ALB
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Even the police are less belligerent than the Home Secretary. Cruella Braverman is denouncing the anti-Gaza demonstrations, especially the one planned for Saturday, as a “hate march”. To which the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, replies:
“‘I wouldn’t use one phrase to characterise 100,000 people,’ adding that many of those attending were pacifists who had a right to protest against Israel’s mass bombing of Gaza” (Times, 8 November).
This will be a fair assessment. The organisers and many on the demonstration will be pro-Palestine but others perhaps most will simply be protesting at the massacre of ordinary people in Gaza.
Actually, it is Braverman herself who is more probably motivated by hate. Here is what she told the Jewish Chronicle earlier this year:
“Part of the reason for her anger is that her husband, Rael, is Jewish. “The Jewish community is our community,” she said. “My husband is a proud Jew and Zionist.
“He’s lived in Israel. We have close family members who serve in the IDF. My children will be raised with a strong sense of Jewish values and their Jewish heritage. We enjoy Friday night dinners at our mother-in-law’s.
“I love Jewish culture and I have very much loved learning and embracing the Jewish way of life, and our children being raised with a very strong connection to it.” (https://www.thejc.com/news/politics/police-must-understand-that-jews-do-count-says-braverman-4Q7armNPfrgXcW2P2VIv65)This is not just taking sides with Israel for geopolitical reasons (counterweight to Iran to stop it gaining control of the Gulf, etc) which is the official government and Labour position. It’s an emotional commitment to the Zionist project. She clearly hates pro-Palestinians and is trying to use her position to further the cause of the Jewish nationalists who control the Israeli government by banning pro-Palestine demonstrations.
This must be unprecedented in British political history — a Cabinet minister acting as an agent of a “foreign” power. But of course that’s their problem not ours.
I went to a local meeting of the Stop the War group yesterday and bought a copy of “Socialist Appeal” to add to my collection of Trotskiana. It’s a throwback to the 1960s and 1970s — capitalism is on the brink, we must do something urgently, build a vanguard party, etc, etc.
On Gaza and Palestine they are calling for a popular uprising to overthrow the Israeli government and state which they hope will spread to other Arab states and lead to a “Socialist Federation of the Middle East” (which Trotsky probably mentioned in 1938).
The only interesting thing in it was this about Starmer:
“The only difference between him and Sunak is that he doesn’t have the keys to the war room just yet.”
Not bad. I think we can plagiarise that.
As I was in Waterstones yesterday I had a look inside the book by Rachel Reeves, the would-be future Chancellor of the Exchequer, on “The Women who Made Modern Economics”. I see it has a chapter on Rosa Luxemburg. Which would mean that if she actually read anything by her (which is by no means certain since she has been exposed as a common plagiarist) she might have some acquaintance with Marxian economics.
She ends the chapter by saying that she is a Fabian rather than a Marxist. But even that’s not true as the Fabians stood for state capitalism (run by them) while she stands just for the predominantly private enterprise capitalism that we know today — and is under the illusion that it can be made to serve the interests of the majority class of wage and salary earners. She is in for a shock.
Despite the unacceptable way in which he put it, he may have had a point about there being an economic rresources aspect. There have been some links on this thread about the gas field in that part of the Mediterranean as well as about pipelines from the Gulf passing through Israel instead of Syria and Lenanon.
There have been some developments since. We proposed a public debate on the matter to which they replied:
“Do you believe that a government that reflects your principles is the answer?
For us, any entity with power is to be avoided.
We’re not naive – to get to total individual responsibility, co-operation and everyone getting to keep what they earn and voluntarily help the community from here (“the government will take care of us” attitude) will take a few generations.
The problem with giving anyone power over others (even if it’s for good intentions) is that people always abuse power, without exception.
A debate might be interesting, though it would be better to have 2-4 from each position on a panel.”Watch this space to see if anything results.
On the other hand, I am not quite sure what century Elon Musk hails from with his odd assertion that AI will mean there will be no more work to be done but for some strange reason, money will persist and we will all enjoy a “Universal high income”
To be fair, I don’t think he meant “income” in a monetary sense but more in the sense of standard of living (what people use or consume). This in contrast to what the measly poverty-line “basic” income advocated by sundry reformists would buy.
Clarkson expressed the concept more clearly (assuming that he wrote it himself).
From the Wikipedia entry on the Home Secretary:
“She married Rael Braverman, a manager of the Mercedes-Benz Group, whom Braverman described as a “very proud member of the Jewish community”, in February 2018 at the House of Commons. Rael Braverman lived in Israel, and Suella Braverman told The Jewish Chronicle that she has “close family members who serve in the IDF”.
So she has relatives who serve in the Israeli killing machine. That no doubt explains her wish to ban pro-Palestine demonstrations but isn’t there some rule that you have to declare an interest if you are personally involved in something you have to take a decision on? In any event, the police are not taking notice of her ravings.
That passage from Antonio Domene about “Knowing the Zionists’ greed for power and money” seems rather anti-semitic. Why single out the Jewish nationalists (Zionists) for this when it applies to all capitalist states? It sounds as if he means “knowing the Jews’ greed for power and money”. Which is definitely anti-semitic.
It seems that some people in Japan have already worked it out:
https://kokumura.medium.com/were-overworked-and-everyone-just-needs-to-lie-down-8265e17daca
Just to let you know that Party members and sympathisers plan to distribute the famous leaflet at the demonstration planned for Saturday 11 November. It’s from Hyde Park to the new US embassy the other side of the river in Vauxhall.
Leaflets can be collected from 10.30 onwards from our premises at 52 Clapham High street, SW4 7UN (2 tube stops from Vauxhall).
Further details later under “World Socialist Movement”.
https://palestinecampaign.org/events/national-march-for-palestine-ceasefire-now-november-11/
I can’t work it out but does this mean that Lafargue’s The Right to be Lazy has been translated into Japanese ? Or is it simply another translation into English?
https://biblio.co.nz/book/right-lazy-japanese-version-translated-paul/d/1501054731
After Mad Mullahs now Rabid Rabbis.
“According to Genesis 15:18 and Joshua 1:4, the land God gave to Israel included everything from the Nile River in Egypt to Lebanon (south to north) and everything from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River (west to east). On today’s map, the land God has stated belongs to Israel includes everything modern-day Israel possesses, plus all of the territory occupied by the Palestinians (the West Bank and Gaza), plus some of Egypt and Syria, plus all of Jordan, plus some of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.”
I don’t think the Jewish tribal god has enough battalions to enforce that. But it puts “from the river to the sea” in the shade.
Will the government now ban as racist, insulting and provocative, those who proclaim “from the sea to the river . . . Euphrates” ?
Who are these overly simplistic messages supposed to be for?
This was one of the 120-word short pieces posted on the home page of our website that are changed every few days so that people can see it changes (as has been called for).
Here’s Musk endorsing the view that capitalism is morally right. No mention of a “universal high income” but his views in general tend to be a bit eclectic.
This book is an excellent explanation of why capitalism is not just successful, but morally right, especially chapter 4 https://t.co/SZuiGRu5Va
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 23, 2023
