Carol's October thoughts on topics of interest...

 Just to give you some reading material until the next time I feel like linking all the issues more directly to higher consciousness, feminism and radical decentralism...

Fire-roasted Dresden-ites 1945.

Two near-nuclear war articles, one about Russian paranoia over US aggression during the Reagan era (when there was at least one false Russian alert incident that could have lead to war). Another about an incident in Okinawa when a US error during the Cuban Missile Crisis almost lead to an accidental first strike attack by the US. In both incidents only the sanity of the rank and file button pushers save most of our lives...  And former Reagan-era Asst. Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts' frightening ruminations over Will The Crazed Neocons Bring Us Nuclear Winter? where he writes: "The neoconservatives should be quickly rounded up, arrested, tried, convicted, and executed for their massive crimes before they destroy the world. Life hangs in the balance. It is the neocons or us."

Nevertheless, the US wants NATO to send more troops to the Russian border! The tens of thousands firebombed and suffocated or roasted in one night of allied bombing of the all-civilian city of Dresden is just a mini-example of what's to come and is what motivates Roberts' rage.

Carol commented on a couple of articles, one knocking and one defending Germaine Greer's comments that men with penises will never be real women: here and here. See also a pretty good one defending feminist free speech rights here.  In this country transgenders are trying to silence the criticisms of peacenik Cindy Sheehan of the sexism of dominant males in Veterans for Peace.

And here: a good start, guys!!! We are lifelong Zionists. Here’s why we’ve chosen to boycott Israel. Steven Levitsky and Glen Weyl in the Washington Post. (Could Bezos buying the publication finally be having a positive affect?)

And see a Salon article about how America is changing its mind on Israel.

Israel's leader Netanyahu really went too far implying that it was the Palestinians, not Hitler and the Nazis, who set out to kill all those Jews, rather than sending them to Israel. Of course, he doesn't mention the 1933 Nazi-Zionist "Transfer Agreement" where greedy Zionists conspired with Nazi persecutors in order to grab as many Jews as possible for their imperialist Zionist dream.

The Atlantic article: How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women by Emma Paling. It's just rife with Carol's comments on that topic, having endured sexism-motivated attacks and double standards 8 years as an editor. I finally was kicked off by a sexist cabal (led by some Brit wankers), in league with the Zionists and anti-libertarians who had tried but failed to get me kicked off in previous years.  FREE AT LAST!! See Daniel Citron's speech on harassment of women on Wikipedia.

Hillary and Benghazi attacks on Americans.  Isn't it obvious the CIA was running guns to Syrian Islamist rebels and didn't want the military coming in to protect the Ambassador and getting in the middle of it? Read here and here and links in previous posts. According to Judge Napolitano she knew and denies she knew. Same with those Republicans who, like John McCain, were all for that. So they pretend they do NOT know why Hillary didn't get the military in there quickly enough to save those guys. What fracking hypocrites they all are!! 

Some articles that make similar points here (CNN 2013!) and here (Antiwar.com 2015).  And then there's the whole issue of why US went in there in the first place without congressional approval, who pushed hardest for it and why, which may or may not be related to the above... Discussed here and here and here. And to add insult to injury, Hillary claims US lack of sufficient military intervention lead to the Benghazi attacks!

More mentions of US continuing aid to these Islamic terrorist bums (mislabeled "moderates" of course) here and here and here.   Even as Russia is bombing the heck out of them with permission in Syria and has permission to do it in Iraq. The US says, we don't need no freaking permission to bomb or put boots on ground in Syria or Iraq and they aren't too anxious to give it! See here and here and here.

And why all the outrage about Hillary's connection with Sidney Blumenthal. It's not just the shady business dealings.  As Breitbart.com writes: "Hillary Clinton Emails Show Rabid Anti-Israel Correspondence with Sidney Blumenthal"  But what's to worry, Hillary's been courting Arch-Zionist and destroyer of US democracy Sheldon Adelson. (Not that Bernie "we should have bombed the hell out of Serbia" Sanders is much better.)

Carol's comment on a quasi-libertarian's article on Trump's candidacy on Brietbart.com, just to diddle the quasi-lib republican infiltrators a bit:

Libertarians support individual liberty against the state. We believe in the right of the people to alter and abolish government, per the Declaration of Independence. We believe in the freedom for individuals in their own communities and cities and countries to secede from larger political entities and form networks and confederations to deal with common issues. In 35 years I’ve never heard a libertarian say they would use police or military force against peaceful secessionists. The people of the world have got to break up their militaristic corporate states that are only oppressing and looting them. Let’s not waste time dancing on the heads of pins discussing how much military intervention is necessary or how many arms McCain and Obama should have sent to Al Queda and Al Nusra in Syria!

And there's some positive news. In Power to the people: a Syrian experiment in democracy Financial Times reports on Kurds who take anarchist green leftie Murray Bookchin's ideas seriously. Now they just have to combine with with the best of Murray Rothbard - or else read Secession.net (after I update it. Sigh.)

And don't get me started on the 30 secession-related google alerts I get every day.  Go Catalonia! And all you other secessionists out there. Just make sure your political entities stay small and practice nonviolence and consensus-oriented democracy (i.e., 90% of eligible voters have to ok a law or tax before it's passed!) That's the best way to ward off political centralization, militarism and looting by special interests.

And thus run many of my thoughts of the last month...

Putin on US Imperialism at the United Nations

Finally got around to reading Russian President Vladimir Putin's speech September 28th speech at the United Nations.  His analysis of US imperialism was spot on. That doesn't mean I necessarily support all actions of the Russian government, of course, which is just another state. But the world heard what Putin said - which is why the US is trying to figure out how to retire him next (aka "regime change"). Unfortunately tens of millions of Americans who need to hear it did not... Selected quotes below...

...When the U.N. was established, its founders did not in the least think that there would always be unanimity. The mission of the organization is to seek and reach compromises, and its strength comes from taking different views and opinions into consideration. Decisions debated within the U.N. are either taken as resolutions or not. As diplomats say, they either pass or do not pass.

Whatever actions any state might take bypassing this procedure are illegitimate. They run counter to the charter and defy international law. We all know that after the end of the Cold War — everyone is aware of that — a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that if they were strong and exceptional, they knew better and they did not have to reckon with the U.N., which, instead of [acting to] automatically authorize and legitimize the necessary decisions, often creates obstacles or, in other words, stands in the way...

... They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.

We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of a chain of democracy and freedom, and that would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories.

What is the state sovereignty, after all, that has been mentioned by our colleagues here? It is basically about freedom and the right to choose freely one's own future for every person, nation and state. By the way, dear colleagues, the same holds true of the question of the so-called legitimacy of state authority. One should not play with or manipulate words.

Every term in international law and international affairs should be clear, transparent and have uniformly understood criteria. We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one. We should all remember what our past has taught us.

We also remember certain episodes from the history of the Soviet Union. Social experiments for export, attempts to push for changes within other countries based on ideological preferences, often led to tragic consequences and to degradation rather than progress.

It seemed, however, that far from learning from others' mistakes, everyone just keeps repeating them, and so the export of revolutions, this time of so-called democratic ones, continues. It would suffice to look at the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, as has been mentioned by previous speakers. Certainly political and social problems in this region have been piling up for a long time, and people there wish for changes naturally.

But how did it actually turn out? Rather than bringing about reforms, an aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster. Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.

I cannot help asking those who have caused the situation, do you realize now what you've done? But I am afraid no one is going to answer that. Indeed, policies based on self-conceit and belief in one's exceptionality and impunity have never been abandoned.

It is now obvious that the power vacuum created in some countries of the Middle East and North Africa through the emergence of anarchy areas,  which immediately started to be filled with extremists and terrorists.

Tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of the so-called Islamic State. Its ranks include former Iraqi servicemen who were thrown out into the street after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Many recruits also come from Libya, a country whose statehood was destroyed as a result of a gross violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. And now, the ranks of radicals are being joined by the members of the so-called moderate Syrian opposition supported by the Western countries.

First, they are armed and trained and then they defect to the so-called Islamic State. Besides, the Islamic State itself did not just come from nowhere. It was also initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes.

Having established a foothold in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has begun actively expanding to other regions. It is seeking dominance in the Islamic world. And not only there, and its plans go further than that. The situation is more than dangerous.

In these circumstances, it is hypocritical and irresponsible to make loud declarations about the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye to the channels of financing and supporting terrorists, including the process of trafficking and illicit trade in oil and arms. It would be equally irresponsible to try to manipulate extremist groups and place them at one's service in order to achieve one's own political goals in the hope of later dealing with them or, in other words, liquidating them.

To those who do so, I would like to say — dear sirs, no doubt you are dealing with rough and cruel people, but they're in no way primitive or silly. They are just as clever as you are, and you never know who is manipulating whom. And the recent data on arms transferred to this most moderate opposition is the best proof of it.

We believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but fire hazardous (ph). This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions, especially given that Islamic State camps train militants from many countries, including the European countries....

 Here's a good article linked from Antiwar.com. It's drawn from a new book about US funding of ISIS...