Bradley Manning: Imprisoning a National Hero

by Stephen Lendman

We're all vulnerable. We're all Bradley Manning. His fate is ours.

Charging, prosecuting, convicting, sentencing and imprisoning him reflects the shame of the nation. It reveals its true face.

Previous article said American honors its worst. It spurns its best. It vilifies them. It persecutes them. It does so shamelessly. It does it irresponsibly. It does it repeatedly. It does it lawlessly.

War criminals win Nobel Peace Prizes. They're awarded Presidential Medals of Freedom. They deserve prosecution. They deserve prison. They deserve the hardest of hard time longterm.

When exposing crimes of war and against humanity is criminalized, justice gets turned on its head. Manning faces 35 years in prison. It's for acting responsibly. It's for doing the right thing.

He deserves high praise, not prosecution. He faces potential decades behind bars instead. Washington intends making it hard time. A previous article explained.

Imprisoning Manning shows America's true face. It exposes its dark side. It mocks judicial fairness. It conceals Washington's true agenda.

Mass slaughter, destruction and human misery explain best. So does waging war on humanity. It's doing it globally. It's targeting freedom.

America's no democracy. It never was. For sure it's not now. It's an out-of control pariah state. It's a rogue state. It's a criminal state. It's a tyrannical one.

Paul Craig Roberts calls it a "gangster state." It partners with likeminded ones. America, Britain and Israel represent the real axis of evil.

They're the greatest threat humanity faces. They're unmatched in human history. Their agenda threatens to end it.

They mock democratic values. They spurn rule of law principles. They operate extrajudicially. They pretend otherwise. They're unapologetic.

They threaten humanity's survival. They bear full responsibility for global wars. They plan more ahead. Human lives don't matter. They're are a small price to pay. Unchallenged dominance alone counts.

"(G)et accustomed to the police state," said Roberts. Imprisoning Manning's Exhibit A.

After Wednesday's sentencing, his lawyer David Coombs answered reporters' questions. Manning revealed nothing sensitive, he said.

"I think the damage there was an embarrassment there of having other people see that we don't always do the right thing for the right reasons."

This "might come as a surprise to some people."

"(I)f people actually look to (the) documents he revealed, they'll see that we don't always do what we should do and we're not always the country we should strive to be."

Manning thought "he (could) make a difference."

"How disheartening it must have been (to learn it) really wasn't always the mission."

"And we didn't always just kill bad people. Sometimes we just kill people because they were in the wrong place, and no one asked questions."

"And no one investigated to see if we do something wrong. And when we did do something wrong, we didn't come forward with that information."

"We didn't readily admit the mistake and say we're sorry and show how we're going to prevent this from happening in the future."

"We owe that to the American public. We owe that to the public that we go to protect, and to help them build a good country."

"And yet, we didn't do that. And so for Brad to see that, I think that is probably what accelerated his belief that the public needed to see this information."

John Paul Jones is called the Father of the United States Navy. He was a Revolutionary War naval fighter. He's known for having said "I have not yet begun to fight."

He said it in response to British Captain Richard Pearson. He asked Jones to surrender his ship - the USS Bonhomme Richard.

On October 31, 1936, Franklin Roosevelt announced his second New Deal. He did it during his reelection campaign. "We have not come this far without a struggle," he said.

"I assure you," he added, "we cannot go further without (more) struggle. (W)e have only just begun to fight."

Coombs ended his press conference the same way, saying:

"Please know that (Manning's) fight is not over."

Great struggles require longterm commitment. Quitting isn't an option. The stakes are far too great. They reflect much more than Manning.

Perhaps he best symbolizes what's wrong. There's so much more. Today is the most perilous time in world history. Daily events should scare everyone. Upside down reality threatens humanity's survival.

Lawlessness is rewarded, not punished. So is warmaking. Peacemakers are vilified. Advocating it is considered unpatriotic. It's considered sissy. It's considered wrongheaded. It's considered criminal.

Exposing crimes of war, against humanity and genocide risks prosecution. Doing the right thing's considered wrong.

Humanity's survival is threatened. It may not survive Obama's second term. Rogue governance bears full responsibility. Top priority is challenging it. It's doing so responsibly. There's nothing more important than that.

The Bradley Manning Support Network published his request for a presidential pardon. Chances are virtually nil. It's in letter form. It's passionate. It's powerful. It's sincere. It's morally and ethically principled.

It's polar opposite Obama. It reflects the highest form of patriotism. It'll be delivered to Obama at the White House.

At his press conference, Coombs read it aloud. It states:

"The decisions that I made in 2010 were made out of a concern for my country and the world that we live in. Since the tragic events of 9/11, our country has been at war."

"We've been at war with an enemy that chooses not to meet us on any traditional battlefield, and due to this fact we’ve had to alter our methods of combating the risks posed to us and our way of life."

"I initially agreed with these methods and chose to volunteer to help defend my country. It was not until I was in Iraq and reading secret military reports on a daily basis that I started to question the morality of what we were doing."

"It was at this time I realized that (in) our efforts to meet the risk posed to us by the enemy, we have forgotten our humanity."

"We consciously elected to devalue human life both in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we engaged those that we perceived were the enemy, we sometimes killed innocent civilians."

"Whenever we killed innocent civilians, instead of accepting responsibility for our conduct, we elected to hide behind the veil of national security and classified information in order to avoid any public accountability."

"In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process."

"We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror."

"Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power."

"When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission."

"Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy - the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps - to mention a few."

"I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light."

"As the late Howard Zinn once said, 'There is not a flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.' "

"I understand that my actions violated the law; I regret if my actions hurt anyone or harmed the United States."

"It was never my intent to hurt anyone. I only wanted to help people. When I chose to disclose classified information, I did so out of a love for my country and a sense of duty to others."

"If you deny my request for a pardon, I will serve my time knowing that sometimes you have to pay a heavy price to live in a free society."

"I will gladly pay that price if it means we could have a country that is truly conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all women and men are created equal."

America isn't beautiful. It never was. It's not now. It's not the land of the free and home of the brave. Longstanding policies belie high-minded rhetoric.

Things are worse than ever today. Humanity's very existence is threatened. Dismissiveness increases the possibility of its annihilation. Mass activism alone has a chance to save it.

America believes war is peace. Regional wars may spread globally. Doing so is madness. Today's super-weapons make earlier ones look like toys.

Admiral Hyman Rickover's known as the father of America's nuclear navy. In 1982, he delivered the Morgenthau Memorial Lecture. He titled it "Thoughts on Man's Purpose in Life."

He discussed "some basic principles of existence, propounded by thinkers through the ages."

He highlighted responsibility, perseverance, excellence, creativity and courage. He said they're vital for "intellectual growth and development."

He asked: "How can we equate nuclear weapons and warfare with moral and ethical values?"

"Weapons of themselves are neither moral nor amoral; it is their use that raises the moral and ethical issue."

"In all wars, man has used the best weapons available to him."

"If history has any meaning for us, it shows that men will continue to use the best weapons they have to win."

"Throughout history, even when men have established leagues to prevent war, they have nevertheless resorted to it. Utopia is still beyond the horizon."

In testimony before Congress the same year, Rickover said:

"I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation." He said he's "a great exponent of stopping this whole nonsense of war."

He repeated his Morgenthau Memorial Lecture warning, saying:

"The lesson of history is when a war starts, every nation will ultimately use whatever weapon it has available."

Before the nuclear age, wars didn't threaten humanity. Rickover knew things changed. The risk of mushroom shaped denouement is real.

Jimmy Carter was part of Rickover's nuclear navy. In 1984, he said:

"I wish that nuclear power had never been discovered. I would forego all the accomplishments of my life, and I would be willing to forego all the advantages of nuclear power to propel ships, for medical research and for every other purpose of generating electric power, if we could have avoided the evolution of atomic explosives.''

Waging peace matters most. Wars beget more of them. They risk greater ones. They risk mass destruction. They risk ending history.

Humanity must either end wars or risk annihilation. There's no in between.

A Final Comment

On August 21, the Center for Constitutional Rights condemned Manning's persecution. It issued the following statement, saying:

"We are outraged that a whistleblower and a patriot has been sentenced on a conviction under the Espionage Act."

"The government has stretched this archaic and discredited law to send an unmistakable warning to potential whistleblowers and journalists willing to publish their information."

"We can only hope that Manning’s courage will continue to inspire others who witness state crimes to speak up."

"This show trial was a frontal assault on the First Amendment, from the way the prosecution twisted Manning’s actions to blur the distinction between whistleblowing and spying to the government’s tireless efforts to obstruct media coverage of the proceedings."

"It is a travesty of justice that Manning, who helped bring to light the criminality of US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, is being punished while the alleged perpetrators of the crimes he exposed are not even investigated."

"Every aspect of this case sets a dangerous precedent for future prosecutions of whistleblowers - who play an essential role in democratic government by telling us the truth about government wrongdoing - and we fear for the future of our country in the wake of this case."

"We must channel our outrage and continue building political pressure for Manning’s freedom. President Obama should pardon Bradley Manning, and if he refuses, a presidential pardon must be an election issue in 2016.

Ben Wizner heads the ACLU's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project. He addressed Manning's mistreatment, saying:

"When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system."

"A legal system that doesn't distinguish between leaks to the press in the public interest and treason against the nation will not only produce unjust results, but will deprive the public of critical information that is necessary for democratic accountability."

"This is a sad day for Bradley Manning, but it's also a sad day for all Americans who depend on brave whistleblowers and a free press for a fully informed public debate."

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/bradley-manning-imprisoning-a-national-hero/

Imminent US War on Syria?

by Stephen Lendman

Syria is Washington's war. It was planned years ago. It's about regime change. America wants pro-Western puppet leaders replacing independent ones.

Washington doesn't launch conflicts to quit. US-enlisted death squads are no match against Syria's military. They're being routed.

Fresh terrorists are imported from abroad. They're from dozens of countries. They're recruited continually. They replace depleted ranks.

Waging war requires selling it. Public support's needed. Big Lies substitute for truth and full disclosure. Wednesday's chemical attack was a classic false flag.

It's a setup. Syrian forces had nothing to do with it. A previous article explained. It quoted Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksandr Lukashevich, saying:

"We're getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature."

"In particular, there are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action."

It reflects "another anti-Syrian propaganda wave." Calls for force "heard from EU capitals (are) unacceptable."

America, Britain, France, other key NATO partners, Israel, and rogue Arab states are in lockstep. They're incrementally heading toward direct intervention. Big Lies facilitate their plans.

On August 23, Reuters headlined "Initial Western intelligence finds Syrian forces used chemical weapons," saying:

"US and allied intelligence agencies have made a preliminary assessment that chemical weapons were used by Syrian forces in an attack near Damascus this week, likely with high-level approval from the government of President Bashar al-Assad, according to American and European security sources."

They lied. They always lie. It doesn't matter. Waging wars depends on lies. Deception is longstanding strategy. Truth is systematically avoided. It's always the same way. It's no different now.

Reuters said sources spoke "on condition of anonymity." Initial assessments are "preliminary."

"Conclusive proof could take days, weeks or even longer to gather. (T)he apparent mass poisoning of hundreds of people appeared to have taken on a sense of urgency for the Obama administration."

"Obama called the incident a 'big event of grave concern.' " It demands US attention, he said. He stopped short of putting blame where it belongs.

No evidence suggests Syrian involvement. Its forces haven't used chemical weapons any time throughout the conflict. Clear proof shows insurgents used them multiple times. They're responsible for Wednesday's incident. Their fingerprints are all over it.

Western governments claim otherwise. So do supportive media scoundrels. Lies substitute for full and accurate reporting. Truth's turned on its head. It's standard practice.

Escalated war looms. Headlines suggest it. On Thursday, emergency meetings were held. National Security Council, Pentagon, State Department and intelligence officials met at the White House.

Further discussions are planned this weekend. Deciding what's next appears imminent. US allies will be briefed. What follows remains to be seen.

Headlines suggest trouble. Washington's preparing for war. On August 23, CBS News headlined "US preps for possible cruise missile attack on Syrian gov't forces," saying:

It "learned that the Pentagon is making the initial preparations for a cruise missile attack on Syrian government forces."

"We say 'initial preparations' because such an attack won't happen until the president gives the green light."

He's not there yet. How close remains to be seen. On Friday, he told CNN America's "the one indispensable nation." He lied saying so. Its war on humanity explains otherwise.

According to Obama, "if the US goes in and attacks another country without a UN mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, do we have the coalition to make it work, and, you know, those are considerations that we have to take into account."

Washington ignores international, constitutional and US statute laws. It ignores UN Charter provisions.

No nation may interfere in the internal affairs of others. Member-states are required to "settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Article 51 only permits armed force in self-defense. It does so against externally generated aggression. It does it until the Security Council acts. It has final say.

Under no circumstances may one nation, or combination thereof, intervene against another without lawful Security Council authorization. Doing so is lawless aggression.

America, key NATO allies and Israel put their own priorities above inviolable laws. Peace is verboten. Wars rage without end. New ones are planned.

Syria's in the eye of the storm. It's being ravaged and destroyed. Escalated war may be imminent. It bears repeating. Doing so constitutes lawless aggression.

On Friday, CBS reported administration officials claiming "detected activity at known Syrian chemical weapons sites before Wednesday's incident."

It's "seen as possible preparation for Wednesday's attack. US intelligence agencies are now leaning to the conclusion that Syria did use chemical weapons."

Obama's "seek(ing) international support before taking large-scale action."

Former Joint Chiefs Chairman/Secretary of State Colin Powell told CBS News correspondent Bob Schieffer:

"In both Egypt and Syria, America has to take a much more, a much more clever role."

"We shouldn't go around thinking that we can really make things happen."

"We can influence things, and we can be ready to help people when problems have been resolved or one side has prevailed over the other. That's when I think we can play a role."

Powell's an unindicted war criminal. He bears much responsibility for war on Iraq. He lied. He did so numerous times. His infamous February 5, 2003 2003 Security Council speech led to war.

It was shameless deception. Later he admitted WMD claims were false. It was too late to matter. Plans were set. The die was cast.

Weeks later, America bombed, invaded and occupied Iraq. The cradle of civilization was destroyed. No WMDs existed. It was well-known but ignored.

A similar scenario's repeating against Syria. Escalated conflict looms. US Mediterranean forces are being enhanced. A fourth destroyer was added.

US warships are repositioning close to Syria. They're heavily armed. They're ready to attack if ordered. They await the command to do so.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said:

"The Defense Department has responsibility to provide the president with options for all contingencies."

"And that requires positioning our forces, positioning our assets, to be able to carry out different options - whatever options the president might choose."

He didn't elaborate further. Another unnamed Defense Department official said orders to prepare for military operations against Syria hadn't so far been issued. Whether they're imminent remains to be seen.

Rep. Eliot Engel's the ranking House Foreign Affairs Committee minority member. On Wednesday, he said:

"If reports are credible that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons resulting in the estimated deaths of hundreds of civilians, then clearly a red line has been crossed again."

"The US has two options: continue to largely stand on the sidelines as the regime slaughters its own people, or tip the balance of power against a brutal dictator by degrading its ability to attack civilians."

"If we are to salvage what remains of our credibility in the region, we must act soon."

On Friday, he urged Obama to order air strikes, saying:

"If we, in concert with our allies, do not respond to Assad's murderous uses of weapons of mass destruction, malevolent countries and bad actors around the world will see a green light where one was never intended."

On Friday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday's incident "is not something that a humane or civilized world can ignore."

Ben Rhodes is Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications. On June 13, his duplicitous statement said in part:

"Following a deliberative review, our intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year."

"Our intelligence community has high confidence in that assessment given multiple, independent streams of information."

"We believe that the Assad regime maintains control of these weapons. We have no reliable, corroborated reporting to indicate that the opposition in Syria has acquired or used chemical weapons."

"The body of information used to make this intelligence assessment includes reporting regarding Syrian officials planning and executing regime chemical weapons attacks; reporting that includes descriptions of the time, location, and means of attack; and descriptions of physiological symptoms that are consistent with exposure to a chemical weapons agent."

An unnamed former US official said Obama's credibility's at stake. It'll likely get him to use limited force. He'll feel obliged to do something.

Next week, US Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey will attend a high-level meeting in Jordan. It's been planned for weeks. He'll discuss Syria.

He'll do so with top military officials from Britain, France, Germany, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Italy and Canada.

On August 23, The New York Times headlined "Air War in Kosovo Seen as Precedent in Possible Response to Syria Chemical Attack," saying:

Obama's "national security aides are studying" NATO's air war. They consider it "a possible blueprint for acting without" Security Council authorization.

As explained above, doing so violates UN Charter provisions. It constitutes lawless aggression. It doesn't matter. Obama appears readying to attack.

All US post-WW II wars were illegal. So is Washington's involvement in Syria. Further escalation assures greater war crimes than already committed.

Warrior nations are unapologetic. America does what it pleases. Justifying the unjustifiable doesn't wash. Arguing for humanitarian intervention rings hollow.

In 1999, Clinton lied claiming NATO's endorsement was justification enough to attack Yugoslavia. Previous articles discussed what happened.

From March 24 - June 19, 1999, Operation Allied Force was unprecedented in ferocity. For 78 days, devastating bombing ravaged Yugoslavia. Around 600 aircraft flew about 3,000 sorties.

Thousands of tons of ordnance were dropped. Hundreds of ground-launched cruise missiles were used.

Nearly everything was struck. Massive destruction and disruption followed. An estimated $100 billion in damage was inflicted. A humanitarian disaster resulted. Environmental contamination was extensive.

Large numbers were killed, injured or displaced. Two million people lost their livelihoods. Homes and communities were destroyed.

Nobel laureate Harold Pinter called NATO's aggression "barbaric (and despicable), another blatant and brutal assertion of US power using NATO as its missile (to consolidate) American domination of Europe."

Lawless aggression became humanitarian intervention. An avenue to Eurasia was opened. A permanent US military presence was established. American imperialism claimed another trophy.

Perhaps Obama plans the same thing for Syria. War criminals act this way. Obama's one of the worst. His rhetoric belies his agenda.

When Washington wants war it's coming. Only its timing is uncertain. Whether Obama plans replicating Yugoslavia remains to be seen. Signs appear to suggest it.

A Final Comment

On August 24, Press TV headlined "Syrian army finds chemicals in militants tunnels," saying:

"Syrian army soldiers have found chemical agents in tunnels dug by the foreign-backed militants in a northeastern suburb of the capital, Damascus, Syrian TV says."

"The discovery came after the government forces surrounded a sector of militant-held district of Jobar on Saturday."

"Army heroes are entering the tunnels of the terrorists and saw chemical agents, Syria television said."

"In some cases, soldiers are suffocating while entering Jobar."

"It added that ambulances arrived in the region to rescue the people who were suffocating in Jobar and the area is now controlled by Syrian army forces."

"The Syrian army has vehemently denied allegations that it used chemical weapons against Takfiri militants in the suburbs of the Ghouta region, saying the accusations were fabricated to distract the visiting team of UN chemical weapons experts and to cover up militants losses."

On August 24, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) headlined "Suffocation cases among Syrian army soldiers as terrorists used chemical weapons in Jobar," saying:

Syrian soldiers experienced "suffocation while entering Joubar neighborhood in Damascus countryside on Saturday as armed terrorist groups used chemical weapons, an official source announced on Saturday."

"The source added in a statement to SANA that the staffs of emergency have rescued the soldiers with suffocation cases, indicating that "some of the injured are in a critical condition."

Syrian forces seized a warehouse. It contained barrels marked "Made in KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia)." Protective masks were found. So were drugs used when inhaling chemicals.

"The Qatari-German Company for Pharmaceutical Industries (was) inscribed on them."

Evidence keeps mounting. Western-supported insurgents bear full responsibility for chemical weapons attacks.

Saudi Arabia's involved. So is America. Pentagon contractors are training insurgents in chemical weapons use. Washington's dirty war continues. Whether Libya 2.0 looms remains to be seen.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/imminent-us-war-syria/

McCarthyism Writ Large

by Stephen Lendman

In the late 1930s and 1940s, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) targeted alleged communist sympathizers. Uncorroborated hearsay alone mattered.

Prominent Hollywood figures were named. Hundreds of actors, directors, producers, screenwriters, musicians, songwriters, and other artists were accused of communist sympathies.

They were blacklisted. Notable ones were called the Hollywood Ten.

They included screenwriter Alvah Bessie, screenwriter/director Herbert Biberman, screenwriter Lester Cole, director Edward Dmytryk, screenwriter Ring Lardner, Jr., screenwriter John Lawson, screenwriter Albert Maltz, screenwriter Samuel Ornitz, producer/screenwriter Adrian Scott, and author/screenwriter Dalton Trumbo.

McCarthyism signifies baseless slander, unscrupulous fearmongering, and political lynchings.

Communist hearings got headlines. They were televised. They were witch-hunt prosecutions. Harvard Law Dean Ervin Griswold called McCarthy "judge, jury, prosecutor, castigator, and press agent, all in one."

He personified evil. He targeted innocent victims. He ruined careers. He did so for political advantage. He called Secretary of State Dean Acheson "a pompous diplomat in striped pants."

He accused General George Marshall of being "soft on communism." With no proof, he claimed he had names of 205 known State Department communists.

He later said 57. He claimed they were passing secrets to Soviet Russia.

"The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency," he said, "is not because the enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college educations, and the finest jobs in Government (and the private sector) we can give."

He characterized enemies as "card-carrying communists." He called others "loyalty risks."

He vilified patriotic Americans. He did so for political gain. He created hysteria. He targeted anti-American books. He got them pulled from libraries.

He overstepped. He fell from grace. Publications like the Louisville Courier-Journal said:

"In this long, degrading travesty of the democratic process, McCarthy has shown himself to be evil and unmatched in malice."

In June 1954, he met his match. Army lawyer Joe Welch challenged him. He attacked his spurious accusation about one of his attorneys having communist ties. He did so, saying:

"Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or recklessness." McCarthy shot back.

Welch angrily interrupted, adding "Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency?"

Overnight, McCarthy's popularity plunged. Senate censure followed. It ruined him. In 1957, he died a broken man at age 48. He wasn't missed.

Obama exceeds the worst of Joe McCarthy. He heads America's police state apparatus. Rule of law principles don't matter.

Dissent's considered unpatriotic. Whistleblowing's criminalized. Unconstitutional spying's institutionalized.

Freedom's fast eroding. It's an endangered species. It's on the chopping block for elimination.

Wealth, power, and privilege alone matter. America's war on terror advances them. It rages against humanity. It does so abroad and at home.

State terror is official policy. Obama exceeds the worst of his predecessors. He's done more to subvert constitutional protections than any previous president.

He more than ever made America unfit to live in. Police state justice potentially threatens everyone. It's modern day McCarthyism writ large.

Merriam-Webster calls its earlier version "a mid-20th century political attitude characterized chiefly by opposition to elements held to be subversive and by the use of tactics involving personal attacks on individuals by means of widely publicized indiscriminate allegations especially on the basis of unsubstantiated charges; broadly: defamation of character or reputation through such tactics."

Oxford Dictionaries calls it "a vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the US government and other institutions carried out under Senator Joseph McCarthy in the period 1950-54."

"Many of the accused were blacklisted or lost their jobs, although most did not in fact belong to the Communist Party."

McCarthyism reflects "a campaign or practice that endorses the use unfair allegations and investigations."

According to Wikipedia, it's "the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for (verifiable) evidence."

The Online Dictionary calls it "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

In January 2012, Obama's Justice Department charged former CIA officer John Kiriakou. It claimed he disclosed classified information to journalists. It said he violated Intelligence Identities Protection Act provisions. It accused him of "lying" to CIA's Publications Review Board.

He potentially faced longterm incarceration. In October 2012, he accepted plea bargain terms. They're sought and/or accepted for lesser sentences. Innocent victims take them to avoid harsher treatment.

Kariakou pled guilty to one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Other Espionage Act charges were dropped. He got 30 months in prison.

He thanked supporters saying:

"I'm headed to prison while the torturers and the lawyers who papered over it and the people who conceived it and the man who destroyed the proof of it, the tapes, will never face justice."

"And that's the saddest part of the story," he added. Unconscionable crimes reflect official policy.

Whistleblowers are targeted. Exposing government wrongdoing's criminalized. Doing the right thing's not tolerated. Police states operate that way. America's by far the worst.

On August 6, Kariakou headlined "Obama's abuse of the Espionage Act is modern-day McCarthyism," saying:

Convicting Bradley Manning of 1917 Espionage Act violations and charging Edward Snowden "under the same act are yet further examples of the Obama administration's policy of using an iron fist against human rights and civil liberties activists."

"President Obama has been unprecedented in his use of the Espionage Act to prosecute those whose whistleblowing he wants to curtail."

Doing so sends a chilling message. "Challenge us and we will destroy you." Doing the right thing risks prosecution. Kariakou recounted his own experience.

He "bl(ew) the whistle on the CIA's torture program." It's unchanged under Obama. Attorney General Holder declared war on whistleblowers.

Doing so "smacks of modern-day McCarthyism." Washington needs " 'ism(s)' to fight against."

Whistleblowers acting honorably are "accused of helping terrorists." They risk Espionage Act charges. They risk witch-hunt prosecutions. They risk long imprisonment. Perhaps they risk death.

Justice reflects tragedy and travesty. It's turned on its head. Civil liberties are vital to protect. Lawless government spying and other wrongdoing need exposure. "That should be the story," said Kariakou.

Professor Emeritus Norman Pollack discussed "The New McCarthyism." Fundamental human rights and civil liberties are undermined.

Obama's destroying them on his watch. He's dismantling rule of law protections. He denies "transparency." He prioritizes "opaqueness."

He rejects "people's right to know." He targets whistleblowers exposing government wrongdoing.

He demands "total conformity or, more realistically, passivity, as the war machine and its partner-in-destiny capitalist accumulation at the top roll on."

He's "contemptuous of basic Constitutional tenets affecting freedom of thought and association."

"The White House exists in a moral vacuum. That targeted assassination is fully entertained and practiced is at one with this phase of psychological-juridical control over the free expression of ideas."

"Both have reference to despotic ways of governance which have implications even beyond principles honoring privacy and free thought."

State terror threatens everyone. Humanity's endangered. Democracy exists in name only.

Much worse ahead is likely. Modern day McCarthyism harms everyone. It's the worst of all possible worlds.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

From The Pen Of Peter Paul Markin- Looking For The Heart Of Saturday Night, Christ The Heart Of Any Night- The Songs of Tom Waits-Take Three

A link to a YouTube film clip of Tom Waits performing Looking For The Heart Of Saturday Night

If you, as I do, every once in a while, every once in a while when the norms of bourgeois push to get ahead and then what, push you off your sainted wheels, and get you into some angst-ridden despair about where you went off that angel-driven dream of your youth, not faded, tattered, and half- forgotten(but only half, only half, sisters and brothers, and need some solace, need to reach back to roots, reach back to the primeval forest maybe, put the headphones on some Tom Waits platter (oops, CD, YouTube selection, etc.- “platter” refers to a, ah, record, vinyl, put on a record player, hell, look it up in Wikipedia, okay).

If the norms of don’t rock the boat, the norms of keep your head down because you don’t want to wind up like them (and fill in the blank of the “them,” usually dark, speaking some unknown language maybe gibberish for all you know, moving furtively and stealthily against your good night) drive you crazy and you need to listen to those ancient drum beats, those primeval forest leave droppings maybe, that spoke of the better angels of your nature when those angel dreams, half-forgotten but only half remember, ruled your days. Turn up the volume another notch or two on that Tom Waits selection, maybe Jersey Girl or Brother, Can You Spare A Dime (can you?), Hold On, or Gunn Street Girl.

If you need to hear things, just to sort things out, just to recapture that angel-edge, that made you come alive, made you think about from whence you came and how a turn, a slight turn this way or that, could have landed you on the wrong side, things about boozers (and about titantic booze-crazed struggles in barroom, on beaches, in the back seats of cars, lost in the mist of time down some crazed midnight, hell, four in the morning, penniless, cab fare-less night) , losers (those who have lost their way, gotten it taken away like some maiden virginity, never had anything but lost, not those who never had a way to be lost), dopesters (inhaling, in solidarity hotel rooms among junkie brethren, down in dark alleys jack-rolling some poor stiff of his room rent for kicks, out in nighttime canyons flame blaring off the walls, the seven seas of chemical dust, mainly blotter, maybe peyote if that earth angel connection comes through, creating vision of long lost tribes trying, trying like hell, to get “connected,” connected in the campfire shadow night), hipsters (all dressed in black, mary mack dressed in black, speeding, speaking be-bop this and be-bop that to stay in fashion, hustling, always hustle, always moving), fallen sisters (sisters of mercy, sisters who need mercy, sisters who were mercifully made fallen in some mad dash night, merciful sister feed me, feed me good ), midnight sifters (lifting in no particular order hubcaps, tires, wrenches, jacks, an occasional gem, some cheap jewelry in wrong neighborhood, some paintings or whatever may be left in some sneak back alley, it is the sifting that counts), grifters (hey, buddy watch this, now you see it, now you don’t, now you don’t see your long gone John dough, and Mister three card monte long gone too ), drifters (here today gone tomorrow with or without dough, to Winnemucca, Ogden, Fresno, Frisco town, name your town, name your poison and the great big blue seas washing you clean out into the Japans ), the driftless (cramped into one room hovels, shelters, seedy rooming houses afraid to stay in-doors or to go outside, afraid of the “them” too ), and small-time grafters (the ten-percent guys, failed insurance men, repo artists, bounty hunters, press agents, personal trainers, need I go on). You know where to look, right.

If you need to be refreshed on the subject of hoboes, bums, tramps (and remind me sometime to draw the distinction, the very real and acknowledged distinction between those three afore –mentioned classes of brethren out in the railroad jungles in some Los Angeles ravine, some Gallup trestle, some Hoboken broken down pier, the fallen (fallen outside the gates of Eden, or, hell, inside too), those who want to fall (and let god figure out who made who fall, okay), Spanish Johnnies (slicked back black hair, tee shirt, shiv, cigarette butt hanging from a parted lip, belt buckle ready for action, leering, leering at that girl over there, maybe your girl but watch out for that shiv, the bastard), stale cigarette butts (from Spanish Johnnie and all the johnnies, Camels, Luckies, no filters, no way), whiskey-soaked barroom floors (and whiskey-soaked drunks to mop the damn place up, for drinks and donuts, maybe just for the drinks), loners (jesus, books could be written on that subject so let’s just pass by), the lonely (ditto loners), sad sacks (kindred, one hundred times kindred to the loners and the lonely), the sad (encompassing all of the above) and others at the margins of society, the whole fellahin world, then Tom Waits is your stop.

Tom Waits is, frankly, an acquired taste, but one well worth acquiring as he storms heaven in words, in thought-out words to express the pain and anguish of modern living, yes, modern living, looking for busted black-hearted angels, for girls with Monroe hips getting kicked out of proper small town hells and left for dead with cigar wrapping rings, for the desperate out in forsaken woods who need to hold to something, and for all the misbegotten.

Tom Waits gives voice in song, a big task, to the kind of characters that peopled Nelson Algren’s novels (The Last Carousel, Neon Wilderness, Walk on the Wild Side, and The Man with the Golden Arm). In short, the people who do not make revolutions, those revolutions we keep hearing and reading about, far from it, but those who surely, and desperately could use one. If, additionally, you need a primordial voice and occasional dissonant instrumentation to round out the picture go no further. Finally, if you need someone who “feels your pain” for his characters you are home. Keep looking for the heart of Saturday night, Brother, keep looking.

“You Know How To Whistle, Don’t You?”-The To Have Part-TheFilm Adaptation Of Ernest Hemingway’s To Have And Have Not

 

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman

DVD Review

To Have And Have Not, starring Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Walter Brennan, directed by Howard Hawks, 1944

Recently, a little by off-hand chance I picked up and re-read a copy of Ernest Hemingway’s 1930s story, To Have And  Have Not, not one of his classics, not really close, but a story that centered on man’s struggle against the fates, his fates, one Harry Morgan’s fate in a world that was seriously circumscribed by the limits of his personal environment. I mentioned there that those of us who have been spoon-fed on the film adaptation (with a screenplay written by William Faulkner) To Have And Have Not starring Humphrey Bogart and a fresh young Lauren Bacall would be somewhat taken aback on reading Ernest Hemingway’s original story. Other than the title and a few names of characters they were two totally different animals.

I noted that the film Harry Morgan (Captain Harry Morgan by virtue of a sweet little fishing boat just then being used to take rich touristas out for some deep-sea fishing, it they could handle it) a crusty, no-nonsense, world wary, world weary, everybody looks out for themselves, but in the end unabashedly heroic sea captain played by Humphrey Bogart borne no relationship to the novel Harry other than maybe that crusty part. Moreover the novel’s Harry, a hustler of limited means and character, was not some guy ready to succumb to the charms of the film’s wayward “Slim” played by a fetching young Lauren Bacall and to be lured into those charms by her “you know how whistle, don’t you?” all to the sway of seen-it- all piano player Hoagie Carmichael’s renditions of  Am I Blue and How Little We Know (among others).

There would be no novel Harry heroics with him  getting off the dime and aiding the angels in the struggle that was blowing over Europe at the time of World War II as translated into Caribe time just because he didn’t like some fat quisling doing Vichy’s dirty work out in the colonies. Or maybe, just maybe because he didn’t like that third degree Slim was put through by that quisling because she was down or her uppers. Nor would we see any mussing up the bad guys just because he didn’t like the cut of their jibe, and didn’t mind chasing a few windmills if a slender brunette came with it. So mainly we would see no romantic haze in the night but rather a gritty, grizzly world of sea-ward crimes, high and low. What drove novel Harry was simply making the next dime to feed the wife and kids, and maybe some time for a drink or seven with the boys down at some gin mill by the docks where a stand-up guy like him could put things on the cuff. Yeah, making that next dime legally if possible, but making it. No good end could come from that and that Harry would up face down with some serious shells blasting away his stomach.  

All of this, of course, by way of explaining that once I had finished the book and had written that review, as will happen off-handedly or not at times, I got to thinking that I had not seen that film adaptation, a film I that had seen several times in the past, in a long time and so this review. I have already outlined the main themes above so a little plot-line summary should fill out my reasons for why this second- line Hemingway novel turned into a fine film with some serious sexual chemistry on screen (and off as well) between Bogart and Bacall. Like I said both Harrys were sea dogs, sea dog small craft fishing boat owners just plying their deep-sea fishing trade. From there things diverge, diverge greatly.        

Our film Harry, a strictly non-political guy, having seen-it-all, was working his trade in 1940 Vichy French-controlled Martinique just as World War II; European version was starting to boil over. The local branch of the French Resistance pleaded with Harry to help transport various local leaders to safer quarters but Harry wanted none of that. Wanted none of that until she showed up, she showed up almost on his doorstep. Well, she, Slim she, and that hard fact that as the time for picking sides became clearer once the local Vichy put the screws on Harry was forced off the dime. Naturally when decision time, when 1940s decision time came, he sided with the angels. But we knew that already, we knew he had no choice once he saw what the other side was up to.

So that leaves us with the heart of the film, the one that makes this thing sizzle,1940s sizzle, the magic between Bogart and Bacall. It’s a mismatch on the surface, he, well, crusty and world-weary, and she, well, fetching okay, but as they do their dance you know, know damn well, they will pair up. And as it turns out fetching or not, our Slim is no wilting violet but can be as tough as she needs to be, can show that a gal on down on her uppers can still have spirit, and still come up swinging. Yeah, he was a push-over for that. All that needs to be said now is that if you want to see what black and white film chemistry, sexual chemistry in the 1940s, was like between two people with all their clothes on then watch this classic.

After The Fall-John Steinbeck’s' "Eden Of Eden"- A Film Review

DVD Review

East Of Eden, starring James Dean, Julie Harris, Raymond Massey, directed by Elia Kazan, based on the second half of John Steinbeck’s book of the same name, Warner Brothers, 1955.
This entry was originally posted as a review of the book by John Steinbeck but other than to note the outstanding performances by Dean, Harris and Massey (and small role by Burl Ives) the point made there apply here on the film adaptation.


I usually do not read the comments of book reviewers on Amazon.com (or, in a few cases, at least not until after I have written my own). I was, however, interested in finding out whether Steinbeck and his tale still held interest for today’s readers. The answer seems to be yes. Moreover, I was interested in what other people had to say about the symbolic nature of the clash between and among generations of brothers and its relationship to the old biblical struggles going back to the ‘first family’.

Damn, life has definitely been tougher since the ‘fall’. The morale to be derived from Steinbeck’s novel is, apparently, that while the ‘fall of man’ under the spell of earthly temptations had its down side humankind is better for the struggle. A strong argument can moreover be made that without that struggle by fallen humankind no serious progress would have been made. That struggle is epitomized by the characters, tensions and actions of the two brothers (in both generations ,Adam’s the father’s and Aaron’s and the son’s) which makes me think that Steinbeck may see this an eternal struggle and that we are endlessly doomed to roll that rock up the hill just to have it come crashing back down on us.

Those who have only seen the 1950’s movie version of this novel starring, among others, the ill-fated James Dean and a young Julie Harris, have missed some great writing about the effects of the destruction, struggle to rebuilt and attempts at redemption in the wake of the fall of Adam Trask and his struggle to change his ways. And through him, his sons. The movie (that I saw long before reading the book) skips over the compelling first section which deals with the seemingly pre-ordained destruction of Adam, by his ‘wife’ among others. Moreover, in the movie the demonic role of the ‘wife’ Kathy is glossed over (probably due to the less tolerate and more squeamish mores about ‘fallen women’ in the 1950’s). She is not a ‘nice’ person. Read the book and see why we, even the best of us, are now all living just East of Eden.

From The Marxist Archives-A Salute to Charles Darwin

Workers Vanguard No. 930	13 February 2009

TROTSKY

LENIN

A Salute to Charles Darwin

(Quote of the Week)

This year marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin and the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth. Through his theory of evolution through natural selection, or, as he preferred to call it, “descent with modification,” Darwin unshackled biological science from the chains of religion and metaphysics by providing a materialist explanation for the evolution of life on this planet through careful, meticulously recorded studies of variation within species. Yet, even as it forms the basis of modern biology, evolution continues to be explosive in the U.S., a constant target of the fundamentalist Christian right and reactionaries, including because it eliminates any scientific basis for racism. As we wrote in a 1985 amici curiae brief filed by the Spartacist League and Partisan Defense Committee in the Supreme Court against the teaching of the myth of Biblical creationism in Louisiana schools: “The study of scientific evolution is fundamental to man’s quest for a materialist understanding of our world and human society, not the least because it provides material evidence that we are all part of the same human race, definitively destroying the myths of racial superiority.”

Charles Darwin himself was an ardent opponent of slavery. In a 5 June 1861 letter to Harvard botanist Asa Gray, a devout Protestant who arranged for the Origin of Species to be published in America, Darwin wrote in the early days of the U.S. Civil War: “Some few, and I am one of them, even wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against slavery. In the long-run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity…. Great God! How I should like to see the greatest curse on earth—slavery—abolished!” And in a 17 September 1861 letter to Gray, he wrote: “If abolition does follow with your victory, the whole world will look brighter in my eyes & in many eyes. It would be a great gain even to stop the spread of Slavery into the Territories:—if that be possible without abolition, which I should have doubted.”

Charles Darwin also corresponded with his friend on the question of religion, replying to Gray’s defense of “intelligent design” in a 22 May 1860 letter: “I had no intention to write atheistically, but I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do…evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae [parasitic wasps] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.”

In the following excerpt from an article (written in 1919 and revised in 1922) on the renegade from Marxism Karl Kautsky, revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky compared the historic breadth of Darwin’s scientific studies to Marx’s study of human society, pointing out that both reveal that long periods of seeming equilibrium are periodically interrupted by tumultuous periods of rapid, revolutionary change.

* * * * *

The Darwinian theory of the origin of species encompasses the entire span of development of the plant and animal kingdoms. The struggle for survival and the processes of natural and sexual selection proceed continuously and uninterruptedly. But if one could observe these processes with ample time at one’s disposal—a millennium, say, as the smallest unit of measure—one would undoubtedly discover with one’s own eyes that there are long ages of relative equilibrium in the world of living things, when the laws of selection operate almost imperceptibly, and the different species remain relatively stable, seeming the very embodiment of Plato’s ideal types. But there are also ages when the equilibrium between plants, animals, and their geophysical environment is disrupted, epochs of geobiological crisis, when the laws of natural selection come to the fore in all their ferocity, and evolution passes over the corpses of entire plant and animal species. On this gigantic scale Darwinian theory stands out above all as the theory of critical epochs in the plant and animal development.

Marx’s theory of the historical process encompasses the entire history of human social organization. But in ages of relative social equilibrium the fact that ideas depend upon class interests and the property system remains masked. The age of revolution is Marxism’s school of advanced study. Then the struggle of classes resulting from systems of property assumes the character of open civil war, and the systems of government, law, and philosophy are stripped bare and revealed as instruments in the service of classes. Marxist theory itself was first formulated in a prerevolutionary period, when the classes were searching for a new orientation, and it achieved its final form through the experiences of revolution and counterrevolution in 1848 and the following years.

—Leon Trotsky, “Karl Kautsky” (1922), reprinted in Portraits Political & Personal (Pathfinder Press, 1977)

*************

Leon Trotsky

Political Profiles

---

Karl Kautsky

(March 1919)

NASHE SLOVO was to settle accounts with Kautsky too. On the eve of the imperialist war his international reputation still stood very high though no longer at the height it had reached at the beginning of the century and particularly during the first Russian revolution.

Kautsky was without doubt the most outstanding theoretician of the Second International and over the major part of his conscious life he represented and generalized the better sides of the Second International. Kautsky the propagandist and vulgarizer of Marxism saw his principal theoretical mission in reconciling reform and revolution. But he himself took shape ideologically in an epoch of reform. For him reform was the reality. Revolution was a theoretical generalization and a historical perspective.
Darwin’s theory of the origin of species embraces the development of the vegetable and animal kingdoms in its entirety. The struggle for existence and natural and genetic selection proceeds unceasingly and without interruption. But if an observer were to have sufficient time at his disposal for making observations—say a millennium as the smallest unit of measurement—he would doubtless establish before his eyes that there are long epochs of a relative equilibrium of life when the workings of the laws of selection are almost imperceptible and the species preserve their relative stability and appear to be an embodiment of platonic ideal types. But there are also epochs when the equilibrium between the animal, vegetable and geographical factors is upset, epochs of geo-biological crises when the laws of natural selection assert themselves with all their fierceness and lead the development over the corpses of vegetable and animal species. In this gigantic perspective Darwin’s theory stands before us above all as the theory of critical epochs in the development of the vegetable and animal world.
Marx’s theory of the historical process embraces the entire history of socially organized man. But in epochs of relative social equilibrium the dependence of ideas on class interests and the system of property remains masked. The high school of Marxism is formed by the epochs of revolution when the struggle of classes which arises from the system of property takes on the character of open civil war and when the systems of state, law and philosophy are stripped bare as subsidiary organs of classes. The theory of Marxism itself was formulated in a pre-revolutionary epoch when the classes were seeking a new orientation and finally took shape amid the experiences of the revolution and counter-revolution in 1848 and the years following.
Kautsky did not have this indispensable living experience of revolution. He received Marxism as a finished system and popularized it like the schoolmaster of scientific socialism. The flowering of his activity came about in the deep gulf between the routed Paris Commune and the first Russian revolution. Capitalism had developed with an omnipotent might. Workers’ organizations grew almost automatically but the “final goal”, that is the social-revolutionary task of the proletariat, became separated from the movement itself and maintained a purely academic existence. Hence Bernstein’s notorious aphorism: “the movement is everything the final goal, nothing”. As the philosophy of a workers’ party this is nonsense and banal. But as a reflection of the real spirit of German social-democracy of the last quarter-century before the war Bernstein’s dictum is very indicative; the everyday reformist struggle had acquired a self-sufficient character while the final goal was kept in Kautsky’s department.
Kautsky tirelessly defended the revolutionary character of the doctrine of Marx and Engels although even here the initiative in rebutting the attempts of the revisionists belonged usually not to him but to the more decisive elements (Rosa Luxemburg, Plekhanov and Parvus). But politically Kautsky had totally reconciled himself with social-democracy as it had developed, did not notice its deeply opportunist character and did not respond positively to the attempts to give a firmer character to the party’s tactics. The party—that is, its ruling bureaucracy—had too for its part reconciled itself to Kautsky’s theoretical radicalism. This combination of practical opportunism and principled revolutionary ideology found its highest expression in the brilliant turner, August Bebel, undisputed party leader over nearly half a century. Bebel gave his support to Kautsky in the field of theory while himself being for Kautsky the final arbiter on questions of policy. Only Luxemburg could at times nudge Kautsky further to the left than Bebel wanted.
German social-democracy occupied the leading place in the Second International. Kautsky was its acknowledged theoretician and it seemed, its inspirer. From the fight against Bernstein Kautsky emerged the victor. French socialist ministerialism (“Millerandism”) was condemned at the Amsterdam Congress in 1904 where Kautsky’s motion was adopted. In this way Kautsky seemed to have become the acknowledged theoretical legislator of international socialism. This was the period of his greatest influence. His enemies and adversaries used to call him the “pope” of the International. Frequently too his friends glorified him in this way, though with affection. I recall how old mother Kautsky, a writer of tendentious novels which she dedicated to “my son and my teacher” on her 70th birthday received greetings from the Italian socialists addressed “alla mamma del papa” (to the pope’s mother).
The 1905 revolution broke out. It at once strengthened the radical tendencies within the international workers’ movement and reinforced Kautsky’s theoretical authority immeasurably. On the international questions of the revolution he took up (to be sure, later than some others) a firm position and foresaw a revolutionary social-democratic government in Russia. Bebel would chuckle in private: “Karl is quite carried away” and smile from the corner of his thin mouth. In the German party it became reduced to a discussion on the General Strike and a radical resolution. This was Kautsky’s zenith. Thereafter he entered a decline.
I first saw Kautsky in 1907 after my escape from Siberia. The defeat of the revolution was not yet evident. In this period Luxemburg’s influence on Kautsky was very great. For all the factions of Russian social-democracy his authority was beyond dispute. It was not without trepidation that I went up the steps of the neat little house in Friedenau just outside Berlin. An “other-worldly” impression of a little greying old man with bright eyes saying in Russian “How do you do?” taken together with the impression formed from his scientific works from which we had all learnt so much, went to make up a highly attractive figure. Especially winning was his lack of fastidiousness which as it became clear to me subsequently derived from the unquestioned nature of authority and the resulting self-assurance. A private conversation with Kautsky, however, yielded very little. His turn of mind was awkward, dry, unresourceful and un-psychological, his criticism schematic and his jokes banal. And for these reasons Kautsky was extremely weak as an orator.
In Russia the revolution was repulsed, the proletariat thrust back and socialism was fragmented and driven underground; the liberal bourgeoisie sought a reconciliation with the monarchy on the basis of an imperialist programme. Disillusion with the methods of revolution rolled over the International like a wave. Opportunism took its revenge. As the international relations of the capitalist countries grew tenser the denouement drew closer and the socialist parties were compelled to define their position: for the national state or against it?—it was necessary either to draw a conclusion from revolutionary theory or to carry opportunist practice through to the end. Meanwhile Kautsky’s whole authority rested upon the reconciliation of opportunism in politics with Marxism in theory. The left wing (Luxemburg and others) demanded straight answers. The whole situation demanded them. On the other hand the reformists went over to the offensive along the whole front. Kautsky became more and more confused, fought the left flank more and more doggedly and came closer to the Bernsteinites while vainly trying to preserve the semblance of a Marxist position. During this period even his appearance changed: the clear tranquillity disappeared, his eyes would shift around with alarm and something was pitilessly gnawing at him inside.
The war brought on the denouement and on its very first day revealed all the fraud and rottenness of Kautskyism. Kautsky recommended either abstention from voting credits to Wilhelm or voting for them “with reservations”. Then during the following months a polemic was waged in which it became clear what exactly the nature of Kautsky’s recommendation was. “The International is an instrument of peace and not of war”—Kautsky seized upon this truism like an anchor of salvation. Having criticised their chauvinist excesses, Kautsky began to prepare for a general conciliation of the social-patriots after the war. “All men are human and make mistakes; nevertheless the war will pass and we can make a new start.”
When the German revolution broke out Kautsky became something of an ambassador of the bourgeois republic and preached a break from Soviet Russia (“it doesn’t matter as it will fall within a few weeks”) and working out Marxism in a quaker direction crawled off to Wilson on all fours.
How savagely history’s dialectic has dealt with one of its own apostles.

War and Revolution, Vol.1, March 18, 1919/April 24, 1922