The thing is no fellow journalist stood up in his support, how hard it is to make a stand when you are standing alone in a room full of boot lickers and hypocrites
>>"how hard it is to make a stand when you are standing alone in a room full of boot lickers and hypocrites"
It's actually quite hard when you are in the environment of news/truth suppression such as we have been in. People are afraid for their careers. Journalists/reporters are also humans - and as most humans - they put their needs first above any others.
Only those with high levels of integrity, honesty, courage are able to rise above such an environment (which is few unfortunately).
You're asking the wrong question(s). We don't need to get off government or banks.
We need systems that work FOR THE PEOPLE (majority) instead of the minority (power elite).
(1) We need Govt. - BUT -> govt. FOR THE PEOPLE (not for the 1% as it currently is), BY THE PEOPLE (not by the corporations, oligarchs/etc. that are currently running the govt).
(2) We need financial institutions - BUT -> Not private banks that are owned by the 1% (and that work to maintain the status quo).
For starters, we need to dismantle Capitalism as one of the systems of oppression/exploitation/etc.
The HOW of "ending Capitalism" is way too complex a topic to be discussed here.
in general, your comments resonate, except for one. The 1% own the world, but don't own democracies. If you ask one of the 99% to lend an ear to your problem, few will respond. In all probability, the individual most likely to hurry to disconnect an essential utility from your place of residence for your unpaid bill is one of the 99%.. One day I remember asking a government agent if a parcel of land was available to build a home in British Columbia Canada, where I live, for free of course, and was quickly told by the employee: You don't think WE are going to give you land for free. do you?"
Although I was not naive enough to expect a positive answer, it was the resounding 'WE' that said it all.... and it did not come from an oligarch.
Oh it's not that complicated really. We have the means to turn things around by the third quarter of this year. For one thing, where are the brainstorming sessions we all ought to be having? And treating this a little businesslike instead of everyone spouting off in all directions. For starters, we haven't identified what "the problem" is yet. Can you believe it! That is how little we have dialogued. We are our pitiful selves, I'm not sugar coating it. Why is everyone always talking about how bad things are and how we can't do this or that rather than talk about what are we going to do. And brainstorm, and get fabulous ideas. And people can vote on the ideas. Government was invented in a time when information traveled at a snail pace. Today we have instant communication. Banks started when people transacted in gold. These are vestiges of a idiotic system. I'm saying to you that you can have a say on anything that you chose to and your say would be acknowledged, counted. Why would anyone want someone to make the proposals for them and then vote on the proposal? We can make our own proposals. We are now adults, just like these other people we think "represent" us. But we are able to represent ourselves - what could be better? There is no better way. And it's all doable. By the third quarter.
To try to answer your comment without going too deep into explanations however explanations are necessary because you (and mostly everyone) is seeing things with only one eye. Why do we need banks? I am sure you don't know the answer to that. We don't need banks to transfer numbers from one account to another. They are simply a middleman, a chaperone to keep their eye on you and everyone. There is no need for banks in the digital age, I wish people would realize this. I could transfer money into your account just as easily as a bank, and no fees need to be charged. We have this technology now, but we're still thinking in olden terms when we didn't have it, when we had gold as the unit of trade.
We don't need government for the same reason. Government is merely a chaperone for adults, which is ridiculous. We can decide on any matter ourselves. Government too was designed when information traveled at a snail's pace, but now information travels instantly. We need to come up to speed. There are systems that we can use that can quickly replace government and they are available right now and anyone can understand them. We don't need to dismantle capitalism either because that takes up energy we could be using to build the new systems and make these systems obsolete.
I can tell you one thing: IF I had been there I would have made it impossible for Butcher Blinken to speak.
You can question what I say but I have never been backward in coming forward. As to jobs: Screw your jobs these people are aiding and abetting genocide.
Jenny Stokes -> I'm tired of your "moral superiority" posturing and virtue signaling.
Examine YOUR OWN LIFE for all your moral failings (for whatever reason) before you position YOURSELF as some SUPERIOR human being. Judge yourself FIRST before you judge OTHERS.
And CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE. You are retired and being taken care of by the French Government. Having lived in the US yourself, you should know that a working adult (especially one that has to take care of kids) does not have an easy life (or the same protections) in today's America (unlike 50 years ago).
Also, PLEASE WORK ON YOUR COMPREHENSION issues.
Did you read the "Only those with high levels of integrity, honesty, courage are able to rise above such an environment (which is few unfortunately)." part in my comment?
Pretty hard, actually, when you are the one dissenter in a repressive media culture that kowtows to the elites and the war criminals, a society of dunderheads in which free speech is mocked and any deviation from the official narrative is scorned.
Until we hold free speech as inviolable, they're not going to. But "ordinary people" censor their peers, even Caitlin Johnson censors. There's a funny mentality that gets all bent out of shape when "the big people" censor, but the little people, oh they can censor left and right and nobody bats an eye. That is because deep in our psyche we believe the sequence that says "as above, so below", but, like everything, that is an inversion. We really need to understand that it's actually, "as below, so above". What the "units" ie, individuals do, is what makes the norm. But nobody is chastising their peers for censoring, probably because they want to do it too. But if Mark Zuckerberg does it or some newspaper, they're trounced. So again, it is giving in to the foundational belief that there's one rule for them and one rule for us. If censorship is bad, then it's bad for everyone, n'est pa?
Social media cannot function without censorship. I know this from experience beginning in 1994, the era when the first social medium — Usenet— was overwhelmed by ordinary Americans. Their dominant style was political posts replete with personal attacks, with “fuck” at least once in every sentence. The first to succumb to this tsunami of vulgarity were the politics and science groups. Over the next few years all the decent users left never to return.
The interesting thing is that ALL of the hundreds of Usenet groups suffered this fate. Specialized groups such as jazz guitar held out much longer but in the end succumbed. Some years after I’d made my escape I decided to give Usenet a second chance. The very first thing I saw there was noted jazz guitarist Jimmy Bruno telling someone to “go fuck yourself.” I never went back to Usenet again. I checked today and rather to my amazement it appears that Usenet is still going strong. Enough people like this sort of thing that one may choose between “The Top Ten Usenet Providers.” People PAY to access this stuff? Wow.
Unpleasant as it was I learned some things. Censorship is absolutely essential if you don’t want to swim in a cesspool. Recently I visited charge-free libertarian social medium Rumble and for the first time read a reply to a comment I had posted. The first two words were “Fuck you.” Usenet flashback! I’ve already had more than enough of that sort of thing. Ain’t reading one more word on Rumble. Never again.
But...having the government involved in censorship is totally unacceptable.
Why do you want speech to be curbed? Do you know that means if you consent to it for others, it will be imposed on your too? Do you understand the symmetry of intent - what you wish on others, will be wished upon yourself? Why is everyone so upset about strangers saying anything online - people you don't know whom you can simply scroll right on by and ignore entirely? I don't get it. You'd rather give away your own freedom of expression because...well I don't know why actually. Can you tell me why?
You say that not having censorship would cause worse outcomes than if we did. Oh really, how so? Because you don't like to hear the word "phuck"? Because your sensitivities and lack of self control forces you to be be affected by words? Nothing could be worse than censorship because it obstructs information and information is ABSOLUTELY KEY in human development. Obstructing information means we don't have access to scientific discoveries that may benefit us immensely, it means we can't know what is going on behind closed doors behind our backs. It keeps us ignorant and stupid. But oh that's nothing compared to disturbing your sensitivity to words on a screen. But please do tell us why it is worse to have freedom of speech. I'd like to hear that.
(4) Who's free speech is more important? Is it possible for EVERYONE to have the same level of free speech? Or should free speech be based on principles like safety, security, maximum benefit to majority of people, etc. (i.e. WHAT is the purpose of free speech and whom does it serve?)
(5) What about when one person's free speech violates another person's free speech? Are there ANY limits/rules/etiquette/etc. to free speech?
(6) Is (or should) free speech be the highest value or are there OTHER competing values that are MORE IMPORTANT than free speech for the adequate functioning of human societies and cultures?
....
There are dozens of more questions around the concept of "FREE SPEECH"
It is NOT a black/white or manichaean concept - it is extremely nebulous, means different things to different people, can be used for good AND bad, etc.
IMHO, people that tout FREE SPEECH as the be-all-and-end-all of everything are not thinking deeply enough into the thousands of things that go into a discussion of "FREE SPEECH" and its MANY RELATIONSHIPS to other equally important human values and real-world considerations.
Free speech is self explanatory. Nobody defines free speech, just speak. That's the beauty of it. Perhaps you are still tied up in the slave mind where you think some adults have more right to judge other adults? That's something you should look into. Nobody defines free speech, everyone just speaks. Nobody enforces free speech, they simply defend it. The idea of enforcement comes from our eons of being captives on this prison planet. Nobody has more free speech than others. What we need to avoid is that some people have more say than others. That essentially entitles the "might is right" philosophy which actually endangers you and even those who are all for "safety" security and certainty. Those factors do not really exist, only the illusion of them exist. But we can make things safer for ourselves and the safest thing we can do for ourselves is to condemn any form of unilateral censorship.
The only way one person's free speech violates another's is by banning, blocking, censoring, etc. If you don't like what someone says, ignore it, or respond to it, even slamming them. They always have the right of reply back in a free speech universe.
Nothing is more valuable than free speech, not even oxygen. Because without free speech, your oxygen can easily be cut off. All you have to do is look at all the violence in the world, that would come to a crashing halt with free speech. Have you noticed the Nazis, fascists and dictators all favor censorship? Well that's because they couldn't lord over anyone if free speech were the norm. And they know it! It's only the plebs who don't know it.
How about you come clean now, show us some examples of how free speech is more dangerous than censorship. Because so far, you've just dealt with nebulous, unspecific denunciations.
Yes, but context matters. If one individual doesn’t want to discuss (or they censor another person) a matter with another individual, mostly because their views and opinions are polar opposites or one person is peddling in conspiracy theories and their sources of information have no basis in verifiable facts, then all that’s happened is that one person got the shaft. On the other hand platforms like Facebook, Instagram and X can censor (and allow unrestricted vitriolic content as well) entire political, economic and social demographics. The impact is significant and the result is that a self reinforcing echo chamber of similar beliefs and values is created. One sided views are at best biased and at worst, dangerous. That’s what the government is doing. It’s what mainstream media is doing. That’s also what large media platforms are doing. And it has serious political implications for everyone involved. It is, no doubt, an effort to silence dissent when it’s that massive and widespread.
I just don’t think that that applies to independent journalism. At least not yet. There is no evidence of massive censorship going on. Maybe individual censorship very likely. That’s understandable. I see plenty of people engaging with those who believe differently. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not so much. I personally block anyone who uses extremely vile rhetoric. Others I don’t find common ground with, we simply agree to disagree and part ways. Sometimes it doesn’t end well at all. Try not to let that happen too often. Our first amendment rights are not limitless. On an individual basis, yours end where mine begin and vise versa.
Also remember free speech allows us to voice who has caused harm. They can always defend themselves if the allegations are mistaken. This applies to you too you know - if someone accuses you of something, you would have the immediate ability to reply. Sociopaths and psychopaths absolutely cannot live in this light. They are like cockroaches who run for the shadows. People who oppose free speech are substantially feathering their nest. Censorship tries to keep people in the dark. It says that some people are more capable of handling what people say, than others. It's like they are our mommies and daddies. Adults cannot govern adults, it's a preposterous idea.
I think you’re mincing words and concepts here. We’re talking about censorship and context matters. Just because someone doesn’t want to hear your perspective doesn’t mean you can take them to court. No one is going to hear that case because it has no merit. It’s a matter of personal preference. You don’t have to listen to someone you simply don’t see eye to eye on a particular issue or political stance. That’s not acting like mommy or daddy. It’s exercising their right to shut down any conversation they don’t find it comports with their views, values or moral convictions. You can do the same.
We have libel lawsuits and precedent that protect individuals from real harm done to their reputations and/or financial damages. This is an entirely different issue than censorship.
If you don't want to hear something, of course it's your choice to go away or do whatever you think is apt. But just because you don't want to hear something doesn't mean that someone should shutup for you. For example, I wish everyone would understand how troubling it is to me that ordinary people think they ought to shut down others' speech and also be shut down themselves if they say something that others don't like. To me that is the most inane logic. But you actually are saying that if what you say is not liked then you think it's right for them to shut you down. So I would shut you down if I didn't like what you say and I didn't believe in free speech. See how twisted that is? What you wish it on others, will be wished on yourself. This is a fundamental formula of nature, it is not illusion like human society is. Shutting other's expression causes distorted perturbations that we bring on ourselves. We ourselves bring them upon ourselves. What we see on the world stage, is merely a projection of the level of consciousness that exists on the small scale, on the individual scale - collectively. That ratio is important to understand. We have been kept like mushrooms - in the dark and why? Because rulers deemed that information be hidden, and that can only come through the defense of censorship.
Just tell me this, what are you frightened of exactly, by hearing the speech of others?
And courts are a nonsense to me as is the basis of our society. Basically courts are based on blackmail - do as I say, or else. So if they deem something not having merit, it just goes to show how low in consciousness they are. They toss out very meritorious issues all the time. I guess most cannot imagine the unleashing of intelligence free speech would generate.
You mean the govt stenographers that feed us a steady stream of lies? Do you really not understand that they are not there to ask questions or tell truth? Do you not see the lies they publish every day after the press briefings?
Husseini showed real courage there, putting his career in jeopardy to speak truth to power while being assaulted by paid thugs to shut him up. Bravo, we need many more like him. Reminds me of Udo, who mysteriously died young after writing a book on how the CIA controls the media:
"I was taught to lie, to betray and not to tell the truth to the public.
…
I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the German secret service.
…
Most journalists from respected and big media organisations are closely connected to the German Marshall Fund, the Atlantik-Brücke or other so-called transatlantic organisations…once you’re connected, you make friends with selected Americans. You think they are your friends and you start cooperating. They work on your ego, make you feel like you’re important. And one day one of them will ask you, "Will you do me this favor?"
…
We’re talking about puppets on a string, journalists who write or say whatever their masters tell them to say or write. If you see how the mainstream media is reporting about the Ukraine conflict and if you know what’s really going on, you get the picture. The masters in the background are pushing for war with Russia and western journalists are putting on their helmets.
…
When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Ulfkotte’s newspaper) that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets — but I don’t mind. You see, I don’t have children to take care of." -Udo Ulfkotte, German Journalist 2017, Now Dead
"Secretary of State — a caring compassionate man " - Blinken? Huh? Can a "caring compassionate man" do all he can to make sure people are slaughtered? Of course not.
Only a morally vacant man with sinister intentions.Bravo to Sam Husseini and Max Blumenthal! for their courage, integrity, and truth telling. Impressive too, were all the chicken hearted purchased journalists whose fealty to truth stands at the end of their line of values, so distant as to be unrecognizable. Just sitting there. Gosh!
I wouldn't mind a list of all the journalists who DIDN'T stand up for Sam Husseini and Max Blumenthal. That way we can all boycott, divest, and sanction them and their media outlets. Hit them hard in the wallet! It's the only way to get our point across that we don't care for bootlickers who cover for genocidal war criminals like Blinken.
Well before the hallowed "October 7" palestinian jailbreak the man was platforming violent fascists and whitewashing them for insertion into the Israeli regime:
But BOTH the mainstream media and even the supposed alternative news sources like Propublica completely overlook this. How do journalists over look something like this in the middle of an ongoing genocide?
Credit to Sam Husseni and Max Blumenthal for standing up in the final press conference.....but even they too never once wrote anything about this.....nor did this ask Mr Blinken even a single question about this dubious action of his in a press conference. And this here is facts ON PUBLIC RECORD. Not conspiracy anything.
"Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this matter and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the designation of the Kahane Chai (and other aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization have changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation.
Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of Kahane Chai (and other aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be revoked.
This determination shall be published in the Federal Register
"This is western liberalism in a nutshell. The problem isn’t the genocide, the problem is people being insufficiently polite about the genocide."
Well, we can't be all rude about how we go about financing and arming a genocide, now can we? Before you know it, you'd have journalists asking questions that deserve honest answers, and that just isn't done! We're all friends here at the State Department press room, don't you know. *sarcasm*
If I were to experience something like the thuggery that happened to Sam Husseini, I would ( being a woman) scream at the top of my lungs, QUIT GROPING ME! GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY TITS! I’M SUING FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT! 😁😉
Boycott MSM completely! (unless you are a journalist or reporter).
And choose your independent media wisely.
The Media HAVE ALWAYS been an arm of the 1%/power elite/oligarcy/etc. (regardless of which country one talks about - it's the same all over the world).
Not always. Impartial and graphic US television news coverage in the 1960s fueled the anti-war movement, created it in large part you might say. Journalists Woodward and Bernstein brought Nixon down. Today's owned & controlled MSM is a recent incarnation, relatively speaking.
>>"Today's owned & controlled MSM is a recent incarnation"
Are you sure about that? If one studies the history of media (printing press, radio, TV, internet, pre-printing press era, etc.) MSM has many uses - BUT the "power interests" have always found a way to co-opt it as an information medium to control the masses and preserve the status quo.
A few exceptions does not make the case you think it does.
So the "power interests" include corporate. And are like an octopus - all over the place and smart. We have to be smarter. Even more important, we need
to find ways of "belonging" and then concentrating and focusing. Together. And, of course, we must translate thoughts in actions. Together. The lovely amazingly strong young woman who leads exercises on youtube.com ...on senior shape...or something like that encourages us to put our hearts into the exercise saying "If it isn't challenging, it doesn't change you." From couch potato hood to Big Wild Cats - or Big Wily Wolves or The Dragon Dames....(Beavers doesn't cut it).
As recently as 2003 I was able to get useful info out of the New York Times. I was able to know that the Iraq WMD thing was all bullshit. This however gradually dwindled away until MSM was 100% propaganda, whereupon I became unwilling to be exposed to it at all.
If you need a turning point, I'd say it was the most popular talk show host getting fired for opposing the bogus war. The message to journalists was crystal clear. Submit or else.
Learn a bit about Woodward and Bernstein and "bringing Nixon down." That entire thing was a CIA operation to punish and smear Nixon because he presented himself to be a threat to the CIA. Look it up. Bernstein was Navy intelligence. He couldn't write a damn. He was fed the intel info that Bernstein wrote up. It was all a sham, another stupid national narrative.
Just how relatively speaking are you referring to? I would refer you to "The Brass Check" by Upton Sinclair, all about the state of the press in the USA. "'American journalism is a class institution serving the rich and spurning the poor.'” He likened journalists to prostitutes through the title which referenced a form of payment made in brothels of the time, from the "About the book" on the publisher's page: https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p071102
Originally published in 1919. Relatively recently, or long ago?
Mere minutes ago if you are in your mid-seventies with one foot in the grave as I am, or in the distant moss-covered historical past if you are a young person. 'Recent' is subjective. But I will say that when Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, these de-regulations signaled the end of a free press in this country.
I boycott MSM entirely, but I appreciate people like Caitlin who buckle on their emotional helmets and go in there and watch State of the Union addresses and press briefings and such, and give me the bits I need to know.
The journalists sitting next to Sam looked embarrassed for just sitting there while he was carried out. Those cowards should have gone with him and let Tony speak to an empty room.
I hope they are sitting at home and wondering why they were such cowards.
Politesse indeed!. the scum actors and actresses at CNN who claim the mantle of journalist— but wouldn't deserve to shine Max Blumenthal's shoes — will also never face the music for their role in perpetual lying for the Blinkens and Count Smirkulas of the empire. They bear equal if not greater responsibility because of their platforms, which allow the spreading of empire propaganda disease like infectious anthrax spores.
I can’t disagree. Many Americans are just as appalled at Americans atrocities by Biden, Blinken, etc. we are appalled that our First Amendment Rights are being crushed, our justice system a disappointing sham. Trump will be utter chaos! People are trying to make a change, and aren’t giving up, so what can you and other readers do about your own governments response, position, action?
Get together with the like minded and make good trouble with our Senators and Representatives....and join Sunrise or other larger group to foment creative actions.Support independent media. Keep talking to lots of people wherever we are.
Being skillful listeners and passionate about democracy and its requirements.
Nothing is as close to the written truth as today's article by Caitlin.
And what, one may ask, will bring the apparently voiceless American people forming the Empire into such a nervous state to then create enough pressure on the US nihilistic White House administrators for serious change?
Something that threatens the USA, a city like New York or a location where some group who have enough power (money) as to stay safe in their protected cocoons but all of a sudden are able to be in deadly danger on their own street, their land, in their own country?
You see, the whole world knows that the US has not been threatened for a long time. Am I wrong to suggest the current arrogant climate in that country is because there has never ever been anything even close to a Pearl Harbour since that day in December, 1941 when the USA, not involved with any part of WWII at that time, faced a grave threat.
Any number of publications will detail in graphic terms the immediate response by the government at that time but digest the words by President Roosevelt referring to the attack on Pearl Harbor as "a date that will live in infamy.”
Well, “infamy" it may have been in 1941, America, but so much USA generated infamy has been in evidence in so many other parts of the world since that date, one can hardly keep count, all driven by the receivers of just one example of infamy, a long time ago in 1941.
Then the Cuban Missile Crisis, brought to an end by the inputs of a decent American called Kennedy, was another short term experience that shattered the complacency of the USA..........for a short time.
The next one with nuclear weapons, somewhere off the coast of America, say New York City, might be the one lesson that is required to reduce the nihilistic attitude of a Trump and a tribe of arrogant look-a-likes, until they are made to realise they do not own the world and that they are just as vulnerable as any other country.
Can't think of any other option that will make a difference. It is not just the Washington brigade that needs to go, the people need to wake up.
I disagree. Look at history--when a people have been threatened, attacked, humiliated, impoverished, the typical response is to become defensive, aggressive, and chauvinistic. European Jews suffered horribly in the Third Reich--now their descendants in Israel are creating (or trying to) a Fourth Reich. The Germans, in turn, were susceptible to getting swept into fascism because they were economically desperate and humiliated by unfair sanction after they were defeated in WWI.
It's true that the US has not had a war on our soil since the Civil War, and has not had a war in which we lost a lot soldiers since Vietnam, and this doers reduce the opposition to war. But American opinion on our wars is irrelevant to policy anyway. We can't vote against it--both allowed parties support it. We can and do attend marches and demos, but in smaller numbers since in became clear that they have no effect. We could refuse to pay the taxes to support the military, but this would also drain the coffers for social programs, infrastructure--in fact, it would ONLY drain those since to the US Congress, more money for the military every year is a sacred obligation--everything else can be sacrificed first.
There's step #1. Allowing all the Zionist and Trumpets to contribute hundreds of millions to own a government, therefore the decision making on policies, is something that must be seen as a criminal act. But no. Not a word on correcting that blatant corruption. Raised in the media? To my knowledge It hasn't made a headline in 2024 or 2025.
It is now the norm.
So while the people have so little say in the future of their country, nothing will change. Government 'by the people'. An illusion.
Finally. Wars........"both allowed parties support it". You now have four years to form another party while at the same time removing, one by one, all the Israeli owned members in your government. Senate and the House.
I don't think so. The blatant buying of legislators and legislation has been going on a long time, has been nailed into place by the Supreme Court; people have been trying unsuccessfully to change this for at least half a century with no success. The key is that the media is in on it too. Understand that legalized bribery has not only brought us the hideousness of this latest war, and the Ukraine one, and the threats against China and sanctions against half the world; it's also why we can't have universal healthcare, why our drugs and operations cost much more than elsewhere, why we can't do anything about climate change and other environmental crises, why there are Cop Cities going up and pipelines being built against the will of the people most affected.
Control of the media--the legacy media AND the electronic ones that act as gatekeepers--by the oligarchs makes it virtually impossible to organize, and the courts increasingly side with the oligarchs. When there is a risk of a breakthrough by some people's movement, the rulers don't mind ignoring the law or the Constitution. So I don't think there is any chance of reforming the Democratic Party, or of starting a third party or strengthening the Greens--we cannot win via the ballot box, ever again. Winning requires overturning the power of the oligarchs, who now have an iron grip on every part of our government, and are reaching for more controls, more surveillance, more ability to lock up those who resist.
No I am NOT saying we give up--if we can't break this, these maniacs will likely bring humanity and much other life on Earth to extinction--their agenda is insane. But I don't think traditional routes to reform or revolution will avail us. Currently, I think local organizing focused on creating communities of resilience and resistance, are our best bet, because we are still free to organize on a local level and that may break through the mindset that has us in two warring camps. I think the inability of the only people who have power to solve problems--because they're obsessed with hanging onto power and increasing their already monstrous wealth, and nothing else, so they veto desperately needed measures--means that a collapse is coming, probably quite soon. It may be impossible to predict when it will hit, where it will start,how drastic it will be but it's possible to predict that what is unsustainable will not be sustained. And the collapse will at last break their hold on power. That's when we'll have the opportunity to guide our local communities in a wholesome direction--the odds of which are much better if we start now, building relationships. Mutual aid groups can initiate this with a focus on plans for ensuring resilience in the face of disasters--but everything that increases local resilience increases self-sufficiency, and withdraws support from, and for, the globalized economy.
Well, Mary it is obvious to me that your knowledge on this subject is far more worldly than mine. One gets the feeling that you are well versed on your own environment due to your apparent closeness to some of the factors you mentioned above, which means that you are probably a fully paid up citizen of the “EMPIRE”.
I do not have that first hand knowledge coming from a country at least 300 million in population less than your country, but of recent years peppered with US military activities, here and there, behind every rock, in every hallway, university campus, consultants to government etc., to enable this country ( a real US bag carrier) to enjoy the (one way) "friendship” of the master race. However, I can see those same pervasive conditions as you identified entering into our daily life, warmly welcomed by the political class and thereby ignored by the majority (especially in the tennis season) and promoted heavily by both major parties, almost in unison.
Not a good sign for the future . A possible description for this little island in 2025…..…a US whore.
It sickens me that we are becoming a mirror image of the another warlike country after spending 157 years under a colonial environment and still bowing and scraping to an English King called Charlie. Progress to real independence is very, very slow indeed.
In reality, since 1788 we have jumped out of the UK frying pan and in 1945, into the US fire.
Still, with the really important things in life we do bat above our weight. Tennis.
Not sure what you mean by saying I'm a fully paid-up citizen of the empire. I am a citizen of the USA, a status many would love to have, and which I achieved by the supreme hard wok and talent of having been born in New Jersey. (That is another thing that is utter bullshit--the idea that we should all pay allegiance and loyalty to "countries", territories marked on a map by white men some centuries ago, arbitrarily saying I'm a citizen while an indigenous woman in the southern desert country must get a pass, as "alien" to travel to another part of the land her people have lived on for a thousand years.)
But fully paid-up? I have managed to avoid paying federal taxes all but a couple of the years I worked, partly because I've never aspired to a "standard of living" that is the norm here, but also because I didn't want to contribute to the war machine. State and sales taxes I don't mind because most of it goes into good and useful things. But a refusal to pay federal taxes is problematic because we can't just refuse the destructive bits.
Seems like we need a revolution, but a global one. And a profound one, that is cultural as well as political, that rescues ecosystems as well as people--one I think needs to be led by indigenous people but at their backs must be all the rest of us.
Very few people ever mention the use of nuclear weapons by our species... yet, the Doomsday clock has been placed at about 90 seconds t midnight... Comgrats, you are awake in a world of sleeping fools...
However, in my view, even the end of the Empire won't end it.
Tyranny, in various forms from that of religions to that of military might has existed at least since the creation of the nation-state and, I suggest, even long before that.
Our political systems, even when they do act, do no more than take action on symptoms, usually by simply throwing money, (not their money, of course), at them. The politicians will not tackle root cause for they would have to face up to the fact that much of the cause and the accountability for the parlous state of things is down to them.
Our world is now one driven by materialism and greed.
Morality is no longer of any consequence to most who most need to model justice and compassion and equity and who have the powers to demonstrate it.
Difference, to most, signals or promotes division and negativity, rather than being seen as opportunity for learning and growth and the recognition that synergy assists us to thrive.
Already the World is one into which no rational and reasonable person would choose to bring children. The aged are invisible and their wisdom and experience ignored, their only saving grace being that they perhaps will die before humanity commits suicide by destroying the planet and itself.
Such gross indecency and wrong as the closing down of journalists who ask the right questions and activists who state the truth is, unfortunately, a mere side-show to what is happening all around us. It, too, is just a symptom of a race, i.e. humanity, gone wrong - lost in its own delusions of grandeur and knowledge, mostly emanating from the bizarre belief systems known as religions and their perverse codes.
Many might to say this scenario: "God help us", which is ironic given that no god has ever helped humanity, if indeed there was any evidence of any of the 18000 or so gods whom human beings have worshipped actually having existed - and, of course, there isn't.
as long as there's a very basic and real material housing to our lofty spirits, it makes sense to keep in mind materialism, especially for those missing out on the correct distribution. (greed is indeed an egoic materialism overdose).
No it isn't. It's perfectly reasonable to say that you don't want to inflict on your own children, the dystopian world in which they'd have to live if you brought them into being. Malthus said there were too many people, an entirely different question, and Hobbes proposed that nobody is genuinely moral--doesn't seem to relate to the question of having kids in a world on fire.
There is a DIFFERENCE between "perfectly reasonable to say that you don't want to inflict on your own children" and calling people that want to bring children into the world "irrational and unreasonable" (no rational and reasonable person would choose to bring children)"
So, you agree with Roger Hawcroft that ANY person that chooses to have children (i.e. "bringing children into this world") makes the person irrational and unreasonable ("no rational and reasonable person")?
It's a strawman arguement that you're putting forth - please make another attempt to READ (both his comment and mine) exactly as written.
"Having less children on the planet for future generations" is a Malthusian undertone (i.e. overpopulation). Hobbesian thinking is along the same lines (i.e. humans are inherently bad and so the world is bad and so bringing children into the world is wrong).
You're right--the OP did say "no reasonable person", and this is a difficult decision, so it's unfair to say "no reasonable person" about either choice. I still think this isn't Mathusian in the context--he was not talking about overpopulation but about the world being an ugly hellhole full of immoral people (so yeah, Hobbesian does fit).
Actually, I AM Malthusian--campaigned against my son having a second child (once--then I shut up). I chose myself in the 80s to have kids even though things were looking grim even then--saying it was a vote of confidence in the world, and of course if nobody has ANY kids, the human race dies out and I don't think this is desirable. Nor do I agree that humans.. are inherently, incorrigibly evil.
I believe you misunderstand. A Malthusian worries about overpopulation and thinks we need to cut our numbers, ideally by reducing births rather than increasing (early) deaths. This doesn't mean we believe the ideal number of humans is zero, that no one should have any kids. I think people should have one. After I had one, I struggled with the question of how to give him a sibling--I believed it was bad for a kid to be an only child, which I don't really think now. I considered adoption, but figured we would not be allowed to since my husband of that time had a heavy alcohol/tobacco and pot addiction, plus we had an outhouse, no flush toilet. Also, I was aware that people who can't conceive wait for years to adopt--and might rightfully resent someone able to conceive, carry and bear children with ease, getting in that line. While I was considering all this I missed my period and that was that--I had a daughter. Who has chosen not to marry or have kids, but my son has two.
My statement is perfectly rational. It may not seem so to you for your comprehension of it and its relationship to what Caitlin wrote and my response to it, is simplistic or reactionary at best. Indeed, it appears that you have only a very cursory understanding of humanity and human nature and also little of history or evolution.
Your shouting is also very poor online etiquette and even if it were not, entirely unnecessary. What you shouted is a simple opinion, and a false one at that, and requires no emphasis of any kind. Even if it did require emphasis, there are more eloquent and polite ways to have given it.
Children, indeed, are *not* the future. Your stating such is simply repetition of a commonplace assertion which, as are so many others of its type has neither evidence nor even past history to support it. The future is what it will be. Children may be a part of it or may not. However, they as is true for all of us, will only be a part of it as long as humanity exists and all evidence indicates that it is unlikely to see out this century.
In the current context of the World, a dystopian tragedy for humanity appears increasingly to be other than imagined and, instead, a very probably accurate prediction.
According to the International War Museum:
"Conflict took place in every year of the 20th Century; the world was free from the violence caused by war for only very short periods of time. It has been estimated that 187 million people died as a result of war from 1900 to the present. The actual number is likely far higher."
Given the events already of the 21st Century, it is unlikely that it will be any different. Here are just some that indicate the truth of this:
Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022)
2021 Israel-Palestine crisis (2021)
2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt (2016)
Yemeni Civil War (2015-present)
2014 Gaza War (2014)
Russian Annexation of Crimea (2014)
War in Donbas (2014-present)
Operation Pillar of Defence (2012)
Libyan Crisis (2011-present)
Syrian Civil War (2011-present)
Boko Haram (2009-present)
Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009)
Second Lebanon War (2006)
Iraq War and Insurgency (2003-2011)
Global War on Terrorism (2001-2013)
War in Afghanistan (2001-2014)
Second Intifada (2000-2005)
Second Chechen War (1999-2009)
Bosnian War (1992-1995)
Sierra Leone Civil War (1991-2002)
Operation Epervier (1986-2014)
Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005)
France in Central African Republic (1979-2015)
It is estimated that there are currently at least 150
wars or armed conflicts occurring in the World.
Israel, since 8th October 2023, has killed over 44,000 Palestinians and injured over 100,000. 70% of those are women and children - not just numbers but living human beings. This has been and still is *justified* [not] as a measure of 'self defence' following the incursion of the armed wing of Hamas - the legitimately elected government of Palestine with an International right to fight to free itself from occupation under international law, and its killing of 1135 Israeli citizens and the hostage taking of somewhere between 250 and 340, depending on the source consulted. [It is worth noting that the whole of the Palestinian People have been effectively held hostage for several decades by Israel.)
The supposed leading nation of the 'Free World' which once fought to stop a militaristic and expansionist Germany, is as complicit in the Israeli genocide as Israel. So are all other nations which have supported Israel with funding, arms or in any other way and all those whose governments have failed to condemn Israel outright.
Many millions of non-human animals have also been directly killed or died as a result of this human activity, often in brutal and appallingly painful ways and through no fault of their own.
Our World is suffering its worst natural calamity in memory in the onset of global warming / climate change (whichever you will) and the failure, because of greed and hedonism, selfishness and self-aggrandisement coupled with delusions of intellect far beyond the reality, and materialism, to adequately deal with this crisis. In fact, we probably could have prevented it had we begun when science first warned us but instead, governments, large corporations, and wealthy profit interested fat cats and scurrilous media outlets, together with right-wing politicians who would have been at home in the National Socialist Party, have sabotaged or impeded any significant progress so that already we have passed the 1.5% increase in global temperature.
A woman is murdered by her (usually male) partner approximately every ten minutes somewhere in the World. I'm not sure of the number who suffer physical and mental injury but I'm quite sure that a quick search would discover it is an even greater number and when one considers how lengthy a time this can continue, perhaps it is even worse for some than being murdered.
I could carry on listing statistics detailing the failing of humanity, the decline of moral sensibility and the appalling conditioning to see life success as defined by wealth, status, fame and power. However, there ought to be enough of a taste of the parlous state of our *single* race to support my previous comment - the one to which you've taken umbrage with a simplistic commonplace.
I will however add just one more appalling fact, given that this started with my sentiment in relation to bringing more children into the World. This fact is the totally irrational, irresponsible and stupid apportioning of all manner of rights over a life to its creators, as soon as a child is born. In simple terms: parental rights.
In fact, although I can't give a %age, it is readily apparent that a large proportion of 'parents', (probably the majority), have little or even nothing to support transfer of 'ownership' of a life and control over it. Yet, as soon as that child is born they are granted a say, if not 'the say' over virtually every aspect of that child's life. It even extends in many supposed educated and intelligent societies to allowing parents to decide whether the child lives or dies in medical situations; dictating that the child be indoctrinated in a particular religion or ideology; schooled, i.e. conditioned in a particular social perspective and even physically or mentally tormented and/or abused - such being justified, (excused), as 'necessary discipline.'
Many new parents or even repeated parents have neither the resources nor the capability to provide adequately for their children. Millions of children are sold into slavery or as good as, in being put to work long hours for the profit of others or to support their families. Girls particularly suffer mutilation for outmoded, absurd, legacy religious or cultural reasons. They are also, predominatnly because of religious tenets and interpretations, often restricted from education, not allowed to be seen; not allowed to speak; given to some man often many years their senior, regardless of their wishes; forced to have intercourse and babies when they have barely reached puberty; denied access to certain occupations or roles in society; and generally treated a second-class citizens - if that.
Don't, either, be fooled into thinking that what I've mentioned applies only to developing countries or what the ignorant describe as 'the developing world'. It doesn't - it is just as real in modern democracies and, if there is any difference, it will only be one of relativity.
So, this, (even abbreviated list of dysfunction and horror), is the world into which you claim I am wrong to assert that it is *neither rational nor responsible to bring children*. ... Think again.
... And if and when you do, please refrain from introducing home-spun misunderstanding of philosophy and particular that which actually has little of nothing to do with either Caitlin's article or my own response.
On the basis of what you wrote to me and what you subsequently wrote in response to Mary Wildfire, you need to educate yourself to a much greater degree before you attempt again to indulge in abusing others and attempting to make rational and responsible arguments which are nothing more than simplistic and conditioned sentiment.
This is not an argument about dictators or anarchy, it is an appraisal of what are the moral imperatives for individual decision making and the context in which they are made. [Again, there is far too much to be said on that score than it is reasonable for me to write here. However, consider that there is reality and there is context and their is morality and there is responsibility and there is risk and there is accountability. You may consider it 'reasonable', even 'rational' to inflict an almost unimaginable life of suffering on a potential human being. I do not and neither am I prepared to be accountable for it.
I'm not even going to bother reading YOUR bullshit -> I'm sure you're going to repeat it ad-nauseum in EVERY comment.
All I can say is -> PLEASE seek professional HELP for your condition.
And please keep repeating to yourself "My statement is completely rational". Maybe if you say that a hundred times over you might start believing YOUR "bullshit" YOURSELF. (Also, if you have the time, please look up 'rational' and 'reasonable' in the dictionary).
Listen you arrogant and ignorant troll. I don't need your recommendations on anything for you have shown only the barest and most simplistic understanding of the issues on which you've written.
Of course you are not going to "bother reading YOUR bullshit" because you are almost certainly incapable of comprehending, even basically, more than a few lines of text at a time.
In the ubiquitous fashion of those who know little but present themselves as being the ultimate arbiters on all, I note also that while you claim not to bother reading what I've written you consider it reasonable to condemn it and to condemn me for writing it. That you do so is another indication of your ignorance for you clearly cannot separate a point of view on an issue from the person making it.
Incidentally, I have been 'reading' dictionaires for over 70 years and it is not I that ought to be directed towards one but yourself. Indeed, I'd suggest you undertake study in the use of language, in expanding your vocabulary, in online etiquette and in self examination and humility.
Now I will descend just for a moment to your level - GO AWAY YOU WRITE AS IF A FUCKING MORON IS WHAT YOU ARE. If you are not, then it is you that seriously needs help.
At least a couple of the other 'journalists' in the room showed some embarrassment at what was happening. Hopefully at their own level of obsequiousness.
Max Blumenthal told Matt Miller at this press conference that he grinned himself through a genocide. Let that sink in for a moment. He was not corrected or removed from speaking on behalf of the State Department. He was enabled to continue to do this for months. The US Empire doesn't give a rat's ass about human rights or human lives for that matter and should not ever be allowed to lecture other regimes about it.
I guess Aaron David Miller doesn’t consider shooting children in the head a “new low.” Thank God Blinken didn’t faint and the ruffians were removed! Mommy is probably on speed-dial to comfort him and tell him not to listen to negativity.
The rest of the reporters in the room were as predictable as a herd of cows. Out came the cellphones but no questions about the real number of people murdered in Gaza, if there’s been even one bomb dropped that wasn’t Made in America (and autographed by Nikki Haley) or if he’s already been signed up to be an Israeli lobbyist.
No one is showing up for the people of Palestine though. NO ONE! The ones that do, do not have power to do anything about it or are called terrorists. This is a collective failure of humanity. I mean where is China? Russia? Europe? India? South America? Heck were are all the arab nations?
Don't omit Nicaragua from your list of those stepping up for Palestine. In fact, they are one of the strongest whose case at the ICJ, if successful, has monumental potential.
You're right but sadly these countries you list only have limited power on the world stage. Shame on the other countries you mentioned; it goes to show that they're all in bed together. We are hurtling towards their "new world order" unless we slam on the brakes and refuse to participate en masse.
The fact that these other countries are scared of being destroyed, is understandable. The leaders of these countries have to do what’s best for their people and that’s a difficult decision they’ve had to make, I’m sure. The US is the country that made decisions, that are against their citizens best interests. Pointing fingers at other countries is disingenuous. The finger only needs pointed at the perpetrators, not the innocents.
"The leaders of these countries have to do what’s best for their people and that’s a difficult decision they’ve had to make, I’m sure." - alas, but that is not how democracy should work, imo. there should be structures which allow 'their people' to decide what is best for them and no difficult decisions to any 'leaders' discretion.
yeah but then that is cowardice. If you do not stand up for what is right out of fear. Plus they would not be destroyed if they banded together. Stop making excuses. Whatever their reasons, clearly genocide and mass murder is not a red line for them either. If that is your reasoning, then you cannot point the finger at people in this country who wanted to vote for Kamala Harris arguing that there are other considerations for them to worry about besides the genocide of Palestinians. Can't be mad at those people but give a pass to the international community who abstain for the exact same reasons" we are afraid/we have to do what is best for us..."
Stop blaming Americans as some unique evil. The problem is humanity. Always has, always will be.
With the military and economic hegemony the US wields, they most certainly are uniquely evil. Western European countries are complicit and go lockstep with whatever the US decrees. The US has also implemented puppet regimes in many countries around the world. It does make it a scary prospect to try and stand up to the evil of the US and their colonial outpost in Palestine. I wish things weren’t so fucked up, for sure. I think BRICS will be very meaningful in creating a new world order, but they aren’t there yet. I think they will be soon, and that may spell doom for the US empire.
yes I am aware of BRICS! And But that is an economic alliance at this point in order to no longer be beholden to the dollar as the reserve currency. It is not a military alliance. And even so, clearly they are not willing to step up for Palestine.
I also said these nations COULD band together and do something. Clearly they are UNWILLING. Russia doesn't give shit about Palestine anymore than China does anymore than SA does and anymore than India or Brazil etc do. No one is going to jeopardize anything for Palestine. Therefore, this is a collective failure of humanity.
nigeria also just officially joined (indonesia did on the 6th). south africa initiated the icj-case. russia (and china) probably could've done much more, but at least stick to the (outdated) un-resolutions. i've read the new iran-russia deal also involves 'mutual defense' (not exactly an 'article 5', but if one is attacked, the other will in no way assist the agressor - which could mean sanctions).
Iran is considered a terrorist nation and Putin has an arrest warrant for war crimes out against him. Where is Europe? There are other nations beside Iran and Russia you know...
Why has BRICS happened? Nobody trusts the western world they are forming a coherent trade policy. US will be welcome to join if it could stop being the world polceman!
Husseini and Bluementhal getting tossed for asking real questions during Q/A after aphorisms to free speech and democratic society is so I'm talking, do you want Trump to get elected?
Sad to say, that tyrannical governments and regimes continue as part of the human experience. Even if and when the US empire ends, another will probably take its place.
Part of the game of life to have polarities. The good and bad manifesting on the Stage.
What's this wet blanketness "another (empire) will probably take its place"....on an energetic level that slams you down, doesn't it? Stops all that energy that starts flowing when imagination starts cooking up possibilities....that's precisely what the Empire wants to have happen...civic lethargy comes with "managed democracy" says Wolin of Inverted Totalitarianism.
BRICS seeks control of the same global systems. It's a fight between management, not owners. But I like them because they make less money from the blood of foreigners.
The BRICS countries do NOT seek to control the global economic or political systems.
Their very raison d'être is opposition to and resentment of, the strangle hold that the nations of the Global North ( principally Amerika ) have on the rest of the world.
You might like to read the statement issued by the BRICS meeting in Kazan although it is a lengthy document, but you only really need to read the five principals of Chinese foreign policy.
The thing is no fellow journalist stood up in his support, how hard it is to make a stand when you are standing alone in a room full of boot lickers and hypocrites
"... no fellow journalist ..." - they're no journalists. They're careerists using journalism as a cover.
Name checks out
>>"how hard it is to make a stand when you are standing alone in a room full of boot lickers and hypocrites"
It's actually quite hard when you are in the environment of news/truth suppression such as we have been in. People are afraid for their careers. Journalists/reporters are also humans - and as most humans - they put their needs first above any others.
Only those with high levels of integrity, honesty, courage are able to rise above such an environment (which is few unfortunately).
Chris Hedges
Yes, also John Pilger, Michael Parenti, Vijay Prashad, and quite a few others. Challenging the empire (ANY empire) is no easy task.
Well they are all knowledgeable about what's going on, but they are not even asking the question - what can we do to get off government and banks.
You're asking the wrong question(s). We don't need to get off government or banks.
We need systems that work FOR THE PEOPLE (majority) instead of the minority (power elite).
(1) We need Govt. - BUT -> govt. FOR THE PEOPLE (not for the 1% as it currently is), BY THE PEOPLE (not by the corporations, oligarchs/etc. that are currently running the govt).
(2) We need financial institutions - BUT -> Not private banks that are owned by the 1% (and that work to maintain the status quo).
For starters, we need to dismantle Capitalism as one of the systems of oppression/exploitation/etc.
The HOW of "ending Capitalism" is way too complex a topic to be discussed here.
Chang,
in general, your comments resonate, except for one. The 1% own the world, but don't own democracies. If you ask one of the 99% to lend an ear to your problem, few will respond. In all probability, the individual most likely to hurry to disconnect an essential utility from your place of residence for your unpaid bill is one of the 99%.. One day I remember asking a government agent if a parcel of land was available to build a home in British Columbia Canada, where I live, for free of course, and was quickly told by the employee: You don't think WE are going to give you land for free. do you?"
Although I was not naive enough to expect a positive answer, it was the resounding 'WE' that said it all.... and it did not come from an oligarch.
Oh it's not that complicated really. We have the means to turn things around by the third quarter of this year. For one thing, where are the brainstorming sessions we all ought to be having? And treating this a little businesslike instead of everyone spouting off in all directions. For starters, we haven't identified what "the problem" is yet. Can you believe it! That is how little we have dialogued. We are our pitiful selves, I'm not sugar coating it. Why is everyone always talking about how bad things are and how we can't do this or that rather than talk about what are we going to do. And brainstorm, and get fabulous ideas. And people can vote on the ideas. Government was invented in a time when information traveled at a snail pace. Today we have instant communication. Banks started when people transacted in gold. These are vestiges of a idiotic system. I'm saying to you that you can have a say on anything that you chose to and your say would be acknowledged, counted. Why would anyone want someone to make the proposals for them and then vote on the proposal? We can make our own proposals. We are now adults, just like these other people we think "represent" us. But we are able to represent ourselves - what could be better? There is no better way. And it's all doable. By the third quarter.
To try to answer your comment without going too deep into explanations however explanations are necessary because you (and mostly everyone) is seeing things with only one eye. Why do we need banks? I am sure you don't know the answer to that. We don't need banks to transfer numbers from one account to another. They are simply a middleman, a chaperone to keep their eye on you and everyone. There is no need for banks in the digital age, I wish people would realize this. I could transfer money into your account just as easily as a bank, and no fees need to be charged. We have this technology now, but we're still thinking in olden terms when we didn't have it, when we had gold as the unit of trade.
We don't need government for the same reason. Government is merely a chaperone for adults, which is ridiculous. We can decide on any matter ourselves. Government too was designed when information traveled at a snail's pace, but now information travels instantly. We need to come up to speed. There are systems that we can use that can quickly replace government and they are available right now and anyone can understand them. We don't need to dismantle capitalism either because that takes up energy we could be using to build the new systems and make these systems obsolete.
OF course it is not easy Chang. Just rebel USA.
I can tell you one thing: IF I had been there I would have made it impossible for Butcher Blinken to speak.
You can question what I say but I have never been backward in coming forward. As to jobs: Screw your jobs these people are aiding and abetting genocide.
Jenny Stokes -> I'm tired of your "moral superiority" posturing and virtue signaling.
Examine YOUR OWN LIFE for all your moral failings (for whatever reason) before you position YOURSELF as some SUPERIOR human being. Judge yourself FIRST before you judge OTHERS.
And CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE. You are retired and being taken care of by the French Government. Having lived in the US yourself, you should know that a working adult (especially one that has to take care of kids) does not have an easy life (or the same protections) in today's America (unlike 50 years ago).
Also, PLEASE WORK ON YOUR COMPREHENSION issues.
Did you read the "Only those with high levels of integrity, honesty, courage are able to rise above such an environment (which is few unfortunately)." part in my comment?
Stop your arrogance and fucking shouting. You come across as a narcissistic moron.
Glenn Greenwald is another.
Except for Max Blumenthal.
except I think he was first, was already out of the room.
Don't forget Hosseini.
Pretty hard, actually, when you are the one dissenter in a repressive media culture that kowtows to the elites and the war criminals, a society of dunderheads in which free speech is mocked and any deviation from the official narrative is scorned.
Until we hold free speech as inviolable, they're not going to. But "ordinary people" censor their peers, even Caitlin Johnson censors. There's a funny mentality that gets all bent out of shape when "the big people" censor, but the little people, oh they can censor left and right and nobody bats an eye. That is because deep in our psyche we believe the sequence that says "as above, so below", but, like everything, that is an inversion. We really need to understand that it's actually, "as below, so above". What the "units" ie, individuals do, is what makes the norm. But nobody is chastising their peers for censoring, probably because they want to do it too. But if Mark Zuckerberg does it or some newspaper, they're trounced. So again, it is giving in to the foundational belief that there's one rule for them and one rule for us. If censorship is bad, then it's bad for everyone, n'est pa?
Social media cannot function without censorship. I know this from experience beginning in 1994, the era when the first social medium — Usenet— was overwhelmed by ordinary Americans. Their dominant style was political posts replete with personal attacks, with “fuck” at least once in every sentence. The first to succumb to this tsunami of vulgarity were the politics and science groups. Over the next few years all the decent users left never to return.
The interesting thing is that ALL of the hundreds of Usenet groups suffered this fate. Specialized groups such as jazz guitar held out much longer but in the end succumbed. Some years after I’d made my escape I decided to give Usenet a second chance. The very first thing I saw there was noted jazz guitarist Jimmy Bruno telling someone to “go fuck yourself.” I never went back to Usenet again. I checked today and rather to my amazement it appears that Usenet is still going strong. Enough people like this sort of thing that one may choose between “The Top Ten Usenet Providers.” People PAY to access this stuff? Wow.
Unpleasant as it was I learned some things. Censorship is absolutely essential if you don’t want to swim in a cesspool. Recently I visited charge-free libertarian social medium Rumble and for the first time read a reply to a comment I had posted. The first two words were “Fuck you.” Usenet flashback! I’ve already had more than enough of that sort of thing. Ain’t reading one more word on Rumble. Never again.
But...having the government involved in censorship is totally unacceptable.
Well said Patrick Powers!
Why do you want speech to be curbed? Do you know that means if you consent to it for others, it will be imposed on your too? Do you understand the symmetry of intent - what you wish on others, will be wished upon yourself? Why is everyone so upset about strangers saying anything online - people you don't know whom you can simply scroll right on by and ignore entirely? I don't get it. You'd rather give away your own freedom of expression because...well I don't know why actually. Can you tell me why?
No it is not well said. It is pure self indulgence.
You say that not having censorship would cause worse outcomes than if we did. Oh really, how so? Because you don't like to hear the word "phuck"? Because your sensitivities and lack of self control forces you to be be affected by words? Nothing could be worse than censorship because it obstructs information and information is ABSOLUTELY KEY in human development. Obstructing information means we don't have access to scientific discoveries that may benefit us immensely, it means we can't know what is going on behind closed doors behind our backs. It keeps us ignorant and stupid. But oh that's nothing compared to disturbing your sensitivity to words on a screen. But please do tell us why it is worse to have freedom of speech. I'd like to hear that.
>>"Until we hold free speech as inviolable"
Denise Ward, FREE SPEECH is a can of worms.
(1) How does one define free speech?
(2) Who gets to define free speech?
(3) Who enforces free speech?
(4) Who's free speech is more important? Is it possible for EVERYONE to have the same level of free speech? Or should free speech be based on principles like safety, security, maximum benefit to majority of people, etc. (i.e. WHAT is the purpose of free speech and whom does it serve?)
(5) What about when one person's free speech violates another person's free speech? Are there ANY limits/rules/etiquette/etc. to free speech?
(6) Is (or should) free speech be the highest value or are there OTHER competing values that are MORE IMPORTANT than free speech for the adequate functioning of human societies and cultures?
....
There are dozens of more questions around the concept of "FREE SPEECH"
It is NOT a black/white or manichaean concept - it is extremely nebulous, means different things to different people, can be used for good AND bad, etc.
IMHO, people that tout FREE SPEECH as the be-all-and-end-all of everything are not thinking deeply enough into the thousands of things that go into a discussion of "FREE SPEECH" and its MANY RELATIONSHIPS to other equally important human values and real-world considerations.
Free speech is self explanatory. Nobody defines free speech, just speak. That's the beauty of it. Perhaps you are still tied up in the slave mind where you think some adults have more right to judge other adults? That's something you should look into. Nobody defines free speech, everyone just speaks. Nobody enforces free speech, they simply defend it. The idea of enforcement comes from our eons of being captives on this prison planet. Nobody has more free speech than others. What we need to avoid is that some people have more say than others. That essentially entitles the "might is right" philosophy which actually endangers you and even those who are all for "safety" security and certainty. Those factors do not really exist, only the illusion of them exist. But we can make things safer for ourselves and the safest thing we can do for ourselves is to condemn any form of unilateral censorship.
The only way one person's free speech violates another's is by banning, blocking, censoring, etc. If you don't like what someone says, ignore it, or respond to it, even slamming them. They always have the right of reply back in a free speech universe.
Nothing is more valuable than free speech, not even oxygen. Because without free speech, your oxygen can easily be cut off. All you have to do is look at all the violence in the world, that would come to a crashing halt with free speech. Have you noticed the Nazis, fascists and dictators all favor censorship? Well that's because they couldn't lord over anyone if free speech were the norm. And they know it! It's only the plebs who don't know it.
How about you come clean now, show us some examples of how free speech is more dangerous than censorship. Because so far, you've just dealt with nebulous, unspecific denunciations.
Yes, but context matters. If one individual doesn’t want to discuss (or they censor another person) a matter with another individual, mostly because their views and opinions are polar opposites or one person is peddling in conspiracy theories and their sources of information have no basis in verifiable facts, then all that’s happened is that one person got the shaft. On the other hand platforms like Facebook, Instagram and X can censor (and allow unrestricted vitriolic content as well) entire political, economic and social demographics. The impact is significant and the result is that a self reinforcing echo chamber of similar beliefs and values is created. One sided views are at best biased and at worst, dangerous. That’s what the government is doing. It’s what mainstream media is doing. That’s also what large media platforms are doing. And it has serious political implications for everyone involved. It is, no doubt, an effort to silence dissent when it’s that massive and widespread.
I just don’t think that that applies to independent journalism. At least not yet. There is no evidence of massive censorship going on. Maybe individual censorship very likely. That’s understandable. I see plenty of people engaging with those who believe differently. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not so much. I personally block anyone who uses extremely vile rhetoric. Others I don’t find common ground with, we simply agree to disagree and part ways. Sometimes it doesn’t end well at all. Try not to let that happen too often. Our first amendment rights are not limitless. On an individual basis, yours end where mine begin and vise versa.
Also remember free speech allows us to voice who has caused harm. They can always defend themselves if the allegations are mistaken. This applies to you too you know - if someone accuses you of something, you would have the immediate ability to reply. Sociopaths and psychopaths absolutely cannot live in this light. They are like cockroaches who run for the shadows. People who oppose free speech are substantially feathering their nest. Censorship tries to keep people in the dark. It says that some people are more capable of handling what people say, than others. It's like they are our mommies and daddies. Adults cannot govern adults, it's a preposterous idea.
I think you’re mincing words and concepts here. We’re talking about censorship and context matters. Just because someone doesn’t want to hear your perspective doesn’t mean you can take them to court. No one is going to hear that case because it has no merit. It’s a matter of personal preference. You don’t have to listen to someone you simply don’t see eye to eye on a particular issue or political stance. That’s not acting like mommy or daddy. It’s exercising their right to shut down any conversation they don’t find it comports with their views, values or moral convictions. You can do the same.
We have libel lawsuits and precedent that protect individuals from real harm done to their reputations and/or financial damages. This is an entirely different issue than censorship.
If you don't want to hear something, of course it's your choice to go away or do whatever you think is apt. But just because you don't want to hear something doesn't mean that someone should shutup for you. For example, I wish everyone would understand how troubling it is to me that ordinary people think they ought to shut down others' speech and also be shut down themselves if they say something that others don't like. To me that is the most inane logic. But you actually are saying that if what you say is not liked then you think it's right for them to shut you down. So I would shut you down if I didn't like what you say and I didn't believe in free speech. See how twisted that is? What you wish it on others, will be wished on yourself. This is a fundamental formula of nature, it is not illusion like human society is. Shutting other's expression causes distorted perturbations that we bring on ourselves. We ourselves bring them upon ourselves. What we see on the world stage, is merely a projection of the level of consciousness that exists on the small scale, on the individual scale - collectively. That ratio is important to understand. We have been kept like mushrooms - in the dark and why? Because rulers deemed that information be hidden, and that can only come through the defense of censorship.
Just tell me this, what are you frightened of exactly, by hearing the speech of others?
And courts are a nonsense to me as is the basis of our society. Basically courts are based on blackmail - do as I say, or else. So if they deem something not having merit, it just goes to show how low in consciousness they are. They toss out very meritorious issues all the time. I guess most cannot imagine the unleashing of intelligence free speech would generate.
They are but fluffers to power, Renaissance courtiers, but without the colorful feathered getups.
"Fellow journalist"?
You mean the govt stenographers that feed us a steady stream of lies? Do you really not understand that they are not there to ask questions or tell truth? Do you not see the lies they publish every day after the press briefings?
Husseini showed real courage there, putting his career in jeopardy to speak truth to power while being assaulted by paid thugs to shut him up. Bravo, we need many more like him. Reminds me of Udo, who mysteriously died young after writing a book on how the CIA controls the media:
"I was taught to lie, to betray and not to tell the truth to the public.
…
I ended up publishing articles under my own name written by agents of the CIA and other intelligence services, especially the German secret service.
…
Most journalists from respected and big media organisations are closely connected to the German Marshall Fund, the Atlantik-Brücke or other so-called transatlantic organisations…once you’re connected, you make friends with selected Americans. You think they are your friends and you start cooperating. They work on your ego, make you feel like you’re important. And one day one of them will ask you, "Will you do me this favor?"
…
We’re talking about puppets on a string, journalists who write or say whatever their masters tell them to say or write. If you see how the mainstream media is reporting about the Ukraine conflict and if you know what’s really going on, you get the picture. The masters in the background are pushing for war with Russia and western journalists are putting on their helmets.
…
When I told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Ulfkotte’s newspaper) that I would publish the book, their lawyers sent me a letter threatening with all legal consequences if I would publish any names or secrets — but I don’t mind. You see, I don’t have children to take care of." -Udo Ulfkotte, German Journalist 2017, Now Dead
Blessings to Husseini and his family.
"Secretary of State — a caring compassionate man " - Blinken? Huh? Can a "caring compassionate man" do all he can to make sure people are slaughtered? Of course not.
Only a morally vacant man with sinister intentions.Bravo to Sam Husseini and Max Blumenthal! for their courage, integrity, and truth telling. Impressive too, were all the chicken hearted purchased journalists whose fealty to truth stands at the end of their line of values, so distant as to be unrecognizable. Just sitting there. Gosh!
I wouldn't mind a list of all the journalists who DIDN'T stand up for Sam Husseini and Max Blumenthal. That way we can all boycott, divest, and sanction them and their media outlets. Hit them hard in the wallet! It's the only way to get our point across that we don't care for bootlickers who cover for genocidal war criminals like Blinken.
Just boycott all MSM. That's what I have been doing for years.
Mate, it's all of them. A-L-L.
This made me sick reading it. The cover up of Israel’s crimes by Blinken was worse than I knew.
https://www.propublica.org/article/biden-blinken-state-department-israel-gaza-human-rights-horrors
I felt like I needed a shower after reading it.
Oh it's WORSE than that. Far worse.
Well before the hallowed "October 7" palestinian jailbreak the man was platforming violent fascists and whitewashing them for insertion into the Israeli regime:
But BOTH the mainstream media and even the supposed alternative news sources like Propublica completely overlook this. How do journalists over look something like this in the middle of an ongoing genocide?
Credit to Sam Husseni and Max Blumenthal for standing up in the final press conference.....but even they too never once wrote anything about this.....nor did this ask Mr Blinken even a single question about this dubious action of his in a press conference. And this here is facts ON PUBLIC RECORD. Not conspiracy anything.
See below signed by Blinken:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/20/2022-10828/in-the-matter-of-the-designation-of-kahane-chai-and-other-aliases-as-a-foreign-terrorist
"Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this matter and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the designation of the Kahane Chai (and other aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization have changed in such a manner as to warrant revocation of the designation.
Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of Kahane Chai (and other aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be revoked.
This determination shall be published in the Federal Register
Authority:8 U.S.C. 1189.
Dated: May 11, 2022.
Antony J. Blinken,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2022-10828 Filed 5-19-22; 8:45 am]
"This is western liberalism in a nutshell. The problem isn’t the genocide, the problem is people being insufficiently polite about the genocide."
Well, we can't be all rude about how we go about financing and arming a genocide, now can we? Before you know it, you'd have journalists asking questions that deserve honest answers, and that just isn't done! We're all friends here at the State Department press room, don't you know. *sarcasm*
Hi TRC
If I were to experience something like the thuggery that happened to Sam Husseini, I would ( being a woman) scream at the top of my lungs, QUIT GROPING ME! GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY TITS! I’M SUING FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT! 😁😉
Boycott MSM completely! (unless you are a journalist or reporter).
And choose your independent media wisely.
The Media HAVE ALWAYS been an arm of the 1%/power elite/oligarcy/etc. (regardless of which country one talks about - it's the same all over the world).
Not always. Impartial and graphic US television news coverage in the 1960s fueled the anti-war movement, created it in large part you might say. Journalists Woodward and Bernstein brought Nixon down. Today's owned & controlled MSM is a recent incarnation, relatively speaking.
>>"Today's owned & controlled MSM is a recent incarnation"
Are you sure about that? If one studies the history of media (printing press, radio, TV, internet, pre-printing press era, etc.) MSM has many uses - BUT the "power interests" have always found a way to co-opt it as an information medium to control the masses and preserve the status quo.
A few exceptions does not make the case you think it does.
So the "power interests" include corporate. And are like an octopus - all over the place and smart. We have to be smarter. Even more important, we need
to find ways of "belonging" and then concentrating and focusing. Together. And, of course, we must translate thoughts in actions. Together. The lovely amazingly strong young woman who leads exercises on youtube.com ...on senior shape...or something like that encourages us to put our hearts into the exercise saying "If it isn't challenging, it doesn't change you." From couch potato hood to Big Wild Cats - or Big Wily Wolves or The Dragon Dames....(Beavers doesn't cut it).
Well said!
As recently as 2003 I was able to get useful info out of the New York Times. I was able to know that the Iraq WMD thing was all bullshit. This however gradually dwindled away until MSM was 100% propaganda, whereupon I became unwilling to be exposed to it at all.
If you need a turning point, I'd say it was the most popular talk show host getting fired for opposing the bogus war. The message to journalists was crystal clear. Submit or else.
' Impartial and graphic US television news coverage in the 1960s fueled the anti-war movement...'.
Sorry MS but that was back then. Now the MSM are owned by the oligarchs and Woodward and Bernstein would never get a look in.
The only graphic news coverage you will find now is probably on the Al Jazeera channel.
60 Minutes stepped out of character and showed dead kids in a recent episode.
Learn a bit about Woodward and Bernstein and "bringing Nixon down." That entire thing was a CIA operation to punish and smear Nixon because he presented himself to be a threat to the CIA. Look it up. Bernstein was Navy intelligence. He couldn't write a damn. He was fed the intel info that Bernstein wrote up. It was all a sham, another stupid national narrative.
Just how relatively speaking are you referring to? I would refer you to "The Brass Check" by Upton Sinclair, all about the state of the press in the USA. "'American journalism is a class institution serving the rich and spurning the poor.'” He likened journalists to prostitutes through the title which referenced a form of payment made in brothels of the time, from the "About the book" on the publisher's page: https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p071102
Originally published in 1919. Relatively recently, or long ago?
Mere minutes ago if you are in your mid-seventies with one foot in the grave as I am, or in the distant moss-covered historical past if you are a young person. 'Recent' is subjective. But I will say that when Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, these de-regulations signaled the end of a free press in this country.
I boycott MSM entirely, but I appreciate people like Caitlin who buckle on their emotional helmets and go in there and watch State of the Union addresses and press briefings and such, and give me the bits I need to know.
The journalists sitting next to Sam looked embarrassed for just sitting there while he was carried out. Those cowards should have gone with him and let Tony speak to an empty room.
I hope they are sitting at home and wondering why they were such cowards.
Politesse indeed!. the scum actors and actresses at CNN who claim the mantle of journalist— but wouldn't deserve to shine Max Blumenthal's shoes — will also never face the music for their role in perpetual lying for the Blinkens and Count Smirkulas of the empire. They bear equal if not greater responsibility because of their platforms, which allow the spreading of empire propaganda disease like infectious anthrax spores.
I can’t disagree. Many Americans are just as appalled at Americans atrocities by Biden, Blinken, etc. we are appalled that our First Amendment Rights are being crushed, our justice system a disappointing sham. Trump will be utter chaos! People are trying to make a change, and aren’t giving up, so what can you and other readers do about your own governments response, position, action?
Get together with the like minded and make good trouble with our Senators and Representatives....and join Sunrise or other larger group to foment creative actions.Support independent media. Keep talking to lots of people wherever we are.
Being skillful listeners and passionate about democracy and its requirements.
Nothing is as close to the written truth as today's article by Caitlin.
And what, one may ask, will bring the apparently voiceless American people forming the Empire into such a nervous state to then create enough pressure on the US nihilistic White House administrators for serious change?
Something that threatens the USA, a city like New York or a location where some group who have enough power (money) as to stay safe in their protected cocoons but all of a sudden are able to be in deadly danger on their own street, their land, in their own country?
You see, the whole world knows that the US has not been threatened for a long time. Am I wrong to suggest the current arrogant climate in that country is because there has never ever been anything even close to a Pearl Harbour since that day in December, 1941 when the USA, not involved with any part of WWII at that time, faced a grave threat.
Any number of publications will detail in graphic terms the immediate response by the government at that time but digest the words by President Roosevelt referring to the attack on Pearl Harbor as "a date that will live in infamy.”
Well, “infamy" it may have been in 1941, America, but so much USA generated infamy has been in evidence in so many other parts of the world since that date, one can hardly keep count, all driven by the receivers of just one example of infamy, a long time ago in 1941.
Then the Cuban Missile Crisis, brought to an end by the inputs of a decent American called Kennedy, was another short term experience that shattered the complacency of the USA..........for a short time.
The next one with nuclear weapons, somewhere off the coast of America, say New York City, might be the one lesson that is required to reduce the nihilistic attitude of a Trump and a tribe of arrogant look-a-likes, until they are made to realise they do not own the world and that they are just as vulnerable as any other country.
Can't think of any other option that will make a difference. It is not just the Washington brigade that needs to go, the people need to wake up.
I disagree. Look at history--when a people have been threatened, attacked, humiliated, impoverished, the typical response is to become defensive, aggressive, and chauvinistic. European Jews suffered horribly in the Third Reich--now their descendants in Israel are creating (or trying to) a Fourth Reich. The Germans, in turn, were susceptible to getting swept into fascism because they were economically desperate and humiliated by unfair sanction after they were defeated in WWI.
It's true that the US has not had a war on our soil since the Civil War, and has not had a war in which we lost a lot soldiers since Vietnam, and this doers reduce the opposition to war. But American opinion on our wars is irrelevant to policy anyway. We can't vote against it--both allowed parties support it. We can and do attend marches and demos, but in smaller numbers since in became clear that they have no effect. We could refuse to pay the taxes to support the military, but this would also drain the coffers for social programs, infrastructure--in fact, it would ONLY drain those since to the US Congress, more money for the military every year is a sacred obligation--everything else can be sacrificed first.
"We can't vote against it" Right, Mary..
There's step #1. Allowing all the Zionist and Trumpets to contribute hundreds of millions to own a government, therefore the decision making on policies, is something that must be seen as a criminal act. But no. Not a word on correcting that blatant corruption. Raised in the media? To my knowledge It hasn't made a headline in 2024 or 2025.
It is now the norm.
So while the people have so little say in the future of their country, nothing will change. Government 'by the people'. An illusion.
Finally. Wars........"both allowed parties support it". You now have four years to form another party while at the same time removing, one by one, all the Israeli owned members in your government. Senate and the House.
All 86% of them.
I don't think so. The blatant buying of legislators and legislation has been going on a long time, has been nailed into place by the Supreme Court; people have been trying unsuccessfully to change this for at least half a century with no success. The key is that the media is in on it too. Understand that legalized bribery has not only brought us the hideousness of this latest war, and the Ukraine one, and the threats against China and sanctions against half the world; it's also why we can't have universal healthcare, why our drugs and operations cost much more than elsewhere, why we can't do anything about climate change and other environmental crises, why there are Cop Cities going up and pipelines being built against the will of the people most affected.
Control of the media--the legacy media AND the electronic ones that act as gatekeepers--by the oligarchs makes it virtually impossible to organize, and the courts increasingly side with the oligarchs. When there is a risk of a breakthrough by some people's movement, the rulers don't mind ignoring the law or the Constitution. So I don't think there is any chance of reforming the Democratic Party, or of starting a third party or strengthening the Greens--we cannot win via the ballot box, ever again. Winning requires overturning the power of the oligarchs, who now have an iron grip on every part of our government, and are reaching for more controls, more surveillance, more ability to lock up those who resist.
No I am NOT saying we give up--if we can't break this, these maniacs will likely bring humanity and much other life on Earth to extinction--their agenda is insane. But I don't think traditional routes to reform or revolution will avail us. Currently, I think local organizing focused on creating communities of resilience and resistance, are our best bet, because we are still free to organize on a local level and that may break through the mindset that has us in two warring camps. I think the inability of the only people who have power to solve problems--because they're obsessed with hanging onto power and increasing their already monstrous wealth, and nothing else, so they veto desperately needed measures--means that a collapse is coming, probably quite soon. It may be impossible to predict when it will hit, where it will start,how drastic it will be but it's possible to predict that what is unsustainable will not be sustained. And the collapse will at last break their hold on power. That's when we'll have the opportunity to guide our local communities in a wholesome direction--the odds of which are much better if we start now, building relationships. Mutual aid groups can initiate this with a focus on plans for ensuring resilience in the face of disasters--but everything that increases local resilience increases self-sufficiency, and withdraws support from, and for, the globalized economy.
Well, Mary it is obvious to me that your knowledge on this subject is far more worldly than mine. One gets the feeling that you are well versed on your own environment due to your apparent closeness to some of the factors you mentioned above, which means that you are probably a fully paid up citizen of the “EMPIRE”.
I do not have that first hand knowledge coming from a country at least 300 million in population less than your country, but of recent years peppered with US military activities, here and there, behind every rock, in every hallway, university campus, consultants to government etc., to enable this country ( a real US bag carrier) to enjoy the (one way) "friendship” of the master race. However, I can see those same pervasive conditions as you identified entering into our daily life, warmly welcomed by the political class and thereby ignored by the majority (especially in the tennis season) and promoted heavily by both major parties, almost in unison.
Not a good sign for the future . A possible description for this little island in 2025…..…a US whore.
It sickens me that we are becoming a mirror image of the another warlike country after spending 157 years under a colonial environment and still bowing and scraping to an English King called Charlie. Progress to real independence is very, very slow indeed.
In reality, since 1788 we have jumped out of the UK frying pan and in 1945, into the US fire.
Still, with the really important things in life we do bat above our weight. Tennis.
One should be thankful for small mercies, I say.
Not sure what you mean by saying I'm a fully paid-up citizen of the empire. I am a citizen of the USA, a status many would love to have, and which I achieved by the supreme hard wok and talent of having been born in New Jersey. (That is another thing that is utter bullshit--the idea that we should all pay allegiance and loyalty to "countries", territories marked on a map by white men some centuries ago, arbitrarily saying I'm a citizen while an indigenous woman in the southern desert country must get a pass, as "alien" to travel to another part of the land her people have lived on for a thousand years.)
But fully paid-up? I have managed to avoid paying federal taxes all but a couple of the years I worked, partly because I've never aspired to a "standard of living" that is the norm here, but also because I didn't want to contribute to the war machine. State and sales taxes I don't mind because most of it goes into good and useful things. But a refusal to pay federal taxes is problematic because we can't just refuse the destructive bits.
Seems like we need a revolution, but a global one. And a profound one, that is cultural as well as political, that rescues ecosystems as well as people--one I think needs to be led by indigenous people but at their backs must be all the rest of us.
Contrarian,
Very few people ever mention the use of nuclear weapons by our species... yet, the Doomsday clock has been placed at about 90 seconds t midnight... Comgrats, you are awake in a world of sleeping fools...
Agree.
What your write is right.
However, in my view, even the end of the Empire won't end it.
Tyranny, in various forms from that of religions to that of military might has existed at least since the creation of the nation-state and, I suggest, even long before that.
Our political systems, even when they do act, do no more than take action on symptoms, usually by simply throwing money, (not their money, of course), at them. The politicians will not tackle root cause for they would have to face up to the fact that much of the cause and the accountability for the parlous state of things is down to them.
Our world is now one driven by materialism and greed.
Morality is no longer of any consequence to most who most need to model justice and compassion and equity and who have the powers to demonstrate it.
Difference, to most, signals or promotes division and negativity, rather than being seen as opportunity for learning and growth and the recognition that synergy assists us to thrive.
Already the World is one into which no rational and reasonable person would choose to bring children. The aged are invisible and their wisdom and experience ignored, their only saving grace being that they perhaps will die before humanity commits suicide by destroying the planet and itself.
Such gross indecency and wrong as the closing down of journalists who ask the right questions and activists who state the truth is, unfortunately, a mere side-show to what is happening all around us. It, too, is just a symptom of a race, i.e. humanity, gone wrong - lost in its own delusions of grandeur and knowledge, mostly emanating from the bizarre belief systems known as religions and their perverse codes.
Many might to say this scenario: "God help us", which is ironic given that no god has ever helped humanity, if indeed there was any evidence of any of the 18000 or so gods whom human beings have worshipped actually having existed - and, of course, there isn't.
as long as there's a very basic and real material housing to our lofty spirits, it makes sense to keep in mind materialism, especially for those missing out on the correct distribution. (greed is indeed an egoic materialism overdose).
>>"Already the World is one into which no rational and reasonable person would choose to bring children."
???
Speak for yourself - CHILDREN ARE THE FUTURE - THEY are the ones who can bring about the change needed!
Your statement, while I understand it, does not seem rational to me - rather, it is Malthusian and Hobbesian.
No it isn't. It's perfectly reasonable to say that you don't want to inflict on your own children, the dystopian world in which they'd have to live if you brought them into being. Malthus said there were too many people, an entirely different question, and Hobbes proposed that nobody is genuinely moral--doesn't seem to relate to the question of having kids in a world on fire.
There is a DIFFERENCE between "perfectly reasonable to say that you don't want to inflict on your own children" and calling people that want to bring children into the world "irrational and unreasonable" (no rational and reasonable person would choose to bring children)"
So, you agree with Roger Hawcroft that ANY person that chooses to have children (i.e. "bringing children into this world") makes the person irrational and unreasonable ("no rational and reasonable person")?
It's a strawman arguement that you're putting forth - please make another attempt to READ (both his comment and mine) exactly as written.
"Having less children on the planet for future generations" is a Malthusian undertone (i.e. overpopulation). Hobbesian thinking is along the same lines (i.e. humans are inherently bad and so the world is bad and so bringing children into the world is wrong).
You're right--the OP did say "no reasonable person", and this is a difficult decision, so it's unfair to say "no reasonable person" about either choice. I still think this isn't Mathusian in the context--he was not talking about overpopulation but about the world being an ugly hellhole full of immoral people (so yeah, Hobbesian does fit).
Actually, I AM Malthusian--campaigned against my son having a second child (once--then I shut up). I chose myself in the 80s to have kids even though things were looking grim even then--saying it was a vote of confidence in the world, and of course if nobody has ANY kids, the human race dies out and I don't think this is desirable. Nor do I agree that humans.. are inherently, incorrigibly evil.
>>"Actually, I AM Malthusian..."
Anyone who has children and is a Malthusian is a hypocrite that does not have skin in the game (regardless of timelines of events).
After having their own children, it is disingenuous to tell others not to have children (because of whatever beliefs in whatever ideologies).
This response to the perfectly reasonable and clearly argued point of view of Mary Wildfire is not only uncalled for but bordering on being abusive.
It is in the same vein as your original reply to me, i.e. arrogant, pretentious and foolish.
I believe you misunderstand. A Malthusian worries about overpopulation and thinks we need to cut our numbers, ideally by reducing births rather than increasing (early) deaths. This doesn't mean we believe the ideal number of humans is zero, that no one should have any kids. I think people should have one. After I had one, I struggled with the question of how to give him a sibling--I believed it was bad for a kid to be an only child, which I don't really think now. I considered adoption, but figured we would not be allowed to since my husband of that time had a heavy alcohol/tobacco and pot addiction, plus we had an outhouse, no flush toilet. Also, I was aware that people who can't conceive wait for years to adopt--and might rightfully resent someone able to conceive, carry and bear children with ease, getting in that line. While I was considering all this I missed my period and that was that--I had a daughter. Who has chosen not to marry or have kids, but my son has two.
My statement is perfectly rational. It may not seem so to you for your comprehension of it and its relationship to what Caitlin wrote and my response to it, is simplistic or reactionary at best. Indeed, it appears that you have only a very cursory understanding of humanity and human nature and also little of history or evolution.
Your shouting is also very poor online etiquette and even if it were not, entirely unnecessary. What you shouted is a simple opinion, and a false one at that, and requires no emphasis of any kind. Even if it did require emphasis, there are more eloquent and polite ways to have given it.
Children, indeed, are *not* the future. Your stating such is simply repetition of a commonplace assertion which, as are so many others of its type has neither evidence nor even past history to support it. The future is what it will be. Children may be a part of it or may not. However, they as is true for all of us, will only be a part of it as long as humanity exists and all evidence indicates that it is unlikely to see out this century.
In the current context of the World, a dystopian tragedy for humanity appears increasingly to be other than imagined and, instead, a very probably accurate prediction.
According to the International War Museum:
"Conflict took place in every year of the 20th Century; the world was free from the violence caused by war for only very short periods of time. It has been estimated that 187 million people died as a result of war from 1900 to the present. The actual number is likely far higher."
Given the events already of the 21st Century, it is unlikely that it will be any different. Here are just some that indicate the truth of this:
Russian Invasion of Ukraine (2022)
2021 Israel-Palestine crisis (2021)
2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt (2016)
Yemeni Civil War (2015-present)
2014 Gaza War (2014)
Russian Annexation of Crimea (2014)
War in Donbas (2014-present)
Operation Pillar of Defence (2012)
Libyan Crisis (2011-present)
Syrian Civil War (2011-present)
Boko Haram (2009-present)
Operation Cast Lead (2008-2009)
Second Lebanon War (2006)
Iraq War and Insurgency (2003-2011)
Global War on Terrorism (2001-2013)
War in Afghanistan (2001-2014)
Second Intifada (2000-2005)
Second Chechen War (1999-2009)
Bosnian War (1992-1995)
Sierra Leone Civil War (1991-2002)
Operation Epervier (1986-2014)
Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005)
France in Central African Republic (1979-2015)
It is estimated that there are currently at least 150
wars or armed conflicts occurring in the World.
Israel, since 8th October 2023, has killed over 44,000 Palestinians and injured over 100,000. 70% of those are women and children - not just numbers but living human beings. This has been and still is *justified* [not] as a measure of 'self defence' following the incursion of the armed wing of Hamas - the legitimately elected government of Palestine with an International right to fight to free itself from occupation under international law, and its killing of 1135 Israeli citizens and the hostage taking of somewhere between 250 and 340, depending on the source consulted. [It is worth noting that the whole of the Palestinian People have been effectively held hostage for several decades by Israel.)
The supposed leading nation of the 'Free World' which once fought to stop a militaristic and expansionist Germany, is as complicit in the Israeli genocide as Israel. So are all other nations which have supported Israel with funding, arms or in any other way and all those whose governments have failed to condemn Israel outright.
Many millions of non-human animals have also been directly killed or died as a result of this human activity, often in brutal and appallingly painful ways and through no fault of their own.
Our World is suffering its worst natural calamity in memory in the onset of global warming / climate change (whichever you will) and the failure, because of greed and hedonism, selfishness and self-aggrandisement coupled with delusions of intellect far beyond the reality, and materialism, to adequately deal with this crisis. In fact, we probably could have prevented it had we begun when science first warned us but instead, governments, large corporations, and wealthy profit interested fat cats and scurrilous media outlets, together with right-wing politicians who would have been at home in the National Socialist Party, have sabotaged or impeded any significant progress so that already we have passed the 1.5% increase in global temperature.
A woman is murdered by her (usually male) partner approximately every ten minutes somewhere in the World. I'm not sure of the number who suffer physical and mental injury but I'm quite sure that a quick search would discover it is an even greater number and when one considers how lengthy a time this can continue, perhaps it is even worse for some than being murdered.
I could carry on listing statistics detailing the failing of humanity, the decline of moral sensibility and the appalling conditioning to see life success as defined by wealth, status, fame and power. However, there ought to be enough of a taste of the parlous state of our *single* race to support my previous comment - the one to which you've taken umbrage with a simplistic commonplace.
I will however add just one more appalling fact, given that this started with my sentiment in relation to bringing more children into the World. This fact is the totally irrational, irresponsible and stupid apportioning of all manner of rights over a life to its creators, as soon as a child is born. In simple terms: parental rights.
In fact, although I can't give a %age, it is readily apparent that a large proportion of 'parents', (probably the majority), have little or even nothing to support transfer of 'ownership' of a life and control over it. Yet, as soon as that child is born they are granted a say, if not 'the say' over virtually every aspect of that child's life. It even extends in many supposed educated and intelligent societies to allowing parents to decide whether the child lives or dies in medical situations; dictating that the child be indoctrinated in a particular religion or ideology; schooled, i.e. conditioned in a particular social perspective and even physically or mentally tormented and/or abused - such being justified, (excused), as 'necessary discipline.'
Many new parents or even repeated parents have neither the resources nor the capability to provide adequately for their children. Millions of children are sold into slavery or as good as, in being put to work long hours for the profit of others or to support their families. Girls particularly suffer mutilation for outmoded, absurd, legacy religious or cultural reasons. They are also, predominatnly because of religious tenets and interpretations, often restricted from education, not allowed to be seen; not allowed to speak; given to some man often many years their senior, regardless of their wishes; forced to have intercourse and babies when they have barely reached puberty; denied access to certain occupations or roles in society; and generally treated a second-class citizens - if that.
Don't, either, be fooled into thinking that what I've mentioned applies only to developing countries or what the ignorant describe as 'the developing world'. It doesn't - it is just as real in modern democracies and, if there is any difference, it will only be one of relativity.
So, this, (even abbreviated list of dysfunction and horror), is the world into which you claim I am wrong to assert that it is *neither rational nor responsible to bring children*. ... Think again.
... And if and when you do, please refrain from introducing home-spun misunderstanding of philosophy and particular that which actually has little of nothing to do with either Caitlin's article or my own response.
On the basis of what you wrote to me and what you subsequently wrote in response to Mary Wildfire, you need to educate yourself to a much greater degree before you attempt again to indulge in abusing others and attempting to make rational and responsible arguments which are nothing more than simplistic and conditioned sentiment.
This is not an argument about dictators or anarchy, it is an appraisal of what are the moral imperatives for individual decision making and the context in which they are made. [Again, there is far too much to be said on that score than it is reasonable for me to write here. However, consider that there is reality and there is context and their is morality and there is responsibility and there is risk and there is accountability. You may consider it 'reasonable', even 'rational' to inflict an almost unimaginable life of suffering on a potential human being. I do not and neither am I prepared to be accountable for it.
I'm not even going to bother reading YOUR bullshit -> I'm sure you're going to repeat it ad-nauseum in EVERY comment.
All I can say is -> PLEASE seek professional HELP for your condition.
And please keep repeating to yourself "My statement is completely rational". Maybe if you say that a hundred times over you might start believing YOUR "bullshit" YOURSELF. (Also, if you have the time, please look up 'rational' and 'reasonable' in the dictionary).
Here's a reading recommendation for you: "Rationality: What it is, Why it Seems Scarce, Why it Matters" by Steven Pinker (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56224080-rationality)
Listen you arrogant and ignorant troll. I don't need your recommendations on anything for you have shown only the barest and most simplistic understanding of the issues on which you've written.
Of course you are not going to "bother reading YOUR bullshit" because you are almost certainly incapable of comprehending, even basically, more than a few lines of text at a time.
In the ubiquitous fashion of those who know little but present themselves as being the ultimate arbiters on all, I note also that while you claim not to bother reading what I've written you consider it reasonable to condemn it and to condemn me for writing it. That you do so is another indication of your ignorance for you clearly cannot separate a point of view on an issue from the person making it.
Incidentally, I have been 'reading' dictionaires for over 70 years and it is not I that ought to be directed towards one but yourself. Indeed, I'd suggest you undertake study in the use of language, in expanding your vocabulary, in online etiquette and in self examination and humility.
Now I will descend just for a moment to your level - GO AWAY YOU WRITE AS IF A FUCKING MORON IS WHAT YOU ARE. If you are not, then it is you that seriously needs help.
Read this AGAIN please? https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/none-of-these-war-criminals-will/comment/86992076
Again,
- deal with your ANGER issues (i.e. seek professional help).
- STOP being a troll (unless you enjoy making a FOOL out of yourself - which apparently you do)
- STOP abusing people on substack (seek professional help)
- WORK on your critical thinking skills
At least a couple of the other 'journalists' in the room showed some embarrassment at what was happening. Hopefully at their own level of obsequiousness.
Did the "embarrasment" show up in the articles they wrote today? Nope....
Of course not. They're the propagandists for the empire. Grovelling, snivelling genuflectors.
Infamously, the US refuses to sign on to the ICC. Presumably, it’s because they think they would end up at The Hague.
It's because they believe they should have the right to control the world unfettered by rules not made by themselves.
Max Blumenthal told Matt Miller at this press conference that he grinned himself through a genocide. Let that sink in for a moment. He was not corrected or removed from speaking on behalf of the State Department. He was enabled to continue to do this for months. The US Empire doesn't give a rat's ass about human rights or human lives for that matter and should not ever be allowed to lecture other regimes about it.
Smirked is the word, not grinned.
Yes you are correct. It should have been 'smirked'
I guess Aaron David Miller doesn’t consider shooting children in the head a “new low.” Thank God Blinken didn’t faint and the ruffians were removed! Mommy is probably on speed-dial to comfort him and tell him not to listen to negativity.
The rest of the reporters in the room were as predictable as a herd of cows. Out came the cellphones but no questions about the real number of people murdered in Gaza, if there’s been even one bomb dropped that wasn’t Made in America (and autographed by Nikki Haley) or if he’s already been signed up to be an Israeli lobbyist.
No one is showing up for the people of Palestine though. NO ONE! The ones that do, do not have power to do anything about it or are called terrorists. This is a collective failure of humanity. I mean where is China? Russia? Europe? India? South America? Heck were are all the arab nations?
South Africa, Ireland, Bolivia, Yemen, lebanon--it's not nobody.
Don't omit Nicaragua from your list of those stepping up for Palestine. In fact, they are one of the strongest whose case at the ICJ, if successful, has monumental potential.
You're right but sadly these countries you list only have limited power on the world stage. Shame on the other countries you mentioned; it goes to show that they're all in bed together. We are hurtling towards their "new world order" unless we slam on the brakes and refuse to participate en masse.
The fact that these other countries are scared of being destroyed, is understandable. The leaders of these countries have to do what’s best for their people and that’s a difficult decision they’ve had to make, I’m sure. The US is the country that made decisions, that are against their citizens best interests. Pointing fingers at other countries is disingenuous. The finger only needs pointed at the perpetrators, not the innocents.
"The leaders of these countries have to do what’s best for their people and that’s a difficult decision they’ve had to make, I’m sure." - alas, but that is not how democracy should work, imo. there should be structures which allow 'their people' to decide what is best for them and no difficult decisions to any 'leaders' discretion.
I agree.
yeah but then that is cowardice. If you do not stand up for what is right out of fear. Plus they would not be destroyed if they banded together. Stop making excuses. Whatever their reasons, clearly genocide and mass murder is not a red line for them either. If that is your reasoning, then you cannot point the finger at people in this country who wanted to vote for Kamala Harris arguing that there are other considerations for them to worry about besides the genocide of Palestinians. Can't be mad at those people but give a pass to the international community who abstain for the exact same reasons" we are afraid/we have to do what is best for us..."
Stop blaming Americans as some unique evil. The problem is humanity. Always has, always will be.
With the military and economic hegemony the US wields, they most certainly are uniquely evil. Western European countries are complicit and go lockstep with whatever the US decrees. The US has also implemented puppet regimes in many countries around the world. It does make it a scary prospect to try and stand up to the evil of the US and their colonial outpost in Palestine. I wish things weren’t so fucked up, for sure. I think BRICS will be very meaningful in creating a new world order, but they aren’t there yet. I think they will be soon, and that may spell doom for the US empire.
Ginnie.
I think you have forgotten one important point. BRICS
This 'banding together' without the USA interfering in other nations. Obviously you have not been reading!
yes I am aware of BRICS! And But that is an economic alliance at this point in order to no longer be beholden to the dollar as the reserve currency. It is not a military alliance. And even so, clearly they are not willing to step up for Palestine.
I also said these nations COULD band together and do something. Clearly they are UNWILLING. Russia doesn't give shit about Palestine anymore than China does anymore than SA does and anymore than India or Brazil etc do. No one is going to jeopardize anything for Palestine. Therefore, this is a collective failure of humanity.
Just watched the signing of the treaty between Russia and Iran...........the Palestinians do come into this. Streaming now on U-tube.
Not to mention that Iran is becoming a member of BRICS.
Of course I know it is NOT a military alliance..purely trade.
nigeria also just officially joined (indonesia did on the 6th). south africa initiated the icj-case. russia (and china) probably could've done much more, but at least stick to the (outdated) un-resolutions. i've read the new iran-russia deal also involves 'mutual defense' (not exactly an 'article 5', but if one is attacked, the other will in no way assist the agressor - which could mean sanctions).
Iran is considered a terrorist nation and Putin has an arrest warrant for war crimes out against him. Where is Europe? There are other nations beside Iran and Russia you know...
The rest of the world craves American carrot and fears American stick.
This is not true Feral.
How does BRICS look to you?
Why has BRICS happened? Nobody trusts the western world they are forming a coherent trade policy. US will be welcome to join if it could stop being the world polceman!
Since you insist on hyping BRICs beyond any realistic meansure:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/01/mbridge-a-bank-of-international-settlements-project-hyped-by-brics-fans-as-a-way-to-evade-sanctions-shut-down.html
brics is indeed still mainly capitalism.
Is it not strange that you seem to think people other than you don't read both sides of the argument!
Perhaps you could furnish a substantive response?
Ginnie,
You ask, about the Palestinian holocaust, "Heck where are all the Arab nations?"
For oil-rich Arab nations, I would suggest 'busy counting their money'.
So true!
Husseini and Bluementhal getting tossed for asking real questions during Q/A after aphorisms to free speech and democratic society is so I'm talking, do you want Trump to get elected?
Sad to say, that tyrannical governments and regimes continue as part of the human experience. Even if and when the US empire ends, another will probably take its place.
Part of the game of life to have polarities. The good and bad manifesting on the Stage.
What's this wet blanketness "another (empire) will probably take its place"....on an energetic level that slams you down, doesn't it? Stops all that energy that starts flowing when imagination starts cooking up possibilities....that's precisely what the Empire wants to have happen...civic lethargy comes with "managed democracy" says Wolin of Inverted Totalitarianism.
"...When the US empire ends, another will probably take its place." You sound like Prof. Mearsheimer, no other way is possible.
I think the reality is that most other nations don't agree with that assertion. BRICS anyone?
BRICS seeks control of the same global systems. It's a fight between management, not owners. But I like them because they make less money from the blood of foreigners.
The Iron Law Of Oligarchy always wins in the end.
Deciding what the future holds, based on what has happened in the past, is a recipe for prediction failure.
The BRICS countries do NOT seek to control the global economic or political systems.
Their very raison d'être is opposition to and resentment of, the strangle hold that the nations of the Global North ( principally Amerika ) have on the rest of the world.
You might like to read the statement issued by the BRICS meeting in Kazan although it is a lengthy document, but you only really need to read the five principals of Chinese foreign policy.
How depressing.
So true, unfortunately.