The Last Resort - Eco-Extremism

Sooner or later it was bound to happen.

Guardian enviro-scribe, George Monbiot, writes that if those holding the reins of power choose to treat environmental activists as extremists then so be it.  I suppose we always knew it would come to a fight eventually. The only question was when.

First, the Guardian revealed that counter-terrorism police in south-east England have listed Extinction Rebellion (XR) and the youth climate strikes as forms of “ideological extremism”. Then teachers and officials around the country reported that they had been told, in briefings by the anti-radicalisation Prevent programme, to look out for people expressing support for XR and Greenpeace. 

Then the Guardian found a Counter Terrorism Policing guide to the signs and symbols used by various groups. Alongside terrorists and violent extremist organisations, the guide listed Greenpeace, XR, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, CND, the Socialist party, Stop the War and other peaceful green and left organisations. Then the newspaper discovered that City of London police had listed XR as a “key threat” in its counter-terrorism assessment. 

...The police have always protected established power against those who challenge it, regardless of the nature of that challenge. And they have long sought to criminalise peaceful dissent. Part of the reason is ideological: illiberal and undemocratic attitudes infest policing in this country. Part of it is empire-building: if police units can convince the government and the media of imminent threats that only they can contain, they can argue for more funding. 

...But there’s another reason, which is arguably even more dangerous: the nexus of state and corporate power. All over the world, corporate lobbyists seek to brand opponents of their industries as extremists and terrorists, and some governments and police forces are prepared to listen. A recent article in the Intercept seeks to discover why the US Justice Department and the FBI had put much more effort into chasing mythical “ecoterrorists” than pursuing real, far-right terrorism. A former official explained, “You don’t have a bunch of companies coming forward saying ‘I wish you’d do something about these rightwing extremists’.” By contrast, there is constant corporate pressure to “do something” about environmental campaigners and animal rights activists.

Think of the federal government's pipeline Stasi set up by Stephen Harper but now in service to the Trudeau government. It's a taxpayer funded secret police service that combines the RCMP, CSIS and private security interests to monitor, intimidate and even strongarm peaceful environmental activists. Even under the supposedly progressive Trudeau peaceful dissent is unacceptable.

It is hard to think of any successful campaign for democracy, justice or human rights that would not now be classed by police forces and the government as an extremist ideology. Without extremists such as Emmeline Pankhurst, who maintained that “the argument of the broken window pane is the most valuable argument in modern politics”, Patel would not be an MP. Only men with a certain amount of property would be permitted to vote. There would be no access to justice, no rights for workers, no defence against hunger and destitution, no weekends. 

In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr, subjected to smears very similar to those now directed against XR and other environmental groups, noted: “The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?” 

Good citizens cannot meekly accept the death of the living planet. If seeking to defend life on Earth defines us as extremists, we have no choice but to own the label. We are extremists for the extension of justice and the perpetuation of life.

Eventually we all must decide which side we're on. With what we're seeing underway today, the petro-state is an abomination. It is, as some scholars contend, a crime against humanity. The choices are stark. You can acquiesce, you can support it or, on the other hand, you can oppose it.

Are Establishment Republicans Cowering in Their Cellars?

Once he's sworn into office, could Trump unleash his very own, Republican Reichsmordwoche  or "night of the long knives"? That was the week when Adolph Hitler purged his movement of potential threats, such as SA head Ernst Rhom.

The number murdered by the SS and Gestapo is unknown. 85 prominent Nazis were executed, possibly hundreds. A thousand others, Nazis and critics were arrested and taken away.

Flash forward to November, 2016. Republican House Speaker, Paul Ryan, showed up on TV Wednesday morning with knee pads on, swearing allegiance up and down to Donald Trump, who he praised for single-handedly winning the White House, the House and the Senate for the Republicans and promising that he would do whatever Donald wanted - anything. Anything.

The problem is that Trump whipped his followers into a foaming at the mouth frenzy and now they want blood, starting with the traitors in their own ranks.

As Barack Obama used to say, elections have consequences, and the new American right — let's call them that, because they loathe the old American right — is hungry for consequences to begin.

They want a reckoning for all those Republican traitors who repudiated Trump during the campaign (one of Trump's spokespeople told a reporter election night his boss has a long enemies list) and action on all those promises, particularly the big six: The Wall, Lock Up Hillary, Deport the Illegals, Seal off America to Muslims, Repeal Obamacare, and force companies to Bring Back Those Jobs from Overseas.

Outrage artist and early Trump supporter Ann Coulter was prominent on Breitbart News Thursday, complaining that too often, Republicans go all soft in the middle and break faith, once in office.

Coulter has helpfully organized Trump's first 100 days in office.

Day One, she says, Trump should "start building the wall." She then lists 98 more entries titled "continue building the wall."

...Locking Up Hillary, the signature chant of crowds at Trump rallies, is also an item the base regards as urgent.

Breitbart editor at large Peter Schweizer was warning on Thursday that Trump, who repeatedly denounced Hillary Clinton as a criminal, must make good on his promise to appoint a special Hillary prosecutor.

...Among other Trump promises less discussed today, but certain to be insisted upon by his base: defunding Planned Parenthood and getting rid of the Environmental Protection Agency; ordering heavy surveillance of U.S. mosques and closing some if need be; recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; bringing back torture for detainees; "bombing the shit out of ISIS"; getting out of the Iran deal; imposing new taxes on imports; getting rid of gun-free zones at schools; reversing Obama's executive orders preventing deportation of some illegal immigrants; massive tax cuts; and repealing regulations curbing Wall Street greed and protecting consumers.

Trump has a well-deserved reputation for overselling, promising what he could not possibly deliver, milking Gullibillies and then leaving them holding the bag. He's made a lot of promises, promises of blood. His base is going to expect him to deliver. These are indeed interesting times.

Are the GOP Planning to Make America (And the World) Even Worse Off If Trump Loses?

Think Vlad Putin is a threat to America? The Russian thug can't hold a candle to what Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan have in store for their Star Spangled Bungle if they fail to take the White House on November 8.

Few would argue that the legislative branch of America's federal government - Congress - has been utterly dysfunctional over the 8-years of the Obama administration, particularly the House of Representatives. Far more energy has been invested in seeing that nothing gets accomplished by the Republican dominated House and Senate than in actually doing anything. The GOP leadership has acted as though they were elected to subvert the government, not serve it - and America.

An article in The New Republic warns that the GOP could become even more extreme under a Clinton presidency.

“I think if Clinton should get elected, I guarantee you in one year she’ll be impeached and indicted,” Trump’s top surrogate, Rudy Giuliani, told conservatives in Iowa on Wednesday. “It’s just going to happen. We’re going to sort of vote for a Watergate.”

We know from recent history what Republicans mean when they say, in effect, “elect us or there will be gridlock”: They mean they will paralyze government unless they control it all. In 2009 and 2010, this manifested in the weaponization of the filibuster. When Republicans cobbled together more power after the 2010 midterms, they threatened government shutdowns and took the country to within hours of an artificial solvency crisis that would’ve caused a national if not a worldwide economic crisis. Once Democrats began passing bills and issuing regulations, Republicans turned to federal courts, inventing novel, opportunistic legal theories and interpretations in the hope that conservative judges and the conservative Supreme Court would use them as pretext for vacating Obama’s agenda. In this, they have frequently succeeded.

If Republicans retain the Senate, it’s likely that they will prevent Clinton from filling Supreme Court vacancies. Notably, almost nobody in the party is intervening to promise swift confirmation for qualified nominees, to counter those who are promising indiscriminate obstruction. This would amount to a legitimation crisis, unprecedented in our modern history, but astonishingly it wouldn’t constitute the most troubling possible outcome.

If Democrats reclaim the Senate, but can only confirm Clinton’s nominees by further eroding the filibuster, Republican voters will extend the presumption of illegitimacy from Clinton to her nominees and then to their legally binding decisions. Filling the existing vacancy with a liberal justice would effectively turn the Roberts Court into the Kagan Court, which would begin issuing decisions that conservatives abhor almost immediately. But if conservatives perceive the president who appointed the decisive justice as illegitimate, they will reject the new Court’s rulings and pressure their state governments to annul them. (If you think Republican states wouldn’t ignore court orders out of sheer determination or panic, you haven’t been paying attention this election cycle.)

A Republican-controlled Senate could make mischief well beyond judicial vacancies, too, by denying Clinton a cabinet or refusing to fill key administrative vacancies in agencies across government. Imagine, for instance, that Republicans investigate Clinton’s administration—as they’ve prematurely promised to do—and she claims executive privilege over White House communications. Republicans can simply refuse to confirm any more nominees of any kind until she hands the information over. They could concoct nearly any excuse for doing this, in fact, or they could do it just for sport.

You know who this really terrifies? A lot of America's top military commanders, that's who. Military affairs correspondent, Mark Urban, touches on this in his 2014 book, "The Edge," in which he chronicles the hollowing out of Western military superiority.

Urban offers this warning from General Stan McChrystal: "...the most fundamental threat to the US comes not from abroad, but from the failure of our educational system.Absent the ability to produce skilled workers and an educated electorate, it will be impossible to compete in the world."

US Navy admiral, Bill Fallon, finds the issue of political gridlock in Washington deeply disturbing. "Our biggest problem is really domestic, our seeming inability to clean up our act here at home politically and economically."

America's prowess in the years ahead is dependent on foreign creditors, including one or more of its major rivals, continuing to be willing to buy American government debt denominated in American dollars. A refusal to buy American debt at current favourable interest rates or a switch to one or more alternate currencies for debt purchases could be devastating for the world economy, but especially America's, and for America's military posture abroad.

If the GOP turns on their nation's government, effectively bringing Washington to its knees, it could trigger "a run on the banks" by foreign creditors and tempt America's military rivals to exploit the situation to expand their presence and influence whether in northeastern Europe, the South China Sea, the Middle East or even Africa.

In the post-Soviet era, America saw the world as its backyard. That sort of dominance becomes intrusive, resented and invites push back when weakness or opportunities are discerned.

If the GOP does carry through with its threats to bring America low the world could become a markedly more dangerous place, almost overnight.

Obama's Mortal Sin - Normalizing Extremism

Guantanamo remains open.   Drones strike far afield.   American citizens are being liquidated by their own government without trial or even charge.  Is this the legacy of Barack Obama, the normalization of the radical extremism of Bush-Cheney?

Guess Who Ain't Coming to Dinner?

Britain has decided it doesn't want extremists, even if they are American, entering the country.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she decided to publish the list to show what type of behaviour the government will not tolerate. Those who had the door slammed in their faces between October, 2008 and March, 2009 were determined to be fostering extremism or hatred.

Names on the list include:

Michael Savage (also known as Michael Weiner) – U.S. talk radio host from San Francisco who has called the Qur’an a "book of hate."

Stephen 'Don' Black – founder of a Florida-based white supremacist website.

Fred Phelps – anti-gay preacher at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., church.

Shirley Phelps-Roper – daughter of Fred Phelps. The pair have picketed the funerals of AIDS victims and said the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq is punishment for tolerance of homosexuality
.
Yunis Al-Astal – Hamas lawmaker in Gaza.

Safwat Hijazi – Egyptian cleric and television preacher.

Artur Ryno & Pavel Skachevsky – Russian gang leaders.

Mike Guzovsky – An Israeli settler allegedly involved with military training camps.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/05/05/britain-banned-list050.html

Isn't It Time Muslims Defended Islam?

If you're never heard of Takfiris you soon will for they're the Muslim equivalent of ninjas and they're about to really stir things up in Pakistan.

Like the legendary ninja, the Takfiri is an assassin, but one religiously motivated to slaughter fellow Muslims they judge apostate for failing to embrace Islam strictly as revealed by Muhammed and his companions. Anyone deviating from the path is considered no longer Muslim and, hence, an infidel deserving of assassination.

Asia Times Online warns that a Takfiri force is about to be unleashed in Pakistan:

On the one side are US-backed President Pervez Musharraf and political parties such as Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (now headed by her 19-year-old son Bilawal) and Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League.

Against them are al-Qaeda ideologues such as Egyptian scholar Sheikh Essa, who are determined to stamp their vision on the country and its neighbor, Afghanistan.

Prior to 2003, the entire al-Qaeda camp in the North Waziristan and South Waziristan tribal areas of Pakistan was convinced that its battle should be fought in Afghanistan against the foreign troops there, and not in Pakistan against its Muslim army.

That stance was changed by Sheikh Essa, who had taken up residence in the town of Mir Ali in North Waziristan, where his sermons raised armies of takfiris (those who consider all non-practicing Muslims to be infidels). He was convinced that unless Pakistan became the Taliban's (and al-Qaeda's) strategic depth, the war in Afghanistan could not be won.

In a matter of a few years, his ideology has taken hold and all perceived American allies in Pakistan have become prime targets. Local adherents of the takfiri ideology, like Sadiq Noor and Abdul Khaliq, have grown strong and spread the word in North Waziristan. Former members of jihadi outfits such as Jaish-i-Mohammed, Laskhar-i-Toiba and Lashkar-i-Jhangvi have gathered in North Waziristan and declared Sheikh Essa their ideologue.

This is the beginning of the new world of takfiriat, reborn in North Waziristan many decades after having first emerged in Egypt in the late 1960s. On the advice of Sheikh Essa, militants have tried several times to assassinate Musharraf, launched attacks on the Pakistani military, and then declared Bhutto a target.

This nest of takfiris and their intrigues was on the radar of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the day after Bhutto's killing Sheikh Essa was targeted by CIA Predator drones in his home in North Waziristan. According to Asia Times Online contacts, he survived, but was seriously wounded. Sheikh Essa had only recently recovered from a stroke which had left him bedridden.

Someone has to smash this radical, fundamentalist threat. The West already has its hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan. Venturing into Pakistan could be a terrible debacle. Isn't it time the very nations next in line to be targetted by these extremists - countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt - finally took some responsibility for defending Islam and moderate Muslim states from the ravages of these Islamist Jihadis? It's not as though these countries don't already feel threatened by the Wahabis, they do. The capricious Sauds have been playing both sides of this street for so long that they're vulnerable to the very monster they themselves empowered. It's not only Pakistan's survival that's at stake, it's their own.

Blogging Tories - What Is Their Major Malfunction?

Anyone who runs a blog from the Liberal (moderate) side has to expect to be routinely attacked by seemingly fanatical right wingers. Their comments are notable for being full of sexual and scatological references. They tend to be jingoistic, unflatteringly aggressive and hostile, ill-considered and, ultimately, sophomoric, juvenile even.

I'm old enough to remember a time when Liberals and Conservatives could hold a civil dialogue without either side abusing the other or having to sacrifice its values and beliefs. We agreed to differ and we still respected each other.

Those, of course, were the days of Progressive Conservatism. Liberal or NDP or Progressive Conservative, there was always a common denominator of Canadian values that allowed us to make progress together.

Back when I was a member of the working press in Ottawa, I sometimes ran into political extremism. In those days that tended to come from the far left, the radical left. These types would rant and rave and spit fury without end, castigating anyone whose beliefs did not comport with their own.

Today, that very sort of conduct comes from Conservative supporters. The party, following Dick Cheney's roadmap, has shifted to the right, to the far right. In the process it has energized the radical right who, true to course, resemble in their carrying on nothing so much as the radical left of the 60's.

The voice that comes from these people is the voice of extremism, the strident screed, the impulse to try to heap ridicule and abuse on anyone who lies beyond their narrow, angry vision.

Now I know there are many intelligent, informed and thoughtful Conservatives out there and we should be glad to have them. Unfortunately they have not held their own, their part of the centre, but have surrendered their voice to the Cheneys and the Harpers and their followers, the far right.

It won't last, if only for the simple reason that the uber-right is at odds with core Canadian values. Study upon study shows that. Reality, however, is of no moment to these types. Long denied the limelight by sensible conservatives, the ultra-right nutjobs are now released onto their rampage and intent on making sure all of us know it.

Relax, they'll be gone soon enough.

The Trouble With Stephen Harper

Adbusters has published an interview with Dr. Michael Byers who holds the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia:

His most recent book is Intent for a Nation: What is Canada for?, a title inspired by conservative philosopher George Grant’s influential 1965 work, Lament for a Nation, in which Grant grimly predicted the inevitable absorption of Canada by the United States.

On Stephen Harper:

"The first thing to understand is that Mr. Harper is an economist, so he thinks that economics are of paramount importance. And I’m pretty sure that he buys Grant’s thesis, and that there’s not really much we can do to avoid it because we are so dependent on the US economically. So the question for Mr. Harper would be how to manage dependency. I really don’t think that he’s capable of believing that Canada can chart an independent course. Add to that the fact that ideologically he is essentially an American Republican, he wouldn’t see a whole lot of downside to going along with the policy decisions of the Bush administration. For him, it’s a convenient default position.

"I’ll give you the three most obvious examples. One, Harper’s long-standing position on climate change, which he has recently altered – ostensibly – because he’s finally realized the political reality that lots of Canadians are beginning to care a great deal about climate change, and that it has become hard to deny at a scientific level, especially for an Arctic country like Canada. But Stephen Harper as a policy wonk has always doubted the reality of human-caused climate change, and has resisted any effort to deal with it, especially in a multilateral manner involving any international organizations. In that respect, he shares an awful lot with key members of the Bush administration.

"The second example concerns the use of the military abroad, and what Mr. Harper has sought to do with the Canadian forces – his absolutely gung-ho support for the counter-insurgency mission in Afghanistan, his public criticism of Jean Chrétien’s government for not sending troops to Iraq in 2003. This is a man who believes that foreign policy at a primary level involves shooting people overseas. He’s not a peacekeeper. He’s not a diplomat. He shares the tough-guy position of the Bush admin, in the belief that the way you exert influence is by exerting military power.

"I guess the final issue that stands out is Mr. Harper’s aggressive policies on the Middle East, such as his comment that Israel’s response to Hezbollah’s abduction of an Israeli soldier last summer was “measured.” And his refusal to back down from that, even after eight Canadian citizens were killed in the bombings. That was staggering for me, because the Middle East was one of the important areas in which Canada had traditionally and successfully steered a different course, all the way back to 1956 and the Suez Crisis. That was Lester Pearson and Canadian diplomacy’s greatest moment, using middle-road, pro-active diplomacy and the imaginative construction of solutions – in that instance, the pioneering of un peacekeeping. That’s what we did. That’s why we have the reputation we have. There was no need for Mr. Harper to make that comment, and to side unequivocally with the Israeli Defense Forces last summer. Even within Israel there was a lot of public discomfort with what the IDF was doing, but you would never have suspected the slightest doubt in the Canadian government. We’ve seen similar things happen with the issue of funding the Palestinian Authority or the listing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. And as a result of this, the Harper government is essentially writing Canada out of the script in the search for Mid-East peace. We don’t matter anymore.

"The Bush administration’s greatest failing, I think, is missing the importance of soft power. Mr. Harper makes the exact same mistake, but it’s magnified ten-fold by the fact that Canada relies much more on soft power than the US. It’s the one thing that has really made us matter in the past. The combination of our size, our location, our resources, with a very sophisticated use of soft power – that’s what enabled us historically to “punch above our weight.” The Harper government doesn’t get that. It’s our most treasured asset, and it takes decades to build it up and only months to waste it away."