from the Electric Intifada
Submitted by Ali Abunimah on Thu, 10/25/2012 - 18:22
On 17 January 2009, Israeli forces bombed a school run by the United Nations agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip.
(Iyad El-Baba / UNRWA)
Another staple of Israeli propangada has been busted, as Israeli television has – years late – admitted that claims rockets were fired from UNRWA schools in Gaza were false.
UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestine refugees, issued a statement yesterday, in eastern occupied Jerusalem, that says in part:
Israel’s highest-rating news programme, Channel Two News, has published a statement correcting false claims that rockets were fired from schools operated by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) during the Gaza war in 2008-2009. The statement makes clear that Israeli officials themselves acknowledged that such claims were false and that there was no evidence to support them.
“We heard this misinformation during the war when there was shelling on and around the Agency’s schools and our main warehouse in Gaza”, said UNRWA Spokesperson Chris Gunness, “but Israeli officials made it clear to the UN during the war itself that they knew claims about militants in UNRWA installations were completely false. Constant, unchecked repetition of this misinformation has been very damaging to the Agency and has produced some very poor and biased journalism, which I will continue to confront. This is the third time in just a few months that a major news organisation has issued a public retraction because of false information about UNRWA.”
The UNRWA statement also notes that during its offensive, Israel destroyed other UN facilities, including warehouses containing millions of dollars worth of desperately needed relief supplies.
Systematic targeting of Gaza’s schools?
In part, the constant propaganda refrain must have been an attempt to justify what can only have been systematic targeting of Palestinian schools by Israel.
As a 2009 report (PDF) by Oxfam, Amnesty International and 14 other European human rights and aid agencies – one year after “Operation Cast Lead” – stated:
During the military offensive, 18 schools were destroyed, (including eight government schools, two private schools and eight kindergartens) and at least 280 were damaged. Six of the destroyed government schools were in North Gaza alone, affecting almost 9,000 students who had to relocate to other schools.
On 17 January 2009, Israeli forces bombed a school run by the United Nations agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA) in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip.
(Iyad El-Baba / UNRWA)
The report, Failing Gaza: No building, No recovery, No more excuses, added:
There are 640 schools in Gaza - 221 UNRWA schools, 383 government schools and 36 private schools - serving more than 440,000 students.
88% of UNRWA schools and 82% of government schools operate on a double shift. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some schools are currently operating three shifts per day.
164 students and 12 teachers from government schools were killed during the military offensive. A further 454 students and five teachers were injured. 86 children and three teachers from UNRWA schools were killed and a further 402 students and 14 teachers were injured.
What this means is that with 18 schools destroyed and 280 damaged – 46 percent – almost half – of all schools in Gaza were hit by the Israeli army.
If this was not deliberate, then the Israeli army, which claims to be “the most moral army in the world,” is also one of the most poorly trained and inaccurate.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Survey: Most Israeli Jews support apartheid regime for the "onlydemocracyinthemideast"
Survey: Most Israeli Jews would support apartheid regime in Israel
Survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews.
By Gideon Levy | Oct.23, 2012 | 2:32 PM | 103
Apartheid without shame or guilt
By Gideon Levy | Oct.23,2012 | 2:32 PM | 17
Most of the Jewish public in Israel supports the establishment of an apartheid regime in Israel if it formally annexes the West Bank.
A majority also explicitly favors discrimination against the state's Arab citizens, a survey shows.
The survey, conducted by Dialog on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, exposes anti-Arab, ultra-nationalist views espoused by a majority of Israeli Jews. The survey was commissioned by the Yisraela Goldblum Fund and is based on a sample of 503 interviewees.
The questions were written by a group of academia-based peace and civil rights activists. Dialog is headed by Tel Aviv University Prof. Camil Fuchs.
The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries. Almost half the Jews, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42 percent don't want to live in the same building with Arabs and 42 percent don't want their children in the same class with Arab children.
A third of the Jewish public wants a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and a large majority of 69 percent objects to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank.
A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter - 24 percent - believe separate roads are "a good situation" and 50 percent believe they are "a necessary situation."
Almost half - 47 percent - want part of Israel's Arab population to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority and 36 percent support transferring some of the Arab towns from Israel to the PA, in exchange for keeping some of the West Bank settlements.
Although the territories have not been annexed, most of the Jewish public (58 percent ) already believes Israel practices apartheid against Arabs. Only 31 percent think such a system is not in force here. Over a third (38 percent ) of the Jewish public wants Israel to annex the territories with settlements on them, while 48 percent object.
The survey distinguishes among the various communities in Israeli society - secular, observant, religious, ultra-Orthodox and former Soviet immigrants. The ultra-Orthodox, in contrast to those who described themselves as religious or observant, hold the most extreme positions against the Palestinians. An overwhelming majority (83 percent ) of Haredim are in favor of segregated roads and 71 percent are in favor of transfer.
The ultra-Orthodox are also the most anti-Arab group - 70 percent of them support legally barring Israeli Arabs from voting, 82 percent support preferential treatment from the state toward Jews, and 95 percent are in favor of discrimination against Arabs in admission to workplaces.
The group classifying itself as religious is the second most anti-Arab. New immigrants from former Soviet states are closer in their views of the Palestinians to secular Israelis, and are far less radical than the religious and Haredi groups. However, the number of people who answered "don't know" in the "Russian" community was higher than in any other.
The Russians register the highest rate of satisfaction with life in Israel (77 percent ) and the secular Israelis the lowest - only 63 percent. On average, 69 percent of Israelis are satisfied with life in Israel.
Secular Israelis appear to be the least racist - 68 percent of them would not mind having Arab neighbors in their apartment building, 73 percent would not mind Arab students in their children's class and 50 percent believe Arabs should not be discriminated against in admission to workplaces.
The survey indicates that a third to half of Jewish Israelis want to live in a state that practices formal, open discrimination against its Arab citizens. An even larger majority wants to live in an apartheid state if Israel annexes the territories.
The survey conductors say perhaps the term "apartheid" was not clear enough to some interviewees. However, the interviewees did not object strongly to describing Israel's character as "apartheid" already today, without annexing the territories. Only 31 percent objected to calling Israel an "apartheid state" and said "there's no apartheid at all."
In contrast, 39 percent believe apartheid is practiced "in a few fields"; 19 percent believe "there's apartheid in many fields" and 11 percent do not know.
The "Russians," as the survey calls them, display the most objection to classifying their new country as an apartheid state. A third of them - 35 percent - believe Israel practices no apartheid at all, compared to 28 percent of the secular and ultra-Orthodox communities, 27 percent of the religious and 30 percent of the observant Jews who hold that view. Altogether, 58 percent of all the groups believe Israel practices apartheid "in a few fields" or "in many fields," while 11 percent don't know.
Finally, the interviewees were asked whether "a famous American author [who] is boycotting Israel, claiming it practices apartheid" should be boycotted or invited to Israel. About half (48 percent ) said she should be invited to Israel, 28 percent suggest no response and only 15 percent call to boycott her.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Exile and the Pathetic, re: Mark Ellis' bigoted, ethnocentric rant posted on Mondoweiss Oct 13
Over these past several months I've wondered why Phil Weiss has
seemingly made the column by Ellis a fixture on his otherwise
excellent blog, Mondoweiss. After a few days of actually reading Ellis' postings
and trying to parse his tedious stream-of-consciousness entries about
the trivia of his daily activities and cryptic allusions to “the
prophetic,” I finally gave up and stopped reading his stuff.
But I at least kept running my eyes over his column just to see if
anything was there of interest. Finally, there was something --
something especially noxious.
I don't know Greta Berlin, or know anything about her activities. I
also haven't seen the offending Twitter message that says Zionists ran
the Nazi death camps. Berlin has apologized and says that sending it
out was a mistake and that the Twitter was supposed to go to a certain
group of people (I guess like a listserve) to discuss. And that the
content was supposed to be discussed as an example of something to be
opposed.
Is she being truthful, or not? Is more behind this incident? I don't know.
Be that as it may, just focusing on the words in Ellis' latest post
about Jews in history , what is antisemitism, universalism, the
supposed sins of the left and the ever, transcendentally hovering,
crank references to “the prophetic” is enough of a reason to dismiss
Mark Ellis as someone who is not only a mystical obscuritanist, but a
peddler of reactionary crap.
These are Ellis' own words:
“Indeed, we don’t seem to learn much in our dealings with
anti-Semitism. Trying to counter anti-Semitism by labeling it racism
or prejudice... or referring to Jews simply as an ethnic group as Norman Finkelstein did at the
American Jewish relationship with Israel forum at the New School a few
days ago, is to tread a politically correct line that goes nowhere.
This is true as well with Anna Baltzer’s forum presentation
emphasizing the need to stop privileging Jewish voices on the issue of
Israel/Palestine....
“In the West at least, though no doubt beyond the West as well, I state
it boldly: Jews are not simply an ethnic group that has experienced
racism and prejudice. Nor are Jews perceived as such. No matter how
irritating the thought is to those who espouse the universal values of
freedom and equality, anti-Semitism will not be dealt with effectively
in this framework. Otherwise, after all these years, why would
anti-Semitism persist so blatantly in anti-racism movements on the
Left?...”
Ellis continues:
“What do Jews represent? Jews represent the prophetic in its various
forms, a distinctive line in history that is ancient and contemporary.
Jews represent a type of prophetic engagement that is not completely
assimilated. Jews are not explainable solely within the usual
sociological classifications....”
Ellis then goes on to attack the left's secular humanist stance of
universal values
“Though the universal appeal contains a truth, in the case of
Israel/Palestine it has limited value. Freeing Gaza is not, first and
foremost, a universal struggle. Freeing Gaza is a particular
Palestinian struggle that has garnered support around the world. For
Palestinians to mistake their struggle as universal rather than
particular is to make a similar mistake that Jews on the Left make
about anti-Semitism. It assumes that Jews and Palestinians are
subsumed within the larger category of struggles for justice and that
others have the same claim on the future of Israel/Palestine that Jews
and Palestinians do.”
Why does Ellis attack Norman Finkelstein for referring to Jews as an ethnic
group? Why does he attack Anna Baltzer for NOT wanting to give Jewish
opinions on Palestine/Israel special weight or better said, a veto.
Why does he reject viewing Israel/Palestine from a universalist
perspective. Is the Palestine solidarity making any claims to determine their future?
What's up with this retrograde/supernatural nonsense
about “the prophetic?” Why the vitriol over the left's alleged
antisemitism?
Jews are not transcendent, or innately “prophetic,” or more moral than
other people. They are no better and no worse than anyone else. The
world does not see Jews as prophetic, or magical either (maybe he's
thinking of evangelical Christians who see Jews as the raw material to
detonate the second coming of Christ, who will save the Christians and cast
the Jews down to hell).
To understand Zionism, Israel and the Palestinian struggle you have to
see it as a battle of a colonized people against an illegitimate,
colonial settler state. The European-born Zionist movement saw the
world through the same racist, Western lens as did the colonial
powers, such as the UK, Turkey,and Russia—all of which Hertzel lobbied
for sponsorship of a Jewish state.
It's anti-colonialism and universalism that allows us to truly
understand what's going on in Israel/Palestine. Israel's system is
like apartheid. The Palestinian's struggle is like that of the
Vietnamese against the USA, and the Baharainis struggle against the
Saudi and US backed monarchy. International solidarity is a good
thing.
Why the particularism of Ellis about Israel/Palestine? He offers no
logical cogent reasons. The left is allegedly anti-semitic and any criticism the
left makes of anti-semitism isn't good enough for Mark Ellis. Israel
is exempt from univeralism, Jews are special, not a mere ethnic
group—they are “prophetic,” above the mundane world. What inference
can you make? Where do his arguments lead? It appears to me that Elis
believes that the Jews have a special, spiritual claim to Israel,
activists who work in support of the Palestinians struggle for equal
rights (they tend to be on the left) are anti-semities or tolerate
anti-semitism, no matter how much they deny it.
In my opinion it all ties together and points to Ellis' worldview as
exempting Jews and Israel from having to conform to the values and
behavior of “lesser people.” In short, Ellis is politically rightwing
and more than soft on Zionism. His main role is spreading confusion
inside the movement.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
The slandering of Gaza flotilla activist Greta Berlin
By Larry Derfner
Published October 5, 2012
A lie of omission is as good a lie as any other.
It’s amazing how blatantly, how shamelessly a Jewish Agency official named Avi Mayer, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the Jerusalem Post, Canada’s National Post and I don’t know how many other “pro-Israel” entities have slandered Greta Berlin, a prominent spokeswoman of the Free Gaza Movement, as an advocate of the worst, sickest kind of anti-Semitism. They’ve deliberately left out Berlin’s explanation for a tweet she sent out a few days ago, and without her explanation, one is indeed left to conclude that she’s a crazed Jew-hater. A lot of people, of course, want to believe that about a woman so closely identified with the flotillas that sailed to Gaza, so this story has gone viral.
And it is based on a lie of omission, which is as good a lie as any other. Here’s what happened:
On Sunday, Berlin tweeted the following: “Zionists operated the concentration camps and helped murder millions of innocent Jews.” The tweet linked to a video said to be of a deceased Jew-hater named Eustace Mullins going on about how the Jews plotted with Hitler to kill anti-Zionist Jews, how the “zi” in Nazi stands for “Zionist” – the worst sewage.
Mayer, who reportedly oversees social media for the Jewish Agency, noticed Berlin’s tweet, watched the video and starting tweeting and Facebooking it like crazy. Then the Jewish Telegraphic Agency did a story on Berlin’s tweet that was picked up in Haaretz and God knows where else, the Jerusalem Post did a story on it, the right-wing National Post ran a column on it.
All these stories referred to Berlin’s apology on the Free Gaza Movement website – but only to one part of it: the part where she explains that she didn’t mean for the tweet to go out on the Free Gaza Movement’s Tweeter account, but only to a group of people on her personal Facebook page. Reporting this and only this as her “apology” naturally made Berlin look even more evil.
What Mayer, the JTA, the Jerusalem Post and National Post left out was the other part of Berlin’s explanation that was posted on the Free Gaza Movement’s website: that her tweet was intended for a Facebook discussion among “a group of people who were discussing propaganda and racism, and this link was an example of the terrible propaganda that could be spewed on websites.”
The news stories also omitted the Free Gaza Movement’s statement that it “condemns” the content of the video, which was titled “Zionists Ran the Holocaust and the Concentration Camps.” (Here is the apology in full.)
So Berlin’s full explanation, which Mayer and the writers of those news stories chose not to report, is that her tweet was not a statement of her views, but a headline for the video she was sending to a discussion group on “propaganda and racism” as an “example of the terrible propaganda that could be spewed on websites.”
In other words, Berlin’s explanation, available for all to see, is that the tweet and video don’t represent her views – they represent views she considers extremely dangerous.
Do you believe her? I do, absolutely. I don’t agree with the overall view of Israel-Palestine held by Berlin and the Free Gaza Movement (although I do support the mission of their flotillas, which is to break the blockade of Gaza) – but to think that she believes in this psychotic, frothing-at-the-mouth garbage about Jews? No, I do not.
But I have to admit – when I first heard about the tweet, and read Avi Mayer’s Facebook entries and the JTA story, I found it unbelievable … yet I believed it, because there it was in black and white, the original tweet plus the video, all written up in the newspapers and websites in stories that purportedly included Berlin’s side of the story.
It was only after I read Berlin’s actual side of the story that I realized that Mayer, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, The Jerusalem Post and the National Post were telling good old lies of omission. They’ve slandered Greta Berlin and the Free Gaza Movement, in most if not all cases out of right-wing political motives. (The writer of the Jerusalem Post article, Benjamin Weinthal, is a right-wing propagandist posing as a journalist. He quotes another right-wing propagandist, NGO Monitor’s Gerald Steinberg, saying: “The NGO activists in the so-called ‘Free Gaza’ campaign have always reflected obsessive, irrational and immoral characteristics, and the revelation of links to crude anti-Semitism provides additional evidence.”)
I’d say shame on them all, but like I said, they’re shameless.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Needed, Now! A United Anti-Fascist Opposition Front -- No Wimps Need Apply
September 28, 2012 at 07:29:23
By Dan Mage
opednews.com
Cut the crap, quit the bickering and pay attention.
Never in my lifetime has the reality of a one-party state, under the control of the global corporate elite shown itself so openly, so blatantly, and so seemingly without significant resistance. This absorption of civilian government by the shadow state, The Security State/War State, in the service of international capital, faces only a fractured resistance. Useless left vs. right-wing finger pointing and name calling, all in the name of anachronistic ideologies, further aggravated by sectarian bickering among seekers of ideological purity, creates an image of futility and impotence.
Public opposition to the state becomes increasingly dangerous with each passing day, for anyone outside of the mainstream media, or the party discipline of elected office. The ability of the state to initiate force against perceived threats with impunity is now the law of the land. The office of the president, now may detain, torture, and execute commoners at will. The president is a mighty monarch to the peasants, and a powerless puppet to the corporate overlords. The power retained by the presidency is the prerogative of kings, and the "sport of the elected" (murder).(1)
It's easy to point out how disgusting the Republican Party is; Romney, Ryan, and their legion of lesser local tyrants deliver their message with blatant and ugly fascist-theocratic words and images, bloated white male faces contorted with hatred, delivering messages of misogyny and unabashed hatred for all who do not fit their vision for "Saving America;" they are making Obama look good by default. In this age of intensive marketing research and information control, such contrasts and altered perceptions are rarely accidental.
It's a bit more of a challenge to the mind of the bourgeois liberal to picture Barack Obama as a bloodthirsty fascist despot, warmonger, corporate puppet, and traitor to his own constituency. Obama's superior intellect, his articulate if not particularly brilliant or original speeches, and carefully arranged poses of warmth and compassion towards the poor and the struggling middle class, obscure the ugly realities of his presidency.
Particularly shocking was the administration's betrayal of medical cannabis patients and providers. For political gain, jobs and lives were destroyed, good people were imprisoned, and the quality of life of cancer patients, persons living with MS, and all manner of chronic illnesses was sacrificed. In Obama's first term in office, the DEA raided more medical cannabis dispensaries than during the entire 8 year reign of George W. Bush.
I've heard the "legalizing weed is not important" argument, and also Obama's statement that the disastrous "War on Drugs," an ongoing crime against humanity that has resulted in an immense prison population, disproportionately affecting the poor of all colors, and people of color most of all, will not end "on his watch." The president could have supported real change, and given some hope to the most hopeless and despised members of American society. Instead, he turned his back on the powerless yet again.
Obama's supporters defend this conduct; comments appear in online threads using terms like "Dr Feelgoods" issuing recommendations to "turd stoners," (much as the president himself was during his formative years) and "why shouldn't the president lock up those who break the law?" His prosecutors use bizarre authoritarian leftist reasoning about people "making a whole lot of money" from "drugs" (as yet no prosecutions have resulted from the wholesale manufacture and distribution of narcotics by pharmaceutical companies, in spite of the fact that the DEA knows that large amount of the drugs are destined for the underground market, and actually calculates this market's needs when deciding what quantity of a given drug, such as oxy-contin, will be manufactured with DEA approval) and seem to be terribly worried that people without a "legitimate medical need" will be able to procure cannabis products without dealing with a law-breaker.
Liberal tolerance often stops dead in its tracks when it comes to the issue of "drugs." A woman on NPR starts to condemn Rush Limbaugh's misogynistic hate speech, but quickly digresses to hate speech of her own. "He's a drug addict!" she proclaims, over and over, each time with more venom in her voice, when the term "drug addict" leaves her mouth. Liberal hate speech is perhaps the worst of all.
The mantra of "It's about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS," is repeated as some magical formula that will somehow erase all the bloodshed and restore the lives lost to the American Gulag. I've even seen comments indicating belief in the ultimate idiocy, that "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." Tell that to the couple whose door was kicked in while the cops shot their dog, terrified their children and made them lie face down in handcuffs while they ransacked the house after an informant gave a wrong address. They can be counted among the lucky ones; people who have committed no crime whatsoever are ending up dead on a regular basis from official bullets and beatings. In highly public cases, where impossible to ignore videotaped evidence becomes public, criminal charges against police officers sometimes result, however acquittals are common and the absence of any legal repercussions for official violence is the norm.
Most of Obama's campaign promises with regard to civil liberties, human rights, and efficient use of federal resources proved empty and false. The few crumbs he throws to liberal causes, such as same sex marriage and reproductive rights are not to be trusted, and the future of the Supreme Court, would best be regarded in light of Obama's actual behavior while in office.
The forgiveness and endorsement of the war crimes of the Bush Administration, and his refusal to repeal the PATRIOT act, or veto the NDAA, define who Obama is, not his image, his words, or his overwhelmingly worthless promises. Those championing LGBTQ causes, reproductive rights and women's equality should take a long hard look at the promises made to the medical cannabis movement.
Even if he publicly expresses support for some cause close to your heart, Obama is a fascist. If Romney wins and goes on a rampage of war, looting, and crushing the most defenseless members of society under the weight of The War State and ruling class greed, he will do so using powers Obama signed into law. If Obama gets another four years, we can expect more of the same. Perhaps some of the Republican targets groups will be spared within the borders of the US. However, that is a matter of little concern to the global elite, as the depredations and trampling of innocents on the frontiers of the empire will continue unabated. That is where the largest profits and opportunities for population control by war, famine and pestilence are. Can you honestly say that even being spared the humiliation of begging and digging through trash is worth the torture and death inflicted on subjects of any dictator or democracy whose time has run out?
Get it through your head: America is gone; if historical precedent is any indicator, time is running out. All who care about civil liberties, human rights, privacy, the property rights of persons outside of the ruling class and the lives of innocents caught in the crossfire of endless wars, must set aside their differences and take a stand. Recognize a government that exists only as an overseer on the global corporate plantation, for what it is. This government can only be regarded as a very dangerous man-made disaster in progress.
The Federal Government is not something to be provoked, protested, or controlled through elections from which candidates presenting real alternatives are systematically excluded. It is to be watched closely, and each lie, each murder, each theft, and each desecration and betrayal of the once-mighty US Constitution made known to all. Pay attention, appeal to the international community of artists, intellectuals, and activists for peace to come to our aid now; now we are the ones who need to appeal to the civilized world to come to our aid against a totalitarian regime. As the underclass grows, swelled by the ranks of displaced and bewildered formerly middle class citizens, the extent of the betrayal will be known. Maybe then reason and sanity can still prevail.
Only when even the soldiers and police will no longer take part in this headlong rush to self annihilation, and when the lives of children are valued more than the pride and power-addiction of the elite will we be able to rest. What we are up against can be defined, on the basis of its documented behavior and measurable results --body counts speak for themselves- as a planetary torture and death cult. Only when this cult is identified, isolated, and denied all forms of compliance, cooperation and assistance, only then can this disaster, this massive factory churning out corpses and poisons be closed, crushed, and buried, with a few relics stored as a reminder in museum of historical horrors and deviance.
The electoral process, subverted in part by laws allowed to stand by this incarnation of the Obama Supreme Court, leaves only the direct confrontation of power and money, by direct political and economic means as the only non-violent avenue of resistance left open. General strikes, universal rent strikes, and mortgage and interest payment refusals en-masse, gasoline boycotts and massive defections from the major banking and credit institutions might get the point across. "Taking it to the streets," is now a potential felony, and already, people identified with sensitive causes are singled out and pulled from crowds by police, and detained without charge or explanation. Public demonstrations can be defined as terrorism whenever the secret service feels the need to be present. Don't take it to the streets, just stay home, don't drive your car, and deliver nothing of value to "the 1%" at any price. Cancel the agreement that their imaginary money exists.
Knee-jerk libertarian-bashing by what passes for "the left" in this country is another example of "rebels" with "causes" advancing the division and conquest of the people. Reach out to those on the right who believe in your basic civil liberties. Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson may not be perfectly P.C. according to the liberal Democratic Party line; however, along with Ron Paul, he is perceived as a genuine threat by the Republican Party, to the point where republican operatives attempted through legal actions to exclude him from the ballot in multiple states. Gary Johnson cares about you more than Obama does.
Green party nominee Jill Stein also is worthy of your vote, although in my opinion, she labors under the illusion that the power of the state can still be returned to the people, and that the government can fix the problems it creates.This is open to debate;we can argue about what makes a perfect society after we restore the right to have such arguments without fear of indefinite detention.
The time for a united anti-fascist opposition front is now; tomorrow, next week or next month may be too late. The ammunition, the detention camps, and the necessary equipment for quick and efficient mass burials are already in the hands of our wise and benevolent overlords; so is the ability to shut down internet and phone communications en masse, at will.
If we do not make a stand now, we might as well shut down our brains, watch our TVs, go to corporate shrinks, take our government approved medications, and pretend that we don't notice when our neighbors disappear. Arguments about how "the republicans are so much worse" have the sad logic of slaves trying to figure out which overseer will be more generous with the food rations, and more sparing with the whip.
What all of us forever dismissed as "crazy, hippie types," "conspiracy theorists," anarchists, communists, and acidhead mystics have been warning of since Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young released the song "Ohio"(2) has arrived. "...gotta get down to it, soldiers are gunning us down, should have been done long ago".*
Cut the crap, quit the bickering and pay attention. Time is running out.
*References: 1. "Murder by Numbers" by Sting and Andy Summers
Album: Synchronicity A&M Records 1983
2. "Ohio" by Neil Young, Atlantic Records 1970
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)