Home | About | Donate

What to Do About Bolton and Other Pro-War Appointees


#1

What to Do About Bolton and Other Pro-War Appointees

Sarah van Gelder

“Yes, John Bolton Really Is That Dangerous” read a headline from the New York Times.


#2

Even warmongering “We came. We saw. He died.” former SOS Clinton would not have appointed Bolton to any position, so despite my fear of projectile vomiting I held my nose and voted “for” her.


#3

End the Wars at Home and Abroad!
The time is now to return to the street to make our voices heard. Join us on April 14-15 for united, nationally coordinated regional mobilizations to challenge the war makers and defend humanity. The future is in our hands.

http://www.springaction2018.org


#4

NONE of this crap would be happening now if chicken-shits O’Bummer & Pelosi had done their jobs in 2009 and prosecuted the war criminals.


#5

Short of the fantasy of lining all these pigs up against the wall, what we really must do is what we always must do: organize to build power to hold back imperial capitalism so someday “da yoots” may overthrow it. It’s not like there’s much time.


#6

William Black: “Crimes unpunished are crimes repeated.” The actual quote may be from Frank Partnoy.


#7

The criminal statue for war crimes actually clearly states that they must be prosecuted and that political inconvenience isn’t an acceptable reason for not prosecuting. AG Holder actually committed a war crime by not prosecuting war crimes under US law.


#8

China’s 1961 treaty requires it to militarily defend North Korea if it is attacked, but lately the Council on Foreign Relations and other think tanks have floated the idea that China might not stand by its treaty. True, Xi has not publicly commented on the treaty but Mao also was noncommittal in 1950 about joining in the war of Kim’s grandfather against South Korea. However, hundreds of thousands of PLA troops poured in once Americans neared China’s borders. Trump is almost certainly unaware of this treaty since it has not been featured on Fox but Kim’s visit to Beijing ought to remind sane people of this treaty and history.


#9

Yes, and Obama violated his oath of office by refusing to prosecute the Bush-Cheney administration officials for allowing torture. This was even worse than Obama’s refusing to prosecute his buddies the banksters/fraudsters who caused the Great Recession of 2008.


#10

So ---- as regards the “What do we do” part, let’s take stock.

We have an almost exclusively pro-war, pro-empire, pro-despotic legislature, judiciary, and executive, including almost all of both major parties. Although much of the population rejects war, an electoral challenge to war or its despotic appurtenances barely exists. We cannot vote it out.

The wealth-and-violence contingent has progressively armed itself against Gandhian mass nonviolent resistance since the years of King’s marchers. Alongside the brutal violence of COINTELPRO, we must count more refined infiltration, propaganda, and variously modulated violence:

  • Weapons of dispersal: noise, pepper spray, rubber bullets, water cannons that allow for violent response that will be sold to the public as kindnesses
  • An extremely domesticated commercial mass media
  • Internet communications that are still largely uncontrolled by any central group
  • Eroded civil rights. Bipartisan legislation has already mostly or fully removed at least Amendments 1 and 4-8 from the Bill of Rights.
  • Expanded shadow government. The “intelligence” agencies and mercenaries, with their extensive connections to organized crime both domestic and foreign, stand ready and trained, have open channels of communication and trusted interactions throughout the government. Many are specifically related to the long history of militarist coups–by far the most practiced and expert installers of despotic regimes in history.
  • Vastly expanded and refined surveillance of individuals, along with refined methods of selective and fairly occulted assassination that is largely ignored by the population
  • A far more extensive and better dispersed knowledge of events, almost exclusively due to the still largely uncontrolled Internet
  • Probably because of the prior, a greatly reduced trust in the US government

It seems that this requires a resistance that is in evidence so that people know that they do not operate alone, yet dispersed, so that it cannot be easily targeted for violence and subtler manipulation.

It seems to me that this bespeaks the entry of a new era of emphasis on different methods of resistance. What this might be, I can only speculate. But since the 20th century saw a shift from armed and violent revolution to unarmed mass resistance, I wonder whether the 21st might not see moves towards direct action, monkeywrenching, wildcatting, mid-level and lower-level counter-conspiracies, not only boycotting but refusal of much monetary consumption and the generally peaceful pursuit of a distributed economy. This might follow a principle of least intervention towards a given end.