Mediaboss Marketing

Not since October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, has the world come so close to nuclear war as today.

It is not necessary to glorify the Stalinist leader Nikita Khrushchev, let alone the imperialist president of the United States, John F. Kennedy, to recognize that there is a glaring difference between the reaction to that crisis and the one gripping the world today.

In a recently published book on the Cuban Missile Crisis, Nuclear Folly, historian Serhii Plokhy writes that, despite enormous miscalculations and misjudgments on both sides, The crisis did not develop into a shooting war because Kennedy and Khrushchev both feared nuclear weapons and dreaded the very idea of their use.

Plokhy adds that Kennedy and Khrushchev did not step into the traps so masterfully created by themselves because they did not believe they could win a nuclear war, nor were they prepared to pay a price for such a victory. It is hard to imagine what the outcome of the Cuban crisis might have been if the two leaders had a more cavalier attitude toward the use of nuclear arms.

In the midst of a new global nuclear crisis, the United States/NATO and Russia seem to be proceeding in a manner aimed at demonstrating what this unimaginable outcome would actually be. There is a staggering indifference to the consequences of nuclear war.

Having launched the invasion of Ukraine with the nave and desperate assumption that he could compel his Western partners to negotiate, Russian President Vladimir Putin confronts the staggering failure of his bankrupt and reactionary strategy in Ukraine. The Russian military has suffered a series of defeats in recent weeks, including the debacle in Kharkiv followed by further advances of the Ukrainian military into territory that Russia now claims as its own.

Russia was goaded by the United States into a war for which it was entirely unprepared, underestimating the agenda of the United States and NATO. In the wake of humiliating defeats and facing internal crisis and recriminations within the Russian oligarchy, the Putin regime is responding with unmistakable threats to use nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, the United States and NATO, determined to press their advantage in pursuit of their global geopolitical objectives, are making statements that they will not be deterred by the threat of nuclear war.

In American newspapers and on television programs, there is open discussion about the possibility of nuclear war. The New York Times wrote on Sunday: Officials in Washington are gaming out scenarios should President Vladimir V. Putin decide to use a tactical nuclear weapon to make up for the failings of Russian troops in Ukraine A range of officials suggested that if Russia detonated a tactical nuclear weapon on Ukrainian soil, the options included some kind of military response.

Asked by ABCs Face the Nation what the United States would do if Russia used a nuclear weapon, former CIA Director David Petraeus replied, We would respond by leading a NATO, a collective effort, that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea.

General Petraeus, who led US forces in genocidal rampages in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems to believe that the United States and NATO can wipe out Russian military forces, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, without retaliation. One must be borderline insane not to understand that such an attack by NATO on the Russian military forces would provoke a thermonuclear response by the Kremlin that would result in the utter destruction, with a horrific loss of life, of every major capital in Western Europe and North America.

The level of recklessness was summed up by an unnamed European official quoted in the Washington Post in an article headlined, Russias annexation puts world two or three steps away from nuclear war: No one knows what Putin will decide to do. But hes totally in a corner, hes crazy and for him there is no way out. The only way out for him is total victory or total defeat and we are working on the latter one. We need Ukraine to win and so we are working to prevent worst case scenarios by helping Ukraine win.

Have the Dr. Strangeloves who are making these statements even thought through the implications of their own policies? They are insisting that, whatever the consequences, the US and NATO powers must pursue a course that leads to the total defeat of Russia. Far from preventing the worst case scenario, their words and actions are fueling the fire that is leading to a worst case outcome.On the edge of the abyss, the position of the imperialist powers is: Forward until complete victory.

As always, the imperialist warmongers who are denouncing Putins threats to use nuclear weapons as an unprecedented breach of Great Power morality exhibit an astonishing forgetfulness about their own past actions. But it is a matter of historical fact that the United States has not only used nuclear weapons (against the defenseless populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), but it and other imperialist powers came close to using nuclear weapons when threatened with military defeat.

In 1950, General Douglas MacArthur sought authorization to use as many as 30 atomic bombs against Chinese troops crossing the border into Korea. In 1954, France pleaded with US President Eisenhower to use nuclear bombs to save its encircled troops at Dien Bien Phu. In 1962, Kennedy himself threatened to use nuclear weapons during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1973, Israel, facing defeat during the initial days of the Yom Kippur War, came close to using nuclear weapons against Egypt.

Desperation and recklessness may describe the moods gripping Washington and Moscow, but not their source. A political explanation must be found for this behavior.

The desperation of the Putin regime arises from the fact that it is confronted with the consequences of the dissolution of the USSR, a historic betrayal that set into motion all the subsequent socioeconomic andpolitical disasters. In dissolving the Soviet Union, the Stalinist bureaucracy deluded itself into believing that Lenins analysis of imperialism was nothing more than a Marxian myth. But this myth has proven to be true. Thirty years after the collapse of the USSR, Russia is confronted with a war by the imperialist powers aimed at dismembering it.

Despite the disasters created by the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, the American ruling class believes that through war it can somehow stave off the growth of working-class opposition that haunts them.

Amidst all of this, there is no frank statement of the implications of the likely consequences of nuclear war. Politicians, high-ranking military personnel, and the media are talking nonchalantly about an event that could lead to the annihilation of hundreds of millions, even billions, of people.

What accounts for the difference between the response to the Cuban Missile Crisis and the situation today? Ultimately, the fact that the Cuban Missile Crisis did not lead to nuclear war can be attributed to the character of the political period. In the 1960s American imperialism was passing through the era of the postwar capitalist boom. The Soviet Union, encompassing one-sixth of the worlds land mass, was in an immeasurably stronger position than the desperate and encircled Russian state.

Putins national chauvinism and xenophobia offer no alternative to the crisis created by US imperialism. Putin, speaking for a parasitic Russian oligarchy, fears the Russian working class even more than he does the US and the West. His response to the disaster created by the dissolution of the USSR blends the medieval obscurantism of Tsarist Russia with the counterrevolutionary nationalist politics of Stalinism.

No faith can be placed on the reasonableness of the American or Russian oligarchies. The pandemic has already revealed the utter indifference to human life, both of the Kremlin regime, which has accepted the death of 400,000people in Russia, and the imperialist ruling class in the US and Europe, whose herd immunity policies have led to millions of deaths worldwide.

The reckless actions of governments that are leading the world to disaster must be countered by a global mass anti-war movement of the working class and youth.

The working class must demand the immediate end to this reactionary war. It is necessary to unify the struggle by workers in defense of their social and democratic rights with the struggle against war.

The building of a new anti-war movement must be based on the perspective of international socialism, rejecting all forms of nationalism and xenophobia and fighting for the unity of workers in every country.

The World Socialist Web Site is the voice of the working class and the leadership of the international socialist movement. We rely entirely on the support of our readers. Please donate today!

View original post here:
Stop the war in Ukraine! - WSWS

My grandma often scolded me when I was a boy. If you think the world owes you a living, you got another think coming!

To the contrary, many today adhere to a doctrine of entitlement.

Throughout his life, Winston Churchill fought against a similar philosophy the philosophy of socialism. In 1945, in a speech before the House of Commons, he said: The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

In a 1908 speech, Churchill said: The socialists are very fond of telling us they are reviving in modern days the best principals of the Christian era. They consider they are the political embodiment of Christianity, though, to judge by the language that some of them use, and the spirit of envy, hatred, and malice with which they go about their work, you would hardly imagine they had studied the teachings of the founder of Christianity with the attention they profess to have given to the subject.

He continued: But there is one great difference between the socialist of the Christian era and those of which Mr Victor Grayson [a political adversary] is the apostle. The socialism of the Christian era was based on the idea that all mine is yours. The socialism of Mr Grayson is based on the idea that all yours is mine.

Timothy RobinsonPortland

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

See original here:
Letter to the editor: Churchill had it right about contemporary socialism - Press Herald

My uncle and his family fled Syria in 2012 as one of the many families who sought safe haven in the United States. Many of the Venezuelans fleeing the oppressive regime of Nicols Maduro are seeking the same thing he was safe harbor in a nation opposed to authoritarian oppression.

Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott, both likely presidential candidates, have each made bold claims about their stance against socialism, but if they want to maintain their credibility, they are going to have to adjust their response to immigrants fleeing authoritarian socialist oppression. You cant fight an ideology if you dont help the people suffering from it. Spending millions of tax dollars to bus and fly Venezuelan refugees to Marthas Vineyard directly opposes the governors proclaimed ideals.

The Republican governors elaborate political stunt last week was supposed to highlight the hypocrisy of sanctuary states and follows months of efforts by both Abbott and DeSantis to ship migrants and refugees out of their respective states to destinations like Chicago, New York City, and Washington. As of early August, the state of Texas has paid over $12 million to the charter service used to transport migrants, while the state of Florida has pre-allocated $12 million for the same cause.

While Abbott and DeSantis waste tax dollars to punish their colleagues across the aisle, the real recipients of this performative cruelty are Venezuelans who have fled the authoritarian regime of Nicols Maduro. By using victims seeking refuge from socialist regimes as mere political pawns, the so-called anti-socialists expose their hypocrisy.

Since Nicols Maduros rise to power in 2013, Venezuelas refugee crisis has grown to rival that of Syrias a country facing one of the bloodiest wars of the 21st century. Some of Venezuelas poorest compose the recent waves of refugees reaching the United States, many of whom did not have the economic means to flee the country during the mid-2010s. Most end up in South Florida and Texas, where one would presume that the so-called anti-socialist leaders of those states would be happy to provide refuge to those fleeing an ideology they so ardently oppose.

Referring to the Venezuelan asylum-seekers as illegal immigrants, DeSantis minimized the plight of Venezuelans seeking refuge from one of the worlds most oppressive dictatorships. This rhetoric is all too familiar to me, as scores of Syrians fleeing the Assad regime to the U.S. and Europe including my own family members faced similar anti-refugee backlash during the height of the Syrian refugee crisis.

DeSantis has been an outspoken opponent of Maduro, calling the Venezuelan authoritarian a communist, a murderous tyrant, and urging the U.S. not to line Maduros pockets. When it comes to the victims of this murderous tyrant, however, DeSantis seems uninterested in extending an open hand to refugees fleeing arbitrary arrest, torture, and state-sanctioned death squads.

Through his and Abbotts decision to ship away Venezuelan refugees, DeSantis has removed his mask of performative opposition to the Maduro regime. Greg Abbott who has repeatedly accused Beto ORourke, his Democratic opponent, of being a socialist seems somehow comfortable dismissing the needs of victims of the man whom his friend DeSantis has called a communist and a murderous tyrant.

Ultimately, Abbott and DeSantis efforts to promote their anti-immigrant and anti-refugee agenda through their Marthas Vineyard stunt failed miserably. Locals embraced the refugees and provided around-the-clock support ranging from food, shelter, and even high-school Spanish students serving as basic translators, before Republican Governor Charlie Baker called in the National Guard to provide humanitarian assistance. In an effort to expose the so-called hypocrisy of sanctuary states, Abbott and DeSantis accomplished the opposite. Their callousness towards asylum-seekers undercuts their supposed anti-socialist agenda, exposing their principles as nothing but empty words.

If DeSantis and Abbott really want to oppose socialism, they should start by cutting the wasteful government spending theyve been dedicating to the transport of migrants and refugees to other states. Instead of performative political stunts to promote their anti-immigrant and anti-refugee agenda, they could instead use their national influence to encourage the Biden administration to heighten economic and political pressure against the Maduro regime, the root of the Venezuelan refugee crisis.

Until then, DeSantis and Abbott have no credence to call themselves opponents of socialism.

If you're interested in writing for International Policy Digest - please send us an email via submissions@intpolicydigest.org

Originally posted here:
Dear DeSantis and Abbott: Stop Mistreating Victims of Socialism. - International Policy Digest

In the aftermath of Brazils last general election in 2018, the Wall Street Journals editorial page celebrated the victory of Jair Bolsonaro a former low-ranking army officer, far-right fringe politician, and fan of Brazilssadistic military dictatorship from1964 to 1985.

According toone bizarre article by the right-wing writer Mary Anastasia OGrady, there was a simple explanation for the electoral triumph of the man that many analysts had compared with the then-president of the United States, Donald Trump. Despite the fact that Bolsonaro had been labeled a racist, a misogynist, a homophobe, a fascist, an advocate of torture and an aspiring dictator, he had prevailed, the piece argued, because Brazilians were in the midst of a national awakening in which socialism the alternative to a Bolsonaro presidency has been put on trial.

While a socialist presidency certainly beats fascist torture any day, socialism was in truth not even in the running in 2018. The Brazilian Workers Party (PT) whose candidate Bolsonaro defeated is not socialist but rather centre-left, and has furthermore done its fair share to advance neoliberal capitalist interests over the years. Granted, the PT has also committed such flagrantly leftist crimes as helping to extricate millions of Brazilians from poverty and hunger, as transpired during the first decade of this century under President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva.

Now, its election time again in South Americas largest country and folks may be in for another awakening. As Brazil votes tomorrow, Lula is back in the race, and is leading Bolsonaro in thepolls(although, as Bloombergreports, Goldman Sachs and concerned hedge funds have assured clients the election will be tighter than surveys suggest).

Of course, Bolsonaros disdain for democracy means that he wont necessarily accept a Lula win on October 2 or, in an October 30 run-off, which would be required if no candidate secures half of the votes cast. Nor must one underestimate the power of social media disinformation a veritable scourgein Brazil in rallying Bolsonaro voters.

It bears recalling that, in 2018, the election of Bolsonaro who would go on to suggest that coronavirus vaccines could turn people into crocodiles and make women grow beards was significantly facilitated by an obsessive right-wing campaign to demonise and criminalise the PT under the guise of anti-corruption. Before Lula himself was imprisoned in April 2018 on trumped-up charges produced by that same campaign he had been the favourite to win that years presidential race.

Benjamin Fogel, an historian who researches Brazilian anti-corruption politics, recently explained to me some of the additional factors driving the general right-wing shift in Brazilian society that enabled Bolsonaros emergence as head of state. They include a growing middle class with a meritocratic societal view that essentially blames poor people for their poverty. Social welfare programmes and other government efforts to address structural inequality have thus been frequently seen as unmerited or as a form of corruption in themselves.

Also tied up in the right-wing shift are,of course, ever-charitable financial machinations by big business, as well asthe normalisation of once-taboo topics such as those pertaining to the military dictatorship. The swift spread of Christian evangelicalism, too, has proved politicallycompatiblewith Bolsonaros brand of conservative zealotry.

However, as Fogel emphasised, Bolsonaros approach to the presidency didnt really translate into any sort of practical terms for governance beyond dismantling the basic institutions of government. Public health, public education and other concepts that are anathema to the right wing came under fire. Bolsonaro packed the cabinet and public administration with more military officers than even during the dictatorship.

Thanks to Bolsonaros stewardship of the pandemic during which he wrote off the coronavirus as a little flu Brazil has racked up nearly 700,000 official deaths, putting the country in second place after the United States for most COVID-19 fatalities. When a female Brazilian journalist questioned the president about the domestic vaccination rate, Bolsonaro respondedwith typical maturity: You think about me in your sleep, you must have a crush on me or something.

He has also been a plague on the environment, enthusiastically championing the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. After all, its not like the Amazon is crucial to life on Earth.

Add to this severe economic mismanagement, soaring inflation, rising poverty rates and asurge in membershipof neo-Nazi groups in Brazil, and it starts to seem like the old awakening wasnt all it was cracked up to be. Still, hey, at least Bolsonaro rescued Brazils presidential palace from thedemons that had formerly overtaken it, according to his wife, Michelle Bolsonaro. The president has also strived to inculcate his citizenry with a deep and God-fearing piety, and in August encouraged supporters: Buy your guns! Its in the Bible!

Meanwhile, Lula, whose corruption convictions have beenannulled, hasrightly disillusioned many leftists by being overly accommodating in his efforts to court elite voters unhappy with Bolsonaro. He has chosen a right-wing running mate with a history of antagonising the PT. Yet, as things currently stand, Lula is the only ticket out of the Bolsonarist nightmare.

As the historian Fogel remarked to me, what Lula stands for in this election, rather than radicalism, is a memory of a better time where you could provide for you and your family. He stressed the importance of questioning whether the Brazilian right has any actual interest in governing or if the aim is simply to remove all protections in the pursuit of a sort of war against all.

Perhaps nothing better encapsulates the apocalyptic nature of that war than the fires that have been ragingin the Brazilian Amazon ahead of Bolsonaros expected defeat in the election, as deforesters race to deforest while the deforesting is stillgood.

As Brazilians head to voting booths, heres hoping the country is about to awaken from a bad dream.

The views expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeeras editorial stance.

The rest is here:
Brazil, it is time to wake up from your Bolsonaro nightmare - Al Jazeera English

FOX Business host Larry Kudlow reflects on the the consequences of the progressive agenda on 'Kudlow.'

We are here this evening at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, which itself is a great big treat for me because he was my former boss 40-something odd years ago. I've spoken here a few times in the past, but never in the Air Force One Pavilion, which is totally cool, and you should all come out and visit.

Later this evening, I am being honored at a National Review gala dinner to receive the William F. Buckley Prize for Leadership in Political Thought. For me, this is a monumental honor. My gratitude for this prize is unlimited. I knew Bill Buckley very, very well. I worked at National Review for a time and he had an enormous influence on my life and my thinking. Imagine learning conservative political thought and action from Ronald Reagan and Bill Buckley, and then later on, Donald Trump. It has been a great gift in my time.

The show this evening we will continue our conversation about the totalitarian evils of socialism and the single, urgent importance of stopping America's socialist drift and restoring freedom, free-market capitalism, free enterprise, to regain the American soul and ideal of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: You and I have lived too long with this miracle to properly be appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people and those in world history who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.

FED OFFICIALS WARN OF ADDITIONAL INTEREST RATE HIKES TO FIGHT INFLATION

A portrait of Ronald Reagan hangs in the reception hall at the Ronald Reagan Library. (Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images) (Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images / Getty Images)

Of course, the Gipper was right. Freedom is a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. In the last two years under President Joe Biden, America has taken a sharp turn to the left. Massive inflationary federal spending to expand the size of government, accommodated by huge money-printing, big tax increases and an unbelievable increase in regulations which have become the left's biggest weapon for central planning and state control of the economy that includes the war against fossil fuels, which has decimated the greatest energy system in the world.

Along the way, the progressive agenda has undermined the dignity and incentives to work. A major expansion of the entitlement state is sending enormous government assistance without any workfare or work requirements, sofolks stayed on the dole, and the workforce in the economy has been demoralized and, of course, destroying American sovereignty with open borders, the flow of well over 2 million illegals, with crime, sex and drug trafficking and the scourge of poisonous fentanyl.

The progressives on the left don't care about American sovereignty or, for that matter, law and order, and culturally they have invaded our schools with racial and gender nonsense, rewriting American history and attempts to keep parents away from their childrens education.

Just step back for a moment. What we have here in this radical, progressive experiment is a complete failure, which of course is the whole history of socialist takeover attempts. In a little more than a year, the economy has gone from a prosperity boom with stable prices to a recessionary bust with sky-rocketing inflation. We just got a new number today confirming the first half recession with declining GDP.

Going from prosperity boom to stagflationary bust in a little more than a year is not an easy thing to do, but that is the sad tale of yet another unsuccessful attempt at government control of the economy and the socialist war against freedom.

Ronald Reagan and Bill Buckley would be appalled at this socialist assault on freedom that has resulted in America's decline. Remember Bill Buckley's admonition that sometimes we need to stand athwart history and yell, "Stop"? Similarly, Ronald Reagan would be so saddened to see the decline in his beloved City on a Hill.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Steve Hilton and Katie Pavlich reflect on the dangers of socialism on 'Kudlow.'

We're going to talk about all of this with our distinguished guests, but if you know me, you'll know how hard I intend to keep fighting against these temporary setbacks. If you know the American people, you'll know that they see right through these phony progressive promises.

Americans are a practical-minded folk. They know a rube when they see one and they know that when something doesn't work, it's time to get rid of it. Reagan believed all of that. Buckley believed all of that. Trump believed all of that, and that's why the fight against socialism is getting stronger and stronger around the country right now.Yes, indeed, I believe the cavalry is coming.

This article is adapted from Larry Kudlow's opening commentary on the September 29, 2022, edition of "Kudlow."

More here:
Larry Kudlow: Ronald Reagan and Bill Buckley would be appalled at this socialist assault on freedom - Fox Business