Search This Blog
Thursday, May 23, 2024
Spiritual Warfare is upon us: The Real Reason Behind Your Daily Struggles
Wednesday, May 8, 2024
Why Israel is the one thing you can’t protest against in Western universities
The crackdown on pro-Palestine campus protests might just make college kids hate the establishment again.
The American university crowd didn’t seem to mind too much when the state was ushering in authoritarian green policies under the dodgy pretext of reducing the temperature of the planet. Or when campuses were banning right-wing speakers. Or when everyone was being forced to comply with their ‘revolution’ over personal pronoun usage. Or when unvaccinated fellow students were being banned from campus during the Covid-19 fiasco. But now that the Western establishment, from North America to Europe, is cracking down on campus protesters demonstrating against Israel’s ongoing bombing of Gaza civilians, they’re suddenly wondering where all their rights went.
If those who are now upset with the campus crackdowns had bothered to help expand the Overton window – that is, the range of acceptable speech and debate – back when others with whom they disagreed were trying to pry it open as widely as possible, they’d be reaping the benefits of true free speech now. Instead, the establishment has enjoyed a culture of impunity, enabled by the woke crowd and its constant demands for safe spaces. And now the government and universities have unilaterally decided that it’s Israel that needs a safe space and protection from college kids.
To that end, the US Congress has just passed a new bill broadening the definition of anti-Semitism on university campuses to include “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” How about another law banning criticism of Iran because it’s a collective of Muslims? Or of Russia because it’s a collective of Orthodox Christians? Or of China because it’s a collective of Buddhists? Can’t have that, because it would enable the state in question to act with carte blanche impunity by scaring critics into silence.
Not only is the establishment using force to crack down on protesters, but it’s now formally legislating against dissent, even though 55% of Americans are against Israel’s actions in Gaza, according to a Gallup poll from March. Not even the Israeli establishment is going that far to quash dissent when, just a few days ago, thousands of Israelis rallied around the country in opposition to the government’s handling of the crisis and in favor of a ceasefire. So are they just a bunch of anti-Semites, too?
The Western establishment’s constant reductio ad absurdum, conflating pro-ceasefire and anti-genocide activism with anti-Semitism, is exactly the kind of thing that the establishment has been doing for years to ram through its agenda. Don’t like blowing cash on Ukraine? Then you’re doing the Kremlin’s bidding. Opposed to carbon taxes? You’re a science denier. Didn’t buy the ever-changing Covid narrative? You’re a threat to society.
While the US establishment is pretending to be scandalized by the ground-breaking concept of university students actively protesting injustice, much of the focus in Europe has been on one particular campus – Sciences Po – where I taught in the master’s program for seven years. It’s basically the French equivalent of Harvard.
Initially, students faced off against French riot police and refused to budge when the authorities repeatedly threatened to use force if the students didn’t move as they blocked the campus with a sit-in to demand a ceasefire in Gaza. Some students ended up facing disciplinary proceedings as a result. The students have also been demanding that the university cut all ties with entities related to the state of Israel, which management has refused to do. There haven’t been any campus uprisings against Russia amid the conflict in Ukraine, and yet these same universities, including Sciences Po, didn’t hesitate to cut ties with Russian universities. So why not with Israel? Because that simply isn’t the establishment’s position, unlike in the case of Russia. These institutions’ lofty values of “universality, humanity, and tolerance,” as the director of Sciences Po Strasbourg put it, are apparently selectively imposed. Kind of like campus free speech these days.
Even when Sciences Po dropped the disciplinary actions against student protesters in exchange for the students agreeing to attend a formal debate on campus to air out grievances on all sides, at least one member of the center-right establishment, the vice president of former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s party, Les Republicains, was furious about the mere notion of even entertaining the possibility
. “We cannot finance a school which has become the place of entryism, a mixture of leftism and Islamism, which legitimizes anti-Semitic remarks and acts of violence,” Francois-Xavier Bellamy said. Bellamy’s Les Republicains colleague, Valerie Pecresse, president of the Greater Paris Region, straight-up suspended its own funding of the university.
The end result of this establishment censorship is a safe space that shelters the establishment’s own rhetoric and ideas from criticism. We’re talking here about the top university for educating France’s future political elites, so you’d think it would be a good idea for students to be battle-hardened in the arena of contentious political debate and conflict. Instead, these soft-handed elites want the school to protect their narrative at the expense of the most critical kind of diversity – that of critical thought.
Even French President Emmanuel Macron has recently echoed the students’ concerns in calling out Israel’s actions.
“Deep indignation at the images reaching us from Gaza where civilians have been targeted by Israeli soldiers,” Macron said on X (formerly Twitter). “I express my strongest disapproval of these shots and demand truth, justice and respect for international law.”Earlier this year, Macron said that a two-state solution recognizing a Palestinian state isn’t taboo for France. Not that he’s actually taken any actual leadership action on that front. And Sciences Po isn’t the only French campus to spark controversy on this issue. Cops cleared out a pro-Palestinian encampment this week at Paris’ Sorbonne University. Why couldn’t they just pretend that they were one of the migrant camps along the Seine and plaguing various other parts of the city for years on end? Pretty sure those migrants aren’t big fans of Israel, either. So why do they get to stay and block the city?
And when left-wing France Insoumise party leader Jean-Luc Melenchon had his conference on Palestine at Lille University canceled last month, he compared the university’s president to Nazi Adolf Eichmann, who famously said he was just following orders. The French education minister piped up to say that she’d file a criminal complaint for public injury in support of the university president and on behalf of the government. Way to prove Melenchon wrong and dispel any notion of the heavy-handed state in his Eichmann reference.
The Western establishment supports free speech and democratic values – just as long as you find yourself on the same side as those with the power to redefine them at any given moment to suit their agenda on any given issue. The real revolution will be when this is no longer the case. Until then, episodes like the current campus chaos will only provide glimpses of this hypocritical reality as the facade of freedom temporarily cracks.
By Rachel Marsden
Saturday, May 4, 2024
The Purpose Of War According To Greorge Orwell In "1984"
Some food for thought from George Orwell's '1984'...
Does anything really ever change?
The primary aim of modern warfare is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.
Ever since the end of the nineteenth century, the problem of what to do
with the surplus of consumption goods has been latent in industrial
society.
From the moment when the machine first made its
appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human
drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had
disappeared.
If the machine were used deliberately for that
end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated
within a few generations.
And in fact, without being used for
any such purpose, but by a sort of automatic process - by producing
wealth which it was sometimes impossible not to distribute - the machine
did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly
over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the
beginning of the twentieth centuries.
But it was also clear
that an all-round increase in wealth threatened the destruction -
indeed, in some sense was the destruction - of a hierarchical society.
In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat,
lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a
motor-car or even an aeroplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most
important form of inequality would already have disappeared.
If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction.
It was possible, no doubt, to imagine a society in which wealth, in the
sense of personal possessions and luxuries, should be evenly
distributed, while power remained in the hands of a small privileged
caste.
But in practice such a society could not long remain stable.
For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass
of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become
literate and would learn to think for themselves.
And when once
they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the
privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away.
In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.
To return to the agricultural past, as some thinkers about the
beginning of the twentieth century dreamed of doing, was not a
practicable solution.
It conflicted with the tendency towards
mechanization which had become quasi-instinctive throughout almost the
whole world, and moreover, any country which remained industrially
backward was helpless in a military sense and was bound to be dominated,
directly or indirectly, by its more advanced rivals.
Nor was
it a satisfactory solution to keep the masses in poverty by restricting
the output of goods. This happened to a great extent during the final
phase of capitalism, roughly between 1920 and 1940.
The economy
of many countries was allowed to stagnate, land went out of
cultivation, capital equipment was not added to, great blocks of the
population were prevented from working and kept half alive by State
charity.
But this, too, entailed military weakness, and since
the privations it inflicted were obviously unnecessary, it made
opposition inevitable.
The problem was how to keep the wheels
of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world.
Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in
practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour.
War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere,
or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be
used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run,
too intelligent.
Even when weapons of war are not actually
destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending
labour power without producing anything that can be consumed.
A Floating Fortress, for example, has locked up in it the labour that would build several hundred cargo-ships.
Ultimately it is scrapped as obsolete, never having brought any
material benefit to anybody, and with further enormous labours another
Floating Fortress is built.
In principle, the war effort is
always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after
meeting the bare needs of the population.
In practice, the
needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that
there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is
looked on as an advantage.
It is deliberate policy to keep
even the favored groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a
general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges
and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another.
By the standards of the early twentieth century, even a member of the Inner Party lives an austere, laborious kind of life.
Nevertheless, the few luxuries that he does enjoy his large,
well-appointed flat, the better texture of his clothes, the better
quality of his food and drink and tobacco, his two or three servants,
his private motor-car or helicopter - set him in a different world from a
member of the Outer Party, and the members of the Outer Party have a
similar advantage in comparison with the submerged masses whom we call
'the proles'.
The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city,
where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference
between wealth and poverty.
And at the same time the
consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the
handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable
condition of survival... ...
...war is waged by each ruling
group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make
or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society
intact.
The very word 'war', therefore, has become misleading.
It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war
has ceased to exist.
War is Peace...
In short, the purpose of war is to keep the ruling class in power, while the lower classes remain powerless...!
by Tyler Durden April 17, 2024 from ZeroHedge Website
READ MORE
Big Brother Loves You...
Global Reset - Great Reset
Global Militarism - The Military-Industrial Complex
The Global Elite - The Transnational Capitalist Class - Oligarchy