Incredible discussion on Free Speech

This is wonderful, incredible.  Norman Finkelstein especially knock it out of the park with a passionate and principled defense of free speech against charges of racism (starting about an hour in).  Defending the rights of all, even so called Holocaust deniers, to speak.  Jackie Walker describes that is indeed what wrongly expelled Labour MP's have been doing is trying to speak with everyone, it's the reactionary forces that refuse to let anyone speak with them.

Here's Tony Greenstein's blog post on the meeting (actually there are several) which includes another link if the above doesn't work.

One new point I'm firmly convinced of now.  Jeremy Corbyn may have been a fine socialist at one time, but his recent failure to stand up for his like minded comrades in the Labour Party against charges he knew were false, a witch hunt against socialists, anti-imperialists and anti-Zionists using false charges of anti-Semitism, using a formula he should have never agreed to, was a leadership failure that shows he was, sadly, not qualified to actually be the People's PM.  In the end, the witch hunt was about him, and failing to resist in the slightest in the beginning, he surely and rightly succumbed to it.  There had been a longstanding principle in the Labour Party that no member could be sacked for speaking their mind about anything.  Now, criticism of Israel is sufficient.  We need feel no sympathy for such cowards, but rather for those who got sacked and continue to resist the creeping fascist-imperialism, as many on this panel are doing.  And the people who need better government, which is everyone.

This shows we must never agree to fascist constraints even applied to "others," because next they'll be applied to us.  Curiously, the Labour Party follows this principle regarding real well known anti-Semites, so long as they support Israel.  Nobody bothers them.

Does this have anything to do with unaccountable intelligence agenices secretly running the world through blackmail, as the Epstein affair proved?  I'm sure that was just the tip of the iceberg.  But nobody pays attention to how and towards what ends the world is being controlled, because that's not discussed on TV.

Meanwhile, as Doug Henwood recently tweeted, Biden sucks, but Trump has to lose big.  Even though, the reason why Biden is the leading Opposition Candidate, is that he is the one most trusted by the Masters, and the secret and unaccountable agencies who operate the whole apparatus on their behalf, to give us the choice between rational moderated imperialism and irrationally brutal imperialism.  Anti-imperialists need not apply.  The people preferred Bernie to any of the showcased non-Biden alternatives, who were showcased by the DNC in the hope that one of them would rise above Bernie, while still being acceptible to the Masters because of sufficient imperialism, but none did.  Bernie, Tulsi, Gravel and Williamson were the four respectable People's anti-imperial more or less candidates, but those who run things couldn't let any of them win (even Bernie, who capitulated on Venezuela).  Ultimately all the TV ads were rolled with longstanding secret agency manchurians like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama pushing all the newly "resigned" weak-alternative candidate supporters onto the Biden bus for the sake of defeating Trump, with Bernie--who the secret agency controlled media had spent months smearing as supposedly certain to lose.  It was all so transparent, every legal strategy, and perhaps others, were deployed by the ... apparatus to deflect even the slightest electoral threat to empire.  So we have a crappy choice, but it's still worth pulling the lever against Trump as hard as possible but choosing the Democratic Party candidate.

In Britain, a 3rd party is a more a potentiality, but re-taking the Labour Party with a more principled leadership may be more attainable, I don't know.

What we know now is the kind of principles we must never agree to, and perhaps to which reform in the Labour Party ought to focus on removing.  That would be an important step.

Curiously, Gorabchev also sold out on longstanding Communist principles.  In his Perestroika, he abolishted the longstanding job guarantee.  He therefore similarly deserved to lose, which is not to endorse the extra constitutional process which drove him out, driven by secret and unaccountable agencies.  I'm not sure of his ideas today, but there are other Communists--it is the second largest party in the Russian Federation.  Putin's party leads because of, well you know by now.

Along with free speech, a job-or-income guarantee ought bo be central to socialists and communists, and is a key part of the best Green New Deal packages.

Margaret Sanger

Mostly sad to see her name get taken down by Planned Parenthood.  But it doesn't take much independent investigation to see that her views related to Eugenics, the genetic basis of feeblemindedness and similar claimed maladies, are not the image we progressives want to invoke anymore.  As such, I will agree, that it had to be done.  Sad, but necessary.  Sad because of what a heroic figure Sanger was in her other advocacy and deeds, and the heroic ongoing work by the institution she helped establish, Planned Parenthood.

I wouldn't put Sanger down with the likes of the war criminals that every US President has been, to a greater or lesser degree.  I wouldn't put Sanger down with the Genociders like Colombus, the slavery defending Confederate Generals, or anyone like that.   Sanger's "crimes" are primarily thought crimes that came about from freely expressing her views.  They are simply out of step with better information and politics we could have today, among reasonable people (which excludes longtime Sanger smearers like Ted Cruz, who truly despise her for the wrong reasons--her advocacy for abortion, and we suspect would agree with her actual worst aspects, her smearing of the genetics and other intrinsics of poor people--which pretty much continues today among conservatives).

This unpublished essay probably reveals Sanger's views in their most politically incorrect formulation (which would explain why she left it as an unpublished draft).

Like most of her time, and many people still, she seemed to have some views not unlike social darwinism, that the poor are poor because of their own faults, including lack of "intelligence", not a problem with the utterly wrong organization and direction of society.

Marx and I have tended to the opposite tack.  Speaking of Marx, Sanger attempted to debunk "Marxian Socialism."  After reading this, actually published during her career, no leftist can gather much enthusiasm to protest the removal of her name from a progressive institution, however heroic her fight was for women's rights and limiting growth.

However, that would not be unique among progressive icons.

Sanger's calling Marx an anti-Malthusian is indeed correct.  Funny, however, that a century later, the Marxist left was at the forefront, generally, of recognizing Limits to Growth, while the reactionary capitalist forces that used and abused Malthus' ideas in the 19th century had all become Cornucopians.  That would seem to suggest that the Marxist claim to being scientific actually has some merit.  Furthermore Marx's failure to see limits coincides with the lack of limits being felt for 100 years.  So, the thinking of Marxists arcs toward scientific truth as it is better understood.  Meanwhile, the direction of the reactionary arc never changes...all to the oligarchs and nothing to anybody else, either if that requires stinginess for the preservation of life of the proletariat or disregard for the consequences of growth, whichever best keeps the pyramid rising at the moment  is the order of the day, and the ultimate truth.

Vote vs Support

If Joe Biden is the Democratic Nominee for President, he has my vote, just like Hillary Clinton got it in November 2016.

If Joe Biden wants my financial support or enthusiastic campaign support, especially prior to actually becoming the actual Democratic Nominee, he ought to start offering some good ideas, such as the legalization of marijuana.  He's way behind the curve on that, not to mention Medicare for All and Universal Healthcare, which I can't imagine him backing, but the more movement in that direction the better, as far as my support.

Defeating Trump is why he gets my vote in November, and is simply the baseline.  So far I haven't seen anything but pleas from Biden to help him defeat Trump.  He needs to do better than that.

Genocide

A very illuminating 11 part essay showing that Israel's treatment of Palestinians meets the legal definition of genocide.

The Truth about St. Orwell

George Orwell was a poor writer (said Isaac Asimov), a right wing snitch (he made a list of leftists and their associations which was declassified in 2003), and he spent WWII writing anti-Soviet diatribes (Animal Farm and 1984) at the very moment the Red Army was defeating the Nazis at great cost.  In those books he made it clear the ultimate enemies were bureaucratic Stalinists and not Nazis.  He became a hit because postwar Western governments considered him patriotic amidst a constructed left-to-right anti-communist alignment that didn't include the truly progressive antiwar voices like Henry Wallace (who was denounced by Orwell).

Orwell was perhaps the first and best example of a left-like Trot whose Neocon ultimately shines through.  And he was an imperial officer too, so it's quite likely the Neocon was there all along.

Many, growing up in actual left and communist families like Alex Cockburn, long saw through Orwell.

I'd have to agree with Asimov, I could never get past the second chapter of these books.  I had always assumed in was just my laziness.  Second hand dramatizations always made more sense right off (like my favorite, the movie Brazil, vaguely inspired by 1984).

Chomsky signing Free Speech letter

Everywhere my Twitter is filled with condemnations of Chomsky for signing a letter promoting Free Speech which also happens to have been signed by hypocrites like Fareed Zakaria, David Brooks, and David Frum.

To this I reply:

The letter itself and Chomsky's signature stand on their own, regardless of the hypocritical co-signers. You're insisting on guilt by association, which will always damn the best people trying to do good.

Is Communism Possible

Yes, of course.  The countervailing notion that Communism is Impossible because People are Purely Selfish is nonsense.

Human behavior is a function of many things, including especially the particular circumstances involved, things people have experienced in the past, and some small, very small, part due to instinctual programming.

Marxists will generally say that Human Nature is Constructed.  And also that Humans are Social.  And that the aspects of gain that selfish acts might lead to, are themselves socially constructed.

Veblyn pointed out the insanity of accumulating great wealth, where the whole point is in some way prove oneself more worthy than others, a socially constructed value, even if having been achieved crushing the backs of many in the most anti-social ways.

Psychological Research since about 1970 has revealed that above all, most people are highly concerned about fairness.  Most people have natural empathy with other people, only suppressed by racist and supremacist ideologies which are unnatural to the smallest children and must be spanked into them.  People have a strong desire to nuture, which no doubt evolved to facilitate the long child-rearing process, but is easily generalized to unfortunate people of all kinds (struggling, poor, homeless, or starving) and even to pets and wildlife and inanimate objects.  People willingly adopt identities, ideologies, and roles which they support to benefit others even at substantial personal costs, even if it is the identity of an Ayn Rand disciple who alleges to believe only in personal selfishness, but as with all other sects, their missionary zeal comes from the hope of saving the world.

Seen in context of all this, the notion that people are nothing but pure selfish robots is ridiculous.  People seek socially valued goals within socially constructed frameworks.  When basic needs are met, people seek greater social approval above all else.  People want to feel that they are contributing to something greater than themselves, benefiting other people, and being loved for it.

The ruling class has always understood this.  This is why every evil is coated in a capsule of good to make it palatable.  We must go to war to save people, we bomb countries to save their freedoms, we must put people in prison to protect people and so on.  Consistently every evil is wrapped in a claimed overarching good, because goodness (fairness) is what people respect.  There must always be lies proving that adversaries in war are being led by inhuman dictators who are utterly at odds with our American Way presumed to be about fairness and democracy.

But it should seem fairly obvious, that if people are primarily concerned about fairness, a society based on sharing and mutual benefits is the best, most efficient, and everything.  A society based on enriching and empowering a limited ruling class will always be unstable, and based upon the ability of elites to co-opt others, at least for awhile.

In fact, Capitalism has always painted itself that way, as the kind of social organization that most efficiently produces benefits for all.  Attempts to prove this mathematically have shown that it cannot except under the most unbelievable assumptions, such as perfect knowledge of the future.  Meanwhile, there has never been a similar proof that collectivism cannot, only illogical ravings by Hayek and others.  Before Capitalism, all human societies were were largely collectivist even when highly unequal or hierarchical.  Before "civilization" greater equality and collectivism was the norm as people lived together in smaller bands.

In reality, Capitalism is most efficient for the Oligarchs, and least efficient for everyone else.

The only problem is, taking the reins from the Oligarchs and actually replacing Capitalism with Communism.  That has actually never been accomplished, but there have been many long lasting and some still ongoing efforts.

You could say, as in fact many Capitalist Ideologues do, that the essentially Social Democratic societies that make up the first world (including the brutal USA, Russia, and Brazil) are Communist Societies in the making.  It may have seemed more that way 50 years ago because of how badly things have gone since...but not at the expense of making Capitalism look any better.

Here's a mixed set of voices debating the question (warning: mostly having a strong anti-Communist tilt, but some interesting voices anyway).

Putin

Twitter post by Bukerbabe:

Dear Democrats,
I don't give a fuck about Russia. Putin isn't keeping me from getting Medicare For All, Biden & Pelosi are.


Mostly correct, but I'd make the list Pelosi, Biden, & McConnell.

References for Discussion

For July 2020, I chose to make the discussion topic:

Sanctions against Venezuela, Iran, and Syria.

Because this is an Important Issue which is all but ignored on US and Western Media.  When it isn't ignored, it's merely an excuse for more western imperialist propaganda about these countries.  When it is ignored, it's displaced by more western false-flag intelligence echoing the Gulf of Tonkin incident: today's version of that is Bountygate.   Regarding Bountygate, which is debunked at many of the news organizations (including  Grayzone) I follow, even if it were true, it pales in comparison with our war crimes in Afghanistan itself, let alone elsewhere.

The Sanction issue is important for many reasons.  Firstly, it is leading to the suffering of many millions of people in these countries directly, in deprivation of all kinds.  And many deaths.  Secondly, it is part and parcel of bleeding those countries until they submit to US Imperialism.  When and if that is successful, as it has been for 100 countries around the world, the people will lose their sovereignty, control of natural and human resources, and suffer further loss of human rights and well being.  They will look hopefully to the day when they can do what Iran and Venezuela did at least once--and throw off the yoke of western empire--even if that itself entails suffering and compromise, it is better than living under the Shah.  Thirdly, the continuation of this Imperialism causes great suffering even back in the western countries themselves, among the vast majority of people who are not war profiteers.  A militaristic society is one in which there is hugely wasteful power and income stratification.   Fourth, Imperialism is the primary driver of the current assult on mother earth including Global Heating, through massive direct carbon polition as well as diverting resources that should and must be used instead to build green and renewable energy based systems and focus on making people's lives better, instead of worse.  We need a society for people, not profits.  Imperialism is the ultimate inversion of what we need.  Craters instead of Creative Work.

If the Liberal Intelligence Imperialists* pushing the lies, distortions, and misdirections of Russiagate I, II, III, and now IV (Bountygate) really wanted to weaken Trump's chances of retaining power, they could instead focus on things actually affecting people's lives, such as Trump's disasterous handling of Covid-19 and the looming economic depression and devastation being caused by it, rather than distant and murky issues some people only care about, if at all, because they've heard a few words on TV.  And others, who listen to the Republican Media Juggernaut like Fox News don't care about Russiagate ad nauseum at all, instead they care about a different set of fake made-for-tv-issues that can be blamed on Democrats.  All the fake divisions over nothing making it easier to keep all the people from uniting behind a set of truly populist issues like full employment and guaranteed healthcare for all.


But their highest priority, like the highest priority of all promoted voices in the USA,  has never been the American People.  It's been Manufacturing Consent for a continuation of the 75 year old plan of post-WWII Western Imperialism: War for War's Sake to keep the blood money running in the most vast waste of human lives and treasure in world history.

Venezuela

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/29/trump-stolen-venezuelan-money-border-wall-mexico/

(*Every "liberal" on US mainstream media, including especially everyone on MSNBC, CNN, and other major networks, including Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow.  Also nearly every Democratic politician, especially so-called "Centrists" like Hillary Clinton, but sadly even including Bernie Sanders--though to a somewhat lesser degree.  Bernie Sanders represents the lefter edge of acceptable opinion in the USA, which makes his positions quite interesting.  As a self declared Democratic Socialist and sometimes even just Socialist, he understands well the concept of Imperialism and often eloquently speaks against it.  But when it comes to Venezuela--with the largest remaining proven oil reserves on earth, he toes the one line out of several the Imperial Establishment requires**, "Maduro is a Dictator," leaving aside the fact that Maduro is a very popular elected leader, in elections far more Democratic and transparent and internationally verified than those in the USA.  By the way, the same is true of Bashir Al Assad.  Both of these leaders are more than a few notches better on a fairly assessed score of Democracy than many US allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are outright feudal totalitarian states.  Even oft maligned Iran is a fairly popular democratic republic which arose from the ashes of the old US-vassal-dictatorship...and was made more theocratic by western intelligence operations deliberately and specifically for the purpose of undermining Socialism and Communism.  Endless US efforts to overthrow these regimes, going back decades, have the predictable consequences of adding to the popularity of these regimes, and weakening internal forces of moderation.  And we clearly aren't exercising a fair reform effort by subjugating those countries--and most specifically their populations--to illegal and immoral acts of war which cause great loss and are deeply resented.  And the regimes, which we defame so badly, have generally done little or nothing bad to us, in fact have treated us better than we deserved when seen in the fullest context.  And are certainly no threat to us either.  All have expressed sincere interest in peace, so long as that peace doesn't mean their destruction.  But we will accept no half measures, only a new puppet government completely under our thumb.  **Tulsi Gabbard fairly uniquely in the Senate despised the overthrow of Madero, but seems to be even more supportive of Israel than Bernie Sanders, as exemplified by her vote opposing free speech about Israel, and some have questioned her closeness to fascist India.  It seems the greater your support for Israel, or other fascist regimes, the more you may be permitted to deviate from the Imperial Line elsewhere.  So rather than a trip line, it seems that you have to have at least one of the Imperial boxes checked.  Or there's no way you'll survive and be elected.  Ron Paul had the Robber Barons at Home box checked.)

Here's one of the best articles I've seen on this recently.  What's the greatest reopening risk?  Businesses with open air floorplans, like call centers.  But generally not mentioned as a thing in news reports.  And more.

https://fair.org/home/what-media-arent-telling-you-about-reopening-risks/

On to the suggested Topics, this is about the latest in a long line of deceptions about Syria, a country the US has viciously attacked for decades, basically because they're not a US puppet, the regime has longstanding ties to Russia and we want our guys, even if our guys happen to be al Queda jihadis like al Nusra which we backed, or ISIS which was backed by Saudi Arabians.

Assad and the Russians finally defeated our legions of jihadis, but now we won't let them rebuild, shades of the strangulation we applied to Iraq in the 90's.

Imperial backed sources create endless lies about Assad to justify this, including lies about chemical weapons which were actually used by our guys, and now violence which was mostly caused by our guys once again being used to frame Assad and create the pretext for more war:

How a US and Qatari regime change deception produced 'Caesar' sanctions driving Syria towards famine | The Grayzone

How a US and Qatari regime change deception produced 'Caesar' sanctions ... The Caesar sanctions bill is the product of Syria regime change operatives backed by the US and Qatar government...

Crippling new sanctions punish Syrian civilians for US defeat in proxy war | The Grayzone

Crippling new sanctions punish Syrian civilians for US defeat in proxy w... As Syria tries to recover from a nearly decade-long war, the US has imposed crippling new sanctions under the Ca...

Given it's oil, Syria would be be reasonably well off it were not for our wars, territorial and mineral expropriations, and sanctions.

That's true of Venezuela and Iran as well.  Venezuela is sometimes said to have the largest proven oil reserves in the world.  The oil thing iteself is more complicated than that, but not the explanation for our endless interest in the internal "human rights" of Venezuela.

By fair standards, Maduro is barely a Democratic Socialist like Bernie Sanders (who, sadly, strongly denunces Maduro).  Maduro-opposing media controlled by oligarchs has ever and always been in the majority in Venezuela (like the USA).  Nevertheless Maduro enjoys widespread popular support, including the military, for not selling out the country, literally, to the US. Our attempts to coup the independent-minded government of Venezuela have been endless since the first non-puppet government of Chavez which re-nationalized the oil.  We recently created  a fake "interim president" out of nowhere that most Venezuelans didn't even recognize and instigated various false flag incidents which got no traction because, frankly, no one believes this shit anymore.  Venezuela gets help from Cuba, China, Russia, Iran, and other countries on our "enemies" list and who can blame them after all we've done, and where else could they go?  Similar efforts to coup an independent minded government have succeeded in Honduras and Bolivia, but Venezuela would be the Big Prize.

I've heard various numbers, one being the theft of at least $24 billion in external properties of Venezuela, including the Citgo refinery, sold off for various illegal purposes in the USA, such as paying damages to US contractor mercenaries in Columbia, and funding more of Trump's wall.  UK has stolen at least $1B in gold.

In addition to the Grand Theivery, the ongoing blockade has been causing additional grave damage.

Trump used looted Venezuelan public money to build border wall with Mexico | The Grayzone

Trump used looted Venezuelan public money to build border wall with Mexi... $24 billion of Venezuelan public money has been stolen, and Trump has used $601 million of looted funds to fund ...

For no good similar reasons, but having more to do with geostrategy than oil, we've been at endless war with Iran whenever it's had an independent minded government.  Endless concerns expressed about human rights in Iran are mostly more propaganda to cover our support of anti-government forces.  Iran, finally, had some kind of peace with the US under Obama but Trump and Company (including Bolton) ripped that to shreds for no good reason.  Now heavy handed US sanctions are themselves a human rights abuse:

Italy and UK rely on help from Cuba, China, Venezuela to fight coronavirus - as US steps up brutal sanctions | The Grayzone

Italy and UK rely on help from Cuba, China, Venezuela to fight coronavir... Italy requested doctors from China, Cuba, Venezuela to contain coronavirus, and Cuba helped Britain, while US sa...

Urelated to suggested topic, but some of you might be interested in this.  I consider the new variant of Russiagate, which I am calling Bountygate, to be more propaganda from US intelligence created to cancel an intended withdrawal, as described by these leftist sources:

MoA - To Keep Russiagate Alive 'Officials' Make New Claims Without Providing Evidence

MoA - To Keep Russiagate Alive 'Officials' Make New Claims Without Provi...

RAY McGOVERN: New York Times Deploys Heavy Gun to Back 'Intel' on Russian Bounties

RAY McGOVERN: New York Times Deploys Heavy Gun to Back 'Intel' on Russia... After examining his record, New York Times readers should be skeptical of anything David Sanger writes, includin...

There had been a planned withdrawal from Afghanistan, which would have been all to the best, which was shelved because of this recent dust-up.  Now more can die on all sides.

If It Were So Urgent, Why Didn't Haspel Demand an Oval Office Meeting?

If It Were So Urgent, Why Didn't Haspel Demand an Oval Office Meeting? The safety of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan does not appear to be the motive in intelligence agency leaks to the ...