Date   

Re: NY Times - Mourn the Queen, Not the Empire

Mark Lause
 

Lincoln's policies on slavery and to native peoples was much more complex and dynamic than this.  His pragmatic approach to most questions left him ultimately constrained by the predisposition of the army high command and, in the case of the native peoples, the practiced fraud of the Office of Indian Affairs.  Yet, it was, by no means neither "abolitionist" on blacks nor "genocidal" towards Indians. 

At times and in places, Indian policy was in the hands of genuine radicals.  I offered an unblinking and balanced look at the promise and the practice in _Race and Radicalism in the Union Army_.


On Sun, Sep 18, 2022, 7:33 PM David Walters <dwaltersmia@...> wrote:
Well, Lincoln does represent one of those fascinating historical contradictions: for those that supported Abolition and the Emancipation Proclamation, he is, totally understandably, lauded by African Americans (and Marx and the entire world communist movement of the time, such as it was) and condemned by the Native people's of North America for his genocidal actions toward them. Both are correct.


The U.S. is also now considered a “flawed democracy,” according to The Economist’s democracy index.

Gibbons Brian
 

The likes of DuBois and MLK Jr. would say... "no kiddin'"

The United States may regard itself as a “
leader of the free world,” but an index of development released in July 2022 places the country much farther down the list


https://theconversation.com/us-is-becoming-a-developing-country-on-global-rankings-that-measure-democracy-inequality-190486

Brian Gibbons


Crises, Wars, & Revolts on the Edge of a New Global Slump

Dayne Goodwin
 

with David McNally & Shireen Akram-Boshar
Socialism 2022 conference, Chicago, Sept. 2 - 5
  .  .  .
McNally's second point in his conclusion to Q&A [starting at 1:23:15] is about Russian invasion of Ukraine. Part of it [1:25:47] : 'when Karl Liebknecht said the main enemy is at home - the main enemy of the German working class is the German capitalist class, 100% correct - he didn't say therefore we support the Russian czar.  He said we support the Russian workers in dealing with the czar.  Liebknecht didn't say the only enemy is at home.'


"Ingria Will Be Free": Rapper Oxymoron and Pop Diva Pugacheva Attack the Putin Regime

Thomas Campbell
 

This past weekend was a banner one for anti-war Russian musicians, with Russia's most famous rapper, Oxxxymiron, releasing a boisterous new anti-war video, filmed on the streets of his hometown of Petersburg, that seems specifically designed to get him in trouble with the authorities while, more importantly, calling on Russians to rebuild their “home.” Meanwhile, the queen of Russian pop, Alla Pugacheva, issued a strong anti-war statement on Instagram after her husband the comedian Maxim Galkin was declared a "foreign agent" by the Russian Justice Ministry.

It’s worth mentioning that both Oxxxymiron and Pugacheva are currently in Russia — not in exile.

The new installment of The Russian Reader features Oxxxymiron’s video along with a translation of the lyrics, an appreciation of the song by opposition journalist Yan Shenkman, and a short article about Pugachev’s shot across the Putin regime’s bow.

https://therussianreader.com/2022/09/19/2240/


Reply from Claudio Katz on Russian Imperialism

RKOB
 

I just want to inform comrades about the following. You might remember that I published an essay on Russian imperialism in reply to Claudio Katz – a left-wing Argentinean economist who is well-known in Latin America. (https://newpol.org/russia-an-imperialist-power-or-a-non-hegemonic-empire-in-gestation-a-reply-to-the-argentinean-economist-claudio-katz-an-essay-with-8-tables/; it should be published in Spanish language soon). In contrast to me, the latter denies that Russia is imperialist and claims that it is rather a “Non-Hegemonic Empire in Gestation”.

Claudio Katz has published now a lengthy response (16 pages) to my essay. You can read and download it on his website: https://katz.lahaine.org/desaciertos-sobre-el-imperialismo-contemporaneo/.

I plan to write a response in the near future.


Re: Barbara Ehrenreich

Ken Hiebert
 

My Revolutionary Inspiration, Barbara Ehrenreich


Not long ago, when interviewed by a young journalist, Gabriella Paiella, for GQ (March 2020), she explained that the best way for her to express anger was through humor: “Humor contains a lot of aggression. That’s one good way to let the anger and aggression out, and it’s always been a source of inspiration to me.” The crucial point for Barbara—which I try, no matter how inadequately, to follow and spread—was that we can find joy in collective resistance. In that conversation with Paiella, Barbara suggests that, if asked to give one piece of advice to young leftists, it would it be this: “Don’t forget to have a good time. . . . Political work . . . should also be pleasurable, sociable, fun. And if we can’t create organizations and enterprises and cultures like that, we’re not going to succeed. . . . We have to provide more attractive places to be, socially and collegially.”


Re: NY Times - Mourn the Queen, Not the Empire

David Walters
 

Well, Lincoln does represent one of those fascinating historical contradictions: for those that supported Abolition and the Emancipation Proclamation, he is, totally understandably, lauded by African Americans (and Marx and the entire world communist movement of the time, such as it was) and condemned by the Native people's of North America for his genocidal actions toward them. Both are correct.


Re: NY Times - Mourn the Queen, Not the Empire

Mark Baugher
 

On Sep 18, 2022, at 1:48 PM, Michael Yates <mikedjyates@...> wrote:

Like mourning any US president, excepting maybe Lincoln.
His statue was damaged by black bloc-led protesters in Portland in 2020 noting that Lincoln allowed the largest mass execution in US history when he approved the hanging of 38 Sioux combatants. And he signed laws handing over tribal lands to white settlement as US presidents have always done.

Mark


Re: NY Times - Mourn the Queen, Not the Empire

Michael Yates
 

I don't know why any radical or really any thinking person would mourn the death of these leeches and exploiters. Like mourning any US president, excepting maybe Lincoln.


The British monarchy

Ken Hiebert
 

British monarchy supports legacy of harmful colonial conquest, critics say

https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/british-monarchy-supports-legacy-of-harmful-colonial-conquest-critics-say-5836592

The article above is certainly different than most of the coverage that has appeared in the media here.  But it is not the only item that I have heard or seen that addresses the reality of British rule.
Below is the letter to the editor I sent to the Times Colonist on September 8.  You will see that is was very carefully worded.  Even so, it was not published.
ken h

I understand the strength of feeling around the passing of Queen Elizabeth II.  Much of the loyalty to the British Royal Family is based on their role in WW II, symbolizing calm resolve. 
But I think it is fair to ask what the Royal Family has done for First Nations in Canada.  Today we have a greater understanding of the real history of Canada and First Nations.  I think that is the result of decades of advocacy by First Nations people.  I cannot see any work done by the Royal Family to open our eyes on this issue.

* * * * *

Also, the monarchy gets a mention in Michael Palin’s Ripping Yarns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wKA-mWJjZw


Re: Farhad Manjoo on nuclear power

David Walters
 

John, I will write a "short" reply with my co-conspirator in leftwing nuclear advocacy Marty Goodman, since I'm so busy doing so many other things in my life, including writing a response to Hari Kumar's direct response to my own article in his journal in Berlin. So here goes. For THIS message board, it will appear to be long!   ...  :
--David

 

We read with interest  Farhad Manjoo's article on nuclear power.   We was saddened to see it relied on repeated assertion of outright simple factual falsehood... especially given the author's repeated protestations he had an open mind on the subject.
 
 
Farhad highlights three points in his argument against nuclear power relatively early in the article:


"... the nuclear industry has long been hobbled by two problems that its boosters can’t really wish away: Nuclear is far slower to build than most other forms of power, and it’s far more expensive, too. And now there is a third problem on the horizon. As battery technology improves and the price of electricity storage plummets, nuclear may be way too late, too — with much of its value eclipsed by cheaper, faster and more flexible renewable power technologies.

Reply:
(1) speed to build out nuclear power:  France went from zero nuclear power to 50% nuclear generation of electricity in TEN YEARS... and to 85% nuclear within 20 years.    That is far faster than anyone anywhere has been able to build out solar or wind.  

[Note that NO WHERE ON EARTH has large scale investment in solar and wind (such as the 1/2 trillion dollars Germany spent) enabled an industrial nation to eliminate depending on fossil fuel.  Indeed, in Germany they built more natural gas plants, expanded coal burning plants, and were talking about cutting down an old growth forest in order to dig a new strip mine to get and burn more coal.   The ONLY places on earth where dependence on fossil fuel to make electricity was ELIMINATED (or very near so) has been where there was massive build out of nuclear power... either alone (as in France) or in combination with an old existing large scale amount of hydro power (Sweden and the Canadian province of Ontario. As France officially 10 years ago decided to decrease the amount of nuclear on the grid, the engaged in a rapid build out of gas turbines, thus increasing their share of fossil fuels, foolishingly]

 
 
(2) Cost of nuclear power:   Until the recent hot summer, for years nuclear power generated electricity in France cost approx. 1/2 of what it cost in nuclear-rejecting, solar and wind in wind crazy Germany.   So much for Farhad's argument on that one!  

[To be sure, of late France has had serious problems with many of its nuclear power plants.  Partly due to incompetent management (failing to do needed maintenance that easily could of been done] during the Covid 19 pandemic, in significant part.    Also in part, in the face of the current hot summer, many of its nuclear power plants fell afoul of regulations regarding how hot they could make the rivers they were using for water.  This in turn was a result of two or three mistakes that were harder to see when they were made:   (a) They decided not to build most plants by the ocean, and run the needed transmission lines for the power so generated.  (b) They decided not to build dams and big reservoirs at the sites of the nuclear power plants to have a reserve of water available in case of heat waves and droughts.  (c) They did not provide for the possibility of greatly decreased water available in the rivers with then and now available (though to be sure, expensive... would have increased costs of electricity 15% or so)  in the form of cooling towers at most of their inland plants.   My point here is that (admittedly major) problems France is now having with nuclear power are NOT intrinsic to nuclear power at all, and can be solved with long well established mature technology]

The other point about this is that while the world builds upto 60 nuclear plants now, and more are schedule, the engineering community understands that a "$10 billion reactor" is all upfront money. But the plant, unlike wind and especially solar, will last at a minimum of 60 years now for all the new large scale plants being build and most expect them to be able to last a full 80 years or more. Looking at from an amortization allows this to be seen in a better light then. It comes down to that approx $10 billion divided by 60 years nuclear comes off cheap. Meanwhile the wind turbines/solar panels and batteries will likely have to be replaced almost 3 times.

(3) Farhad apparently was unwilling to put his claim of advances in battery technology soon allowing batteries to back up solar and wind power to 10 minutes worth of investigation using elementary school arithmetic, widely available and entirely uncontested sources of fact regarding the capabilities and cost of the two biggest, most recently built grid level rechargeable batteries (Hornesdale in Australia most notably Moss Landing in California), and widely available and again entirely uncontested facts about the rate of improvement in battery technology over the last 100 years and and 50 years.   It doesn't take much to show unequivocally that claim is absurd falsehood by many orders of magnitude.
 
He does not appear to understand that such big batteries as Hornesdale's and Moss Landing's  were never intended to back up solar and wind power, given their minuscule actual capacity.   They were built to handle fluctuations in power over periods of seconds to a few minutes, and help with changing over from one electricity generation source to another without undue glitching.  In some cases they could do this for a few hours at low discharge rates. In this they word superbly well... and are superior to the older approach of monster capacitor banks.   But it is grossly not in accord with the basic physical facts involved to suggest they point the way to being able to back up solar and wind for the at least one week (some argue three weeks is the minimum required) needed to deal with possible loss of solar and wind situations.   
 
And...how fast is battery technology improving?   Not very fast.   If you look at the history of battery technology... the improvements in one technology and then the development of new and better technologies ... from lead acid to nickle metal hydride to lithium rechargeable batteries... over the last 60 years... it become apparent that battery cost, size, and weight per kilowatt hour of energy storage has been improving on the average at a rate of getting twice as good every 25 to 30 years.    

 
 
The other half of this argument would be to show how unmitigated a failure solar and wind have been, and always will be, in the real world.   Mike Conley and Tim Maloney do a definitive and hugely documented job of that in their book "Roadmap to Nowhere", available as pdf file for free at this site:
 
 
If Mr. Manjoo would like to learn more about nuclear power, energy policy, and biological effects of radiation on humans, the single source I'd recommend he spend time to expand his knowledge of all of those (there are many dozen sources for learning about this that we are familiar with) is George Erickson's book "Unintended Consequences / The Lie that Killed Millions and Accelerated Climate Change.   This book, constantly being improved and revised, is also available free as a pdf file, at this link:
 

Sources:
My primary reference for the specific data on the Hornsdale, Australia  Tesla Battery comes from the Wikipedia article on it:
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Power_Reserve
 
 
 
The original installation in 2017 was the largest lithium-ion battery in the world at 129 MWh and 100 MW.[1] It was expanded in 2020 to 194 MWh at 150 MW. Despite the expansion, it lost that title in August 2020 to the Gateway Energy Storage in California, USA.[2]
 
1  "Hornsdale Power Reserve". 
 
Retrieved 4 December 2017.
2  Spector, Julian (19 August 2020). "LS Power Energizes World's Biggest Battery, Just in Time for California's Heat Wave"  
 
Relevant Specifications:
 
COST:  $121,000,000  USA dollars  ($161,000,000 (Australian Dollars)  
 
Nameplate Capacity 150 MW
 
Storage Capacity:   194 MW  hrs
 
Real World electrical energy delivery capacity:
  
  70 MW for 10 minutes
  30 MW for 3 hours (180 minutes)

This is not serious "backup".
 

 


Rail Workers, Nurses, Teachers Are Fighting From the Bottom Up

Steven L. Robinson
 

Jane McAlevey's take on the rail strike tentative agreement and the Minnesota nurses strike.

 

 

McAlevey thinks the rail workers got a bad deal and faults the Minnesota nurses for going back to work with nothing to show for their walkout. She generally blames the union leadership for lack of preparedness.

 

Interesting that one of the stories she cites as a success, the recently concluded Seattle teachers strike, is not seen that way by many of its participants.

 

https://www.labornotes.org/2022/09/seattle-teachers-end-week-long-strike

 

From the conclusion of that article:

 

Members I spoke to after the vote were frustrated with the hard push by leadership to suspend the strike rather than allow members time to review the TA—and concerned that the agreement comes far short of their demands. “We fended off the worst, but we barely moved beyond that,” said high school special ed paraprofessional James Whitney Kahn


Farhad Manjoo on nuclear power

John Reimann
 

Farhad Manjoo is no environmental fanatic. He simply takes a hard headed look at nuclear power from the point of view of cost and time. He argues that every dollar spent on nuclear power is a dollar not spent on renewable energy and that it takes far too long to build a nuclear plant to make nuclear effective in stopping global warming. He also argues that enormous advances in battery technology more or less solve the intermittancy problem of wind and solar power.

I am looking forward to David Walters response.

Whenever I write about the plummeting costs and growing capabilities of wind power, solar power and batteries, I’m usually met with a barrage of radioactive responses from the internet’s overheated nuclear reactors — social-media-savvy environmental activists who insist that nuclear power should play a leading role in the world’s transition away from fossil fuels.

The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, they point out, but nuclear power plants produce carbon-free energy day and night, rain or shine. Their argument that nuclear power is unfairly maligned has been bolstered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; Germany, which shut down many of its nuclear plants in the past decade while building natural gas pipelines to Russia, now faces a deep energy crunch. It has had to burn more coal to keep the lights on.

I’m not a never-nuke, but I’ve had my doubts about atomic power. Still, I wanted to keep an open mind. So last week I flew to London to attend the World Nuclear Symposium, an annual conference put on by the nuclear industry’s global trade group, the World Nuclear Association. I heard an earful from industry executives, analysts, lobbyists and government officials who are giddy about nuclear power’s prospects for powering the world of tomorrow.

I’ll give the pronuclear folks this: They do make a good case that nuclear has gotten a too-bad rap. Nuclear power is relatively safe, reliable and clean; compared to the planetary destruction wrought by fossil fuels, nuclear power looks like a panacea. Patrick Fragman, the C.E.O. of the large American nuclear manufacturer Westinghouse, said his industry had to “unwind decades of brainwashing of public opinion in many countries” about the dangers of nuclear power.

But the argument for significantly ramping up the production of nuclear power — especially in places where overall energy consumption isn’t growing, like in the United States and Europe — falls short. That’s because the nuclear industry has long been hobbled by two problems that its boosters can’t really wish away: Nuclear is far slower to build than most other forms of power, and it’s far more expensive, too. And now there is a third problem on the horizon. As battery technology improves and the price of electricity storage plummets, nuclear may be way too late, too — with much of its value eclipsed by cheaper, faster and more flexible renewable power technologies.

In order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels — the goal set in the Paris Agreement to avert the worst effects of global warming — experts say that we need to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions to a net of zero by 2050. Responding to such a climate emergency with nuclear power is like calling on a sloth to put out a house fire. The 63 nuclear reactors that went into service around the world between 2011 and 2020 took an average of around 10 years to build. By comparison, solar and wind farms can be built in months; in 2020 and 2021 alone, the world added 464 gigawatts of wind and solar power-generation capacity, which is more power than can be generated by all the nuclear plants operating in the world today.

The nuclear industry has been notorious for cost overruns and delays. The only nuclear reactors under construction in the United States — a Westinghouse project at the Plant Vogtle power station in Georgia —  were started in 2013 and projected to be finished in 2017. They are still not done — and an initial budget of $14 billion has more than doubled to over $28 billion. In 2017, utilities in South Carolina canceled two reactors midway through construction after cost projections ballooned from $11.5 billion to more than $25 billion.

And after all this build time, you get a very expensive source of energy. In a common energy industry measure known as “levelized cost,” nuclear’s minimum price is about $131 per megawatt-hour, which is at least twice the price of natural gas and coal, and four times the cost of utility-scale solar and onshore wind power installations. And the high price of nuclear power doesn’t include its extraneous costs, such as the staggering price of disasters. Cleanup and other costs for the 2011 Fukushima disaster, caused by an earthquake and a tsunami off the Japanese coast, may approach a trillion dollars.

Nuclear boosters say that these problems can be solved. There was much talk at the conference about streamlining regulations and reducing costs and build times by constructing smaller, more advanced and less disaster-prone reactors. Once we start building more, the industry will start seeing the benefits of scale and efficiency, several industry insiders told me.

“The best way to become good at building nuclear power plants is to build nuclear power plants,” said Sama Bilbao y Léon, the director general of the World Nuclear Association. John Kotek, an executive at the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s American trade group, pointed out that the U.S. Navy builds nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers in a matter of years — suggesting that quick build times for small reactors could be doable.

Perhaps. But the much-vaunted small reactors are still novel, mainly untested technology. In another era, it may have been worth taking a gamble on these systems in order to avert climate disaster.

But Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and a longtime proponent of renewable energy, told me that such a bet makes less sense today, when wind and solar power keep getting better — because any new money put in nuclear is money you aren’t spending on renewable projects that could lower emissions immediately.

There’s an opportunity cost “of waiting around for a nuclear reactor to be built when you could have spent that money on wind or solar and got rid of emissions much faster,” Jacobson said. This cost may be particularly onerous when you consider the rapid advancement in battery technology, which can help address the main shortcoming of renewable power: its intermittency. The price of lithium-ion batteries has dropped by about 97 percent since they were introduced in 1991, and prices are projected to keep falling.

Jacobson is one of several researchers who have argued that such advances will render nuclear power essentially obsolete. As we build more renewable energy systems — onshore and offshore wind, solar power everywhere — and improve technologies to store energy (through batteries and other ideas), wind and solar can meet most of our energy needs, says Jacobson. In a 2015 paper, he argued that the world can be powered through renewable energy alone. His findings have been hotly disputed, but other researchers have come to similar conclusions.

On the other hand, the International Energy Agency’s projections for reaching net-zero energy still rely on nuclear. The agency says that nuclear capacity will need to double by 2050, with two-thirds of that growth occurring in developing economies. Still, even with nuclear’s doubling, the I.E.A. says nuclear power will contribute less than 10 percent of global electricity in 2050; over the same period, the agency says renewable generation will grow eightfold, contributing 90 percent of electric power in 2050.

Clearly, then, nuclear’s problems don’t mean we should shut down all nuclear plants; existing plants are quite valuable in our energy mix as we ramp up solar and wind. And in places like China, India and other regions where demand for energy is growing, new nuclear plants may have a big role to play — and if the small, advanced reactors become viable, perhaps we’ll see some of those, too.

But it’s unlikely that nuclear can play anything close to a dominant role; its share of electricity production is quite likely to fall over time.

Which isn’t really a surprise. A quick glance at daily headlines suggests nuclear power is plagued by too many problems for comfort. I landed in London at around the same time that international energy regulators were making emergency plans for maintaining the safety of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which had come under shelling from Russian troops. In South Korea, operators of the Kori nuclear power plant were cutting production in anticipation of a massive typhoon. And this summer in France, which gets about 70 percent of its electricity from nuclear power, plant operators had to cut production because hot weather had raised the temperature of river water used to cool the reactors — kind of a big problem on a planet that keeps heating up.

Tyson Slocum, the director of the energy program at the advocacy group Public Citizen, summed up these problems neatly: “Nuclear power has simply been eclipsed,” he said. “It was an incredible zero-emission resource for its day. But for much of the energy system today, that day has long passed.”


--
“Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook


What is happening inside Ukraine and Russia? Two forums. Register now!

anthonyboynton@...
 

Ukraine Socialist Solidarity Campaign Forums

The previous announcement's registration link did not work. You can register at the link below.

 

Sunday, September 25:

What is happening inside Ukraine?

The stunning success of Ukraine’s military counter-offensive in Ukraine’s north east has taken many by surprise and has received widespread comment. Much of the news focuses on Ukraine’s president, Zelensky. Yet like every other country in the world, the class struggle continues in Ukraine. What was the situation of the class struggle before Russia’s imperialist invasion and how has that invasion affected the struggle? What was the situation in the newly liberated areas of Ukraine and how has it changed? What effect has the recent counteroffensive had on the mood within Ukraine? What are the political perspectives for Ukraine? What are the perspectives for the left in Ukraine?

 

 

Hear Vladyslav Starodubtsev discuss these and other questions. Vladyslav is a historian of Central and Eastern Europe, a social activist and a member of the Rada (collective leadership body) of the Ukrainian democratic socialist organization Sotsialnyi Rukh

 

9:00 a.m. Pacific Coast time; 12:00 p.m. East Coast time

(check time difference in other areas)

See below for registration for meeting

 

 

Sunday, October 2

What is happening inside Russia?

The recent counteroffensive of Ukrainian troops and the fleeing of their Russian counterparts in the north east of the country has brought increased criticism of Putin within Russia. That leads to the question of the stability of the Putin regime.

  • What is the basis of Putin’s regime up until now?
  • How long can Putin last?
  • What internal opposition exists to Putin, both from the left and from the right?
  • What possible perspectives exist for a post-Putin Russia?

Hear Ilya Budraitskis speak on these and related questions.

Ilya Budraitskis is a left oppositionist to Putin who is currently living in exile outside of Russia. He is a political writer.

Register here


https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZUlcuuqqjIjGNQRPgdpDNgCrfoBRY92J7bh?fbclid=IwAR2z7kRtlNIH8zLina1BuES_Rr4kejFV6spX7teiCN_a1X-4yHoqdGArxDg


NY Times - Mourn the Queen, Not the Empire

Dennis Brasky
 

No mourning of any of the royals!

As the head of the postwar British Commonwealth, the Queen symbolized the effort to put the brakes on the global wave of decolonization, including deadly and secret campaigns of state violence in Northern Ireland, Kenya, and elsewhere.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/08/opinion/queen-empire-decolonization.html



Re: So, the British Empire civilized India

Mark Lause
 

Oh yes.  

But based on his statements beyond this specific comment on Britain and India.  

And, of course, fascism does grow out of the ultimate instabilities of imperialism and its tendency to find increasingly authoritarian solutions to those contraductions.



On Fri, Sep 16, 2022, 9:28 AM Michael Yates <mikedjyates@...> wrote:
Don't you think he be saluting the Fuhrer? I certainly do. Do you follow him? Believes in the white replacement theory. Fred of Hungary's presdient. Etc.


Israelis justify killing of Shireen Abu Akleh — and Biden aides echo the talking points

Dennis Brasky
 

Two Israeli writers explain the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh as the price of Israel's clamping down on terrorism originating in the West Bank, with no consideration of the Palestinian experience under an apartheid army. Yet these talking points are echoed by Biden administration officials. Even as the Lapid government moves forward on more Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands, colonies that the Netanyahu government didn't approve.


Re: So, the British Empire civilized India

Michael Yates
 

Don't you think he be saluting the Fuhrer? I certainly do. Do you follow him? Believes in the white replacement theory. Fred of Hungary's presdient. Etc.


Re: So, the British Empire civilized India

Michael Karadjis
 

It's entirely consistent then that Carlson similarly thinks Russian imperialist occupation is not such a bad thing for Ukraine. 


On Fri, 16 Sep. 2022, 10:38 pm Mark Lause, <markalause@...> wrote:
This was the view promulgated in all "respectable" quarters for generations, so the statement alone just makes him a run of the mill two-bit imperialist.

On Thu, Sep 15, 2022, 7:03 PM John Edmundson <johnedmundson4@...> wrote:
Does that make Carlson a fascist, an idiot, or just willfully ignorant?

On Fri, 16 Sep 2022, 03:14 Michael Yates, <mikedjyates@...> wrote:
The fascist, Tucker Carlson, said that the British Empire civilized India. He should be stomped on by a hundred thousand Indians and his remains fed to tigers. Read the account of Prabhat and Utsa Patnaik (Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present) for the truth of the matter. Britain in India was an unending nightmare of oppression and violence for the Indian people. 


Re: So, the British Empire civilized India

Mark Lause
 

This was the view promulgated in all "respectable" quarters for generations, so the statement alone just makes him a run of the mill two-bit imperialist.


On Thu, Sep 15, 2022, 7:03 PM John Edmundson <johnedmundson4@...> wrote:
Does that make Carlson a fascist, an idiot, or just willfully ignorant?

On Fri, 16 Sep 2022, 03:14 Michael Yates, <mikedjyates@...> wrote:
The fascist, Tucker Carlson, said that the British Empire civilized India. He should be stomped on by a hundred thousand Indians and his remains fed to tigers. Read the account of Prabhat and Utsa Patnaik (Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present) for the truth of the matter. Britain in India was an unending nightmare of oppression and violence for the Indian people.