thedailyblog--2020-01-02--A Retrospective On The 2010s and 00s As Seen Through A Burning Middle East

It has been said , with some justification , that you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain .
Yet while that might be the progression for a theatrical script or series … history occasionally moves with an internal logic that is downright the inverse .
Men condemned in their own day may be judged more kindly with death and hindsight ; not least due to their mortality giving vigorous illustration to that Chestertonian maxim of never tearing down a fence without first understanding why it was there in the first place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this effect – informing the E.U .
that in his absence , there would be nothing stopping a huge wave of migration from Africa across the Mediterranean to the North .
Although that is not why I mention the principle here today .
[ And not least because Gaddafi using the above as an intentional threat and/or bargaining chip rather undercuts the maxim ’ s more ‘ pure ’ application , somewhat ] Rather , it is thinking about another figure a few countries over and cast in a not too dissimilar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do not mean to make the case for Hussein the Hero .
It would not be a good fit of a term .
But as applies a fence that is up , the removal of which causes all manner of hell to break loose – well , that is much closer to an apt summation .
It is a matter of historical record that Hussein was strongly concerned about Sunni extremist currents – both within Iraq , as well as operating more broadly ( he oddly enough put forward an offer of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ World Trade Center attack – I say “ oddly enough ” , because it was another World Trade Center attack , the World Trade Center attacks , almost a decade later which finally provided the intermediate-range impetus for his ouster ) ; and felt that in his absence , the resultant chaotic turbulence would render his country not only utterly ungovernable for its own people , but an ongoing nightmare for any foreign imposer who might dare to deign to try .
In this he was largely proven correct – with the added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West had so accomodatingly backed Hussein to counter in the 1980s … was also now expanding across Mesopotamia to an eventual high-water mark not seen since the height of the Sassanids , some 1,400 years before .
Why do I mention this ?
Well , in the newspapers this week there have been any number of ‘ retrospectives ’ upon the decade that is shortly to draw to its inexorable close .
More than a few of these have – understandably – made reference to the Arab Spring events that dominated headlines in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general emotional tone and tenor of these brief blurbs upon faintly-footnoted hardly-even-history has been that it was an idealistic series of uprisings that – with the exception of Tunisia – basically either fizzled out , or were forcibly snuffed out .
And even in those handful of instances wherein this didn ’ t happen , the resultant civil breakdown was held to be more than a bit unfortunate in practice .
( Either because it didn ’ t remove Assad from Syria , and never mind all the other occurrences there ; or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop being a breakdown in Libya with the ouster of Gaddafi ; and I ’ m entirely unsurprised that I ’ m yet to see anything more than a brief mention of the word “ Yemen ” , as applies either Houthis or Saudi-authored humanitarian crisis there – it ’ s an inconvenient particular-narrative for the leitmotif of the anthology , one supposes ) There have also been frequent citations for ISIS in these roundups ; which is again entirely understandable .
Indeed , it would be more remarkable if there weren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its actions .
Rarely , since the Nazis , have any temporarily-prominent group of generally labelled “ Evil ” antagonists cast such an incredibly deep and looming shadow within the popular imagination .
And while the metanarrative on ISIS has thankfully moved on somewhat from the heady days of just a few years ago , wherein you ’ d occasionally encounter Western headlines defiantly insisting “ How Saddam Hussein Gave Us ISIS ” ( seriously – that ’ s a real headline , from the New York Times in 2015 ) through to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just maybe , it ’ s the lack of a Saddam Hussein more genuinely responsible for same … … the “ confession ” has meant nothing .
It won ’ t be too many years into the new decade forthcoming – months only , perhaps – before we ’ ll find yet another chorus of bright-minded idealists ( and it is a curious thing to consider , that George W. Bush was arguably something of a ‘ liberal intergovernmentalist ’ in these regards ) clamouring for yet another oppressive Wall to be brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far away , may indeed seem the ideal thing to do .
Even as , from up much closer – where one is in danger of being struck by the rubble nor the shrapnel which naturally comes a-tumbling from such a de-walling – this is instead looked upon as a far more nightmarish scenario .
Even before we consider what comes after in the gap where once the Wall might have redoubtably , if despotically stood .
The 2010s , much like the 2000s and the 1990s before them , were supposed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the ongoing – allegedly inexorable – march toward a Borderless World .
A reversal of whatever tottering , faltering stumbles had come to characterize the concluding years or months of the past one ; with new , fresh enthusiasm and vigour marshalled towards the making up for lost time and of lost ground ensuing .
That ’ s certainly how it started , anyway .
But the signature thing of the Borderless World , is that it is a World wherein all manner of Fences have been torn down , helter-skelter and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of opportunities for McWorld and its state-level bearers-of-premium-content to run rampant , bite off more than it can chew , and thence not-critically-reflect on just why it is that it ’ s facing push-back in any variety of forms ) Perhaps the 2020s may be different .
It is certainly a combination of numerals at least semi-oftenly linked to clarity of vision , especially and particularly in hindsight .
I wouldn ’ t bet on it , though .
If you ’ re convinced that the Eschaton has already become Immanentized – that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ End of History , and you ’ re just waiting somewhat impatiently ( and tantrum-throwingly ) for everybody else to realize this and catch up … then the supreme Fence , that is really more of a suspended road-way girded by parapets and pylons , of understanding causes have effects , movements ripples , and the flows of events a narrative logic more powerful than their initiators … well , that ’ s all got to go .
Can ’ t have “ progress ” if you ’ re too overly concerned about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how it might dare to change un-directed in response to a bit of prodding , now , can you .
I have never been big on the notion that a lack of understanding of history dooms one to its repeating ; but have instead preferred the notion that while history may not , strictly speaking , repeat … it sure does rhyme .
With that in mind , one would hope that the reflective – the opposite – of the removal of “ Fence ” would be “ Sense ” .
Yet far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regardless makes it “ Hence… ” , instead .

It has been said, with some justification, that you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Yet while that might be the progression for a theatrical script or series … history occasionally moves with an internal logic that is downright the inverse. Men condemned in their own day may be judged more kindly with death and hindsight; not least due to their mortality giving vigorous illustration to that Chestertonian maxim of never tearing down a fence without first understanding why it was there in the first place.
Gaddafi himself made a direct statement to this effect – informing the E.U. that in his absence, there would be nothing stopping a huge wave of migration from Africa across the Mediterranean to the North.
Although that is not why I mention the principle here today. [And not least because Gaddafi using the above as an intentional threat and/or bargaining chip rather undercuts the maxim’s more ‘pure’ application, somewhat]
Rather, it is thinking about another figure a few countries over and cast in a not too dissimilar light – Saddam Hussein.
Now, I do not mean to make the case for Hussein the Hero. It would not be a good fit of a term. But as applies a fence that is up, the removal of which causes all manner of hell to break loose – well, that is much closer to an apt summation.
It is a matter of historical record that Hussein was strongly concerned about Sunni extremist currents – both within Iraq, as well as operating more broadly (he oddly enough put forward an offer of assistance to the Americans following the 1993 World Trade Center attack – I say “oddly enough”, because it was another World Trade Center attack, the World Trade Center attacks, almost a decade later which finally provided the intermediate-range impetus for his ouster); and felt that in his absence, the resultant chaotic turbulence would render his country not only utterly ungovernable for its own people, but an ongoing nightmare for any foreign imposer who might dare to deign to try.
In this he was largely proven correct – with the added interest that the Iranian influence that the West had so accomodatingly backed Hussein to counter in the 1980s … was also now expanding across Mesopotamia to an eventual high-water mark not seen since the height of the Sassanids, some 1,400 years before.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Why do I mention this? Well, in the newspapers this week there have been any number of ‘retrospectives’ upon the decade that is shortly to draw to its inexorable close. More than a few of these have – understandably – made reference to the Arab Spring events that dominated headlines in late 2010 on through 2011.
The general emotional tone and tenor of these brief blurbs upon faintly-footnoted hardly-even-history has been that it was an idealistic series of uprisings that – with the exception of Tunisia – basically either fizzled out, or were forcibly snuffed out. And even in those handful of instances wherein this didn’t happen, the resultant civil breakdown was held to be more than a bit unfortunate in practice. (Either because it didn’t remove Assad from Syria, and never mind all the other occurrences there; or because it didn’t just neatly stop being a breakdown in Libya with the ouster of Gaddafi; and I’m entirely unsurprised that I’m yet to see anything more than a brief mention of the word “Yemen”, as applies either Houthis or Saudi-authored humanitarian crisis there – it’s an inconvenient particular-narrative for the leitmotif of the anthology, one supposes)
There have also been frequent citations for ISIS in these roundups; which is again entirely understandable. Indeed, it would be more remarkable if there weren’t mention for the self-declared Caliphate and its actions. Rarely, since the Nazis, have any temporarily-prominent group of generally labelled “Evil” antagonists cast such an incredibly deep and looming shadow within the popular imagination.
And while the metanarrative on ISIS has thankfully moved on somewhat from the heady days of just a few years ago, wherein you’d occasionally encounter Western headlines defiantly insisting “How Saddam Hussein Gave Us ISIS” (seriously – that’s a real headline, from the New York Times in 2015) through to a subtly unspoken recognition that maybe, just maybe, it’s the lack of a Saddam Hussein more genuinely responsible for same …
… the “confession” has meant nothing.
It won’t be too many years into the new decade forthcoming – months only, perhaps – before we’ll find yet another chorus of bright-minded idealists (and it is a curious thing to consider, that George W. Bush was arguably something of a ‘liberal intergovernmentalist’ in these regards) clamouring for yet another oppressive Wall to be brought tumbling down.
Which, from rather far away, may indeed seem the ideal thing to do. Even as, from up much closer – where one is in danger of being struck by the rubble nor the shrapnel which naturally comes a-tumbling from such a de-walling – this is instead looked upon as a far more nightmarish scenario. Even before we consider what comes after in the gap where once the Wall might have redoubtably, if despotically stood.
The 2010s, much like the 2000s and the 1990s before them, were supposed to be a successive and ultimately successful era in the ongoing – allegedly inexorable – march toward a Borderless World. A reversal of whatever tottering, faltering stumbles had come to characterize the concluding years or months of the past one; with new, fresh enthusiasm and vigour marshalled towards the making up for lost time and of lost ground ensuing.
That’s certainly how it started, anyway.
But the signature thing of the Borderless World, is that it is a World wherein all manner of Fences have been torn down, helter-skelter and pell-mell. (Thus affording any number of opportunities for McWorld and its state-level bearers-of-premium-content to run rampant, bite off more than it can chew, and thence not-critically-reflect on just why it is that it’s facing push-back in any variety of forms)
Perhaps the 2020s may be different. It is certainly a combination of numerals at least semi-oftenly linked to clarity of vision, especially and particularly in hindsight.
I wouldn’t bet on it, though. If you’re convinced that the Eschaton has already become Immanentized – that you’re already living in the End of History, and you’re just waiting somewhat impatiently (and tantrum-throwingly) for everybody else to realize this and catch up … then the supreme Fence, that is really more of a suspended road-way girded by parapets and pylons, of understanding causes have effects, movements ripples, and the flows of events a narrative logic more powerful than their initiators … well, that’s all got to go.
Can’t have “progress” if you’re too overly concerned about what’s already there, and how it might dare to change un-directed in response to a bit of prodding, now, can you.
I have never been big on the notion that a lack of understanding of history dooms one to its repeating; but have instead preferred the notion that while history may not, strictly speaking, repeat … it sure does rhyme.
With that in mind, one would hope that the reflective – the opposite – of the removal of “Fence” would be “Sense”.
Yet far more often than not, its repetition regardless makes it “Hence…”, instead.


thedailyblog--2020-01-08--A Few Thoughts On Iran Perception As The Stars Begin To Fall

As the missiles began to fall yesterday afternoon NZ time , I was struck by a few observances .
Both of how much some things had changed – and , within those , how much yet disappointingly remained the same .
Almost seventeen years ago , in 2003 , we gathered at high school to watch opening salvos of the American invasion of Iraq on a tv set up in the library .
Today , we are watching missile salvos over Iraq again … only this time , we are doing so largely via twitter and other forms of regularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is because the televised broadcast has gone the way of the wireless radio-set ( upon one of which , The Rev .
Rolinson still recalls our proudly French forebear listening with sadness and then announcing that Dien Ben Phu had fallen as the high-water mark of another country ’ s out-of-time imperialist programme ) .
And partially , it is because you find out so much more by going off and hunting out primary sources and secondary commentary out there in the wilds of the internet than you ever do simply watching and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 o ’ clock news .
Which does not , of course , mean that it ’ s assured to be more correct than what is visible via official channels – but given the nature of some of the stuff either turning up twisted upon them , or worse , not turning up at all , it doesn ’ t necessarily mean you ’ re much the worse off , either .
One prominent example of all of this ‘ in motion ’ concerns the character and the dispositions and the deeds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this .
Major General Qassem Soleimani – now eternally of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard .
You read a lot of newspapers , see a lot of public newscasts quoting American politicians or talking heads , and you start to come away with one , overwhelming and throbbing impression .
That even if you ’ re not wild about another American fireworks-display-into-fire- out-of-handling in the Middle East , that the guy was somehow monstrously “ evil ” .
Yet it goes further !
The perverse alchemy of ‘ official narratives ’ is plainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man who had spent much of the 1990s fighting the Taliban , and much of the past decade fighting ISIS and otherwise pushing back against Saudi-emanated objectionable forces ( including Al Qaeda franchises I can think of in at least three countries offhand ) … … is now attacked and castigated as a “ terrorist ” , and some kind of latter-day Osama bin Laden .
[ I had somewhat less overt sympathy for Saddam , but the man found himself afflicted by a similar downright pernicious no doubt intentional mislabeling .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many of the same forces as the Americans , and had directly offered to assist after both 9/11 and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in fighting back against Al Qaeda – none of which stopped him being linked in press reports and in Presidential rhetoric to exactly those terrorists aforementioned .
Gosh , it ’ s almost like some words have meanings that simply convey “ you ’ re supposed to actively hate that guy ” , and little more . ]
Now , “ terrorist ” , to be sure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” … but , then , it certainly does not just mean “ person incongruent with the active extension of the power and agenda of America And Friends ™ ” .
As Malcolm X once put it – “ If you ’ re not careful , the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed , and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.
” And that is only one of a few areas in which the strange radioactivity of embedded mis-perceptions can be observed making itself known in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ever since the footage started coming out of … literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people being pretty outraged by Soleimani ’ s death , I have noticed this small but pert attempted push-back , predominantly from persons of a ‘ certain age ’ , insisting that the whole thing has to be staged .
And while I can understand thinking that massive demonstrations which happen to be pretty politically and optically potent might be staged ( after all , you just have to look back at some of the trick photography @ @ @ @ @ @ @ events ) … I suspect rather strongly that there is something else going on here .
Several days ago we heard from a wise Iranian cleric who asked who the equivalent figure to Soleimani was in Western culture … whom the Iranians could kill and have it carry a similar resounding impact in all of our collective psyche ( “ …Spongebob ?
” ) , noting that almost all the modern-day ‘ heroes ’ of the West are made up , and highly animated only in the two-dimensional sense ( possibly involving a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only was he right about that , but he also gave voice to just why some people frequently ( yet not always ) ‘ of a certain age ’ and/or political disposition are having such great difficulty grasping that actually , yeah , a lot of Iranians , Shi ’ ites elsewhere in the world , and other people entirely are annoyed about what has occurred and have been actively expressing and demonstrating their feeling upon the matter .
I do not intend to turn this into a fully-blown lecture-discursion upon the Disenchantment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fairly suggested that this minority of disbelieving is perhaps symptomatic of growing up in an era wherein the last time something like that happened in the Anglosphere West was Beatlemania .
To mash up Grettir ’ s Saga and Nietzsche : “ BARE IS THE BACK OF THE MYTHLESS MAN ” Also , speaking of ‘ myths ’ [ here , somewhat , in the sense directly opposite to that in which I more usually mean it … ] , take a look at Netanyahu earlier in the week .
If there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and there are .. many ) , it is a survival expert .
That a man such as he who has spent quite some effort attempting to stir up fear of Iran in recent years , would be backpeddling frantically and attempting to put distance between his country and the killing of Soleimani … I think that it speaks volumes as to the actual realities of the situation .
In specia , serving to undercut somewhat the illusory “ all be home by Christmas ” mis-thusiasm being put forward by the principle instigators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the way over on the other side of the Atlantic .
That , too , was the hubristic attitude which characterized the previous American adventurism in this region , also on trumped up charges against an “ Ira- ” country , almost deliberately flouting international law and norms , and to general opposition from experts and ordinaries across the globe .
All of which has me reaching for Marx ’ s well-worn quip that : “ Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear , so to speak , twice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time as tragedy , the second time as farce .
”

As the missiles began to fall yesterday afternoon NZ time, I was struck by a few observances. Both of how much some things had changed – and, within those, how much yet disappointingly remained the same.
Almost seventeen years ago, in 2003, we gathered at high school to watch opening salvos of the American invasion of Iraq on a tv set up in the library.
Today, we are watching missile salvos over Iraq again … only this time, we are doing so largely via twitter and other forms of regularly updated online media.
Partially, it is because the televised broadcast has gone the way of the wireless radio-set (upon one of which, The Rev. Rolinson still recalls our proudly French forebear listening with sadness and then announcing that Dien Ben Phu had fallen as the high-water mark of another country’s out-of-time imperialist programme). And partially, it is because you find out so much more by going off and hunting out primary sources and secondary commentary out there in the wilds of the internet than you ever do simply watching and awaiting for special television bulletins or the 6 o’clock news.
Which does not, of course, mean that it’s assured to be more correct than what is visible via official channels – but given the nature of some of the stuff either turning up twisted upon them, or worse, not turning up at all, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re much the worse off, either.
One prominent example of all of this ‘in motion’ concerns the character and the dispositions and the deeds of the figure at the heart of all of this. Major General Qassem Soleimani – now eternally of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
You read a lot of newspapers, see a lot of public newscasts quoting American politicians or talking heads, and you start to come away with one, overwhelming and throbbing impression. That even if you’re not wild about another American fireworks-display-into-fire- out-of-handling in the Middle East, that the guy was somehow monstrously “evil”. Yet it goes further!
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The perverse alchemy of ‘official narratives’ is plainly visible in the way in which a man who had spent much of the 1990s fighting the Taliban, and much of the past decade fighting ISIS and otherwise pushing back against Saudi-emanated objectionable forces (including Al Qaeda franchises I can think of in at least three countries offhand) …
… is now attacked and castigated as a “terrorist”, and some kind of latter-day Osama bin Laden. [I had somewhat less overt sympathy for Saddam, but the man found himself afflicted by a similar downright pernicious no doubt intentional mislabeling. He, too, had spent years opposing many of the same forces as the Americans, and had directly offered to assist after both 9/11 and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in fighting back against Al Qaeda – none of which stopped him being linked in press reports and in Presidential rhetoric to exactly those terrorists aforementioned. Gosh, it’s almost like some words have meanings that simply convey “you’re supposed to actively hate that guy”, and little more.]
Now, “terrorist”, to be sure, does not simply mean “Sunni extremist” … but, then, it certainly does not just mean “person incongruent with the active extension of the power and agenda of America And Friends ™”.
As Malcolm X once put it – “If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
And that is only one of a few areas in which the strange radioactivity of embedded mis-perceptions can be observed making itself known in relation to Iran in recent days.
Ever since the footage started coming out of … literally thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people being pretty outraged by Soleimani’s death, I have noticed this small but pert attempted push-back, predominantly from persons of a ‘certain age’, insisting that the whole thing has to be staged.
And while I can understand thinking that massive demonstrations which happen to be pretty politically and optically potent might be staged (after all, you just have to look back at some of the trick photography and such utilized in some recent Anglosphere events) … I suspect rather strongly that there is something else going on here.
Several days ago we heard from a wise Iranian cleric who asked who the equivalent figure to Soleimani was in Western culture … whom the Iranians could kill and have it carry a similar resounding impact in all of our collective psyche (“…Spongebob?”), noting that almost all the modern-day ‘heroes’ of the West are made up, and highly animated only in the two-dimensional sense (possibly involving a Korean sweat-shop).
Well, not only was he right about that, but he also gave voice to just why some people frequently (yet not always) ‘of a certain age’ and/or political disposition are having such great difficulty grasping that actually, yeah, a lot of Iranians, Shi’ites elsewhere in the world, and other people entirely are annoyed about what has occurred and have been actively expressing and demonstrating their feeling upon the matter.
I do not intend to turn this into a fully-blown lecture-discursion upon the Disenchantment of the World, but it could be fairly suggested that this minority of disbelieving is perhaps symptomatic of growing up in an era wherein the last time something like that happened in the Anglosphere West was Beatlemania.
To mash up Grettir’s Saga and Nietzsche:
“BARE IS THE BACK OF THE MYTHLESS MAN”
Also, speaking of ‘myths’ [here, somewhat, in the sense directly opposite to that in which I more usually mean it … ], take a look at Netanyahu earlier in the week.
If there is one thing that Netanyahu is (and there are .. many), it is a survival expert. That a man such as he who has spent quite some effort attempting to stir up fear of Iran in recent years, would be backpeddling frantically and attempting to put distance between his country and the killing of Soleimani … I think that it speaks volumes as to the actual realities of the situation.
In specia, serving to undercut somewhat the illusory “all be home by Christmas” mis-thusiasm being put forward by the principle instigators of this now-escalating conflict safely ensconced all the way over on the other side of the Atlantic.
That, too, was the hubristic attitude which characterized the previous American adventurism in this region, also on trumped up charges against an “Ira-” country, almost deliberately flouting international law and norms, and to general opposition from experts and ordinaries across the globe.
All of which has me reaching for Marx’s well-worn quip that:
“Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”


thedailyblog--2020-01-09--The American Emperor Strikes Back

The American Emperor Strikes Back

IMAGINE YOUR COUNTRY has been attacked , intimidated and deliberately impoverished by the world ’ s most powerful nation for nearly 70 years .
Now imagine that , in spite of everything the world ’ s most powerful nation and its allies have thrown at your country , it has remained standing , proud and unbowed .
Further imagine that , through the efforts of its most astute and courageous military commander , your country ’ s power and influence has grown and spread in ways not seen for a thousand years .
Finally , imagine that the world ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that military commander to pieces with a Hellfire missile .
How would you feel ?
What would you do ?
The solution the Iranian Islamic Republic settled upon bears testimony to the wisdom born of the Iranian/Persian people ’ s three thousand year history .
It drew its metaphorical sword , waited until the USA lifted its metaphorical shield , and then tossed its deadliest weapon contemptuously at the attacker ’ s feet .
There are many kinds of sword and many ways to use them .
If General Qasem Soleimani taught his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fight the Americans and their allies on your terms – not theirs .
It is a lesson the rest of the world will also have to learn – and quickly .
With the USA no longer interested in even trying to disguise its imperial ambitions , it has become necessary to tread extremely carefully on the international stage .
Bold assertions of national sovereignty , especially in the form of passionate protests against US policy , are likely to be interpreted in Washington as acts prejudicial to the national security of the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Small countries , like New Zealand , must be particularly circumspect , lest they be turned into an example of what happens to little states foolish enough to think they can ruffle the American Eagle ’ s feathers with impunity .
We all need to grasp the evolving reality of America ’ s economic , cultural and military vulnerability and how it is being manifested at home and abroad .
The Trump presidency was no accident .
How else was the potential eclipse of White , Anglo-Saxon , Protestant privilege to be headed-off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White working-class as possible in the struggle to preserve what is now openly presented as their common racial supremacy ?
The vulgarisation of American politics matches perfectly the steady incorporation of the “ poorly educated ” ( and the even more poorly paid ) into the ranks of the Republican Party .
Trump ’ s political genius has been to embrace and embody those values and prejudices which the best educated and best paid Americans most vehemently reject and despise .
In the simplest terms : to become the most thoroughly deplorable specimen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basket of deplorables ” .
This deliberate presidential embrace of wilful ignorance , crude racism and religious bigotry renders the task of maintaining the United States ’ global ascendancy much easier .
The need to dress up American self-interest in the rhetorical finery of a Kennedy or an Obama is no longer so pressing .
While the USA is still able to wield unchallengeable military power its economic dominance will remain unassailable .
The more obvious this linkage becomes , the more useful it is to present to the world the uncomplicated and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s insouciant truculence fits the bill nicely .
The White House ceremony ( it would be wrong to call it a press conference ) in which the President gracelessly accepted the Iranian Government ’ s de-escalation of the international crisis which he , himself , had unleashed by authorising Soleimani ’ s assassination , was a vivid illustration of the new reality in world affairs .
Thomas Jefferson ’ s acknowledgement in the American Declaration of Independence that “ a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that [ a people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them ” towards actions of historical significance , was nowhere in evidence .
“ Mankind ’ s ” opinion of America and its diplomacy turns out to be about as relevant today as the United Nations ’ Charter .
Trump ’ s admixture of threats , lies and vainglorious boasts was all “ mankind ” was getting .
Having delivered his proclamation , the President and his bevy of bemedaled generals turned on their heels and left the room by the same high doors through which they had entered , which then closed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagines , did Roman Emperors pronounce upon the affairs of empire : briskly , brusquely , and with the just the right “ sneer of cold command ” .
When Iran ’ s secular , democratically-elected Prime Minister , Mossadegh , was deposed by the joint machinations of Britain ’ s MI6 and America ’ s CIA in 1953 ( for the unforgiveable sin of attempting to use Iran ’ s oil for the benefit of Iran ’ s people ! )
their involvement was a closely guarded secret .
Caught in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the USA had to at least pretend to be the champion of freedom and popular sovereignty .
Seventy years later , however , America doesn ’ t feel the need to even try .
What the Iranian political class learned behind closed doors in 1953 : that their country ’ s future was now in American hands ; Donald Trump shares openly and unashamedly with the whole world in 2020 .
And yet , the Shah imposed upon them in 1953 was himself deposed in the Iranian Revolution of 1978 , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nothing in this world lasts forever .
Not Shahs ; not Ayatollahs ; not Generals : not even Presidents .
It was the ancestors of present-day Iranians who invented the game of Chess .
A pity then , for the American people , that Donald Trump has yet to master the game of Checkers .

IMAGINE YOUR COUNTRY has been attacked, intimidated and deliberately impoverished by the world’s most powerful nation for nearly 70 years. Now imagine that, in spite of everything the world’s most powerful nation and its allies have thrown at your country, it has remained standing, proud and unbowed. Further imagine that, through the efforts of its most astute and courageous military commander, your country’s power and influence has grown and spread in ways not seen for a thousand years. Finally, imagine that the world’s most powerful nation has just blown that military commander to pieces with a Hellfire missile.
How would you feel? What would you do?
Such was Iran’s dilemma.
The solution the Iranian Islamic Republic settled upon bears testimony to the wisdom born of the Iranian/Persian people’s three thousand year history. It drew its metaphorical sword, waited until the USA lifted its metaphorical shield, and then tossed its deadliest weapon contemptuously at the attacker’s feet. There are many kinds of sword and many ways to use them. If General Qasem Soleimani taught his people anything, it was always to fight the Americans and their allies on your terms – not theirs.
It is a lesson the rest of the world will also have to learn – and quickly. With the USA no longer interested in even trying to disguise its imperial ambitions, it has become necessary to tread extremely carefully on the international stage. Bold assertions of national sovereignty, especially in the form of passionate protests against US policy, are likely to be interpreted in Washington as acts prejudicial to the national security of the United States – and responded to accordingly. Small countries, like New Zealand, must be particularly circumspect, lest they be turned into an example of what happens to little states foolish enough to think they can ruffle the American Eagle’s feathers with impunity.
We all need to grasp the evolving reality of America’s economic, cultural and military vulnerability and how it is being manifested at home and abroad. The Trump presidency was no accident. How else was the potential eclipse of White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant privilege to be headed-off except by enlisting as many of the White working-class as possible in the struggle to preserve what is now openly presented as their common racial supremacy?
The vulgarisation of American politics matches perfectly the steady incorporation of the “poorly educated” (and the even more poorly paid) into the ranks of the Republican Party. Trump’s political genius has been to embrace and embody those values and prejudices which the best educated and best paid Americans most vehemently reject and despise. In the simplest terms: to become the most thoroughly deplorable specimen in Hillary Clinton’s infamous “basket of deplorables”.
This deliberate presidential embrace of wilful ignorance, crude racism and religious bigotry renders the task of maintaining the United States’ global ascendancy much easier. The need to dress up American self-interest in the rhetorical finery of a Kennedy or an Obama is no longer so pressing. While the USA is still able to wield unchallengeable military power its economic dominance will remain unassailable. The more obvious this linkage becomes, the more useful it is to present to the world the uncomplicated and unrepentant face of American hegemony. Trump’s insouciant truculence fits the bill nicely.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The White House ceremony (it would be wrong to call it a press conference) in which the President gracelessly accepted the Iranian Government’s de-escalation of the international crisis which he, himself, had unleashed by authorising Soleimani’s assassination, was a vivid illustration of the new reality in world affairs.
Thomas Jefferson’s acknowledgement in the American Declaration of Independence that “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that [a people] should declare the causes which impel them” towards actions of historical significance, was nowhere in evidence. “Mankind’s” opinion of America and its diplomacy turns out to be about as relevant today as the United Nations’ Charter.
Trump’s admixture of threats, lies and vainglorious boasts was all “mankind” was getting. Having delivered his proclamation, the President and his bevy of bemedaled generals turned on their heels and left the room by the same high doors through which they had entered, which then closed insolently behind them. So, one imagines, did Roman Emperors pronounce upon the affairs of empire: briskly, brusquely, and with the just the right “sneer of cold command”.
When Iran’s secular, democratically-elected Prime Minister, Mossadegh, was deposed by the joint machinations of Britain’s MI6 and America’s CIA in 1953 (for the unforgiveable sin of attempting to use Iran’s oil for the benefit of Iran’s people!) their involvement was a closely guarded secret. Caught in the Manichean coils of the Cold War, the USA had to at least pretend to be the champion of freedom and popular sovereignty. Seventy years later, however, America doesn’t feel the need to even try. What the Iranian political class learned behind closed doors in 1953: that their country’s future was now in American hands; Donald Trump shares openly and unashamedly with the whole world in 2020.
And yet, the Shah imposed upon them in 1953 was himself deposed in the Iranian Revolution of 1978, and the present Islamic Republic proclaimed the following year. Nothing in this world lasts forever. Not Shahs; not Ayatollahs; not Generals: not even Presidents. It was the ancestors of present-day Iranians who invented the game of Chess. A pity then, for the American people, that Donald Trump has yet to master the game of Checkers.


thedailyblog--2020-01-10--On The Tantalizing Possibility Of “The People’s Prince”

So over the past few weeks , the Royal Family has ‘ lost ’ two princes .
I mean , they ’ re still there , nobody ’ s been exiled nor beheaded ( potential migration to Canada notwithstanding ) , but nevertheless two Princes ( and one Duchess ) have taken a step back from being “ Senior Royals ” .
The first of these … only did so , not once his position had become “ untenable ” – but arguably many , many moons post-facto to that point , and following possibly the largest crash-and-burn display of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hindenburg re-enactment society ( flying under the command of one Captain Will Rogers III [ Legion of Merit ] ) dive-bombed a 1/4th scale model Titanic ( built from the hull of the Exxon Valdez ) , somewhere in the Persian Gulf adjacent to a B.P .
oil rig .
And even after that torrid display , incorporating such frankly incredible lines as Prince Andrew claiming that the accusations against him could not be true , because he ’ s allegedly physically incapable of sweating in stressful situations following being shot at during @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broadcast from the Royal Household were basically that the whole thing was made up nothing to see here stop bullying our poor Andrew .
[ To be fair and sure , there is also suggestion that Prince Andrew ’ s brother , Charles , had a rather more … realistic assessment of affairs , hence the semi-forced step-back/step-down ; yet this was all carried out sotto voce and out of the public eye , and apparently running counter to the Queen ’ s “ blind-spot ” in reference to her other son .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) ‘ lost ’ is rather different .
Not least because Prince Harry ’ s approach to “ relating to the young people ” is entirely unlike that alleged of his uncle .
Despite the marrying of a North American tv-star , I think it could be fairly suggested that he might have had a claim to the title “ The People ’ s Prince ” [ or , in his younger days , and to recall a certain other figure of some notoRoyalty , perhaps the “ Prince of Parties ” ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he really does appear to have inherited his father ’ s strong desire to utilize such blessings of prominence and prestige as his birth may have equipped him with , to “ make a difference ” .
There are many things which could , and already have been speculated as to the reasoning both for the Sussexes ’ ‘ departure ’ , and about the ‘ establishment ’ Royal reaction thereto .
You can read those elsewhere .
My own take on it is that it ’ s perhaps understandable – if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ unannounced ’ , and leaving your own father and grandmother and formerly close brother to find out about this via shock newsflashes on the television … might possibly be regarded as a bit impolite .
Alternatively , if it isn ’ t true that that ’ s what happened – then presenting the departure in this way would be one manner in which you might attempt to grab back ‘ control ’ of the narrative and some form of resolute moral high ground .
Yet two things stood out to me in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ensuing firestorm of “ THEY CAN ’ T DO THAT ” emanating from various quarters .
The first of which , was their apparent determination to move towards “ financial independence ” , and by that I take it they have meant not just ‘ paying their own way ’ , but also the double-meaning of ‘ independence ’ as entailing not being reined by the purse-strings of the Palace .
The “ independence ” thus sought , therefore , is both for the Commonwealth taxpayer , and from the Commonwealth ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The second , and this appplies to the reaction to all of the above , was a raised eyebrow of surprise at everybody suggesting that ‘ Harry & Meghan ’ were now making the Royal Family look bad via their tacit absence from same .
Which is as distinct , you understand , from a few weeks beforehand , wherein they were apparently making the Royal Family look bad via their being part of same .
Perhaps I am cynical , but the implicit suggestion seems to be that the Monarchy only works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is only one “ Archie “ , thus far , but that is another pun for another time , I ’ m sure ] .
That any attempt to move off and ‘ do one ’ s own thing ’ , and perhaps look a bit better than the beleaguered Imperial Center , even unintentionally , is therefore an express and tangible threat thereto .
Nobody ’ s seriously suggesting that Prince Harry is retreating off to a Colonial fortress in order to plot a Schism within the Merry House of Windsor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back-door palace-coup and elevate himself to plenipotentiary power as some kind of Bonnie Prince Son of Charlie .. although I am rather taken , quietly , with the notion of Prince Archie running for President of the United States and bringing the whole thing back under Union Jack sodality , at least partially because the Windsor dynasty , for all its faults , is responsible for rather fewer in the number of direct wars of expansionist aggression than the Clinton dynasty , the Bush dynasty , or more recently , the Trump Dynasty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous cultivation of support from the isolationist segments of what would become the Trumpenproletariat ] .
But , then , the Sussexes don ’ t need to even contemplate anything so brash in order to upend a fairly large proportion of the extended Monarchial order .
While it was only relatively recently that Prince Andrew et co lost access to their round-the-clock taxpayer-funded protection etc .
and other such outlays from the Public Purse , the rest of the Royal Family still being heavily state subsidized has from time to time created some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It ’ s not something I have a huge problem with , for the record ; but I can see how two young ( ish ) royals declaring that at least as applies themselves , “ enough is enough ” and endeavouring to move towards “ financial independence ” might cause a bit of consternation elsewhere within the Royal institution .
Overall , I suspect that the reasoning for the annoyance about the Sussexes ’ decision has less to do with the idea that they ’ re doing something potentially rash for themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – for them … .. and much much more to do with the looming specter that maybe , just maybe , Prince Harry and Wife , are in the process of setting up a new kind of Prncedom for the British Realm .
One which is much more self-empowered and self-sustaining , and deliberately sets out to Do Things .
You could definitely argue that Princess Anne had beat them to it , of course – but for various reasons , she didn ’ t get anything like the same attention in recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she was less public about it , and possibly because she wasn ’ t so directly proximate to the lineage of succession and public mind ’ s eye .
Will it work ?
Who knows .
But I , for one , am rather eager to see what happens next – perhaps we really shall be getting our “ People ’ s Prince ” .

So over the past few weeks, the Royal Family has ‘lost’ two princes. I mean, they’re still there, nobody’s been exiled nor beheaded (potential migration to Canada notwithstanding), but nevertheless two Princes (and one Duchess) have taken a step back from being “Senior Royals”.
The first of these … only did so, not once his position had become “untenable” – but arguably many, many moons post-facto to that point, and following possibly the largest crash-and-burn display of a museum-piece broadcast through media since the Hindenburg re-enactment society (flying under the command of one Captain Will Rogers III [Legion of Merit]) dive-bombed a 1/4th scale model Titanic (built from the hull of the Exxon Valdez), somewhere in the Persian Gulf adjacent to a B.P. oil rig.
And even after that torrid display, incorporating such frankly incredible lines as Prince Andrew claiming that the accusations against him could not be true, because he’s allegedly physically incapable of sweating in stressful situations following being shot at during the Falklands War – the messages being broadcast from the Royal Household were basically that the whole thing was made up nothing to see here stop bullying our poor Andrew.
[To be fair and sure, there is also suggestion that Prince Andrew’s brother, Charles, had a rather more … realistic assessment of affairs, hence the semi-forced step-back/step-down; yet this was all carried out sotto voce and out of the public eye, and apparently running counter to the Queen’s “blind-spot” in reference to her other son.]
The second Prince (and Duchess) ‘lost’ is rather different. Not least because Prince Harry’s approach to “relating to the young people” is entirely unlike that alleged of his uncle. Despite the marrying of a North American tv-star, I think it could be fairly suggested that he might have had a claim to the title “The People’s Prince” [or, in his younger days, and to recall a certain other figure of some notoRoyalty , perhaps the “Prince of Parties”]. And unlike certain of his cousins, he really does appear to have inherited his father’s strong desire to utilize such blessings of prominence and prestige as his birth may have equipped him with, to “make a difference”.
There are many things which could, and already have been speculated as to the reasoning both for the Sussexes’ ‘departure’, and about the ‘establishment’ Royal reaction thereto. You can read those elsewhere.
My own take on it is that it’s perhaps understandable – if it’s true – that leaving ‘unannounced’, and leaving your own father and grandmother and formerly close brother to find out about this via shock newsflashes on the television … might possibly be regarded as a bit impolite. Alternatively, if it isn’t true that that’s what happened – then presenting the departure in this way would be one manner in which you might attempt to grab back ‘control’ of the narrative and some form of resolute moral high ground.
Yet two things stood out to me in both the Sussexes’ announcement, and the ensuing firestorm of “THEY CAN’T DO THAT” emanating from various quarters.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The first of which, was their apparent determination to move towards “financial independence”, and by that I take it they have meant not just ‘paying their own way’, but also the double-meaning of ‘independence’ as entailing not being reined by the purse-strings of the Palace. The “independence” thus sought, therefore, is both for the Commonwealth taxpayer, and from the Commonwealth ‘First Family”s constraining governance.
The second, and this appplies to the reaction to all of the above, was a raised eyebrow of surprise at everybody suggesting that ‘Harry & Meghan’ were now making the Royal Family look bad via their tacit absence from same. Which is as distinct, you understand, from a few weeks beforehand, wherein they were apparently making the Royal Family look bad via their being part of same.
Perhaps I am cynical, but the implicit suggestion seems to be that the Monarchy only works provided it is a Mono-archy. [there is only one “Archie“, thus far, but that is another pun for another time, I’m sure] . That any attempt to move off and ‘do one’s own thing’, and perhaps look a bit better than the beleaguered Imperial Center, even unintentionally, is therefore an express and tangible threat thereto.
Nobody’s seriously suggesting that Prince Harry is retreating off to a Colonial fortress in order to plot a Schism within the Merry House of Windsor, so as to stage a daring back-door palace-coup and elevate himself to plenipotentiary power as some kind of Bonnie Prince Son of Charlie .. although I am rather taken, quietly, with the notion of Prince Archie running for President of the United States and bringing the whole thing back under Union Jack sodality, at least partially because the Windsor dynasty, for all its faults, is responsible for rather fewer in the number of direct wars of expansionist aggression than the Clinton dynasty, the Bush dynasty, or more recently, the Trump Dynasty [no matter the latter’s previous cultivation of support from the isolationist segments of what would become the Trumpenproletariat].
But, then, the Sussexes don’t need to even contemplate anything so brash in order to upend a fairly large proportion of the extended Monarchial order.
While it was only relatively recently that Prince Andrew et co lost access to their round-the-clock taxpayer-funded protection etc. and other such outlays from the Public Purse, the rest of the Royal Family still being heavily state subsidized has from time to time created some degree of disquiet in certain quarters.
It’s not something I have a huge problem with, for the record; but I can see how two young(ish) royals declaring that at least as applies themselves, “enough is enough” and endeavouring to move towards “financial independence” might cause a bit of consternation elsewhere within the Royal institution.
Overall, I suspect that the reasoning for the annoyance about the Sussexes’ decision has less to do with the idea that they’re doing something potentially rash for themselves and which might end in screaming disaster – for them …
.. and much much more to do with the looming specter that maybe, just maybe, Prince Harry and Wife, are in the process of setting up a new kind of Prncedom for the British Realm. One which is much more self-empowered and self-sustaining, and deliberately sets out to Do Things. You could definitely argue that Princess Anne had beat them to it, of course – but for various reasons, she didn’t get anything like the same attention in recent years for doing so. Probably because she was less public about it, and possibly because she wasn’t so directly proximate to the lineage of succession and public mind’s eye.
Will it work? Who knows.
But I, for one, am rather eager to see what happens next – perhaps we really shall be getting our “People’s Prince”.


thedailyblog--2020-01-11--On Taking Responsibility For Downing A Passenger Jet

Despite what some are suggesting , there is little direct equivalency between the inadvertent Iranian shoot-down of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752 earlier this week , and the American shoot-down of Iranian Air Flight 655 in 1983 .
For that to be true , the Iranians would have to not only have obstinately refused to apologize for their actions , but also awarded their equivalent to the Legion of Merit decoration to the Iranian military unit responsible .
I ’ m not kidding .
That ’ s exactly what happened .
In the aftermath of that incident , the Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ command , even despite the observations of a number of other US Naval personnel about his aggressive shortcomings which lead directly to the tragedy .
Instead , Captain William C. Rogers III was bestowed with just such a medal “ for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ” of the vessel which had brought down the Iranian passenger jet , specifically for the time-period in which the outrage had occurred .
The insults and the immaturity did not end there .
Washington pointedly refused to apologize or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even going so far in its official analysis as attempting to suggest that the outcome had been partially Iran ’ s own fault for allowing civilian aircraft to fly along “ a normal commercial air flight plan profile , in the assigned airway ” which happened to be proximate to a US Navy vessel violating Iranian territorial waters ) ; with George H.W .
Bush arguably making *not* apologizing a campaign theme for his 1988 Presidential run .
It took another eight years , and a long-running International Court of Justice suit for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran which pointedly , again , mandated no apology – although did afford a multi-million dollar settlement to attempt to bring the matter to a close .
Now , you contrast this with the Iranian response to the downing of the Ukrainian airliner on Wednesday .
Its immediate reaction had been to declare a Day of Mourning for the victims ; and while there had been two days of uncertainty and downplaying of potential culpability ( during which time , again to their credit , the Iranians had invited Ukrainian and other foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the crash ) , today ’ s statements from the Iranian Government and Armed Forces have been anything but .
The Iranians have shouldered their share of the burden of responsibility for the “ unforgivable mistake ” [ as President Rouhani called it ] of the shoot-down ; and instead of talk of medals for the personnel involved , the Iranian military have promised that they shall be held “ accountable ” , in a judicial setting .
That vital “ A-word ” , “ Apologies ” , has also issued forth from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All within the span of two to three days , rather than being left hanging for a period of just under a decade .
Now , it almost goes without saying that none of this brings anybody back from the dead ; and that it would be hugely preferable for none of this to have ever occurred .
Pointing out how much worse it could have been ( if , for instance , the Iranians had followed the “ American model ” in the wake of this tragedy ) does not really make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to unduly politicize – or , worse , seek to ‘ capitalize ’ upon – a senseless loss of life , it seems to me that in a period wherein month-in and month-out , we have seen seemingly endless attempts to portray the Iranians as being frothing-at-the-mouth fundamentalist inhuman monsters … responses such as these show not only a common humanity and empathy – but that ( especially when compared to their leading detractors ) maybe the Iranians aren ’ t the irrational ones , after all .

Despite what some are suggesting, there is little direct equivalency between the inadvertent Iranian shoot-down of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight 752 earlier this week, and the American shoot-down of Iranian Air Flight 655 in 1983.
For that to be true, the Iranians would have to not only have obstinately refused to apologize for their actions, but also awarded their equivalent to the Legion of Merit decoration to the Iranian military unit responsible.
I’m not kidding. That’s exactly what happened.
In the aftermath of that incident, the Americans did not remove the officer responsible from command, even despite the observations of a number of other US Naval personnel about his aggressive shortcomings which lead directly to the tragedy.
Instead, Captain William C. Rogers III was bestowed with just such a medal “for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer” of the vessel which had brought down the Iranian passenger jet, specifically for the time-period in which the outrage had occurred.
The insults and the immaturity did not end there. Washington pointedly refused to apologize or even really admit culpability (indeed, even going so far in its official analysis as attempting to suggest that the outcome had been partially Iran’s own fault for allowing civilian aircraft to fly along “a normal commercial air flight plan profile, in the assigned airway” which happened to be proximate to a US Navy vessel violating Iranian territorial waters); with George H.W. Bush arguably making *not* apologizing a campaign theme for his 1988 Presidential run.
It took another eight years, and a long-running International Court of Justice suit for the Americans to reach a settlement with Iran which pointedly, again, mandated no apology – although did afford a multi-million dollar settlement to attempt to bring the matter to a close.
Now, you contrast this with the Iranian response to the downing of the Ukrainian airliner on Wednesday. Its immediate reaction had been to declare a Day of Mourning for the victims; and while there had been two days of uncertainty and downplaying of potential culpability (during which time, again to their credit, the Iranians had invited Ukrainian and other foreign personnel to help investigate the cause of the crash), today’s statements from the Iranian Government and Armed Forces have been anything but.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The Iranians have shouldered their share of the burden of responsibility for the “unforgivable mistake” [as President Rouhani called it] of the shoot-down; and instead of talk of medals for the personnel involved, the Iranian military have promised that they shall be held “accountable”, in a judicial setting.
That vital “A-word”, “Apologies”, has also issued forth from their Government – clearly and unequivocally.
All within the span of two to three days, rather than being left hanging for a period of just under a decade.
Now, it almost goes without saying that none of this brings anybody back from the dead; and that it would be hugely preferable for none of this to have ever occurred.
Pointing out how much worse it could have been (if, for instance, the Iranians had followed the “American model” in the wake of this tragedy) does not really make circumstances any better.
Yet without intending to unduly politicize – or, worse, seek to ‘capitalize’ upon – a senseless loss of life, it seems to me that in a period wherein month-in and month-out, we have seen seemingly endless attempts to portray the Iranians as being frothing-at-the-mouth fundamentalist inhuman monsters … responses such as these show not only a common humanity and empathy – but that (especially when compared to their leading detractors) maybe the Iranians aren’t the irrational ones, after all.


thedailyblog--2020-01-13--Reform or Revolution in the 2020s

Reform or Revolution in the 2020s

Some political leaders like Bernie Sanders , who is seeking the nomination of the US Democratic Party as its presidential candidate , who most would consider a “ reformist ” socialist , nevertheless talks about the need for a political revolution .
Many people wanting real change classify themselves as some kind of “ revolutionary ” but effectively reject the struggle for reforms of the system that would aid working people .
This often also means dismissing participation in the system ’ s elected forms of representation like a parliament .
Often these “ revolutionary ” groups fail to participate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ survival of working people through their unions or community organisations dedicated to ensuring access to basic needs of survival .
These revolutionaries only weapon is the typewriter and printing broadsheets or blogging becomes the limit of their “ revolutionary ” activity .
The end result of this sort of activity is zero progress for working people .
The opposite approach is to limit your activity to whatever the system will permit .
This is the politics represented by traditional social democracy .
This seems to be a successful strategy only when the capitalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reducing , workers are getting more power , and the bosses feel wealthy enough to share some crumbs to keep everyone quiet .
This was true in Europe and the US for the period after the worldwide capitalist crisis in the 1890s until World War 1 , and again for several decades after the Great Depression of the 1930s and World War 2 .
It also helps if there are strong voices advocating a genuine socialist alternative that has a mass hearing among working people to put the frighteners on the capitalist class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these periods .
As soon as the capitalist system starts refusing concessions traditional social democracy ends up being an enforcer of the takebacks from working people that are imposed by capitalism rather than an enabler of working-class power .
Support for social democracy then collapses in disappointment .
This has been the reality for social democracy across Europe , in Japan , and with some ups and downs in Australasia .
The problem today is that capitalism seems to have entered a period of what has been dubbed by even pro-capitalist economists as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ growth that has occurred in recent decades has been enabled by and greater and greater extension of credit ( debt to us ) .
The last world recession in 2008-9 was the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s .
Recovery from that recession only happened by maintaining and extending the massive debt balloon that hangs over the world .
Recessions are actually capitalist crises of overproduction – that is overproduction of commodities in relation to the ability to buy .
But it is also the over-extension of credit money in relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it pretends to represent .
A general crisis is usually triggered by the collapse of financial institutions associated with the over-extension of credit and a portion of the credit money is simply wiped out to bring it back into line with the real monetary base .
The collapse in credit money will force the most over-extended and least efficient commodity producers out of business and a recession/depression ensues .
This is the way capitalism cleanses itself for a renewed period of growth .
But the more the system depends on debt , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cleansing process proceeded as it must , the less powerful is the recovery and the system remains even more exposed the next time the cyclical downturn hits .
There can never be a return to strong capitalist growth without another Great Depression ( and probably world war ) to restore the system to capitalist “ health ” .
That is not a solution working people can hope for .
Working people need a strategy that can provide answers to the very real problems of surviving with dignity under capitalism .
That means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us in parliament .
But the solutions we put forward to get mass support for should be solutions that look to replace a system based on the pursuit of private profit with a system the empowers workers and has solutions to social problems based on collective solidarity .
This has become of even greater importance as it has become more and more obvious that tackling the climate crisis is only possible with a system not based on relentless growth and the pursuit of profit .
These policies can be put together as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combat climate change that priorities well-paid jobs , public housing , health care and education or all .
Such a Green New Deal should include these essential features : • Capitalist monopolies in energy , transport and finance have to be brought into public ownership and control .
They should be subject to democratic plans drawn up by the whole community .
Workers should have much stronger decision making powers within them .
• All economic sectors to be made take steps needed to decarbonise the economy as much as is needed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Free and frequent public transport on electric buses and/or trains in all main cities .
• Health care and education for life should be free and universally accessible .
• Welfare , pensions , child allowances , should be universal wherever possible .
• Taxation should be on wealth before income .
• Public housing at fixed and affordable should be a right of all not just the desperately poor .
• All workers should have a right to a job and the workweek reduced with no loss of pay to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be supported for control and delivery of as many functions of the centralised state as possible – including housing , education , health care .
• Local communes to support cooperative forms of production for food production , solar and wind energy , electric transport , and media .
This Green New Deal would inevitably be met by the fiercest opposition from the ruling class and their paid mouthpieces .
It would also be met by sabotage from within the existing state institutions – the police and military in the first instance .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we create the unions and parties with the fighting capacity to implement the programme and defeat that opposition once and for all by building a new state based on the deepest forms of democratic participation .

Some political leaders like Bernie Sanders, who is seeking the nomination of the US Democratic Party as its presidential candidate, who most would consider a “reformist” socialist, nevertheless talks about the need for a political revolution.
Many people wanting real change classify themselves as some kind of “revolutionary” but effectively reject the struggle for reforms of the system that would aid working people. This often also means dismissing participation in the system’s elected forms of representation like a parliament.
Often these “revolutionary” groups fail to participate in the day to day struggles for survival of working people through their unions or community organisations dedicated to ensuring access to basic needs of survival. These revolutionaries only weapon is the typewriter and printing broadsheets or blogging becomes the limit of their “revolutionary” activity.
The end result of this sort of activity is zero progress for working people.
The opposite approach is to limit your activity to whatever the system will permit. This is the politics represented by traditional social democracy. This seems to be a successful strategy only when the capitalist system is expanding rapidly, unemployment is reducing, workers are getting more power, and the bosses feel wealthy enough to share some crumbs to keep everyone quiet.
This was true in Europe and the US for the period after the worldwide capitalist crisis in the 1890s until World War 1, and again for several decades after the Great Depression of the 1930s and World War 2.
It also helps if there are strong voices advocating a genuine socialist alternative that has a mass hearing among working people to put the frighteners on the capitalist class. This was also true for both these periods.
As soon as the capitalist system starts refusing concessions traditional social democracy ends up being an enforcer of the takebacks from working people that are imposed by capitalism rather than an enabler of working-class power. Support for social democracy then collapses in disappointment.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
This has been the reality for social democracy across Europe, in Japan, and with some ups and downs in Australasia.
The problem today is that capitalism seems to have entered a period of what has been dubbed by even pro-capitalist economists as a period of secular stagnation. The growth that has occurred in recent decades has been enabled by and greater and greater extension of credit (debt to us). The last world recession in 2008-9 was the worst since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Recovery from that recession only happened by maintaining and extending the massive debt balloon that hangs over the world. Recessions are actually capitalist crises of overproduction – that is overproduction of commodities in relation to the ability to buy. But it is also the over-extension of credit money in relationship to real money (gold) that it pretends to represent.
A general crisis is usually triggered by the collapse of financial institutions associated with the over-extension of credit and a portion of the credit money is simply wiped out to bring it back into line with the real monetary base. The collapse in credit money will force the most over-extended and least efficient commodity producers out of business and a recession/depression ensues.
This is the way capitalism cleanses itself for a renewed period of growth. But the more the system depends on debt, and the more the system tries to stop the cleansing process proceeded as it must, the less powerful is the recovery and the system remains even more exposed the next time the cyclical downturn hits.
There can never be a return to strong capitalist growth without another Great Depression (and probably world war) to restore the system to capitalist “health”.
That is not a solution working people can hope for.
Working people need a strategy that can provide answers to the very real problems of surviving with dignity under capitalism. That means having strong unions and parties to represent us in parliament.
But the solutions we put forward to get mass support for should be solutions that look to replace a system based on the pursuit of private profit with a system the empowers workers and has solutions to social problems based on collective solidarity.
This has become of even greater importance as it has become more and more obvious that tackling the climate crisis is only possible with a system not based on relentless growth and the pursuit of profit.
These policies can be put together as a plan for a Green New Deal to combat climate change that priorities well-paid jobs, public housing, health care and education for all. Such a Green New Deal should include these essential features:
Capitalist monopolies in energy, transport and finance have to be brought into public ownership and control. They should be subject to democratic plans drawn up by the whole community. Workers should have much stronger decision making powers within them.
All economic sectors to be made take steps needed to decarbonise the economy as much as is needed to reach zero net emissions by 2030.
Free and frequent public transport on electric buses and/or trains in all main cities.
Health care and education for life should be free and universally accessible.
Welfare, pensions, child allowances, should be universal wherever possible.
Taxation should be on wealth before income.
Public housing at fixed and affordable rents should be a right of all not just the desperately poor.
All workers should have a right to a job and the workweek reduced with no loss of pay to make that possible.
Local communes should be supported for control and delivery of as many functions of the centralised state as possible – including housing, education, health care.
Local communes to support cooperative forms of production of food, solar and wind energy, electric transport, and media.
This Green New Deal would inevitably be met by the fiercest opposition from the ruling class and their paid mouthpieces. It would also be met by sabotage from within the existing state institutions – the police and military in the first instance.
Ony by mobilising in our millions can we create the unions and parties with the fighting capacity to implement the programme and defeat that opposition once and for all by building a new state based on the deepest forms of democratic participation.


thedailyblog--2020-01-20--Revolution in New Zealand? Not Even Close!

WHERE DO REVOLUTIONS begin ?
The answer , invariably , is “ close to home ” .
Where demonstrable public need meets unresponsive public authority .
Where collective outrage invites violent repression .
Where injustice spawns indignation and indignation demands action .
Where popular action generates governmental reaction .
That ’ s where revolutions are born .
Once begun , what makes a revolution successful ?
It is tempting to respond with the purely historical observation that revolutions succeed where they are able to muster sufficient armed force to overwhelm those dedicated to their failure .
People with guns allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ armed force enough ?
Surely , before people are willing to wage war on the Revolution ’ s behalf , they must first believe its objectives to be both desirable and achievable .
The need for guns , and the willingness to use them , almost always arises when the authorities announce their intention to thwart the people ’ s intentions .
When real change , desperately needed , and now within the people ’ s grasp , is suddenly faced with the prospect of being halted and/or reversed by forces loyal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start looking for the means to preserve the imminence of change .
Historically , the people ’ s determination to preserve the imminence of change is soon extended to ensure the preservation of those who have made them believe that change is imminent .
Fearing that the authorities are coming for their leaders , people typically resolve to impede their progress : peacefully if possible ; by force if necessary .
The leaders themselves , realising that the revolution ’ s failure will more than likely lead to their demise , are left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it forward as hard and as far as they can .
The revolution ’ s survival , and their own , become welded together .
The French Revolution of 1789 , for example , was kicked-off by the fear that the King ’ s troops were about to visit retribution upon the revolutionary crowds of Paris .
The latter rushed to the Bastille , hated symbol of royal power , because they were convinced that within the fortress-prison ’ s walls they would find the muskets , cannons and gunpowder they needed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the Russian capital , Petrograd , in February-March 1917 , the soldiers who had refused to fire on the crowds of women demanding bread for their starving families knew that the Czar would immediately dispatch troops to disarm and punish them as mutineers .
If their revolt was not extended , then many of them would die .
Accordingly , they reached out to radical left-wing politicians and to their working-class supporters in the factories .
By joining forces with the political enemies of the hated Czarist regime , and offering them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they helped to turn what had started-out as a protest against bread shortages into a full-scale revolution .
But , the events in Petrograd unfolded more than a hundred years ago .
Is there a plausible scenario for revolution in New Zealand in 2020 ?
The short answer is “ No.
” Nothing has occurred for decades in New Zealand that matches in any way the cultural , intellectual , and political preparations that preceded the French and Russian revolutions .
In Eighteenth Century Europe , for example , the cultural supremacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctrine of Absolute Monarchy had been profoundly weakened by what came to be known as “ The Enlightenment ” or “ The Age of Reason ” .
Breakthroughs in moral and political philosophy , together with the rapid expansion of science , called into question the existence of the Judeo-Christian God and , thus , the “ divine right of kings ” .
Within the ruling classes doubt grew , and from these doubts ordinary people drew confidence that their own ideas and priorities were as worthy of serious consideration as their lords @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the shape of an elected parliamentary assembly , the people had also identified a mechanism capable of supplanting the autocratic rule of the monarch .
The self-evidently desirable objectives of “ liberty , equality fraternity ” were thus made achievable .
In the people ’ s “ deputies ” , gathered together in the revolutionary “ National Constituent Assembly ” , the people ’ s will had finally found its political vector .
In Petrograd , 128 years later , the critical political vector of the “ nation ” had been replaced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
Likewise , the revolutionary mechanism ceased to be a parliament filled with elected representatives , and became , instead , a multitude of workers ’ councils ( soviets ) filled with instantly recallable delegates elected in the factories and regiments .
Replacing the Enlightenment and its philosophers was the revolutionary Marxist party – whose ruthless and highly disciplined “ cadres ” were determined to inspire and guide the soviets of workers and soldiers .
Other determinants of success were also at work in 1789 and 1917 .
Bankrupt of both the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the multiple crises afflicting his subjects , the French king , Louis XVI , set in motion a massive , kingdom-wide effort to identify and collate the grievances of the French people .
These Cahiers de doléances provided the core agenda of the Estates General – the feudal body charged with advising the Crown , which had not been called together for 175 years !
Thus equipped , the people ’ s representatives possessed a clear idea of what they had to do .
In 1917 , also , the Russian people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ II had led them into a disastrous war with the Austro-Hungarian and German empires .
Millions of conscripted peasant-soldiers had been killed , the Russian economy was in ruins , and the Russian people were starving .
Their lords and masters had failed utterly to protect them and were either unable or unwilling to feed them .
When the leader of the revolutionary workers ’ party , Vladimir Lenin , arrived at Petrograd ’ s Finland Station , his speech to the workers ’ and soldiers ’ delegates was short and to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Land !
All power to the soviets !
” With these simple but highly effective promises , Lenin ’ s party ruthlessly blew away the political fog engulfing the ineffectual Russian parliament and set in motion the world ’ s first socialist revolution .
It should be clear by now that New Zealand ’ s cultural , economic and political situation bears no comparison with the two great Western revolutions .
Neither Maori nor Pakeha culture offers anything to compare with the devastating ideological critiques which the Enlightenment and Marxism brought to bear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russia .
Animism with corporate clip-ons is no more a revolutionary doctrine than post-modernism incongruously blended with the politics of identity .
Nor is New Zealand trapped in the sort of intractable economic and military crises that brought down the Bourbon and Romanov dynasties .
In fact , it presents itself as a highly successful neoliberal capitalist economy .
Which is not to say that poverty has been eliminated , or homelessness overcome , merely that the levels of inequality and social injustice which beset all but a handful of western states is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is in other comparable countries .
Certainly , the grave challenge of Climate Change looms over New Zealand ’ s future but , once again , that is a problem to which the entire world has yet to find a workable solution .
Most importantly , the New Zealand ruling-class retains sufficient faith in its ability to manage the nation ’ s affairs to render any challenge to its dominance ineffective .
No mass movement with a practical programme of revolutionary change exists in this country .
Nor does it contain a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those who proclaim themselves champions of change and fighters against injustice are currently more willing to go to war with each other than with neoliberal capitalism .
Indeed , it is possible to argue that identity politics , far from being a revolutionary phenomenon , has become the paradoxical vector for neoliberal consolidation .
The ever-more-strident calls to recognise every new construction thrown up by the social kaleidoscope have a way of drowning out the truly revolutionary demands for a radical redistribution of the economic pie .
For the moment , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there may be tetchiness and resentment , frustration and complaint , but nowhere is anybody uttering the cry that will bring a New Zealand revolution into being : “ We have found the way to make tomorrow better than today !
”

WHERE DO REVOLUTIONS begin? The answer, invariably, is “close to home”. Where demonstrable public need meets unresponsive public authority. Where collective outrage invites violent repression. Where injustice spawns indignation and indignation demands action. Where popular action generates governmental reaction. That’s where revolutions are born.
Once begun, what makes a revolution successful? It is tempting to respond with the purely historical observation that revolutions succeed where they are able to muster sufficient armed force to overwhelm those dedicated to their failure. People with guns allow revolutions to succeed. But is mere armed force enough? Surely, before people are willing to wage war on the Revolution’s behalf, they must first believe its objectives to be both desirable and achievable.
The need for guns, and the willingness to use them, almost always arises when the authorities announce their intention to thwart the people’s intentions. When real change, desperately needed, and now within the people’s grasp, is suddenly faced with the prospect of being halted and/or reversed by forces loyal to the status-quo. That is when people start looking for the means to preserve the imminence of change.
Historically, the people’s determination to preserve the imminence of change is soon extended to ensure the preservation of those who have made them believe that change is imminent. Fearing that the authorities are coming for their leaders, people typically resolve to impede their progress: peacefully if possible; by force if necessary. The leaders themselves, realising that the revolution’s failure will more than likely lead to their demise, are left with little choice but to keep pushing it forward as hard and as far as they can. The revolution’s survival, and their own, become welded together.
The French Revolution of 1789, for example, was kicked-off by the fear that the King’s troops were about to visit retribution upon the revolutionary crowds of Paris. The latter rushed to the Bastille, hated symbol of royal power, because they were convinced that within the fortress-prison’s walls they would find the muskets, cannons and gunpowder they needed to resist the King’s soldiers.
In the Russian capital, Petrograd, in February-March 1917, the soldiers who had refused to fire on the crowds of women demanding bread for their starving families knew that the Czar would immediately dispatch troops to disarm and punish them as mutineers. If their revolt was not extended, then many of them would die. Accordingly, they reached out to radical left-wing politicians and to their working-class supporters in the factories. By joining forces with the political enemies of the hated Czarist regime, and offering them the protection of their rifles and machine-guns, they helped to turn what had started-out as a protest against bread shortages into a full-scale revolution.
But, the events in Petrograd unfolded more than a hundred years ago. Is there a plausible scenario for revolution in New Zealand in 2020? The short answer is “No.” Nothing has occurred for decades in New Zealand that matches in any way the cultural, intellectual, and political preparations that preceded the French and Russian revolutions.
In Eighteenth Century Europe, for example, the cultural supremacy of the Catholic Church and the political doctrine of Absolute Monarchy had been profoundly weakened by what came to be known as “The Enlightenment” or “The Age of Reason”. Breakthroughs in moral and political philosophy, together with the rapid expansion of science, called into question the existence of the Judeo-Christian God and, thus, the “divine right of kings”. Within the ruling classes doubt grew, and from these doubts ordinary people drew confidence that their own ideas and priorities were as worthy of serious consideration as their lords’ and masters’.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Crucially, in the shape of an elected parliamentary assembly, the people had also identified a mechanism capable of supplanting the autocratic rule of the monarch. The self-evidently desirable objectives of “liberty, equality fraternity” were thus made achievable. In the people’s “deputies”, gathered together in the revolutionary “National Constituent Assembly”, the people’s will had finally found its political vector.
In Petrograd, 128 years later, the critical political vector of the “nation” had been replaced by Karl Marx’s “proletariat”. Likewise, the revolutionary mechanism ceased to be a parliament filled with elected representatives, and became, instead, a multitude of workers’ councils (soviets) filled with instantly recallable delegates elected in the factories and regiments. Replacing the Enlightenment and its philosophers was the revolutionary Marxist party – whose ruthless and highly disciplined “cadres” were determined to inspire and guide the soviets of workers and soldiers.
Other determinants of success were also at work in 1789 and 1917.
Bankrupt of both the ideas and the funds required to address the multiple crises afflicting his subjects, the French king, Louis XVI, set in motion a massive, kingdom-wide effort to identify and collate the grievances of the French people. These Cahiers de doléances provided the core agenda of the Estates General – the feudal body charged with advising the Crown, which had not been called together for 175 years! Thus equipped, the people’s representatives possessed a clear idea of what they had to do.
In 1917, also, the Russian people’s priorities were clear. Czar Nicolas II had led them into a disastrous war with the Austro-Hungarian and German empires. Millions of conscripted peasant-soldiers had been killed, the Russian economy was in ruins, and the Russian people were starving. Their lords and masters had failed utterly to protect them and were either unable or unwilling to feed them. When the leader of the revolutionary workers’ party, Vladimir Lenin, arrived at Petrograd’s Finland Station, his speech to the workers’ and soldiers’ delegates was short and to the point: “Peace! Bread! Land! All power to the soviets!” With these simple but highly effective promises, Lenin’s party ruthlessly blew away the political fog engulfing the ineffectual Russian parliament and set in motion the world’s first socialist revolution.
It should be clear by now that New Zealand’s cultural, economic and political situation bears no comparison with the two great Western revolutions. Neither Maori nor Pakeha culture offers anything to compare with the devastating ideological critiques which the Enlightenment and Marxism brought to bear on the political regimes of France and Russia. Animism with corporate clip-ons is no more a revolutionary doctrine than post-modernism incongruously blended with the politics of identity.
Nor is New Zealand trapped in the sort of intractable economic and military crises that brought down the Bourbon and Romanov dynasties. In fact, it presents itself as a highly successful neoliberal capitalist economy. Which is not to say that poverty has been eliminated, or homelessness overcome, merely that the levels of inequality and social injustice which beset all but a handful of western states is not dramatically worse in New Zealand than it is in other comparable countries. Certainly, the grave challenge of Climate Change looms over New Zealand’s future but, once again, that is a problem to which the entire world has yet to find a workable solution.
Most importantly, the New Zealand ruling-class retains sufficient faith in its ability to manage the nation’s affairs to render any challenge to its dominance ineffective. No mass movement with a practical programme of revolutionary change exists in this country. Nor does it contain a disciplined revolutionary party dedicated to creating one. Those who proclaim themselves champions of change and fighters against injustice are currently more willing to go to war with each other than with neoliberal capitalism. Indeed, it is possible to argue that identity politics, far from being a revolutionary phenomenon, has become the paradoxical vector for neoliberal consolidation. The ever-more-strident calls to recognise every new construction thrown up by the social kaleidoscope have a way of drowning out the truly revolutionary demands for a radical redistribution of the economic pie.
For the moment, in those close-to-home places where revolutions are born, there may be tetchiness and resentment, frustration and complaint, but nowhere is anybody uttering the cry that will bring a New Zealand revolution into being:
“We have found the way to make tomorrow better than today!”


thedailyblog--2020-01-29--Call for New Zealand to be forthright in rejecting “Deal of the Century”

The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa is calling on the New Zealand government to reject outright the US ’ s so-called “ deal of the century ” which claims to bring peace to the Middle East .
The sheer absurdity of the US proposal is astonishing .
Among other things it proposes to • Approve Israel annexing ( stealing ) most of the occupied West Bank for • Approve the ongoing brutal military occupation of Palestinian land and the siege of Gaza • Refuse Palestinian refugees the right to return to their land and homes The deal is based on injustice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of human rights to the Palestinian people .
It seeks to overturn numerous UN resolutions and turn international law on its head .
The “ deal ” is rejected by Palestinians , progressive Jewish groups in Israel and around the world and by the vast mass of humanity .
In the 1980s New Zealand did not accept white South African attempts to maintain its racist oppression of black South Africans .
Instead we intensified out efforts to boycott the South African regime till the pressure became unbearable and apartheid in South Africa was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful path to force Israel to abandon its racist , apartheid policies towards Palestinians .
Intensifying the BDS ( Boycott , Divestment and Sanctions ) campaign against Israel is the only viable way forward .

The Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa is calling on the New Zealand government to reject outright the US’s so-called “deal of the century” which claims to bring peace to the Middle East.
The sheer absurdity of the US proposal is astonishing.
Among other things it proposes to
Accept illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land
Approve Israel annexing (stealing) most of the occupied West Bank for
Approve the ongoing brutal military occupation of Palestinian land and the siege of Gaza
Refuse Palestinian refugees the right to return to their land and homes
Legalise the on-going ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem
The deal is based on injustice, theft, race-based brutality and denial of human rights to the Palestinian people.
It seeks to overturn numerous UN resolutions and turn international law on its head.
The “deal” is rejected by Palestinians, progressive Jewish groups in Israel and around the world and by the vast mass of humanity.
In the 1980s New Zealand did not accept white South African attempts to maintain its racist oppression of black South Africans. Instead we intensified out efforts to boycott the South African regime till the pressure became unbearable and apartheid in South Africa was abandoned.
We must take the same successful path to force Israel to abandon its racist, apartheid policies towards Palestinians.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Intensifying the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaign against Israel is the only viable way forward.