Bulletin N° 1009
Subject: “Getting to know you/Getting to ‘NO...! NO...! NO...!’ all about you. . . ”
Armistice Day 2021
Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
The “Age of
Surveillance Capitalism” is upon us. A good guide for survival in these times is
the humor found in dialogues between the two James – James Corbett and James
Evan Pilato – on “Media Monarchy,” which this week
features commentary on Mark Zuckerberg’s new creation: (∞
And, because of its unexpected pertinence, we return one last time to Barrington Moore, Jr’s book, Injustice, and to the important reflections he shares on the subjects of “moral relativism” and “inevitability and the sense of injustice.”
. . . there is a distinction between rational and predatory authority, even if the distinction is not as easy to make as the partisan critics of a given system of authority may at times lead us to think. The distinction impresses me as clear enough to reject any thesis to the effect that political preferences can be nothing more than maters of opinion, subjective whim, or personal values. Simply put, in terms of the misery they can cause, there are better and worse moralities, better and worse social systems and collective purposes. Whether one calls them rational and predatory does not really matter a great deal.
In other words, there is such a thing as meaningful moral criticism. Pure moral relativism is an untenable position if one cares about human suffering. And the victims beyond a certain point of possible conditioning cannot help caring. Moral criticism is also politically very significant, though it has limitations I shall try to point out in a moment. In every major social and political transformation for some two thousand years the old order has, as de Maistre observed, suffered a moral defeat and the erosion of its legitimacy well before the political changes took place. That was true of the triumph of Christianity over paganism. It was also true of the great revolutionary movements from the Revolt of the Netherlands, the Puritan Revolution, the French Revolution, the American Civil War, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions. In each case the old order ceased to make moral sense for influential sectors of the population before it was overthrown. Economic and social changes may have made the old order cease to make sense. But without the concurrent development of new standards of condemnation, and new goals for the future, the results of economic and other transformations would have been very different, and quite likely sheer chaos. In each case too the new morality claimed to express the feelings and aspirations of a wider segment of humanity. There has been more than a touch of hypocrisy in all such changes, as the new moralities served to justify the inflictions of their own forms of cruelty and suffering, by no means always completely novel ones. Still the world moved. . . .
Do these considerations support the conclusion that predatory moralities and social systems can in some objective sense be considered pathological? Despite the rejection of moral relativism the answer to this question may remain ambiguous. In some political situations, while it may be possible to make an accurate diagnosis of pathology, the diagnosis is neither necessary nor helpful. In other situations moral judgments, with or without a judgment of pathology, can be totally inappropriate because they imply the asking of inappropriate questions about the nature and causes of the situation. Before exploring these issues it will be well to clarify briefly the meaning of pathology.
The concept of pathology implies some corresponding state of health subject to empirical observation and objective determination. To make sense, the state of health has to be appropriate to the organism under consideration. A horse that lacks wings is not in a pathological state. A bird that lacks them is. Pathology is a process or condition harmful to a particular organism. The cause for the process may be internal to the organism or external to it, as in the case of a wound produced by a blow. Some pathologies with internal causes, such as aging, can be normal for particular organisms. Human societies are not biological organisms. Nevertheless they do suffer from internal and external processes that are harmful and destructive. The events to which historical processes of decay may repeat themselves in such a way as to make them amenable to firm diagnosis is of course highly problematic. That decay does occur sooner or later is, on the other hand, reasonably certain. Furthermore decay is not the only form of harmful process to which human societies are subject. On these grounds the concept of pathology seems at first quite promising, perhaps even necessary. Possibly we do not use it because it might reveal something disagreeable about our own society.
Further reflection soon reveals important considerations that restrict the usefulness of the concept for social analysis. One major difficulty is that of determining the original, healthy state. If a predatory animal suffers from a disease that prevents it form behaving in a predatory fashion, one would conclude that it was suffering from a pathology. Would not the same argument apply to a predatory human society ? As long as it succeeded in being predatory, would we not have to admit that it was perfectly healthy? After all, there have been numerous warrior societies organized for predatory purposes.
As already pointed out, it might be possible to answer this objection and get around this difficulty with empirical arguments to the effect that predatory societies have caused a great deal of misery. Should we not therefore conclude that they are themselves a form of pathology? Let us assume for the moment that the argument is logically and factually correct though I shall soon give some reasons for rejecting it. What difference would it make? Suppose someone had tried to tell Hitler and the Nazis that their morality was pathological – as in fact many critics of National Socialism did assert either explicitly or implicitly. What could be expected to happen? The Nazi leaders might just possibly have been interested if they had learned that their version of the warrior ethic was becoming subject to an internal decay for which a social scientist could devise appropriate administrative therapies. Indeed there are several indications, including the secret study of their own membership cited in the preceding chapter, which demonstrate that such fears were quite strong. But nothing except coarse laughter and abusive epithets could have greeted any attempt to inform them that Nazi morality as a whole was pathological.
If someone rejects the reduction of misery and suffering as a goal, there is not external authority to which one can effectively appeal in order to make that person, group, or state desist from dangerous acts. Neither God, nor the alleged forces of history, nor some presumably rational structure of the universe, can serve as effective arguments or sanctions. Even if it were possible to demonstrate with mathematical certainly that a certain form of predatory morality and society would lead to the extermination of all humanity, a cruel and romantic egoist could snap his fingers in disdain and lead the march on the Armageddon, firmly believing that humanity deserved no better that destruction. Force and force alone can restrain such madness. And the use of force even for strictly defensive and ‘socially constructive’ purposes gives a powerful impulse to the establishment of predatory institutions and habits.
At a less apocalyptic level of discourse it is necessary to point out that the temptation of groups and individuals to resort to predatory social arrangements, and predatory moralities to justify them, is a powerful recurring one. The temptation is likely to remain powerful as long as there is no universally satisfactory solution to the problem of the division of labor within and among human societies. Even if such a solution were found, there are good reasons to suspect it could not be permanent since different parts of the world would still be likely to change in different ways at different rates.
If one accepts the temptations of predatory social arrangements and the consequent necessity for defense against them as probably permanent features of the human scene, it becomes difficulty to take seriously the notion of predatory morality as universally pathological. Where a certain form of behavior is just about inevitable, it is impossible to be morally serious about condemning it. Hence it is not enough to assert that humanity is responsible for its own morality and its own fate, that the goal of rational authority has to be deliberately affirmed and chosen. Human beings would also have to create the basic conditions that make rational authority feasible and turn predatory forms of authority into a pathological rather than normal state of affairs.
There are good reasons for doubting that than change can or will occur on a global scale in any foreseeable future. National sovereignty and indeed all forms of collective egoism would have to come to an end. There are even better reasons to avoid expending a great deal of energy in lamenting this state of affairs. The lamentation turns very easily into a form of self-indulgence that diverts attention from other important problems. It is not necessary to have the goal of eliminating all forms of socially produce suffering, or even all forms of predatory authority. Doctors do not give up trying to cure and prevent different kinds of illness just because they cannot prescribe pills for immortality.(pp.446-449)
Inevitability and the sense of injustice.
As we approach the end of a long journey I would like to return with the reader to concerns that have impelled us to make the journey together. What is moral outrage? Under what conditions does it occur? When and why does it not occur? Is it something natural to all human beings? If so, what does ‘natural’ really mean? Is not the apparent absence of a sense of injustice even more significant than its appearance? Though the book has explored these questions, its author does not pretend to have provided definitive answers if definitive implies the kind of answer that will persuade and satisfy everybody. Nor do I intend to present in conventional capsule form here what has been discussed at greater length throughout the book. Instead I propose to explore once again how the sense of injustice does make its appearance, drawing on the material we have covered together and whatever considerations I myself can contribute.
Let us begin by asking if there might be some common themes that appear in the behavior of Hindu Untouchables, steelworkers in the Ruhr before 1914, Ulrich Bräker’s inability to get angry at the patron who sold him as a mercenary to the armies of Frederick the Great, the awe of the Spartacists before stamps and signatures, the self-inflicted tortures of ascetics, and the reactions of human beings upon whom the Nazis inflicted the trauma of the concentration camps. In varying degrees and in different ways all the people felt that their sufferings were unavoidable. For some victims such suffering appeared to a degree inevitable and legitimate. People are evidently inclined to grant legitimacy to anything that is or seems inevitable no matter how painful it may be. Otherwise the pain might be intolerable. The conquest of this sense of inevitability is essential to the development of politically effective moral outrage. For this to happen, people must perceive and define their situation as the consequence of human injustice : a situation that they need not, cannot, and ought not to endure. By itself of course such a perception, be it a novel awakening or the content of hallowed tradition, is no guarantee of political and social changes to come. But without some very considerable surge of moral anger such changes do not occur.
. . .
Essentially our problem is to state what conditions may make such audacity possible – and effective. . . . The notion that there is some indomitable spirit of revolt in all human beings is, I fear, sheer myth. As the material from the concentration camps shows, it is possible to destroy any such spirit and even the will to survive. Admittedly, that is an extreme case, and not all inmates by any means responded in his fashion. Still the evidence there is enough to show that any inclination toward anger, and even the capacity to feel pain, can vary over a wide range to the point of complete extinction.
The most that one can assert with considerable confidence is that suffering in the forms of hunger, physical abuse, or deprivation of the fruits of hard work is indeed objectively painful for human beings. They do not seek suffering for its own sake. Even ascetics impose suffering on themselves for the sake of other goals, such as salvation, release from social obligations, or control of the universe. In the objective quality of suffering our search does reach a point that can serve as a firm basis of departure. If no culture makes suffering an end in itself and all cultures treat certain forms of suffering as inherently painful, we are justified in considering the absence of felt pain as due to some form of moral and psychological anesthesia. From this standpoint the assertion that there is no indomitable spirit of revolt takes on a different meaning. It means that under certain specifiable sociological and psychological conditions the anesthesia can be terribly effective.
How does the introduction of an historical perspective alter our understanding of social anesthesia? Historical analysis brings into the center of our vision the importance of improving capacities to control the natural and social environment along with the apparently endless chain of new causes of human suffering that this improvement produces, and the related changes in the principles of social inequality. It will be necessary to return to these issues again. It is a perspective that raises the question of whether we can legitimately speak of historically necessary forms of anesthesia. These could be connected with aspects of human suffering for which human society generally had not yet developed adequate techniques to control or eliminate. The control of diseases seems to be the clearest example. For historically necessary forms of suffering then there is nothing human begins can do but endure the pain or resort to such forms of cultural anesthesia as magic and religion. At any given stage of human development there would also be historically unnecessary – or historically futile – forms of suffering, that is, those that people could eliminate but fail to do so, presumably due to the opposition of vested interests. Thus in any concrete case we would have to ask, historically necessary for whom and why?
. . .
That will do as a preliminary outline of the theoretical dangers. The task at hand is to determine how human beings awake from anesthesia, how they overcome the sense of inevitability and how a sense of injustice may take its place. The situation of the Hindu Untouchables, one of maximum acceptance of servile status with a minimum of force, may serve to illustrate the type of starting point in which we are mainly interested. In milder forms the same feelings and social relationships are quite plain in the case of Ulrich Bräker, the steelworkers of the Ruhr and countless others. On further inspection and reflection they cease to seem in any way bizarre. Instead they are instances of responses to one of the oldest and commonest of human experiences, generalized patriarchal authority. In this prototypical experience the young person wants to please the father, even if hatred may also exist. There is an exchange of dependence, services, and childlike trusting adoration in return for care, protection, and another type of affection. In daily life one can see the essence of the relationship in the behavior of a dog toward its master.
I do not know whether dogs can develop a rudimentary sense of injustice if their masters mistreat them. Quite possibly experimental psychologists have demonstrated something of the sort. Quite obviously human beings can and do develop it. In this process of growth and emancipation one can discern three distinguishable but related processes. At the level of the individual human personality it is necessary to overcome certain forms of dependence on others and acquire or strengthen controls over impulses. This dependence and lack of control, to the extent of that it actually exists is not merely a rationalization for the authority of the dominant strata, is likely to be one aspect of psychological adaptation to the fact of subordination and powerlessness. In effect, people have to grow up.
At the level of social organization they also have to overcome dependence. Here the historical component becomes more obvious, due to the ways in which economic and political forms (in Europe, for example: city-state, feudalism, royal absolutism, capitalism, state socialism) have succeeded each other. As part of the process of overcoming dependence there may be the creation of new forms of solidarity and new networks of cooperation if the subordinate group was composed of atomized units. If, on the other hand, it was already a cohesive unit with a high degree of internal cooperation and sentiments of solidarity, this solidarity may require redirection. Instead of working in cooperation with and support of the dominant groups, it will be necessary to find ways to turn it against these groups. Instead of solidarity in adopting heroic gestures that endanger the group, it will be necessary to find ways to support effective resistance. Finally, at the level of cultural norms and shared perceptions it will be necessary to overcome the illusion that the present state of affairs in just, permanent, and inevitable. The historical component is crucial in this area too. What is an illusion at one point in time will not have been an illusion at an earlier point in time. Economic and social trends have to develop to a point where possibilities change, where what is reality becomes illusion. It is vastly easier for historians to explain the illusion convincingly after the events than for social prophets to proclaim the event convincingly before it happens. It is harder still to tell exactly whose reasoning is correct.
The conquest of the illusion of inevitability is not confined to dramatic political revolutions. It has been part of the whole transformation that we call modernization and industrialization, one that has been going on ever since the rise of commercial cities in the later phase of European feudalism. There was an earlier bust in a different form that began before the pre-Socratics and petered out about time of Alexander the Great. Though specialists on the history of outer societies and cultures will surely challenge the claim, so far as I can see the conquest of the illusion of inevitability has until quite recent times been mainly a process within Western culture. Behind this process, as we recognize more clearly from an historical perspective, are changes in a society’s capacity to solve the traditional problems of hunger and disease – thereby generating new issues – and associated changes in the principles of social inequality. Now that the process as a whole has come into sight, it will be useful to step back and comment further on the psychological, sociological, and cultural aspects.(pp.458-462)
Moore concludes this part of his study with two postulates – one axiomatic; one elaborated :
1) The history of every major political struggle reflects the clash of passions, convictions, and systems of belief.(p.469)
2) During the past few hundred years workers and townsmen generally have created three levers for forcing the changes they have wanted: the trade unions, ‘revolutionary’ political parties, and the revolutionary crowd or mob. The last of these is of course much older than the industrial working class. The contradiction between trade unions and ‘revolutionary political parties has been the subject of much discussion. Is there not just as much of an inherent contradiction between the nature of a revolutionary party and a revolutionary crowd?
The essence of a revolutionary party is to be the conscious vanguard and strategist for a mass following presumed to be at least potentially revolutionary. In a society that permits considerable freedom to form oppositional political organizations the vanguard, as everyone knows, has to come to terms with the dominant groups. In so doing it is very likely to lose much of its commitment to revolution. Even in an autocratic society as Russian experience prior to 1917 demonstrates, he same tendency exists though on a reduced scale. Lenin had to devote a formidable amount ot energy and printer’ ink to keeping the Russian socialists on a revolutionary course.
A revolutionary crowd is something very different from a revolutionary party. Where the party is enduring, or tries to be, the crowd is ephemeral. Where the party is tightly organized and disciplined, the revolutionary crowd is very loosely organized. Crowds in general are forms of collective human behavior that arise outside the normal institutional structure, the usual ties of political obedience, obligations to work, and the like. They are holidays from normal society. Like holidays and any form of euphoria (or acute unhappiness), they cannot last. Very soon the imperatives of ordinary life, getting food, exchanging at least some goods and services, reassert themselves.(pp.479-480)
The 19 + items below should cause pause on this one-hundred-and-third anniversary of the end of the capitalist carnage of WWI and encourage reflection on the famous Julie Andrews song in The King and I, which is given new meaning in today’s political context of world-wide events.
Francis McCollum Feeley
Professeur honoraire de l'Université
Ancien Directeur des Researches
Université de Paris-Nanterre
Director of The Center for the Advanced Study
of American Institutions and Social Movements
The University of California-San Diego
Science Fiction Has Become Fact: The Metaverse Is ‘Big
Brother in Disguise’. Freedom Meted Out by Technological Tyrants
by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead
Google & Oracle To Monitor Americans Who Get Warp Speed’s
Covid-19 Vaccine For Up To Two Years
by Whitney Webb
Kim Iversen Interview - The Dissolving COVID Agenda & It's
with Ryan Cristián
COVID Vaccines Do Not Impact Infection
with Dr. Chris Martenson
5G — The Great Enabler or Safe Wired Technology?
The Choice Is Ours
by Kate Kheel and Patricia Burke
Excess Deaths Point to Depopulation Agenda
by Mike Whitney
“The testimonies project” - the movie
Edited by Maor Naim
The Testimonies Project was created to provide a platform for all those who were affected after getting the covid-19 vaccines, and to make sure their voices are heard, since they are not heard in the Israeli media.
We hope this project will encourage more and more people to tell their story.
Pfizer Whistleblower Exposes Compromised Vaccine Trial Research
with Jimmy Dore
More opinions on the vaccine
California Governor Gavin Newsom Injured by Moderna Booster Shot
by Children’s Health Defense
The Simpsons ‘doctor visit’ (vaccine dangers) episode
Athletes Suffer Cardiac Arrest, Myocarditis, Blood Clots, Hospitalized
after COVID Injections
by Dr. Mark Trozzi
Children/Athletes Are Collapsing & Dying From ‘Sudden Cardiac
At Unprecedented Levels
with Ryan Cristián
Video: Covid-19 Criminality
with Professrors Michel Chossudovsky and Ariel Noyola Rodriguez
The Covid Hoax: The Steamroller to Tyranny
‘It’s not Just a Question of Vaccination or No Vaccination’
by Peter Koenig
Eric Clapton and RFK Jr Stand and Deliver
Great stuff—some of it shocking—on Rolling Stone, UK's plan to take down Telegram (we need some follow-up on that!), the elite "engineering" against Brexit as the prelude to the COVID lunacy in Britain, and much more, including both men's problems with addiction, and how their faith has helped them.
What makes this conversation such a pleasure is how honest, humane and eloquent these two heroes are, and how they've kept their sense of humor through it all.
Clapton's doing this for the same reason that he's still touring: because he loves the music, and knows how people need it. So why, we have to wonder, are so few of his peers standing with him? (George Harrison would have been with them, says Eric.)
‘Cloak and dagger’ military-intelligence outfit
at center of US digital vaccine passport push
by Jeremy Loffredo and Max Blumenthal
This group is chilling.
MITRE: The Military Intelligence Group That Drives The Push For Digital Vaccine Passport In America
This is an absolutely must-read article to understand the meaning of the phrase, “Deep State”. America is being driven by unelected and unaccountable Technocrats clustered in private think-tanks that could not possibly exist in the public sector. All of it is unwittingly funded by taxpayers.
Collusion between the military and Big Tech was warned about by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address. This has since morphed into the heart of what Shoshana Zuboff has described as “Surveillance Capitalism”, which is also a perfect description of modern Technocracy.
According to the FBI’s former Assistant Director William Bayse, the MIDB enabled police programmers to link activists to their political causes, associates, employers, criminal records, mugshots and fingerprints, spending habits, and even tax information.
Through hundreds of FOIA requests and interviews with current and former MITRE officials, Forbes learned that MITRE has designed “a prototype tool that can hack into smartwatches, fitness trackers and home thermometers for the purposes of homeland security… and a study to determine whether someone’s body odor can show they’re lying.”
MITRE is also home to the ATT&CK Program, an cybersecurity module which the corporation describes as “a globally-accessible knowledge base of adversary tactics and [intelligence] techniques based on real-world observations.” Adam Pennington, the lead architect for MITRE’s ATT&CK, “has spent over a decade with MITRE studying and preaching the use of deception for intelligence gathering.”
ACLU staff attorney Nate Wessler has called MITRE’s surveillance projects “extraordinarily chilling,” and warned that they “raise serious privacy concerns.”
Now, MITRE is working to implement digital vaccine passports in the US, and beyond.
Now that the lockdowns appear to be over, MITRE is at the center of the push for digital vaccine passports through the Vaccine Credential Initiative. Yet the influential military-intelligence organization remains behind “cloak and dagger,” mostly unknown to a US public whose lives could be radically altered by one of its most consequential projects.
Whistleblower Emergency (ER) Doctor Talks About Spike in Strokes after Vaccine Rollout and Increased D-Dimer Levels Indicating New Blood Clots - Global Research
Doctors and Scientists
with Brian Hooker, Ph.D. and Jessica Rose M.D.
‘Vaxxed vs. Unvaxxed’: CDC Hits New Lows
with Two Manipulated Studies
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
Health Effects of Cellphone & Cell Tower Radiation:
Implications for 5G
with Michelle Meyer and Joel M. Moskowitz
Nov. 3, 2021
97% of U.S. adults own a cellphone of some kind. The vast majority, 85%, own a smartphone. This presentation will summarize research on biologic and health effects from exposure to radio frequency radiation emitted by cell phones and cell towers. Learners will also discuss the implications of this research for 5G, the fifth generation of cellular technology. At the completion of this activity, the learner will be able to: - Describe what wireless or radio frequency (RF) radiation is, including 5G, and its relationship to ionizing radiation - Summarize the biologic and health effects caused by, or associated with, RF radiation exposure - Explain why current national and international RF radiation exposure limits fail to protect the health of humans and other species
We hear way too much about "the virus"—all of it false, and therefore dangerous—and, as well, about the Next Big Existential, said to be "climate change"; while we hear nothing about all the radiation from our cell phones, and the cellphone towers surrounding most of us—and that silence too is dangerous.
So here is a corrective. As you'll see below, you won't hear much more than this, unless you go in search of it, since scientists cannot find funding for studies of 5G, or even 4G (just as there's no funding for the impact of Fukushima).
--Mark Crispin Miller
Notes on Q&A by Dylan Harnett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-_8PvG753A&t=4872s with Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director of Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, BerkeleyMoskowitz received over 100 questions during the Q&A, and he was not able to get to my question about whether shungite protects against EMF. Here is one argument for shungite with citations of studies, and here is one argument against it.
Some of my notes:
Wolff Responds: Elon Musk's Billionaire BS
with Richard Wolff
Paul Jay [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 3:49 PM
Subject: Net F**ED by 2050 & Polexit humbug
Biting satire, a guest appearance, and a bit of humbug
Justice For Julian Assange Is Justice For All
by John Pilger
CIA Plot to Kill Julian Assange: Will Perpetrators Ever Face Legal
Accountability for Criminal Behavior?
by John Kiriakou
What’s Next for Julian Assange?
by Joe Lauria
Video: Fauci, HHS Officials Discuss Using New Virus from China
to Enforce Universal Vaccines in Footage
“Rand Paul vs. Dr. Fauci”: Their Four Most Recent Senate Hearing
To Protect Fauci, The Washington Post is Preparing a Hit Piece on the
Group Denouncing Gruesome Dog
by Glenn Greenwald
From: News from Underground
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2021
Subject: Daily digest for email@example.com
1) Where's Commissar Newsome? - Mark Crispin Miller (07 Nov 2021 00:19 EDT)
2) Who started the "horse-paste" propaganda smearing Ivermectin? It wasn't Pfizer, J&J, Moderna, GAVI or Bill Gates. It was... the FDA! - Mark Crispin Miller (07 Nov 2021 00:30 EDT)
3) Attention, professors! Please sign our Italian peers' petition against the "Green Pass" - Mark Crispin Miller (07 Nov 2021 14:16 EST)
There's a distinctly USSR feeling about Gavin Newsome's sudden disappearance from the scene, the official silence over it, and the masses guessing what may have happened to him.
Could it be, as Alex Berenson implies, that the governor accidentally got the sort of "booster" ordinarily used to finish off, like, old people, denizens of "red" states and other vermin? (Those eugenic details are my own, not Berenson's.) Or maybe Newsome was sidelined, or felled, by such a shot on purpose, in furtherance of yet another dark agenda?
Who knows? We sure don't. Such is life in COVID Country.
Where's Gavin Newsom?
Governor White Teeth was last seen eight days ago getting his Covid booster shot.
He was supposed to go to Scotland for the “how do we get heating oil to $10 a gallon to show the peasants who’s in charge?” conference, I mean the United Nations climate summit. (No points for guessing if he planned to fly private.)
But he didn’t go to Scotland. Something about “family obligations.”
Dude hasn’t been seen since.
Those are some serious obligations!
I’m sure he’s fine. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the booster.
Please think about that, hard.
What this country very badly needs is revolution; and "the left" will not be leading it—or, if it should succeed, surviving it.
Someone call Joe Rogan. (I'll gladly do his show on this.)
Attachment: FDA-Disinformation-Ivemectin.pdf (application/pdf)
Begin forwarded message:
From: Daniela Danna <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: November 7, 2021 at 8:24:53 AM PST
Subject: [ASA_PEWS] Appeal against the Italian Green Pass
Dear PEWS members,
some hundreds of Italian professors and researchers have mobilized against the obligation to carry a Green Pass in universities, an obligation from 1st September that has been extended since 15th October to all workplaces, private and public. There is a mobilization going on, defamed as being "fascist", and obscuring the fascistic character of the green pass requirement. We have already lived such an historical period, where the required document was the card attesting belonging to the Fascist Party. So we have translated the Italian declaration, asking colleagues from abroad to subscribe it.
This is the text:
International support of university teachers and intellectuals for the “no green pass” appeal in Italy
To the President of the Italian Republic
To the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies of the Italian Republic
To the Speaker of the Senate of the Italian Republic
To the Prime Minister of the Italian Republic
To the Minister of Education of the Italian Government
To the Minister of Universities and Scientific Research of the Italian Government
To the President of the Conference of Italian University Chancellors - CRUI
As university teachers and intellectuals,
We are extremely concerned about the way the current pandemic emergency has been handled , and about the consequences it has already had, and could have in the future, for the Italian people, starting with the world of universities and schools.
We are particularly concerned about academic freedom, which is a pillar of the rule of law and an expression of the highest human dignity. Academic freedom means the freedom to teach, study and learn without any kind of interference or conditioning.
The handling of the emergency has led many European governments to introduce a health pass (or so-called “Green Pass”) for many activities (although the situation varies widely from state to state).
Like many of our Italian colleagues, some of us have freely chosen to be vaccinated against Covid-19. All of us, however, consider the social discrimination introduced with the Green Pass, which restricts many fundamental human rights, to be unjust and illegitimate. The population is thus divided between upper-tier citizens, who possess a pass and can access basic services (transport, healthcare, catering, etc.) and lower-tier citizens, who do not have a pass.
In Italy, unlike in all other European countries, the Green Pass has been extended to schools and universities. As a result, students not in possession of a Green Pass are refused access to university facilities (classrooms, canteen, library, etc.): in short, they are denied the right to study. Likewise, teachers without a pass are suspended from teaching duties and receive no salary.This troubles and worries us enormously!
The word “university” comes from universitas, from vertere in unum: “turning into one”, which means welcoming the plurality of knowledge, but also the multiple bonds that are created between people. Under an medieval, noble rule promulgated in Italy, the Authentica Habita, university teaching staff and students were granted a series of specific rights in terms of hospitality, immunity, protection, freedom, and movement. These achievements of about 900 years ago became a civil and cultural reference in other areas of society. Precisely for this reason, discrimination in Italian universities, a beacon of civilization for many, acquires a dangerous symbolic value for all of us.
As a result of the Green Pass, Italian universities are no longer free and welcoming for everyone, nor are they forums for free thought and discussion. With the adoption of the Green Pass, universities become a government tool aimed at inducing teachers and young people to get vaccinated. The Green Pass in fact encourages them to sacrifice their ideas and intellectual freedom, as well as to abandon critical thinking. Universities are thus disowning their fundamental values and principles, and undermining their objectives.
We are shocked that most of academic bodies – as far as we know – allow such discrimination, which also translates into socio-economic discrimination, if we consider that those students who cannot or do not wish to be vaccinated, but who intend to follow lessons in person (as they are entitled to), will have to sustain monthly Covid-19 test costs of about €200. It is clear that only students from well-off families will be able to afford the “luxury” of the right to education!
For these reasons, we agree with the appeal made by Italian university teachers against the Green Pass, and firmly support the teachers, administrative staff and students engaged in this battle of civil rights. We hope that this discriminatory mechanism will be abolished as soon as possible.
To sign the petition, send an email with your title to Daniela Poli < email@example.com>
Antoine Brès professeur associé en aménagement et urbanisme, HDR, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (France)
Pietro Elia Campana , Associate Professor, Mälardalen University (Sweden)
David Vera Candeas , Associate Professor, University of Jaén (Spain)
Francesca Capelli, Associata di Grammatica Italiana, Università del Salvador - Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Guillaume Faburel, Professeur en Science Politique - Université Lumière Lyon 2, et Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne (France)
Francesco Gervasi, Profesor Investigador de Tiempo Completo Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Facultad de Ciencias de la Comunicación, Coahuila de Zaragoza (México)
Ashwani Gupta , Distinguished University Professor, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland (MD), (USA)
Simon Harvey , Professor of Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden
Daniele Joly, P rofessor Emeritus, Department of Sociology, University of Warwick Coventry CV4 7AL (UK), CADIS-EHESS, College d'etudes mondiales FMSH
Valérie JOUSSEAUME, Maîtresse de conférences en géographie de l’aménagement, HDR, Université de Nantes (France)
Francisco Jurado , Full Professor, University of Jaen (Spain)
Markus Kraft, Fellow of Churchill College and Full Professor, University of Cambridge (UK)
Antonio Lecuona-Neumann, Full Professor, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, (España)
María Pilar LISBONA-MARTÍN , Associate Professor, Universidad de Zaragoza, (España)
Béatrice Mariolle, professeure en architecture et urbanisme, École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture et de Paysage de Lille
Alberto Matarán Ruiz , Profesor of Urban and Spatial Planning España(https://www.ugr.es/en/about/organization/entities/department-urban-and-spatial-planning" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener noopener noreferrer" style="line-height: normal;" target="_blank">, Universidad de Granada (
Rebeca Merino del Río , Ricercatrice a tempo determinato , Universidad de Sevilla (España)
Jaroslaw Milewski ,Full professorPolitechnika Warszawska (Politecnico di Varsavia)
Robert Olinski, M.Sc., PhD, Senior Scientist head of genomics team at Novozymes A/S headquarters (Denmark)
Thierry Paquot , professeur émérite à l'Institut d'urbanisme de Paris - université Paris-Est Créteil Val-de-Marne (France)
Carlos Plaza Ricercatore a contrato , Universidad de Sevilla (España)
Sergio Porta , Professor of Urban Design, Department of Architecture, University of Strathclyde
Director of UDSU - Urban Design Studies Unit, Course Director MSc in Urban Design, Glasgow (UK)
ASA_PEWS mailing list
“Will they mourn us on the front line?” Mia Mottley, PM of Barbados,
transcript of speech at the Opening of the World Leaders Summit of the
United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26)
November 1, 2021
by Mia Mottley
Wall Street’s Latest Scheme Is Monetizing Nature Itself
by Ellen Brown
The Great Organic-Food Fraud
by Ian Parker
Sandinistas Poised to Win Election in Nicaragua
Despite U.S. Sabotage and Smears
by Yader Lanuza
From Nicaraguan revolutionaries to US embassy informants: How
Washington recruited ex-Sandinistas like Dora María Téllez and her
Exclusive-U.S. to Announce New Nicaragua Sanctions 'Very Soon,' Official Says
Why Black Revolutionaries Must Stand with the People of Nicaragua
by Netfa Freeman
Fighting to free our people’: 55 years of the Black Panther Party
with Eddie Conway
The painful, erased history of how Africa made Western modernity
with Marc Steiner
Ex CIA analyst on hidden realities of Syria war and new novel
by Aaron Maté
Cuba, COVID-19, and ending the US blockade
with Eddie Conway
J. Wells Dixon: Why 7 U.S. Military Officers Just Blasted the CIA
with Robert Scheer
The Empire of Lies Breaks Down:
Ugly Truths the Deep State Wants to Keep Hidden
Mass Media Hasten To Help Pentagon Exonerate Itself In Afghan Airstrike
by John W. Whitehead & Nisha Whitehead
Palestine in Pictures: October 2021
by The Electronic Intifada
West throws Palestinian rights groups to the wolves
by Maureen Clare Murphy
Palestinian Prisoners Marwan Barghouti and Zakaria Zubeidi
Could Take Down The Palestinian Authority
by Robert Inlakesh
Israeli spyware targeted Palestinian human rights workers
by Maureen Clare Murphy
Organized State Terrorism: Palestinians Condemn
New Israeli Surveillance Revelations
by Brett Wilkins
An autonomous robot may have already killed people – here's how
the weapons could be more destabilizing than nukes
by Williams/U.S. Navy
Israel attacks Syria in broad daylight. We shouldn't actively ignore it
by Vanessa Beeley
Israeli Military Accelerating Plans to Attack Iran
by Dave DeCamp
There Is a Direct Link Between JFK, 9/11 and COVID-19
by Edward Curtin and Geopolitics and Empire
US Gov Was Found Guilty In MLK's Assassination, Virginia Update
& Israeli Gov "Proof" Of Iran Nukes
with Ryan Cristián
The Republican Party makes clear that educational practices
that inform and liberate are a threat to its politics
by Henry A. Giroux
Private companies contracted to “streamline” public libraries are doing it at the
cost of decent-paying union jobs
by Caleb Nichols,
Found in Translation: New York Times Says Democrats Shouldn't
by Norman Solomon, Jeff Cohen
Is This the End of the Unreformable Democratic Party?
by Michael Hudson
Moderna Reports 'Obscene' Profits From Covid Vaccine
Funded by US Taxpayers
by Jake Johnson
Billionaire political meddlers, disinformation agents launch
‘Good Information Inc.’ to fight disinformation
by Alexander Rubinstein
UN-Backed Banker Alliance Announces “Green” Plan to Transform
the Global Financial System
by Whitner Webb
The corporate consolidation of farming is a threat to us all
with Maximillian Alvarez
While other sectors experience strikes, farm workers are still fighting
for basic human rights
by Michael Sainato
Farmers' Land Confiscated for 'Carbon Pipeline' through Corn Belt
Farmers' land across the midwest is being confiscated to make way for construction of a massive, 1300-mi long Carbon Capture & Sequestration Pipeline. Town halls in hundreds of counties are full of angry farmers, as county officials announce, "There's not much we can do." As the world enters a food crisis, plowing under tens of thousands of acres of the best soil in America is complete madness...or is it a flawlessly calculated attack? Christian breaks it down in this critical Ice Age Farmer broadcast.
7 months into strike, Alabama coal miners keep the fire burning
by Marc Steiner
35,000 Kaiser Permanente workers are set to strike, and the future of US healthcare is at stake
with Maximillian Alvarez
The West’s China Complex: Beijing as the Enemy and the Savior
by Ramzy Baroud
The Geopolitics of China-Russia Relations, The Dragon and the Bear
by Nicholas Meyers
Federal Judge Halts Biden's Vaxx Mandate
with Jimmy Dore
From: Michael Albert
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2021 2:43 PM
Subject: [zcommunications] What's Next?!
The book No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World by Michael Albert is now available at various outlets and also via links on the No Bosses book page at nobossesbook.com
That page also has eight early reviews of the book, nine early video appearances discussing the book, nine testimonials endorsing the book, a table of contents, and a Partridge in a Pear Tree.
Here, however, I unashamedly include only a short review that I did - yes - it is a review by me of my own book. In it I succinctly tell what No Bosses contains and I quote a number of the above mentioned testimonials, among other inclusions.
I bet the odds are pretty good, in fact I bet the odds are actually really good, that you are at the very least outraged by what our current economic system is doing to human conditions and relationships and even to our planet itself. Capitalism is a suicide machine and honestly, we all know it. So, what’s next?
Is my asking “what’s next” timely and warranted? Is my trying to propel a conversation that can contribute to developing shared vision timely and warranted?
If your answers are yes and yes, then I hope you will give the short review, below, a chance.
Indeed, I hope you will visit the nobossesbook.com site, and if you do visit it, and if you are moved to get and read the book, I hope you will let me know your reactions to it.
On the other hand, if your answers to the above two questions are no and no, if your answers are that asking what’s next and trying to propel a conversation about vision is not warranted, well, in that case, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Or perhaps you will write to tell me why.
Yours in waiting,
Michael Albert at firstname.lastname@example.org
Self Review of No Bosses
by Michael Albert
No Bosses, A New Economy for a Better World, publication date, November 1, is now available. Two British friends, Mark Evans and Eugene Nulman, created a wonderful book site at nobossesbook.com that includes advance testimonials, early reviews, the table of contents, and links to purchase. I hope you will visit it.
I wrote No Bosses because I believe we need shared vision to sustain hope, orient strategy, and escalate commitment. I recently wondered, what if I were invited to review No Bosses? What would I say?
Imagine, it isn’t hard if you try. It is a sunny day sometime in the future. In many countries, a massive transformation has redefined society’s basic institutions. In other countries, similar transitions are in mid to late stages.
Supporters have named their aims “participatory socialism” or perhaps “participatory society.” Whatever its name, their project has transformed political, kinship, gender, cultural, community, economic, ecological, and international relations. All humanity and all humanity’s habitats.
No Bosses says to reach such new relations, we need to know their defining features. To have hope, orientation, and commitment, we need economic, political, kinship, and culture/community vision.
But No Bosses doesn’t propose what future workers and consumers will eat or wear. Nor does it picture what they will drive. Nor enumerate their jobs. Nor indicate how long they will work each day. No Bosses doesn’t list future holidays or describe future products. It celebrates no new gizmos.
Instead, No Bosses envisions the personal and social characteristics of future workplaces. It envisions how future jobs affect us and how we affect them. It envisions norms that determine our future incomes. It envisions how we freely decide what to produce and consume.
No Bosses proposes how we collectively and cooperatively decide our economic responsibilities and benefits. It proposes how we have no individuals dominate others. It explains what classlessness means and it proposes how to attain it in a self managing, equitable, solidaritous, and sustainable economy.
No Bosses does not discuss contingent future policy decisions. It does not discuss as yet unknowable details of future economic life. Instead, No Bosses proposes only what it finds necessary to ensure that our children and their children and their children’s children will equitably and freely implement the content and practices of their future economic lives.
No Bosses proposes ways for future workers and consumers to implement their own free choices. It proposes ways for future workers and consumers to collectively organize their work and consumption. It proposes ways for them to collectively self manage their economic circumstances and simultaneously propel, reflect, and respect comparably liberating outcomes in also revolutionized families, sex/gender relations, cultural and community relations, and politics.
In short, No Bosses proposes a new economy for a better world. No Bosses proposes a post capitalist commons of productive assets; a non-hierarchical and self managing mode of economic decision making; a non corporate conception of work; a classless division of labor; workplace and society-wide methods to allot equitable incomes; and finally a new, non market, non centrally planned, decentralized and participatory self managing approach to allocation. No Bosses is about dignified freedom. Goodbye, capitalism. Hello, participatory economics.
No Bosses proposes five core institutional innovations it deems necessary to attain a classless, self managing, equitable, caring, innovative, sustainable, and even artistic economy. It offers these economic proposals as a flexible scaffold for movements to creatively enrich with diverse details based on practical experiences.
A book that addresses how we might better conduct economics in a better future is not a tweet or even a set of tweets. It is not a selfie. It is not binging a new TV series with snacks in hand. It doesn’t say only what one already agrees with. For these reasons it requires more hours, more intensity, and more commitment than many other uses of one’s time.
But No Bosses rejects academic pretense. It does not obfuscate. It prioritizes activism, organizing, hope, desire. As author and self-interested reviewer, I would say, yes, No Bosses delivers viable and worthy economic vision. Big deal—of course I think that. If I didn’t think that, I wouldn’t have written the book.
Beyond me, however, consider that Noam Chomsky says, “No Bosses describes and advocates workers’ and consumers’ self-managing councils, a division of labor that balances empowering tasks among all workers, a norm that apportions income for duration, intensity, and onerousness of socially valued labor, and finally not markets or central planning, but instead participatory planning of what is produced, by what means, to what ends. It makes a compelling case that these features can be brought together in a spirit of solidarity to establish a self-managing, equitable, sustainable, participatory, new economy, with a rich artistic and intellectual culture as well.”
Or that Yanis Varoufakis says: “No Bosses helps us retrieve from within ourselves the suppressed conviction, shared by every human being, that it is not alright to live under the tyranny of market forces weaponised by cunning bosses.”
And Kathy Kelly adds: “Seriously and carefully, No Bosses aims to create a framework, a ‘scaffold,’ for a worthy economic plan. No Bosses describes participatory economics with enjoyable candor, raising as many questions as it answers and inviting readers to set cynicism aside.”
Or Ron Daniels says: “No Bosses, proposes an answer for economics from self managed decision making to balanced work and from equitable incomes to ending class division. No Bosses should be widely read as we assess the way forward in this unprecedented moment in the history of this nation.”
And Bill Fletcher adds: No Bosses does not argue whether the future that it proposes is probable, but rather insists that it is necessary. Albert’s latest book No Bosses accomplishes just that and is a delight to read.”
Or Medea Benjamin says: “Read No Bosses with delight at the creative ways we can organize—asap—to sweep Mr. Moneybags into the dustbin of history and create the new equitable, participatory, empowering, and sustainable world that we want to live in. “
And Ezequiel Adamovsky adds: No Bosses, A New Economy for a Better World offers a refined, compelling argument in favor of a non-capitalist, participatory economics. Its vision is of utmost importance for people and social movements struggling for a better world.”
And Jeremy Brecher concludes: “You'll have a hard time finding a better guide to moving from capitalism to a genuinely free, equal, and participatory economy.”
But even such testimonials only suggest that No Bosses fulfills a necessary but a far from sufficient condition for effectivity. Words unheard, even good books unread, sounds of silence have little practical impact.
Writing is a hit or miss endeavor. As its author, I can answer interview queries and do anything else in my reach to help No Bosses get read. I can even audaciously self-review it. But what will determine No Bosses success or failure will be the book’s readers. Will its readers review, critique, correct, extend, or otherwise actively engage with No Bosses? Will outlets carry readers’ reviews and debates? Will outlets address readers’ concerns, extend their extrapolations, evaluate their detractions, and elaborate their extensions? Will individuals, organizations, and media who doubt or who even already reject capitalism initiate inquiring, critical, creative steps toward together arriving at shared advocacy of a new economy for a better world? Only time and you will tell if that occurs at least in part by way of assessing No Bosses’ participatory socialist proposals.