Bulletin N° 870




“The Corporation”

(2h 24min)


This 2003 Canadian documentary film was written by University of British Columbia law professor Joel Bakan, and directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott. The documentary examines the modern-day corporation as a veritable paradigm of social abuse which is reproduced at every level of society and the effects of which no one can escape. Bakan wrote the book, The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit.





Subject : The Capitalist Conspiracy, Part  6 : The corporate ends used to justify corporate means of militarism, racism, sexism, genocide & other instruments of  fear mongering for higher private profits.  




December 8, 2019

Grenoble, France


Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,


“Rulers Represent Themselves” is the title of Chapter 6 of Joseph Plummer’s book, Tragedy & Hope 101: The Illusion of Justice, Freedom and Democracy (2016). In this chapter, this amature historian discusses “statecraft” and specifically “the evolution of state power” in the United States of America, which like all modern states claims the exclusive right to a legitimate monopoly on lethal force within their society.


     Common criminals do not have access to the media, the trust of the masses, or the air of legitimacy given to those who secure a position of authority. They cannot legally seize our money, destroy the purchasing power of our currency, or control the police and military. Common criminals cannot legislate away our rights, or reduce our children to debt slaves. They cannot obstruct an inquiry into their crimes from inside the system. (They cannot seal documents, confiscate and ‘lose’ evidence, or appoint their own investigators.) Common criminals cannot write laws and selectively enforce them. They cannot disarm millions of their would-be victims, round them up and put them in cages, or worse. They cannot take nations to war, profiting financially and politically from the carnage....


     Suffice it to say, this is why those who created the US government spoke constantly about limiting its power via the Constitution and Bill of Rights. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, too much confidence in our elected leaders’ good intentions is the ‘parent of despotism everywhere.’ It would be a ‘dangerous delusion,’ he warned, for us to trust those who currently hold power simply because they are ‘men of or choice.’

. . .


     Members of the Network have spent the past one hundred years doing everything in their power to nurture the ‘dangerous delusion’ that Jefferson warned us about. Before they can have their way with the world, our rulers must break the ‘chains of the Constitution’ that bind them down. They don’t want to exercise limited government power; they want to exercise the opposite.(pp.120-121)


Plummer goes on to cite James Madison (1751-1836), the fourth president of the United States in his warning against a state of permanent warfare.


Of  all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded. . . . War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes . . . and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments of bring the many under the domination of the few. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”(cited on page 121)


This historic conspiracy to monopolize the expansion of power, according to Plummer, is often counter-intuitive.  He explains:


     In chapter 1, we briefly covered the 1950s-era investigations into large, tax-exempt foundations. Many were shocked when it was discovered that the capitalist foundations were using their money to support Communism. At first glance, this seems ridiculous. Why would the wealthiest men in the world want to ‘orient American far eastern policies toward Communist objectives?’ This seemingly suicidal policy begins to make more sense when you learn how the Network actually operates. It’s important to remember that war, and the threat of war, had enabled them (more than anything else) to inch ever closer to their goal of destroying national sovereignty.(pp.121-122)


To illustrate the amorality of this insatiable quest for a monopoly of power by the owners of capital, Plummer gives a brief history of Katherine Casey, a research assistant for Norman Dodd, who in the 1950s was assigned the task of investigating tax-exempt foundations, professing to do “humanitarian work.”


     Norman Dodd was a lead researcher for one of aforementioned investigations and, as such, he was chosen to appoint the committee’s staff. By the 1950s, propaganda touting the humanitarian ‘benevolence’ of the tax-exempt foundations was widely accepted and many people, including one of Dodd’s researchers, Katherine Casey, felt that the foundations were beyond reproach. As Dodd put it, Casey was ‘unsympathetic to the purpose of the investigation. Her attitude . . . was: ‘What could possibly be wrong with foundations? They do so much good.’ But Casey’s trust was soon shattered as she dug into what was, at the time, decades-old records of the Network-connected Carnegie Foundation. Dodd explains:


I blocked out certain periods of time [for Casey] to concentrate on, and off she went to New York. She came back at the end of two weeks with the following on Dictaphone tapes:


     “We are now at the year 1908 . . . . In that year, the trustees . . . raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is; ‘Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?’ And they concluded that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity. So then, in 1909, they raised the second question and discussed it, namely: ‘How do we involve the United States in a war?’ . . . Then, finally they answered that  question as follows: ‘We must control the State Department.’ That very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? And they answer it by saying: ‘We must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country.’ And, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.’”


Plummer goes on to remind readers of the history of the secret Network:


     Keep in mind, the plans that Casey is reporting on were originally written just a few years before the Network managed to gain control the ‘diplomatic machinery’ of the country (using Woodrow Wilson and Mandell House). That control was later expanded via the Network-led group of ‘experts,’ known as The Inquiry. The Inquiry, in turn evolved into what is now known as the Council on Foreign Relations. Within twenty years of its founding, the CFR’s enormous power within the State Department was undeniable. (Look no further than the 1939 War and Peace Studies for an excellent example.*) Casey’s report continues:


“Then time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatched to President Wilson a telegram, cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly. Finally, of course, the war is over. At that time their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States (to what it was prior to 1914 when World War I broke out. At that point they came to the conclusion that, to prevent a reversion, ‘we must control education in the United States.’ . . . They realize that that’s a pretty big task . . . . They then decided that the key to success . . . lay in the alteration of the teaching of American history.”


*NOTE: Today, there is a good deal of information available on the CFR-directed War and Peace Studies. However, the project was initially top secret, unknown to all but a handful of CFR members. In Seeds of Destruction, page 102, William Engdahl notes that: ‘the War and Peace Studies Group of the New York Council of Foreign Relations, effectively took over all significant post-war planning for the US State Department. After 1942, most of its members were quietly put directly on the State Department payroll.’


     According to Norman Dodd, Casey was so devastated by the information she uncovered during the Reece Committee investigation that she never recovered:


As far as its impact on Katherine Casey was concerned . . . she never was able to return to her law practice. Ultimately, she lost her mind as a result of it. It was a terrible shock. It’s a very rough experience to encounter proof of these kinds.


     That final sentence is profound. It actually is a very ‘rough experience to encounter proof’ that you’ve been intentionally misled. It is painful to learn that intelligent, manipulative, and arrogant liars have secured your well-meaning trust, only then to play you as a fool. Nobody wants to face that feeling and, as it relates to ‘our’ powerful institutions, that feeling  gets worse before it gets better. After discovering the initial betrayal, you come to realize that your trust has been betrayed at every turn. You realize that the entire system has been designed to deceive and trap you (along with the rest of the unsuspecting public) in a fabricated reality, in an illusion.


     Perhaps worst of all, after some study and serious thought, you begin to comprehend the enormity of the problem. The same institutional propaganda that initially fooled you still holds sway over millions and millions of minds. To unlock those minds, you must convince people to investigate ugly truths that, to them, seem ridiculous and offensive. You have to overcome the fact that most people will be ‘unsympathetic to the purpose’ of any investigation that challenges their deeply held beliefs.


Katherine Casey uncovered a criminal conspiracy that was so inherently immoral, and so at odds with popular perception, that few people would ever believe the story was true. And, since we don’t have access to the documents she saw, healthy skepticism is perfectly reasonable. So, moving forward, let’s assume that all we have to go on is a few general assertions:


1)    Members of the Network believe they have a right to rule in secrecy.

2)    By controlling policy and public perception, they have the ability to do so.

3)    Because of their power within the political system, their crimes are rarely exposed and never properly punished.


Through the remainder of this book, I will prove that these three assertions are true.(p.122-125)





The 23 + items below contain news of current events that can be used to test the assertions made by Joseph Plummer in the above presentation  of his book, Tragedy & Hope 101: The Illusion of Justice, Freedom and Democracy, which is a brief synopsis of the extensive study of Professor Carroll Quigley. This discussion should raise questions about how the ruling class rules and what precisely is “cultural hegemony,” which "goes without saying" and all but defies public scrutiny.





Francis Feeley


Professeur honoraire de l'Université Grenoble-Alpes
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





Brazilian Indigenous Leader Davi Kopenawa: Bolsonaro is Killing My People & Destroying the Amazon



"Hatred of the Indian" fuels the (US-backed) junta in Bolivia


by Álvaro García Linera


Vice-president Álvaro García Linera reflects on the role of racial hatred in motivating the coup which forced him and President Evo Morales out of office and into exile.

Almost as a nighttime fog, hatred rapidly traverses the neighborhoods of the traditional urban middle-class of Bolivia. Their eyes fill with anger. They do not yell, they spit. They do not raise demands, they impose. Their chants are not of hope of brotherhood. They are of disdain and discrimination against the Indians. They hop on their motorcycles, get into their trucks, gather in their fraternities of private universities, and they go out to hunt the rebellious Indians that dared to take power from them.

In the case of Santa Cruz, they organize motorized hordes with sticks in hand to punish the Indians, those that they call ‘collas, who live in peripheral neighborhoods and in the markets. They chant “the collas must be killed,” and if on the way, they come across a woman wearing a pollera [traditional skirt worn by Indigenous and mestizo women] they hit her, threaten her and demand that she leave their territory.


Reversing Pro-Palestinian Stance of Evo Morales, Bolivia's Coup Government Moves to Restore Ties With Israel


by Jake Johnson


Morales cut off diplomatic ties with Israel over its deadly 2009 assault on the occupied Gaza Strip and called for top Israeli officials to be charged with genocide.


"Eddie Conway Talks Indigenous Peoples Day and Political Prisoners"





'Gaza Fights for Freedom': An antidote to Israel’s criminal propaganda


by Belen Fernandez


"On Contact: Gaza with Abby Martin and Mike Prysner"



Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib targeted in Israeli fake news operation


by David Smith, Michael McGowan , Christopher Knaus and Nick Evershed


From: GAZA PALESTINE [mailto:anahona366@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 11:06 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: We need $ 60 to buy first aid for next week.... Great return marches have started today and we need your support, so our work does not stop.


We need your support in obtaining some first aid for our work in the coming days.


The major return marches began today, Friday, after they stopped since the last Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip two weeks ago.


The demonstrators were subjected to live fire today.


Where the Israeli occupation forces injured more than 40 people during the activities of the major return marches.


A cameraman and a journalist were wounded by gunfire, and a number of paramedics were wounded with gas canisters.


Today we are back to work and all this thanks to friend Mark, friend salvatore, friend Sheila Colligwood-Whittick, friend Bengt Lundquist and David Spiro

Thank them very much and we need your support in getting equipment for our work and starting over.


We need some gauze for $ 30 and the other 30 for some solutions and iodine

I am very sorry to send this, but we need your continued support. I hope you will not be upset with my mail.


I am sorry and feel embarrassed about this, but I have to be human to help the injured.


You can help us through the following link:






From: Moshé Machover
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2019
Subject: Pourquoi Israël est un Etat raciste ‒ Moshé Machover - Matzpen.org/English



Pourquoi Israël est un Etat raciste ‒ 

Moshé Machover


Dévoiler le racisme d’Israël n’est que trop facile. Une timide dénonciation, sans explication de son contexte sous-jacent, peut réellement s’avérer trompeuse voire même contre-productive; elle pourrait être vue comme une critique d’Israël dénonçant quelque défaut moral étrange et exceptionnel de ses dirigeants ou, pire, de sa majorité juive. En fait, les schémas et comportements racistes, partout où ils ont lieu, sont partie intégrante de la superstructure judiciaire et idéologique et ne peuvent être correctement appréhendés isolément de leur matière première. Dans le cas d’Israël, la colonisation sioniste de la Palestine constitue cette matière première – une opération dans laquelle Israël est tout autant le résultat que l’instrument.

continuer la lecture :




Tom Friedman condemns Iran for shooting protesters, but finds it ‘easy’

to defend Israel for doing same


by Philip Weiss






Global NATO: A 70-Year Alliance of Oppressors in Crisis
by Horace G. Campbell


NATO: Past, Present, and Future . . . ?


interview with former NATO Deputy Secretary-General Alessandro Minuto-Rizzo


On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to former NATO Deputy Secretary-General Alessandro Minuto-Rizzo on the upcoming NATO summit in London. He is challenged by Afshin Rattansi on NATO nations’ wars on the Middle East, the claim NATO is a force for peace, why Macron called the NATO alliance brain dead, NATO’s response to the rise of a more powerful Russia and China and more! Next, we speak to Robert Bahar, director of the film Silence of Others, a film about atrocities in Spain during the Franco era. He discusses the continuities of Franco’s dictatorship in modern Spain, how Franco’s regime shaped the Spanish state, Franco’s involvement in fascist eugenics programs, why many people in Spain don’t know the extent of the atrocities and more!


NATO's Secret Armies. Operation GLADIO and the Strategy of Tension
Interview with Dr. Daniele Ganser
"Report: 14,000 troops to Iran border — what gives?"
Moral Injury & America’s Endless Conflicts
by Arnold R. Isaacs





Could America Survive a Truth Commission?


by Charles Hugh Smith


There is precious little evidence that a Truth Commission in the U.S. would be aimed at one goal: protecting the powerful from the consequences of their decisions and actions. –


A nation that's no longer capable of naming names and reporting what actually happened richly deserves an economic and political collapse to match its moral collapse.

You've probably heard of the Truth Commissions held in disastrously corrupt and oppressive regimes after the sociopath/kleptocrat Oligarchs are deposed. The goal is not revenge, as well-deserved as that might be; the goal is national reconciliation via the only possible path to healing: name names and tell the plain, unadorned truth, stripped of self-serving artifice, spin, propaganda and PR.

Is such a stripped-of-spin truthful account of names and events even possible in the U.S.? Sadly, there is precious little evidence that a Truth Commission in the U.S. would be anything more than a travesty of a mockery of a sham, a parade of half-truths, misdirections, falsehoods and fabrications, all aimed at one goal: protecting the powerful from the consequences of their decisions and actions.

Sadly, we've lost the capacity to simply tell the truth: everything, and I mean everything, is crafted to protect the guilty, polish the putrid decay of legalized looting, defraud the unwary, ease the most venal, power-mad sociopaths into positions of unparalleled power, sell low-quality goods and services nobody needs or would even want if the marketing weren't so Orwellian, persuade debt-serfs to borrow more and bamboozle voters into further enriching the few at the expense of the many.

The truth is no match for greed is good and don't be evil, unless it's incredibly profitable, in which case, go for it but cover your tracks (here's looking at you, Big Tech). Outrage is reserved for whistleblowers who name names and reveal the sordid truths that the status quo has expended the nation's treasure to protect from the light of day.

This is the pathetic state of America: our outrage is reserved for those telling the truth, not for the legions who lie, cheat, steal and prevaricate to conceal the truth at all costs.

The so-called gatekeepers are all corrupt and self-serving, minions of the Intelligence Community, corporate overlords, billionaires or the interest groups that fund their studies, departments, think tanks and "research" (the conclusions are established first and the "research" follows accordingly).


Operation Northwoods. False Flag Attacks and Regime Change. US Intervention in India
by Great Game India


Rwanda: the financiers of the genocide
by Eric Toussaint
Rwanda. Do Banks Hold A responsibility In The Genocide ?
"How White Collar Criminals Get Away with Murder"
with Bill Black





'So If You're Poor, You're Dead'? Watch These Brits Gasp When They Find Out Cost of Healthcare in the United States


by Eoin Higgins


Brits can't fathom the barbarity of America's healthcare system.


The wolf that ate Wall Street: US economy roars amid rising income inequality


by Robert Bridge


As the US stock market continues to set records, and the economy creates millions of new jobs, many Americans are forced to settle for low-paying work and meager benefits. How long can the inequality continue?

The sound of popping champagne bottles will soon echo across Manhattan this holiday season as corporate America is in decidedly high spirits. And for good reason. Wall Street has witnessed one of its most robust earning seasons on record, unemployment is at its lowest rate in 50 years, while many corporations are swimming in cash. But, as so often happens in the shady world of business and markets, all is not as it would appear.

Just below the shiny surface of Wall Street’s epic success story an epic tragedy is unfolding as millions of workers are silently struggling paycheck to paycheck, doing what they can to make ends meet while raising a family. The numbers are sobering.

According to data released by the Brookings Institution, 53 million Americans between the ages of 18 to 64 fall under the category of “low wage.” Their hourly pay comes out to around $10.22, while median annual earnings are $18,000. Most startling thing, however, is that this group of wage-earners accounts for a whopping 44 percent of the entire US workforce



"How poor people survive in the USA”



Homelessness, hunger and shame: poverty is rampant in the richest country in the world. Over 40 million people in the United States live below the poverty line, twice as many as it was fifty years ago. It can happen very quickly. Many people in the United States fall through the social safety net. In the structurally weak mining region of the Appalachians, it has become almost normal for people to go shopping with food stamps. And those who lose their home often have no choice but to live in a car. There are so many homeless people in Los Angeles that relief organizations have started to build small wooden huts to provide them with a roof over their heads. The number of homeless children has also risen dramatically, reaching 1.5 million, three times more than during the Great Depression the 1930s. A documentary about the fate of the poor in the United States today.


Trump Declared War on the Poor--And the Poor Are Fighting Back
with Liz Theoharis of the Poor People's Campaign and Karen Dolan of the Institute for Policy Studies





The Federal Reserve is prolonging the trade war, keeping the biggest

financial bubble in history going – and risking the entire global system


by Andy Xie


By fuelling a market rally every time talks stall, the Fed has extended the trade war and made the asset bubble bigger. If a crisis erupts outside the US or China, the bubble may burst – with disastrous consequences for the world


 ‘Once you pop, you can’t stop’: Fed QE is like Pringles, Ross Ashcroft tells RT’s Keiser Report



The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has been bailing out the repo market with multi-billion dollar programs every week, says the Keiser Report, which asks if it’s the fourth round of quantitative easing (QE).

Max Keiser talks to award winning filmmaker, broadcaster, and strategist Ross Ashcroft, who says it’s not QE but more like QE infinity. “It’s like Pringles, once you pop, you can’t stop,” says Ashcroft.

According to Ashcroft, who is the host of the weekly program Renegade, it is the classic liquidity trap. He says the money is stagnating while really bad ideas are being funded.

“This is classic, the misallocation of capital, not only in the QE’s but right back to the crisis” when instead of letting banks go bust we have propped them up.“From that moment till now we were continually misallocating capital week in, week out. And the repo market is just the canary in the mine, and of course they can’t call it QE4 because the markets would trauma.”

He says the systemic fraud is simply staggering. The asset stripping, political favors, and so on, that’s what is now considered to be ‘business as usual’ and “obviously it’s not going to end well.”


Recession Watch: “Fed Rate Cuts Indicate Unhealthy Economy”



While the Trump administration and Fed Chair Jerome Powell double down on claims the America economy is strong, economics experts say recent, record low, rate cuts point to a weak economy beneath the surface. Boom Bust takes a deeper look at the actual economy behind the rate cuts (7:46). Plus, on the World According to Jesse, Jesse Ventura criticizes Trump’s support of Israel violating sovereignty of other nations. Then, we take a look at how the protests unfolded in Hong Kong, And, is Jeffrey Epstein, Victoria’s Secret? We explain in a live interview. | Just Press Play has those segment and the best of other in-depth reports, exclusive interviews and controversial issues you may have missed this week on RT America. This episode features highlights from this week’s episodes of In Question, Larry King Now, PoliticKing!


World Bank adopts $1 billion-plus annual China lending plan






From: Richard Greeman
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019
Subject: French General Strike


French Unions and Yellow Vests Converge;

Launch General Strike for Dec. 5

by Richard Greeman


(Montpellier, France) On the eve of an “unlimited” (open-ended) General Strike called for Dec. 5, more and more unions and protest groups are pledging join in.


Two things are unusual about this strike. The first is that it is open-ended, rather than the usual one-day ritualistic protest marches, and it may be prolonged from day to day by workers’ assemblies as long as necessary. The second is that the Yellow Vests, the self-organized, horizontal, social movement that sprung up spontaneously just over a year ago and is still popular despite severe repression, have decided to converge with the strike.


Just as surprising, Philippe Martinez Secretary General of CGT, France’s largest union federation, who had originally spurned the Yellow Vests, immediately welcomed them, making for a heady mix. For the union leaders, who try to control their followers tightly, the Yellow Vests are like a loose canon on the deck of a ship. Who knows what may result?


The nation-wide strike was originally proposed by the CGT’s Martinez, in response to the Macron Governments’ proposed neoliberal “reform” of the France retirement system. Macron’s reform  would essentially gut France’s solidarity-based retirement system. Even more than U.S. Social Security, which even Trump and the Republicans don’t dare touch, retirement over here is a sacred cow. It was established at the end of WWII when the Resistance and the Communists were influential and the business class was in bad odor, having collaborated with the Nazis. Under Macron’s proposed new ‘point’ system, many will lose up to 30% according to estimates, and future governments could arbitrarily decide how much money each point is worth!


The Camel’s Back

This latest, and most sweeping of Macron’s two years’ string of neo-liberal attacks on social welfare may prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back; and camels are dangerously irascible animals known to bite or kick their masters to death when mistreated.


The French were already in an angry mood in the Spring of 2018 when Macron started pushing through his reforms, but they were disappointed when the CGT and other union leaders imposed only stop-and-go, limited, local strikes and failed utterly to counter-attack. It was on the grave of those defeats that the spontaneous Yellow Vest movements sprung up like mushrooms all over France last November, supported by over 70% of the French.


Although justifiably suspicious of unions, especially of the union leaders, the Yellow Vests, after suffering a year of police brutality and prejudiced media coverage, came around to the need for convergence. Thus, at our fourth national Assembly of Assemblies on Nov. 3, we voted to join and “be at the heart” of the Dec. 5 movement in the hope that “a defeat for the government would open the road to other victories for our camp.”


Will the union leaders like Martinez stay the course? If they try to settle with Macron piecemeal and divide the movement as they have in the past, will the workers’ assemblies be able to stop them? Will the strike over retirement benefits develop along broad social revolutionary lines like similar horizontal movements in South America, the Middle East and elsewhere? Will these international movements finally connect, as the Yellow Vests’ Assembly of Assembly proposed when it dedicated our first anniversary to social movements around the world?


The following leaflet, developed by the Yellow Vests of Uzès and Montpellier, expresses the hopes and fears of the Yellow Vests on the eve of this open-ended struggle:



“One for all and all for one !”

For the past two years, a government of the rich has been imposing « reforms » designed to deprive the French people of all the advantages won by several generations of workers. For the past two years, Macron, “President of the rich,” following the rules laid down by the European Union of bankers and in defiance of the people, has been using police-state methods to increase the inequality of an already unequal society for the benefit of his Stock Market cronies through tax advantages and privatizations.


Today, by attacking their retirements, this would-be Jupiter has succeeded in uniting the French people – against him ! United, we have the power to make him withdraw his so called « reform » of our pensions. That’s obvious. But we must not stop there. We must stick together and make use of our united strength to impose all our demands : wages, unemployment benefits, public services, hospitals, schools, agricultural lands, ecological justice, fiscal justice….



Macron has sowed the wind.

On December 5 he will harvest the whirlwind :

An Unlimited General Strike to take back our France

Don’t let them divide us ! Let no branch, no trade, no sector return to work until everyone’s demands have been satisfied. Let us stick together, for we all depend on one another. Leave no one behind !


·      The nurses and doctors of the emergency rooms and hospitals are struggling for all of us. They are demanding more beds, more personnel, more materials and of course decent salaries and breaks. They just made a pact with the firefighters : a fine example of solidarity between respected professionals. These are the people who look after us when we are most vulnerable. Should we leave them behind ?


·      Working women earn only 4/5 of the wages of men doing the same work, and they do 4/5 of the unpaid labor of homemaking, cooking and child-rearing. They are the true basis of civilization, yet many women are beaten, murdered, raped or trafficked in France – all too often with impunity. They are asking for justice. Should we leave them behind ?


·      The majority of working people have long been financially insecure. Even when they work full time or do extra jobs. Although the productivity of their labor and the profits of their bosses have not stopped increasing, the men and women who create this wealth live in fear of the end of the month, in permanent worry of unemployment, anxious about their employers closing shop and moving to poor countries where labor is cheaper. The workers are fighting for decent wages and stable employment. Should we leave them behind ?


·      Students and teachers are demanding less over-crowded classrooms, aids and assistance for handicapped and special students, the right to participate in developing curriculums that correspond to the needs of the young and not to the demands of employers. They are our children. Should we leave them behind ?


·      Small farmers work hard to feed us and get back only 2-3% of the price their produce sells for at Carrefour. Young people who want to raise organic crops and develop permaculture are unable to find agricultural lands to buy or rent, while real-estate speculators are paving over fertile soils. On the other hand, our government is subsidizing big land-owners and agro-businesses who stuff us with chemicals and Frankenfoods. Obesity is on the rise. The French peasantry, the salt of the earth, is in crisis. Should we leave them behind ?


·      Macron wants to privatize the French National Railways (SNCF) for the benefit of his cronies, who have already taken over the National Highway System which we had already paid for tenfold. Today, trains are more and more expensive and less and less on time. The government is closing smaller stations, isolating the people in the countryside and forcing everyone to buy cars. The railway workers are defending these public goods on which we all depend. Yet Macron calls them “privileged.” The government has already reduced their rolling personnel to one (!) per train. Since September, the railway staff have been using their legal right to stop trains in case of public danger – without asking management or their union leaders for permission. Should we leave them behind ?


·      The planet is on the brink of climate catastrophe, while the government goes on subsidizing the oil, coal and chemical companies that are raking in billions. We must immediately cut these gifts to the rich and use that money for ecological purposes, for example helping the inhabitants of Rouen who have been poisoned by industry. Should we leave them behind ?


·      Immigrants and ethnic minorities do the most grueling work in France without enjoying the rights of citizens, while French imperialist companies are getting richer pillaging their native lands and making them unlivable. They are being discriminated, deported, brutally repressed by the police. They are demanding liberty, equality and fraternity. Should we leave them behind ?


·      The Yellow Vests come from all these underprivileged and exploited groups. They are the glue that holds all these elements together in the struggle. For more than a year they have been brutally repressed while fighting for dignity, fiscal justice, equality and participatory democracy. They have kept Macron on the defensive at great cost. Should we leave them behind ?



Qn Injury to One is an Injury to All!

A general strike is not handed down by the heads of labor Federations, but decided from below, by the rank-and-file, in assemblies, on roundabouts, in neighborhoods, factories, hospitals and public services, including all those excluded from the « labor market » – the unemployed, semi-employed, handicapped, homeless and other workers with or without documents. Experience shows : strikes by separate trades called by unions alone are doomed to failure.


The general strike will be decided on by the women and men who are fighting for a decent living against social injustice and climate chaos. By the women and men who are standing up against racism and xenophobia in every sector of society. In brief, by those who are fed up living dreary lives, filled with worries for tomorrow, without desirable perspectives for themselves and their children. So, beginning Dec. 5, let us join together in solidarity with each other and throw all our strength into the struggle.


Let us stick together to the end. Let no sector defect. The strike will end when everyone is satisfied. If we all pitch in together, the strike will not have to last long. Our demands are reasonable. If Monsieur Macron can’t fulfill them, he could be replaced by someone more reasonable. So could the system that puts profits before the well-being of the people and the planet!


Like the representatives of the Third Estate in 1789, let us swear an oath not to separate until we have all had satisfaction.


Block Everything ! Change Everything !

Unlimited General Strike ! Unlimited General Dream !*


*Pun on Grève (strike) and Rêve (dream)  http://noussommesgiletsjaunes34.fr/



Massive union strike shuts down transportation across France amid growing anger over Macron’s pension reform


Massive union strike shuts down transportation across France amid growing anger over Macron’s pension reform (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)

French Labour unions members holding flags attend a demonstration against French government's pensions reform plans in Marseille as part of a day of national strike and protests in France, December 5, 2019. © REUTERS/Jean-Paul Pelissier



A nationwide union strike against pension reform has brought transportation across France to a standstill. Photos show thousands of workers marching in what has been billed as the largest protest of its kind since 1995.

The massive worker walkouts and marches were called in the hope of forcing President Emmanuel Macron to abandon his plans to overhaul France’s pension system. In Paris, 11 of the city’s 16 metro lines were shuttered and schools in the capital and across the country closed down.


News From Underground


From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 11:08 PM
To: newsfromunderground
Subject: [MCM] France "paralyzed" by striking workers (as SHOULD happen here) (4)


Whatever will it take?




France Paralyzed as Over 1 Million Workers Hold Biggest Strike of Macron’s Presidency

It was the largest nationwide strike in decades.



France Paralyzed by Largest General Strike in Decades

Post on: December 5, 2019




Denouncing Macron's Neoliberal Pension Reforms, Hundreds of Thousands of Striking Workers Bring France to a Halt

"We have one of the best pension systems in the world, if not the best. Yet the president has decided, purely out of ideology, to wipe it out."


by Jake Johnson


Message aux Gilets Jaunes: Y a t’il une Opération Gladio 2.0 en cours contre le mouvement ?


France’s worst strike in decades enters a second day



by Silvia Amaro








Inside the Organized Crime Syndicate known as the CIA: an Interview with Douglas Valentine


with Heidi Boghosian and Michael Steven Smith




Sleepwalking into a nightmare


With Little Fanfare, William Barr Formally Announces Orwellian Pre-Crime Program

William Barr Feature photo


by Whitney Webb


A recent memorandum authored by Attorney General William Barr announced a new “pre-crime” program inspired by “War on Terror” tactics and is set to be implemented next year.


The New 'Black Codes'


by Chris Hedges


The police forces in impoverished urban communities, empowered to harass and kill largely at will, are the principal tools for the social control of the poor.


Cornel West: There is 'a neo-fascist in the White House'



The Heat: One-on-one with Journalist Chris Hedges

(Part 1)



(Part 2)






How corporate media manufactures consent for war and regime change"


by Max Blumenthal


Capitalism's Failures Ignited Worldwide Protests


with Marc Steiner & Ben Ehrenreich



Hong Kong Unmasked



Hong Kong’s violent anti-government movement continues to rage. It has won the world’s attention and the support from politicians in the West. But what’s really fueling the chaos?

Through exclusive interviews and copious research, RT America’s Michele Greenstein, who was an eyewitness to the violence, paints a comprehensive picture of the protests.

“Hong Kong Unmasked” explains what sparked the unrest and the social problems that fuel it, and it reveals how forces in Washington have exploited it for their own ends.


The Global Inequality Gap, and How It's Changed Over 200 Years


by Iman Ghosh




From: U.S. Peace Council via ActionNetwork.org

Sent: Le 04/12/2019

Subject: TR: Declaration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba



Declaration of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba

December 3, 2019

The most recent events in the region confirm that the US government and the reactionary oligarchies bear the primary responsibility for the dangerous unrest and political and social instability that broke out in Latin America and the Caribbean.

As was anticipated by the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba, Army General Raúl Castro Ruz, on January 1, 2019: Those who entertained the illusion of the restoration of imperialist domination in our region should understand that Latin America and the Caribbean have changed and so has the world (…) The region resembles a large prairie in times of drought. A single spark could cause an uncontrollable fire that would damage the national interests of all.”

President Donald Trump proclaims the validity of the Monroe Doctrine and resorts to McCarthyism to maintain the imperialist domination over the natural resources of the region; prevent the exercise of the national sovereignty and the aspirations of regional integration and cooperation; attempt to re-establish his unipolar and hemispheric hegemony; eliminate progressive, revolutionary and alternative models to wild capitalism; revert political and social achievements and impose neo- liberal models, with full disregard for International Law, the rules of the game of representative democracy, the environment or the wellbeing of peoples.

This Monday, December 2, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threateningly accused Cuba and Venezuela of benefiting from and helping to stir up unrest in the countries of the region. He distorts and manipulates reality and conceals the main reason for the instability in the region, which is the US permanent interference in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The legitimate protests and peoples’ massive demonstrations that are going on in the continent, particularly in the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Brazil are caused by poverty and the increasingly unequal distribution of wealth; the certainty that neo- liberal formulas are worsening the exclusive and unsustainable situation of social vulnerability; the absence or precarious situation of health care, education and social security services; the abuses against human dignity; unemployment and restriction of labor rights; privatization; the increasing cost and cancellation of public services and the increased public insecurity.

They reveal the crisis of political systems, the lack of true democracy, the discredit of traditional conservative parties, the protest against the typical historical corruption of military dictatorships and right-wing governments, the scarce popular support to official authorities, the lack of confidence in institutions and the system of justice.

They also protest against the brutal police repression, the militarization of it using as a pretext the protection of critical infrastructures; the exemption of repressors from criminal liability; the use of military and anti-riot weapons that cause deaths, serious injuries, including hundreds of youths suffering from irreversible eye injuries caused by shotgun pellets; the criminalization of demonstrations; violations, beatings and violence against detainees , among them minors; and even the assassination of social leaders, demobilized guerrillas and journalists.

The United States advocates and supports repression against demonstrators under the pretext of safeguarding the alleged “democratic order”. The complicit silence of several governments, institutions and personalities, that turn out to be very active and critical against the left, is a shame. The complicity of the big corporate media is shameful.

Peoples are very rightly wondering: Where is democracy and the rule of law? What are the institutions that are supposedly devoted to the protection of human rights doing? Where is the justice system whose independence is so much trumpeted?

Let’s review some facts. In March, 2015, President Barack Obama signed an unheard-of Executive Order declaring the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, the economy and foreign policy” of that big power. In November, 2015, the costly electoral defeat of the left-wing in Argentina occurred.

The neo-liberal offensive had its momentum in August, 2016, with the judicial and parliamentary coup in Brazil against President Dilma Rousseff; the criminalization and incarceration of the leaders of the Workers’ Party and later on of ex President Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva himself; the prompt participation of the Department of Justice of the United States, by virtue of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, to install a dependent government, ready to revert important social achievements through neo-liberal adjustments, introduce a nefarious change in the development model, allow the destruction of national businesses and a predatory privatization and sell the resources and infrastructure of the country to American transnationals at a cheap price .

By the end of 2017 there was a protest against the electoral results in Honduras that was terribly repressed.

In January, 2018, the United States aborted the signing of an agreement between the government of Venezuela and the Washington-controlled opposition. One month later, the Secretary of State proclaimed the validity of the Monroe Doctrine and called for a military coup against the Bolivarian and Chavista Revolution.

In March, 2018, the Brazilian councilwoman Marielle Franco was atrociously murdered. This action aroused a wave of anger in her country

and the whole world. The obscure involvement of the powers that be in this event has not been disclosed. In April, Lula is sent to prison through spurious judicial maneuvers. There is abundant evidence of the US interference in the Brazilian elections through specialized companies using technologies such as “big data” and polymetry to manipulate, on a case by case basis, the will of voters, such as the ones used by the ultra- reactionary Steve Bannon and others designed by Israel.

During this period, legal proceedings were initiated against ex presidents Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Rafael Correa. In April, 2018, there was an attempt to destabilize Nicaragua through foreign interference and the implementation of unilateral coercive measures.

On August 4, 2018, an attempt against the life of President Nicolas Maduro Moros was perpetrated. In January, 2019, the self-proclamation of the barely-known and corrupt Juan Guaidó, organized in Washington, took place. In March, 2019, president Trump ratified the Executive Order considering Venezuela a threat. On April 30 there was an attempted military coup in Caracas, which happened to be a resounding failure, and the United States, in revenge, escalated its non-conventional war against that South American nation that has been putting up a tenacious and heroic resistance based on the civic and military union of its people.

During this whole period, the US government has been applying savage anti-immigrant policies and has adopted an aggressive behavior, full of hatred, to fuel fear and division among voters. It is attempting to build a xenophobic wall in the border with Mexico and is threatening this country and the entire Central America with the imposition of terrible tariffs and sanctions if they do not stop those who flee from poverty and insecurity. It has also increased deportations. It cruelly separates thousands of children from their parents; it has arrested 69 000 minors and is trying to expel the children of immigrant parents who were born and raised in the US territory.

The ultra right-wing government of Brazil, headed by Jair Bolsonaro, showing a shameful subordination to the United States, has resorted to lies and a xenophobic, racist, misogynist and homophobic discourse, combined with delirious projections about social and political phenomena, such as climate change, indigenous populations, the Amazon fires and emigration, which have aroused the rejection of numerous leaders and organizations. Under his government, the social policies that led Brazil to dramatically reduce the levels of poverty and social exclusion under the Workers’ Party governments are being dismantled.

Since May, 2019, tens of thousands of demonstrators have taken to the streets to protest against budget cuts in education, the reforms to the pension system, the discriminatory policies and gender violence.

The Brazilian government has interfered in the internal affairs of neighboring countries, such as Venezuela, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay and has adopted hostile positions against Cuba in violation of International Law. As was published by the Brazilian media in April, 2019, the foreign ministry of that country instructed 15 of its embassies to coordinate with US embassies with the purpose of encouraging recipient governments to condemn Cuba at international fora.

For the first time since 1992, Brazil, only joined by the United States and Israel, voted this year against the UN General Assembly Resolution calling for an end to the economic, commercial and financial blockade - that the US has further tightened against Cuba-, and the cessation of the extraterritorial implementation of U laws against third States.

In the same vein, the government of Colombia abstained in the vote of the resolution it had supported since 1992 which calls for the ceasing of the genocidal blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba –at a moment when it is being tightened- and its extraterritorial character. In order to justify such reprehensible decision, the authorities of that country has resorted to the politically motivated and ungrateful manipulation of the altruistic, dedicated, discreet and unquestionable contribution of Cuba to peace in Colombia, for which our country’s behavior has received universal recognition. It is well known that this decision generated a broad and critical debate in that nation but, despite all odds, we will continue to accompany that nation in its efforts to achieve peace.

The US slander attributing Cuba alleged responsibilities in the organization of popular demonstrations against neo-liberalism in South America is a barely credible excuse to justify and tighten the blockade and the hostile policy against our people. It is likewise useless to conceal the failure of the capitalist system, protect teetering and repressive governments, conceal parliamentary, judicial and police coups; and stir up the ghost of socialism to terrify peoples. By doing this it also intends to justify repression and the criminalization of social protests.

Cuba’s only responsibility is the one that emanates from the example set by its heroic people in the defense of their sovereignty, in their resistance against the most brutal and systematic aggressions, in the invariable practice of solidarity and cooperation with all sister nations of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Imperialism is hurting because Cuba has proved that another world is certainly possible and that it is indeed possible to build an alternative model to neo-liberalism, based on solidarity, cooperation, dignity, a fair distribution of wealth, equitable access to professional upgrading, citizens’ safety and protection and the absolute freedom of human beings.

The Cuban Revolution has also been a proof that a people that is closely united, that has become the owner of their country and institutions, living in a permanent and profound democracy, can successfully resist and develop in the face of the longest-lasting aggression and blockade in history.

The coup d’état in Bolivia, orchestrated by the United States, using the local oligarchy and the OAS as an instrument, is an evidence of the aggressive character of the imperialist onslaught. Cuba once again condemns the coup d’état and the brutal repression that has been unleashed in that country and expresses its solidarity with comrade Evo Morales Ayma and the Bolivian people.

While the US government continues its non-conventional war to attempt to overthrow the legitimate government of President Nicolás Maduro Moros and invokes the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (TIAR), Cuba ratifies its unshakable determination to maintain its cooperation with the government and the people of Venezuela.

We reiterate our solidarity with the Sandinista government and people of Nicaragua, led by President Daniel Ortega, who is facing the US attempts of destabilization and unilateral coercive measures.

The legitimate government of the Commonwealth o Dominica and its Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit deserve international solidarity and can, as from now, count on the solidarity of the Cuban people at a moment when that island nation is a victim of foreign interference that is already causing violence and is attempting to thwart the electoral process.

In this complex scenario, the government headed by Andrés Manuel López Obrador in Mexico is coping with neo-liberalism and defending the principles of non-interference and respect for the national sovereignty, while the election of Alberto Fernández and Cristina Fernández as President and Vice-president of Argentina evidence the unequivocal rejection of that nation against neo-liberal formulas that impoverished and indebted that nation and seriously harmed its people. Lula’s release from prison is a victory of all peoples and Cuba, once again, calls for a global mobilization to demand his complete freedom and the reinstatement of his innocence and his political rights.

The corruption that characterizes the behavior of the current US administration can be hidden no more. Its impact on the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean has taken a toll on human lives and has caused hardships, instability and economic damages.

In view of the tragic juncture that the region and the world are going through, Cuba reaffirms the principles of sovereignty, non-interference in the internal affairs of other States and the right of every people to freely choose and create a political system of their own, in a climate of peace,...

stability and justice, without threats or aggressions or unilateral coercive measures; and encourages compliance with the principles enshrined in the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace.

Cuba will continue to work towards the integration of Our America, which includes all efforts so that the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), which will be very soon presided over by Mexico, would continue to promote the common interests of our nations by strengthening unity amidst diversity.

In the face of the implacable onslaught of the most reactionary forces in the hemisphere, Cuba will oppose the unshakable resistance of its people and its determination to defend the unity of the nation, its social achievements, its sovereignty and independence and socialism whatever the cost. We do it with the unswerving optimism and confidence in victory that we inherited from the Commander in Chief of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro Ruz, under the leadership of the First Secretary of our Party, Army General Raúl Castro and the guidance of President Miguel Díaz-Canel.

Havana, December 3, 2019.


U.S. Peace Council • P.O. Box 3105, New Haven, CT 06515 • (203) 387-0370 • USPC@USPeaceCouncil.orghttps://uspeacecouncil.orghttps://facebook.com/USPeaceCouncil/

Action Network

Sent via Action Network, a free online toolset anyone can use to organize. Click here to sign up and get started building an email list and creating online actions today.

Action Network is an open platform that empowers individuals and groups to organize for progressive causes. We encourage responsible activism, and do not support using the platform to take unlawful or other improper action. We do not control or endorse the conduct of users and make no representations of any kind about them.




Deaths caused by British Empire should be condemned just like deaths under Stalin


by Tomasz Pierscionek



From: Moshé Machover [mailto:ananmoshik@icloud.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2019
Subject: Rompre le consensus. Impérialisme, démocratie, sionisme et le Parti travailliste – CONTRETEMPS

Rompre le consensus. Impérialisme, démocratie, sionisme et le Parti travailliste


Moshé Machover 9 janvier 2018

L’interview de Moshé Machover qui suit constitue une version abrégée et traduite d’un entretien conduit en anglais, début novembre 2017, par les membres de l’organisation états-unienne Science for the People (SftP). À cette époque, Moshé Machover venait d’être réintégré au Parti travailliste britannique (Labour Party) à la suite d’une campagne menée pour annuler son expulsion.

En collaboration avec le groupe Jewish Voice for Labour, SftP a élaboré une pétition internationale signée par des mathématiciens et universitaires de renom ainsi que par des champions des droits humains pour défendre Machover contre les accusations dont il faisait l’objet. Les demandes formulées dans cette pétition n’ont pas été satisfaites à ce jour et les défenseurs de Machover au sein du Parti travailliste continuent de lutter pour obtenir des excuses ainsi qu’une enquête sur les bureaucrates responsables de son éviction et de celles d’autres membres.
Traduction par Zoé Jourdain.


Science for the People : Merci d’avoir accepté de vous entretenir avec nous. Les détails de votre expulsion suivie de votre réadmission dans le Parti travailliste ont été bien documentés, par vous-même ainsi que par d’autres sources, c’est pourquoi nous aimerions aborder ici le contexte de ces événements. Pourriez-vous, dans un premier temps, évoquer votre relation au Parti travailliste depuis votre arrivée au Royaume-Uni en 1968 ?

Moshé Machover : J’ai adhéré au Parti travailliste pour la première fois dans les années 1970, probablement autour de 1973, car je me souviens qu’il y avait un rapport avec la guerre du Kippour. Mais comme beaucoup d’autres, j’ai rapidement quitté le parti face à la dérive vers la droite qui le caractérisait à l’époque. De fait, vers la fin des années 1970, il a nettement viré à droite. Comme beaucoup d’autres, j’ai donc renoncé au Parti travailliste.

Il y a quelques années de cela, Ken Loach a appelé à la création d’un nouveau parti, Left Unity (Unité de gauche), principalement composé de déçus du Parti travailliste. Cependant, [lorsque Jeremy Corbyn a été élu à la tête des travaillistes], la question s’est posée de la pertinence de cette nouvelle formation. En réalité, tout se passe au Parti travailliste ; c’est pourquoi comme des centaines de milliers de personnes, j’y ai à nouveau adhéré. Beaucoup de jeunes qui étaient jusque-là éloignés de la politique ont également pris le train en marche. Aujourd’hui, c’est le plus grand parti d’Europe de l’Ouest. Il compte près de 800 000 membres, un chiffre énorme pour un pays de la taille du Royaume-Uni.
Le Parti travailliste est devenu une sorte d’énergumène, dans la mesure où il est composé d’une immense base populaire qui se situe largement à gauche. Jeremy Corbyn et ses proches forment un petit cercle également issu de la gauche mais qui représente le centre du parti, tandis que les bureaucrates et les représentants élus sont les vestiges de l’époque blairiste. Ils appartiennent à ce que l’on avait coutume d’appeler le New Labour, qui semble aujourd’hui très dépassé.


SftP : Il existe donc un clivage, au sein des travaillistes, entre les blairistes et les sympathisants de Corbyn. Peut-on affirmer que votre expulsion du parti reflète cette scission ?

MM : Sans aucun doute. Les bureaucrates, qui sont la vieille garde de ce que l’on appelle le New Labour, se sont mis à exclure ou à suspendre temporairement tous les membres qu’ils suspectaient d’être à gauche. Je n’étais certainement pas le premier, ni le dernier. Simplement, mon cas a soulevé une vague de solidarité au sein du parti ainsi qu’à l’extérieur. Après avoir été réintégré au parti, j’ai été très touché par la résolution de solidarité qui demande des excuses et une enquête sur les mécanismes et les moyens derrière mon expulsion. Par exemple, une branche locale du syndicat des conducteurs ferroviaires a adopté une résolution unanime de soutien envers moi.


SftP : En 2017, Al Jazeera publiait une enquête révélant les efforts mis en œuvre par l’ambassade israélienne pour influencer la politique britannique par le biais de différents canaux, y compris au sein du Parti travailliste. Existe-t-il un lien entre ce phénomène et ce que vous venez d’évoquer, à savoir, la campagne menée contre Corbyn et ses soutiens par les bureaucrates du parti ? Ou s’agit-il simplement de la convergence fortuite de deux intérêts distincts ?

MM : À mon sens, ces deux intérêts forment une synergie. En réalité, il existe trois facteurs. D’un côté, les sionistes, dévoués à la cause d’Israël, qui ne peuvent supporter le fait que pour la première fois dans l’histoire du Parti travailliste, son leader est un défenseur reconnu des droits des Palestiniens. Ils sont très attachés à Israël et se servent des accusations d’antisémitisme, qu’ils assimilent à de l’antisionisme, comme d’une arme.

D’un autre côté, il y a ceux qui ont une dent contre Jeremy Corbyn, mais très peu d’intérêt pour Israël : ils utilisent cette cause pour attaquer Corbyn. Certes, il existe des personnes qui appartiennent à ces deux catégories, mais parmi ceux qui brandissent l’argument de l’antisémitisme, certains le font de manière cynique, sans intérêt réel pour le conflit israélo-palestinien.

Enfin, il y a une dimension internationale. L’État d’Israël joue un rôle majeur dans le positionnement et la stratégie des États-Unis à l’échelle régionale au Moyen-Orient comme à l’échelle mondiale. Il se trouve que les États-Unis sont à la tête de ce qu’on nomme par euphémisme la « communauté internationale ». Cette communauté est hiérarchique, et certains États y occupent une place plus élevée que d’autres. Le Royaume-Uni est relativement bien classé, mais pas aussi bien qu’Israël. Le pouvoir établi britannique se prévaut de sa « relation spéciale » avec les États-Unis. Spéciale, certes, mais pas autant que celle qu’entretiennent ces derniers avec Israël.

Pour faire partie de cette « communauté internationale », il convient de ménager la sensibilité du rottweiler du patron qui se trouve être Israël. Si le rottweiler urine sur vos chaussures, il ne faut surtout pas l’envoyer balader, mais lui dire « bon chien ! ».  Cette obligation est partagée par l’intégralité du pouvoir établi britannique qui tente à tout prix d’empêcher la moindre critique de l’État d’Israël. Ils sont préoccupés par le fait que dans l’opinion publique, la cause d’Israël perd du terrain.


SftP : À propos d’impérialisme, 2017 marquait le centenaire de la déclaration Balfour. Pourriez-vous nous donner un aperçu du rapport qu’entretenait le Royaume-Uni avec le sionisme avant la création de l’État d’Israël, en insistant sur le rôle joué par le Parti travailliste ?

MM : La déclaration Balfour a fait couler pas mal d’encre dernièrement. L’idée initiale était d’implanter une communauté dont l’existence et la sécurité dépendraient entièrement du Royaume-Uni, et qui servirait les intérêts de cette puissance. Le premier gouverneur britannique de Jérusalem, Ronald Storrs, l’a formulé ainsi : « Nous avons, en Palestine, un petit Ulster [province d’Irlande du Nord] juif loyal dans une mer arabe potentiellement hostile. »

C’est ainsi qu’a été conçu et que continue de se développer le projet de colonisation sioniste, qui est unique en son genre. Contrairement à la colonisation de l’Amérique du Nord, où se sont installés exclusivement des citoyens issus de la métropole qui possédait ces terres, dans le cas de la Palestine, les colons sionistes n’étaient pas citoyens d’une métropole qui détenait cette partie du monde. Ils avaient donc besoin d’une mère patrie de substitution, et se sont systématiquement tournés vers la puissance impériale qui dominait la région. Dans un premier temps, ils ont conclu un accord avec le Royaume-Uni.

La situation a duré jusqu’aux années 1930, où il est devenu de plus en plus difficile pour le Royaume-Uni de concilier cette alliance avec ses autres intérêts régionaux. Le Royaume-Uni est connu pour sa duplicité. Peut-être devrait-on plutôt parler de triplicité. Il y avait l’accord Sykes-Picot passé avec la France, que le Royaume-Uni n’a pas respecté. Il y avait les promesses faites aux Arabes soulevés contre l’Empire turc d’un grand État arabe indépendant qui engloberait la Palestine. Et il y avait la promesse de la Palestine aux sionistes : trois promesses incompatibles avec lesquelles le Royaume-Uni devait jongler.

[Pendant ce temps], le projet sioniste devenait de plus en plus ambitieux. La promesse originelle ne consistait pas à fonder un État-nation juif en octroyant aux sionistes l’intégralité de la Palestine, mais à établir au sein de la Palestine un foyer national pour les Juifs. Toutefois, les sionistes désiraient désormais non seulement le beurre, mais aussi l’argent du beurre, avec la création de leur propre État-nation, ce qui a provoqué un conflit avec le Royaume-Uni. Jusqu’à la Seconde Guerre mondiale, le Parti travailliste était encore plus enclin que le gouvernement britannique à promouvoir le projet sioniste. De fait, une résolution du congrès du parti de 1944 prône le transfert de population. Je l’ai sous les yeux, je peux vous la lire, si vous le souhaitez.


SftP : Oui, s’il vous plaît.

MM : La résolution, rédigée par Hugh Dalton, est la plus prosioniste jamais adoptée par le Parti travailliste :
« À moins que nous ne soyons prêts à laisser les Juifs, si tel est leur souhait, pénétrer sur ce petit territoire en quantités telles qu’ils y deviendraient la majorité, la notion de « foyer national juif » est dépourvue d’espoir et de sens. (…) La Palestine présente un cas de transfert de population, pour des raisons humaines et en vue de promouvoir une implantation stable. Que l’on encourage les Arabes à partir, afin que les Juifs puissent s’installer. Qu’ils soient amplement compensés pour leurs terres et que leur installation ailleurs soit dûment organisée et généreusement financée. »


SftP : C’est précisément cette stratégie de transfert de population qui a ouvert la voie à la création de l’État d’Israël quelques années plus tard – sans « l’ample compensation » prévue, cela va sans dire. Cette citation est très éloquente. Dans les décennies qui ont suivi, quand est-ce que les États-Unis ont pris le pas en tant que premier soutien d’Israël ?

MM : Avant qu’Israël ne devienne le rottweiler des États-Unis, son sponsor impérial principal était la France. En 1956, lorsqu’Israël, de connivence avec la France et le Royaume-Uni, a attaqué l’Égypte, les États-Unis l’ont contraint à se retirer. L’alliance de la France avec Israël était liée à d’autres problèmes auxquels faisait face la puissance impériale dans la région. La France considérait l’Égypte comme un soutien important de la révolution algérienne, et présumait que sans cet appui, la résistance algérienne s’effondrerait. C’est pour cette raison que la France a soutenu Israël et encouragé l’invasion de l’Égypte, avant de mettre un terme à cette alliance dans les années 1960, avant la guerre de 1967.

Parallèlement, un important commerce d’armes provenant des États-Unis à destination d’Israël s’est développé et a pris de l’ampleur jusqu’en 1966. Sans le feu vert des États-Unis, Israël ne se serait jamais engagée dans la guerre des Six-Jours. C’est un fait qu’il convient de remarquer, parce qu’il est communément admis qu’Israël est devenu le partenaire junior des États-Unis à la suite de la guerre de 1967, mais cela n’est pas tout à fait vrai : Israël n’aurait pas lancé l’offensive contre l’Égypte en 1967 sans l’aval des États-Unis.


SftP : J’aimerais évoquer le groupe que vous avez créé à cette époque, l’Organisation socialiste israélienne, aussi connue sous le nom de Matzpen. Je crois comprendre qu’il existait alors, au sein de la gauche dans l’ensemble de l’Europe occidentale, un consensus autour du soutien à l’État d’Israël, suscité par la compassion générale envers la diaspora juive au lendemain de l’Holocauste. C’est grâce à Matzpen que ce public de gauche a été sensibilisé pour la première fois à la critique anticoloniale du sionisme. Et les porte-paroles, dont vous faisiez partie, étant des Juifs israéliens, vous avez commencé le processus d’érosion du consensus sur la question sioniste dans les partis sociaux-démocrates à travers l’Europe.

MM : C’est exact. Je me dois d’ajouter, cependant, qu’un autre facteur explique la compassion envers Israël : l’État nouvellement créé est parvenu très habilement à se faire passer pour la victime en 1967. Bien sûr, les discours terrifiants et menaçants du président égyptien, Nasser, n’ont pas aidé. Les généraux israéliens savaient parfaitement qu’il n’était pas en mesure d’attaquer Israël, que ses meilleurs atouts étaient enlisés au Yémen, que ses forces positionnées dans le Sinaï étaient défensives et qu’il ne préparait pas d’offensive. Israël a donc bénéficié des effets de sa propre propagande, mais aussi des erreurs stratégiques et de la propagande maladroite de l’Égypte.

Matzpen avait vu le jour en 1962. Lorsque la guerre a éclaté, nous avions élaboré notre position, qui correspond à notre analyse du sionisme. Nous étions prêts à exposer notre vision de la guerre, du statut spécial de l’État colonial israélien, du projet colonial qu’est le sionisme, fondé sur la négation des droits nationaux et individuels des citoyens arabes palestiniens, etc.

Fin 1968, je suis arrivé à Londres et me suis joint à cette campagne. Nous parcourions le pays, nous rendant dans un endroit différent (principalement des réunions d’étudiants) quatre fois par semaine. Mais outre l’expression de notre point de vue, je pense que les gens étaient avides d’informations et d’analyse de la situation. Nous avons beaucoup travaillé, durant ces années, et nos efforts semblent avoir largement porté leurs fruits.

C’est très simple : quelle que soit la réunion à laquelle j’assiste ces jours-ci, généralement au sujet du Moyen-Orient, une personne aux cheveux grisonnants s’approche de moi pour me dire : « Vous ne vous souvenez pas de moi, mais j’étais étudiant, en 1972, à l’université d’Essex (par exemple). Vous y avez donné une conférence qui a changé ma position sur la situation au Moyen-Orient. » Je vous assure que cela m’arrive presque à chaque réunion à laquelle je me rends.

Un autre indice de ce succès est la façon dont nos idées ont infiltré l’aile gauche du Parti travailliste. À l’époque, Anthony Benn était une figure de proue admirée de la gauche. Les dirigeants de la gauche actuelle étaient tous associés à lui. Quand je suis arrivé au Royaume-Uni, il était officiellement considéré comme un ami de Mapam, un genre de parti sioniste de gauche [en Israël]. Au fil des ans, il est devenu un défenseur des droits des Palestiniens fermement opposé au projet sioniste. Cela ne signifie pas qu’il était présent à nos réunions, mais montre bien l’évolution du climat à gauche. Jeremy Corbyn est en partie le produit de ce basculement dans la période qui a immédiatement suivi la guerre des Six-Jours de 1967.


SftP : Il convient tout de même de reconnaître que vous avez contribué à faire évoluer la compréhension que la gauche britannique avait du sionisme. Il semble logique que cinquante ans plus tard, la campagne qui naît pour dénoncer l’influence sioniste au sein du Parti travailliste tourne en grande partie autour de votre personne. Cette campagne récente a-t-elle permis de promouvoir l’analyse d’Israël de Matzpen ?

MM : Absolument. La situation s’est retournée contre les personnes qui ont déclenché cette chasse aux sorcières. Jusque-là, j’étais un inconnu. Beaucoup de personnes doivent se demander pourquoi tout ce raffut, d’où viennent ces articles prétendument antisémites qui, en plus, n’auraient pas dû être publiés dans ce journal, etc.

Comme le dit l’adage, toute publicité est bonne à prendre, du moment qu’on écrit votre nom correctement. Ces détracteurs doivent se mordre les doigts d’être enfin tombé sur quelqu’un qui a suscité une telle vague de solidarité. À dire vrai, je me sens un peu coupable, car je ne suis pas le seul, mais les autres victimes n’ont pas bénéficié d’un tel soutien. Cela s’explique probablement par mon âge avancé, par le fait que j’aie abondamment écrit sur ce sujet et par le fait que je suis israélien. Ces facteurs ont aussi facilité la mobilisation des gens.


SftP : À ce propos, j’aimerais justement que nous évoquions votre expulsion du parti et la campagne menée pour l’annuler. Jewish Voice for Labour a suivi de près la campagne dans les différentes branches locales du Parti travailliste qui continuent de demander des excuses ainsi qu’une enquête – vous mentionniez plus tôt, à titre d’exemple, la résolution adoptée par les employés des chemins de fer. Mais quelles étaient les accusations portées contre vous au départ ?

MM : Il y a, en premier lieu, l’accusation infondée d’antisémitisme qui relève de la diffamation. Il suffit de lire l’article : seul un esprit tordu peut qualifier ce texte d’antisémite. Ceci requiert des excuses. Plus encore, ceci requiert d’examiner le postulat qui sert de fondement à ces accusations, qui émanent d’une définition erronée et d’une interprétation sournoise de l’antisémitisme. En réalité, les détracteurs n’ont pas prouvé que mes écrits étaient, de quelque façon que ce soit, antisémites. Ils ont démontré que leur propre définition était incorrecte. En logique, c’est ce qu’on appelle le raisonnement par l’absurde : leur prémisse est réduite à l’absurdité.

En sus de cela, ils ont utilisé une règle draconienne pour me renvoyer du parti. Finalement, l’accusation d’antisémitisme n’a servi qu’à donner le ton : une diffamation gratuite, puisqu’elle n’a même pas servi de prétexte pour m’expulser. En effet, cela n’aurait pas marché. À la place, ils ont invoqué la règle 2.I.4.B du règlement du Parti travailliste qui leur permet de suspendre automatiquement tout membre qui adhère et/ou soutient une organisation politique autre que celles affiliées au Parti. Cette règle présente trois défauts évidents.

Premièrement, le fait de pouvoir expulser automatiquement un membre du parti. Cela signifie que les bureaucrates peuvent exclure n’importe qui sans audition ni examen des preuves. Deuxièmement, la règle ne définit pas ce qu’est une « organisation politique ». En théorie, cela pourrait donc correspondre à Momentum, un large mouvement principalement composé de sympathisants du Parti travailliste mais non affilié à ce dernier. Le texte est si évasif qu’il pourrait s’appliquer au groupe Electoral Reform Society ou à Refuge, une organisation de lutte contre les violences domestiques. Enfin, cette règle ne définit pas la notion de « soutien ». Or, le soutien n’est pas une simple affaire de oui ou de non. C’est comme ces référendums trompeurs, où l’on vous demande d’effectuer un faux choix entre deux options, alors qu’en réalité, ce n’est pas une question à laquelle on répond par oui ou par non.

Je n’appartiens à aucune des deux organisations mentionnées [dans la lettre d’expulsion], à savoir, le Parti communiste de Grande-Bretagne qui publie dans le Weekly Worker, où nombre de mes articles sont apparus, et le groupe des Marxistes du Parti travailliste. C’est ce dernier qui a agi de telle manière à rendre les bureaucrates du Parti travailliste furieux : les Marxistes ont reproduit un article que j’avais écrit et l’ont distribué au congrès du Parti en septembre 2017. C’est parti comme des petits pains. L’article, qui expliquait en quoi l’antisionisme diffère de l’antisémitisme, a eu beaucoup de succès. J’ai été renvoyé pour « soutien » à ces deux groupuscules.


SftP : L’une des principales raisons qui expliquent le soutien important que vous ont témoigné les partisans du débat sur Israël est le fait que le contenu et l’esprit des accusations dont vous étiez la cible faisaient largement écho au maccarthysme.

MM : Tout à fait. Cette affaire empeste le maccarthysme.


SftP : La pétition élaborée par Science for the People a obtenu l’appui de dizaines de scientifiques de renom et de grands défenseurs des droits humains. Le plus impressionnant est le ralliement de vos collègues, d’éminents mathématiciens tels que Sir Michael Atiyah, David Mumford, Stephen Smale, Neal Koblitz, David Klein, Colette Moeglin, Ivar Ekeland, Joseph Oesterlé, Michael Harris, Ahmed Abbes, Emmanuel Farjoun, Chandler Davis et Catherine Goldstein. Nous espérons que les efforts déployés au sein du Parti travailliste pour vous défendre seront renforcés par cette démonstration de solidarité internationale.

MM : Imaginez ma surprise à la lecture de ces noms : Smale, Mumford, Atiyah… vous savez, en mathématiques, nous n’avons pas de prix Nobel, mais la médaille Fields. Contrairement au prix Nobel, qui couronne l’œuvre de toute une vie et est donc décerné à des personnes en fin de vie, la médaille Fields est accordée à des individus de moins de 40 ans. Dans le monde des mathématiques, ces lauréats sont vénérés. Je suis profondément touché par leur soutien. Parmi les personnes que vous avez citées figurent d’autres grands mathématiciens et scientifiques, dont j’apprécie infiniment la mobilisation pour un collègue.

Mais selon moi, ce geste gracieux était également nécessaire. Les mathématiciens et les scientifiques en général ne doivent pas demeurer dans leur tour d’ivoire proverbiale. Ils font partie intégrante de la société et se doivent d’utiliser leurs connaissances de tel ou tel sujet et de la réalité du monde pour mobiliser les forces de la lumière contre les forces des ténèbres. Cela ne peut être que bénéfique. Je trouve que les Britanniques ont toujours eu une certaine tendance à l’isolement. Ils vivent sur une île et ont une mentalité insulaire. Mais ils ont aussi une vague idée de l’existence d’un monde au-delà leurs frontières ; et il est très important que les membres du Parti travailliste réalisent qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une affaire interne au Parti ou même au pays. Il s’agit d’une affaire internationale.

Au début de cette discussion, nous avons souligné qu’au moins deux des trois facteurs [derrière les allégations qui me concernent] sont de nature internationale : la campagne sioniste menée à travers le monde contre les critiques de l’État d’Israël et le dévouement des autorités en place à la puissance hégémonique états-unienne. La haine vouée à Jeremy Corbyn au sein du Parti travailliste est d’ordre local et ne représente qu’une partie du tableau. L’autre partie est d’ordre international, c’est pourquoi j’estime que toutes les personnes en dehors du Parti sont légitimes à s’exprimer sur la lutte qui se déroule en son sein.





Why the world needs WikiLeaks - A Retrospective


series of historic interviews with Julian Assange


"Did CIA-linked firm spy on Assange?"


with Rachel Blevins


Special Report: Hrafnsson Tells CN Media is Essential to Assange’s Defense


by Joe Lauria


Doctors condemn failure of British government to answer letter demanding medical care for Julian Assange



The ice is breaking—help us fight for Julian Assange



Doctors Intensify Pressure on Britain over Assange



Abby Martin: on Julian Assange, Coup in Bolivia, Bernie Sanders & Gaza






After His Mysterious Death, the Media Scrambles to Get its Story Straight About White Helmets Founder James Le Mesurier


by Vanessa Beeley


As The OPCW Is Accused Of False Reporting U.S. Propaganda Jumps To Its Help


by Moon of Alabama


An international organization published two false reports and got caught in the act. But as the false reports are in the U.S. interests a U.S. sponsored propaganda organization is send out to muddle the issue. As that effort comes under fire the New York Times jumps in to give the cover-up effort some extra help.

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) manufactured a pretext for war by suppressing its own scientists' research:

OPCW emails and documents were leaked and whistleblowers came forward to speak with journalists and international lawyers. Veteran journalist Jonathan Steele, who has spoken with the whistleblowers, wrote an excellent piece on the issues. In the Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens picked up the issue and moved it forward.

Under U.S. pressure the OPCW management modified or suppressed the findings of its own scientists to make it look as if the Syrian government had been responsible for the alleged chemical incident in April 2018 in Douma.

The public attention to the OPCW's fakery lead to the questioning of other assertions the OPCW had previously made. With the OPCW under fire someone had come to its help.

To save the propaganda value of the OPCW reports the U.S. financed Bellingcat propaganda organization jumped in to save the OPCW's bacon. Bellingcat founder "suck my balls" Elliot Higgins claimed that the OPCW reports satisfied the concerns the OPCW scientist had voiced.

That assertion is now further propagated by a New York Times piece which, under the pretense of reporting about open source analysis, boosts Bellingcat and its defense of the OPCW:

The blogger Eliot Higgins made waves early in the decade by covering the war in Syria from a laptop in his apartment in Leicester, England, while caring for his infant daughter. In 2014, he founded Bellingcat, an open-source news outlet that has grown to include roughly a dozen staff members, with an office in The Hague. Mr. Higgins attributed his skill not to any special knowledge of international conflicts or digital data, but to the hours he had spent playing video games, which, he said, gave him the idea that any mystery can be cracked.
Bellingcat journalists have spread the word about their techniques in seminars attended by journalists and law-enforcement officials. Along with grants from groups like the Open Society Foundations, founded by George Soros, the seminars are a significant source of revenue for Bellingcat, a nonprofit organization.

It seems that the New York Times forgot to mention an important monetary source for Bellingcat. Here is a current screenshot of Bellingcat's About page:


Porticus, Adessium, Pax for Peace and the Postcode Lottery are all Dutch organizations. Then there is the notorious Soros organization the New York Times mentioned. But why did the NYT forgot to tell its readers that Bellingcat is financed by the National Endowment for Democracy which itself is to nearly 100% funded by the U.S. government?





Trump cancels final NATO press conference after tense and troubled summit





Trump Was Right: NATO Should Be Obsolete


by Medea Benjamin


The three smartest words that Donald Trump uttered during his presidential campaign are “NATO is obsolete.” His adversary, Hillary Clinton, retorted that NATO was “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world.” Now that Trump has been in power, the White House parrots the same worn line that NATO is “the most successful Alliance in history, guaranteeing the security, prosperity, and freedom of its members.” But Trump was right the first time around: Rather than being a strong alliance with a clear purpose, this 70-year-old organization that is meeting in London on December 4 is a stale military holdover from the Cold War days that should have gracefully retired many years ago.


NATO was originally founded by the United States and 11 other Western nations as an attempt to curb the rise of communism in 1949. Six years later, Communist nations founded the Warsaw Pact and through these two multilateral institutions, the entire globe became a Cold War battleground. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, the Warsaw Pact disbanded but NATO expanded, growing from its original 12 members to 29 member countries. North Macedonia, set to join next year, will bring the number to 30. NATO has also expanded well beyond the North Atlantic, adding a partnership with Colombia in 2017. Donald Trump recently suggested that Brazil could one day become a full member.

NATO’s post-Cold War expansion toward Russia’s borders, despite earlier promises not to move eastward, has led to rising tensions between Western powers and Russia, including multiple close calls between military forces. It has also contributed to a new arms race, including upgrades in nuclear arsenals, and the largest NATO “war games” since the Cold War.

While claiming to “preserve peace,” NATO has a history of bombing civilians and committing war crimes. In 1999, NATO engaged in military operations without UN approval in Yugoslavia. Its illegal airstrikes during the Kosovo War left hundreds of civilians dead. And far from the “North Atlantic,” NATO joined the United States in invading Afghanistan in 2001, where it is still bogged down two decades later. In 2011, NATO forces illegally invaded Libya, creating a failed state that caused masses of people to flee. Rather than take responsibility for these refugees, NATO countries have turned back desperate migrants on the Mediterranean Sea, letting thousands die.


Empire, Intervention, and the Intentional Sacrifice of U.S. Soldiers


by Jacob G. Hornberger


On April 9, 1942, 12,000 U.S. troops paid the price of U.S. empire and intervention when they surrendered to Japanese forces at Bataan, Philippines. During the resulting “Bataan death march,” 600 of them died, and then another 1,000 died after they were transported to Japanese POW camps.

The Constitution called into existence a limited-government republic. No Pentagon, no CIA, and no NSA. Just a relatively small military force. No foreign military empire, no foreign colonies, and no U.S. military bases in foreign countries. That system lasted for more than a century.

By the same token, the original foreign policy of the United States was one of non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. No coups, foreign wars of aggression, foreign aid, state-sponsored assassinations, alliances with foreign regimes, or regime-change operations. That system too lasted about a century.

Notwithstanding the horrors of slavery, America’s limited-government structure and its non-imperialist, non-interventionist foreign policy were among the factors that led to the greatest and longest surge  in liberty, peace, prosperity, and standards of living in history.

The Spanish American War

The turn toward empire and intervention began with the Spanish American War, a watershed event that would lead to those 12,000 U.S. troops surrendering to Japanese forces almost 45 years later. The argument was that in order to be a great nation, America needed to acquire overseas colonies, just like the British and Spanish Empires.

During the Spanish-American War, Filipinos were fighting for independence from Spain. The U.S. government intervened in the conflict, with the ostensible aim of helping the Filipinos win their independence. It was a lie, one that the Filipinos discovered soon after Spain capitulated. In fact, the real aim of U.S. officials was simply to replace Spanish rule with U.S rule.


The Filipinos decided to keep fighting, this time for independence from the United States. U.S. forces brutally put down the revolt, killing and torturing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos in the process. After the U.S. conquest of the Philippines, U.S. officials took military control over the islands, constructed many military bases, and stationed thousands of U.S. troops there.


Evidence Talks: US Government Propelled Coup in Bolivia



by W.T. Whitney Jr.







From: Fred Lonidier
Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2019 12:10 AM


There are more than 800 factories—maquiladoras - in Tijuana. They produce goods which are sold directly over the border in the USA. If you have been on one our Ollin Calli tours you will have heard first hand from women who work in those factories. They talk of having to work long grueling hours for wages which cannot sustain their families. They talk of physical and sexual abuse. They talk of their legal rights being ignored. They talk of accidents in dangerous conditions. They talk of working with toxic chemicals.

For the last ten years at Ollin Calli we have provided consulting, accompaniment, and legal support to workers from a feminist perspective. We are currently the only non-profit organization doing this crucial work.

 Ollin Calli is the “go to place” for activists, students, teachers from both sides of the border. We provide support to new collectives. We train groups in security techniques. We are a recognized center in promoting labor and women’s issues.

The daunting gap between wages and the cost of living has widened. Outsourcing has devastated job security.

It will take your support for us to continue our struggle for worker justice in Tijuana.
Ollin Calli needs your support more than ever Just as labor struggles have heated up in Mexico and the work of Ollin Calli has become more critical, we have lost the financial backing of the foundation which had supported us for several years. This was due to a change in the focus of their funding strategies.

In order to keep our small office space and pay our two experienced and dedicated team members we need a consistent source of income.
We are asking you to consider making a regular pledge, a donation we can rely upon each month. We want our team to be able to dedicate themselves to the work of representing the maquila workers in Tijuana, rather than worrying about fundraising.

 You can do this very simply through our sister organization the San Diego Maquila Workers Solidarity Network. Regular monthly pledges through this organization are US tax deductible.

Ollin Calli’s work for social justice and worker’s rights in Tijuana is more important than it ever has been.
To make a tax deductible regular pledge or one time donation, locate the donation button on the San Diego Maquiladora Workers' Solidarity Network website –

 www.sdmaquila.org   and follow the very simple instructions.
Alternatively you can send a check made payable to SDMWSN
Mail to: SDMWSN, 6142 Romany Drive, San Diego, CA, 92120
Please include your name, address, and email address.


Thank you for helping us continue this critical work,
The Ollin Calli Collective 

619 403 0337
664 245 3626 (cel)
664 609 6667 (casa)









Could California’s Public Banks Finance a Statewide Green New Deal?


by Carla Santos Skandier


Paul Jay and Sharmini Peries Ousted from The Real News Network in June; Current Fundraiser Hides that Fact; Falling Viewership and Liberal Turn Result | naked capitalism


by Yves Smith


Targeted by the Inquisition – Reality Asserts Itself


with Paul Jay & Matthew Fox


“Whistleblowers Save our Democracy”


a series of interviews with Daniel Ellsberg






From: Moshé Machover
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2019
Subject: Appel de 127 intellectuels juifs aux députés français : « Ne soutenez pas la proposition de résolution assimilant l’antisionisme à l’antisémitisme »



Appel de 127 universitaires juifs aux députés français : « Ne soutenez pas la proposition de résolution assimilant l’antisionisme à l’antisémitisme »

Un collectif d’intellectuels juifs du monde entier appelle, dans une tribune au « Monde », les députés français à ne pas apporter leur soutien à un texte sur la lutte contre l’antisémitisme, qui doit être débattu et voté les 3 et 4 décembre, à l’Assemblée nationale.


Le Monde, 2 décembre 2019 [Les députés doivent se prononcer, mardi 3 décembre, sur une proposition de résolution visant à lutter contre l’antisémitisme, déposée par le député La République en marche (LRM) Sylvain Maillard. Controversé, ce texte propose que la France adopte, à la suite du Parlement européen, la définition de l’antisémitisme établie par l’Alliance internationale pour la mémoire de l’Holocauste (IHRA), en 2016. Celle-ci inclut « les manifestations de haine à l’égard de l’Etat d’Israël justifiées par la seule perception de ce dernier comme collectivité juive », rappelle le texte de M. Maillard. Lors du dîner du Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France (CRIF), le 21 février, Emmanuel Macron s’était dit favorable à l’adoption de cette définition non contraignante, jugeant que l’antisionisme constitue « une des formes modernes de l’antisémitisme ».]


Tribune. Le 3 décembre, l’Assemblée nationale va débattre et voter une proposition de résolution sur la lutte contre l’antisémitisme. Cette résolution est hautement problématique.


Nous, universitaires et intellectuels juifs, d’Israël et d’ailleurs, dont beaucoup de spécialistes de l’antisémitisme et de l’histoire du judaïsme et de l’Holocauste, élevons notre voix contre cette proposition de résolution.


La montée de l’antisémitisme dans le monde, y compris en France, nous préoccupe profondément. Nous considérons l’antisémitisme et toutes les autres formes de racisme et de xénophobie comme une menace réelle contre laquelle il convient de lutter avec la plus grande fermeté, et exhortons le gouvernement et le Parlement français à le faire.


Tout en soulignant fermement notre préoccupation, nous nous opposons à la proposition de résolution sur l’antisémitisme pour deux raisons principales, et appelons les députés de l’Assemblée nationale à ne pas y apporter leur soutien.


Premièrement, l’exposé des motifs de la proposition de résolution associe l’antisionisme à l’antisémitisme. Il assimile même l’antisionisme à l’antisémitisme en précisant que « critiquer l’existence même d’Israël en ce qu’elle constitue une collectivité composée de citoyens juifs revient à exprimer une haine à l’égard de la communauté juive dans son ensemble ».


Avant de poursuivre notre argumentation, nous déplorons que l’exposé des motifs désigne Israël comme « une collectivité composée de citoyens juifs ». Environ 20 % de la population d’Israël sont des citoyens palestiniens, dont la plupart sont musulmans ou chrétiens. La désignation choisie occulte et nie leur existence. Nous considérons cette approche comme très problématique, compte tenu également de l’engagement de votre pays en faveur d’une définition de la citoyenneté française qui n’est pas basée sur l’ethnicité.


Nos opinions sur le sionisme peuvent être diverses, mais nous pensons tous, y compris ceux qui se considèrent comme sionistes, que cet amalgame est fondamentalement faux. Pour les nombreux juifs se considérant antisionistes, cet amalgame est profondément injurieux.


L’antisionisme est un point de vue légitime dans l’histoire juive, et il a une longue tradition, y compris en Israël. Certains juifs s’opposent au sionisme pour des raisons religieuses, d’autres pour des raisons politiques ou culturelles. De nombreuses victimes de l’Holocauste étaient antisionistes. Le projet de résolution les déshonore et offense leur mémoire, en les considérant rétroactivement comme antisémites.


Mouvement politique oppressif

Pour les Palestiniens, le sionisme représente la dépossession, le déplacement, l’occupation et les inégalités structurelles. Il est cynique de les stigmatiser comme antisémites parce qu’ils s’opposent au sionisme. Ils s’opposent au sionisme non par haine des juifs, mais parce qu’ils vivent le sionisme comme un mouvement politique oppressif. Agir ainsi témoigne d’une grande insensibilité et d’une politique de deux poids, deux mesures, sachant qu’Israël nie le droit de la Palestine à exister et mine son existence même.


Il n’y a aucun doute qu’il existe des antisémites parmi les gens qui s’opposent au sionisme. Mais il y a également beaucoup d’antisémites qui soutiennent le sionisme. Il est donc inapproprié et totalement inexact d’identifier de manière générale antisémitisme et antisionisme. En confondant ces deux phénomènes, l’Assemblée nationale compromettrait les efforts vitaux de lutte contre le véritable antisémitisme, qui est multidimensionnel et provient de différents secteurs de la société française.


Notre seconde objection est que la résolution approuve la définition de l’antisémitisme de l’Alliance internationale pour la mémoire de l’Holocauste (IHRA). Cette définition est hautement problématique. La résolution prétend que la définition « permet de désigner le plus précisément possible ce qu’est l’antisémitisme contemporain ». En réalité cependant, la définition est peu claire et imprécise, et par conséquent, n’est pas un instrument efficace de lutte contre l’antisémitisme. D’autre part, une législation visant à lutter efficacement contre l’antisémitisme et à le poursuivre existe déjà en France.


La résolution crée un double standard injustifiable en faveur d’Israël et contre les Palestiniens

L’exposé des motifs de la proposition de résolution indique que la définition de l’IHRA « ne reconnaît pas comme antisémite la critique des politiques de l’Etat d’Israël ». En réalité cependant, plusieurs « exemples contemporains d’antisémitisme » ont été joints à la définition qui associe intentionnellement la critique et l’opposition aux politiques de l’Etat d’Israël à l’antisémitisme. Ces exemples sont présentés et considérés comme partie intégrante de la définition.

D’après les exemples et la manière dont ils sont appliqués, il suffit de critiquer Israël d’une manière perçue comme différente de ce qui se fait pour d’autres pays, pour être considéré comme antisémite. Il suffit d’être en faveur d’une solution binationale ou démocratique au conflit israélo-palestinien, pour être considéré comme antisémite. Il en va de même, quand on blâme Israël pour son racisme institutionnalisé. On peut certainement ne pas être d’accord avec ces énoncés. Mais ces opinions sont considérées comme légitimes et protégées par la liberté d’expression dans tout autre contexte politique. Ainsi, la résolution crée un double standard injustifiable en faveur d’Israël et contre les Palestiniens.


La définition de l’IHRA est déjà utilisée pour stigmatiser et réduire au silence les critiques de l’Etat d’Israël, notamment les organisations de défense des droits humains et des experts respectés. Cette situation a été condamnée par d’éminents spécialistes de l’antisémitisme. L’avocat américain Kenneth Stern, l’un des rédacteurs originaux de la définition de l’IHRA, a également mis en garde contre l’utilisation de cette définition pour saper la liberté d’expression.



La question-clé est la suivante : pourquoi tout cela se produit-il ? Nous ne pouvons pas considérer cela comme indépendant de l’agenda politique principal du gouvernement israélien visant à enraciner son occupation et son annexion de la Palestine et à faire taire toute critique à l’égard de cet agenda.


Depuis des années, le gouvernement israélien du premier ministre Benjamin Nétanyahou dénonce comme antisémite toute opposition à sa politique. Nétanyahou lui-même a défendu avec force l’assimilation de l’antisionisme à l’antisémitisme, ainsi que la définition de l’IHRA. Cela illustre la manière dont la lutte contre l’antisémitisme a été instrumentalisée pour protéger le gouvernement israélien.


C’est avec inquiétude que nous constatons que ces efforts du gouvernement israélien trouvent un soutien politique, jusqu’en France. Nous invitons ainsi l’Assemblée nationale à lutter contre l’antisémitisme et contre toutes les formes de racisme, mais sans aider le gouvernement israélien dans son programme d’occupation et d’annexion.


Cette proposition de résolution n’est pas un moyen crédible et efficace d’y parvenir. L’antisémitisme doit être combattu sur des bases universelles, au même titre que d’autres formes de racisme et de xénophobie, pour lutter contre la haine. L’abandon de cette approche universaliste conduira à une polarisation accrue en France, ce qui nuirait également à la lutte contre l’antisémitisme.


Dans ce contexte, nous notons que la proposition de résolution est également en contradiction avec la position de la Commission nationale consultative des droits de l’homme (CNCDH). Dans son rapport de 2018 sur la lutte contre le racisme, la CNCDH a averti que la définition de l’IHRA risque d’affaiblir l’approche universelle française de la lutte contre le racisme et a insisté « sur la vigilance pour ne pas confondre racisme et critique légitime d’un Etat et de sa politique ».


Nous prions l’Assemblée nationale de ne pas soutenir une résolution qui assimile à tort l’antisionisme à l’antisémitisme. Ne soutenez pas une résolution qui approuve la définition politisée de l’antisémitisme par l’IHRA, d’autant plus si elle le fait sans se distancier des exemples problématiques de la définition qui concernent Israël.


Premiers signataires : Jean-Christophe Attias, professeur et titulaire de la chaire de pensée juive médiévale, Ecole pratique des hautes études, université de Paris Sciences Lettres ; Jane Caplan, professeure émérite d’histoire européenne moderne, université d’Oxford ; Alon Confino, professeur, directeur de l’institut d’études de l’holocauste, du génocide et de la mémoire, université du Massachusetts ; Tamar Garb, professeur d’histoire de l’art, directrice de l’Institute of Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, university College, Londres ; Sonia Dayan-Herzbrun, professeure émérite, faculté de sciences sociales, université Paris-Diderot ; Amos Goldberg, professeur, département d’histoire du judaïsme et du judaïsme contemporain, université Hébraïque de Jérusalem ; David Harel, professeur, département de sciences informatiques et mathématiques appliquées, institut Weizmann des sciences à Paris ; Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, professeur d’histoire juive, université Ben- Gourion du Néguev ; Alice Shalvi, professeur émérite, département d’anglais, Université Hébraïque de Jérusalem et université Ben-Gourion du Néguev ; Joan Wallach Scott, professeure émérite, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton ; David Shulman, professeur, département d’études asiatiques, université Hébraïque de Jérusalem ; Zeev Sternhell, professeur émérite, université Hébraïque de Jérusalem.


Full list of signatories follows




Netanyahu Should Be Indicted for War Crimes! ‘Gaza Fights for Freedom!’


with Abby Martin


"The 51 Day War"


with Max Blumenthal





Too Big to Fail: the Epstein Investigation - MintPress News


by Whitney Webb


These Scrubbed Reports Reveal New Secrets Into the Prince Andrew-Jeffrey Epstein Relationship. Several now-censored reports from the 1990s and early 2000s reveal that Prince Andrew’s involvement with the minors exploited by Jeffrey Epstein is greater than previously believed.






China & Russia collaborate on historic pipeline



“America v China: why the trade war won't end soon” | The Economist






From: Ariel Gold, CODEPINK [mailto:info@codepink.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2019
Subject: What’s happening in Iran?






Dear francis,

From November 17–24, due to an almost complete Internet blackout by the Iranian government, I was unable to communicate with any of the new friends I made during my time on the October 2019 CODEPINK peace delegation to Iran. As Iran shut down Internet access and used extreme violence to quell protests sparked by a 50% increase in fuel prices, I worried greatly about them — according to Amnesty International, at least 208 people were killed and thousands arrested. 

U.S. sanctions are playing a major role in Iran being able to shut down Internet access. Until the U.S. pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, Iran’s Internet was hosted by a combination of domestic and international providers. But after the U.S. reimposed sanctions, only domestic providers were available, giving the Iranian government the ability to shut off the Internet inside the country — a violation of the right to freedom of expression. 

Tell Congress that all U.S. sanctions on Internet technology to Iran must be lifted AND tell Internet technology companies Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Microsoft to reactivate domain fronting — disabled by Amazon and Google in April 2018 — so that Iranians can resume using international Internet providers. 

Right-wingers from the U.S. and Israel are feigning outrage at Iran’s Internet blackout and violence against protestors. Israeli Defense Minister Naftali Bennett put out a video appealing to technology experts around the world to “help the long-suffering Iranian people gain open access to all social media." U.S. Senators Cruz, Cotton, Cornyn, Blackburn, Barrasso, and Rubio penned a letter to Donald Trump asking him to “take all available technical measures to restore access to the Internet in Iran” and “ impose additional pressure in the form of additional sanctions against the Iranian regime.” But it is precisely the Trump administration’s sanctions that are giving Iran the ability to blackout the Internet. Tell Congress that all sanctions on technology in Iran must be lifted. 

In 2017, Iran shut down the Internet in response to protests inside the country, but because the country was so dependent on international Internet infrastructure, they could only afford to close the Internet for 30 minutes. Fast-forward to 2019 under U.S. sanctions, and Iran was able to blackout 93% of the Internet for a week. With even more sanctions placed on Iran this week, next time could be even worse. Contact Congress now!

In solidarity with the people of Iran,

Ariel and the entire CODEPINK team: 
Ann, Carley, Caty, Clara, Cody, Emily, Enas, Jodie, Kelly, Leonardo, Mark, Medea, Michelle, Nancy, Paki, Raegan, Teri, Tighe, and Zena

PS: Check out our blogs from Iran, and read about the beautiful country and its people, and then make a year-end donation to support our work for #PeaceWithIran.

To update your email subscription, contact info@codepink.org.


© Copyright 2019 | www.codepink.org
Created with NationBuilder



Six more countries join Trump-busting Iran barter group | Iran's nuclear programme



Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden sign up to Instex mechanism that sidesteps US sanctions


Why are Iraqi protesters targeting Iranian buildings?


by Arwa Ibrahim


Stop maximum pressure campaign on Iran: China tells US

US Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) (L) talks with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a rally with fellow Democrats before voting on H.R. 1, or the People Act, on the East Steps of the US Capitol on March 08, 2019 in Washington, DC. (AFP photo)







Will the global Left allow right-wing nationalists to take control of society's discontent?


by Slavoj Zizek


Turkey deserves the blame for what happened in Syria


by Michael Jansen






From: H-PAD [mailto:h-pad-bounces@lists.historiansforpeace.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019
Subject: [H-PAD] H-PAD Notes 12/5/19: AHA convention; links to recent articles of interest


Note: Historians for Peace and Democracy and the Radical History Review are co-sponsoring eleven sessions at next month's annual American Historical Association convention in New York, Friday 1/3 to Sunday 1/5. Click here for a one-page flyer giving the schedule for these sessions or here for complete information including names of participants. All the sessions will be in the same room at the convention hotel.



Links to Recent Articles of Interest


"The House Should Go Big in Framing Impeachment Articles Against Trump"

By Carolyn Eisenberg, New York Times, posted December 5.

Argues that the 1974 House Judiciary Committee decision not to include Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia among the articles of impeachment meant passing up the opportunity to set standards for future presidents. The author teaches US history and foreign policy at Hofstra University.


"What's Wrong with the Republicans? Fruits of the Twin Roots of Evil: Slavery and Imperial Expansion"

By Rebecca Gordon, TomDispatch.com, posted December 5

A broad analysis of US history and its influence on the coalition making up Donald Trump's base of support. The author teaches at the University of San Francisco.


"The Unfinished Revolution: Eric Foner's Story of American Freedom"

By Michael Kazin, The Nation, posted December 2

A lengthy review essay on Eric Foner's new book The Second Founding, about the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. As background, the essay discusses Foner's other books on the Civil War era. The author teaches history at Georgetown University.


"American Exceptionalism Is Killing the Planet: The Many Abuses of Endless War"

By William J. Astore, TomDispatch.com, posted December 1

The author is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who has taught history in military and civilian schools.


"Remember the Oath of the Elbe"

By Jeremy Kuzmarov, The Progressive, posted November 28 

On a rendezvous of American and Soviet soldiers at the Elbe River in Germany soon after the Nazi surrender, in which both sides promised to work for a peaceful world.


"Evo Morales' Presidency in Bolivia Was Imperfect and Contested. His Removal from Power Is Still a Coup"

By Ian Zuckerman, Public Seminar, posted November 26

The author teaches politics at Regis University. 


"The Apocalyptic Myth That Helps Explain Evangelical Support for Trump"

By Thomas Lecaque, Washington Post, posted November 26

The author teaches history at Grand View University in Des Moines, Iowa.


"The Myth of the First Thanksgiving Is a Buttress of White Nationalism and Needs to Go"

By Michael J. Silverman, History News Network, posted November 24

The author teaches history at George Washington University. 


"America Will Never Live Down Trump's War Crime Pardons"

By Danny Sjursen, TruthDig.com, posted November 21 

The author is a retired major in the US Army and a former history instructor at West Point.


"Why Family Separation Is So Central to Trump's Immigration Vision"

By Maddalena Marinari, Washington Post, posted November 21

The author teaches history at Gustavus Adolphus College and is the author of the forthcoming book Unwanted: Italian and Jewish Mobilization Against Restrictive Immigration Laws, 1882-1965 (U. of North Carolina Press).


Thanks to an anonymous reader for suggesting some of the articles included above. Suggestions can be sent to jimobrien48@gmail.com.





The Origins Podcast with Lawrence Krauss


 with Lawrence Krauss & Noam Chomsky


After 10 Years of Hopes and Setbacks, What Happened to the Common Core?


by Dana Goldstein


What the U.S. Torture Program Looked Like to the Tortured


by Carol Rosenberg





War with Russia? Stephen F. Cohen and Dan Rather in Conversation with Katrina Vanden Heuvel








STOP 5G Le cerveau humain est 40 hz et le champ Terrestre 30 hz Maximum

Almost Quarter BILLION Dollars Paid Out for Vaccine Injuries by U.S. Government in 2019