or “Russian aggression.” Much of Russia’s recent economic success has a lot to do with the shedding of former Soviet dependencies, allowing her to pursue a “Russia first” policy. But we are just as certain that if Russia is attacked, or even threatened with attack, she will not back down, and that the Russian leadership will not “blink.” With great sadness and a heavy heart they will do their sworn duty and unleash a nuclear barrage from which the United States will never recover. Even if the entire Russian leadership is killed in a first strike, the so-called “Dead Hand” (the “Perimetr” system) will automatically launch enough nukes to wipe the USA off the political map. We feel that it is our duty to do all we can to prevent such a catastrophe.

Eugenia V Gurevich, PhD
http://thesaker.ru/
Dmitri Orlov
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/
The Saker (A. Raevsky)
http://thesaker.is/
%d bloggers like this: