#YES we have legitimate criticisms of our politicians and systems

[lurkiestvoid]

You're being targeted by disinformation networks that are vastly more effective than you realize. And they're making you more hateful and depressed.

(This essay was originally by u/walkandtalkk and posted to r/GenZ on Reddit two months ago, and I've crossposted here on Tumblr for convenience because it's relevant and well-written.)

TL;DR: You know that Russia and other governments try to manipulate people online. But you almost certainly don't how just how effectively orchestrated influence networks are using social media platforms to make you -- individually-- angry, depressed, and hateful toward each other. Those networks' goal is simple: to cause Americans and other Westerners -- especially young ones -- to give up on social cohesion and to give up on learning the truth, so that Western countries lack the will to stand up to authoritarians and extremists.

And you probably don't realize how well it's working on you.

This is a long post, but I wrote it because this problem is real, and it's much scarier than you think.

How Russian networks fuel racial and gender wars to make Americans fight one another

In September 2018, a video went viral after being posted by In the Now, a social media news channel. It featured a feminist activist pouring bleach on a male subway passenger for manspreading. It got instant attention, with millions of views and wide social media outrage. Reddit users wrote that it had turned them against feminism.

There was one problem: The video was staged. And In the Now, which publicized it, is a subsidiary of RT, formerly Russia Today, the Kremlin TV channel aimed at foreign, English-speaking audiences.

As an MIT study found in 2019, Russia's online influence networks reached 140 million Americans every month -- the majority of U.S. social media users.

Russia began using troll farms a decade ago to incite gender and racial divisions in the United States

In 2013, Yevgeny Prigozhin, a confidante of Vladimir Putin, founded the Internet Research Agency (the IRA) in St. Petersburg. It was the Russian government's first coordinated facility to disrupt U.S. society and politics through social media.

Here's what Prigozhin had to say about the IRA's efforts to disrupt the 2022 election:

"Gentlemen, we interfered, we interfere and we will interfere. Carefully, precisely, surgically and in our own way, as we know how. During our pinpoint operations, we will remove both kidneys and the liver at once."

In 2014, the IRA and other Russian networks began establishing fake U.S. activist groups on social media. By 2015, hundreds of English-speaking young Russians worked at the IRA. Their assignment was to use those false social-media accounts, especially on Facebook and Twitter -- but also on Reddit, Tumblr, 9gag, and other platforms -- to aggressively spread conspiracy theories and mocking, ad hominem arguments that incite American users.

In 2017, U.S. intelligence found that Blacktivist, a Facebook and Twitter group with more followers than the official Black Lives Matter movement, was operated by Russia. Blacktivist regularly attacked America as racist and urged black users to rejected major candidates. On November 2, 2016, just before the 2016 election, Blacktivist's Twitter urged Black Americans: "Choose peace and vote for Jill Stein. Trust me, it's not a wasted vote."

Russia plays both sides -- on gender, race, and religion

The brilliance of the Russian influence campaign is that it convinces Americans to attack each other, worsening both misandry and misogyny, mutual racial hatred, and extreme antisemitism and Islamophobia. In short, it's not just an effort to boost the right wing; it's an effort to radicalize everybody.

Russia uses its trolling networks to aggressively attack men. According to MIT, in 2019, the most popular Black-oriented Facebook page was the charmingly named "My Baby Daddy Aint Shit." It regularly posts memes attacking Black men and government welfare workers. It serves two purposes: Make poor black women hate men, and goad black men into flame wars.

MIT found that My Baby Daddy is run by a large troll network in Eastern Europe likely financed by Russia.

But Russian influence networks are also also aggressively misogynistic and aggressively anti-LGBT.

On January 23, 2017, just after the first Women's March, the New York Times found that the Internet Research Agency began a coordinated attack on the movement. Per the Times:

More than 4,000 miles away, organizations linked to the Russian government had assigned teams to the Women’s March. At desks in bland offices in St. Petersburg, using models derived from advertising and public relations, copywriters were testing out social media messages critical of the Women’s March movement, adopting the personas of fictional Americans.

They posted as Black women critical of white feminism, conservative women who felt excluded, and men who mocked participants as hairy-legged whiners.

But the Russian PR teams realized that one attack worked better than the rest: They accused its co-founder, Arab American Linda Sarsour, of being an antisemite. Over the next 18 months, at least 152 Russian accounts regularly attacked Sarsour. That may not seem like many accounts, but it worked: They drove the Women's March movement into disarray and eventually crippled the organization.

Russia doesn't need a million accounts, or even that many likes or upvotes. It just needs to get enough attention that actual Western users begin amplifying its content.

A former federal prosecutor who investigated the Russian disinformation effort summarized it like this:

It wasn’t exclusively about Trump and Clinton anymore. It was deeper and more sinister and more diffuse in its focus on exploiting divisions within society on any number of different levels.

As the New York Times reported in 2022,

There was a routine: Arriving for a shift, [Russian disinformation] workers would scan news outlets on the ideological fringes, far left and far right, mining for extreme content that they could publish and amplify on the platforms, feeding extreme views into mainstream conversations.

China is joining in with AI

[A couple months ago], the New York Times reported on a new disinformation campaign. "Spamouflage" is an effort by China to divide Americans by combining AI with real images of the United States to exacerbate political and social tensions in the U.S. The goal appears to be to cause Americans to lose hope, by promoting exaggerated stories with fabricated photos about homeless violence and the risk of civil war.

As Ladislav Bittman, a former Czechoslovakian secret police operative, explained about Soviet disinformation, the strategy is not to invent something totally fake. Rather, it is to act like an evil doctor who expertly diagnoses the patient’s vulnerabilities and exploits them, “prolongs his illness and speeds him to an early grave instead of curing him.”

The influence networks are vastly more effective than platforms admit

Russia now runs its most sophisticated online influence efforts through a network called Fabrika. Fabrika's operators have bragged that social media platforms catch only 1% of their fake accounts across YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, and Telegram, and other platforms.

But how effective are these efforts? By 2020, Facebook's most popular pages for Christian and Black American content were run by Eastern European troll farms tied to the Kremlin. And Russia doesn't just target angry Boomers on Facebook. Russian trolls are enormously active on Twitter. And, even, on Reddit.

It's not just false facts

The term "disinformation" undersells the problem. Because much of Russia's social media activity is not trying to spread fake news. Instead, the goal is to divide and conquer by making Western audiences depressed and extreme.

Sometimes, through brigading and trolling. Other times, by posting hyper-negative or extremist posts or opinions about the U.S. the West over and over, until readers assume that's how most people feel. And sometimes, by using trolls to disrupt threads that advance Western unity.

As the RAND think tank explained, the Russian strategy is volume and repetition, from numerous accounts, to overwhelm real social media users and create the appearance that everyone disagrees with, or even hates, them. And it's not just low-quality bots. Per RAND,

Russian propaganda is produced in incredibly large volumes and is broadcast or otherwise distributed via a large number of channels. ... According to a former paid Russian Internet troll, the trolls are on duty 24 hours a day, in 12-hour shifts, and each has a daily quota of 135 posted comments of at least 200 characters.

What this means for you

You are being targeted by a sophisticated PR campaign meant to make you more resentful, bitter, and depressed. It's not just disinformation; it's also real-life human writers and advanced bot networks working hard to shift the conversation to the most negative and divisive topics and opinions.

It's why some topics seem to go from non-issues to constant controversy and discussion, with no clear reason, across social media platforms. And a lot of those trolls are actual, "professional" writers whose job is to sound real.

So what can you do? To quote WarGames: The only winning move is not to play. The reality is that you cannot distinguish disinformation accounts from real social media users. Unless you know whom you're talking to, there is a genuine chance that the post, tweet, or comment you are reading is an attempt to manipulate you -- politically or emotionally.

Here are some thoughts:

Don't accept facts from social media accounts you don't know. Russian, Chinese, and other manipulation efforts are not uniform. Some will make deranged claims, but others will tell half-truths. Or they'll spin facts about a complicated subject, be it the war in Ukraine or loneliness in young men, to give you a warped view of reality and spread division in the West.

Resist groupthink. A key element of manipulate networks is volume. People are naturally inclined to believe statements that have broad support. When a post gets 5,000 upvotes, it's easy to think the crowd is right. But "the crowd" could be fake accounts, and even if they're not, the brilliance of government manipulation campaigns is that they say things people are already predisposed to think. They'll tell conservative audiences something misleading about a Democrat, or make up a lie about Republicans that catches fire on a liberal server or subreddit.

Don't let social media warp your view of society. This is harder than it seems, but you need to accept that the facts -- and the opinions -- you see across social media are not reliable. If you want the news, do what everyone online says not to: look at serious, mainstream media. It is not always right. Sometimes, it screws up. But social media narratives are heavily manipulated by networks whose job is to ensure you are deceived, angry, and divided.

Edited for typos and clarity. (Tumblr-edited for formatting and to note a sourced article is now older than mentioned in the original post. -LV)

P.S. Apparently, this post was removed several hours ago due to a flood of reports. Thank you to the r/GenZ moderators for re-approving it.

Second edit:

This post is not meant to suggest that r/GenZ is uniquely or especially vulnerable, or to suggest that a lot of challenges people discuss here are not real. It's entirely the opposite: Growing loneliness, political polarization, and increasing social division along gender lines is real. The problem is that disinformation and influence networks expertly, and effectively, hijack those conversations and use those real, serious issues to poison the conversation. This post is not about left or right: Everyone is targeted.

(Further Tumblr notes: since this was posted, there have been several more articles detailing recent discoveries of active disinformation/influence and hacking campaigns by Russia and their allies against several countries and their respective elections, and barely touches on the numerous Tumblr blogs discovered to be troll farms/bad faith actors from pre-2016 through today. This is an ongoing and very real problem, and it's nowhere near over.

A quote from NPR article linked above from 2018 that you might find familiar today: "[A] particular hype and hatred for Trump is misleading the people and forcing Blacks to vote Killary. We cannot resort to the lesser of two devils. Then we'd surely be better off without voting AT ALL," a post from the account said.")

[brucesterling]

Ransomware guys got their servers hacked by the feds

*They’re super upset about it.

vx-underground.org

CONTI Team (Conti ransomware group) statement on REvil:

Title: Announcement. ReviLives.

Subject: Own opinion.

As a team, we always look at the work of our colleagues in the art of pen-testing, corporate data security, information systems, and network security. We rejoice at their successes and support them in their hardships.

Therefore, we would like to comment on yesterday's important announcement by the US law enforcement about the attack on the REvil group.

We want to remark the following:

First, an attack against some servers, which the US security attributes to REvil, is another reminder of what we all know: the unilateral, extraterritorial, and bandit-mugging behavior of the United States in world affairs.

However, the fact that it became a norm does not presume that it should be treated like one. Unlike our dearest journalist friends from the Twitter brothel, who will sell their own mother for a bone from bankers or politicians, we have the guts to name things as they are. We have a conscience, as well as anonymity, while our skills allow us to say something that many "allied" governments are afraid of saying:

With all the endless talks in your media about "ransomware-is-bad," we would like to point out the biggest ransomware group of all time: your Federal Government. There is no glory in this REvil attack. First, because REvil has been dead in any case, but secondly, because the United States government acted as a simple street mugger while kicking a dead body.

Let's break it down point by point. There was an extraterritorial attack against some infrastructure in some countries.

1. Is there a law, even an American one, even a local one in any county of any of the 50 states, that legitimize such indiscriminate offensive action? Is server hacking suddenly legal in the United States or in any of the US jurisdictions? If yes, please provide us with a link.

2. Suppose there is such an outrageous law that allows you to hack servers in a foreign country. How legal is this from the point of view of the country whose servers were attacked? Infrastructure is not flying there in space or floating in neutral waters. It is a part of someone's sovereignty.

3. The statement mentions a multinational operation but does not name specific countries that participated in the cyber strike. We seem to know why; see next point.

4. Most countries, the US included, perceive critical cyber strikes against their territory as a casus belli. You think anybody will be fine if Taliban conducts a misfile strike against a place in Texas to "disrupt an operation" of what Afghanistan considered a "criminal" group?

5. When the special forces arrive at a hostage scene, they at least make sure that there are hostages there (at least, this is how it used to be). How did you know who you were attacking? It could just be a reverse proxy on an unsuspecting host. How did you know who ELSE these servers are serving? How was the safety of other people's businesses, possibly people's lives, ensured?

Just to be clear: these are all rhetorical questions. Of course.

What happened with this attack is way more than REvil or information security. This attack is just an another drop in the ocean of blood, which started because of NSA, CIA, FBI, and another two hundred three-letter security institutions (because, you know, true democracy and liberty requires millions of people in uniform) never had to answer these questions.

WMD in Iraq, which was "certainly there."

Drone strikes on weddings because "these were terrorists."

Airstrikes on hospitals and Red Cross convoys because "we thought these are hostile."

Military raids within the foreign borders ended up with massacring allied soldiers.

The list is endless because those who are now enjoying the media fame from the REvil attack are vampires drunken and intoxicated by impunity and blood.

And this is not the story about REvil, Afghanistan, or any other subject in the world because impunity does not know borders.

No wonder, each day, we read in the news that the American police once again shot some unarmed African American, or a housewife, or a disabled person, or somebody brave enough to dared to protect their home and their family. This is your state, and it will treat you the way it drones unfortunate child-shepherd in the sands of the Maghreb or Arabia to ensure "the national security of America," so far from its shores.

And we will be reminding you of this constantly. And yes, despites the popular opinion of the social media hobos, we can and WILL talk ethically as any other people. (Somebody, please put an Obama meme here).

We wish the people of America to resume control over your country as soon as possible and expel these fat, degraded bankers and become again the great FREE nation that we remember and love. We wish our retired colleagues from REvil have a lot of fun with their honestly earned money.

Sincerely yours,

Conti team

[americanredragger]

A Letter to My Mother (That I am too scared to send)

Okay. We’re having this talk now. I have been putting it off because there’s never been a way for me to keep my cool long enough to say it straight. I’ve been nice, I’ve been polite. I’ve walked away from conversations rather than address this directly because I don’t want to lose my mom.

Yesterday was unlike anything in American history. There is no both-sides-ism to be taken here. There is no even vaguely similar violence unleashed by the Left. This isn’t to say that NO violence has ever been unleashed by the left, it can and does happen. But nothing like this. This is unprecedented in both it's scope and audacity.

Unless you can point to an instance in which a Democrat president (or Senator, or Governor) whipped up a riot and unleashed those rioters on the Seat of Government of the United States of America, causing it to be breached and overrun by a hostile force for the first time in 207 years, the things don’t equate at all.

Unless you can point to a riot held by alt-right wingers in which the police cracked down on them HARD to the level of being condemned by the International Criminal Court as bordering on war crimes, the things don’t equate at all.

This was a direct assault on our government by a crowd whipped up by a sitting president. This has never happened before.

The Capitol Police removed the barricades and guided the insurrectionists in.

They chatted and took selfies with them. Exchanged fist bumps with them.

The seditionists were allowed to leave with few arrests, just… gently guided out once the barbarian hordes had their fun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaPTjQZBLhQ

And yes, Trump (eventually) told them to go home, but refused to condemn what they'd done and finished his speech with "We love you. You're very special." and continued to refer to his political opponents as "evil".

This is quite literally unprecedented in American history. As in, nothing comes close. That's what "unprecedented" means.

If this had been BLM, the response would have been entirely different. DC would be on lockdown. The police would be bringing WAR to the streets. There would be helicopters, APCs, and beat cops dressed like the US Army rolling into Baghdad in 2003. The DC area hospitals would be overwhelmed with rioters suffering from horrific head and spine injuries from trigger-happy use of rubber bullets and night-sticks. Hell, Trump tear-gassed ACTUAL peaceful protesters last summer just so he could stage an awkward photo op in front of a church, which even the Clergy called him out on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzBhYhu7NYI

Don't you DARE equate the two.

I'm tired of the whataboutisms. I'm tired of ignoring the evidence right in front of you. Donald Trump is the single most corrupt, evil man America has ever elected to the presidency. He has worked hard to transform the Republican party into something that actual Holocaust survivors and experts have called "Neofascist" and even less flattering terms.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/5/17940610/trump-hitler-history-historian

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/07/16/its-not-wrong-to-compare-trumps-america-to-the-holocaust-heres-why/

https://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/2020/10/25/holocaust-survivor-fears-rising-tide-ugliness-blames-trump-opinion/3740781001/

https://forward.com/scribe/455507/100-year-old-holocaust-survivor-compares-trump-to-hitler/

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article223718330.html

Historians and victims of fascism the world over point to what Trump and his transformed Republican party have been doing as president when asked how the Weimar Republic fell and the Nazi regime rose.

The overwhelming amount of terrorist attacks in the last five years have been Trump supporters (Well over half stemming from that singular cause, with the rest divvied among a MASSIVE swathe of motives), but none more so overwhelmingly so than yesterday's.

There is no left wing equivalent for this in America until you go all the way back to the Weather Underground bombings, and even they were not goaded on by the incumbent politicians of a party.

Your party has been STOLEN from you. The Party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan is no more. And now it’s stealing you from your children as we have watched you and dad drift further and further into the Hannity-Limbaugh-Carlson echo chamber.

88 years ago next month, right wing extremists set fire to the Reichstag in the Weimar Republic. Over the next few days, they seeded reports that it was actually the communists, maybe socialists, no, it was definitely anarchists… or was it trade unionists? Either way, it HAD to have been The Left who burned down the Reichstag.

This was used to expand and hold onto the power of the Chancellor, a man who need not be named. The next few years proved to be sorrowful for everyone.

That same blame-shifting is already happening again, but it's not in some far away country, it's happening here, where we all thought it couldn't.

This sort of event is unprecedented in the United States, or it was until yesterday. It is not so unprecedented elsewhere.

The only difference is that this attempt failed.

The attempt was made because Trump’s own administration found that this was the most secure election in American history, and Trump’s lawsuits to the contrary were laughed out of court by Trump-appointed judges, including his Supreme Court justices, and his exceedingly incompetent and well-documented attempts to get state officials to overturn a legitimate election all failed.

I still believe you and dad are good, honest people. Patriots who want America to do well in the world.

You can not-like Nancy Pelosi, or Obama, or Biden, or Hilary Clinton. That’s your prerogative, and we’ll agree on plenty in that regard. You’re well within your rights to believe that my preferred economics don’t work. We’ll disagree heartily, but that’s normal for families, especially between parents and their kids.

But your party has been hijacked by neofascists, malignant narcissists, and white supremacists.

I am on my knees BEGGING you to see what so many experts and victims have been warning you about for years.

The Left did not do this.

Trump did.

You have been led astray by an vain, selfish, greedy demagogue, a well documented honorless grifter who embodies everything Christ opposed, and uses people until they have nothing more to give him and discards them. He has cloaked this latest grift in the American flag and set a cross upon it, the only way Fascism ever COULD take root in America, as we saw with Joe McCarthy in the Second Red Scare.

It’s changing you. You can’t see it because it’s happening to you, but those around you can, and it’s scaring us.

Please, finally, truly see this. I want my parents back. You’re going down a path I can’t follow and it’s breaking my heart.

In 2016, I broke from the Republican Party because I saw calamity coming in the nomination of Donald Trump. Only 4 years later, and history has soberingly showed me that I was more right than I could have ever guessed, and my world view has never been the same since. I have looked back at the political opinions I wrote and posted then, and they were so selfish and hateful that it was physically painful for me to put myself through that review. I was a puppet. I couldn’t have seen it at the time because I was at the center of it, and I still live in dread of the monster I would have become if I’d kept to that path. I see that same kind of speech coming from you now - the jingoism, the recycled talking points, the Orwellian denials, and the near-unquestioning loyalty to the stars of the Republican Party and their mouthpieces at Fox, OAN, Newsmax, and the AM Radio circuit. I see the most selfish parts of who I used to be, and I know that deep down, you are not that person because I still see you constantly striving to be a good mother, a good Christian, and a model human being.

I’m imploring you to finally look at the evidence, the boundless clear and present evidence, and see what men like Gingrich, McConnell, and Trump have turned your party into. What they are turning you into, the same as they tried with me.

I know you wouldn’t be happy as a Democrat - I myself am only begrudgingly a Democrat because the system doesn’t allow for a viable alternative (and that’s a whole different issue that deserves it’s own library of articles). I’m not trying to convert you. I just need to know that you can look at the evidence with your own eyes like I did and see that you’ve been played for a sucker by men who cry wolf and distract you by having you chase shadows while they line their pockets with money and power. Please stop listening to these monsters, stop swallowing their poison. I know how easy it is to be in that world because I myself have lived in it for most of my life. I fully understand the appeal: there are easy answers for everything, you always know who the enemy is and who your supposed allies and benefactors are. But I also left that behind, and yes, it hurts. It hurts a lot, and frequently. But despite the pain, I know I am better off for having done it.

Yes, I have to question the people who claim to represent me more. I have to question EVERYTHING more because I now know that nothing is as clear cut as I thought it was - once removed from Plato’s Cave, I no longer had the luxury of a simple world. And yet I am still happier because I am so much more my own person now. Yes I falter, and worse still, some days I fall back into the old ways of thinking, but now I recognize that for what it is and it is easier to deal with.

You’ll always be a Conservative, Mom, but I see you on the path that I was on, a path that nearly robbed me of my critical thinking and objectivity, and one which would have weaponized my sense of patriotism to benefit people who are not me. You have kept that course far longer than I. Please put aside the whataboutisms, the both-sides-isms, and finally see the evil, ravenous monster that killed your party from the inside and now wears its skin to deceive you into feeding it further.

I don’t ask that you agree with my politics or economics. I AM begging you though to split from this political machine which is changing you into something I no longer recognize. I want the parents I used to have, the ones who could look at things objectively and form their own opinions instead of repeating talk show buzz lines.

Please, recognize the shadows on the wall of the cave that wicked men are showing you are NOT reality. Please, join me in the truth of the world outside.

[theleftgazette]

Erin O’Toole contra Indigenous Peoples

Although Conservative Party leader Erin O’Toole had come under fire a month ago for suggesting that residential schools were initially “just about education,” his entire leadership of the party thus far has been thoroughly steeped in racism against indigenous peoples. O’Toole has made it explicitly known that he is more concerned with representing the interests of mega-corporations which profit off of the destruction of our environment—that is, who profit off of the destruction of colonized territories—than he is with representing indigenous interests in the slightest. Whereas a vast proportion of federal politicians at least have the courtesy to pretend like they care about indigenous issues whilst acting to make these issues worse, O’Toole has abandoned pretense entirely.

In a report from 350.org titled Human Rights Abuses by Fossil Fuel Companies, they highlight a review from 2006 which indicated that the fossil fuel industry accounted for two-thirds of corporate human rights abuses, and the extraction industry accounted for “the most allegations of the worst abuses, up to and including complicity in crimes against humanity.”

Some of their human rights violations include extrajudicial killings, and—what has become a Canadian pastime through our cooperation with the fossil fuel industry—the encroachment upon the rights of indigenous peoples. Particularly within the developing world, political corruption is just a normal part of how the fossil fuel industry operates. Within Nigeria, for instance, Shell and Eni were revealed to have bribed the president and politicians with hundreds of millions of dollars—money which we can be sure O’Toole would love to have the chance to accept himself.

As far as we are aware, however, fossil fuel companies aren’t offering O’Toole hundreds of millions of dollars, but his approval of the human rights violations which are part-and-parcel of their industry has no such price tag. He, like an over-exaggerated villain from a comic book, appears just to be corrupt for the sake of being corrupt.

How exactly is he corrupt? Well, within an article he wrote for the National Post, he not-so-cautiously paints a picture wherein indigenous peoples are criminals who are a threat to the prosperity of Canada, and this threat comes in the form of protesting the activities of the fossil fuel industry. Using a popular propaganda technique known as priming—which refers to, crudely speaking, the act of using misinformation to shape the way that an audience views information prior to receiving that information—he opens his article as follows:

Investment is leaving our country at a record pace. Billions of dollars of projects have been cancelled — most recently Teck Frontier, a project that would have created 7,000 construction jobs and 2,500 operational jobs in hard-hit Alberta. Every decision to pull investment from Canada is a threat to our social programs. Teck Frontier alone would have provided $70 billion to governments, money that is desperately needed to maintain and strengthen our health system as our population ages.

The question on the lips of Canadians today is: how did we get here? The answer to that is clear.

Not only is the appeal to emotion so incredibly present here, through a “think about the elderly!” claim which is directly associated with a fossil fuel mega-corporation, but he also makes an appeal to popularity, i.e. “The question on the lips of Canadians today is: how did we get here?” Perhaps this rhetoric would be more effective if he hadn’t already stated previously the intent to “ends fossil fuel subsidies, a form of corporate welfare.” Oops. It’s very difficult to argue that the fossil fuel industry is so strongly connected with the general welfare of Canadians when you admit that the billions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry is, in fact, corporate welfare.

O’Toole continues by providing the “clear” answer to the question he raised:

We face this threat to our country’s future because of a Liberal government that has cancelled pipelines, banned tankers and passed legislation that makes it nearly impossible to build major projects. The illegal blockaders have taken their cues from more than four years of the Trudeau government’s attacks on our resource sector and those who work in it.

Yes, he portrays the blockades—which are largely done by indigenous peoples, and those acting in solidarity with indigenous peoples—as just illegal. Emphasizing the issue of legality here is a way to shut down serious discussion about it; it is a common tool for delegitimizing an issue. To further stress his authoritarian intent, he asserts that

An O’Toole government will pass a Freedom of Movement Act that will make it a criminal offence to block a railway, airport, port, or major road, or to block the entrance to a business or household in a way that prevents people from lawfully entering or leaving.

So, O’Toole’s chosen method to address indigenous issues relating to the fossil fuel industry is to use vague and authoritarian legislation in order to make it illegal for indigenous people to protest in the first place? (I’m sure this legislation wouldn’t be abused to shut down any number of other legitimate and peaceful protests…).

But O’Toole assures us that Canada already has a pretty progressive relationship with indigenous peoples:

In the days ahead, the Liberals may try to argue that adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) is the correct way forward, but nothing could be further from the case. Canada has, entrenched in our Constitution, a world-leading recognition of Indigenous rights.

Okay. Let’s take a look at what indigenous rights are entrenched in our Constitution, and compare that with UNDRIP. Specifically pertaining to the rights of indigenous peoples, Section 25 of Charter of Rights and Freedoms asserts that

The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including: (1) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and (2) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

Despite the emphasis on treaty rights, Canada has a long history of neglecting treaties entirely. For example, Treaty 6—which covers the territory I currently reside upon—meant an even split of resources and the distribution of food and medicine to the tribes which had theirs depleted. Not only was Treaty 6 signed under conditions of distress, alongside vastly different interpretations by indigenous peoples and settlers regarding what the treaty meant, but it also has a history of being violated. The Papaschase Cree were at the forefront of Treaty 6 violations during the 19th century; large portions of Edmonton, Alberta was once a reserve occupied by the Papaschase Cree until they were later coerced to surrender the land to settlers who didn’t want them in the city.

Beyond this, according to one hundred scientists who issued a proposal for a moratorium on the expansion of the tar sands in Alberta, the tar sands have hitherto constituted a great violation of indigenous rights:

Rapid expansion of the oil sands in Canada violates or puts at risk nation-to-nation agreements with Aboriginal peoples. In Alberta, oil sands mining is contributing to the degradation and erosion of treaty and constitutionally protected rights by disrupting ecological landscapes critical to the survival of Aboriginal culture, activities, livelihoods, and lifeways.

So, what exactly does O’Toole mean when he asserts that Canada already has a “world-leading recognition of indigenous rights”? Clearly he must think he lives in an alternate reality of some sort.

What about UNDRIP, then, does O’Toole see as so threatening? Perhaps it is Article 26, which declares that “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” Emphasis here on which they have traditionally owned. O’Toole most likely sees UNDRIP as threatening precisely because it calls into question lands which have been seized under treaty violations—lands which, if returned to indigenous peoples, would pose a threat to the all-consuming expansion of the fossil fuel industry.

I must remind you again that O’Toole, to our knowledge, hasn’t accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel mega-corporations. His unwavering support for them, and his consequential disregard for indigenous peoples, is free.

To read more articles like this, visit our website at theleftgazette.com

[anti-marxistcult]

YURI BEZMENOV: Ideological subversion - warning to America (and it applies to all the western world too)

Here's the transcript 

ED GRIFFIN: Well, you spoke before about "ideological subversion" and that's a phrase that I'm afraid some Americans don't understand. When the Soviets use the phrase "ideological subversion" what do they mean by it? 1. 

YURI BEZMENOV: Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate and open. You can see it with your own eyes.... It has nothing to do with espionage. 

I know that intelligence gathering looks more romantic.... That's probably why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond types of films. But in reality, the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country. 

It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism.... 

The result? The result you can see ... the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern [alluding to Pavlov]. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. 

In other words [for] these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To rid society of these people you need another 15 or 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society. 

ED: And yet these people who have been programmed and as you say [are] in place and who are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept - these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country? 

YURI: Most of them, yes. Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in [the] future what the beautiful society of EQUALITY and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy [and] frustrated people, and Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously, they will join the [ranks] of dissenters; dissidents. Unlike the present United States, there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. [Now] you can get popular like Daniel Elsburg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being a dissident [and] for criticizing your Pentagon. In [the] future these people will simply be [he makes a squishy noise] squashed like cockroaches for criticizing the government. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful [and] noble ideas of EQUALITY. This they don't understand and it will be the greatest shock for them, of course. 

The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years. Actually, it's over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it.... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization. 

The next stage is destabilization.... It only takes 2 to 5 years to destabilize a nation. This time what matters is essentials; economy, foreign relations, [and] defense systems. And you can see it quite clearly that in some... sensitive areas such as defense and [the] economy, the influence of Marxist-Leninist ideas in the United States is absolutely fantastic. I could never believe it 14 years ago when I landed in this part of the world that the process will go that fast. 

Most of the American politicians, media, and educational system train another generation of people who think they are living at the peacetime. False. The United States is in a state of war; undeclared, total war against the basic principles and foundations of this system. And the initiator of this war is not Comrade Andropov of course - it's the system. However, ridiculous it may sound, [it is] the world Communist system, or the world Communist conspiracy. Whether I scare some people or not, I don't give a hoot. If you're not scared by now, nothing can scare you. 

ED: Okay, so what do we do? What is your recommendation to the American people? 

YURI: Well, the immediate thing that comes to mind is, of course, there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of REAL patriotism, number one. Number two, to explain [to] them the real danger of socialist, communist, welfare state, Big Brother government.... The moment at least part of [the] United States population is convinced that the danger is real, they have to FORCE their government... to stop aiding Communism.

It is not a conspiracy theory. This is happening and has been happening. Look at the indoctrinated college students, look up the BS that is being “taught” in academia. Look what the democrat party is advocating for. Look at the insanity of our society. Welcome to clown world, the Left’s “utopia” - a work in progress.

[jewish-privilege]

...There are two related, yet distinct, kinds of anti-Semitism that have snuck into mainstream politics. One is associated with the left and twists legitimate criticisms of Israel into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. On the mainstream right, meanwhile, political leaders and media figures blame a cabal of wealthy Jews for mass immigration and left-wing cultural politics in classic anti-Semitic fashion.

[Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN)] tweet was a pretty clear example of the first kind of anti-Semitism. Plenty of Jews who are critical of the Israeli government, including me, found her comments offensive...

But it’s also clear that a lot of Omar’s critics don’t have much of a leg to stand on. Conservatives have been trying to label Omar an anti-Semite since she was elected in November, on the basis of fairly flimsy evidence. (...) Trump once told a room full of Jewish Republicans that “you’re not going to support me because I don’t want your money,” adding that “you want to control your politicians, that’s fine.”

The fact that Omar apologized under pressure, and that Trump and McCarthy have never faced real consequences for their use of anti-Semitic tropes, tells you everything you need know about the politics of anti-Semitism in modern America.

...There are two core truths about this incident. First, Omar’s statement was unacceptable. Second, Republicans going after her — including the president — should spend less time on Democrats and more time dealing with the far worse anti-Semitism problem on the right.

...In the day and a half since Omar’s initial comments, a number of left-wing writers have emerged to defend her. They argue that Omar was attempting to point out the financial clout of the pro-Israel lobby — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC — and not to make generalizations about Jews. The pushback against Omar, they say, is part of a broader campaign to smear a young Muslim congresswoman and silence criticism of Israel.

...It’s true that in some cases, all criticism of Israel or AIPAC, even if it’s legitimate, is labeled anti-Semitic — and that’s a real problem. Omar’s faith has made her a particular target, and it’s fair to want to defend her against these smears in the abstract.

But the specifics of Omar’s tweet make things quite different. In the original context — where she was quote-tweeting [Glenn Greenwald]— she says that US lawmakers’ support for Israel is “all” about money. Yes, it’s a Puff Daddy reference, but she’s a member of Congress and maybe should be a little more careful about the implications of what she says...

There are two problems here: First, the tweet isn’t true. The US-Israel alliance has deeper and more fundamental roots than just cash, including the legacy of Cold War geopolitics, evangelical theology, and shared strategic interests in counterterrorism. Lobbying certainly plays a role, but to say that “US political leaders” defending Israel is “all” about money is to radically misstate how America’s Israel politics work (and discount the findings of the scholars who study it).

Second, and more important, totalizing statements like this play into the most troubling anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamous early-20th-century Russian forgery, describes a plot by Jewish moneyed interests to subvert and destroy Christian societies through their finances. This in turn draws on longstanding European anti-Semitic traditions that portray Jews as greedy and conniving.

After World War II and the creation of the state of Israel, the conspiracy theory shifted. Anti-Semites started using “Zionist” or “Zio” as a stand-in for “Jewish,” using Jewish activism in favor of the Jewish state as proof that they were right all along about the Jewish conspiracy. David Duke, the former Louisiana state representative and Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, released a YouTube video in 2014 that bills itself as an “illustrated” update of the Protocols. The video features footage of leading Democratic and Republican politicians speaking to pro-Israel groups, with the caption “both are in the grips of Zio money, Zio media, and Zio bankers.”

...Omar is, of course, not coming from the same hateful place as Duke is. But by using too-similar language, she unintentionally provides mainstream cover for these conspiracy theories. After her comments, Duke repeatedly defended her, even tweeting a meme that said “it took a Muslim congresswoman to actually stand up & tell the truth that we ALL know” (he rescinded the praise after her apology).

This is not to equate Duke and Omar — which, to be clear, would be absurd — but rather to point out how if you’re not careful when talking about pro-Israel lobbying, you can provide ammunition to some awful people. By saying that US support for Israel is “all” about money, Omar was essentially mainstreaming ideas that have their roots in anti-Semitism, helping make them more acceptable to voice on the left.

...There’s a real dilemma here. Pro-Palestinian activists, writers, and politicians have every right to point out what they see as the pernicious influence of groups like AIPAC. The group is undeniably powerful, and it’s worth mentioning in our conversations about both Israel policy and money in politics. You can and should be able to say, “AIPAC’s lobbying pushes America’s Israel policy in a hawkish pro-Israel direction,” without saying that it is literally only about dollars from (disproportionately) Jewish donors.

At the same time side, there is a special need on the left — where most pro-Palestinian sentiment resides — to be careful about just how you discuss those things. It’s not just a matter of providing ammunition to the David Dukes of the world; it’s about the moral corruption of the left and pro-Palestinian movement. If references to the baleful influence of Jews on Israel policy become too flip, too easy, things can go really wrong.

...When left-wing insurgent Jeremy Corbyn won the center-left Labour Party’s leadership [in Britain] in 2015, the people who inhabited these spaces seized control of the party power centers.

Corbyn, who had once referred to members of Hamas and Hezbollah as his “friends,” opened the floodgates for the language of Labour’s left flank to go mainstream. The result is a three-year roiling scandal surrounding anti-Semitism inside the party.

Dozens of Labour elected officials, candidates, and party members have been caught giving voice to anti-Semitic comments. One Labour official called Hitler “the greatest man in history,” and added that “it’s disgusting how much power the Jews have in the US.” Another Labour candidate for office said “it’s the super rich families of the Zionist lobby that control the world.” The party has received 673 complaints about anti-Semitism in its ranks in the last 10 months alone, an average of over two complaints per day.

...This is why Omar’s tweet was so troubling, and why the pushback from leadership really was merited. If the line isn’t drawn somewhere, the results for Jews — who still remain a tiny, vulnerable minority — can be devastating.

...The way Omar handled the controversy is interesting. Her apology was certainly given under immense pressure, but it reads (at least to me) as quite sincere[, and] this kind of sincere willingness to reconsider past comments is characteristic of Omar. She had previously gotten flak for a tweet about Israel “hypnotizing” the world, and recently gave a lengthy and thoughtful apology for the connection to anti-Semitic tropes during an appearance on The Daily Show.

“I had to take a deep breath and understand where people were coming from and what point they were trying to make, which is what I expect people to do when I’m talking to them, right, about things that impact me or offend me,” she told host Trevor Noah.

This is not the kind of behavior you see from deeply committed anti-Semites. Yair Rosenberg, a journalist at the Jewish magazine Tablet who frequently writes about anti-Semitism, argued on Monday that Omar has earned the benefit of the doubt:

“I’ve covered anti-Semitism for years on multiple continents, and this level of self-reflection among those who have expressed anti-Semitism is increasingly rare. Not only did Omar apologize for the specific sentiment, but she put herself in the shoes of her Jewish interlocutors and realized that she ought to extend to them the same sensitivity to anti-Semitism as she would want others to extend to racism.” 

...This is what it looks like when the system works. A member of Congress says something offensive, most of her party explains why it’s wrong, and then she issues a sincere apology and demonstrates an interest in changing. That is a healthy party dealing with bad behavior in a healthy way.

This is not what you see on the Republican side when it comes to most forms of bigotry — up to and including anti-Semitism.

...Last summer, McCarthy sent a tweet accusing three Democratic billionaires of Jewish descent — George Soros, Tom Steyer, and Michael Bloomberg — of trying to buy the midterm election...

...Around the same time, President Trump claimed that protesters against Brett Kavanaugh were being paid by Soros...

And Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz suggested Soros was behind the so-called “migrant caravan” coming to the US through Mexico, a theory spread when Trump tweeted the video in Gaetz’s original tweet...

This all follows years of Soros demonization in the conservative press, with everyone from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to Fox News anchors blaming the Jewish billionaire for various ills in the United States.

The defense of these lines is the same as the left-wing defense of Omar: It’s not anti-Semitic to simply state facts. But many of these “facts,” like Soros masterminding immigrant caravans, are false. Moreover, creating a narrative in which Soros and other left-wing Jews are puppet masters, using their money to undermine America from within, they are engaging in the same normalization of Protocols-style anti-Semitic tropes as Omar.

What’s more, they’ve done it with virtually no official pushback. The GOP has not reacted to the Soros hate and other anti-Semitic conspiracy theories with the same fierceness with which the Democrats responded to Omar’s comment. There has been no leadership statement condemning the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism; in fact, demonizing Soros has long been part of the overall party strategy. In 2016, Trump released a campaign ad that played a quote from one of his speeches over footage of Soros and former Fed Chair Janet Yellen (also Jewish) that comes across as an anti-Semitic dog whistle...

...“Don’t kid yourself that the most violent forms of hate have been aimed at others — blacks, Muslims, Latino immigrants. Don’t ever think that your government’s pro-Israel policies reflect a tolerance of Jews,” Jonathan Weisman, the New York Times’s deputy Washington editor and author of the new book (((Semitism))), writes. “We have to consider where power is rising, and the Nationalist Right is a global movement.”

...While the Democratic Party handled an offensive comment quickly, Republicans have never shown a willingness to do the same when it comes to right-wing anti-Semitism. There’s a reason most Jews in the United States are Democrats, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.

[Read Zack Beauchamp’s full piece at Vox.]

[nanyallen13]

Daenerys’ fate in Season 8 (Part 1)

Why I don’t think she’ll sit on the Iron Throne

This first part will be an analysis on Dany as a queen during the last 7 seasons of Game of Thrones.

(I apologize in advance for my bad English. It’s not my first language, but I wanted to share my theory with you)

Disclaimer: it’ll be based on the show only, because I didn’t read the books yet.

My original article (in French)

Daenerys is a character I admire. I find her story about survival, ambition and character’s growth to be very interesting. Yes, she has flaws, but that’s the case for every good character. She’s complex, and sometimes I don’t know what to feel about her. But her journey is fascinating.

But when it comes to her endgame, I don’t think she’ll be queen at the end of the series. Let me explain why:

She’s not the true heir anymore

It’s the big reveal from last season: Jon Snow is Rhaegar’s son, aka. the crown prince. That makes Jon the legitimate heir to the Iron Throne. This reveal will have consequences, otherwise it wouldn’t have any sense storywise. I think it’ll destroy Jon and Dany relationship (seriously, Jon was raised as a child. He would never be okay to bang his aunt). But the biggest consequence will be for the politics of Westeros and Dany’s claim for the Throne.

It’s not a Disney movie

The lost princess who wins back her throne, it’s for fairy tales. GoT has the habit to break our hearts, especially with character we believed would succeed (Robb, I miss you). So, Dany winning the game, aka the only thing she wants from the beginning, would be too easy and too happy for GoT. After all, Martin said the ending will be “bitter-sweet”. For me, it means that our heroes will gain something (surely the victory against the Night King), but they’ll have to pay the price. The same logic applies to Dany: if she really ends up on the Iron Throne, I don’t think her dragons would be still alive.

She’s a conqueror, but not a queen

That’s the part where some people will be mad at me. Excuse me, but I don’t think Dany would make a good queen. For what we’ve seen on the show, she isn’t. In Season 6, Daario said this, and I agree with him:

She’s a good conqueror, like we saw in Essos. But she sucks at ruling. Let’s see some of her mistakes:

She isn’t a good politician, neither a good diplomat

One of her famous quotes is: “I’m not a politician, I’m a queen”.

This quote summarizes Dany’s character. Doesn’t she know that a good ruler is a good politician? You can’t rule without politics. She wrongly believes that a queen can’t be criticized. Here, she refuses the idea of a compromise, and that’s often the case in the series. She doesn’t accept the usages of the peoples she has conquered, and wants to change them regardless of their culture. That’s the same for her idea of “justice”. She imposes it without fair trial, not letting them defend themselves. In the process, she kills innocents because what she did wasn’t justice, but a punishment.

The series has other characters who ruled without being politician, and they were view as negative. Robert was king, but he sucked at it because he did nothing (Ned was ruling instead of him). Another ruler who refused compromises? Joffrey, and we know he was a tyrant (and a little b*tch). Yes, Dany is not as the same level, but she has the same logic: the queen imposes, the others must follow without protest.

Another flaw: she doesn’t know about diplomacy. In Season 7, for her meeting with Cersei, she arrived late on purpose, riding Drogon to show her power and her superiority to Cersei. Did she forget they were here for a peace treaty?  Who on earth wants to make peace by rubbing hostility and war weapons (her dragons) in her enemy’s face? She wanted to be seen as powerful, but it turned against her.  She just showed Cersei her weakness: her dragons can be killed. (See what’s Cersei says at 2:20 of this video).

She can’t anticipate for the long term

When you rule, you have to think about the future of your country. Dany doesn’t want to do that. When Tyrion calls up the topic of her heir, she refuses to speak about it. But if she wants to restore the Targaryen dynasty, this is an important topic. Doesn’t she have project for when she’ll be queen?

Another mistake: her army’s management

In Season 7, Dany complains because Cersei has taken all the food supplies, because her armies need it. But what did she do when she attacked the Lannister? That’s right, she burned all the food. I don’t understand this choice. Why complain about the lack of food, if you choose to destroy it instead of getting it? In the same season, we see Sansa struggling to gather enough food for her people. We see what good leaders do: protect their people by preparing for the war. Dany doesn’t do that. What will happen in season 8 ? She’ll arrive North with thousands of men. Extra thousands of men to feed when the food is already limited. Thousands of men to feed because she burned all the food.

And what is she plaining to do with her Dothraki once the war is over? Their way of life is to loot, rape and kill. When she’ll be queen and “protector of the seven kingdoms” like she likes to call herself, will she let them rape and kill her people? When she killed their Khals and destroyed their sacred place, she gain power on them by making them depend on her.  Dany just used them to gain her throne, she doesn’t really care about the Dothraki.

Her reign in Essos also proves that she isn’t a good ruler. Freeing the slaves was a good action, and I don’t blame her for that. But I blame her for abandoning the slaves afterwards. By abolishing slavery, she destroyed the economic system, and left the city without good rulers. If you free a city, it’s your responsibility. You can’t abandon them with a broken economy. When you destroy something, you have to rebuild it. Consequences : slavery returned, worse than before, and Dany made herself more enemies in the process. Former slaves even came to her saying they wanted to return to slavery, because their life back then was better than her life during her reign.

And what did she do after destroying the economy of these cities? She flew away ton conquer Westeros! When she was done “practicing”, she left because she doesn’t care about them anymore. She just wants something bigger: the Iron Throne. Yes, she left Daario in charge, but he isn’t a ruler. He’s a mercenary, who only care about money and fight.

All of her mistakes in Essos produce a revolt, and the slaves she once freed now consider her as a master. That’s not a good result for a queen.

So, that’s the reasons why I think Dany isn’t a good queen, and that’s why I don’t see her on the Iron Throne at the end. Sure, she’s still learning, but we are now in Season 8. It’s too late.

But if I don’t think she’ll be queen, what will be her fate, then? This post is already too long, so I’ll develop my theory in a second part (coming soon).

What’s your thoughts about Dany as a queen ?

[atheism-populism-egalitarianism]

My Thoughts on TDS, Trump, Leftists, Conservatives, and the political state of America.

I always laugh whenever a conservative or whatever accuses me of having "Trump Derangement Syndrome" whenever I point out some dumb shit he's done, or some lie he's said/perpetuated, or some fact of reality he got wrong, because I was one of the people who said, "Give him a chance," when he got elected. I defended him, i defended his wife, his family, even his supporters.

I hoped he would keep his populist stance. I never voted for or supported him. I never claimed he would be better than Hillary, I merely saw her as the more competent of the two evils in front of us. And most importantly, i understood that people voted for him because he promised to change things while Clinton promised to keep the status quo. I hoped he would keep his promise to end the wars, to focus on our infrastructure, and that he would protect the LGBT community. I hoped he would listen to the people, i hoped he would actually just do what we wanted him to do.

I gave him his chance. He ruined it. I don't regret remaining open minded. I don't regret giving him that chance. But i did give him that chance. I gave him so many to be better, to do better, to keep his promises. Instead, he stabbed America in the back. He continues to back Saudi Arabia after it was literally proven without a doubt that the government ordered the death of Khashoggi, a journalist who often commented on the politics, war crimes, and human rights violations of the country. He continues to give the Neocons what they want. He had no problem holding 800k workers lives hostage when he didn't get his way on a wall that is uneconomical sound, ineffective, and unwanted by the majority of the country.

Mainly, i blame other leftists and the leftist media for causing such outrage over minor bullshit in the beginning to the point that actual legitimate criticism of him is now disregarded completely by so many people. Conservatives too hold their share of blame by refusing to take things in a case by case basis and assuming the worst of all leftists.

When is enough going to be enough for America? When will the people wake up, when will you realize that the only way to get change is for you to make changes. Individuals must change in order for the system to change. Many people thought Trump would change things for us, but he merely upheld the status quo. The only thing he changed is the way politics is played, which in itself is a good thing. Not good enough to erase his crimes, his lies, his bullshit, however.

Conclusion:

Enough fake outrage from both sides, and yes, it is fake moral outrage. More open mindedness. Listen to others. Debate them. Cite your claims. Research any claims you hear before taking it as fact. Listen to the facts and alter yourself and your views to better align with the facts. Read news from outside your bubble. Listen to opinions from outside your bubble to understand first, challenge second. Pay attention to what politicians you like say and do. Pay attention to what politicians you DON'T like say and do. Research before you vote. Remember that everyone is a human. Remember that everyone has had different experiences and your own are not universal. And stop with the identity politics on both sides. It helps no one. It convinces no one.

[backstorywithdanalewis]

Russia Dissent Back Story with Dana Lewis podcast: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1016881/7499026

Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (00:00) Your father was killed on the 27th of February, 2015 in front of the Kremlin gun down there. It must've been a terrible moment for you and probably still is. Zhanna Nemtsov: (00:11) It was, uh, uh, the most dramatic moment, uh, in my life. I think it was, uh, and it is still, it's a big tragedy for myself. And at the same time, it was a decisive moment. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (00:33) Hi everyone. And welcome to backstory. I'm Dana Lewis. On this edition, we talked to a young lady whose father was one of the leading opposition figures in Russia. And for speaking up and speaking out in Putin's Russia, it cost him his life. Also the former prime minister, who later tried to run for president and unseat Putin. He speaks on the recent demonstrations across the country corruption in the jailing of opposition figure Alexei, Navalny, and an expert view on what happens now or at John, and then SOF joins us now from Nizhny Novgorod John, how are you? I'm fine. Thank you. And you very well. I mean, it, it, your father was killed on the 27th of February, 2015 in front of the Kremlin gun down there. It must have been a terrible moment for you and probably still is. Zhanna Nemtsov: (01:31) It was, uh, uh, the most dramatic moment, uh, in my life. Um, so you wanna, you want to talk about my feelings, what I felt when I, uh, learned that my father had been assassinated? Yes, I think it was, uh, and it is still, it's a big tragedy for myself. And at the same time, it was a decisive moment. Uh, back then, uh, there was one question, should I, uh, keep, uh, silent or should I act, and back then it was a moral choice for me. And I understood perfectly well, uh, those risks, which are normally associated with, uh, being outspoken in Russia. Uh, and so I thought for probably one or two days and realized that, uh, I would be called otherwise, uh, it would be a betrayal of my father, and that's why I, uh, played an active role in the whole investigation. Of course, it was pretty clear for me that no proper would be conducted, uh, but I did what I could to push it forward. So we initiated, uh, and we employed some mechanisms of international oversight, uh, of this investigation and the parliamentary assembly of the council of Europe, uh, approved of a resolution. And it basically outlined, uh, uh, those drawbacks, which, uh, they were in the whole investigation. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (03:34) So the drug that the chief drawback would be if the state doesn't want to cooperate and they're not sincere in finding the killer is they're not going to be found, Zhanna Nemtsov: (03:44) They are not sincere. They can do that. I think it's not a complicated case for them, uh, but, uh, they don't want to, uh, identify most of months, or of course they don't want to identify the motive behind the investigation. These two questions, uh, still remain and answered. So we, uh, had, uh, the same procedure at, uh, there at the OSI. So, uh, we have the official position of two important international organizations regarding this investigation, but I still believe, uh, that, uh, the truth will come out. Uh, but I understand that is almost impossible that we will, uh, get the truth under the current political leadership in Russia Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (04:43) Who killed your dad. Do you think Zhanna Nemtsov: (04:50) You wanna, you wanna, you want me to say that, uh, they S uh, killing was, um, uh, authorized or directly ordered by legitimate Putin? I don't know because we, uh, no, uh, we, we don't know a lot, or we know very little about all the circumstances, uh, of, uh, of, of this murder, of this brutal murder. Uh, we know some, uh, some people who were directly involved and, uh, they were by the way identified, but, uh, Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (05:29) Well, these are, these are the guys, these are the guys who pulled the trigger. Zhanna Nemtsov: (05:33) I mean, I mean, we have to basically, uh, not we, but the central investigative committee has to, uh, interrogate, uh, rums on Kuduro, uh, who I believe was directly involved in my father's as destination. And it was my request. I filed this requests on a number of occasions, but of course the central investigative committee, uh, does not do its job properly and they are doing it intentionally because, uh, effectively, uh, there, uh, top Russian officials blocked this investigation and it is itself a crime to block, uh, criminal investigations and at least, uh, and I, I said it six years ago and I would like to repeat it right now that [inaudible] best political responsibility for my father's murder. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (06:37) I knew your dad. And, uh, I liked him a lot as a journalist for NBC. I was based there originally in 1998 when the financial crash happened. Uh, and he was one of the first people I interviewed and he talked about how he was removed as deputy prime minister, because he wanted to close all the banks down, all of these corrupt dozens and dozens of banks. And, uh, they were trying to clean up the system and in the end, Yeltsin buckled under the pressure probably of oligarchy. And, uh, but, but then I followed your father also in Sochi when he ran for mayor, um, and asked him why you, you know, look, he was a governor of new Janine Novgorod region, and then he was deputy prime minister, and then suddenly he's running for mayor in Sochi. And the question was why, and obviously we knew the Olympics were going to go there, but, um, following him around in Sochi and Gary Kasparov was there. Um, and he just said, look, we have to start somewhere again to build a bridge of democracy, a free media, um, and then return Russia to back to development again, instead of this stillborn dictatorship. Um, and he was deeply inspired to do that. So it's a terrible loss for Russia, because if he had stayed as a, as a big political player in Russia, don't you think it would be a very different country today? Zhanna Nemtsov: (08:10) So, first of all, I would like to follow up on, uh, your, uh, uh, most recent remarks and just add to it that my father, uh, also, uh, participated in the original elections in the city of jaroslava and in 2013, he won their elections. He had got elected to the, uh, regional parliament or, uh, of the province of Urus Lovell. And he worked there quite effectively, I should say yes. And, uh, I think that, uh, he was not, uh, an arrogant person and he, uh, wanted to do something, uh, on any level and he was effective and he had a lot of experience in government governance, uh, for example, the region of [inaudible]. Um, so, uh, it's difficult. Uh, I would say yes, if, if my father, uh, had been elected president, uh, in 2000, we would have lived in a totally different country. Uh, of course, Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (09:21) What was the point of, and by the way, many people thought that Boris Yeltsin was grooming him to take over, um, and that he would be president one day. And so it was this great opportunity missed by, I think a lot of people think, but what was the point of silencing him, uh, within assassination, because he had been critical of the administration and Putin and the Kremlin for many years, what was the point of it? Zhanna Nemtsov: (09:46) We can make guesses, but we cannot be so sure of our guesses. Uh, so you know that, uh, Russia is a repressive state, uh, it's governed by an autocrat. And of course, all, uh, leaders of the Russian opposition are under threat and on the attack, they can be killed. They can be thrown into prison, they can be poisoned. So it was the case with Alex [inaudible], uh, he was poisoned with Navi, choke a nerve agent, but he managed to survive and was a miracle. So it is how old, uh, autocratic States, uh, behave. There is nothing new about it. They're afraid of losing power and the ultimate goal for any older crowds and put in is by no way, an exception is to retain power presumably full life. So, and of course they are afraid of, uh, any people who, uh, oppose, who are critical of the government, uh, why they, why they, why they chose my father as a target that I don't know, I want to get an answer to this question. It's an important question. Uh, but he was the powerful voice and he was, he was an experienced politician. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (11:19) He was a powerful voice for sure. And I completely agree with you, John. And some people say maybe because that's when the invasion of Ukraine was taking place in the Crimea and he had, he had certain facts on what was sticking out. Zhanna Nemtsov: (11:31) I would, I would, I would, I would say different things regarding what you've just said about Ukraine. Yes. He was working, uh, on an investigative report about Russia's involvement, uh, military actual involvement into Ukraine, but, uh, you have to bear in mind. Uh, their political are in 2014 and 2015. It was very different from what is happening now because Putin, uh, has lost a lot of his legitimacy since 2015. So not back then. Uh, the level of support of Putin was really high. It was literally 87%. So, and, uh, he, uh, of course in this environment, it was way easier to attack, uh, opposition, politicians. And I also think that probably putting head something personal with my father, because my father, uh, I would put it this way. I made really impolite remarks, uh, uh, in regard to Putin, uh, and probably he was really offended with his remarks. I think that he takes a lot of things really personally, Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (12:48) If I can ask you then, are there parallels with Alexei Navalny because Nevada needs video of corruption in the Kremlin and Putin Putin's wallets, where he talks in names, names about people who have kept money and shadowy offshore companies for Vladimir Putin, this billion dollar palace. I mean, he is called him a thief and basically called him a mafia leader. Um, it is very personal. Zhanna Nemtsov: (13:15) I would S I would add to that. He calls him a very old man, and that is really personal. Uh, I cannot, I cannot translate it into English directly, uh, but he, uh, he refers to him as [inaudible]. I have to, if you, if you can, if you can translate it, uh, please do that. So, uh, I think that he regards Novalis as his enemy number one, and of course it's because, uh, of Nevada is, uh, investigations into grant corruption in Russia. And of course, because of his personal, uh, attacks, uh, that are that target mainly put, yes, I absolutely agree. And also Nevada, he is a very powerful politician. Uh, he has a network of offices all across Russia and his infrastructure is extremely efficient. So he managed to bring together active people, very capable of working and very passionate about, uh, bringing change to Russia. Uh, of course all these factors contributed to what had happened to all [inaudible]. I mean, his attempted poisoning. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (14:41) Do you fear for his safety in prison now because they tried to poison him in August? Um, they have, he has since come out with this videotape embarrassing, the, and Putin and all of the people around Putin, um, including the federal security service, uh, you know, all sorts of people in government, um, what's going to happen to him. Zhanna Nemtsov: (15:04) Oh, well, I would refrain from making predictions. Um, I am extremely worried. Uh, I think that, uh, there are real threats, uh, for him, and that was the reason why I joined the protest in [inaudible]. I think our active, um, engagement can save his life. And I'm not an exception. I'm a citizen of my country. Uh, I don't want my country to be, uh, an unlovable state. I want my country to be a democratic state, and I want, uh, our rights as citizens to be observed by the authorities. And of course, I feel very personal about Aloxi whom I regard as my friend. So we, uh, we were in touch before his detention. So we met on a number of occasions and I do, I truly believe that he, uh, I would like him to be our next president. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (16:17) What do you think is going to happen with these demonstrations? They are calling for more of them. Do you think that the, and how is the Kremlin going to deal with it? Zhanna Nemtsov: (16:26) Oh, I am not. Uh, um, pre-school who is put in spooks, man. So you have to ask him about, uh, about, uh, their plans. So my plan is the giant, uh, demonstrations on the 31st of January in support of Alexina wildland and in support, uh, of, uh, the idea that we should get rid of our older credit regime, and we should, uh, bring change, bring democratic change to our country. So, uh, I know one, the one thing as we are talking right now, these news came, um, I think one hour, two hours ago. So, um, he is, uh, Allison, Yvonne is not on the arrest till, uh, the 15th of February. So they hearing, uh, regarding, uh, his, um, suspended sentence, uh, is scheduled for the 2nd of February. Uh, but also, uh, there gonna be another hearing on the 28th of January. So, uh, they are going to, uh, consider whether his current arrest, uh, is in with our laws. Zhanna Nemtsov: (17:51) And so I think that is, it is a reaction to massive protest that we had last Saturday. So I think that's a sign that the authorities I afraid of are big crowds and they cannot ignore, uh, our views, our opinions, and the fact that thousands of people took to the streets, not only in most consent Petersburg, but the nutrient auger, the biggest demonstration, and now in the history of our city and everywhere in big cities, in small cities everywhere, I think we are witnessing now affirmation of a nationwide movement. It is what, uh, we didn't have several years ago. Now it might evolve into yes, a nationwide movement against the current political regime. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (18:44) If your father was alive today, what would he be saying? Do you think, Zhanna Nemtsov: (18:49) He'd be saying Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (18:52) These demonstrations about an avant that they knew each other? Of course, Zhanna Nemtsov: (18:56) Of course they work with the charter. My father was very supportive or like Saint of Alexander valine, uh, or he would have joined the protests for sure. I think that he would, uh, have been real outspoken. Uh, he would do everything to, uh, defend Alexina volley because he always, uh, he always defended all political prisoners and he, uh, participated in one man protests in support for political product, uh, prisoners all the time. I think that, uh, he would have been really inspired with what, uh, I swore last Saturday, very martial arts, Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (19:40) Knowing your dad. I think he would be inspired. I know he was tough and he was open and democratic, and I think he would be very proud of genre Nimsoft today. So, Zhanna Nemtsov: (19:52) So probably I will have a chance to ask him one day though. I'm not a religious person. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (19:58) Are you going to last question? I know you've done journalism. Are you going to go into, Zhanna Nemtsov: (20:04) I'm still a journalist? What Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (20:06) Are you going to go into politics in Russia? Zhanna Nemtsov: (20:09) Uh, no. Uh, so I basically, I founded the bore center foundation for freedom in Germany. It's registered in Germany and, uh, now I'm focused on the development of the abortions of foundations of freedom. And I find this job really interesting. And I think, uh, we ha we don't have a lot of impact because we are a smaller organization, but we have some input and I want to grow this organization to make it really impactful. We have very few organizations such as the bore center foundation. Uh, it's a policy organization. Yes, we are focused on education on journalism next like that. I am a journalist, uh, uh, till 2020, I worked for Dutch Valley, the German public broadcaster. I interviewed the world leaders, um, in many, in many countries of the world. Um, now I'm, I'm a freelance journalist and I am working on my own projects. Uh, basically all these projects and I'm in English. So I want to switch to English language, journalism, wish me luck, Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (21:16) Good luck. And really it was a privilege knowing your dad and it's wonderful meeting you. And thank you so much on it. Zhanna Nemtsov: (21:24) Thank you very much. Have a nice day. Good luck to you. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (21:32) All right, Mikhail, Kasyanov joins me now from just outside of Moscow. He is a Russian politician who served as the prime minister, uh, from 2000 to 2004. And I've interviewed him many times and respect his opinion very deeply on what's happening inside Russia, Mikhail, some stunning events, uh, on the weekend. When you take a look at the, not just the numbers of people, but when you take a look at the landscape of protests, I mean, close to a hundred of them, right across the country. Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (22:01) Yes. Landscape geography as like we say, geography is amazing. It's never happened before in Russia in the last, last 20 years. In fact, it's more than the 500 cities in the old Russia, just, uh, on the streets of conduit, more than a hundred cities, people appear to, to protest, to protest against, uh, against what's what going on in Russia, in the country and protests against arrest of Alexander Berlin. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (22:32) What got them out there? Is it just Navani's arrest or is there more to it Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (22:38) Deeper in fact, people already are tied to of, um, uh, uh, and the discontents by the circus radiating. It has been the Kool-Aid that. And, uh, um, I will say a little less behavior of, of, of authorities on many, many respects. Uh, uh, I would say, uh, of, of authorities to establish some kind of a channel for communication with the, with the society. And, uh, uh, I would say elegant behavior, et cetera, et cetera. But the three gov, this was arrested of [inaudible] who after poisoning came back to Moscow and was arrested at the airport. People were shocked, shocked by that. And a blast on that off the recent, the movie, I would say video reach a place, an interim [inaudible] about the corruption route here, man, the game, of course, uh, just added to these two disrespect as well, too. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (23:39) I sat through that entire video. Um, and I was, I thought it was remarkable. It's very detailed on the corruption of, of Putin, uh, people around him, hundreds of millions of dollars taken this palace near the black sea, you know, Putin shrugged it off this week and kind of smirked. And as you said, arrogantly responded, you know, maybe one day he'd like to have a winery, but, uh, the Kremlin has just said, all of this is false and fiction. Is it fiction? Or is it real? Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (24:12) Yeah, all people of course believe is real. It's not necessarily to be registered as a, as ownership box. In fact, just two minutes, two main factors that, that, uh, the, the sky was locked around that. And, uh, but for, for, for, for, for aircraft and the final quarter, Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (24:31) No fly zone by the FSB, the federal security service, Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (24:34) Uh, it was done officially by ministry of transportation because of their authority. But of course, uh, uh, of course I'm the, I'm the security and the whole, the whole area is under security of FSB or secret service, which protects the people. Um, high-level people around it. That's why people, people of course have no doubts, uh, about, about it Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (24:57) And are people outraged. I mean, you know, people are struggling during the pandemic. The economy's not good, their stagnation in Russia. I think that when they take a look at this monstrous palace that, you know, it looks like another Versailles, they must be furious. Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (25:16) There's not, there's not a real, I would say a major aspect, as I said, that was like a trigger or just a decent old, or let's say discom thing to discontent and the people, uh, uh, unacceptable behavior of authorities, et cetera. But, you know, just corruption in Russia is always was a problem. And, uh, a majority of, um, of, um, the generations they lived during the corruptions of during Soviet period. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (25:47) I mean, it's one thing, if you have corruption by bandits, it's another thing, if your leader is seen to be stealing billions of dollars from people though, Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (25:55) Well, young people for new generation who don't have this in there and their memories, of course, for them, it's like explosion for, for, uh, teenagers and on a cheek talk, uh, just, uh, different movies and the different placement there, of course just, uh, very much created the whole atmosphere around it. But as I say, that's not the main issue for majority of those people who were in the streets. Um, now last Saturday, um, mainly that is, uh, um, uh, I would say, uh, discontent is maturing in their minds. And that's what I would like to say. Just the main, the main issue for these 2021 East just constitutional events, elections to state Duma. And that could be, I would say the critical point for the whole historical, I would say, period of Russia at this moment. And this, Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (26:51) The thing is that you have parliamentary elections, the Duma, and they're coming up in September and what what's at stake here. Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (26:59) Yeah, that's, that is that's when, uh, that is the issue when, uh, that is the point when people started to understand that, uh, their constitutional rights, they watch our storm or authorities don't allow at all, or in principle, don't allow people to express their, the, the, the, uh, uh, position, uh, to express their opinion. They don't allow opposition parties to participate. They don't allow a position that candidates to participate in elections, or even for those, uh, few, uh, which they allowed to come in. They just then falsified the results. That's what, uh, it happened in December, 2011 and could happen 2022. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (27:44) You ran for president. So Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (27:48) Parliamentary elections, when it goes in present, they cut me from elections. When my supposed to grow, they on the earliest stage one month after registration, they caught me because just them, the stood, that could be a danger, but I mean, I mean, in December, 2010, 2011, there were, there was a results. There was a bill I'm in three elections. And then at that time, um, uh, I would say hundred thousand people in Moscow appeared, uh, Pete on the streets to protest. And at that time, uh, I, sorry, just put started to somehow to relax the situation. Uh, he made a decision to, I would say, ease registration on political parties and some other minor things. But then when demonstrations disappeared from Moscow streets, they stopped all those changes and even, uh, squeeze the whole environment, they won't fill them all Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (28:44) Very quickly. What do you think of Nevani? You know, him, you've met with him many times. You were in a coalition with him where you, at one point what's what's, what's your take on him? I mean, he bravely came back. I don't think a lot of people, Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (28:58) His breath cross on. That's no doubt about that. Even for many, many people who doubt about his, I would say political, I would say strength. So political political position, because sometimes people criticize for him, for him for extreme rights, expressions, or extreme lefts expressions, et cetera, et cetera. But he's really a real leader of the, of the protests on the street progress. He's the leader of this and he's leader of youth. That's definitely, there is no any other of such a, I would say it was such a popularity and he's very brave person. And because of his coming back, many people who didn't support him right now change the attitude to miss Nevada that's. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (29:44) So in that video, then we'll come back to that video for a moment. I mean, she called Putin, abandoned a thief. He listed all of the people with their pictures, with their names, the so-called wallets, the people who store the administration, not the administration store, the president's money illegally in the shadows. That seems like an act of, Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (30:11) As I say, there is no doubt that a in the, right now, the bright sister presented of a position and no one is a, I would say, have doubts about it. Now that's never going to get out of prison. Uh, I don't, I mean, the prison, Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (30:30) Is he ever going to be allowed out of prison after doing that video? Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (30:35) That's interesting story right now, there is a discussion about that. In fact, I will tell you on this stage, that behavior of Portugal and the sorority with respect to, um, [inaudible] needs, I would say freedom depends on the position of, uh, leaders of European union, uh, for Russia, for Puccio positional European union. It's very important Russian economy in a very poor position at this moment. And, uh, at least not in relations, economic relations in particular with European union, that's important issue for Mr. Porter. And that's why, that's why, uh, he, I feel he wants and his people around. They want, they want nobody to put the, to put to jail for a long time, but the situation could change. They could somehow to reconsider their emotional or you to this move in. And somehow, somehow just to get a little bit back to the reality and to even legal justice and to release him from these, that would say, uh, convincing what they just artificially created on this stage. And, uh, but in any case he would not be released, uh, completely, but it could be, he could be put on the, in the, in the, in that arrested at home, but not in jail. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (32:00) So you're saying the EU, which is wobbly and wavering on Russia and sanctions. And they met this week and they kind of came up with no decision, which is pretty common for the EU, but they are going to come to Russia. You urge them to take those sanctions. Otherwise, if they don't keep the pressure on Nevada and he may spend a long time in prison, Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (32:23) I have to express just the whole, the whole, I would say, Oh, to, to, to what's happened around my body. When it, first of all, at the issue, number one, that is, uh, application of, uh, of, of nerve agent luggage that is prohibited. And I, as I understand from all those reports, that there is no doubts of, um, uh, uh, organization of, uh, recognition of chemical weapons that the post maybe joked, and there was application of this in Russia is the same Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (32:56) Chemical weapons convention. Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (32:59) That is a violation of the month on national law. That's the issue number one, which could be considered. And secondly, of course, more internal issue like Noah and his arrests there, the human rights abuse, et cetera, but the previous, the, the, the, the, the, the, the primary issue, of course, Navy Nichelle, Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (33:18) Ricardo Cassiana hallways, and Hunter to talk to you. Good to see you. Mikhail Kasyanov / former Russia P.M.: (33:22) Thank you very much. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (33:27) Alex Kokcharov is a political risk analyst, and he knows Russia well, Belarus and other parts of Eastern Europe. Hi, Alex, pretty remarkable scenes we've seen, uh, in Moscow and right across the country all the way up to a lot of our stock. Alex Kokcharov: (33:45) Uh, yes, it was quite sizable turn out, uh, in more than a hundred cities across the country from Vladivostok and Yakutsk in Eastern Russia, uh, in Yakutsk people, uh, turned up to protest despite minus 52 degrees Celsius, uh, all the way to the Western cities of Colombian grads, Saatchi and St. Petersburg. So we wanted significant turnout. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (34:11) What do these demonstrations represent? Is this just about the jailing of Nevada County, or is it more, Alex Kokcharov: (34:17) It is a combination of factors and arrest of Nevada was one of those factors. Another factor was a release of, um, a film by Nevada, the steam about allergic, uh, corruption, uh, in the Russian administration and allergic unexplained wealth enjoyed by Alex. Have you seen the video? Yes. I've seen the video. Uh, Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (34:43) I think most people, I mean, I think we have to talk about it for a minute, because just saying there's a film out there is not enough. First of all, it is almost two hours. It is very detailed by Alexa and the Valley and his team going through Putin's accumulation of extreme wealth, um, over 20 years. And he named his names, he does flow charts on, he calls them his wallets. Uh, he shows this palace that he has built near the black sea that supposedly could be a billion dollars by their numbers, interior pictures, orders for furniture. And I mean, he really directly goes after president Putin saying that he's a thief and he's surrounded by thieves any stolen from the country. And people have to go to the street and fight this so that the thievery ends it's very powerful. Alex Kokcharov: (35:46) It is. And, uh, it's, it's a very, you know, uh, very interested in film and dozens of millions of people worldwide, not only in Russia have watched it, uh, it is obviously the blockbuster of, uh, uh, you know, of Russia in 2021. It's been watched by nearly a hundred million people, which is remarkable when, when you think about it, if she Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (36:10) Gonna get out of jail, I mean, I think that Putin and the Kremlin knowing them the way I do, and I was in the country for 12 years. Um, the Putin's can not take this not personally. Um, and I think they're going to throw away the key. Alex Kokcharov: (36:28) I think it is increasingly likely that Nevada only will remain in prison for an extended period of time. The fact that he was reportedly targets of an assassination back in August last year when, uh, he was poisoned re again, reportedly with a Novick choppy chemical agents back inside in Siberia suggests that, uh, you know, the rust, some strong, um, decisions, uh, which are made by very senior people in Russia, uh, regarding the Valley, Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (37:05) He says Putin would have had to sign off. There's just, nobody else would have allowed a political assassination to take place. Alex Kokcharov: (37:11) Uh, pretty much so. Yes. And, uh, it does sound credible that, uh, um, an order of political assassination of this magnitude would come from very high up in the Russian, in the Russian leadership, Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (37:27) If you're good at managing risk and assessing risk in Russia, is this just another attack or do you consider it a new chapter because we've had journalist and it pulled a coast Gaia that was shot at her apartment before because of her reporting on Chechnya, Boris, Nimsoft an opposition figure killed, I mean, literally right in front of the Kremlin. Um, but I mean, the Valley is a very high profile opposition figure for them to take him out now. For what reason? Why, Alex Kokcharov: (38:03) Honestly, we don't know why, you know, if there was an assassination order, uh, we don't know why the timing was in August, 2020. The fact that Nevada has survived it and recovered and decided to come back to Russia, um, obviously sends a strong signal to the Kremlin that he intends to fight, and he intends to, uh, continue his opposition to the Kremlin and to poutine. And it only sends signals to the Kremlin that, uh, in order, uh, to mitigate, uh, Nevada and other opposition figures, uh, the criminal Kremlin must do something. And I think it looks increasingly likely that he will stay in prison for an extended period of time. And the fact that, you know, I think the fact that the way this large protests, uh, it's only, uh, it's only adds to this because if now Nevada said free, it would suggest that the protests work and that the Kremmling, uh, can be pressured into releasing, uh, arrested, uh, political opponents by large-scale turnouts, uh, uh, during protests. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (39:18) Do you think that the Kremlin and Putin are caught in a corner? I mean, they said that they would arrest him the Valley. If he came back, probably hoping that he wouldn't come back, he came back, he forced their hand, and now they're stuck because if they let them out, they look too soft and that's not a good thing in Russia if they keep them in, it's going to keep firing the street and protests. Alex Kokcharov: (39:39) Yes. But I think, I think the calculation is very similar with calculations, which were happening back in 2003 with, uh, businessmen Mikhail. Khodorkovsky there have been threats of his arrest, which he ignored. And he came back to Russia. And despite the fact that he was given multiple warnings, that there will be prosecution against him, unless he stops pursuing political goals, uh, and leaves the country altogether. Uh, he would face an arrest. He disobeyed, he decided to continue, uh, with his political agenda and he was arrested and he spent more than 10 years in prison. And I think it's increasingly likely I see these parallels with Khodorkovsky. And I think it's increasingly likely that the Kremlin will, uh, we'll, we'll keep Navantia in prison for an extended period of time. Despite the fact that, uh, eight, eight, eight is likely to be a trigger to, uh, protests. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (40:45) How do you read Navalny? I mean, Alex Kokcharov: (40:47) Kremlin's perspective, the protests are not life-threatening. They were not yet the way they were quite significant, quite large, but, uh, you know, in Moscow, there are different estimates between 20 and 40, maybe 50,000 people turned up 15 million people, 50, even 50,000 is not significant for protests. So from Kremlin's perspective, uh, Nevada only doesn't come on the streets. Um, so, uh, he cannot mobilize enough people to create genuine threats to the Kremlin, Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (41:24) But he's a popular figure. And they've just made a very popular now. I mean, they've made them, some people have even used the word Mandela. I don't think he's Mendela figure yet, but he's certainly in re in Russia terms, he's not a holder Kowski who was a rich oligarch who ran oil companies and was arrested off his private jet. I mean, Nevada money is, is a pretty common guy. He's a lawyer. And you know, he's not living beyond his means. And suddenly a lot of Russians will identify with him and support him. I mean, you've got videos on Tik TOK where school kids are taking down portraits of Putin and putting up portraits of Nevada County and they have received millions of views. Alex Kokcharov: (42:01) Yes, nav only is quite popular, but we have to remember that his popularity mostly lies with the urban middle is in Moscow St. Petersburg and other larger cities across Russia. And he is still some way off from, you know, popularity amongst various social classes across the country, live in, you know, across different types of localities. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (42:29) Although you saw protests and 11 times zones. I mean, I don't want to overstate the demonstrations either because I think they are still relatively small, but the, the width and the breadth of them across the country shows you that he is tapped into digital media. He is tapped into social media, um, and people now are not getting their news on Navalny from the main Kremlin television stations who get their programming from the Kremlin. I mean, this guy has real support out there in social media with young people, uh, with different age groups in the demonstration. So you can't exactly put a limit on this and say, it's going to end a certain way. We really don't know, do we it's the beginning. Alex Kokcharov: (43:12) Yes. Uh, and I'm not going to dispute this, uh, the fact that these protests took place across the entire country in, in very diverse cities. And, uh, there were, you know, a lot of protests, a lot of protests who actually turned up for the first time to protest, which I think is quite important. Uh, but from the prominence perspective, it's still not enough to, um, to generate genuine threats to the continued, uh, uh, rule of the, of the ruling elite. So of Putin and his administration Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (43:48) Read is right. And I think the Kremlin will dig in here and they're not going to give any ground which leads to more confrontation and more demonstrations in the meantime, last question to you because you deal with risk and you, you deal in, uh, with corporate risk as well. A lot of people, I mean, foreign companies, a lot of them left Russia anyway, with, with the first rounds of sanctions. But do you think that there will be more sanctions because there are certainly a call for that? Alex Kokcharov: (44:15) Well, we've seen these calls for more sanctions by the European union specifically in response to, um, you know, to, to, to, to, to Nevada is the rest and to the use of heavy force against protestors. But also we have to remember that, uh, there are calls, um, for new sanctions in the U S and they STEM from, uh, other things, uh, which also include allegations of cyber attacks by, uh, reportedly Russian actors against us government and us private sector funds. Uh, the cyber attacks, well, very much large scale, and there have been statements from the, at that time. It was still, um, we, uh, team of, uh, president elect by the now president Biden that there will be consequences and that there will be, uh, sanctions coming in response to these, um, incidents. So I think we're likely to see more threats of sanctions and potentially more sanctions. Alex Kokcharov: (45:20) But the big question is what the sanctions will be from the European union. I think personal sanctions against individuals in the, uh, in the criminal administration are more likely rather than, uh, economic sanctions. There are a lot of business interests in the European union, which, uh, still favor doing business in Russia. We know that Russia still supplies a lot of gas and oil to the European union and the infrastructure projects in place, despite the fact that that's subject to us sanctions. Um, so I think is going to be a very mixed picture. Uh, the European union sanctions are less likely to be economic and more personal targeted sanctions against the specific individuals. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (46:05) Let's end where we started when you saw those images on the weekend and how many different cities they were in and watch them unfold through the day. What was your reaction? What did you think? Alex Kokcharov: (46:21) It was impressive. I expected that there will be protests, uh, on, on that day, but I didn't expect that they will be, you know, across the entire country across, uh, so many cities, over a hundred cities across Russia, and they will be such a big turnout. And also I got the impression that the protesters this time around, uh, appear to be somewhat more assertive in their actions and less frightened of the police. And this could mean that could be, can be potential change in the way these protests, uh, uh, take place in the coming weeks. It will be another protest on 31st of January. It's a good Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (47:04) Point because I was watching in Moscow where they were fighting back with police St. Petersburg, where they were pelting them, showering them, burying them with snowballs and fighting and pushing. And, uh, yeah, it's, it's got the potential to kind of spin into a more violent showdown as these continue Alex Cook tariff. Thank you so much. Dana Lewis / Back Story Host: (47:30) Thank you so much. Thanks a lot. Have a good evening. And that's our second backstory on Russia unrest. So much to play for in the country. Putin is getting old and it feels like he's been the president forever 20 years is forever polls show. Most Russians want change. And the question is, will there be a peaceful transition or just more repression and stagnation in that great country? I'm Dana Lewis, please subscribe to the podcast and I'll talk to you again.

[lurkingcrow]

Naboo, the Separatists and why Palpatine is an evil genious

So I am still seriously tired (for a number of reasons) and have a thousand other things I wanted to be working on (two half finished responses to asks that have been sitting in my inbox forever), but a thought struck me as I was browsing through my feed before bed.

It was a still from the TCW episode where Padmé meets with Mina Bonteri, and in particular the part where Ahsoka asks “Your friend is a Separatist?!”.

And that made me think. Because Mina is an obvious parallel to Padmé - they are both passionate politicians from planets in the Mid Rim who want the best for their people. And that made me realise something.

The tragedy of the Republic is that is was broken long before the events of the prequels. Even if certain Sith hadn’t intervened it was already beginning to fracture: the Outer Rim was already largely outside of normal Republic control, there was growing inequality between the systems closer to the core and those further out. Large monopolies were exerting undue influence to shape policy for their own benefits. Something was inevitably going to give.

What Palapatine and Dooku did though was change the lines on which the inevitable civil war was going to fall.

Naboo should have been Separatist.

No, really, they should have.

(meta incoming)

Yes, yes I know, I know. 

 The Naboo were dedicated to democracy, principles of freedom etc etc.

But lets revisit the situation as of TPM. Naboo was a politically unimportant system with few major exports that were tied up in a Trade Federation monopoly. Their attempts to renegotiate a deal ended in the blockade of their planet, and the response of the Republic is to send two Jedi to help with negotiations.

Fair enough, that’s their job, and one that the old canon at least suggested Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon spent a fair amount of time doing (and doesn’t that say a lot about the stability of the Republic even then). But honestly there was relatively little they Jedi could honestly have done. Nothing the Trade Federation had done was illegal at that point, because the rules had been written to grant them those powers. Unless the Jedi could appeal to the Trade  Federation’s sense of justice (Ha! Yeah right!) then under “normal” circumstances the blockade would probably have continued, to the detriment of Naboo.

Furthermore look at the events that DID occur during TPM. The Trade Federation launched an armed invasion of the planet. It was not a bloodless thing, people died (as the messages Padmé receives make clear). The only hope the people of Naboo have is for Republic intervention.

What intervention though? At this point in time the Republic has no standing army. That’s the point of AOTC. Individual systems and planets may have local military bodies, but at the same time getting them to commit to armed action outside their territory would be a hard sell. The closest thing the Republic as a body had to a paramilitary force... was the Jedi. And there are a number of reasons why the Republic ordering them to intervene in what appears to be a local dispute is a BAD IDEA (many of which become obvious if you watch any of TCW, because honestly it was a brilliant setup and reminds me just how much I hate Palpatine). So, what help were Padme’s advisers expecting?

Much like international relations here on planet Earth, influence is wielded through things like sanctions - behave badly and we will refuse to trade with you, bar access to our territory etc etc. On an individual level this may not cause too much trouble for something like the Trade Federation, but if the Senate as a whole, or even a large proportion of systems, chose to implement something like that? It is a HUGE hit to their operation. The Senate actually had a decent chance of stopping them.

But they didn’t.

Because Naboo was one planet, not particularly important, and why jeopardise existing relationships when they are so profitable? I mean it is TRAGIC what is happening, but surely it’s being exaggerated - of COURSE their Queen says it’s a bloody invasion, what do you expect? No, best take the time to look at things carefully before pulling out the big economic sanctions...

And Padmé did her best, and the idea was that as a Chancellor Palpatine might be able to use his position to convince enough systems to support broad Senate resolutions etc... but yeah, that takes time. Because it’s all about negotiations - what will you give me tomorrow for my support today. 

Which is why Amidala needed to die. A living queen isn’t anywhere near an emotional  bargaining chip as one who died tragically during the invasion. Remember, the whole point of the Naboo crisis was to put Palpatine in power and allow him to start consolidating his control of the Senate. There are all SORTS of powers that could be granted that are explained away by a man trying to end the occupation of his planet through legitimate means, and the death of a legitimately elected monarch is the kind of thing that could add a certain level of urgency - none of the other monarchies want that sort of thing happening to THEM after all. And the more he can push through under the guise of urgent action the better.

But Padmé of course doesn’t follow expectations (which would probably be to set up some kind of government in exile on Coruscant). And blah blah blah, Naboo is freed! Yay! All is well, the galaxy is at peace!

Except... 

They did it without help. In the end there WAS no Republic support (unless you count two Jedi an their tiny charge which, no not really). Hell, those responsible for the invasion escaped conviction NUMEROUS TIMES in the years that followed. Naboo basically demonstrated that when it came to going up against the powerful corporations, small systems were on their own. 

In ANY SANE UNIVERSE Naboo and all the other planets in similar situations should have been scared and angry. When it came to any sort of dispute, all the big players have to do is muddy the waters a little and they can escape completely without blame! Unless you are a Core world, or otherwise critical to the general functioning of the Republic, chances are you are going to be out of luck.

(That’s not to say that these attitudes are universal - you have systems who are trying to stand up for what is right, but as TCW makes clear, self interest is the primary motivation for many.)

Here is the natural fault line. Those who have power and those who do not. Core vs Rim, planets vs corporation. Singly, a planet can do little to reform the system and secession is not an option as it is dangerous to not be part of the Republic- the Hutts are after all just waiting to expand their influence. If enough systems band together however...

But, for one reason or another *cough - Palpatine* the Naboo crisis was largely glossed over - like I said, court proceedings were protracted, no convictions forthcoming, and for the most part people forgot about the whole thing. Naboo was rebuilding, and indeed began to flourish. 

And now, now we get into the evil brilliance that is Palpatine (and Dooku’s) plan.

Again, remember the end goal is for Palpatine to be on the throne with as much power as possible. Now I know I’ve mentioned it before, but the entire point of the Clone Wars was to exhaust the galaxy. And by exhaust I mean in every way - exhaust resources, exhaust economies, and exhaust the population. It not only made the transfer of power to a central authority more palatable (enabling his takeover) but also ensured that resistance was limited and had little support.

So, to have a draining, protracted war, your sides need to be relatively close to each other in terms of balance. And you want to minimise cohesion on both sides - internal fighting, provided it doesn’t weaken the overall forces too much, can only benefit that end goal of chaos.

And so Dooku welded the Trade Federation and Techno Union to the more generalised separatist/reform cause. And it was a brilliant move. The corporations have the resource to make the necessary army, and the planetary systems provide the moral cause.

More importantly however, it splits the growing number of discontented planets.

Because Naboo? Naboo is never going to be a separatist supporter while their oppressors remain at the helm. And the planets like them have to make a similar choice - which is worse? Senate of Corporations? Some felt the potential freedom offered by the CIS was worth bargaining with the devil. Others opted to remain with the Republic and attempt reform at a later date. Either way, their decision was not clear cut. 

Neither side could claim moral superiority, and that was exactly as Palpatine intended. The Clone Wars would sweep across the galaxy, turning brother against brother and friend into foe...

And so that leaves us where I began, with two women on opposite sides

Padmé Amidala and Mina Bonteri

In another universe they would have been allies.

In another universe they might have led a secession of their own.

In another universe there might have been a truly righteous cause for them to champion, one that never necessitated Jedi becoming Generals. 

But not in this universe.

And that’s just one more tragedy to add to the pile of angst that is the Galaxy Far Far Away...

[secret-diary-of-an-fa]

A Farewell to Tossers (Or ‘Trump is Out: Hooray!’)

TRIGGER WARNING: COVID; Discussion of Racism; ‘It’s the Great Rape Satsuma, Charlie Brown!’

Well then. Trump is no longer President Elect of the United States and the world breathes a sigh of relief. At last, we can all stop worrying that the increasingly unstable leader of the free world is going to blow us all up with nukes because he mistook the big red thermonuclear button for the ‘send’ button on fucking Twitter! It actually feels nice to go back to worrying about more nebulous threats that don’t come with a fuck-ugly face and a dubious web presence attached. This being space-year 2020, we still have to cower in fear of COVID, the collapse of the global economy and a slow, choking death courtesy of a climate and planetary ecology that are frankly sick of our bullshit, but it’s still good to celebrate the fact that there’s one less dangerous, narcissistic prick with serious political power. The last four years have felt like a deeply disturbing docudrama answering the question ‘What if the Annoying Orange Ever Got its Hands on Real Power’, but the nightmare is over now. Well, I say ‘Annoying Orange’. He’s really more of a Rapey Satsuma, but let’s not split hairs of semantics. The tosser’s on his way out and that’s a cause for delight.

Now, obviously, this blog is somewhat overdue. Sorry, humans, but I just haven’t had the time to compose snarky think-pieces on major news items in real time. I’ve been busy being in love with- and making love to- an amazing woman (who’s also my sometime glamorous assistant over on my Youtube channel where I post magic vids), writing four novels, playing through the recent rash of Crash Bandicoot games and trying weed for the first, last and only time in my life (the only effect it had on me was to make me crave Mars Bars, which happens to me on a semi-regular basis anyway). However, don’t mistake my taciturnity for ambiguity! I am overjoyed that America has finally gotten rid of the psychotic Cheesy Whatsit who spent not quite half a decade shitting on the poor and disenfranchised while stumbling disastrously around the international stage like a very stupid, ill-tempered bear that’s suddenly found itself in the middle of a production of The Importance of Being Earnest. Like most of my American readers and probably every sane, right-thinking person outside America, I greeted the news that he was on his way out with a fist-pump and a little dance of happiness. I might have twerked. I can neither confirm nor deny twerking.

But what lessons can we learn from this election and the fact that Trump clawed his way into power in the first place? Surely the last four years weren’t just the result of one nation’s collective brain-fart and their abrupt end nothing more than a spontaneous return to sanity? Well, no. The main reason Trump managed to grab hold of power was because he pretended to care about the American working classes. He didn’t, obviously: as soon as he got into power, he started taking away the social securities on which many of the poorest depend and dismantling their access to healthcare, because he’s a megalomaniacal rich dickhead. But he pretended to care well enough to convince an enormous quantity of people who felt alienated and disenfranchised by modern politics and- in particular- by a version of liberalism that seemed entirely focused on city-dwelling, self-consciously woke hipsters and regarded everyone else as a joke. A large part of the reason Joe Biden was able to wrest power back from the tantrum-throwing saveloy wanker was because he bothered to go out to the most impoverished parts of his country and remind that them that yes, the Democratic party did know they existed and did give a shit. Admittedly, he wasn’t the best candidate for working class voters- that would have been Bernie Sanders- but he was the best guy to get the message across in a way that wouldn’t seem patronising. So, Lesson One: ignore the gargantuan body of unskilled and menial labourers who power your country’s economy only at your own peril.

The second, related lesson should probably be something along the lines of ‘maybe prioritise rigorous analytical thinking as part of your country’s education strategy from a young age’. Seriously, it might seem obvious to you or I that Trump is a dangerous bullshit artist, but he hoodwinked a lot of people. And no, they’re not just naturally, randomly stupid. Okay, some of them are- nature bestows a fresh bounty of total fucking clods on the human race with every new generation, after all. But the point is that natural idiocy doesn’t adequately explain why so many people voted for a twat who clearly didn’t have their best interests at heart. The ability to recognise predatory charlatans is a subset of the ability to think critically about information with which you’re presented. Both the US and the UK education systems fail spectacularly to give people the mental tools they need to do this early on, with a heavier emphasis on learning rote facts and formulas which- while useful- only help to build crystallised intelligence not vital fluid intelligence (one is just stats and dry information, the other is the skills you need to navigate modern civilisation). Because fluid intelligence becomes harder and harder to acquire as one gets older, teaching people critical thinking skills early on is really important. Neither the UK nor US education systems really start to seriously teach it until pupils are almost adolescent, meaning that by the time they get to adulthood, they just don’t have the ability to peer through the miasma of obfuscating horseshit that surrounds most political candidates and accurately assess who is going to fuck them in the gall-bladder least. Biden was able to win this time round partly because he was really good at putting his message in a non-obfuscating way that helped to mobilise people regardless of their level of critical thinking. That’s great for him, and anything that helped oust Trump is a good thing, but it doesn’t address the underlying problem. The underlying problem, of course, is that, so long as education doesn’t take analytical skills seriously, the political system will always favour candidates with big, simple messages over more nuanced politicians with complex and ambiguous views, regardless of who the most qualified person is.

If Lessons One and Two were about understanding why people voted for Trump four years ago and why the didn’t this time, Lesson Three is our big ‘fuck humans’ moment, because one thing the election of Trump made is clear is that racism is alive and well in modern America. Yes, many of his voters were hoodwinked. Yes, many of them were legitimately alienated. But a significant percentage of them were also just xenophobic, racist arseholes who voted for him because they thought he’d get rid of some Mexicans for them. It’s tragic that these attitudes still persist in the modern world, but they do. Worse still, I’m not sure how you could easily address it. Fear and hatred of difference- even if it’s a superficial difference like skin colour or accent- seems to be hardwired into some people. While we can work to build a world where these attitudes aren’t acceptable, so long as we humans think of ourselves as belonging to different nations and groups, it’s almost impossible to extinguish them entirely. We’re just not at the point we need to be at: the point where we think of ourselves as a species with common goals and needs, not a disparate collection of tribes and interest groups. Trump and his election to power were symptomatic of this problem. His recent de-election might help alleviate it for awhile. However, only time and repeated, positive mutual interaction between different groups of people (on both the global and individual level) can ever cure the disease itself. And that shit’s going to take time. There’s years of genocide and exploitation and war and rivalry and mistrust to make up for and, frankly, it’s still going on, which just makes it harder to drag the human race in the right direction.

Fuck, that got deep. This was meant to be a funny, celebratory blog about how we no longer have to put up with that prat Trump, and instead it turned into a lengthy disquisition on the failure of education and the problems inherent in how humans relate to one another through Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory (that’s the whole in-group/out-group/fear-and-distrust-among-nations-and-peoples thing I was going on about). Sorry, folks, sometimes life is just like that: you tune in for laughs and get punched in the dick with a dry, depressing polemic on our failings as a species. Happy 2020, everyone! Anyway, tune in soon for a review of Crash Bandicoot 4: It’s About Time, which I promise not to turn into a didactic on the role of Nietzsche’s hypothetical superman in a civilisation that relies on the suppression of certain, key choices… aaaaaalthough…

[baoanhwin]

Trump 2024: the game’s changed and a third term is possible

Pic Gage Skidmore

The norms, expectations and opportunities of American politics are changing

Let’s get ahead of ourselves. I do not expect Donald Trump to win a second term and neither do punters betting hard cash. At the time of writing, he was just over 2.2 on Betfair to win November’s election and marginally odds against with traditional bookies. I think that’s still a bit short. Trump’s job approval figures have just dropped to a seven-month low (albeit within quite a small range), and Biden keeps pumping out solid leads in both national polls and those conducted in swing states.

In terms of the outlook for the next five months, it doesn’t look great for the president either. A majority of the public disapprove of his handling of the Covid-19 epidemic (the figures are against him by about 53/43), and that crisis is unlikely to go away given how high new infections remain across the country. Relatedly, while the unemployment figures dropped this week, the 13.3% rate remains considerably higher than the worst point in the recession of 2008-10.

Meanwhile, his response to the protests following the death of George Floyd has overtly played to his base as well as having been largely ineffective. Given all that, he has a tough task to win over enough swing voters, or to persuade enough current Biden-backers to stay at home, in order to gain victory. If either the unemployment rate stays in double figures or the Covid-19 cases fail to subside, we can reasonably expect more unrest into the summer and autumn as lives and livelihoods are lost.

But he might win – and that needs to be our starting point. So the first question we need to ask is ‘how?’, and we can best answer it by winding back the clock four years. Trump is not a subtle beast and in terms of strategy we can reasonably expect an updated version of 2016: assertions that he delivered on his promises, assertions of greater things to come under him, and vicious half-truth attacks on his opponent.

On that final point, Biden is a better candidate than Hillary Clinton was but he still has weak spots that Trump could exploit – and one of Trump’s two genuine political skills is in negative campaigning. We can probably expect a return to the Biden-Ukraine story that so nearly derailed his campaign in the primaries, alongside questions about his health, his behaviour and his legislative record. That Trump might also have weaknesses on these issues isn’t the point: Trump has never been bothered by consistency nor critical self-appraisal. His purpose in the attacks isn’t necessarily to win over voters; just to stop them backing his rival.

On top of the regular campaign, Trump also has one immeasurable advantage over 2016: his unchallenged status as head of a political movement which incorporates the Republican Party but in truth is founded outside it.

In the last four years, Trump has remodelled American politics: it norms and its methods. Anne Applebaum gives a magisterial account of how he’s done that and some of the consequences of his having done so in her Atlantic article this week but for our purposes, what we need to note is that Trump not only rejects the polite norms of politics but is willing to embrace any methods which advance his cause (and his cause is himself first, his family second and his friends third). That others might consider them unethical or even downright illegal doesn’t matter as long as they work. With a pet Attorney General and hence a tame Department of Justice, that gives him a lot of scope. For now (a point we’ll come back to).

Trump’s reforming of the psychology of American politics (and to no small extent, of America itself) has been his other great political accomplishment, and by some way the more significant. If he does win a second term, it will grant even more legitimacy to his methods, his mind-set and – to the extent which someone so self-centred and short-termist has them – his policies. Ugliness will become the default; the expectation; the standard to which those in DC and those anywhere Trump turns his attention have to operate. For where Trump goes, his army of followers, online and in person, go too.

If Trump does win in November then there’s a reasonable chance the Republicans may hold on to the Senate too, though it will be close. While not every Republican vote can be guaranteed, again, Trump’s mob can be mobilised to exert a lot of pressure on recalcitrant (and, for that matter, on Democrats who might be persuadable). There’s also a reasonable chance that it will have come through more outrageous lies and interference with the democratic process.

To those who say that Trump doesn’t have the power to intervene, that misses what power is. True, election are run by states but they’re also run by politicians in America and those politicians are susceptible to the same pressures Trump can unleash via his lip, his tweet and his fanbase. They’re also capable of working to the standards that Trump legitimises – and of course they have their own interest in doing what help the Republican Party. Expect procedural attempts to suppress or enhance the partisan vote on an even greater scale than usual.

These methods, however, come with a price. If he loses power, the investigations will be vigorous and there’s a good chance Trump could be fighting off legal actions for years. Hence his great incentive to win, at whatever cost and in whatever way.

Whether Trump accepts that he might be the legitimate target of such investigations is doubtful: he genuinely seems incapable of differentiating between his personal interests and his public role. He will, however, understand that his enemies might well try to ‘get’ him given the chance because that’s what he’d try to do in their place. Either way, retirement is off the table: he needs his hands on the levers of power and particularly the Department of Justice, as noted earlier.

Which brings us to 2024. “Hang on an minute”, you might say. “Trump can’t stand a third time: he’d be barred by the 22nd Amendment”. Well, technically he could stand but he couldn’t be elected and he’d struggle for ballot access anyway as an ineligible candidate. But that is not the end of the story.

If Trump believed he needed to protect himself through a third term, could he do it? Very probably, yes.

How? There are two routes we should raise here simply in order to dismiss. One is that he could simply ignore the constitution and carry on, with or without an election. Trump has certainly wreaked great damage on America’s body politic and no doubt could corrupt it further still in a second term but it’s hard to see how he could simply render the constitution null. To do that, he’d need to subdue either the judiciary and law enforcement systems, or the military, to his personal will. He can’t – or not without provoking an outright revolution. Nor can he cancel the election be executive fiat. Again, these are constitutionally mandated and organised by the states (and many other politicians need them for their own careers and interest, unless they too wish to be complicit in a coup that would place their own position virtually entirely at Trump’s whim). Besides, as the likes of Putin have shown, it’s better PR and simpler legally to go through the motions of an election.

The other is that he could change the constitution and repeal the 22nd Amendment. While there are good arguments for that in principle (why shouldn’t people be able to elect a government of their choice?), now is not the time. Trump is not going to begin a battle he won’t win and where there’s no advantage in losing. To change the constitution requires the amendment to be ratified by three-quarters of the states, even if the two-thirds of Congress requirement could be circumvented (and it could) – and the Republicans don’t have and won’t have control of 38 states.

So where does he go? One option is simply to install a proxy. True, that wouldn’t actually mean a third term but there are several examples across history of national ‘paramount leaders’ holding no formal office, which they left to trusted lieutenants – Stalin did so until 1941. The problem with that though is that I’m not sure there’s anyone that Trump trusts who also has the brazen and shameless PR skills to do the front-of-house job. No-one else in his family does.

Instead, he could go for the Putin option and switch the ticket, serving as notional Vice-President to Mike Pence but dominating the campaign and the administration. Again, this would be a third term in fact but not in name.

Here, we need to get a bit technical with the US constitution. The 22nd Amendment’s relevant (and opening) clause states that “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice”, while the 12th Amendment says that “no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President”. Note the subtle difference in wording. The later Amendment only prevents someone from being elected to a third (or subsequent) term; it does not explicitly prevent them from serving as president, should they inherit it from another position – including the Vice Presidency. And if they can inherit the presidency, then it follows that they are not barred from being elected Vice President by the 12th Amendment.

There are certainly those who disagree with that literal interpretation and assert that the intent of the 1951 Amendment was to prevent anyone serving more than ten years and that the 12th Amendment should be read in that context. This debate only matters here in as far as the Supreme Court might answer it: our own opinions are of little relevance (though for what it’s worth, I prefer to interpret according to the text as written rather than as imagined).

Which is where the Senate election in November comes in. Law should not be a matter of politics but on constitutional matters it inevitably carried an element of it, particularly in the US. I can’t honestly say how the Court would rule on the 12/22 question – the division characterised as liberal/conservative does not necessarily translate directly to pro-/anti-Trump – but if the GOP could gain another Justice (and two liberals on the Court are into their eighties), it couldn’t do any harm.

Assuming Trump could win that ruling – and it’s not one that’s stretching a point – it opens up an even more direct possibility: he could run for the Vice Presidency purely as a mechanism through which to transfer to the top job, with the actual nominee always intending to resign in Trump’s favour, before or after inauguration but certainly after the Electoral College votes are counted. But that might be playing the game too much.

The point is American politics has changed. The language and style has changed but so has its very nature. Codes of conduct have been stretched and unspoken assumptions no longer hold. If Trump wants three terms, they’re there to be had.

David Herdson

from politicalbetting.com https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/06/06/trump-2024-the-games-changed-and-a-third-term-is-possible/ https://dangky.ric.win/

[odinsblog]

hey odin u confusing me w ur posts on palestine and israel u posted about the bds movement then u posted abt the dead wedding rings then abt palestine again who side u on?

[re: this post, this post, and ???]

Hm…I like to think that I’m on the right side and on the side of justice?

The “side” you’re on is gonna change sometimes because people sometimes change, and if a person, or a political party, or a country starts doing something wrong, then you gotta admit that and call them out. Try to stay on the side of justice, no matter which side your fave or your political party or your country happens to be on at the moment

Because this tends to be such a volatile subject, please let me get some facts out of the way, up front: the Holocaust happened and it was real and it was one of the most heinous crimes against humanity in history. Period. Full stop. And antisemitism is alive and well. It’s a real thing that Jewish people have to deal with. And for those reasons I cringed when you called it “the dead wedding rings” post—those rings represent innocent Jewish people who were living breathing human beings, who were all murdered. Maybe you didn’t mean it as glibly as it sounded when I read it, but…

That all said, the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is fighting a system of racist Apartheid in Israel and illegal settlements on Palestinian land, so as far as I’m concerned, the BDS movement is on the right side of history. Israel absolutely positively has the right to exist, but so does Palestine

Look, you can criticize the behavior of Israel’s government and also not hate Jewish people. And I know it’s taboo in American politics to do so, but it is not antisemetic to critique Israel. Even Bernie Sanders, a Jewish man, had legitimate criticisms of Israel regarding Palestine. And the BDS movement has many Jewish supporters. No nation is above fair criticism, not America and not Israel. So yeah, I think the BDS movement is a GOOD thing, and I’m happy to read that Kirsten Gillibrand has walked back her support of the bill

You can take Israel completely out of the picture and have valid objections to the anti-BDS legislation solely on the grounds that it’s a constitutional violation of the First Amendment

But….I dO think that there is a tendency to only focus on Israel for human rights abuses of Palestinians (which again, is bad), while we all but ignore things like how the governments of places like Saudi Arabia routinely beheads it’s own citizens for political human rights activism or for minor offenses. So yes, Israel is in the wrong for what it’s doing in the West Bank, but let’s not pretend that the US doesn’t have other allies who are doing equally terrible things to it’s people. But our politicians usually ignore those crimes because they provide us with oil or other rare natural resources

And remember that I’m writing this response from AmeriKKKa where they’re still trying to pass a racist Islamophobic Muslim Ban, and the police routinely execute innocent unarmed Black people like me just for being Black, and where the reproductive rights of women are constantly under attack, so once again: NO country’s government is above criticism, least of all mine

[jaketapper]

Remarks to the Canadian Journalism Foundation

Last night I was honored with the Tribute at the Canadian Journalism Foundation awards in Toronto, Canada. Below are my prepared remarks; I deviated from the text slightly and tried to make edits below to better reflect what I said.

I want to thank the CJF and more specifically the Gala Committee - David Walmsley, Maureen Shaughnessy Kitts and Natalie Turvey - for selecting me for this tribute.

I would also like to thank Peter Mansbridge for those lovely remarks and more importantly for his decades at the CBC, serving as a beacon for anchors across the continent, speaking truth to power, and calm to panic. I know this nation has come to depend on you to guide it through times of difficulty and joy, and I know she will miss your nightly presence.

It is such an honor to receive this award, especially as someone who isn’t Canadian, someone born in New York and raised in Philadelphia. I was seven during the American Bicentennial in Philadelphia, the heart of American democracy, so it was interesting when a few years ago i began doing some genealogical research and discovered that many of my ancestors, the Huffs, fought in the Revolutionary War. The surprise was that they fought for the British and then fled to Canada. They continued to fight on your side in the war of 1812. This was of course something of a rude awakening for a Philly boy.

Of course i knew of my Canadian roots -- My mother was born in Ottawa, and came to the U.S. with her family when she was 7. My grandfather Everett Palmatier fought with the Royal Canadian Navy during World War II serving on the HMCS Cobalt, a Flower-class corvette that participated in escorting convoys in the Atlantic. My grandmother Helen worked as a confidential secretary for the Canadian government. My great uncle Edwin Palmatier, a tailgunner, was shot down and killed by the Luftwaffe in that war. There is a lake named after him in this country. In January 1917, one hundred years ago, my great great grandfather David Dyson, a pickle and vinegar merchant was the mayor of Winnipeg -- for four days. He lost the recount.

Now, if I were Tom I would make a joke about how Peter Mansbridge covered that recount. But I am not so I will not.

Grammie and Grampie and Uncle Edwin and David Dyson are no longer with us, but i brought my mother here tonight and I want to take a moment to honor her for not only having been a loving and selfless mother but for having instilled in me concepts of compassion and decency that i hope have shaped the way i live and also how i perceive my responsibility as a journalist. Thank you, Mom. I love you.

I would also be remiss if i did not take a moment to thank another great son of Canada, a mentor to so many of us who had the pleasure of working with him, my former boss at ABC news, the late great Peter Jennings. Peter was a tireless and fearless and obstinate boss. And he taught me so much and the world, and the world of journalism, is lesser for his passing.

As for this award...just looking at the list of prior honorees -- Tina Brown and Sir Harold Evans, Malcolm Gladwell, Robert MacNeill, Morley Safer and Graydon Carter -- that is pretty august company. Though the ones who mean the most to me are the 2012 posthumous tribute to Jennings and the man who did more to make me a journalist than anyone else, the late great David Carr, honored in 2013. I like to think somewhere David and Peter are watching this presentation, frustrated that they can’t break through and criticize me and make sure that i’m not letting anything go to my head. Don’t worry guys, I got the lesson. You taught me well.

And of course as well all know, people like Peter and myself get the attention, but journalism is truly a team effort. From the lowest level intern to the highest executive, I couldn’t do what I do without everyone at CNN. Everyone in this room knows what a team effort journalism is. Three from my team are here -- Jessica Stanton, John Robinson, and Lauren Pratapas -- and without them and without the leadership of my boss Jeff Zucker, as well as John Martin and Jeff Bewkes, none of this would be possible.

In three days I’ll be giving my first commencement address ever, at my alma mater, Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, and Ive been thinking a lot about what then President Eisenhower told students in the 1953 commencement:

He said: “Don't join the book burners. Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed. … How will we defeat communism unless we know what it is, and what it teaches, and why does it have such an appeal for men, why are so many people swearing allegiance to it?...And we have got to fight it with something better, not try to conceal the thinking of our own people. They are part of America. And even if they think ideas that are contrary to ours, their right to say them, their right to record them, and their right to have them at places where they are accessible to others is unquestioned, or it isn't America.”

This was Eisenhower talking about communism during the Cold War and the Red Scare -- and he was arguing that the Communists should come out and engage in the battle place of ideas and we should welcome them

That battleplace of ideas is something I think about a lot

Especially when liberals tell me not to put Republicans or Trump supporters on my shows. Using Ike’s words, I ask them, How will you win an election against Trump and Trumpism unless you know what it is, and what it teaches, to paraphrase Ike, and why does it have such an appeal for men, why are so many people swearing allegiance to it?

And for those in journalism who do not understand the appeal of President Trump to 62,979,636 Americans, it is also important to try to understand the phenomenon so many of us failed to see coming. If you strip away the falsehoods and the bigotry and the occasional indecencies -- more on them later -- but if you strip those away there are propositions that are completely legitimate -- fixing a broken system in Washington, making sure the elites and the government do more to protect American jobs and lives and livelihoods. We in the media need to rise to the moment and allow these disrupting debates to happen, and let the best ideas win.

But all that said, I am concerned about the weapons being deployed by the president and forces allegiant to him in this battlefield. I am concerned about the lies and smears, I am concerned about the moments of indecency, and for this audience especially I am referring of course to his calling stories he doesn’t like -- ones that are entirely 100% accurate -- “fake news,” and thus successfully undermining the 4th estate with a large segment of the population.

On January 12, a team of reporters including me, Jim Sciutto, Evan Perez, and Carl Bernstein reported the following: “Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.” It went on from there.

There is not one word of this story that is not accurate. And yet this is the story President Trump used to first attack CNN as “fake news.” A term that used to refer to actual fake stories -- The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or more recently the such as the nonsense that there was a Satanic pedophilia ring linked to a pizzeria in Washington, D.C. with ties to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Now it stands for stories the president does not like.

And he does not like a lot of them. And while yes there have been some minor media missteps almost all of the stories he’s called fake news have been proven to be true.

Every politician lies. Hillary Clinton falsely claimed FBI “Director Comey said my answers were truthful.” Barack Obama claimed if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.

But the sheer number of falsehoods and factual flip-flops coming from this White House is staggering. NATO is obsolete, now it isn’t. Jobless numbers are bogus, now they’re real.

And what’s worse we have a situation now where prevarications are not only supported by the administration and its allies in the media but by an entire dark Army of twitter trolls and meme creators here and abroad who work to undermine the work and reputations of those who either oppose the president and his policies within the party or Congress or those of us in the media who are attempting to provide basic non partisan guidance on what is going on while trying to uphold basic facts and decency.

The great discomfort here for Americans is we want our leaders to be credible. The great discomfort for journalists is that if a president declares war on truth, those who try to stand by truth and defend her are then labeled partisans, or biased.

We are not supposed to be fighters on the battlefield. We are not the opposition to President Trump, we are not the resistance.

We all are trying to figure out the way to cover this new world where fact and decency often seems to mean so little. And I do think that we as journalists need to defend truth and decency.

But I also think that too many journalists sometimes allow themselves to get swept up and we cannot have that, we cannot have a world where we act like the opposition. We in the 4th estate must rise to the occasion of this challenge. And by that I don’t only mean that we work harder than ever to avoid the kinds of mistakes that undermine our profession by avoiding stories that get key facts wrong, but that we also refrain from sharing every emotion the moment we experience it on twitter. And that we consider the low regard many members of the public have for us, and that we work hard to be fair to all points of view -- even the side whose members are attacking us and attempting to undermine us -- the policies they advocate, not the attacks.

And let me say a word about those attempts to undermine. Tom Friedman writes in his new book Thank You For Being Late about the advances of technology compared to the human ability to adapt to these changes. The chart of technology looks like this…..the chart of our ability to adapt to technology looks like this. We are way behind as a society where technology is -- i recently read that the average smartphone is millions of times more powerful than all of NASA’s combined computing in 1969

So what does that mean? It means that when your Uncle shared a website called the Denver Guardian -- and a story headlined “FBI Agent Suspected in Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead” -- and spreads the story using on Facebook -- he has no idea what’s going on. His sophistication is here on the chart. The technology is here.

I have seen US Senators and US Members of the House -- and I know no one would do this in your Parliament -- but members of the U.S. House and Senate have invoked websites I do not consider to be credible -- not just on the right but on the left. Recently after Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah announced he would be leaving Congress, Congresswoman Maxine Waters -- a Democrat of California recently lionized by the left -- went on MSNBC and said of him “There are those who think that he in some ways, have some connections to what is going on in the...Ukraine and perhaps in Russia itself, and knows something about all of this. I don’t really know. I can’t say, but he’s strange in the way that he’s conducting himself...Maybe [Chaffetz] thinks that if he rolls out and points to the fact that something is going on with Flynn ... that somehow this will raise [Chaffetz] above maybe what connections he may have with the Kremlin, we need to keep an eye on him.”

This is crazy; it’s madness. And to point out that this is going on on the Left is not to promote a false equivalence with the fact that it is going on at a much greater scale from a much larger platform on the right. 

But lies are lies. Irresponsible fact-free speculation does not become less irresponsible because of a conspiracy peddler’s political affiliation or gender or anything else.

I did not become a journalist to be a fact-checker or a truth-squadder, i became a journalist to hold people in power accountable, to try to tell stories other journalists weren’t telling, and to try to have serious discussions about the way policies impact people’s lives. Probably why a lot of people in this room became journalists.

I did not become a journalist to become a meme or to watch a younger far better looking man portray me on Saturday Night Live, although thanks for that.  But there is a lot of attention on us today as the fourth estate finds itself trying to stand up for basic standards of decency and truth.

And while it is important that we not take the bait and become the opposition that Trump and Bannon would like to cast us as -- thus de-legitimizing ourselves -- it is also important that we not sway the other direction. We cannot pretend that lies don’t need to be called out. We cannot shrug and talk about how a politician’s supporters don’t care about behavior that empirically is offensive. We cannot lower the standards that we as a society hold just for access to big name interviews. We have to be able to look our children in the eyes. We cannot not lower our standards because of attrition and exhaustion or because colleagues are making other decisions, or because Fox, Breitbart and online trolls will lie about us otherwise. 

This is a time for all of us in the 4th estate and indeed all of us in North America s to stand up for what we know is right. Objectivity. Truth. Decency. Facts.

My late grandmother, Helen McDowell Palmatier, born 101 years ago in Winnipeg, was an expert on Sir Winston Churchill, so with your permission I would like to end these remarks by quoting him.

Churchill once said: “A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny… Under dictatorship the press is bound to languish…But where free institutions are indigenous to the soil and men have the habit of liberty, the press will continue to be the Fourth Estate, the vigilant guardian of the rights of the ordinary citizen.”

Thank you for this honor.

[jexxa11-blog]

@msjadia

VLOG

RAYMOND JAMES G. SION AUGUST 1, 2019

JANE AUSTEN

ABE INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL

I. Introduction

Extra Judicial Killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or any legal process. Extrajudicial Punishments are unlawful by nature, because they break the process of legal jurisdiction in which they occur. Most of the times Extra Judicial Killing targets the leading politicians, religious figures, trade unions leaders and sometimes socially popular figures. Extra Judicial killings are carried out by the state government or other state authorities like the armed forces and police.

Extrajudicial can be written like this ex·tra·ju·di·cial , that means-

Outside the authority of the court. Outside of the usual judicial proceeding.If any killing occurs by the law reinforcement battalion of the country outside the authority of the court will be known as extrajudicial killing .It’s a violation in democracy. Cause Democracy is based on the right of human. And thus it also termed with rules and regulation. Civil court has the authority to give order on execution and it’s the highest state of the land.

Extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in the Philippines are illegal executions – unlawful or felonious killings – and forced disappearances in the Philippines. These are forms of extrajudicial punishment, and include extrajudicial executions, summary executions, arbitrary arrest and detentions, and failed prosecutions due to political activities of leading political, trade union members, dissident and/or social figures, left-wing political parties, non-governmental organizations, political journalists, outspoken clergy, anti-mining activists, agricultural reform activists, members of organizations that are allied or legal fronts of the communist movement like "Bayan group" or suspected supporters of the NPA and its political wing, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)

Extrajudicial killings are most commonly referred to as "salvaging" in Philippine English. The word is believed to be a direct Anglicization of Tagalog salbahe ("cruel", "barbaric"), from Spanish salvaje ("wild", "savage").

Extrajudicial killings (EJKs) is also synonymous with the term "extralegal killings" (ELKs). Extrajudicial/ extralegal killings (EJKs/ ELKs) and enforced disappearances (EDs) are unique in the Philippines in as much as it is publicly and commonly known to be committed also by non-state armed groups (NAGs) such as the New Peoples Army (NPA) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Although cases have been well documented with conservative estimates of EJKs/ ELKs and EDs committed by the NPAs numbering to about 900-1,000 victims based on the discovery of numerous mass grave sites all over country, legal mechanisms for accountability of non-state actors have been weak if not wholly non-existent.

Since taking office on June 30, 2016, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has carried out a “war on drugs” that has led to the deaths of over 12,000 Filipinos to date, mostly urban poor. At least 2,555 of the killings have been attributed to the Philippine National Police. Duterte and other senior officials have instigated and incited the killings in a campaign that could amount to crimes against humanity.

II. Body

Human Rights Watch research has found that police are falsifying evidence to justify the unlawful killings. Despite growing calls for an investigation, Duterte has vowed to continue the campaign.

Large-scale extrajudicial violence as a crime solution was a marker of Duterte’s 22-year tenure as mayor of Davao City and the cornerstone of his presidential campaign. On the eve of his May 9, 2016 election victory, Duterte told a crowd of more than 300,000: “If I make it to the presidential palace I will do just what I did as mayor. You drug pushers, holdup men, and do-nothings, you better get out because I'll kill you.”

House Bill 1617, which is currently under consideration before the House of Representatives and aims at strengthening the protection of human rights defenders, could help improve the situation for defenders. The draft legislation reaffirms the rights of human rights defenders when carrying out their peaceful and legitimate activities. It also imposes an obligation on the Government to take all precautionary measures to ensure the protection of human rights defenders against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of their legitimate activities.

President Rodrigo Duterte on Thursday gave contradicting answers to the question as he continued to defend his brutal campaign against illegal drugs that had been criticized by human rights groups and foreign governments. Speaking to business groups, Duterte said foreigners could not impose the term “extrajudicial killings” on the Philippines because it had its own Constitution.

'No death penalty means no EJK'

He claimed that Philippine laws were “pretty mixed up” since the Revised Penal Code used Spanish words but the procedures were American. “That is what we got from the colonizers. That is why we do not even know how to define extrajudicial killing. There is no such animal here. And other countries cannot force that term on us because we are a sovereign nation, we have a Constitution,” Duterte said.

Duterte explained that based on the foreign countries' definition of extrajudicial killings no incident in the Philippines could be considered as such. “Now, extrajudicial killing is simply homicide or murder. Period. There is no such thing as extrajudicial killing in this country because if you use this definition, there will be less conviction and more acquittal,” he added.

However, Duterte admitted later that there may be extrajudicial killings in the country when he was talking about the death of 17-year old teenager Kian Delos Santos, who was killed in Caloocan in August.

Policemen claimed that Delos Santos was shot dead after violently resisting arrest, but witnesses said the teenager was killed even if he was already begging for his life. “Now are there extrajudicial killings? Yes, that is why on the day I saw (it on) TV, I ordered the police to detain the three policemen,” Duterte said.

President Rodrigo Duterte has admitted for the first time to authorising extrajudicial killings as part of his war on drugs in the Philippines.

Duterte made the admission during a speech at the presidential palace on Thursday, where he directly challenged anyone who criticised how he ran the country. “I told the military, what is my fault? Did I steal even one peso?” said Duterte. “My only sin is the extrajudicial killings.”

Duterte has previously addressed the existence of extra-judicial killings but has always denied they were state-sponsored. This direct acknowledgment of his role in the deaths could give further weight to the ongoing preliminary investigation by the international criminal court (ICC) into the thousands of extrajudicial killings carried out as part of Duterte’s “war on drugs”.

III. Conclusion

Each time a person is killed by the police, the government, in effect, casts a vote of no confidence in the judiciary. Each time a person is denied trail, the legal system of the country is undermined. Each time the law enforcing agencies are allowed to randomly “kill” a suspect, the government creates a Frankenstein. Each time police take a person’s life without the due process of law, the government itself becomes a lawbreaker and reduces itself, in a sense to the level of those that it is trying to punish. An inevitable consequence of this process is that the legally constituted greatly loses its moral authority to government.

The core feature that distinguishes a cilized society from an uncivilized society from an uncivilized one that the former is governed by law and the latter is not. A vital portion of that feature is the principle that “no one is above the law”., from the highest office holder to the most disadvantaged individual. The modern state, through the organ of the judiciary, has been given the power to put someone to death. We underscore the fact that the judiciary is the only organ of the state, not the executive or legislative that enjoys this exceptional power. The judiciary has been allowed this power under very special circumstances and that also after a thorough and lengthy process of law has been completed. Why has so many preconditions been imposed on the judiciary before it can exercise its power of sentencing to death? Simply because life is the Creator’s greatest gift to Humankind and the “Right to Life” is the most fundamental of University recognized human rights, and once taken it can never been restored.

The “crossfire” phenomenon has demolished our claim to be a society under law. Today we have a special force that has been empowered to kill. Not only can it kill at will, it can literally pick up anybody with significant, insignificant or no criminal record and put him(so far there has not been any woman) to the so-called crossfire and kill him. We have also learnt that people who have been otherwise killed in custody is shown to have died in a “crossfire” , it can be called a murder, because this is not a section of the law enforcement machinery that has gone astray and is on a killing spree on its own without the knowledge of the authority. No, this is a specially constituted and trained body that has been given the ‘go ahead’ authority by a democratically (!!!)elected government to kill people with a high record of criminal activity. Well Democracy basically does not hold that to kill people without any authority from the judiciary or court. So if the name, Democratic Republic of Bangladesh wants to exist without any argue, these murderous executions should have to be stopped.

INTERNATIONAL LEGAL OBLIGATIONS

The Philippine authorities are bound by international and domestic obligations, which among other things protect the right to life of all persons as well as their right to fair trial and the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health.

The Philippines is a state party to several human rights treaties, among them the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life and guarantees the right to a fair trial. It is also a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which protects the right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of health.

In accordance with international law, the Philippine authorities are obligated to:

• Respect and protect the right to life at all times;

• End incitement to violence against people suspected of using or selling drugs immediately;

• Investigate all killings which may be unlawful, including suspected extrajudicial executions, and provide adequate protection from harassment and reprisals for witnesses and complainants;

• Bring to justice those responsible for unlawful killings; and

• Provide remedy and redress to victims.

Under the ICCPR, the right to life is non-derogable, that is, cannot be restricted even “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of a nation.”40 The right to life must be protected by law, and no one should be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life.41 The UN Human Rights Committee speaks of the right to life as the “supreme right” and has called on states parties to “take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life.”

For anyone charged with a criminal offence, the ICCPR also enshrines the right “to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law,” with the presumption of innocence.

In addition, states parties must “ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms ... are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in official capacity.”

Article 12 of the ICESCR recognizes “the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,” and enumerates specific steps for states to take, including the “prevention, treatment and control” of diseases and the “creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.”

IMPACT ON CHILDREN

• The violent campaign against drugs has had a devastating impact on children, who have been killed and otherwise harmed during operations.

• Proposed changes to the Philippine Penal Code, including the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility, threaten to worsen the situation.

• On a much wider scale, many children are experiencing severe trauma as a result of losing a parent or sibling and often even witnessing the killing; they also face deeper poverty after a breadwinner’s death.

RECOMMENDATIONS

TO PRESIDENT DUTERTE

• Immediately order an end to all police operations involving unnecessary or excessive use of force, in particular the use of lethal force during the arrest of suspected drug offenders.

• Immediately order an end to all police involvement in killings by paid killers and a crackdown on such killings, restricted to measures which are in accordance with international human rights law.

• Order police to suspend from active duty, pending an investigation, any police officer suspected of involvement in an unlawful killing during a police operation, in murders by paid killers, in planting “evidence”, in stealing from raided homes or in receiving bribes from funeral homes.

• End the use of any language that calls for or excuses violence against alleged drug offenders, as well as their lawyers or Philippine human rights defenders, and recant previous use of such language.

• Publicly call on the police to respect the rights to life and due process provided in international human rights treaties binding on the Philippines and in Philippine law.

• Appoint an independent head to lead the police’s Internal Affairs Service, with a view to this body recommending criminal investigations into suspected extrajudicial executions.

TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, INCLUDING THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR

• Urgently form a special taskforce within the National Bureau of Investigation to specifically investigate killings of alleged drug offenders during police operations.

• Prioritise, with close oversight of relevant police bodies, prompt, impartial and effective investigations into all drug-related killings that implicate law enforcement officials, including murders by paid killers in which the police are involved, and provide investigators with sufficient resources to carry out actions such as interviews of all potential witnesses, crime scene investigations and forensic examinations.

• Press criminal charges in any case where investigations uncover sufficient, admissible evidence of responsibility for offences involving human rights violations, including unlawful police killings, involvement in murders by paid killers, planting of “evidence” or stealing from raided homes or victims. Ensure that such investigations and prosecutions include persons with command or superior responsibility, irrespective of rank or status, including the highest echelons of the police and politicians with superior responsibility over the police.

• In investigating and prosecuting extrajudicial executions carried out by the police or by paid killers with police involvement, explore the possibility that these may amount to crimes under international law, including crimes against humanity. Such investigations and prosecutions must include whoever

TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

• Promote a clear understanding of the complexity of drug dependence and advocate for a drug policy based on the protection of health and human rights. Work with the Dangerous Drugs Board to formulate a public health approach in lieu of the current emphasis on prohibition and punishment.

• Ensure that individuals involved in carrying out initial screenings of people who use drugs that “surrender” at the barangay level have the relevant medical training, as such training is critical in identifying the needs of each person and offering the appropriate treatment and rehabilitation programme, if needed. Recruit additional doctors to handle the secondary, or advanced, screening of those labelled “high-risk” users.

• Closely monitor community-based programmes, particularly at the barangay level, to ensure that all drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes are voluntary, based on evidence and best practices, and safeguarded by a free and informed consent. Promote a holistic approach to drug dependence, as current reliance on programmes based on abstinence, like fitness programmes or skills training, tend to ignore its complexity.

• Encourage and promote outreach programmes to ensure that people who use drugs are not driven away from health services and that people living with HIV and hepatitis C feel comfortable accessing testing and treatment. Maintain confidentiality of all records. Laws and policies that inhibit the access of people who use drugs to essential health services, including law enforcement initiatives, should be repealed or amended.

• Develop and implement a public campaign to confront and reduce stigma and discrimination against people who use drugs.

• Ensure that drug-related treatment is not compulsory nor undertaken without free and informed consent. Develop specific guidelines and training for health care professionals and administrators on

Pray his soul and don’t to fight back because that his fault drugs is bad health in our life! Drugs can make life shorter! And follow the rules of what president says but its hard to lose someone on your family and in bible say you shall not kill but theres nothing we can do but God is in control to our life and It’s if they will not kill because it’s hurts that some of your brother sister killed because of drugs. And it is very scary in our nation, some people was not involve but they are killing innocent people. Our government is involve in drugs and our other government helping narcos to move it in our country but some drug-lord will stay here to sell drugs those drugs. Help those who our in need keep them close to God, because God is everything.

[algarithmblognumber]

Business If only Susan Collins had shown real leadership on Kavanaugh

Business If only Susan Collins had shown real leadership on Kavanaugh Business If only Susan Collins had shown real leadership on Kavanaugh http://www.nature-business.com/business-if-only-susan-collins-had-shown-real-leadership-on-kavanaugh/

Business

David Gergen is a senior political analyst for CNN and has been a White House adviser to four presidents. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he is a professor of public service and co-director of the Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School. Follow him on Twitter: @david_gergen. James Piltch is Gergen’s chief research assistant at the Center for Public Leadership. His writing has appeared in The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and The Chronicle of Higher Education. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the authors. View more opinion articles on CNN.

(CNN)Perhaps one day, women in America will find that they can reveal their deeply painful stories of sexual bullying and win compassion as well as respect from men. Perhaps we will one day think of each other again as “fellow Americans.” Perhaps our Supreme Court will once again command the trust of the country as an impartial, fair-minded steward of our rule of law.

Perhaps — but that day now seems far away, almost beyond our imaginations. This struggle over our new Supreme Court justice has inflicted deep wounds upon our body politic that may need a generation or longer to heal. Tragically, it didn’t have to be this way.

In an earlier day, the two parties would have looked for ways to reconcile their differences, seriously addressing the underlying issues and protecting the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. But in this case, neither party rose to the occasion.

Democrats took every opportunity to disparage Kavanaugh about things that had little to do with the alleged assault. Republicans, who controlled this process and could have sought compromise, used brute force to get their way and, in doing so, showed little regard for the pain so many women were rightfully expressing.

The result leaves the Supreme Court without a swing vote for possibly decades to come and leaves many women legitimately wondering if powerful political leaders in Washington care about their experiences with sexual assault.

For those with long memories, also distressing was something else, captured in Susan Collins’ speech justifying her yes vote: that our bipartisan tradition, one that has deteriorated severely in the last several years, is all but dead.

Many are angry at Collins for the

way she voted

. But if she genuinely believes Kavanaugh to be innocent and genuinely believes that he will be a check on President Trump, then one can’t begrudge the vote on the judicial merits.

What was concerning, though, was that Collins, emerging as the decisive vote, chose not to exercise her power to walk in the footsteps of

her hero

, the late congresswoman from Maine, Margaret Chase Smith. Instead, she chose to go along with, and even to feed into, the rank partisanship and power politics that defined this process and have dominated American politics recently

Margaret Chase Smith, serving in the Senate in an era of similar (or even worse) political dysfunction and nastiness, did not stand by idly and ignore that issue. On June 1st, 1950, Smith took to the Senate floor and gave her famous speech, “Declaration of Conscience.” Many — including Senate Judiciary Committee Chair

Chuck Grassley

— remember that speech as Senator Smith denouncing fellow GOP Senator Joe McCarthy, and that is precisely what it was.

But

Smith’s words

were much more than that. That day, Smith stood up to her entire party. She made it clear that winning the wrong way was much worse than losing the right way.

She declared

, “I think that it is high time for the United States Senate and its members to do some real soul-searching and to weigh our consciences as to the manner in which we are performing our duty to the people of America and the manner in which we are using or abusing our individual powers and privileges.”

She went on to reprimand her fellow Republicans for their role in that system: “To displace (the Democratic Party) with a Republican regime embracing a philosophy that lacks political integrity or intellectual honesty would prove equally disastrous to the nation.” And finally, she asked Republicans to take a pledge: “We are Republicans. But we are Americans first.”

In her speech on Friday, Collins was right to

point out

that the Democrats made some egregious mistakes in the Kavanaugh process. They sat too long on the initial claims by Christine Blasey Ford and leaked her letter without her permission. They tried to incite their base, a group that already had legitimate, organic reasons for anger, and failed to acknowledge a lack of witnesses who could confirm the party in question.

But if she wanted to keep bipartisanship alive and find the best possible outcome for the Supreme Court and country, why did she not also condemn the egregious mistakes of her own party, the party that now controls all three branches of government? She should have criticized her fellow Republicans for the withholding of documents and the empty FBI “investigation.”

She should have decried the GOP’s rush to judgment and ignoring of Ford’s own right to due process. Surely, she should have rejected President Trump’s ugly taunting of Ford and the awful theory put forth that another man was the one guilty of Ford’s assault.

To use such a pivotal moment, with all the eyes and cameras on her, to critique just one side and cast doubt on Ford’s words was not what Americans needed. Citizens and politicians alike needed to hear an honest accounting of how this process became so ugly. We needed to be reminded not only of the way Democrats tried to block Kavanaugh but also of how Republicans blocked Merrick Garland (one of the most qualified nominees to the Supreme Court) without giving him a hearing at all.

Yes, Democrats ginned up anger towards Kavanaugh with “

dark money

” long before these allegations, but a fair-minded analysis would have pointed out how

Judicial Watch

spent millions to support him and then demean Ford. And yes, Democrats should not have spoken to Judge Kavanaugh the way they did during the first Senate hearing—but he also was wrong to sarcastically question Sen. Amy Klobuchar the way he did.

This piece is not to take anything away from Susan Collins. Other senators could have taken action, too, and she is a fine person who, on more occasions than most, has acted bravely in putting country above party. But if we now want to restore our bipartisan tradition and regrow needed trust in our political institutions, all Americans need to remember the Margaret Chase Smiths of our past and, in moments of national testing, draw strength from their profiles in courage.

If one leader had done that, this process did not have to, and would not have, ended this way. Instead, Americans must reckon with a White House, Congress and Supreme Court that seem defined by partisanship.

Read More | David Gergen, CNN Senior Political Analyst, and James Piltch,

Business If only Susan Collins had shown real leadership on Kavanaugh, in 2018-10-07 05:40:45