For his opposition to launching British airstrikes against the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn has been branded a "terrorist sympathizer" by UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who refused to apologize for the slur even after it engendered widespread outrage.
How dare he!! Why does Corbyn hate Murrica?
[That's what I heard in 2003 for having the temerity to oppose the neo-con war in Iraq]
I think it must be the oldest political con in the world: To act as a total authoritarian ruler and insist that this stance somehow respects others' freedom.
How different is this "with us or against us" nonsense spoken by Cameron, than that of the various CIA/State Department mouthpieces who say that Edward Snowden abets the enemy, or Chelsea Manning violated National Security, or that Julian Assange is an "enemy of the state"?
Freedom, of course, is exemplified by a free and open society. When a state of war is declared, all freedoms disappear as those in positions of power use the real or imagined threat to The People as a pretext for shrinking, if not obliterating, Civil Liberties.
All voices are expected to sound as one, and all citizens to march lock-step.
This is why I spend a lot of time exposing how the framework of Mars-rules--granting primacy to the military or military acts on the part of strict government systems--operates, and challenging at every turn, it's self-proclaimed right to speak for all as if all march as one.
THAT is the great lie.
So long as militarism holds primacy, IT will set the rules and those rules are always anathema to citizens and the planet, as a whole.
When the allies won W.W. II, the U.S. imported Nazis. Its own military personnel admired them. After all, warriors are drawn to the ways of war and appreciate other warriors who show skill in that diabolical thing.
To a very great extent, following the adage: "You are what you eat...." The U.S. power structure devoured its enemies only to become them. Now, albeit flying under a different flag, many of the ways and means utilized by the Third Reich to extract full-scale dominance and control are the modus operandi of the West.
As if any entity can bomb its way to peace.
The times are fraught with peril. So many see and understand, but how to stop the warriors. THAT is the question that preserves life or promises its annihilation.
THAT is why Einstein, in recognizing the speed at which weapons of mass destruction were being created and placed largely under the guardianship of individuals who have not evolved ONE IOTA since the human experiment began... explained that the NEXT war (to follow the Big One) would be fought with sticks and bones.
To all of those leaders in the West whose masculinity is so damaged as to push for a major war... there will not be enough eternities to pay the karmic debt.
Well, guess we get to see once more if Goering's Dictum is correct. This was step 1. I'm sure Corbyn saw this coming, especially with an amoral pig like Cameron (probably touchy about me calling him that word). But can he survive this? His own party is still chocked full of Joe Liebermans that are actively colluding with their nominal political enemies.
I wish the man all the luck in the world, and his new supporters will have a huge struggle on their hands now.
Cameron indeed is echoing the Dubya/Cheney mantra of that era: "You are either with us or against us !" .
Hopefully Corbyn has the will to kick Cameron in the teeth, and bluntly call HIM a "terrorism sponsor."
"As the Daily Mail reports, a YouGov survey carried out days after the November 13 attacks in Paris showed 59 percent of the public approved of the UK taking part in airstrikes against ISIS in Syria. But the new poll reveals that only 48 percent are now in favor, while the proportion against has increased by 11 points to 31 percent."
Perhaps if there were a party leader of integrity in the USA who publicly stood up to the faux-patriot, war-mongering bullies and their bullshit, we could witness a similar shift in the US electorate.
Speaking from my own (much less politically weighty!) experience, it is better to speak the truth and "lose" to a gang of bullies, than it is to cravenly pander to their bullshit in order to further one's career. And it's the only way to give the truth a chance.
Regretably, Corbyn might be in trouble. He had to agree to not enforce a party line, which I'm fairly sure he didn't want to do.
Women, Instill in your sons respect for life in all its forms. When there are no more volunteers lured to war by govt lies, the corporatists will have to fight their own turf wars. Eugene Debs was correct in 1917 and what he said then holds true today. Men, read Smedley Butler's book"War is a Racket"and everyone read Wilfred Owen's poem.
"The yes side is expected to prevail".
Translation: the murderous, corrupt side that are the real terrorists and have sold out, like Cameron are expected to prevail because they are nothing but quislings for the war mongers!
Reading Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade, I am struck by many revelations of humanity's long history of peaceful, egalitarian existence in materially fairly rich, technologically quite sufficient, often large, cooperative societies. Through the majority of the Neolothic age beginning 8,000 years ago, in Old Europe, for example, societies that included large settlements of tens of thousands of people feature remarkably slight stratification of wealth, a partnership model of mothering, compassionate leadership and shared resources among men and women, and a reverence, above all, for the bounty of Earth. That's a clear record of humanity's capacity for large societies that are peaceful and egalitarian. Creating such reality again (not that there are not pockets of this kind of society still in the world today) is not an impossibility, and every brave public step by a Corbyn or a Kathy Kelly, a Malala Yousafzai or her father, make possible the process of great transformation that can suddenly accelerate after long-simmering elements build up. I hope Cameron's poison words provide more of an exposure of the rot of lockstep militarism than they push forward more blind patriotism.
I detest Cameron and his pro-American stance on the Middle East. How does the UK keep electing such losers? The same way the country of which the UK is an appendage keeps doing it. Go, Mr. Corbyn; shut up, Cameron.
Well.....shit. Almost guarantees the UK will monger some more war and that Dr Who will have yet more street cameras from which to choose as the security state tightens.
The problem is that women have far less influence and agency within any patriarchy society; and there is no organization of society quite so patriarchal as that which takes hold when war attains primacy and warriors call the shots.
I've pointed out before that the very frames....
War on drugs
War on Cancer
War on poverty
War on illiteracy
War on Terrorism
.... all reinforce the FRAME and mindset of warriors.
I've also pointed out that while the manifestations of Disaster Capitalism (The Shock Doctrine as Ms. Klein wisely defines it) have very clear economic impacts, there is a psychological counterpart. And it's that when people become fearful (and there is ample cause these days for that response given a climate spinning out of control, shoot-outs at public places once a week, rising Cancer and Diabetes rates, and too many jobs now tethered to "temp" work and lower pay) many turn towards the seeming faith-based security promised by Fundamentalist Religions.
And it's those fundamentalist religions that are very big on conditioning women to listen to men.... starting with the male god, leading to the male pastor, and extending to their husbands. It's my view that MANY females who are part of Fundamentalist family backgrounds go along with the martial world designed by males--for typical male privileges (think of all the women left to struggle in war zones, and the millions reduced to prostitution or raped since rape is a very common "fixture" of war) because they don't want to lose the support of their families.
In other words, when patriarchy uses economic systems, religious indoctrination, and very real threats based on disproportionate power... lots of women just adapt to the existing paradigm and try to make due.
How then can such women instill a respect for life in their sons if their husbands abuse them? That abuse can be in the form of disrespect for is it not disrespect when patriarchy assigns to women... a 2nd class role?
How can they instill a respect for life when sports condition boys that TO BE A MAN means to fight, and slaughter "the enemy" first on the sport's field... and later, in a perfect segue-way, on the battlefield?
How can they instill that respect for life when Hollywood uses Clint Eastwood to sex up gun usage and a cold, callous response to killing... so long as the victim is "the designated bad guy"?
How can they show that respect for life in a GUN culture?
How can Black mothers, in particular, instill that respect for life when the racist policing forces gun down their own sons?
No. Women are NOT free to act or make morality so long as all of these patriarchal controls bear down.
The world is asymmetrical in allotting to males FAR too much influence and the result is a disproportionate emphasis on yang things like action, competition, aggression and the ultimate in organized aggression: war. THAT is why the MIC can claim so much of our nation's treasure. And why the MIC adopted NAZIS who, over time, adulterated the nature of this nation (via its military units) altogether.
Until the FACTS of patriarchy and its emphasis on machismo and martial practices are fully faced, no therapeutic shift in the "sins of the fathers will be visited upon the sons" make war inevitability CAN be possible.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Curious, why the deafening silence in the US over their already-existing bombing? Is it because the president is a Democrat, and in the end, all the US anti-war organizations - from UFPJ, our own useless "Thomas Merton Center" in Pittsburgh, to even ANSWER is seems, are largely wings of the Democratic Party?
How easy it is to call for more war when one is so out of range and plans to remain so. those who so believe in war should be on the battlefield not in the bunker beyond range with a microphone. Recruiters should be in our legislative offices not our high schools.
Cameron is just like Bush, Blair & Obama. They believe in never ending war just like Clinton & McCain. McCain was a POW. If he never got rescued, he'd never become a senator that voted for war.
Welcome to 1984 and beyond.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.