Hillary Clinton is American, owned by financial interests to whom she is completely in thrall, a rabid neo-conservative warmonger, completely uncritical of Israel and focused for any claim to be progressive entirely on identity politics. Which is also a precise description of today’s Guardian newspaper. The once august and intellectual title is now a shrill cheerleader for far right Blairites and wealthy American feminists.
The Guardian is as unabashed in its support for Clinton as in its support for the Blairites. The stream of “feminist” articles about why it would advance the cause of women to have a deeply corrupt right winger in the White House is steadily growing into a torrent. It is a perfect example of what I wrote of a month ago, the cause of feminism being hijacked to neo-conservative ends.
Bernie Sanders is not perfect – nobody is. But he understands that obscene and still burgeoning wealth inequality is the greatest problem of western society, and that the state framework supporting crazed banking structures is the root cause of this. The support for him is a sign of the inevitable popular reaction to the extreme inequality of society. Sanders is channelling that reaction effectively.
The establishment therefore circles its wagons around Hillary Clinton. The hope is that women can be persuaded it is an act of misogyny simply to stand in her way. The other great establishment hope is that the Democrat party machinery is so strong in black communities, that black Americans can be in effect ordered to vote for a woman who epitomises the system which disadvantages them, rather than an apostle of genuine change in the economic order. I retain hope the establishment may find that black Americans are cleverer than that.
The machinery used to manipulate identity politics – racial and gender – is all that Clinton has. If Clinton beats Sanders, it will be the perfect demonstration of the fact that identity politics has become the enemy of progress in society.
In the field of identity, Bernie Sanders would be the first non-Christian President of the United States. Would that not be wonderful in a country whose politicians feel the need to genuflect to swarms of religious evolution-denying nutters who believe foreign wars are good because they presage the Rapture?
And would it not be great if the first President since Carter not in thrall to Israel were Jewish?
Resident Dissident
14 Feb, 2016 – 9:17 pm
“PS Scorgie – I have always opposed serial abusers of human rights such as the House of Saud.”
……………………………..
Not quite true ResDis. You have consistently supported Zionist Israel, have you not?
Mr Scorgie
Resident Dissident’s “crime” (in your eyes only) is as nothing compared to your often-expressed belief that the State of Israel has no right to exist.
Habbabkuk: “Resident Dissident’s “crime” (in your eyes only) is as nothing compared to your often-expressed belief that the State of Israel has no right to exist.”
If your position is that denying the “right to exist” is a crime, then could you refer me to a single Israeli minister, spokesman or other official, who even acknowledges that Palestinians have a “right to exist” at all, particularly in a their own Palestinian state?
Do you personally acknowledge the right of Palestinians to exist, as a people, in their own state?
Glen,
Perhaps we should rephrase that for DR’s and Habbabkuk’s pleasure, and state do both parties agree that a long and lasting, perhaps even just, settlement to the Israeli problem is that Israel agrees to return to its pre-1967 borders, acknowledges the Palestine right to exist, and that Palestine, based on Israel’s pre-1967 border do like wise, that is accept Israel exists, despite the ethnic cleansing the Zionists under took prior to the nations part ion and recognition by the UN.
Is a lasting peace really too much to ask for, or does Israel and its Zionist supporters believe it right and proper to piss off most of the Muslim world?
Of course we’ll get a load of dribble in response, but at least for the benefit of viewers it puts the ball in the Zionists court and those who believe Israel can do no wrong, despite evidence stretching to the moon suggesting otherwise.
Paul Barbara,
Re: Libya
I don’t know if you’ve heard Jim and JoAnne Moriarty’s story: a link has been posted on this blog a couple of times over the past year or so.
The Moriartys knew Libya and the Libyans very well, working with them in the oil business, and were in the country when the shit hit the fan.
They tried to tell the US authorities what they knew, but the authorities didn’t want to know and totally fucked them.
http://www.sott.net/article/298448-NATO-Slaughter-James-and-Joanne-Moriarty-expose-the-truth-about-what-happened-in-Libya
Chris Rogers: A very fair question indeed (above at 19:22), and likely the only deal which fair minded independent observers, and both sides of the (very one-sided) conflict itself, could all consider to have a semblance of fairness about it.
Israel’s champions here are doing a huge disservice to that country, while they go shucking and jiving around the issue, such as demanding proof that Palestine historically existed at all, and when provided with same, bring the same question up afresh a little later. All very well-worn tactics of the thoroughly dishonest, I’m sorry to say.
If they were really “friends of Israel” they would do what any friend ought for another – tell them when they are behaving in an atrocious manner, and urge them to desist.
In the meantime, a little honesty could be demonstrated by accepting that this “right to exist” is an entirely one-sided standard being applied only to the direct victims of Israel, and never would consider applying it to Israel, or themselves personally, when it comes to recognition of the humanity of Palestinians.
Chris Rogers- thanks for linking to the Jeffrey Sachs article at HuffPo- he really does seem to be a reformed character, doing his best to atone for his mistakes in Russia over 2 decades ago.
It isn’t every day a figure with such establishment links as Sachs goes (with every justification)for Hillary with both barrels, or indeed writes thus about JFK-
Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government.
Sharmine Narwani tweets that the publishing of the Jeffrey Sach article on Syria marks a u-turn;
“In 2011, @HuffingtonPost shut down my voice on #Syria: http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/4884 In 2016, they’ve come full circle: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html”
Her al-akhbar post makes very interesting reading;
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/4884
Tories deliberately killing us off. They can’t even blame the weather.
First they came for the….
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/12158930/Biggest-annual-rise-in-deaths-for-almost-fifty-years-prompts-warnings-of-crisis-in-elderly-care.html
“Biggest annual rise in deaths for almost fifty years prompts warnings of crisis in elderly care.
England and Wales show a five per cent increase in mortality rates in just one year”
CE; “So giving the comments a quick glance it seems that Nato deploying warships in the Aegean to help with the refuge crisis, bad,”
In response to the gullible, Finian Cunningham sets out why it’s very, very bad indeed;
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44225.htm
Yet more gathering war clouds !
Macky if the vessels dispatched are as the following;
HMCS Fredericton (FFH 337)
It is not a war footing but a patrol mission to stop the injection of Refugees through Turkey. Recollecting that Erdogan had threatened that he will amass the refugees in Eu borders if his retainer was not increased to six billion Euro.
The more dangerous development is the al saud Turkish alliance to bounce the US into a direct confrontation with Russia.
@Fedup, from the article;
“These are heavy-duty warships, bigger than destroyer class, each bristling with an array of weaponry, including anti-aircraft, anti-ship, anti-submarine and anti-missile firepower.”
Has Finian Cunningham got this wrong ?
Jeffrey Sachs published in 2014 a book about JFK’s 1963 American University peace speech: To Move the World: JFK’s Quest for Peace. So he no doubt had to familiarize himself with the history of the year when JFK was assassinated, and with JFK’s peace moves.
RT: Like Thatcher with apartheid: UK to ban public bodies from boycotting Israeli West Bank goods.
I also heard on line that a student in the UK was interrogated by police for wearing a t-shirt that expressed sympathy with the Palestinians.
On June 10, 2006, the Department of Defense reported that Saudi Arabians Mani al-Utaybi and Yasser al-Zahrani, and a Yemeni citizen, Ali Abdullah Ahmed, “killed themselves in an apparent suicide pact.”
I remember when these alleged suicides were announced. A Pentagon spokesman said the suicides were illegitimate asymmetric warfare.
Source for that story about the Guantanamo alleged suicides: ‘They caused problems’: CIA involved with Gitmo inmates’ suicides – former guard to RT.
Naval assets are not as invulnerable as the navy would like to think they are. These can be tracked through a whole gamut of methods starting with satellites and ending up with hydrophones embedded around the various seas.
however the nature of the three ships despatched there is more of a interdiction than any offensive capabilities. Not forgetting that I am not sitting at the planning table and discussing tactics, these assets are more suited to tackle the smugglers, although given the Turkish navy’s involvement still leaves the back door open for the smugglers to get through.
The more immediate problem is the shelling of the Aleppo districts by the Turkish howitzers under the pretext of fighting YPG. BTW this group is a communist set up hence the abundance of the women fighters in their ranks whom are the scourge of the takfiris/Wahhabi terrorists. There is firm belief among the said terrorists that if they fall by the bullets of women these will not go to paradise!
Also this morning the Syrian Army has managed to get back the power station in Aleppo, and they are pushing for a town further up the road that ought to be captured by the end of today or in a day or so, given the ferocity of the fighting. This fight is a classic urban warfare; from building to building the same was the Case in Berlin during WWII. A bloody and destructive war that leaves little unscathed.
These photos however tell a story of life taking it’s course :A Syrian Wedding Photo Shoot
I believe the groom ought to be a Muslim and an officer in Syrian army and my understanding is the bride should be of Christian faith. A touching scene and a ray of hope in the desolate and bleak war ravaged city.
Lyasis: “I also heard on line that a student in the UK was interrogated by police for wearing a t-shirt that expressed sympathy with the Palestinians.”
Read on….
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-e161-Wales-v-Israel-Let-the-Palestinian-flags-fly/
“illegitimate asymmetric warfare”
The debasement & bastardisation of language & commonsense reality, as Orwell noted, “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable”.
“Britain’s Conservative government is to announce next week a law that would ban local councils, student unions and other public bodies form boycotting goods for political reasons. The rules are widely seen as meant to protect goods produced by Israeli companies in the occupied West Bank.”
(from the Pugn**ious One’s Russia Today link).
__________________________
They may be widely seen as that but the proposed ban is erga omnes.
It could be used in the future to prevent a City Council from boycotting goods from any country that City Council has decided it disapproves of.
As such it is a long overdue action.
After all, it is not the rôle of local councils, student bodies and other public bodies to unilaterally forge foreign policy. They are there to represent the interests of the local communities and students and the citizenry in general. To adopt foreign policy postures would be to act ultra vires.
If a local council decides to boycott goods or services from, say, Israel – or India, or Russia or even China – what is their democratic legitimacy for so doing? Was such intention ever put to the local electors when the Council was elected – and how does the council know that it is carrying out the wishes of the electorate as a whole?
Glenn-UK
What would be the point of people turning up to the Wales-Israel match wearing pro-Palestinian t-shirts (one can imagine what would be on the t-shirts)?
You will answer : to make a political point.
To which some might reasonably answer : why do it at a sporting event, at which the vast majority of the spectators want to see a good game and probably neither share the opinions of the “protesters” nor give a stuff about Israel or Palestine.
After all, there are many other avenues for making their views known.
Why – they could even post on this blog! 🙂
“If a local council decides to boycott goods or services from, say, Israel – or India, or Russia or even China – what is their democratic legitimacy for so doing? Was such intention ever put to the local electors when the Council was elected – and how does the council know that it is carrying out the wishes of the electorate as a whole?”
Remind me, Habbabkuk – on what page of the Tory Party’s manifesto does it say we’ll bow and scrape to Israel, thwart our own local democracy to further its wishes, ignore all Israel’s crimes, promote it on the world stage and ignore both public sympathy and UN resolutions on Palestine? If not, how does the government “know that it is carrying out the wishes of the electorate as a whole?” – opinion polls perhaps?
I love the way right wingers promote local democracy as such a wonderful thing, unless they disagree with it, in which case central government should have absolute control. As long as they run central government, of course. Wonderful principled consistency, so admirable a quality.
Interesting approach you have to free speech there, Habbabkuk, at 17:16. Political points may only be made when it suits you (and people who agree with you), I take it? Fascinating.
Perhaps you could explain how sporting a scarf or flag (no mention was made of pro-Palestinian T-shirt – you made that bit up) would bother those who – according to your own description – “want to see a good game and probably neither share the opinions of the “protesters” nor give a stuff about Israel or Palestine.” How would they be inconvenienced, exactly?
Glenn_uk
I’m genuinely puzzled – what on earth has got into you of late? You used to be a sensible sort of commenter, open to argument and responding in a measured way. Surely you do not still bear a grudge from the time when I had to rebuke you for a couple of posts (and it was quite a mild rebuke if memory serves)?
*************************
Anyway, to respond briefly to your last two posts.
Your first post:
1/. Not aware that I’ve taken the floor for local democracy in the manner you indicate or that I’ve ever described it as wonderful or the contrary. Hence you’re making a general point which you cannot know is applicable or not to me.
2/. You are comparing an abstract with something concrete and therefore making a meaningless comparison. “Bowing and scraping to Israel” and “promoting it on the world stage” is your subjective take on aspects of UK foreign policy and is abstract; councils banning goods and services from one country or the other is concrete.
Your second post:
1/. No, political points can be made when it doesn’t suit me and even if they are contrary to what I myself believe. I don’t believe in the sort of banning and censorship you seem to be accusing me of, preferring to leave them to the like of Mr Goss and other Eminences and their hangers-on.
What I do believe in, I suppose, is a certain appreciation of place and decorum. A football match is not the place for (geo)political protest. When a Soviet football toured the UK after the war to play against various British teams, should that have been the occasion for Tories, emigré Poles and so on to protest against the USSR and Soviet communism? Of course not – and there were no such demonstrations.
I also believe that there is no need to drag politics into absolutely everything. To do so is the hallmark of the grey man and the obsessive. Go to a match to enjoy the play and if you wish to protest against Israel do it outside the embassy (for example). This answers your point about “inconvenience”.
££££££££££££££££££££
Lighten up, Glenn and don’t turn into a Mr Goss , Macky, Giyane or Republicofscotland.
Tremendous article by Andre Vltchek;
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/05/europe-is-built-on-corpses-and-plunder/
“Everyone dances, or nobody does!”
I am going to be polite here:
Saudi Arabia has said that it is thinking of invading Syria. At the weekend, Turkey started shelling Kurdish positions in northern Syria, and has said that it will join the Saudis in their invasion of Syria…
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/14/turkey-and-saudi-arabia-consider-ground-campaign-in-syria-following-border-strikes
All this is totally against international law, yet is cheered-on by America and its allies, all of whom are also acting totally against international law with their bombing campaign on Syria.
Turkey is a member of NATO, and if it goes into Syria it will be attacked by the Russians, who are in Syria totally legally under international law, because the Russians have been invited by the still internationally recognised Syrian government.
Are you with me so far..?
Turkey, as a NATO member, will be attacked by the Russians if it goes into Syria. Under the NATO treaty if one member comes under attack all the other members are legally bound to come to its defence. This will put NATO in ‘direct’ conflict with Russia.
With the presstitutes not reporting any of this, one can only hope that the American military, along with the military of its European allies, will refuse orders (as they did when the Russians first intervened in Syria at the end of last September), in order to prevent the batshit crazies launching us into WW3.
Providing Putin and Assad confine themselves to fighting Turkish forces in Syria and not attacking Turkey itself then there’s no need for NATO to get involved. That’s if they even follow up on their threat.
I came in here expecting to find widespread condemnation of the recent civilian casualties in Syria but can find none.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/02/strikes-schools-hospitals-syria-war-crimes-160216032712298.html
It must be on another thread.
From Twitter feed; “BREAKING: The UNSC has called on Turkey to cease artillery fire into Syria”
Plus this;
http://off-guardian.org/2016/02/16/saudi-turkey-backpedaling-on-syria-invasion/
Kempe, Al Jazeera is based in Qatar and is funded by the vile regime there (who are funding ISIS, et al, in Syria). Spare us any links to Al Jazeera with regard to what’s going on in Syria.
With regard to recent casualties in Syria, America started bombing Syria in September 2014; once again totally against international law (but I forget, the Americans are ‘special’, aren’t they). In the year from September 2014, when the Americans started dropping their friendly bombs, the flow of refugees coming out of Syria doubled…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War
… creating the biggest refugee crisis in Europe since the Second World War. That little boy who was found drowned on a Turkish beach last year came from the Syrian town of Kobani, which has been bombed into oblivion by the Americans…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_Syria
I should warn you that I’m not the only one who’s had enough of the total vermin and scum who are part of the propaganda machine and want to launch us into another world war.
Macky, before it all became totally insane with ‘American exceptionalism’, this latest crisis in Syria would have meant an emergency meeting of the UN, to try and resolve the issue. This doesn’t happen anymore, and the UN has become as redundant as the old League of Nations in the run-up to World War Two.
The Neo-cons are a much bigger danger than the Nazis were (they’ve certainly killed more people thus far than the Nazis).
I dunno, does history repeat itself?