Bulletin N° 928
(Avoid HD Streaming for free movie)
Dramatization of the state of the oil industry in the hands of those personally involved in and affected by it, directed by Stephen Gaghan, with George Clooney, Matt Damon, Amanda Peet, and Kayvan Novak.
American oil companies Connex and smaller Killen are undergoing a merger, the new company named Connex-Killen. The move is in response to Connex losing a number of oil fields in the Persian Gulf region as Prince Nasir Al-Subaai, his country's foreign minister, and the oldest son of the Emir and thus the heir apparent to the throne, signed a contract with the Chinese instead. As Killen somehow managed to get the contract for the oil fields in Kazahkstan, the merger would give Connex-Killen additional control of the industry in the Middle East. Connex's retained law firm, headed by Dean Whiting, assigns Bennett Holiday to demonstrate to the US Department of Justice that due diligence has been done to allow the merger to proceed i.e. that the merger would not break any antitrust regulations. The US government is unhappy with Prince Nasir's decision to award the contract to the Chinese, and in combination with issues around illegal weapons, the CIA assigns field agent Bob Barnes, who has experience in the Middle East, to assassinate the Prince, whose eventual leadership would further undermine US oil security. Barnes becomes a pawn in the goings-on between the players. Meanwhile, Geneva based Bryan Woodman, an energy analyst, eventually becomes associated with the Emir and his family, largely due to a tragic incident. In the process, Woodman learns of Prince Nasir's western leanings and his want to change radically his country into a western democracy with a diversified economy. If the Emir found out, it could threaten Prince Nasir ascension to the throne and thus derail the democratization process. Through all these manoeuvrings, migrant workers are affected, some who cannot retain work with the changing of companies controlling the oil. Some of those may try to take matters into their own hands for their form of justice.
“Eight Late-Fall Haikus and an Allegory”
Mark Crispin Miller,
Critic of propaganda;
Must he be censored?
From beneath a rock,
The arms manufacturer
Is seeking his prey.
Can germ warfare be
A Big Pharma strategy,
To make us submit?
Was it a weapon?
Does it make any difference?
Now, we are disarmed!
Now, on life support;
Here comes euthanasia.
“Shameless” pulls the plug.
Who profits most from
Destruction of production,
In this class warfare?
By creating needs;
New allies appear.
And there comes to light
New opportunities for
“Allegory of the Cov”
Subject: The Machinations of the Murderous Ruling Class and their Stooges, as a Courtship Dance before the Fall.
October 10, 2020
Dear Colleagues and Friends of CEIMSA,
Julian Assange is truly the 21st-century equivalent to Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht who were targeted for destruction by the Social Democrats at the time of the demise of the Weimar Republic and the advent of German Fascism. Aligned against them, as in the case of Assange today, was the entire political spectrum – self-professed “Socialists,” Social Democrats, many liberal and neo-liberal factions, conservatives, and some out-right Fascists. The limited defense of Assange, in both the corporate and in the social media, speaks to the cultural hegemony of Corporate Capitlism, and the pathetic willingness to collaborate with what is thought to be the “winning side” of this conflict against humanity. The deafening silence, punctuated by an occasional cry of “support” for Assange – which is often little more than damning with faint praise - can best be understood as life-insurance measures on the part of collaborators, exhibiting paltry efforts to produce good karma toward the end of their lives. They engage - actively or passively - in character assassination, with cowardly anonymity, hoping that their shameful behavior will go unnoticed and that their boisterous claims to represent “respectable” sectors of society will remain credible, at least for the remainder of their careers.
Unfortunately, the guilt and stench that smolders from such collaboration seldom combusts into shame, from which some bold and radical action might be expected to burst into flame. Instead, we are trapped in a cauldron of identity politics, virulent mass nationalism and confused individual self-pity - all of which are conundrums fueled by the repressed bitterness that has accumulated, under the cloak of self-deception and betrayal of “the social contrat.” The feelings of disgust and resignation, the toxic by-product of collaboration, is unmistakable, as George Grosz illustrated in his brilliant Berlin caricatures during the early Nazi period.
The German Debacle, 1933-1945.
<![if !vml]><![endif]> <![if !vml]><![endif]> <![if !vml]><![endif]>
<![if !vml]><![endif]> <![if !vml]><![endif]> <![if !vml]><![endif]>
If you are going duck hunting with the intent of eating canard à l’orange that evening, then I suspect a conspiracy theory of sorts is useful, something like the idea that the ducks don’t want what you want and will not make it easy for you to succeed.
On the other hand, if you employ the theory of historical materialism and class struggle to understand existing conditions, then you appreciate a more general panorama, in which many unexpected things occur due to complexities. If it’s a revolution you want, then an elite are not the target; it’s the ground they are standing on that you want to take possession of, to cultivate and collectively control, not necessarily their bodies or minds. They must be delt with only to the degree to which they are intent on preventing your social class allies from controlling their destiny. This is the hallmark of social class theory as opposed to elitist theory. The latter is limited in scope; the former, more ambitious.
Marx’s History of France – 1847-50, 1851-52, 1870-71.
It has been said that each generation discovers its own Marx, for better or for worse. There is no better place to look for Marxist ideas than from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. And this is why I’ve turned to “the writings of the master” to rediscover what his ideas were and the context in which they were formulated.
One source I’m looking at is the collection of essays written during the events of 1848-1850 in France and published under the title, Class Struggles in France 1848-1850. This collection of essays was edited by Frederick Engels in 1895, after Marx’s death.
The introductory essay, “From February to June 1848,” begins with the following statement of orientation:
With the exception of a few short chapters, every important part of the annals of the revolution from 1848 to 1849 carries the heading: Defeat of the revolution!
But what succumbed in these defeats was not the revolution. It was the pre-revolutionary traditional appendages, results of social relationships, which had not yet come to the point of sharp class antagonisms – persons, illusions, conceptions, projects, from which the revolutionary party before the February Revolution was not free, from which it could be freed, not by the victory of February, but only by a series of defeats.
In a word: revolutionary advance made headway not by its immediate tragic-comic achievements, but on the contrary by the creation of a powerful, united counter-revolution, by the creation of an opponent, by fighting whom the party of revolt first ripened into a real revolutionary party.
To prove this is the task of the following pages.
“The Defeat of June 1848”
After the July Revolution, when the Liberal banker, Laffitte, let his godfather, the Duke of Orleans, in triumph to the Hôtel de Ville, he let fall the words: ‘From not on the bankers will rule.’ Laffitte had betrayed the secret of the revolution.
It was not the French bourgeoisie hat ruled under Louis Philippe, but a fraction of it, bankers, stock exchange kings, railway kings, owners of coal and ironworks and forests, a section of landed proprietors that rallied round them – the so-called finance aristocracy. It sat on the throne, it dictated laws in the Chambers, it conferred political posts from cabinet portfolios to the tobacco bureau.
The real industrial bourgeoisie formed part of the official opposition, i.e., it was represented only as a minority in the Chambers. Its opposition was expressed all the more decisively, the more unalloyed the autocracy of the finance aristocracy became, and the more it itself imagined that its domination over the working-class as ensured after the mutinies of 1832, 1834, and 1839, which had been drowned in blood.
. . .
The petty bourgeoisie of all degrees, and the peasantry also, were completely excluded from political power. Finally, in the official opposition or entirely outside the pays légal, there were the ideological representatives and spokesmen of the above classes, their savants, lawyers, doctors, etc., so-called talents.
The July monarchy, owing to its financial need, was dependent form the beginning on the big bourgeoisie, and it s dependence on the gig bourgeoisie was the inexhaustible source of a growing financial need. It was impossible to subordinate state administration to the interests of national production, without balancing the budget, establishing a balance between state expenses and income. And how was this balance to established, without limiting state expenditure, i.e., without encroaching on interests which were so many supports of the ruling system, and without redistributing taxes, i.e., without putting a considerable share of the burden of taxes on the shoulders of the big bourgeoisie itself?
Rather the fraction of the bourgeoisie that ruled and legislated through the Chambers had a direct interest in state indebtedness. The state deficit was even the main object of its speculation and played the chief role in its enrichment. At the end of each year, a new deficit. After expiry of four or five years, a new loan. And every new loan offered new opportunities to the finance aristocracy for defrauding the state which was kept artificially on the verge of bankruptcy – it had to contract with the bankers under the most unfavorable conditions. Each new loan gave a further opportunity for plundering the pubic that had invested its capital in state bonds, by stock exchange, manipulations into the secrets of which the government and the majority in the Chambers were admitted. In general, the fluctuation of state credits and the possession of state secrets gave the bankers and their associates in the Chambers and on the throne the possibility of evoking sudden , extraordinary fluctuations in the quotations of state bonds, the result of which always bound to be the ruin of the mass
of smaller capitalists and the fabulously rapid enrichment of the big gamblers. If the state deficit was in the direct of interest of the ruling faction of the bourgeoisie, then it is clear why extraordinary state expenditures in the last years of Louis Philippe’s government was far more than double the and state loans, they exploited the building of railways. The Chambers piled the main burdens on the state, and secured the golden fruits to the speculating finance aristocracy. One recalls the scandals in the Chamber of deputies, when by chance it came out that all the members of the majority, including a number of ministers , had taken part as shareholders in the very railway construction which as legislators they had caused to be carried out afterwards at the cost of the state.
On the other hand, the smallest financial reform was wrecked by the influence of the bankers. For example, the postal reform, Rothschild protested. Was it permissible for the state to curtail sources of income out of which interest was to be paid on its ever increasing debt?
The July monarchy was nothing other than a joint stock company for the exploitation of French national wealth, the dividends of which were divided amongst ministers, Chambers, 240,000 voters and their adherents. Louis Philippe was the director of this company – Robert Macaire on the throne. Trade, industry, agriculture, shipping, the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie, were bound to be continually prejudiced and endangered under this system. The bourgeoisie in the July days had inscribed on its banner: government à bon marché, ‘cheap government.’
While the finance aristocracy made the laws, was at the head of the administration of the State, had command of all the organized public powers , dominated public opinion through facts and through the press, the same prostitution, the same shameless cheating, the same mania to get rich was repeated in every sphere, form the Court to the Café Borgne, to get rich not by production, but by pocketing the already available wealth of others. In particular there broke out, at the top of bourgeois society, an unbridled display of unhealthy and dissolute appetites, which clashed every moment with the bourgeois laws themselves, wherein the wealth having its source in gambling naturally seeks its satisfaction, where pleasure becomes crapuleux, where gold, dirt and blood flow together. The finance aristocracy, in its mode of acquisition as well as in its pleasures is nothing but the resurrection of the lupenproletariat at the top of bourgeois society.
And the non-ruling sections of the French bourgeoisie cried: ‘corruption!’ The people cried: ‘à bas les grands voleurs! à bas les assassins !’ when in 1847, on the most prominent stages of bourgeois society, the same scenes were publically enacted which regularly lead the lumpernporletariat to brothels, to workhouses and lunatic asylums, before the Bench, to bagnos and to the scaffold. The industrial bourgeoisie saw its interests endangered, the petty bourgeoisie was filled with moral indignation, the imagination of the people was offended, Paris was flooded with pamphlets – ‘la dynastie Rothschild,’, ‘les juifs rois de l’epoque’ etc. – in which the rule of the finance aristocracy was denounced and stigmatized with greater or less wit.
‘Rien pour la gloire! Glory brings no profit! La paix partout et toujours!’
. . .
The eruption of the general discontent was finally accelerated and the sentiment for revolt ripened by two economic world-events.
The potato blight and the bad harvests of 1845 and 1846 increased the general ferment among the people. The high cost of living of 1847 called forth bloody conflicts in France as well as on the rest of the Continent. As against the shameless orgies of the finance aristocracy, the struggle of the people for the first necessities of life! At Buzançais the hunger rioters, executed; in Paris the over-satiated escrocs (swindlers), snatched from the courts by the Royal family.
The second great economic event which hastened the outbreak of the’ revolution, was a general commercial and industrial crisis in England.
. . .
The devastation of trade and industry caused by the economic epidemic made the autocracy of the finance aristocracy still more unbearable.
. . .
In Paris the industrial crisis had, in particular, the result of throwing a number of manufactures and big traders, who under the existing circumstances could no longer do any business in the foreign market, onto the home market. They set up large establishments, the competition of which ruined the épiciers and boutiquiers en masse. Hence the innumerable bankruptcies among this section of the Paris bourgeoisie, and hence the revolutionary action in February.
. . .
The Provisional Government which emerged from the February barricades necessarily mirrored in its composition the different parties which shared in the victory. It could not be anything but a compromise between the different classes which together had overturned the July throne, but whose interests were mutually antagonistic. A large majority of its members consisted of representatives of the bourgeoisie. The republican petty bourgeoisie were represented by Ledru-Rollin and Flocon; the republican bourgeoisie by the people from the National, the dynastic opposition by Cremieux Dupont de l’Eure, etc. The working class had only two representatives, Louis Blanc and Albert.(CSF, New York, 1964, pp.33-39)
Another signal work by Marx is The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, written in 1851-1852. Again he begins by orienting the reader to his vision of class consciousness and class struggle.
Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. Caussidière for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851 for the Mongagne of 1793 to 1795, the Nephew for the Uncle. And the same caricature occurs in the circumstances attending the second edition of the eighteenth Brumaire!
Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under the circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. And just when they seem engaged in revolutionizing themselves and things, in creating something that has never yet existed, precisely in such periods of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service and borrow from them names, battle cries and costumes in order to present the new scene of world history in this time-honored disguise and this borrowed language. Thus Luther donned the mask of the Apostle Paul, the Revolution of 1789 to 1814 draped itself alternately as the Roman republic and the Roman empire, and the Revolution of 1848 knew nothing better to do than to parody, now 1789, now the reflationary tradition of 1793 to 1795. In like manner a beginner who has learnt a new language always translates it back into his mother tongue, but he has assimilated the spirit of the new language and can freely express himself in it only when he finds his way in it without recalling the old and forgets his native tongue in the use of the new.(18th B, New York, 1967, pp.15-16)
And finally, we find Marx’s 1871 book, Civil War in France to be an instance of class analysis in relationship to the state, at a time when the French state had massacred 30,000 Parisians in the space of one week, between May 21 and May 28, at the behest of international capital.
Just two days after the last resistance of the Paris Commune was destroyed and fighters were overcome, Marx addressed the General Council of The International Working Men’s Association in London on May 30, 1871, reading from his manuscript of The Civil War in France. This work has been deemed by scholars as constituting “a major contribution to Marxist theory of the state and of the revolutionary process itself from a political point of view.” Here the Paris Commune is treated as “the short-lived but momentous first example in history of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat.’ In the 1891 publication of this work, on the 20th anniversary of the Paris Commune, Engels included two shorter addresses by Marx on the Franco-Prussian War, in which the Paris Revolution had its origin.
Below are excerpts from this 1871 work:
The Third Address
[The Paris Commune]
On the dawn of March 18, Paris arose to the thunder-burst of “Vive la Commune!” What is the Commune, that sphinx so tantalizing to the bourgeois mind?
“The proletarians of Paris,” said the Central Committee in its manifesto of March 18, “amidst the failures and treasons of the ruling classes, have understood that the hour has struck for them to save the situation by taking into their own hands the direction of public affairs.... They have understood that it is their imperious duty, and their absolute right, to render themselves masters of their own destinies, by seizing upon the governmental power.”
But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.
The centralized state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature – organs wrought after the plan of a systematic and hierarchic division of labor – originates from the days of absolute monarchy, serving nascent middle class society as a mighty weapon in its struggle against feudalism. Still, its development remained clogged by all manner of medieval rubbish, seignorial rights, local privileges, municipal and guild monopolies, and provincial constitutions. The gigantic broom of the French Revolution of the 18th century swept away all these relics of bygone times, thus clearing simultaneously the social soil of its last hindrances to the superstructure of the modern state edifice raised under the First Empire, itself the offspring of the coalition wars of old semi-feudal Europe against modern France.
During the subsequent regimes, the government, placed under parliamentary control – that is, under the direct control of the propertied classes – became not only a hotbed of huge national debts and crushing taxes; with its irresistible allurements of place, pelf, and patronage, it became not only the bone of contention between the rival factions and adventurers of the ruling classes; but its political character changed simultaneously with the economic changes of society. At the same pace at which the progress of modern industry developed, widened, intensified the class antagonism between capital and labor, the state power assumed more and more the character of the national power of capital over labor, of a public force organized for social enslavement, of an engine of class despotism.
After every revolution marking a progressive phase in the class struggle, the purely repressive character of the state power stands out in bolder and bolder relief. The Revolution of 1830, resulting in the transfer of government from the landlords to the capitalists, transferred it from the more remote to the more direct antagonists of the working men. The bourgeois republicans, who, in the name of the February Revolution, took the state power, used it for the June  massacres, in order to convince the working class that “social” republic means the republic entrusting their social subjection, and in order to convince the royalist bulk of the bourgeois and landlord class that they might safely leave the cares and emoluments of government to the bourgeois “republicans.”
However, after their one heroic exploit of June, the bourgeois republicans had, from the front, to fall back to the rear of the “Party of Order” – a combination formed by all the rival fractions and factions of the appropriating classes. The proper form of their joint-stock government was the parliamentary republic, with Louis Bonaparte for its president. Theirs was a regime of avowed class terrorism and deliberate insult towards the “vile multitude.”
If the parliamentary republic, as M. Thiers said, “divided them [the different fractions of the ruling class] least", it opened an abyss between that class and the whole body of society outside their spare ranks. The restraints by which their own divisions had under former regimes still checked the state power, were removed by their union; and in view of the threatening upheaval of the proletariat, they now used that state power mercilessly and ostentatiously as the national war engine of capital against labor.
In their uninterrupted crusade against the producing masses, they were, however, bound not only to invest the executive with continually increased powers of repression, but at the same time to divest their own parliamentary stronghold – the National Assembly – one by one, of all its own means of defence against the Executive. The Executive, in the person of Louis Bonaparte, turned them out. The natural offspring of the “Party of Order” republic was the Second Empire.
The empire, with the coup d’etat for its birth certificate, universal suffrage for its sanction, and the sword for its sceptre, professed to rest upon the peasantry, the large mass of producers not directly involved in the struggle of capital and labor. It professed to save the working class by breaking down parliamentarism, and, with it, the undisguised subserviency of government to the propertied classes. It professed to save the propertied classes by upholding their economic supremacy over the working class; and, finally, it professed to unite all classes by reviving for all the chimera of national glory.
In reality, it was the only form of government possible at a time when the bourgeoisie had already lost, and the working class had not yet acquired, the faculty of ruling the nation. It was acclaimed throughout the world as the savior of society. Under its sway, bourgeois society, freed from political cares, attained a development unexpected even by itself. Its industry and commerce expanded to colossal dimensions; financial swindling celebrated cosmopolitan orgies; the misery of the masses was set off by a shameless display of gorgeous, meretricious and debased luxury. The state power, apparently soaring high above society and the very hotbed of all its corruptions. Its own rottenness, and the rottenness of the society it had saved, were laid bare by the bayonet of Prussia, herself eagerly bent upon transferring the supreme seat of that regime from Paris to Berlin. Imperialism is, at the same time, the most prostitute and the ultimate form of the state power which nascent middle class society had commenced to elaborate as a means of its own emancipation from feudalism, and which full-grown bourgeois society had finally transformed into a means for the enslavement of labor by capital.
The direct antithesis to the empire was the Commune. The cry of “social republic,” with which the February Revolution was ushered in by the Paris proletariat, did but express a vague aspiration after a republic that was not only to supercede the monarchical form of class rule, but class rule itself. The Commune was the positive form of that republic.
Paris, the central seat of the old governmental power, and, at the same time, the social stronghold of the French working class, had risen in arms against the attempt of Thiers and the Rurals to restore and perpetuate that old governmental power bequeathed to them by the empire. Paris could resist only because, in consequence of the siege, it had got rid of the army, and replaced it by a National Guard, the bulk of which consisted of working men. This fact was now to be transformed into an institution. The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.
Instead of continuing to be the agent of the Central Government, the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workman’s wage. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves. Public functions ceased to be the private property of the tools of the Central Government. Not only municipal administration, but the whole initiative hitherto exercised by the state was laid into the hands of the Commune.
Having once got rid of the standing army and the police – the physical force elements of the old government – the Commune was anxious to break the spiritual force of repression, the “parson-power", by the disestablishment and disendowment of all churches as proprietary bodies. The priests were sent back to the recesses of private life, there to feed upon the alms of the faithful in imitation of their predecessors, the apostles.
The whole of the educational institutions were opened to the people gratuitously, and at the same time cleared of all interference of church and state. Thus, not only was education made accessible to all, but science itself freed from the fetters which class prejudice and governmental force had imposed upon it.
The judicial functionaries were to be divested of that sham independence which had but served to mask their abject subserviency to all succeeding governments to which, in turn, they had taken, and broken, the oaths of allegiance. Like the rest of public servants, magistrates and judges were to be elective, responsible, and revocable.
The Paris Commune was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centers of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centers, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers.
In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.
The unity of the nation was not to be broken, but, on the contrary, to be organized by Communal Constitution, and to become a reality by the destruction of the state power which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity independent of, and superior to, the nation itself, from which it was but a parasitic excrescence.
While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society. Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well-known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly. On the other hand, nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supercede universal suffrage by hierarchical investiture.[A]
It is generally the fate of completely new historical creations to be mistaken for the counterparts of older, and even defunct, forms of social life, to which they may bear a certain likeness. Thus, this new Commune, which breaks with the modern state power, has been mistaken for a reproduction of the medieval Communes, which first preceded, and afterward became the substratum of, that very state power. The Communal Constitution has been mistaken for an attempt to break up into the federation of small states, as dreamt of by Montesquieu and the Girondins,[B] that unity of great nations which, if originally brought about by political force, has now become a powerful coefficient of social production. The antagonism of the Commune against the state power has been mistaken for an exaggerated form of the ancient struggle against over-centralization. Peculiar historical circumstances may have prevented the classical development, as in France, of the bourgeois form of government, and may have allowed, as in England, to complete the great central state organs by corrupt vestries, jobbing councillors, and ferocious poor-law guardians in the towns, and virtually hereditary magistrates in the counties.
The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon, and clogging the free movement of, society. By this one act, it would have initiated the regeneration of France.
The provincial French middle class saw in the Commune an attempt to restore the sway their order had held over the country under Louis Philippe, and which, under Louis Napoleon, was supplanted by the pretended rule of the country over the towns. In reality, the Communal Constitution brought the rural producers under the intellectual lead of the central towns of their districts, and there secured to them, in the working men, the natural trustees of their interests. The very existence of the Commune involved, as a matter of course, local municipal liberty, but no longer as a check upon the now superseded state power. It could only enter into the head of a Bismarck – who, when not engaged on his intrigues of blood and iron, always likes to resume his old trade, so befitting his mental calibre, of contributor to Kladderadatsch (the Berlin Punch)[C] – it could only enter into such a head to ascribe to the Paris Commune aspirations after the caricature of the old French municipal organization of 1791, the Prussian municipal constitution which degrades the town governments to mere secondary wheels in the police machinery of the Prussian state. The Commune made that catchword of bourgeois revolutions – cheap government – a reality by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure: the standing army and state functionarism. Its very existence presupposed the non-existence of monarchy, which, in Europe at least, is the normal encumbrance and indispensable cloak of class rule. It supplied the republic with the basis of really democratic institutions. But neither cheap government nor the “true republic” was its ultimate aim; they were its mere concomitants.
The multiplicity of interpretations to which the Commune has been subjected, and the multiplicity of interests which construed it in their favor, show that it was a thoroughly expansive political form, while all the previous forms of government had been emphatically repressive. Its true secret was this:
It was essentially a working class government, the product of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labor.
Except on this last condition, the Communal Constitution would have been an impossibility and a delusion. The political rule of the producer cannot co-exist with the perpetuation of his social slavery. The Commune was therefore to serve as a lever for uprooting the economical foundation upon which rests the existence of classes, and therefore of class rule. With labor emancipated, every man becomes a working man, and productive labor ceases to be a class attribute.
It is a strange fact. In spite of all the tall talk and all the immense literature, for the last 60 years, about emancipation of labor, no sooner do the working men anywhere take the subject into their own hands with a will, than uprises at once all the apologetic phraseology of the mouthpieces of present society with its two poles of capital and wages-slavery (the landlord now is but the sleeping partner of the capitalist), as if the capitalist society was still in its purest state of virgin innocence, with its antagonisms still undeveloped, with its delusions still unexploded, with its prostitute realities not yet laid bare. The Commune, they exclaim, intends to abolish property, the basis of all civilization!
Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few. It aimed at the expropriation of the expropriators. It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land, and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor. But this is communism, “impossible” communism! Why, those members of the ruling classes who are intelligent enough to perceive the impossibility of continuing the present system – and they are many – have become the obtrusive and full-mouthed apostles of co-operative production. If co-operative production is not to remain a sham and a snare; if it is to supersede the capitalist system; if united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production – what else, gentlemen, would it be but communism, “possible” communism?
The working class did not expect miracles from the Commune. They have no ready-made utopias to introduce par décret du peuple. They know that in order to work out their own emancipation, and along with it that higher form to which present society is irresistibly tending by its own economical agencies, they will have to pass through long struggles, through a series of historic processes, transforming circumstances and men. They have no ideals to realize, but to set free the elements of the new society with which old collapsing bourgeois society itself is pregnant. In the full consciousness of their historic mission, and with the heroic resolve to act up to it, the working class can afford to smile at the coarse invective of the gentlemen’s gentlemen with pen and inkhorn, and at the didactic patronage of well-wishing bourgeois-doctrinaires, pouring forth their ignorant platitudes and sectarian crotchets in the oracular tone of scientific infallibility.
When the Paris Commune took the management of the revolution in its own hands; when plain working men for the first time dared to infringe upon the governmental privilege of their “natural superiors,” and, under circumstances of unexampled difficulty, performed it at salaries the highest of which barely amounted to one-fifth of what, according to high scientific authority,(1) is the minimum required for a secretary to a certain metropolitan school-board – the old world writhed in convulsions of rage at the sight of the Red Flag, the symbol of the Republic of Labor, floating over the Hôtel de Ville.
And yet, this was the first revolution in which the working class was openly acknowledged as the only class capable of social initiative, even by the great bulk of the Paris middle class – shopkeepers, tradesmen, merchants – the wealthy capitalist alone excepted. The Commune had saved them by a sagacious settlement of that ever recurring cause of dispute among the middle class themselves – the debtor and creditor accounts.[D] The same portion of the middle class, after they had assisted in putting down the working men’s insurrection of June 1848, had been at once unceremoniously sacrificed to their creditors[E] by the then Constituent Assembly. But this was not their only motive for now rallying around the working class. They felt there was but one alternative – the Commune, or the empire – under whatever name it might reappear. The empire had ruined them economically by the havoc it made of public wealth, by the wholesale financial swindling it fostered, by the props it lent to the artificially accelerated centralization of capital, and the concomitant expropriation of their own ranks. It had suppressed them politically, it had shocked them morally by its orgies, it had insulted their Voltairianism by handing over the education of their children to the fréres Ignorantins,[F] it had revolted their national feeling as Frenchmen by precipitating them headlong into a war which left only one equivalent for the ruins it made – the disappearance of the empire. In fact, after the exodus from Paris of the high Bonapartist and capitalist bohème, the true middle class Party of Order came out in the shape of the “Union Republicaine,”[G] enrolling themselves under the colors of the Commune and defending it against the willful misconstructions of Thiers. Whether the gratitude of this great body of the middle class will stand the present severe trial, time must show.
. . .
[A] A top-down system of appointing officials in bourgeois systems, where high-up officials appoint many or all lower officials.
[B] The party of the influential bourgeoisie during the French revolution at the end of the 18th century. (The name is derived from the Department of Gironde.) It came out against the Jacobin government and the revolutionary masses which supported it, under the banner of defending the departments’ right to autonomy and federation.
[C] Satirical/humorous liberal weekly papers.
[D] A reference to the Paris Commune’s decree of April 16, 1871, providing for payment of all debts in installments over three years and abolition of interest on them.
[E] On Aug. 22, 1848, the Constituent Assembly rejected the bill on “amiable agreements” (“concordats á l’ amiable ”) aimed to introduce the deferred payment of debts. As a result of this measure, a considerable section of the petty-bourgeoisie were utterly ruined and found themselves completely dependent on the creditors of the richest bourgeoisie.
[F] (Ignorant Brothers) – a nickname for a religious order, founded in Rheims in 1680, whose members pledged themselves to educate children of the poor. The pupils received a predominantly religious education and barely any knowledge otherwise. (excerpt from “The Paris Commune”)
[G] This refers to the Alliance républicaine des Départements – a political association of petty-bourgeois representatives from the various departments of France, who lived in Paris; calling on the people to fight against the Versailles government and the monarchist National Assembly and to support the Commune throughout the country.
. . .
The conspiracy of the ruling class to break down the revolution by a civil war carried on under the patronage of the foreign invader – a conspiracy which we have traced from the very 4th of September down to the entrance of MacMahon’s praetorians through the gate of St. Cloud – culminated in the carnage of Paris. Bismarck gloats over the ruins of Paris, in which he saw perhaps the first installment of that general destruction of great cities he had prayed for when still a simple Rural in the Prussian Chambre introuvable of 1849.[H] He gloats over the cadavers of the Paris proletariat. For him, this is not only the extermination of revolution, but the extinction of France, now decapitated in reality, and by the French government itself. With the shallowness characteristic of all successful statesmen, he sees but the surface of this tremendous historic event. Whenever before has history exhibited the spectacle of a conqueror crowning his victory by turning into, not only the gendarme, but the hired bravo of the conquered government? There existed no war between Prussia and the Commune of Paris. On the contrary, the Commune had accepted the peace preliminaries, and Prussia had announced her neutrality. Prussia was, therefore, no belligerent. She acted the part of a bravo, a cowardly bravo, because incurring no danger; a hired bravo, because stipulating beforehand the payment of her blood-money of 500 millions on the fall of Paris. And thus, at last, came out the true character of the war, ordained by Providence, as a chastisement of godless and debauched France by pious and moral Germany! And this unparalleled breach of the law of nations, even as understood by the old-world lawyers, instead of arousing the “civilized” governments of Europe to declare the felonious Prussian government, the mere tool of the St. Petersburg Cabinet, an outlaw amongst nations, only incites them to consider whether the few victims who escape the double cordon around Paris are not to be given up to the hangman of Versailles!
That, after the most tremendous war of modern times, the conquering and the conquered hosts should fraternize for the common massacre of the proletariat – this unparalleled event does indicate, not, as Bismarck thinks, the final repression of a new society up heaving, but the crumbling into dust of bourgeois society. The highest heroic effort of which old society is still capable is national war; and this is now proved to be a mere governmental humbug, intended to defer the struggle of classes, and to be thrown aside as soon as that class struggle bursts out into civil war. Class rule is no longer able to disguise itself in a national uniform; the national governments are one as against the proletariat!
After Whit-Sunday, 1871, there can be neither peace nor truce possible between the working men of France and the appropriators of their produce. The iron hand of a mercenary soldiery may keep for a time both classes tied down in common oppression. But the battle must break out again and again in ever-growing dimensions, and there can be no doubt as to who will be the victor in the end – the appropriating few, or the immense working majority. And the French working class is only the advanced guard of the modern proletariat.
While the European governments thus testify, before Paris, to the international character of class rule, they cry down the International Working Men’s Association – the international counter-organization of labor against the cosmopolitan conspiracy of capital – as the head fountain of all these disasters. Thiers denounced it as the despot of labor, pretending to be its liberator. Picard ordered that all communications between the French Internationals and those abroad be cut off; Count Jaubert, Thiers’ mummified accomplice of 1835, declares it the great problem of all civilized governments to weed it out. The Rurals roar against it, and the whole European press joins the chorus. An honorable French writer [Robinet], completely foreign to our Association, speaks as follows:
“The members of the Central Committee of the National Guard, as well as the greater part of the members of the Commune, are the most active, intelligent, and energetic minds of the International Working Men’s Association... men who are thoroughly honest, sincere, intelligent, devoted, pure, and fanatical in the good sense of the word.”
The police-tinged bourgeois mind naturally figures to itself the International Working Men’s Association as acting in the manner of a secret conspiracy, its central body ordering, from time to time, explosions in different countries. Our Association is, in fact, nothing but the international bond between the most advanced working men in the various countries of the civilized world. Wherever, in whatever shape, and under whatever conditions the class struggle obtains any consistency, it is but natural that members of our Association, should stand in the foreground. The soil out of which it grows is modern society itself. It cannot be stamped out by any amount of carnage. To stamp it out, the governments would have to stamp out the despotism of capital over labor – the condition of their own parasitical existence.
Working men’s Paris, with its Commune, will be forever celebrated as the glorious harbinger of a new society. Its martyrs are enshrined in the great heart of the working class. Its exterminators history has already nailed to that eternal pillory from which all the prayers of their priest will not avail to redeem them. (excerpt from “The Fall of Paris”)
. . .
[H] This is what Marx called the Prussian Assembly by analogy with the French Chambre introuvable. The Assembly elected in January and February 1849 consisted of two chambers: the first was a privileged aristocratic “chamber of the gentry"; the composition of the second was determined by two-stage elections in which only the so-called “independent” Prussians took part. Elected to the second chamber, Bismarck became one of the leaders of the extremely reactionary Junker group.
. . .
Such is the Commune – the political form of the social emancipation, of the liberation of labour from the usurpations (slaveholding) of the monopolists of the means of labour, created by the labourers themselves or forming the gift of nature. As the State machinery and parliamentarism are not the real life of the ruling classes, but only the organized general organs of their dominion, the political guarantees and forms and expressions of the old order of things, so the Commune is not the social movement of the working class and therefore of a general regeneration of mankind, but the organized means of action. The Commune does not [do] away with the class struggles, through which the working classes strive to [read for] the abolition of all classes and, therefore, of all classes [class rule] (because it does not represent a peculiar interest, it represents the liberation of “labour,” that is the fundamental and natural condition of individual and social life which only by usurpation, fraud, and artificial contrivances can be shifted from the few upon the many), but it affords the rational medium in which that class struggle can run through its different phases in the most rational and humane way. It could start violent reactions and as violent revolutions. It begins the emancipation of labour – its great goal – by doing away with the unproductive and mischievous work of the State parasites, by cutting away the springs which sacrifice an immense portion of the national produce to the feeding of the State monster on the one side, by doing, on the other, the real work of administration, local and national, for working men’s wages. It begins therefore with an immense saving, with economical reform as well as political transformation.
The Communal organization once firmly established on a national scale, the catastrophes it might still have to undergo, would be sporadic slaveholders’ insurrections, which, while for a moment interrupting the work of peaceful progress, would only accelerate the movement, by putting the sword into the hands of the Social Revolution.
The working class know that they have to pass through different phases of class struggle. They know that the superseding of the economical conditions of the slavery of labour by the conditions of free and associated labour can only be the progressive work of time (that economical transformation), that they require not only a change of distribution, but a new organization of production, or rather the delivery (setting free) of the social forms of production in present organized labour (engendered by present industry), of [read from] the trammels of slavery, of [read from] their present class character, and their harmonious national and international co-ordination. They know that this work of regeneration will be again and again relented and impeded by the resistance of vested interests and class egotisms. They know that the present “spontaneous action of the natural laws of capital and landed property” can only be superseded by “the spontaneous action of the laws of the social economy of free and associated labour” by a long process of development of new conditions, as was the “spontaneous action of the economic laws of slavery” and the “spontaneous action of the economical laws of serfdom.” But they know at the same time that great strides may be [made] at once through the Communal form of political organization and that the time has come to begin that movement for themselves and mankind.(excerpt from “First Draft”)
The 19 + items below are articles and essays which reflect the multiple crises we are now facing and the efforts to resist the new ruling-class order now threatening to be installed, to our great detriment. What is the new litmus tests for “class collaboration” and how does history inform us about the consequences of class collaboration in the past?
Despite the efforts at censorship, this public conversation proceeds in search of proactive strategies to improve our collective lives. The half-baked ideas of our rulers are of little help to us for understanding where we must go in the midst of this general crisis. They wish to keep possession of the wealth and power they have appropriated, and they can be counted on to do what is necessary to accomplish that goal. Our goals are as yet unclear, and the discussion continues . . . .
honoraire de l'Université
Ancien Directeur de 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
The War on Truth, Dissent and Free Speech Syria, the OPCW Douma
Investigation and the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media
by Dr Piers Robinson
James Corbett Breaks Down the Great Reset with Pete Quinones
“Mark Crispin Miller on the Politics and Propaganda of 2020”
by S.T. Patrick
Please sign the petition in defense of Academic Freedom at NYU.
“Propaganda does not want any argument”
A conversation with NYU Professor
with Mark Crispin Miller
Julian Assange Update: American Intelligence Took Extreme Efforts to Target Assange
with Stefania Maurizi
The Assange Extradition Case is an Unprecedented Attack on Press Freedom, So Why’s the Media Largely Ignoring It?
by Patrick Cockburn
The Illegal Campaign to Eliminate Julian Assange
by Charles Glass
The Hell That WikiLeaks Exposed Is Now Being Imposed on Assange
by John Pilger
‘Operation Warp Speed’ is Using a CIA-Linked Contractor to Keep Covid-19 Vaccine Contracts Secret
$6 billion in Covid-19 vaccine contracts awarded by Operation Warp Speed have been doled out by a secretive government contractor with deep ties to the CIA and DHS, escaping regulatory scrutiny and beyond the reach of FOIA requests.
by Whitney Webb
‘Your Body Is The Battlefield’ In The War On COVID & NIH, DARPA Focus On Digital/Predictive Health
with Ryan Cristián
'Expose Warp Speed'
Chips Gels And Sensors On The Way & The Trump COVID Psyop
with Whitney Webb
Authoritarianism is the Most Deadly Virus
with Dr. Lee Merritt
German neurologist Margareta Griesz Brisson:
“MASKS ARE DANGEROUS!!!”
American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) Hosts Top Epidemiologists,
Authors of the ‘Great Barrington Declaration’
by AIER Staff
(October 5, 2020)
With Petition @ https://gbdeclaration.org/
Is The Guardian planning an attack on the Great Barrington scientists?
by Freddie Sayers
(October 9, 2020)
Last night The Guardian sent the following email to Professor Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, one of the three initial signatories of the ‘Great Barrington Declaration’ calling for a different approach to the Covid-19 pandemic.
Benny Wills Wins Hearts and Minds With Conscious Poetry
with James Corbett
Global Report: 2019-nCov
“Sixty pages of evidence-based science.”
The Worst ‘Miscalculation’ in Human History?
by James Corbett
Fauci: 'Hunker Down Again!' Top Scientists: 'No Way!'
with Ron Paul
Research ... Understand … Communicate.
Investigating The Alleged COVID-19 Pandemic
(with a 9-minute video introduction by Andrew Johnson)
Evidence of Fraud,
Acts of Domestic Terrorism
Breaches of Human Rights
Presented by Andrew Johnson (A concerned Citizen)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.2 Legal (Judicial Review) Challenges
2.2 Worthless Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) Testing
2.4 PHE Was Told by ACDP that COVID-19 Was Not “High Consequence”
2.5 Evidence that COVID-19 is not a “Dangerous Virus”
2.6 Recording and Reporting of COVID-19 Deaths
2.7 Reporting Of COVID Deaths in Other Countries
2.8 Causes of Death Misattributed to COVID-19
2.9 Conflicts of Interest – UK Government Minister and Advisers
3.1 Paper prepared for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE).
3.2 Media Campaigns of Public Intimidation?
3.3 Cressida Dick – Incitement to “shaming,” Discriminating against the Disabled.
3.4 Destruction of Buildings to Prevent “Second Virus Wave”?
4.1 Lockdown Restrictions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
4.2 Assumed Infectious Until “Proven Otherwise”
4.4 Vaccinations and Human Rights
5. Breaches of Health Care Related Laws
5.1 The Health and Social Care Act (2012)
5.3 Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Other Treatment for COVID-19 Victims
5.4 Empty Beds And Nightingale Hospitals Mothballed
6.1 Persons To Be Investigated and/or Charged Under Laws Referenced in this Document
6.3 You May Not Have Heard about the Protests…
From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2020
Subject: [MCM] Great interviews, on London Real and elsewhere, on COVID-19, vaccines and the Medical-Industrial Complex
From Guy Vantresca:
On the subject of vaccines, Covid1984, and health in general, Brian Rose at London Real has conducted a series of interviews with the greatest truth tellers, all within the last 4 months. Brian is a former hedge fund manager who walked away from that life, did Ayahuasca, and moved to London. He is a good interviewer because he lets the subject argue the points. He does not interrupt.
Listen to the latest Zach Bush, especially with Luke Storey, and the new Dr. David Martin, on London Real and on Sarah Westall.
Zach Bush, three great interviews, on London Real; on Highwire, with Del Bigtree; and a new one on Luke Storey
Listen to them in order:
Dr. David Martin: a real mind-blower. He has evidence of criminal conspiracy for spread of SARS I & SARS 2.
Just found another David Martin interview, with a few new bombshells, on Sarah Westall:
Dr. Andrew Wakefield
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny
Dr. Judy Mikovits
Economic Update: “Capitalism's Anxiety About the State”
with Richard Wolff
“Have We Been Deceived About What Happened on 9/11?”
with Christopher Bollyn
Examining 9/11 and America's “War on Terrorism”
by Michel Chossudovsky
From: Mark Crispin Miller
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2020
Subject: [MCM] First weaponized to sideline critics of the Warren Report, the "conspiracy theory" slander is now helping kill the world.
by Eric Goodman
The Church of the Holy State
with James Corbett
Video: The Corona Scandal: “Crimes against Humanity”? Corrupt Agenda, International Class Action Lawsuit
by Reiner Fuellmich
Global Research, October 05, 2020
Theme: Crimes against Humanity, Law and Justice
Millions of people around the World are victims of the fear campaign. Panic prevails. Day after day, the persistent impact of media disinformation concerning the Killer Virus is overwhelming.
Fear and panic, coupled with outright lies prevent people from understanding the logic of these far-reaching economic and social policies.
An international network of lawyers is intent upon launching a class action Lawsuit. Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, a prominent lawyer presents the details of this project. (video below)
After nine months of research and analysis, we can confirm that the data and concepts have been manipulated with a view to sustaining the fear campaign. The estimates based on the RT-PCR test are meaningless: The RT-PCR test does not identify/detect the Covid-19 virus. What it detects are fragments of several viruses.
Confirmed by prominent scientists as well as by official public health bodies Covid-19 is not a dangerous virus.
Amply documented, the COVID-19 Pandemic has been used as a pretext to trigger a Worldwide process of economic, social and political restructuring which has resulted in mass poverty and Worldwide unemployment. It is destroying people’s lives.
Government to pay £2m to settle coronavirus testing case
by Jonathan Josephs
Engineering Contagion: UPMC, Corona-Thrax And “The Darkest Winter”
by Whitney Webb
2020: Year of Deception,
the COVID Nightmare Sham
with “wandering citizen”
Americans know wealth inequality is a problem, but what does it look like?
from "CBS This Morning"
“True or False? Capitalism is in Terminal Decline”
with Richard Wolff
Combating The Virus: Mass Unemployment is Not the Solution
by Prof Michel Chossudovsky
On March 11, 2020 the WHO declared a Worldwide pandemic, requiring the lockdown and closure of the national economies of 193 member states of the United Nations, with devastating economic and social consequences: unemployment, poverty, despair.
These authoritarian measures imposed on millions of people were accepted outright. Public opinion was led to believe that the measures were a solution to combating the “Killer Virus”.
The Second Wave
And now, seven months later, a Covid-19 “Second Wave” has been announced. The proposed solution to combating the “killer virus” is to prevent and postpone the reopening of the national economy, coupled with the enforcement of social distancing, the wearing of the face mask, etc.
Needless to say: at the outset of this Second Wave, the global economy is already in a state of chaos. While the reports fail to reveal the depth and seriousness of this global crisis, the evidence (which is still tentative and incomplete) speaks for itself.
The “Real Economy” and “Big Money”
Why are these Covid lockdown policies spearheading bankruptcy, poverty and unemployment?
There is an important relationship between the “Real Economy” and “Big Money”, namely the financial establishment.
What is ongoing is a process of concentration of wealth, whereby the financial establishment, (i.e. the multibillion dollar creditors) are slated to appropriate the real assets of both bankrupt companies as well as State assets.
The “Real Economy” constitutes “the economic landscape” of real economic activity: productive assets, agriculture, industry, services, economic and social infrastructure, investment, employment, etc.
The real economy at the global and national levels is being targeted by the lockdown and closure of economic activity. The Global Money financial institutions are the “creditors” of the real economy.
The closure of the global economy has triggered a process of global indebtedness. Unprecedented in World history, a multi-trillion bonanza of dollar denominated debts is hitting simultaneously the national economies of 193 countries.
Under the so-called “New Normal” Great Global Reset put forth by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the creditors (including billionaires) will eventually buy out important sectors of the real economy as well as take over bankrupt entities. The creditors will also seek to acquire ownership and/or control of “public wealth” including the social and economic assets of the State through a massive indebtedness project.
A system of “Global Governance” controlled by powerful financial interests including corporate foundations and Washington think tanks oversees decision-making at both the national and global levels. The late David Rockefeller defined global governance as “Supranational Sovereignty of an intellectual elite and bankers”.
From: Mark Crispin
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2020
Subject: [MCM] Two OSHA-certified experts on PPE---specialists who train doctors in the proper use of masks---explain why masking does no good, but does real harm
Here Tammy Clark and Kristen Meghan---two long-experienced, OSHA-certified PPE experts, who know far more about masks and ventilators than doctors, who rely on them to be outfitted properly---explain in depth why mask mandates are insane: (1) because masks and ventilators offer NO protection against respiratory viruses, and (2) because those face coverings are downright dangerous for many reasons.
These two Michiganders first made a splash online in July, with a video in which they explained the perverseness of Gov. Whitmer's topdown one-size-fits-all mask mandate. (I included a few paragraphs on that video in "Masking Ourselves to Death.") And now Del Bigtree has just had them on "The Highwire," to tell their necessary truth before a larger audience.
Please watch this video, and send it far and wide, before too many more people---especially children---are too stupefied and/or sickened by those needless muzzles to grasp this urgent information.
“MASK WHISTLEBLOWERS TELL ALL”
David Harvey’s new thesis is that ‘capitalism is too big to fail.’
by Steve Ellner
Caveats for Marxists
David Harvey against Revolution: the Bankruptcy of Academic “Marxism”
by Jorge Martin
Marx misread capitalism but we must not fall into the same trap
James Corbett Breaks Down the Great Reset
with James Corbett
“Evolution – What Darwin Never Knew”
NOVA Full Documentary
Earth teems with a staggering variety of animals, including 9,000 kinds of birds, 28,000 types of fish, and more than 350,000 species of beetles. What explains this explosion of living creatures—1.4 million different species discovered so far, with perhaps another 50 million to go? The source of life's endless forms was a profound mystery until Charles Darwin brought forth his revolutionary idea of natural selection. But Darwin's radical insights raised as many questions as they answered. What actually drives evolution and turns one species into another? To what degree do different animals rely on the same genetic toolkit? And how did we evolve?
"What Darwin Never Knew" offers answers to riddles that Darwin couldn't explain. Breakthroughs in a brand-new science—nicknamed "evo devo"—are linking the enigmas of evolution to another of nature's great mysteries, the development of the embryo. NOVA takes viewers on a journey from the Galapagos Islands to the Arctic, and from the explosion of animal forms half a billion years ago to the research labs of today. Scientists are finally beginning to crack nature's biggest secrets at the genetic level. The results are confirming the brilliance of Darwin's insights while revealing clues to life's breathtaking diversity in ways the great naturalist could scarcely have imagined.
The Rockefeller Foundation’s Molecular Vision Of Life
by Lily E. Kay
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2020 :45 PM
Subject: [Logement-infos] COMMUNIQUÉ DAL - Contre les amendements anti squat!
_Paris le 27 septembre 2020_
Retrait des amendements contre les occupants sans titre :
Après l'adoption d'un amendement anti squat par la commission des lois
de l'Assemblée (article 30ter de la loi ASAP), qui étend
démesurément l'expulsion extrajudiciaire à tous les occupants sans
titre, y compris aux sous locataires ou victimes de marchands de
sommeil, en introduisant la notion floue de "résidences
occasionnelles"  qui n'a pas de définition juridique, une nuée
d'amendements répressifs a été présentée pour les débats en
séance qui devraient avoir lieu mercredi ou jeudi prochain.
Nous en avons comptés plus d'une cinquantaine ! En effet, la droite,
l'extrême-droite et même quelques députés de LREM, se bousculent
pour faire la peau aux squatters. C'est la curée, après 2 ou 3 faits
divers que les préfets ont tardé à régler …
Par contre, les amendements portés par les formations de gauche
demandent le retrait de la notion dangereuse de « résidence
occasionnelle », et un amendement du rapporteur modère la version
adoptée en commission sans pour autant assurer l'absence de dérapage.
Si la loi étend l'expulsion sans jugement à d'autres lieux que « le
domicile d'autrui » , elle s'appliquera rétroactivement et sans délai
aux nouveaux lieux visés, y compris aux locaux occupés de longue date
car ces amendements visent l'occupation mais aussi le maintien.
La mobilisation est nécessaire. Dès lundi matin une initiative est
prévue à Bordeaux suite à un premier dérapage : des familles sans
logis, installées depuis le 19 septembre dans un EHPAD désaffecté,
ont été expulsées sans jugement le 25 septembre par la police munie
Mardi soir nous serons devant l'Assemblée, et nous serons vigilants
tout au long des débats ...
La frénésie anti squat :
Depuis fin août, une frénésie anti squat s'est emparée de médias
régionaux et nationaux, en général populiste et de droite, s'appuyant
sur quelques cas montés en épingle, qui auraient pu être résolus
rapidement par l'application de l'article 38 de la loi DALO. Les
préfets ont trainés les pieds …
Cette campagne, donnant lieu à des propos approximatifs, voire
mensongers, est soutenue activement par l'UNPI représentant les
propriétaires bailleurs privés et par le think-thank conservateur
IFRAP, qui depuis des années s'évertue à chaque occasion de soumettre
des amendements contre les squatters. Cette fois, elle a été relayée
comme jamais, peut être avec l'aide d'une société de communication.
En réalité, les occupations de résidences principales et secondaires
sont rares. Ces médias qui sont à l'affût de ces affaires en relaient
moins d'une dizaine par an ! On aimerait qu'ils réagissent avec autant
de détermination à la mort d'un sans abris, ou à l'expulsion illicite
d'un locataire par son bailleur, qui en général laisse les biens du
locataire sur le trottoir !
Le squat est une alternative à la rue légitime, alors que 3,1 millions
de logements sont vacants et que la loi de réquisition reste
Les jugements d'expulsion d'occupants sans titre (donc pas uniquement
les squatters) étaient au nombre de 1858 en 2018, à peine 1,5 % des
jugements d'expulsion ! Au regard des 3,1 millions de logements vacants
recensés par l'INSEE en 2019, des 250 000 sans-abris et des 2 millions
de demandeurs HLM que compte notre pays, c'est une goutte d'eau…
Par contre, l'occupations d'immeubles et locaux vacants appartenant à
de grands propriétaire publics ou privés composent l'essentiel des
squats en France. Ils abritent des milliers de sans-abris, soutenus le
plus souvent par des collectifs associatifs dans de nombreuses villes en
France, palliant tant bien que mal à la violation du droit
inconditionnel à un hébergement pour toute personne sans-abri en
situation de détresse. (Par exemple à Lyon, Grenoble, Saint-Etienne,
Clermont Ferrand, Nantes, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Montpellier, Nîmes,
Les squats peuvent aussi donner lieu à des combats exemplaires, comme
à Notre-Dame-des-Landes, à Dijon (Tanneries et Lentillère), à Paris
(rue du Croissant, rue de la banque …) ou à Grenoble, donnant lieu à
des projets alternatifs, ou visant la réalisation de logements sociaux
après relogement des habitants. Dans d'autres cas, les occupations
permettent d'animer une vie de quartier déficiente ou de porter des
Plutôt que de renforcer la voie répressive et extra-judiciaire contre
ceux et celles qui luttent notamment pour ne pas rester dans la rue, il
faut appliquer la loi de réquisition, renforcer la taxe sur les
logements vacants, soutenir les projets alternatifs, réaliser
massivement de vrais logements sociaux...
- Retrait des amendements "anti squat"
- Application de la loi de réquisition
- Un logement décent et stable pour tous et toutes !
Un toit c'est droit !
Amendement 30 ter de la loi ASAP adopté par la commission des lois le
16 septembre, modifiant l'article 38 ter de la loi du 5 mars 2007
(modifications en rouge) :
" En cas d'introduction et de maintien dans le domicile d'autrui, «y
compris lorsqu'il s'agit d'une résidence secondaire ou occasionnelle »
à l'aide de manoeuvres, menaces, voies de fait ou de contrainte, le
propriétaire ou le locataire du logement occupé peut demander au
préfet de mettre en demeure l'occupant de quitter les lieux, après
avoir déposé plainte, fait la preuve que le logement constitue son
domicile et fait constater l'occupation illicite par un officier de
La décision de mise en demeure est prise par le préfet dans un délai
de 48h à compter de la réception de la demande. En cas de refus, les
motifs de la décision sont communiqués sans délai au demandeur.
La mise en demeure est assortie d'un délai d'exécution qui ne peut
être inférieur à vingt-quatre heures. Elle est notifiée aux
occupants et publiée sous forme d'affichage en mairie et sur les lieux.
Le cas échéant, elle est notifiée au propriétaire ou au locataire.
Lorsque la mise en demeure de quitter les lieux n'a pas été suivie
d'effet dans le délai fixé, le préfet doit procéder « sans délai
» à l'évacuation forcée du logement, sauf opposition du
propriétaire ou du locataire dans le délai fixé pour l'exécution de
la mise en demeure."
(L'examen de la soixantaine d'amendements sur l'article 30 ter devrait
avoir lieu mercredi ou jeudi.)
Liste de diffusion d'informations autour de la lutte pour l'hébergement et le logement dans l'agglomération grenobloise.
Pour s'inscrire/se désinscrire/modifier son inscription :
Russia's response to expansion of NATO to its doorstep
by MK Bhadrakumar
The following is the sixth installment of an extended report on one of the most important geopolitical developments of the 21st century: the increasingly comprehensive alliance between China and Russia and its implications for Eurasian and regional powers across the planet. To follow the series, click here.
All the developments described in previous articles in this series have added to the tensions over the eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization toward Russia’s borders and the present-day geopolitical contestation unfolding between the US, the European Union and NATO on one side and Russia on the other over the post-Soviet republics along Russia’s western borders and the Black Sea and the Caucasus.
Russia has been seeking a modus vivendi between the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union and at one point advanced the concept of a united Europe from the Atlantic to the Pacific, but German Chancellor Angela Merkel is not interested.
Meanwhile, the incipient signs of German militarism have appeared. In a stunning remark in May 2017, while on the election campaign trail, Merkel said that Europe could no longer “completely depend” on the US and UK after the election of President Donald Trump and Brexit.
Filling the Void - China in Africa
with Christina Seyfried, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at Yale
US Capitalism's Fake News on Iran and China
with Richard Wolff
“ Drinking, Debating, and Money Laundering”
with Matt Taibbi
Useful Idiots Podcast With Actor Michael K. Williams
by Reed Dunlea & Daniel Halperin
“Bipartisan” Washington Insiders Reveal Their Plan for Chaos if Trump Wins the Election
by Whitney Webb
“Hate Inc., Why Today's Media Makes Us Despise One Another”
with Matt Taibbi
“I Am A Conspiracy Theorist”
with James Corbett
As Boris Johnson announces Britain’s ‘great reset’, were the Covid ‘conspiracy theorists’ right all along?
by Neil Clark
The 50 Richest Americans Are Worth as Much as the Poorest 165 Million
by Ben Steverman and Alexandre Tanzi
THIS HAS NEVER BEEN ATTEMPTED BEFORE
by Peter Hitchens
"GET READY! Patriot Puts ENTIRE County Board on NOTICE After Lockdown Devastates Families"
The Black Socialist
"Beautiful Mosaic of Kamala Harris made out of all the Black men she locked up and kept in prison past their release date for cheap prison labor"
Black Agend Report