Saturday, July 28, 2018

Behind Greece’s Deadly Fires









Jul 26, 2018 









The deadly fires in Greece reflect the vulnerability caused by decades of irresponsible, unregulated development. Still, over the course of the last ten years, Greece has lost many more people to the tragedy caused by the EU establishment than to any flood or wildfire.


ATHENS – A biblical calamity befell Attica last Monday. I saw its first sign in the late morning at Athens airport, where I was seeing off my daughter to Australia. A strong whiff of burning wood caused me to look up to the sky, where a whitish-yellow sun beckoned, surrounded by the telltale eclipse-like daytime darkness that only thick, sky-high smoke can cause.

By the early evening, the news began cascading in. Many of our friends’ and some of our relatives’ houses in East Attica were destroyed. Forest fires had run amok, spreading toward the heavily built-up coastline, cutting the settlement of Mati and the town of Rafina off from Athens and forcing residents to flee toward the sea.

I first learned of casualties when told of the plight of activists belonging to our political movement, DiEM25. The flames destroyed their house in Mati, along with every other house on their street; but at least they escaped with their lives. Barely. Their next-door neighbors perished; when their corpses were discovered the next morning, they were crouched together, their three-year-old girl in the middle of a heartbreaking huddle.

And the ominous news continued to stream in. A friend and her husband, whose house is in smithereens, are missing. A cousin, whose house sits on a cliff by the sea, had to jump 70 meters into the rocky waters below as his house burned down; fortunately, he was rescued by fishermen. But 26 other people, who had come very close to the same coastline, succumbed to the smoke and flames before they could reach the water. As I write, the official death toll stands at 81, with an indeterminate number of people missing. Words fail me.

Why did it happen? A dry winter had produced large quantities of parched forest and bush, which, on a day when temperatures reached 39ºCelsius (102º Fahrenheit) and winds gusted at 130 kilometers (80 miles) per hour, fueled the conflagration. But on this, our Black Monday, the weather conspired with the chronic failures of Greece’s state and society to turn a wildfire into a lethal inferno.

Greece’s post-war economic model relied on anarchic, unplanned real-estate development anywhere and everywhere (including ravines and pine forests). That has left us, like any developing country, vulnerable to deadly forest fires in the summer and flash floods in winter (just last winter, 20 people died in houses built on the bed of an ancient creek).

That collective failure is, naturally, aided and abetted by the Greek state’s perpetual lack of preparedness: its failure to clear fields and forests of accumulated kindling during the winter and spring, for example, or to establish and maintain emergency escape routes for residents. Then there are the usual crimes of oligarchy, such as the illegal enclosure of the coast around seaside villas for the purpose of privatizing the beach. Eyewitnesses I spoke to said that many died or were badly injured struggling against the barbed wire that the rich had put between them and the sea.

And, last but not least, there is also humanity’s collective guilt. This catastrophe demonstrates nothing if not the manner in which rapid climate change is turbocharging the natural phenomena that punish our human foibles.

As is often the case when forest fires ravage Greece, the government hinted at arson. While I cannot rule out the possibility of foul play, I am unconvinced. Greek governments have traditionally found it convenient to blame profiteers, arsonists, terrorists, and even foreign agents. With such incendiary claims dominating the news, officials avoid having to admit their lack of preparedness and their failure to adopt and enforce appropriate laws and safety regulations.

What role did austerity and Greece’s ongoing Great Depression play in the ineffectiveness of the response? Fire departments, citizens’ protection agencies, ambulance services, and hospitals are terribly understaffed. While the fires would not have been stopped if we had three times the number of fire brigade workers and firefighting airplanes, a country suffering a decade-long diminution of its public services, its communities, and its morale can scarcely be expected to prepare itself well for a calamity made worse by climate change.

Journalists ask me whether the European Union is helping. The reality is that we had destructive fires before and after joining the EU and swapping the drachma for the euro.
The EU played no role in helping us fight the flames, a task not in its remit, and it cannot be held responsible for the fires or for 70 years of Greek society’s abuse of the natural environment. But it is unquestionable that over the past decade the Troika of Greece’s official creditors – the European Commission, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund – has actively deprived the Greek state of the resources and capabilities it needs in such situations.

Might, therefore, this not be the moment (the same journalists ask) for Athens to rebel and demand the end of austerity and of spending cuts that are detrimental to Greece’s survival? Of course! Every moment is a good moment to confront the Troika over the straitjacket of inane austerity and misanthropic social policies that have created a permanent humanitarian crisis in Greece.

Over the course of a decade, we have lost many more people to the tragedy caused by the EU establishment than to any flood or forest fire. More than 20,000 people have committed suicide since 2011, while one in ten working-age Greeks have emigrated because of the economic depression the EU has imposed on Greece.

I expect crocodile tears to be shed in Brussels over our fire victims, and similarly hypocritical posturing by the Greek government. But I do not expect any reversal of the organized misanthropy afflicting Greece just because nearly 100 died in a single day. Unless and until progressives across Europe get organized, accept local responsibility, and band together to apply pressure at the EU level, nothing will change, except a further strengthening of proudly misanthropic political forces like Greece’s Golden Dawn, Italy’s Lega, Germany’s Christian Social Union and Alternative für Deutschland, Sebastian Kurz’s Austrian government, and the Polish-Hungarian illiberal nexus. In this context, Greece’s forest fires are a tragic reminder of our collective responsibility as Europeans.


























Ankara's Rising Balkan Influence Rattles Allies









July 25, 2018 5:18 PM



Dorian Jones








ISTANBUL — 

Turkey is expanding its economic and cultural influence over the Balkans, and analysts say the strategy, which targets the region's large Muslim minorities, is worrying some of its Western allies.

The Balkan region was the center of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. That historical legacy has made the area a priority for Turkey's ruling AKP under recently re-elected President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey's growing influence was visible at this month's inauguration ceremony of Erdogan. While Western European leaders stayed away, five heads of state from the Balkans attended.

"Since AKP has this mental construction of re-establishing the Ottoman past, it's [the Balkan region is] important for them," said professor Istar Gozaydin, who has studied the Balkans extensively.

"The Balkans as a region, as it has for so many centuries, was under the Ottoman rule and influence. I do see the renaissance of Islamic identity of Turkish influence in the region," said international relations professor Huseyin Bagci, an expert on the Balkans at Ankara's Middle East Technical University.

"Turkey is using smart power there culturally, economically and language-wise," he continued. "When you look to those Turks living in the Balkans, they get more and more under the increasing Turkish influence."

Some European leaders are already voicing concern. "I don't want a Balkans that turns toward Turkey or Russia," French President Emmanuel Macron declared in May. Erdogan quickly shot back, saying the comment was "unbecoming of a statesman."

The Turkish economy dwarfs those of its Balkan neighbors, and economic muscle is at the forefront of Ankara's projection of influence. "Turkey is building airports, even investing in several sectors, like in Bulgaria and Romania, from textiles to many others," Bagci said.

"There is an aggressive economic policy toward the Balkan countries, which cannot compete with Turkey," Bagci said. "In the Balkans, we have two big countries getting influence. One is Germany and the other one Turkey."

Trade has helped Ankara overcome past animosities. "These countries, many of them, don't have automatic access to the EU [European Union], and many of them look to Turkey for trade," said columnist Semih Idiz of the Al Monitor website.

'Quite close'

"During the recent Balkan war, Turkey and Serbia were at opposite ends of the fence. They looked at one another with great enmity. Today, we see Serbia and Turkey are quite close, despite differences over Kosovo and Bosnia and things like that. A country like Serbia values its friendship with Turkey, and I think it applies to a certain extent to countries like Croatia, too," Idiz said. He was referring to the events that led to the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Serbia is now Turkey's main Balkan trading partner, with $1 billion in commerce.

Reaching out to the Balkans' large ethnic Turkish population, through the promotion of religion and cultural awareness, is also an essential tool deployed by Ankara.

"They are using religion. They are using diplomacy. Institutions like Tika and Diyanet have been working quite efficiently and hard in the region," Gozaydin said.

Tika is the Turkish state's development agency, while the Diyanet administers Turkey's Islamic affairs nationally and internationally. The two institutions are at the forefront of expanding Turkish influence in the Balkans.

"They work with the authorities in those countries. They try to influence the politics there," Gozaydin said. "In Bosnia, they are trying, for example, to be influential in the appointment of religious authorities so they can work together."

Turkey has been funding mosque projects across the Balkans, including two of the region's largest mosques in Albania and Bulgaria. Turkish cultural foundations also work to promote ethnic Turkish identity.

While Ankara has been successful in projecting its influence, there are signs of growing unease, Gozaydin warned. She said she had met quite a few people in the Balkans, including some authorities, "who were not happy with Turkey trying too hard to have an influence on them. So that was considered to be an interference in their domestic politics."

'Grave concern'

Last year, the United States voiced alarm about Ankara's policy. "The Balkans is an area of grave concern now," said then-national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

Ankara dismissed such criticism, contending that it was only re-establishing cultural ties that date back centuries and claiming that Russia and other European countries were jockeying for influence in the Balkans. In May, European officials held talks with western Balkan leaders in Bulgaria to reaffirm the "European perspective" of that region.

Given the Balkans' recent history of ethnic and religious conflict [sic], however, analysts warn of the risk of a nationalist backlash if Ankara does not tread carefully.

"The Turkish minorities, or Muslim minorities, yes, they are always considered as a potential threat by the majority of the Balkan countries," Bagci said. "The more the Muslim identity gets stronger, the more populist movements in the Balkans, like in Germany and other countries, will increase and get stronger. This is the potential conflict."

































The Utility of the RussiaGate Conspiracy











JULY 27, 2018


New McCarthyism allows corporate media to tighten grip, Democrats to ignore their own failings


ALAN MACLEOD




To the shock of many, Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential elections, becoming the 45th president of the United States. Not least shocked were corporate media, and the political establishment more generally; the Princeton Election Consortium confidently predicted an over 99 percent chance of a Clinton victory, while MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow (10/17/16) said it could be a “Goldwater-style landslide.”

Indeed, Hillary Clinton and her team actively attempted to secure a Trump primary victory, assured that he would be the easiest candidate to beat. The Podesta emails show that her team considered even before the primaries that associating Trump with Vladimir Putin and Russia would be a winning strategy and employed the tactic throughout 2016 and beyond.

With Clinton claiming, “Putin would rather have a puppet as president,” Russia was by far the most discussed topic during the presidential debates (FAIR.org, 10/13/16), easily eclipsing healthcare, terrorism, poverty and inequality. Media seized upon the theme, with Paul Krugman (New York Times, 7/22/16) asserting Trump would be a “Siberian candidate,” while ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden (Washington Post, 5/16/16) claimed Trump would be Russia’s “useful fool.”

The day after the election, Jonathan Allen’s book Shattered detailed, Clinton’s team decided that the proliferation of Russian-sponsored “fake news” online was the primary reason for their loss.

Within weeks, the Washington Post (11/24/16) was publicizing the website PropOrNot.com, which purports to help users differentiate sources as fake or genuine, as an invaluable tool in the battle against fake news (FAIR.org, 12/1/1612/8/16). The website soberly informs its readers that you see news sources critiquing the “mainstream media,” the EU, NATO, Obama, Clinton, Angela Merkel or other centrists are a telltale sign of Russian propaganda. It also claims that when news sources argue against foreign intervention and war with Russia, that’s evidence that you are reading Kremlin-penned fake news.


PropOrNot claims it has identified over 200 popular websites that “routinely peddle…Russian propaganda.” Included in the list were Wikileaks, Trump-supporting right-wing websites like InfoWars and the Drudge Report, libertarian outlets like the Ron Paul Institute and Antiwar.com, and award-winning anti-Trump (but also Clinton-critical) left-wing sites like TruthDig and Naked Capitalism. Thus it was uniquely news sources that did not lie in the fairway between Clinton Democrats and moderate Republicans that were tarred as propaganda.

PropOrNot calls for an FBI investigation into the news sources listed. Even its creators see the resemblance to a new McCarthyism, as it appears as a frequently asked question on their website. (They say it is not McCarthyism, because “we are not accusing anyone of lawbreaking, treason, or ‘being a member of the Communist Party.’”) However, this new McCarthyism does not stem from the conservative right like before, but from the establishment center.

That the list is so evidently flawed and its creators refuse to reveal their identities or funding did not stop the issue becoming one of the most discussed in mainstream circles. Media talk of fake news sparked organizations like Google, Facebook, Bing and YouTube to change their algorithms, ostensibly to combat it.

However, one major effect of the change has been to hammer progressive outlets that challenge the status quo. The Intercept reported a 19 percent reduction in Google search traffic, AlterNet 63 percent and Democracy Now! 36 percent. Reddit and Twitter deleted thousands of accounts, while in what came to be called the “AdPocalypse,” YouTube began demonetizing videos from independent creators like Majority Report and the Jimmy Dore Show on controversial political topics like environmental protests, war and mass shootings. (In contrast, corporate outlets like CNN did not have their content on those subjects demonetized.) Journalists that questioned aspects of the Russia narrative, like Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Maté, were accused of being agents of the Kremlin (Shadowproof, 7/9/18).

The effect has been to pull away the financial underpinnings of alternative media that question the corporate state and capitalism in general, and to reassert corporate control over communication, something that had been loosened during the election in particular. It also impels liberal journalists to prove their loyalty by employing sufficiently bellicose and anti-Russian rhetoric, lest they also be tarred as Kremlin agents.

When it was reported in February that 13 Russian trolls had been indicted by a US grand jury for sharing and promoting pro-Trump and anti-Clinton memes on Facebook, the response was a general uproar. Multiple senior political figures declared it an “act of war.” Clinton herself described Russian interference as a “cyber 9/11,” while Thomas Friedman said that it was a “Pearl Harbor–scale event.” Morgan Freeman’s viral video, produced by Rob Reiner’s Committee to Investigate Russia, summed up the outrage:

 “We have been attacked,” the actor declared; “We are at war with Russia.” Liberals declared Trump’s refusal to react in a sufficiently aggressive manner further proof he was Putin’s puppet.

The McCarthyist wave swept over other politicians that challenged the liberal center. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein refused to endorse the Russia narrative, leading mainstream figures like Rachel Maddow to insinuate she was a Kremlin stooge as well. After news broke that Stein’s connection to Russia was being officially investigated, top Clinton staffer Zac Petkanas announced:

Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.
Jill Stein is a Russian agent.

“Commentary” that succinctly summed up the political atmosphere.

In contrast, Bernie Sanders has consistently and explicitly endorsed the RussiaGate theory, claiming it is “clear to everyone (except Donald Trump) that Russia was deeply involved in the 2016 election and intends to be involved in 2018.” Despite his stance, Sanders has also been constantly presented as another Russian agent, with the Washington Post (11/12/17) asking its readers, “When Russia interferes with the 2020 election on behalf of Democratic nominee Bernie Sanders, how will liberals respond?” The message is clear: The progressive wave rising across America is and will be a consequence of Russia, not of the failures of the system, nor of the Democrats.


It is not just politicians who have been smeared as Russian agents, witting or unwitting; virtually every major progressive movement challenging the system is increasingly dismissed in the same way. Multiple media outlets, including CNN(6/29/18), Slate (5/11/18), Vox (4/11/18) and the New York Times (2/16/18), have produced articles linking Black Lives Matter to the Kremlin, insinuating the outrage over racist police brutality is another Russian psyop. Others claimed Russia funded the riots in Ferguson and that Russian trollspromoted the Standing Rock environmental protests.

Meanwhile, Democratic insider Neera Tanden retweeted a description of Chelsea Manning as a “Russian stooge,” writing off her campaign for the Senate as “the Kremlin paying the extreme left to swing elections. Remember that.” Thus corporate media are promoting the idea that any challenge to the establishment is likely a Kremlin-funded astroturf effort.

The tactic has spread to Europe as well. After the poisoning of Russian double agent Sergei Skripal, the UK government immediately blamed Russia and imposed sanctions (without publicly presenting evidence). Jeremy Corbyn, the pacifist, leftist leader of the Labour Party, was uncharacteristically bellicose, asserting, “The Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence and our response must be both decisive and proportionate.”

The British press was outraged—at Corbyn’s insufficient jingoism. The Sun‘s front page (3/15/18) attacked him as “Putin’s Puppet,” while the Daily Mail(3/15/18) went with “Corbyn the Kremlin Stooge.” As with Sanders, the fact that Corbyn endorsed the official narrative didn’t keep him from being attacked, showing that the conspiratorial mindset seeing Russia behind everything has little to do with evidence-based reality, and is increasingly a tool to demonize the establishment’s political enemies.

The Atlantic Council published a report claiming Greek political parties Syriza and Golden Dawn were not expressions of popular frustration and disillusionment, but “the Kremlin’s Trojan horses,” undermining democracy in its birthplace. Providing scant evidence, the report went on to link virtually every major European political party challenging the center, from right or left, to Putin. From Britian’s UKIP to Spain’s Podemos to Italy’s Five Star Movement, all are charged with being under one man’s control. It is this council that Facebook announced it was partnering with to help promote “trustworthy” news and weed out “untrustworthy” sources (FAIR.org, 5/21/18), as its CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with representatives from some of the largest corporate outlets, like the New York Times, CNN and News Corp, to help develop a system to control what content we see on the website.


The utility of this wave of suspicion is captured in Freeman’s aforementioned video.

After asserting that “for 241 years, our democracy has been a shining example to the world of what we can all aspire to”—a tally that would count nearly a century of chattel slavery and almost another hundred years of de jure racial disenfranchisement—the actor explains that “Putin uses social media to spread propaganda and false information, he convinces people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their political process.”

The obvious implication is that the political process and media ought to be trusted, and would be trusted were it not for Putin’s propaganda. It was not the failures of capitalism and the deep inequalities it created that led to widespread popular resentment and movements on both left and right pressing for radical change across Europe and America, but Vladimir Putin himself. In other words, “America is already great.”

For the Democrats, Russiagate allows them to ignore calls for change and not scrutinize why they lost to the most unpopular presidential candidate in history. Since Russia hacked the election, there is no need for introspection, and certainly no need to accommodate the Sanders wing or to engage with progressive challenges from activists on the left, who are Putin’s puppets anyway. The party can continue on the same course, painting over the deep cracks in American society. Similarly, for centrists in Europe, under threat from both left and right, the Russia narrative allows them to sow distrust among the public for any movement challenging the dominant order.

For the state, Russiagate has encouraged liberals to forego their faculties and develop a state-worshiping, conspiratorial mindset in the face of a common, manufactured enemy. Liberal trust in institutions like the FBI has markedly increased since 2016, while liberals also now espouse a neocon foreign policy in Syria, Ukraine and other regions, with many supporting the vast increases in the US military budget and attacking Trump from the right.

For corporate media, too, the disciplining effect of the Russia narrative is highly useful, allowing them to reassert control over the means of communication under the guise of preventing a Russian “fake news” infiltration. News sources that challenge the establishment are censored, defunded or deranked, as corporate sources stoke mistrust of them. Meanwhile, it allows them to portray themselves as arbiters of truth. This strategy has had some success, withDemocrats’ trust in media increasing since the election.

None of this is to say that Russia does not strive to influence other countries’ elections, a tactic that the United States has employed even more frequently (NPR, 12/22/18). Yet the extent to which the story has dominated the US media to the detriment of other issues is a remarkable testament to its utility for those in power.

























Ecuador refuses to give assurance of Julian Assange’s political asylum rights









By Mike Head

27 July 2018


In another indication of the grave danger facing WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange, Ecuador’s Foreign Ministry has reportedly failed to reply to two letters from his legal team asking for assurances about his fate.

Over the past week, credible reports have been published that Assange could be evicted soon from Ecuador’s London embassy. He was granted political asylum there in 2012 to protect him from being extradited to the US to face espionage-related charges that could lead to life imprisonment or the death penalty.

One of Assange’s lawyers, Carlos Poveda, told the Sputnik news site on July 24: “We sent two letters to the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry 10 days ago and five days ago respectively and expressed concern about the issue of refusal to grant asylum [to Assange] and we have received no response.”

According to the lawyer, if Ecuador revokes Assange’s asylum, the WikiLeaks founder should have an opportunity to meet with government representatives and obtain information about a possible extradition to a third country.

Ecuador’s apparent refusal to affirm the fundamental right of asylum under international law is a further warning that, as previously reported, the Ecuadorian government is engaged in secretive discussions with the British and American governments on plans to hand Assange over to them.

Poveda said Ecuador’s Foreign Ministry also failed to reply to a request for Assange’s representatives to meet with the country’s President Lenin Moreno, who has been in Britain this week, ostensibly to address a global disability summit. “It seems that [Ecuador] is not willing to do so,” Poveda told Sputnik.

Earlier this week, the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry denied that Moreno would discuss Assange’s fate with British authorities. The denial came after a number of reports that Moreno would, in fact, hold talks with British ministers to finalise an agreement to remove Assange from the embassy.

If Assange leaves the embassy, he will be arrested immediately by the British police, supposedly for breaching bail six years ago when he sought asylum. Foreign Minister Jeremy Hunt last week gloated that Assange would get a “warm welcome” from the British police and face “serious charges.”

Prime Minister Theresa May’s government has refused to abandon the bail proceedings against Assange, even though the Swedish authorities last year finally dropped the underlying European arrest warrant against him for questioning about trumped-up sexual assault allegations.

As the WSWS reported this week, Assange would be imprisoned by the British authorities, perhaps for two years or more, pending extradition to the US, where Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have both stated their determination to prosecute Assange and permanently silence him.

The WikiLeaks editor has become the world’s foremost political prisoner. He has spent more than six years effectively trapped and constantly monitored inside Ecuador’s embassy, and been cut off all communications with the outside world, including his own mother, since March 28.

Assange has not been charged with a single crime. The only “serious charges” he could face are in the US. He is being incarcerated because the ruling elite in Washington and its allies fear the impact of his media organisation’s ongoing exposures of their mass surveillance, anti-democratic machinations and war crimes.

Assange’s mother, Christine, this week issued a call, through an interview with the WSWS, for people to take a stand against the persecution of her son and the wider threat to political freedom.

“We are working towards becoming a totalitarian state, 1984 is here,” she warned. “If you don’t fight it now then you will suffer under it. Julian is in the forefront of this—he’s the number one target at the moment and he’s the one we have to stand up for. I say this, not just as a mother, but as a citizen and someone who believes in democracy and freedom. We have to fight because if they take him, they can take anyone and they will take anyone. We have to do this en masse and in this way we can hold back the forces of oppression.”

Christine Assange also warned against any reliance on governments, the political establishment, the corporate media and the ex-“left” and liberal layers who previously professed support for the defence of her son but then lined up behind the forces seeking to silence him and WikiLeaks.

“People have to de-lineate between the genuine traditional left who stand up for the rights and living standards of the common people, and the so-called liberal left or pseudo-left who are only interested in their individual concerns and privileges,” she said.

Protests are being organised around the world to respond if and when Assange is evicted from the London embassy. Click here for details. The WSWS endorses such demonstrations and urges its readers to participate. Such action, however, will be just the beginning of a protracted campaign to defend Assange and oppose the increasing censorship of critical voices and independent media on the Internet.

Evidently nervous about evicting Assange in blatant violation of international law, Ecuador’s Foreign Minister Jose Valencia told Spain’s ABC newspaper on Thursday that Ecuador “has been very clear” on Assange’s asylum status.

“It is an issue that should be dealt with in the framework of international law by three parties: the British government, the Ecuadorian government and Assange’s lawyers,” Valencia said. It was “difficult to predict how long it will take to find a solution,” he said, indicating that such discussions are indeed underway.

While publicly downplaying reports of Assange being removed within days, Valencia reiterated his recent declarations that asylum is not “eternal.” He also defended cutting off Assange’s communications with the outside world, insisting it was not censorship.

“Ecuador granted Assange asylum on the basis of agreements providing him with protection by our country,” Valencia stated. “These conventions determine that the person seeking asylum cannot make political pronouncements or put the host country’s relationship with third parties (in this case Spain) at risk.”

This is a pretext for justifying throwing Assange to the wolves after he made a telling criticism of the previous Spanish government’s authoritarian imprisonment and extradition proceedings against ousted Catalan government leaders. The “third parties” no doubt includes the US, with which Moreno’s government has been seeking a rapprochement.

The moves against Assange are possible only because the British Labour Party opposition headed by Jeremy Corbyn has refused to oppose the May government’s threats, let alone demand that Assange be given a guarantee against US extradition.

Equally responsible are the Australian government of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the country’s Labor Party opposition, which have maintained their collaboration with the US against Assange, an Australian citizen. This is in defiance of a globally broadcast rally conducted by the Socialist Equality Party of Australia, with the support of well-known investigative journalist John Pilger, in Sydney’s Town Hall Square on June 17. That rally demanded that the Australian government secure Assange’s right to return to Australia, if he so wishes, with guarantees that he not be extradited to the US.

Assange’s fate depends on workers and young people everywhere demanding his immediate freedom, as a central part of the fight to defend fundamental democratic rights, against all the capitalist governments, pro-imperialist parties, trade unions and media organisations that have lined up against him.


























Slavoj Žižek: Democratic left, not liberal establishment, can defeat Trump












America's liberal elite is both horrified by Donald Trump, and incapable of mortally wounding him. What's needed instead is a profound leftward shift, led by new faces.

Now that yet another week of President Trump's frantic activity is safely behind us, and slowly receding into memory, we can reflect on the chaotic wasteland his foreign trip left behind.

The US President visited three places: Brussels - where he met the key European leaders, London - to see Theresa May and the Queen, plus Helsinki - where he held a summit with Vladimir Putin.

While most pundits noted the apparently strange fact that Trump was much friendlier to (those perceived as) US enemies than to its traditional friends, this shouldn't surprise us too much. Instead, our attention should turn in another direction. As is often the case with Trump, reactions to his acts are more important than what he actually did or said.

Different views

Let us begin by comparing what Trump uttered with what his partners said. When Trump and May were asked by a journalist what they think about the flow of immigrants to Europe, Trump brutally and honestly rendered his populist anti-immigrant position: immigrants are a threat to the European way of life; they are destabilizing the safety of our countries and bringing violence and intolerance. So, we should keep them out.

A careful listener could easily notice that Theresa May said exactly the same thing, just in a more diplomatic and "civilized" way: immigrants bring diversity, they contribute to our welfare, but we should carefully check whom we let in. Thus, we received a clear taste of the choice which is more and more the only one presented to us: direct populist barbarism or a more civilized version of the same politics, barbarism with a human face.
Generally, the reactions to Trump from all across the spectrum, including Republicans and Democrats in the US, were one of global shock and awe. Which sometimes bordered on pure panic. We heard how Trump is unreliable and he brings chaos.

For instance, first he reproached Germany for relying on Russian gas and thus becoming vulnerable to NATO's supposed enemy, but days later he praised good relations with Putin.

Then there are his manners: when meeting the queen, he violated the protocol of how you behave in the presence of a monarch! And he doesn't really listen to his democratic partners while being much more open to the charms of Putin, who is nowadays cast as America's big enemy.

Too kind

Indeed, the way he acted at a press conference with Putin in Helsinki was not only supposedly an unheard-of humiliation (just think of it – he didn't behave as Putin's master!), and some of his statements could even be considered outright acts of treason, we heard.

Rumours reappeared of how Trump acts as Putin's puppet because his Russian counterpart must have some hold over him (the infamous alleged photos of prostitutes urinating in Moscow?), and parts of the US establishment. Democrats and some Republicans, began to consider a quick impeachment, even if we get Mike Pence as his replacement.

Overall, the conclusion was simply that the President of the US is no longer the leader of the free world: but was the President of the US really ever such a leader? Here our counter-attack should begin.

Let us first note that the overall confusion of Trump's statements contains some truths here and there: wasn't he in some sense right when he said that it is in our interest to have good relations with Russia and China to prevent war? Wasn't he partially correct to present his tariff war also as a protection of the interests of the US workers?

The fact is that the existing order of international trade and finances is far from equitable, and that the European establishment hurt by Trump's measures should also look at its own sins. Did we already forget how the existing financial and trade rules that privilege the strong European states, especially Germany, brought devastation to Greece?

Takes two to tango

Concerning Putin, yes I personally believe that Russians probably meddled in the US elections, but Putin was caught doing… what exactly? Just what the US is doing regularly and massively itself, except in their case, they call it the defence of democracy? So yes, Trump is a monster, and when he designated himself as a "stable genius," we should read this as a direct reversal of truth – he is an unstable idiot who disturbs the establishment. But as such, he is a symptom, an effect of what is wrong with the establishment itself. And the true Monster is the very establishment shocked by Trump's actions.

The panicky reaction to Trump's latest acts demonstrates that he is undermining and destabilizing the US political establishment and its ideology. So our conclusion should be: yes, the situation is dangerous, there is uncertainty and elements of chaos in international relations – but it is here that we should remember Mao's old motto: "There is great disorder under the sky, so the situation is excellent!"

Let's not lose our nerve. Instead, we can exploit the confusion by systematically organizing another anti-establishment front from the left. The signs are clear here – the surprising electoral victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, against 10-term House incumbent Joe Crowley in a New York congressional primary was, hopefully, the first in the series of shocks that will transform the Democratic Party. People like her, and not the well-known, and tired, faces from the liberal establishment, should be our answer to Trump.













Idiot Bill Maher Attacks Larry Wilkerson over Trump Meeting with Putin










https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79oymCf_pRk































































Slavoj Zizek and the role of the philosopher















Zizek "disrupts" ideological structures, the underside of acceptable philosophical, religious and political discourses.
25 Dec 2012







There are many important and active philosophers today: Judith Butler in the United States, Simon Critchley in England, Victoria Camps in Spain, Jean-Luc Nancy in France, Chantal Mouffe in Belgium, Gianni Vattimo in Italy, Peter Sloterdijk in Germany and in Slovenia, Slavoj Zizek, not to mention others working in Brazil, Australia and China.

None is better than the others. All are simply different, pursue different philosophical traditions, write in different styles and, most of all, propose different interpretations. 

While all these philosophers have become points of references within the philosophical community, few have managed to overcome its boundaries and become public intellectuals intensely engaged in our cultural and political life as did Hannah Arendt (with the Eichmann trial), Jean-Paul Sartre (in the protests of May 1968) and Michel Foucault (with the Iranian revolution). 

These philosophers became public intellectuals not simply because of their original philosophical projects or the exceptional political events of their epochs, but rather because their thoughts were drawn by these events. But how can an intellectual respond to the events of his epoch in order to contribute in a productive manner? 

In order to respond, as Edward Said once said, the intellectual has to be "an outsider, living in self-imposed exile, and on the margins of society", that is, free from academic, religious and political establishments; otherwise, he or she will simply submit to the inevitability of events.

He exposes himself to criticism

If Slavoj Zizek perfectly fits Said's description, it is not because he is unemployed, in exile, and at the margins of society, but rather because he writes as if he were. His theoretical books, political positions and public appearances are a disruption not only of the common academic style, but also of the idea of the philosopher or intellectual as someone to be idealised and deferred to. 
 Talk to Al Jazeera - Slavoj Zizek

A perfect example of this is presented in a scene from a documentary where the Slovenian philosopher brilliantly explains (while half-naked in his bed) that philosophy "is a very modest discipline, it asks different questions from science, for example, how does the philosopher approach the problem of freedom? The problem is not whether we are free or not; it asks simpler questions which we call hermeneutic questions, hence, what it means to be free... philosophy does not ask whether there is truth, no, the question is what do you mean when you say this is true". 

The surprise from seeing a thinker offer such a clear definition of philosophy does not come from the casual setting; rather, we have become too accustomed to elegant intellectuals hiding behind complicated definitions of philosophy in their university offices. Zizek instead prefers to be honest and expose himself to criticism in order to state clearly and dogmatically his philosophical and political positions. 

His ability to fuse together Martin Heidegger's "fundamental ontology", Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" and Naomi Klein's "shock doctrine" in order to undermine our liberal and tolerant democratic structures is a practice few intellectuals are capable of. 

While many believe that globalisation made the Slovenian philosopher more popular than John Dewey, Herbert Marcuse, or Jurgen Habermas, it was actually his ability to disrupt our neoliberal democratic surety through the same events that characterise it. 

Zizek's disruptions begin as soon as we watch him deliver a lecture (which always draws large crowds) where he decomposes our sense of reality (using material as diverse as Hegel's dialectical materialism, Lacan's psychoanalysis and David Lynch's films) in order to reactualise the dialectical method in philosophy.

For example, against the realist, who conceives truth as a permanent content that serves as an infallible corrective for all our thoughts and actions, the Slovenian philosopher indicates how this access to reality is only possible through what remains unthought, that is, symbolisation, the parallax gap, or the struggle for truth. The status of reality "is purely parallactic and, as such, non-substantial: It is just a gap between two points of perspective, perceptible only in the shift from the one to the other". 

The aim of Zizek's philosophy (similar to hermeneutics) is to show that not only our understanding is dialectical but reality is as well: Every "field of 'reality' (every 'world') is always already enframed, seen through an invisible frame". This dialectical stance allows the Slovenian thinker to call for changes through ideological reversals; that is, he shows that in order to overcome capitalism it is first necessary to abandon "all forms of resistance which help the system reproduce itself by ensuring our participation in it". 

This is why events like the Arab Spring, the OWS protests and the protests in Greece should not be read as "part of the continuum of past and present" but rather as "fragments of a utopian future that lies dormant in the present as its hidden potential". This future, according to Zizek, will be communist. 

The thinker of our age

Although Zizek has become a distinguished academic professor (in several European and American universities), the author of more than 70 books (such as The Sublime Object of IdeologyThe Parallax ViewThe Year of Dreaming Dangerously), the editor of successful series (InsurrectionsSicShort Circuits), a sharp cultural critic (in media articles and documentaries such as The Pervert's Guide to Cinema and The Pervert's Guide to Ideology) and a courageous political activist (in addition to having run for president in Slovenia's first democratic election in 1990 and also a supporter of Julian Assange's WikiLeaks organisation and the Palestinian cause), he is constantly criticised either for "endlessly reiterating an essentially empty vision" or for releasing more books "than he can read".

Predictably, most of these criticisms are directed not against his theoretical project but his political views, that is, communism. After all, 1989 was not only the year the Soviet Union dissolved, but also when the Slovenian philosopher's first book in English appeared; in other words, in the year communism ended, Zizek (and many other philosophers) began to endorse it. 

He still has not received an international prize, but not because he is not a serious or original philosopher, but rather because such prizes are given to the intellectuals who follow the predominant ideology, not those who disrupt it. 

Today, whether we like him or not, Zizek is, as the Observer points out, "what Jacques Derrida was to the 80s", that is, the thinker of our age. While Derrida's intellectual operation focused on "deconstructing" our linguistic frames of reference, Zizek instead "disrupts" our ideological structures, the underside of acceptable philosophical, religious and political discourses. 

Although it's impossible to cover all the Slovenian philosophers' meditations, which span from Schelling's idealism through Jacques Lacan's psychoanalysis and John Milbank's theology, it is worth venturing into the political disruptions he has created (which I will comment upon in a later post) in order to further understand how he has changed the role of the philosopher, a role, as he writes in his two latest books (Less Than Nothing and Mapping Ideology) that must "articulate the space for a revolt" independently because when a revolutionary movement is denounced as ideological, "one can be sure that its inversion is no less ideological". 




Santiago Zabala is ICREA Research Professor of Philosophy at the University of Barcelona. His books include The Hermeneutic Nature of Analytic Philosophy (2008), The Remains of Being (2009), and, most recently, Hermeneutic Communism (2011, co-authored with G Vattimo), all published by Columbia University Press.