America’s Greatest Affliction: The Presstitute Media

By Paul Craig Roberts

P.C. Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts

When Gerald Celente branded the American media “presstitutes,” he got it right. The US print and TV media (and NPR) whore for Washington and the corporations. Reporting the real news is their last concern. The presstitutes are a Ministry of Propaganda and Coverup. This is true of the entire Western media, a collection of bought-and-paid-for whores.

It seems that every day I witness a dozen or more examples. Take May 31 for example.

 

The presstitutes report that US Secretary of State John Kerry and his German counterpart are working on Russia to convince that country to be a “party to peace” in Syria by not supplying the Syrian government, whose country has been invaded, with arms. Kerry and the Israelis especially do not want Russia to deliver the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Syria.

[pullquote] It’s bittersweet for us to see that, at last, almost five decades after we started fingering the corporate media as the greatest obstacle to human progress, some heavyweights like Dr Roberts are zeroing in on the same issue. Except for the late Alex Cockburn, the great Michael Parenti, Chomsky and Herman, Alex Carey, and our own editor, Patrice Greanville, who founded Cyrano’s Journal in 1982, the problem of building a left-controlled machinery of mass communications was an orphan issue for most of the American left. The dreadful consequences of this strategic myopia are everywhere to be seen.  [/pullquote]

This was the extent of the presstitutes’ report. The presstitutes made no mention of the fact that the invasion of Syria by al-Qaeda affiliated radical Muslims was organized and equipped by Washington via its proxies in the region, such as Saudia Arabia and the oil emirates. Americans sufficiently stupid to rely on the presstitute media do not know that it is not Syrians who want to overthrow their government, but Washington, Israel, and radical Islamists who object to Syria’s secular non-confrontational government.

One might think that the US media would wonder why Washington prefers to have al-Qaeda governing Syria than a non-confrontational secular government. But such a question is off-limits for the US media.

Israel, unlike Washington which so far hides behind proxies, has actually openly committed war crimes as defined by the Nuremberg trials of Nazis by initiating unprovoked aggression against Syria by militarily attacking the country.

In reporting Kerry’s pressure on Putin, presstitutes made no mention that the Washington-backed attempted overthrow of the Syrian government has run into difficulty, causing president Obama to ask the Pentagon to come up with a no-fly plan, which means according to the Libya precedent NATO or US air attacks on Syrian government forces. As the S-300 missiles are a defensive weapon, Obama’s plan to send in Western or Israeli air forces to attack the Syrian army is why Kerry is pressuring Russia not to honor its contract to deliver to Syria the S-300 missiles, which can knock US, NATO, and Israeli aircraft out of the sky.

Those who believed that Kerry could have made a difference as president must be disillusioned to see what a warmongering whore he is. In america marketing is everything; truth is nothing.

The real news story is that Washington is trying to convince Putin to acquiesce to Washington’s overthrow of the Syrian government so that Russia can be evicted from its only naval base in the Mediterranean Sea, thus making it Washington’s sea, Washington’s Mare Nostrum. The american pressitutes put all the onus on the Russian government for not helping Washington to overthrow the Syrian government in order that Washington has another victory over Russia and can start next on Iran.

William Hague, who serves, with Washington’s approval, as British foreign secretary to the shame of a once proud nation, made this clear when he declared: “We want a solution without Assad. We do not accept the stay of Assad.” This is amazing hypocrisy, because the Syrian government is more respectful of human rights than Washington and London.

While Kerry was trying to con Putin, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that the Obama administration’s immediate priority was removing Assad from power.http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/302773-white-house-no-role-for-assad-in-transitional-government  So for the US and UK, “peace” means the overthrow of the Syrian government by force.

Why isn’t the United Nations protesting? The answer is that the countries and their UN representatives have been purchased by Washington. Money talks. Integrity and justice don’t. Integrity and justice are poverty-inflicted. The UN belongs to the evil empire. Washington owns it. The american Empire has the money. It pays for the headlines and for the budget that lets the UN delegates enjoy New York City,

In the world today, integrity is worthless, but money is valuable, and Washington has the money because, as the dollar is the world reserve currency, it can be printed in sufficient quantities to purchase every country’s government, including our own. One year out of office and Tony Blair was worth $35 million. Look at the amazing Clinton riches. According to news report, $3.2 million was spent on Chelsea’s wedding. http://www.goingwedding.com/news_detail.asp?newsid=67 

Hague said that the UK and France “seek to end the ban on arming Syrian rebels.” Hague did not explain how the invasion force was armed if there is a ban against arming it. But Hague did tell us who the invading force is: “the Syrian National Coalition,” which consists of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt (still the American puppet), the United States, Britain, France, Turkey, Germany and Italy. Obviously, the talk about a “Syrian rebellion” is pure BS. Syria is confronted with an attempted overthrow of its government by the US and its puppet states. Kerry is trying to convince Putin to let Washington overthrow Syria.

As if this wasn’t enough, also on May 31, I listened to e.j. dionne and david brooks on National Public Radio discuss the state of the Obama presidency. Both were protective of “our president.” Neither would dare say: “the military-security complex’s president,” “Wall Street’s president,” “the Israel Lobby’s president,” “Monsanto’s president,” “the mining and fracking president.” Obama is “our president.”

Both brooks and dionne agreed that the media had got rid of the Benghazi issue and that the IRS persecution of Tea Party members was under the media’s control and was not a threat to Obama. david brooks did acknowledge that there were economic problems ignored and no new ideas. However, the blatant fact that under Obama the US is in a constitutional crisis, well described by Dr. Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois,http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35134.htm was not mentioned by NPR’s pundits, who define correct thoughts for the NPR audience, people too busy to pay attention.

In america today, the executive branch in explicit violation of the US Constitution detains indefinitely or murders any US citizen alleged without proof by an unaccountable member of the executive branch to be in any way associated with the broad but undefined term, “terrorism,” even innocently as a donor to hungry or ill Palestinian children. The executive branch clearly violates the US Constitution and US statutory laws against torture and spying on citizens without warrants. Congress does not impeach the president for his obvious crimes, and the Federal Judiciary enables them.

President Nixon was driven from office because he lied about when he learned of a burglary for which he was not responsible. President Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for lying about a sexual affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky.

President George w. Bush took america to wars based on obvious lies, and so did president Obama. Both administrations are guilty of war crimes and almost every possible infraction of constitutional and international law. Yet, no presstitute member of the media would dare mention impeachment, and the House would never bring the charge.

There is no doubt whatsoever that in the 21st century presidents, their lawyers, Justice (sic) Department officials, and CIA and black-op operatives have broken law after law, and there is no accountability. For the presstitutes, this is a non-issue. “Rule of law, Constitution? We don’t need no stinking rule of law or Constitution.”

For the presstitutes, the bought-and-paid for-whores for evil, the issues are Obama’s stable poll numbers; teenage girls arrested for fighting at a kindergarten graduation ceremony; ”Microsoft’s Bill Gates extended his lead over Mexico’s Carlos Slim as the world’s richest person,” “the $14 million-dollar girl: Beyonce rakes it in.”

Constitutional crisis? What is that? I mean, really, look at Beyonce’s legs. Didn’t you hear, the dollar rose today?

The presstitutes have not investigated any important issue. Not 9/11. Not the accumulation of unaccountable power in the executive branch. Not the demise of the Bill of Rights. Not the Boston Marathon bombing. Not the endless and unexplained wars against Muslims who have not attacked the US.

The Boston Marathon saga reached new levels of absurdity with the FBI’s murder of Ibragim Todashev, who was being pressured to admit to various associated crimes. The presstitutes first reported that Todashev was armed. It was a gun, then a knife, then after the presstitutes duly reported the false information planted on them, which for the insouciant american public was sufficient to explain Toashev’s murder, the FBI admitted that the victim was unarmed.

Nevertheless, he was shot seven times, one to the back of the head. His father wants to know why the FBI assassinated his son, but the presstitutes could not care less. Don’t expect any answer from the american press and TV media or from NPR, an organization that pretends to be a “listener station” but is financed by corporate contributions.

How’s Todashev’s murder for Gestapo justice? Where is the difference? A bullet in the back of the head. And America is the shining light on the hill, the font of freedom and democracy brought to the world courtesy of the military/security complex out of the barrel of guns and hellfire missiles from drones. And relentless propaganda in the schools, universities, and media.

Washington certainly learned [well] from [bloodthirsty tyrants]. You kill them into submission.

But you will never hear about it from the presstitutes.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
A protean intellect, Dr Roberts has served in many capacities from academia to presidential cabinets. A onetime full-fledged member of the privileged inner circles, he is today one of the most outspoken and eloquent critics of the American plutocracy and its shills. 




Natan Blanc: Heroic Israeli Refusenik

by Stephen Lendman

Natan BlancDeclaration

Israel’s a rogue terror state. It’s been so from inception. It’s history is blood-drenched. It’s a global menace.  Its current government is its worst ever. It prioritizes state terrorism. Palestinians live in the eye of the storm.  Children are indoctrinated to be warriors. They’re taught to hate. They’re brainwashed to view Arabs and Iranians as existential threats. With some exceptions, conscription is mandatory at age 18.

 

Under-age youths may enlist. Child recruitment is done informally. Women serve like men. Israeli citizens and permanent residents must comply. Arabs are excluded. They may volunteer if they wish.

Classroom education teaches children to view military service as “noble and worthy.” When too young to understand, they’re brainwashed to accept militarism and belligerence as normal and necessary. They’re falsely told Israel’s survival depends on it.

Soldiers are present in schools and classrooms. Teachers and principals are retired military officers. Photos of fallen heroes adorn walls. Field trips for all ages visit military memorials on former battlefields.

Beginning in kindergarten, textbooks and classroom instruction teach militarism. High schools have mandatory “preparation for the IDF” programs. They include training and indoctrination to be warriors. Military heroes and conquests are glorified. Arabs are vilified.

Militarism is a way of life. War is considered natural. Youths are indoctrinated to wage it. Military service is considered a rite of passage to adulthood. An entire population is brainwashed to fight.

Natan Blanc’s an Israeli conscientious objector (CO). He’s a refusenik. He and many others like him are called that for refusing to serve wrong over right. They resist proudly and courageously. More on Blanc below.

In 2002, 50 Israeli officers and soldiers founded Courage to Refuse. Over 600 now belong. They’re called refuseniks. They explain as follows:

“We, reserve combat officers and soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, who were raised upon the principles of Zionism, self-sacrifice and giving to the people of Israel and to the State of Israel, who have always served in the front lines, and who were the first to carry out any mission in order to protect the State of Israel and strengthen it.

We, combat officers and soldiers who have served the State of Israel for long weeks every year, in spite of the dear cost to our personal lives, have been on reserve duty in the Occupied Territories, and were issued commands and directives that had nothing to do with the security of our country, and that had the sole purpose of perpetuating our control over the Palestinian people.

We, whose eyes have seen the bloody toll this Occupation exacts from both sides,

We, who sensed how the commands issued to us in the Occupied Territories destroy all the values that we were raised upon, We, who understand now that the price of Occupation is the loss of IDF’s human character and the corruption of the entire Israeli society,

We, who know that the Territories are not a part of Israel, and that all settlements are bound to be evacuated, We hereby declare that we shall not continue to fight this War of the Settlements.

We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.

We hereby declare that we shall continue serving the Israel Defense Force in any mission that serves Israel’s defense.

The missions of occupation and oppression do not serve this purpose – and we shall take no part in them.”

On November 19, 2012, Blanc refused to served. He declared himself a CO. He opposes Israel’s lawless occupation.  On November 22, 2012, he was sentenced to 10 days in prison. Nine subsequent incarcerations followed. On May 13, 2013, it was for the 10th time.

On May 30, Israel’s Defense Forces Exemption Committee declared him unfit for duty.

On June 6, he’ll be released. He’ll have been imprisoned 178 days. He’s done it for supporting right over wrong. It exacted a price. He willingly paid it.

His declaration of refusal said the following:

“As elected officials, the members of the government are under no obligation to spell out their vision for the country’s future, and they have the right to pursue this bloody cycle with no end in sight.”

“But we, as citizens, as human beings, have a moral duty to refuse to play this cynical game.”

Haaretz interviewed him in prison. It took place by phone. Asked how he’s doing, he replied:

“Besides the fact that it’s hard to get used to the severe heat, I’m doing fine.”

“When I reported for my current incarceration, the 10th, I was disappointed about once more facing 28 long days in jail.”

“But the first week went by quite fast, and the second will, too. So, if we ignore the heat for a moment, life in Prison 6 is pretty easy.”

He performed kitchen duty. He made salads. He washed and polished utensils. “I have become an expert in scouring frying pans,” he said.

Asked how he handles crises or anger, he said:

“I remind myself that you don’t have to take everything too seriously, and especially not the hard things in life.”

“When I feel low, I remind myself that I am doing the right thing, that I had no other choice and that there was no other moral act I could have chosen. I do not forget that I am in jail by choice.”

He copes best he can. Doing the right thing is its own reward.

“From the outset of my struggle, my aim was not to preach in favor of one approach or another,” he said.

“I repeat: My reason for refusing is one of conscience. The option of seeing a mental health officer in order to get a discharge, because it’s tough for me in prison, or for some psychological reason, is not relevant. I also think that people who take that route are making a mistake.”

“Throughout, my actions have been dictated solely by my conscience. It is essential to be obstinate and speak your truth, down to the last comma. That is the only thing that can influence society when it must decide on issues of principle….”

On May 16, 36 Israeli university law faculty members wrote IDF Military Advocate General Brig. General Danny Efroni.

They urged Blanc’s release. Enough is enough. His right to refuse has been compromised. His freedom of conscience has been harmed. Petitions circulated on his behalf. His supporters ran two international campaigns. Haifa University Professor David Blanc is Natan’s father.

Professor Kobi Peter (Peterzil) knows the family.  “It’s hard to know if (Natan) is the ‘last Mohican,’ he said.

“Maybe his actions will give rise to something. He is doing what he feels deep inside. He is neither arrogant nor prideful, and has no desire for fame. Nor does he think, ‘I know better than others.’ ”

“He seems to have given the matter a great deal of thought before launching his struggle.”

“I see it as climbing a high mountain, but we have to remember that he did not travel to a distant land to find himself: He was inducted at the age of 19, after spending a year doing community service.”

“In his declaration of refusal, he speaks directly into the camera and explains how he perceives citizenship, which for him entails responsibility for Israel’s actions in the territories for the past 46 years.”

“Natan, who views citizenship as a binding obligation, is as stubborn as his parents. He is made of the stuff of heroes.”

“Part of what he is doing is aimed at opening a door and laying a foundation for recognition of a conscientious objector’s right to refuse to serve.”

On November 19, 2012, Blanc reported for induction as required. It was during Israel’s Operation Pillar of Cloud.  It ravaged Gaza for eight days. It was lawless premeditated aggression. Crimes of war and against humanity were committed.

Around 170 Palestinians died. Over 1,000 were injured. Nearly half were women and children. At least 963 houses were damaged or destroyed.

They included 10 health centers, 35 schools, 2 universities, 15 NGO offices, 30 mosques, 14 media offices, 92 industrial and commercial facilities, 1 UNWRA food distribution center, 8 government buildings, 14 police/security stations, 5 banks, 34 vehicles, 3 youth clubs, 3 cemeteries, and 2 bridges.

What happened reinforced his beliefs. Operation Cast Lead appalled him. What happened formed his mindset. He considered resisting. His statement after first being imprisoned said:

“The wave of aggressive militarism that swept the country then, the expressions of mutual hatred, and the vacuous talk about stamping out terror and creating a deterrent effect were the primary triggers for my refusal.”

Authorities, he said, aren’t “interested in finding a solution to the existing situation, but rather in preserving it.”

“We will talk of deterrence. We will kill some terrorist. We will lose some civilians on both sides, and we will prepare the ground for a new generation full of hatred on both sides.”

We, as citizens and human beings, have a moral duty to refuse to participate in this cynical game.”

Separately, he added:

“The war going on in this country for more than 60 years could have ended a long time ago.”

“The occupation was supposed to be temporary, but now no one speaks of it ending.” Israel keeps people “under our control.” Democracy exists in name only. Rule of law principles are spurned. Collective punishment is policy.

May 15 is International Conscientious Objectors Day. It’s commemorated worldwide. Refusing to kill is affirmed under international law. It’s a fundamental human right.  It’s based on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

Article 19 states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Articles 18 and 19 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) affirm the same rights. They’re inviolable. Israel spurns them. It violates virtually all fundamental international laws.

On June 6, Natan will be released. Given Israel’s longstanding abusive record and contempt for rule of law principles, it remains to be seen whether more recriminations follow. It’s standard Israeli practice. Rogue states operate that way.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.” 

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html /  Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com




It’s Not Really Fascism When Christians Do It

Christian Fascism, Theocracy in America

If Fascism Comes to America, It Will Be Wrapped in the Flag, Carrying the Cross

By Austin Cline, About.com
Christofascism

Fascism is a term commonly used as an epithet for any ideology that a person doesn’t like. Nevertheless, it is a real political phenomenon which can be defined (if with some difficulty) according to particular characteristics. When we look at what fascism really is, we discover that it is not something which must be limited to Germany and Italy of the mid-20th century. It is, instead, a phenomenon which might conceivable occur in any nation at any if the conditions are right. America is no exception.

Robert O. Paxton, a professor emeritus at Columbia University, defines fascism in his book The Anatomy of Fascism as: “A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

It should be clear that there is nothing fascist about “Islamofascism,” so that’s an example of people using the fascist label as a means of attack rather than as a serious description. Fascism is more like a religion than it is like a political movement. Fascism isn’t motivated by rational conclusions about economics, political philosophy, or social policy. This makes real religions like Christianity well suited for integration with a fascist movement. If fascism occurs in America, it will be Christian in nature because only Christianity has the power to motivate a mass-based movement with a passionate concern for unity, redemption, victimhood, and nationalism. Christian fascism will also be convinced of its own righteousness, moral purity, and godly intentions.

This image was taken from a World War II poster of an American prisoner of war saying “Don’t Let Me Down” and “You are still free to work.” Americans are free to work, but how free are they to enjoy the rest of the liberties which Americans fought and died to protect in World War II? Overt repression in America hasn’t started, but once a people unjustly puts others in shackles, they put on their own shackles as well. One is imprisoned by the brutality of the other; the latter is imprisoned by the need to perpetuate their own brutal methods lest the repressed rise up.

Austin ClineAustin Cline has been actively involved in educating people about atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism on the Internet for over 15 years.
________________
• Image © Austin Cline, Licensed to About; Original Poster: National Archives



Why won’t America embrace the left?


History

The Left in America seems to be forever lagging way behind the forces of the right and center, with disastrous results for the nation (and the world).
In two centuries, the movement’s history in America is plagued by failure. An expert explains why
BY MANDY VAN DEVEN, Salon

What has the left really accomplished over the past two centuries? FDR’s New Deal remains one of the great American success stories. In the ’60s, leftist politics created a massive countercultural movement — and sexual and feminist revolutions. The civil rights movement transformed both American society and the American soul. But, if you compare the accomplishments of the American left to those of other parts of the world, like Western Europe, its record is remarkably dismal, with a surprising lack of real political and social impact.

At least, that’s the main takeaway from “American Dreamers,” a new book by Michael Kazin, professor of history at Georgetown University, which covers nearly 200 years of struggle for civil rights, sexual equality and radical rebellion. His book explores the way the national conversation has been changed by union organizers, gay rights activists and feminists. He also writes about how their techniques have now been adopted by the Tea Party movement. From Michael Moore to “Wall-E,” he argues that, although the left has been successful at transforming American culture, when it comes to practical change, it’s been woefully unsuccessful.

Salon spoke to Kazin over the phone about the difference between Europe and America, the rise of the professional left — and why the Lorax is a progressive icon.

In the book, you argue that the left has been very successful at changing American culture — but not at making real economic or political change. Why?

It’s easier to get people to think about things differently than it is to construct institutions that alter the basic building blocks of society. When leftists talk about having a vision of how things might be different, they attract an audience and create a new way of perceiving things. It’s a different issue altogether to go up against entrenched structures of wealth and political power. There are few obstacles to talking differently, singing different kinds of songs, or making a different kind of art, but it takes a sustained movement of millions of people to really change the structures, and that is much harder to organize. Also, most Americans accept the basic ground rules of capitalist society. The ideas are that if you work hard you can get ahead and that it’s better to be self-employed than employed by the people. They believe that the basics of a capitalist society are just or can be made just with small alterations. Americans want capitalism to work well for everybody, which is somewhat of a contradiction in terms since capitalism is about people competing with each other to get ahead, and everyone’s not going to be able to do well at the same time. That’s simply not possible.

Why has the left in Europe been so much more successful at making real change?

The left in Europe arises out of a more traditional class structure, and the left parties there were formed on the basis on those class divisions. Most European countries had feudal societies before they transformed into nation-states. When those societies became capitalist, they retained many of the old divisions both in terms of people’s consciousness and in terms of the new social structure. Peasants and lords became workers and employers. So, the parties there tended to fall along class lines much more than in the United States, and people growing up on either side of the class boundary fueled the movements on the left. Even though the differences between the labor or socialist parties and the centrist or right-wing parties have diminished over time, the vision of a socialist society is still alive in many European countries. In America, however, socialism and communism were never more than marginal beliefs.

So what arguments does the left make well?

The ones regarding equality and rights. That’s clear when you look at how popular support is for gay marriage now, but Keynesian economics is not so popular. It’d be nice if they were both popular, but to make political change, you need sustained mobilization of social forces in your favor. You need to make good arguments and also put pressure on people in power. For all kinds of reasons, it’s been more difficult to do that. The support Americans have for what could be called “moral capitalism” goes very deep. The myth of the self-made man that emerged in the 19th century wasn’t entirely a myth. There were people who came to America and did very well for themselves. They had to do things like kill Native Americans and destroy the land in the process, but they made better lives for their families.

Historically, a lot of leftist activism has been based in religion, but these days, few people would make that connection. Why does that get lost in the retelling?

The wide political divide we have now between people who go to church regularly and people who don’t tends to break down along liberal and conservative lines. As a result, we tend to forget that evangelical Protestants in the 19th and 20th centuries were attracted to a social gospel that taught them to be their brother’s keeper and that Christ called on them to change the world. That belief system was true for the abolitionists, the Populists, the labor movement, for many early socialists, and for black radicals like Frederick Douglass and David Walker. We’ve lost that history since the 1950s or so because this growing division frames the understanding of religious politics for a lot of people. I think it’s a real shame that we allow the arguments about whether there is a God or not to obscure the potential consequences of what people do with their beliefs.

So what influence has the left actually had on American ideals?

The left has promoted a lot of the important changes that have occurred in American society, especially in expanding the meaning of “individual freedoms” to include African-Americans, women and homosexuals. The United States says it is committed to individual freedoms, but in practice those freedoms have been either betrayed or not fully realized. The left in this country has always been the vanguard of calling for complete equal rights and social equality. A lot of the major movements for equal rights that we celebrate — the black freedom movement, the women’s movement, the gay liberation movement — were all started by people who were considered to be radicals in their time. The memorial for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is being unveiled this week in Washington, D.C., and most people don’t realize how daring and dangerous it was for him to talk about civil rights and take part in that movement. The March on Washington was actually a protest for jobs and freedom that was heavily financed by and mobilized by the labor movement, even though people remember it as a march for African-Americans’ civil rights.

There are a lot of examples of leftists doing outlandish things that bring attention to the issues they support. Americans have been attracted to mass spectacles since the evangelical Great Awakening in the mid-18th century. We like yelling and protesting in colorful ways. The United Auto Workers was really established in the 1930s with the sit-down strikes in Flint, Mich., which is when the workers occupied the factories and kept the bosses out. It was a very imaginative event that was organized by members of the Communist Party. The workers weren’t just staying inside the warm plants in the middle of the winter in Michigan. They were saying the plants were as much theirs as the employers because without the workers no cars would be made. So, they slept on the upholstery of the cars they’d made until the union was recognized.

These days, a surprising number of Americans actually make their living by working in leftist activism. When did being a leftist become a career?

The professionalization of the left was inevitable in some ways because the work of the 1960s was primarily anchored in colleges and college communities. It’s not surprising that people like me became liberals instead of radicals after the revolution didn’t happen. When we had to find a way to make a living, it made sense to become professionals. That is essentially what we were going to college to become, even though we took a detour for a while. To some degree, you need professionals to organize. The people who organized the labor movement in the 1930s were often skilled workers, but there were also professionals like lawyers and journalists. The problem, of course, is when the movement is perceived as a movement of the better-educated, wealthy, privileged elite who are simply self-interested. That image is a problem the left, including liberals, continues to have because it has been cut off from a lot of ordinary working people.

How has the Internet changed the left in America?

The Internet makes it easier to mobilize if you already have a group that’s organizing around some issue. It’s good for meet-ups more than movements. Even the word “movement” has gotten away from the idea of making change. Now it just means people are moving. As wonderful as the Internet is, it doesn’t obviate the need for some of the old things that movements need to grow — like face-to-face organizing. That builds up a sense of trust among people who work together. Some people tend to be wowed by a great new idea or video, as if that is going to be enough. The Internet can quickly educate people about issues, but it’s not going to replace the need for a civil society.

What lessons do you think contemporary leftists should learn from their own history?

In order for the left to be successful, it needs to build institutions that involve people who are not intellectuals and professionals, and ones that aren’t full of people who only talk to each other. The left should welcome debate because it is healthiest when it argues with itself as well as with other Americans who think differently. When people on the left talk, they have to figure out ways of connecting their ideas to American ideals. Liberty and equality for all are wonderful and utopian standards that most Americans identify with, and this is a good thing for the left because it’s what we have been fighting for all along.

Looking back at the whole history of the left in the United States, who are your favorite American leftists?

I have been made fun of recently for saying this, but I think Dr. Seuss has been greatly overlooked as a leftist. He wasn’t a propagandist, but many of his best-selling books — like “Yertle the Turtle,” “The Lorax” and “The Butter Battle Book” — show that he had a leftist political message. Most successful political messages come from people who aren’t very closely associated with a particular left-wing group. Also, although the Greenwich Village artists and writers of the early 20th century aren’t exactly neglected, they are cast off as some sort of bohemian dilettantes. But Max Eastman, the editor of the magazine the Masses who later became a conservative, was a major voice of industrial labor unions, sexual liberation, birth control and modernism. In a lot of ways, whether they know it or not, the cultural left today has been inspired by the things the Masses was doing a hundred years ago.

 ADVERT PRO NOBIS
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

IF YOU THINK THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA ARE A DISGRACE AND A HUGE OBSTACLE
to real change in America why haven’t you sent at least a few dollars to The Greanville Post (or a similar anti-corporate citizen’s media?). Think about it.  Without educating and organizing our ranks our cause is DOA. That’s why our new citizens’ media need your support. Send your badly needed check to “TGP, P.O. Box 1028, Brewster, NY 10509-1028.” Make checks out to “P. Greanville/ TGP”.  (A contribution of any amount can also be made via Paypal and MC or VISA.)

THANK YOU.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________




The Nobel Peace Prize for War

By Michael Parenti
From our archives: Articles you should have read the first time around but didn’t.

(posted in 2012) 


michael-parentiStandingThose who own the wealth of nations take care to downplay the immensity of their holdings while emphasizing the supposedly benign features of the socio-economic order over which they preside. With its regiments of lawmakers and opinion-makers, the ruling hierarchs produce a never-ending cavalcade of symbols, images, and narratives to disguise and legitimate the system of exploitative social relations existing between the 1% and the 99%.The Nobel Peace Prize would seem to play an incidental role in all this. Given the avalanche of system-sustaining class propaganda and ideological scenarios dished out to us, the Nobel Peace Prize remains just a prize. But a most prestigious one it is, enjoying a celebrated status in its anointment of already notable personages.In October 2012, in all apparent seriousness, the Norwegian Nobel Committee (appointed by the Norwegian Parliament) bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize upon the European Union (EU). Let me say that again: the European Union with its 28 member states and 500 million inhabitants was awarded for having “contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy, and human rights in Europe.” (Norway itself is not a member of the EU. The Norwegians had the good sense to vote against joining.)

Alfred Nobel’s will (1895) explicitly states that the peace prize should go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” The EU is not a person and has not worked for the abolition or reduction of standing armies or promotion of any kind of peace agenda. If the EU award looked a bit awkward, the BBC and other mainstream news media came to the rescue, referring to the “six decades of peace” and “sixty years without war” that the EU supposedly has achieved. The following day, somebody at the BBC did the numbers and started proclaiming that the EU had brought “seventy years of peace on the European continent.” What could these wise pundits possibly be thinking? Originally called the European Economic Community and formed in 1958, the European Union was established under its current name in 1993, about twenty years ago.

The Nobel Committee, the EU recipients, and the western media all overlooked the 1999 full-scale air war launched on the European continent against Yugoslavia, a socialist democracy that for the most part had offered a good life to people of various Slavic nationalities—as many of them still testify today.

The EU did not oppose that aggression. In fact, a number of EU member states, including Germany and France, joined in the 1999 war on European soil led largely by the United States. For 78 days, U.S. and other NATO forces bombed Yugoslavian factories, utilities, power stations, rail systems, bridges, hotels, apartment buildings, schools and hospitals, killing thousands of civilians, all in the name of a humanitarian rescue operation, all fueled by unsubstantiated stories of Serbian “genocide.” All this warfare took place on European soil.

Yugoslavia was shattered, along with its uniquely designed participatory democracy with its self-management and social ownership system. In its place emerged a cluster of right-wing mini-republics wherein everything has been privatized and deregulated, and poverty has replaced amplitude. Meanwhile rich western corporations are doing quite well in what was once Yugoslavia.

Europe aside, EU member states have sent troops to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and additional locales in Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, usually under the tutorship of the U.S. war machine.

But what was I to expect? For years I ironically asserted that the best way to win a Nobel Peace Prize was to wage war or support those who wage war instead of peace. An overstatement perhaps, but take a look.

Let’s start back in 1931 with an improbable Nobel winner: Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia University. During World War I, Butler explicitly forbade all faculty from criticizing the Allied war against the Central Powers. He equated anti-war sentiments with sedition and treason. He also claimed that “an educated proletariat is a constant source of disturbance and danger to any nation.” In the 1920s Butler became an outspoken supporter of Italy’s fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. Some years later he became an admirer of a heavily militarized Nazi Germany. In 1933, two years after receiving the Nobel prize, Butler invited the German ambassador to the U.S. to speak at Columbia in defense of Hitler. He rejected student appeals to cancel the invitation, claiming it would violate academic freedom.

Jump ahead to 1973, the year one of the most notorious of war criminals, Henry Kissinger, received the Nobel Peace Prize. For the better part of a decade, Kissinger served as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and as U.S. Secretary of State, presiding over the seemingly endless blood-letting in Indochina and ruthless U.S. interventions in Central America and elsewhere. From carpet bombing to death squads, Kissinger was there beating down on those who dared resist U.S. power. In his writings and pronouncements Kissinger continually talked about maintaining U.S. military and political influence throughout the world. If anyone fails to fit Alfred Nobel’s description of a prize winner, it would be Henry Kissinger.

In 1975 we come to Nobel winner Andrei Sakharov, a darling of the U.S. press, a Soviet dissident who regularly sang praises to corporate capitalism. Sakharov lambasted the U.S. peace movement for its opposition to the Vietnam War. He accused the Soviets of being the sole culprits behind the arms race and he supported every U.S. armed intervention abroad as a defense of democracy. Hailed in the west as a “human rights advocate,” Sakharov never had an unkind word for the horrific human rights violations perpetrated by the fascist regimes of faithful U.S. client states, including Pinochet’s Chile and Suharto’s Indonesia, and he aimed snide remarks at the “peaceniks” who did. He regularly attacked those in the West who opposed U.S. repressive military interventions abroad.

Let us not overlook Mother Teresa. All the western world’s media hailed that crabby lady as a self-sacrificing saint. In fact she was a mean spirited reactionary who gladly welcomed the destruction of liberation theology and other progressive developments in the world. Her “hospitals” and “clinics” were little more than warehouses for the dying and for those who suffered from curable diseases that went untreated—eventually leading to death. She waged campaigns against birth control, divorce, and abortion. She readily hobnobbed with the rich and reactionary but she was so heavily hyped as a heavenly heroine that the folks in Oslo just had to give her the big medal in 1979.

Then there was the Dalai Lama who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989. For years the Dalai Lama was on the payroll of the CIA, an agency that has perpetrated killings against rebellious workers, peasants, students, and others in countries around the world. His eldest brother played an active role in a CIA-front group. Another brother established an intelligence operation with the CIA, which included a CIA-trained guerrilla unit whose recruits parachuted back into Tibet to foment insurgency. The Dalai Lama was no pacifist. He supported the U.S./NATO military intervention into Afghanistan, also the 78 days’ bombing of Yugoslavia and the destruction of that country. As for the years of carnage and destruction wrought by U.S. forces in Iraq, the Dalai Lama was undecided: “it’s too early to say, right or wrong,” said he in 2005. Regarding the violence that members of his sect perpetrated against a rival sect, he concluded that “if the goal is good then the method, even if apparently of the violent kind, is permissible.” Spoken like a true Nobel recipient.

In 2009, in a fit of self parody, the folks in Oslo gave the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama while he produced record military budgets and presided over three or four wars and a number of other attack operations, followed a couple of years later by additional wars in Yemen, West Pakistan, Libya, and Syria (with Iran pending). Nobel winner Obama also proudly hunted down and murdered Osama Bin Laden, having accused him—without a shred of evidence—of masterminding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

You could see that Obama was somewhat surprised—and maybe even embarrassed—by the award. Here was this young drone commander trying to show what a tough-guy warrior he was, saluting the flag-draped coffins one day and attacking other places and peoples the next—acts of violence in support of the New World Order, certainly every bit worthy of a Nobel peace medal.

There are probably other Nobel war hawks and reactionaries to inspect. I don’t pretend to be informed about every prize winner. And there are a few worthy recipients who come to mind, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Linus Pauling, Nelson Mandela, and Dag Hammarskjöld.

Let us return to the opening point: does the European Union actually qualify for the prize? Vancouver artist Jennifer Brouse gave me the last (and best) word: “A Nobel Prize for the EU? That seems like a rather convenient and resounding endorsement for current cutthroat austerity measures. First, corporations are people, then money is free speech, now an organization of nation states designed to thwart national sovereignty on behalf of ruling class interests receives a prize for peace. On the other hand, if the EU is a person then it should be prosecuted for imposing policies leading directly to the violent repression of peaceful protests, and to the misery and death of its suffering citizens.”

In sum, the Nobel Peace Prize often has nothing to do with peace and too much to do with war. It frequently sees “peace” through the eyes of the western plutocracy. For that reason alone, we should not join in the applause.

Michael Parenti is the author of The Face of Imperialism and Contrary Notions. For further information visit his website: www.michaelparenti.org.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/nobel_peace_prize_for_war.html