IDF Soldiers Denounce Israeli High Crimes Against Peace
by Stephen Lendman	13 Sep 2014
Israel
IDF Soldiers Denounce Israeli High Crimes Against Peace by Stephen Lendman Netanyahu is a world class thug. He's a war criminal multiple times over. He heads Israel's fascist government. He wages genocidal war on Palestine. Operation Protective Edge (OPE) is the latest example. It was war without mercy. Mass slaughter and destruction were horrific. James Petras calls Israel a "genocidal state." "Citizens and soldiers, criminals and professionals, torturers and sociopaths…coexist within the same person," he says. Exterminating Palestinians is official policy. It's consciously pursued. It's done with "savage enthusiasm." It enjoys full Western support. Washington backs its killing machine. Israelis alone have rights. Palestinians are used, abused, mass slaughtered and exterminated. Rogue states operate this way. Israel and America are the world's worst. They partner in each other's crimes. They operate extrajudicially. They wage war on humanity. They claim a divine right to do what they damn please. They get away with it because who'll stop them. Humanity may not survive their madness. On Friday, 43 IDF reservists and former army intelligence members published an open letter. They addressed Netanyahu and top military officials. They gave their ranks, first names only or initials. They included a reserve major and two captains. They kept their identities secret. They did so to avoid certain recrimination. Israel accepts no criticism. It goes all-out to suppress it. Signatories denounced Israeli high crimes against peace. They condemned longstanding collective punishment. They henceforth refuse to serve. They want no part of Israel's killing machine. They were clear and unequivocal, saying: "There's no distinction between Palestinians who are, and are not, involved in violence." "Information that is collected and stored harms innocent people. It is used for political persecution and to create divisions within Palestinian society by recruiting collaborators and driving parts of Palestinian society against itself." "We cannot continue to serve this system in good conscience, denying the rights of millions of people." "Those among us who are reservists, refuse to take part in the state's actions against Palestinians." "We, veterans of Unit 8200 (Israel's NSA equivalent), reserve soldiers both past and present, declare that we…refuse to continue serving as tools in deepening the military control over the Occupied Territories." "It is commonly thought that the service in military intelligence is free of moral dilemmas and solely contributes to the reduction of violence and harm to innocent people." "However, our military service has taught us that intelligence is an integral part of Israel's military occupation over the territories." Information collected and stored "harms innocent people." "It is used for political persecution and to create divisions within Palestinian society by recruiting collaborators and driving parts of Palestinian society against itself." Unit 8200 signatories admitted spying on Palestinians' sexual "preferences." They did so to blackmail them. To enlist collaborators against their own people. "We call for all soldiers serving in the Intelligence Corps, present and future, along with all the citizens of Israel, to speak out against these injustices and to take action to bring them to an end." Daniel is a reserve captain. He said gathering signatures took about a year. "There were fears of how people, and friends from the unit, might respond - if they knew that it was I and if they didn't know," he said. "I don't feel comfortable in my conscience continuing to serve, and instead of dealing with the dilemmas and the ramifications, I chose to take a more evasive route," he said. He calls it a "gray-market dodge." He used it for three years. "Now, later on, we feel that evasion is wrong, and that we have to take responsibility," he explained. "In the end, I served there for seven years. I believed in what we did there - and for all those reasons." "I must take responsibility for what I see as the perpetuation of the cycle of violence. We hope that people will think critically about these things." An IDF spokesman said Unit 8200 "worked since the day it was established to gather intelligence that allows the army and security agencies to perform their tasks, and each day it helps protect the citizens of the State of Israel." He lied claiming no knowledge of crimes signatories revealed. It's "unknown in the Intelligence Directorate," he said. Former Unit 8200 commander, Brigadier General Hanan Gefen (Res.) accused the signatories of a grave breach of trust," saying: "If this is true and if I were the current unit commander, I would put them all on trial and would demand prison sentences for them, and I would remove them from the unit." "They are using information that reached them in the course of their duties to promote their political position." One signatory said he "thinks that all of us who signed the letter did so because we understood that we are unable to sleep well at night." They're not alone. Breaking the Silence calls itself "an organization of veteran combatants who have served in the Israeli military since the start of the Second Intifada and have taken it upon themselves to expose the Israeli public to the reality of everyday life in the Occupied Territories." "We endeavor to stimulate public debate about the price paid for a reality in which young soldiers face a civilian population on a daily basis, and are engaged in the control of that population’s everyday life." "Soldiers who serve in the Territories witness and participate in military actions which change them immensely." "Cases of abuse towards Palestinians, looting, and destruction of property have been the norm for years, but are still explained as extreme and unique cases." "Our testimonies portray a different, and much grimmer picture in which deterioration of moral standards finds expression in the character of orders and the rules of engagement, and are justified in the name of  Israel's security." Breaking the Silence was established to "demand accountability (for Israeli crimes) in the Occupied Territories perpetrated by us in our name." Yehuda Shaul is a Breaking the Silence co-founder. Israeli actions during Operation Protective Edge were "unthinkable a few years ago," he said. Entire neighborhoods were destroyed. So were families in them. Noncombatant men, women and children ere willfully targeted. They were murdered en masse in cold blood. "From one operation to the next, Israel and the IDF are just going down the drain," said Shaul. "As a country, the moral low we reached in the previous operation is the point from where we start the next one." "This is how it continues. Operation Protective Edge continued where Operation Cast Lead ended." Israeli strategy reflects madness. It's "insane," said Shaul. "Everything we do is right, and everything they do is wrong." Palestinians are considered subhumans. Israelis ignore their suffering. "It is almost a crime in Israel to have empathy (for them), even though you are talking about women and children," said Shaul. Israeli soldiers "think a lot about right and wrong." They knowingly perform duties contrary to their moral principles, Shaul believes. They cross one red line after another. Only after multiple times do they fully understand how they breached their moral code. At the same time, they acclimate. They get used to doing things they know are wrong. (T)he atmosphere in Israel (is) very bad" today, said Shaul. Even worse than during previous conflicts. There's "no space for question marks, absolutely no space." "I am not just talking about the media. There were many anti-war protestors beaten up in Tel Aviv and Haifa by gangs so they had to be taken to the hospital. And the police did nothing to protect them." At the same time, Israeli officials called for destroying entire Gazan communities. Their voices drown out sane ones. Critical ones "hardly get any platform these days," said Shaul. They're largely shut out. Things today are worse than ever. Police state apparatus rules govern. Dissent is verboten. Militarized occupation persists. Gaza is a perpetual battleground. An entire population is vulnerable. "We continue to build settlements, said Shaul. "We increase our military rule over the Palestinians." "Israel is not heading for a way out. We are digging ourselves in. We are doing everything we can to maintain the occupation." To deny Palestinians rights they deserve. To brutalize them. To eliminate them. To exterminate them. To make Israel ethnically pure. To do it over the corpses of Palestinian men, women, children, infants, the elderly and infirm. To wage genocidal war against them. To get away with it because who'll intervene responsibly. Breaking the Silence was founded in March 2004. Today it has over 1,000 members. They speak out courageously. They tell their own stories. They reject Israeli lawlessness. They believe Israel's greatest threat is itself. Its militarized occupation. Its settlement enterprise. Its institutionalized racism. Its treating Palestinians like subhumans. Its waging wars without mercy to exterminate them. "(T)he treatment of the Palestinians is the biggest threat to Israel," Shaul maintains. "It undermines (its) legitimacy." Israeli policy shouldn't be "either us or them. It is exactly the opposite." Israel's security "depends on a sovereign Palestinian state beside us and on giving dignity and rights to the Palestinians." "In Israel, we are now in a fight over the heart and the soul of our society." "The questions are: who are we as a society? What country do we want to live in?" "The question is whether dropping all these bombs on families is something acceptable in our eyes or not." Israel systematically spurns all international human rights laws, norms and standards. Morality isn't its long suit. Accountability is long overdue. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen (at) sbcglobal.net. His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.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 three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

Photos/Video-Boston Protests New War On Iraq
by Michael Borkson Email: nosanctions (nospam) yahoo.com	14 Sep 2014
Click on image for a larger version
Boston Common-Sept. 13, 2014: About 75 peace activists gathered at Park St. in Boston today to protest Obama's new phase of the long US war against Iraq (from 1991-the present). Also protesting US war against Syria. This was in response to Obama's announcement wed. of his re-invading Iraq to supposedly destroy ISIS, when in fact the many US invasions of Iraq created the civil wars there by destabilizing the Iraq government and placing US puppets in power. Speakers from American Friends Service Committee, Mass. Peace Action,United For Justice With Peace, Chelsea Uniting Against War, Committee For Peace And Human Rights, and others helped organize this protest. A good crowd of passersby stopped to listen and no pro-war hecklers.The weekly sat. 1 pm anti-war vigil at Park Street in Boston organized by the Committee For Peace And Human Rights has become a focal point for many protests as the vigil heads into its 16th year in October. Here are links to photos and video I took today: Photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/protestphotos1/sets/72157647584177375/ Video: http://youtu.be/9RneSwvmKTY
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
Click on image for a larger version
See also: http://www.justicewithpeace.org http://www.masspeaceaction.org

Lost in the flood: Two great stories on the FFP get left behind in deluge of big news… With all the recent news surrounding the Clinton Global Citizen Award and the fast-approaching release of “Food Chains,” some stories just get lost in the flood.  However, two such stories from recent days were too good leave behind forever, so we thought we’d take advantage of this brief break in the action to reach back a couple of weeks and share them with you today. First up is a beautifully written reflection by the Editor of the Sarasota Magazine that brought you last month’s must-read article, “Fairness in the Fields: A Sarasota Organization Brings Hope and Justice to Florida’s Tomato Fields”.  The Editor’s piece is part of her monthly “From the Editor” series, previewing what the reader will find in the monthly’s latest edition and adding her thoughts on the topic at hand.  This time she chose to focus on the story chronicling the Fair Food Program, and her thoughts are well worth reading.  Her column begins: People are monsters. Selfish, brutal and merciless. And people are heroes. Generous, courageous and just. And that, I’ve come to believe, is as true for every individual as for the species itself... Don't miss the full story

As Obama And His House And Senate Allies Beats The War Drums-Again- Stop The Escalations-No New U.S. War In Iraq- No Intervention In Syria! Immediate Withdrawal Of All U.S. Troops And Mercenaries!  Stop The U.S. And French Bombings! –Stop The Arms Shipments …

Frank Jackman comment:

As the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, U.S. President Barack Obama, abetted by the usual suspects in the House and Senate as well as internationally, orders more air bombing strikes in the north, sends more “advisers” to “protect” American outposts in Iraq, and sends arms shipments to the Kurds, supplies arms to the moderate Syrian opposition if it can be found to give weapons to, guys who served in the American military during the Vietnam War and who, like me, belatedly, got “religion” on the war issue as a kneejerk way to resolve the conflicts in this wicked old world might very well be excused for disbelief when the White House keeps pounding out the propaganda that these actions are limited when all signs point to the slippery slope of escalation. Now not every event in history gets exactly repeated but given the recent United States Government’s history in Iraq those vets might be on to something. In any case dust off the old banners, placards, and buttons and get your voices in shape- just in case. No New War In Iraq

***

Here is something to think about:  

Workers and the oppressed have no interest in a victory by one combatant or the other in the reactionary Sunni-Shi’ite civil war. However, the international working class definitely has a side in opposing imperialist intervention in Iraq and demanding the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops and mercenaries. It is U.S. imperialism that constitutes the greatest danger to the world’s working people and downtrodden.

**********
Senate votes to approve Obama’s plan to fight Islamist militants

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-expected-to-give-approval-to-obamas-plan-to-fight-islamist-militants/2014/09/18/f7fc229e-3f3e-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpol&wpmm=1

NEW WARS / OLD WARS – Are You Feeling Safer Now?

 

Senate Joins House in Voting To Give Weapons And Training To ‘Moderate’ Syrian Rebels

Following the House, the Senate voted yesterday to approve President Obama’s plan to arm and train the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels. They vote was 78-22 with 9 Democrats, 12 Republicans, and independent Senator Bernie Sanders voting no. Congress has now authorized another military adventure in the Middle East, what could go wrong?In both the House and the Senate a considerable amount of Democrats opposed the legislation but not enough to make a difference. Many high profile Democratic Senators such as Elizabeth Warren and Kristen Gillibrand voted no further revealing a divided party. Republicans in the House and Senate made these divisions irrelevant to the legislative outcome, but how much of a mandate does Obama have if his own party is divided?   More    House Roll Call here

 

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey were among the NO votes;  in the House, all of our delegation voted NO – except Lynch and Neal.  Let them know how you feel about their votes: Lynch - (202) 225-8273; Neal - (202) 225-5601; Warren - (202) 224-4543; Markey - (202) 224-2742

 

Progressive House Members Call for a Robust War Debate and Congressional Authorization:  H. Con. Res. 114   (Co-sponsors include McGovern, Clark, Tsongas so far)

Dear Colleague:

Over the past few months, our country has grappled with the question of how to deal with the threat posed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  Last week, the President put forward his own plan, which would provide for a significant long-term bombing campaign and military escalation in Iraq and Syria.  The Constitution has entrusted specific, articulated war powers to both the Executive and Legislative branches.  The President has laid out a vision for action, consistent with his interpretation of his authority as Commander-in-Chief.  We believe that it is incumbent on Congress to exercise its own constitutional authority to debate and examine the significant consequences of another multi-year military intervention in the Middle East and to authorize any use of force. Consistent with this belief, we recently introduced H. Con. Res. 114, which calls for Congress to fulfill its constitutional duties by debating and voting on a narrowly tailored authorization for any sustained military campaign in Iraq or Syria.  Text of bill here

 

2-minute Video: 

HOW DOES THIS END? 35 Military Interventions since 1980 and Terrorism Grows

 

Perpetual War, Perpetual Bombing, Perpetual Losing

President Obama’s strategy to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS depends crucially on precision bombing by drones and airplanes.  The heavy lifting on the ground is supposed to be accomplished by our ‘allies’ in Iraq and the Syrian opposition, but as any reader of the news knows, these allies are, to put it charitably, unreliable and prone to panic and/or treachery.  So, despite Obama’s rhetoric, our new war against ISIS will be an air power war… The seductive idea of victory thru airpower alone is not a new one, and Obama has fallen for a modern improv of an old score —  no doubt, in part, for domestic political reasons.  More

 

Slippery Slope Department. . .

U.S. military Wants “Boots-On-The-Ground” Options

Even as the administration has received congressional backing for its strategy, with the Senate voting Thursday to approve a plan to arm and train Syrian rebels, a series of military leaders have criticized the president’s approach against the Islamic State militant group. Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, who served under Obama until last year, became the latest high-profile skeptic on Thursday, telling the House Intelligence Committee that a blanket prohibition on ground combat was tying the military’s hands. “Half-hearted or tentative efforts, or airstrikes alone, can backfire on us and actually strengthen our foes’ credibility,” he said. “We may not wish to reassure our enemies in advance that they will not see American boots on the ground.”… Despite Obama’s promise that he would not deploy ground combat forces, Dempsey made clear that he didn’t want to rule out the possibility, if only to deploy small teams in limited circumstances. He also acknowledged that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the commander for the Middle East, had already recommended doing so in the case of at least one battle in Iraq but was overruled.   More

 

Iraq Premier Nixes US Ground Troops

Iraq's new prime minister ruled out stationing U.S. ground troops in his country, chiding the international community Wednesday for inaction in Syria and lamenting the "puzzling" exclusion of neighboring Iran from the coalition being assembled to fight the Islamic State group… "Not only is it not necessary," he said, "We don't want them. We won't allow them. Full stop."  Instead, al-Abadi urged the international community to expand its campaign against the extremists in neighboring Syria, noting that militants coming under pressure in Iraq are retreating back into Syria.  More

 

Obama will not micromanage Syria strikes, Hagel says

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel disputed a report that President Obama will personally sign off on every airstrike against Islamic militants conducted inside Syria, saying military leaders will make those decisions. "I was sitting next to the president yesterday when this entire issue was being discussed and he was very clear with General [Lloyd] Austin, once he makes decisions, he gives General Austin and our military leaders the authority to carry out those policies," Hagel told members of the House Armed Services Committee Thursday, where he was testifying.   More

 

ISIS: The monster that grew in plain sight of Washington and Riyadh

The Islamic State (IS/ISIS) did not become the monster it is today by accident. The Western media and governments bore witness to the inception, growth, and expansion of this radical jihadi group, with funding from the Arab Gulf, sectarian agitation, and political blessing, until ISIS became a monster… “Qatari support for Syrian fighters”; “Wealthy Saudi and Kuwaiti sponsors”; “through banks in Kuwait”: These revelations and more were mentioned repeatedly in most Western articles investigating the source of al-Nusra and ISIS funding, in addition to enumerating other sources such as seizure of weapons caches, robbing banks, and looting of other assets in Syria… “Everybody knows the money is going through Kuwait and that it’s coming from the Arab Gulf. Kuwait’s banking system and its money changers have long been a huge problem because they are a major conduit for money to extremist groups in Syria and now Iraq.”  More

 

ISIS Draws a Steady Stream of Recruits From Turkey

As many as 1,000 Turks have joined ISIS, according to Turkish news media reports and government officials here. Recruits cite the group’s ideological appeal to disaffected youths as well as the money it pays fighters from its flush coffers. The C.I.A. estimated last week that the group had from 20,000 to 31,500 fighters in Iraq and Syria. The United States has put heavy pressure on Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to better police Turkey’s 560-mile-long border with Syria. Washington wants Turkey to stanch the flow of foreign fighters and to stop ISIS from exporting the oil it produces on territory it holds in Syria and Iraq. So far, Mr. Erdogan has resisted pleas to take aggressive steps against the group, citing the fate of 49 Turkish hostages ISIS has held since militants took over Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul, in June. Turkey declined to sign a communiqué last Thursday that committed a number of regional states to take “appropriate” new measures to counter ISIS, frustrating American officials.  More

 

Saudi Arabia: Champion of Human Rights?

Yes indeed, unlikely as it may seem. Saudi Arabia’s official Human Rights Commission, a government organization, and the Gulf Research Center, a think tank, have announced that they will organize a three-day international rights conference, to be held in Riyadh in December, “under the patronage” of King Abdullah. The announcement says the event “will gather together Heads of States and representatives of national ministries, members of Parliaments, international, regional, and inter-governmental organizations, religious scholars, academics, national Human Rights Commissions, and NGOs.”  Given Saudi Arabia’s unsavory reputation on this subject—it is routinely denounced in the State Department’s annual human rights report and by activist groups such as Human Rights Watch—Riyadh might seem to be an unlikely venue for such an event. But the key to understanding the rationale for this conference lies in the announced theme: “Promoting a Culture of Tolerance.” This is not about individuals’ freedom of expression, or the status of women, or freedom of assembly. This is about the Islamic State, or ISIS.  More

 

CIA Privately Skeptical About New Syria Strategy, Sources Say

The opposition derives from a number of factors. First, the CIA has already been covertly equipping Syrian rebels at the instruction of the White House, but has come to find the fighters increasingly disorganized and radicalized as the conflict goes on, with U.S.-supplied arms winding up in the hands of more radical fighters.  Meanwhile, some turf issues are at play. While officials in the CIA are skeptical of the broader strategy to arm and train the rebels, they are also wary of a plan that would give the Pentagon a responsibility that has so far rested with their agency. One Democratic member of Congress said that the CIA has made it clear that it doubts the possibility that the administration's strategy could succeed.  More

 

To Crush ISIS, Make a Deal With Assad

By opting to support the “moderate” Syrian opposition and running the risk of an open confrontation with President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the West appears to be primarily appeasing Arab Persian Gulf allies that have turned the overthrow of Mr. Assad into a policy fetish that runs against any rational calculation of how to defeat Islamist terrorism. The persistent belief in Western policy circles that there is a “moderate opposition” in Syria — reiterated at the close of a NATO summit meeting in Wales on Sept. 5 — warrants serious scrutiny…  The alleged moderates have never put together a convincing national program or offered a viable alternative to Mr. Assad. The truth is that there are no “armed moderates” (or “moderate terrorists”) in the Arab world — and precious few beyond. The genuine “moderates” won’t take up arms, and those who do are not truly moderates.  More

 

EXCLUSIVE! Kerry Claims U.S. Has Found a Moderate Syrian Rebel

In what Secretary of State John Kerry described as a significant foreign-policy coup, the U.S. claimed, on Tuesday, that it had successfully located a moderate Syrian rebel. Though Kerry did not elaborate on how the U.S. did so, he said that locating the rebel was “the culmination of a months-long effort.” The Secretary of State said that the Syrian had been appropriately vetted and was deemed “moderately rebellious.” “He definitely seems to be the sort of gentleman we can work with,” Kerry said, adding that several millions of dollars would be spent arming and training the rebel in the days and weeks ahead.  More

 

How Obama’s New War Could Backfire

Although President Obama insists that no American military “boots on the ground” will be used to degrade and defeat the radical Islamist group Islamic State (IS) — which is well funded and has captured much heavy military equipment from the Syrian military and U.S. trained and equipped Iraqi army and Kurdish peshmerga militias — that will make his objective much harder to obtain… So if boots on the ground are needed to effectively fight IS and Obama and the American people — as a result of the Afghanistan and Iraq debacles — vehemently veto that idea, what is to be done? Surprisingly, the best option is for the U.S. government to do nothing.  IS is a threat to Iraq, Syria, and neighboring countries, but not a direct threat to the United States… regional countries should be able to handle a regional threat, leaving the United States to worry about any future training camps in IS-controlled territory that might be training terrorists to attack the United States. (As noted previously, if the United States takes a less prominent role in attacking IS, the motivation of IS to attack U.S. territory will be much reduced.)   More

 

The war on ISIS already has a winner: The defense industry

It’s far too soon to tell how the American escalation in the sprawling, complex mess unfolding in Iraq and Syria will play out. But this much is clear: As our military machine hums into a higher gear, it will produce some winners in the defense industry.  New fights mean new stuff, after all. And following the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan—and the belt-tightening at the Pentagon imposed by steep budget cuts—military suppliers are lining up to meet a suddenly restored need for their wares. Presenting his vision for expanding the confrontation with the terrorist group ISIS in a speech to the nation on Wednesday night, President Obama outlined a program of intensified airstrikes designed to keep American troops away from the danger on the ground. So defense analysts are pointing to a pair of sure-bet paydays from the new campaign: for those making and maintaining the aircraft, manned and unmanned, that will swarm the skies over the region, and for those producing the missiles and munitions that will arm them.   More

   *   *   *

STOP THE WARS, STOP THE WARMING!

 

Humanity is at a crossroads. Either we watch in a stupor as climate change accelerates, nuclear weapons are "improved", and wars spiral out of control—tempting the use of nuclear weapons, OR, "We the People of the World" take action to change things. These growing threats to a healthy planet and to human well-being urge us to mobilize and take action.

 

Friday, Saturday, September 19-20: Climate Convergence Conference, New York City, hundreds of activists from different movements participating to build unity

Sunday, September 21: Join us in New York City!  Reserve Bus Tickets Now: bit.ly/pcm-bus. People’s Climate March: Peace Hub • Sign Up! peoplesclimate.org/peace  

(To see the full call to the peace movement to participate in the September 21 Peoples Climate March go to http://peoplesclimate.org/peace/appeal/.) People’s Climate March: Peace Hub • Sign Up! peoplesclimate.org/peace  

 

CHANGE IN A TIME OF CLIMATE CHANGE: What to Do When You're Running Out of Time

But responding to these current cataclysmic changes means taking on people who believe, or at least assert, that those of us who want to react and act are gratuitously disrupting a stable system that’s working fine. It isn’t stable. It is working fine -- in the short term and the most limited sense -- for oil companies and the people who profit from them and for some of us in the particularly cushy parts of the world who haven’t been impacted yet by weather events like, say, the recent torrential floods in Japan or southern Nevada and Arizona, or the monsoon versions of the same that have devastated parts of India and Pakistan, or the drought that has mummified my beloved California, or the wildfires of Australia.

The problem, of course, is that the people who most benefit from the current arrangements have effectively purchased a lot of politicians, and that a great many of the rest of them are either hopelessly dim or amazingly timid.  More

 

The Self-Interest in Climate ‘Denial’

But climate change deniers persist in telling us it just ain’t so, like the tobacco industry claiming for decade after decade that nicotine wasn’t addictive or that cigarettes couldn’t kill you. It’s been more than a decade since Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, once chair of the U.S. Senate’s committee on the environment and public works, told us that “man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” …So intense is the political and corporate opposition to the concept of manmade climate change — despite a majority of Americans who accept it as reality — that some of the more rational officeholders and local governments quietly are trying to work around the resistance, preparing for the worst without mentioning the dreaded words climate change or global warming.   More

 

KRUGMAN: Could Fighting Global Warming Be Cheap and Free?

It has long been clear that a well-thought-out strategy of emissions control, in particular one that puts a price on carbon via either an emissions tax or a cap-and-trade scheme, would cost much less than the usual suspects want you to think. But the economics of climate protection look even better now than they did a few years ago… On the other side, it turns out that putting a price on carbon would have large “co-benefits” — positive effects over and above the reduction in climate risks — and that these benefits would come fairly quickly. The most important of these co-benefits, according to the I.M.F. paper, would involve public health: burning coal causes many respiratory ailments, which drive up medical costs and reduce productivity… The idea that economic growth and climate action are incompatible may sound hardheaded and realistic, but it’s actually a fuzzy-minded misconception. If we ever get past the special interests and ideology that have blocked action to save the planet, we’ll find that it’s cheaper and easier than almost anyone imagines.  More

 

“Workers of The World Unite, You Have Nothing To Lose But Your Chains”-The Struggle For Trotsky's Fourth (Communist) International-From The Archives-Founding Conference of the Fourth International-1938

 

 
Markin comment (repost from September 2010 slightly edited):

Several years ago, when the question of an international, a new workers international, a fifth international, was broached by the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), faintly echoing the call issued during the presidency of the late Venezuelan caudillo, Hugo Chavez, I got to thinking a little bit more on the subject. Moreover, it must have been something in the air at the time (maybe caused by these global climatic changes that are hazarding our collective future) because I had  also seen a spade of then recent commentary on the need to go back to something that looked very much like Karl Marx’s one-size-fits-all First International. Of course in the 21^st century, after over one hundred and fifty years of attempts to create adequate international working-class organizations, just what the doctor by all means, be my guest, but only if the shades of Proudhon and Bakunin can join. Boys and girls that First International was disbanded in the wake of the demise of the Paris Commune for a reason, okay. Mixing political banners (Marxism and fifty-seven varieties of anarchism) was appropriate to a united front, not a hell-bent revolutionary International fighting, and fighting hard, for our communist future. Forward

The Second International, for those six, no seven, people who might care, is still alive and well (at least for periodic international conferences) as a mail-drop for homeless social democrats who want to maintain a fig leaf of internationalism without having to do much about it. Needless to say, one Joseph Stalin and his cohorts liquidated the Communist (Third) International in 1943, long after it turned from a revolutionary headquarters into an outpost of Soviet foreign policy. By then no revolutionary missed its demise, nor shed a tear goodbye. And of course there are always a million commentaries by groups, cults, leagues, tendencies, etc. claiming to stand in the tradition (although, rarely, the program) of the Leon Trotsky-inspired Fourth International that, logically and programmatically, is the starting point of any discussion of the modern struggle for a new communist international.

With that caveat in mind this month, the September American Labor Day month, but more importantly the month in 1938 that the ill-fated Fourth International was founded I am posting some documents around the history of that formation, and its program, the program known by the shorthand, Transitional Program. If you want to call for a fifth, sixth, seventh, what have you, revolutionary international, and you are serious about it beyond the "mail-drop" potential, then you have to look seriously into that organization's origins, and the world-class Bolshevik revolutionary who inspired it. Forward. 
 **************

How the Fourth International Was Conceived

by Jean van Heijenoort

<4> This article was first published in the August 1944 issue of Fourth International. [Jean van Heijenoort (1912-1986) was Trotsky's secretary in 1932 in Prinkipo, and followed him to France, Norway and Mexico. As a leader of the Fourth International he headed a provisional international centre in the United States during World War Two and left politics shortly thereafter.]

---

Our movement has the right to consider itself the representative and the historical standard bearer of revolutionary socialism. It is at the end of a chain whose links were the Communist League of Marx and Engels, the International Working Men's Association (First International), the Second International, the Bolshevik Party of Lenin, and the Communist International. But in order to establish the specific beginnings of our movement it is necessary to begin with the year 1923 in the USSR.

The Left Opposition

The October revolution established the first Workers' State but remained isolated. "Without revolution in Europe," said Lenin repeatedly "we shall perish." History verified the truth of his words but in its own manner. Degeneration appeared in the apparatus itself of the new regime—the party that led the revolution to victory.
The resistance to corruption of the party came from Trotsky. The struggle began in the autumn of 1923. On October 8th, he sent a letter to the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission denouncing the stifling of the right of criticism on the part of party members. This is the first document of our movement. It can be compared to what had been for Bolshevism the famous vote on the statutes of the party in 1902.
Beginning with the question of the internal regime of the party the struggle grew progressively to include all problems of revolutionary tactics and strategy. Outside of the USSR, opposition groups appeared in most of the sections of the Communist International. The connections of these groups among themselves, and with the Russian Opposition, remained precarious. Many of the groups arose in opposition to one of the aspects of Stalinist policy. Their political solidarity was far from complete. One group that proved of great importance for the future of our movement, the Left Opposition in the American communist party, appeared belatedly on the scene in 1928.
The organizational cohesion of the International Left Opposition was not seriously undertaken until the time of Trotsky's expulsion from the USSR and his arrival in Turkey, in February 1929. The first international conference of the Left Opposition took place in Paris in 1930.
The policy of the Opposition in relation to the Communist International, both in its entirety as well as its various sections, had remained the same since 1923. In one word it was—reform. Although expelled by the faction in power, the Trotskyist groups considered themselves part of the International, its left faction, exactly as in each country each group considered itself a faction of the national Communist Party. Their objective was to convince the party membership of the correctness of their views, to win over the majority, and to set the organization on the correct course. Toward the Bolshevik Party in the USSR the policy was essentially the same as toward any other section of the International. The name of the movement, Opposition, expressed and symbolized this policy.
A political document of a programmatic character, entitled The International Left Opposition—Its Tasks and Methods, was written by Trotsky, in December 1932, immediately after his return to Prinkipo from Copenhagen, where he had the opportunity of meeting about thirty of the most important leaders of the International Opposition. One chapter of this document was entitled "Faction—Not a Party." The perspective outlined there was the same as in the preceding years, namely, the reform of the Communist International and of each of its sections. Nevertheless, a warning was sounded:

"Such a historical catastrophe as the fall of the Soviet State would surely drag along the Third International. Similarly, a victory of fascism in Germany and the crushing of the German proletariat would hardly allow the Comintern to survive the consequences of its ruinous policy."

One of these two warnings was soon to become a terrible reality. On January 30, 1933, Hindenburg, the constitutional head of the Weimar Republic, elected with the votes of the Social Democracy, called on Hitler to form a new cabinet.
For three years the Left Opposition had sounded the alarm at the rise of German fascism. In a series of articles and pamphlets, which in their clarity and revolutionary passion rank among the best products of his pen, Trotsky revealed the nature of fascism and showed the consequences of a fascist victory to the German workers, to the international labor movement, to the USSR, to Europe, and to the whole world. He also pointed to the means of combatting this danger: the united front of the workers' parties, Communist and Social Democratic, for the active defence of workers' organizations against the Nazi vermin, a defensive struggle which, when successful, would become an offensive.

The Collapse of the German Communist Party

The leaders of the two official workers' parties vied with each other in their impotence in the face of the fascist menace. The Social democratic leadership desperately grasped at a democracy which, in the midst of economic chaos and the sharpened social and political conflicts, was disowning itself. The Stalinists acted in line with the "genial" theory of their leader, that it was necessary to crush the Social Democrats before fighting fascism. They had made common cause with the Nazis in the famous plebiscite in Prussia in August 1931. When the fascist menace became imminent, they clamored with braggadocio: "After them will be our turn!"
When Hitler formed his government on January 30, 1933, not all was lost. The workers' organizations were still intact. In the following weeks the Nazis acted very cautiously. In February, Trotsky stated in a conversation: "The situation in Germany is similar to that of a man at the bottom of an abyss facing a stone wall. To get out it is necessary to clutch at the rocks with bare and bloody hands. It is necessary to have courage and will, but it is possible. Not all is lost."
The official leadership of the workers' parties allowed the last chance to slip by. In the face of their passivity, Hitler became more brazen. He had never hoped to win such an easy victory. At the beginning of March, the crude provocation of the Reichstag fire allowed him to definitely entrench his regime. The workers' organizations were swept away.
Trotsky's reaction was not long in coming. He wrote an article entitled, The Tragedy of the German Proletariat. It was dated March 14, 1933 and had, as a sub-title, "The German Workers Will Rise, Stalinism—Never!" The gist of the article was that, in Germany, the Communist Party failed in its historic mission, that it was doomed as a revolutionary organization. Thus, there was no choice but to give up the policy of its reform and to proceed to build a new German Communist Party. When Trotsky wrote that Stalinism would not rise again, he meant Stalinism in Germany. As to the Communist Parties in other lands, especially the Russian Bolshevik Party, and the Communist International viewed in its entirety, the line remained as before, that of reform.
In the weeks that followed other articles elaborated this position and answered the objections raised against it. In the ranks of the Left Opposition, these objections were minimal. They came mostly from certain comrades in the German section, the one most directly concerned. These objections remained secondary or sentimental in character: maybe it would be better to wait before speaking about a new party while the official one is under the blows of bloody repressions, etc. But the lesson of events was so clear that the need of a change in the old policy was not questioned seriously.
Yet, when one's memory turns to that month of March 1933, it cannot be denied that the new policy was a surprise to the members of the Left Opposition. The daily activity of each of the sections was centred exclusively around the Communist Party; and to develop a new line, even if it were for only one of our sections, was to break with a tradition of ten years standing. The great authority of Trotsky made it possible to bring about the change in line rapidly and with cohesion. Without him, the lessons of the events in Germany would have surely been learned in our ranks, but after how many months of discussion?
The problem of the Third International in its totality could not fail to be posed. After the collapse of the German Communist Party, the executive committee of the International passed in April a resolution which declared that the policy followed by the German Communist Party "up to and at the time of Hitler's coup d'etat was fully correct."
This is not astonishing: the executive committee under the orders of Stalin merely covered Stalin, who imposed his fatal political line on the German Communist Party. But the decisive fact was that all the sections of the International accepted the Moscow resolution and thus became equally responsible for the historical catastrophe in Germany. The members who denounced the line that had been followed, or merely questioned it, were expelled. The policy of reform was losing all reality.
On July 15, 1933, Trotsky, under the pen-name of G. Gurov, addressed to the sections of the Opposition an article entitled, It is necessary to build new Communist parties and a new International. Here the perspective of reform was definitely abandoned. After the lessons of the events the turn was decisive: "Talk of 'reform' and the demand of readmission of the oppositionists into the official parties must be definitely given up, as utopian and reactionary," he wrote. And he took this opportunity to give general and valuable advice: "The most dangerous thing in politics is to become a prisoner of your own formula, which was appropriate yesterday, but is deprived of any content today."
On July 20th a second article entitled, "It is no longer possible to stay in the `International' with Stalin, Manuilsky, Lozovsky and Co.", answered possible arguments against the new position.
The change in policy coincided with the change in Trotsky's residence. On July 17th, he left Istanbul and on the 24th he landed in Marseilles. Next day he settled himself near Saint-Palais, on the Atlantic seaboard. It was a big change in his personal life. While on the island of Prinkipo, the arrival of a visitor was a little event every four or six months; in France, Trotsky was able in the following weeks to meet with practically all leading members of the European opposition groups, and with quite a few from overseas.
When Trotsky landed in Marseilles, the translation of his first article on the need of a new International had hardly reached the leadership of the various sections. The leading Trotskyists of France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, etc., soon took the road to Saint-Palais, and there in Trotsky's study, or under the trees of his garden, participated in lengthy discussions. Opposition to the new orientation was practically non-existent. The turn to a new party in Germany three months before, had broken with a long tradition and opened new perspectives. The discussions did not deal so much with the need of a new International, but rather with the ways and means of bringing it about: how to build it, how to build new parties?

The New International

A few voices raised the question: haven't we waited too long? Shouldn't we have recognized the need of a new International much sooner? To this Trotsky answered: "This is a question we may well leave to the historians." He was undoubtedly profoundly convinced that the change in the policy would have been incorrect several years sooner, but he refused to discuss this question because it was no longer of practical and immediate interest.
One question that took up a large share of the discussion was that of the USSR. It is worthwhile examining how it was posed then. The document of December 1932 that we have already mentioned, and which still followed the line of reform, had stated:

"Sharper and brighter is the question [of reform] in the USSR. The policy of the second party there would imply the policy of armed insurrection and a new revolution. The policy of the faction implies the line of inner reform of the party and the workers' state."

In the article of April 1933 which pointed out the need of a new party in Germany, but at the same time retained the policy of reform in the Communist International, Trotsky wrote:

"If the Stalinist bureaucracy will bring the USSR to collapse, then.... it will be necessary to build a Fourth International."

The problem was: how to discard the policy of reform of the Bolshevik Party and at the same time retain the perspective of reforming the workers' state? How to proclaim the Fourth International before the Stalinist bureaucracy has led the USSR to its collapse?
The problem of the USSR was the greatest obstacle in Trotsky's mind before reaching the conclusion that there remained no other alternative than to form a Fourth International. Shortly before his article of July 15, he said in a conversation at Prinkipo: "Since April, we have been for reform in all countries except Germany, where we are for a new party. Now we can take a symmetrical position, i.e., in favor of a new party in every country except the USSR, where we will be for reform of the Bolshevik Party." (This position, as far as I know, was never put into writing.) But it was clear to his listeners that his ideas on this matter were only in the process of formation and that they had not yet reached their conclusion.
The solution of this problem is, as is well known now, the distinction between a social revolution and a political revolution. This solution was already outlined in the first documents, in July, which speak about the need of a new International.
On the other hand, in the summer of 1933, the discussions around the nature of the USSR were numerous: not only was Stalinism bankrupt in Germany, but the first economic experiences of Hitler, Roosevelt, as well as the Italian corporate state, gave rise on all sides to theories of "State capitalism."
Trotsky then clarified his position toward the USSR in a long article entitled, The Class Nature of the Soviet State, dated October 1, 1933. This article definitely eliminates the perspective of a peaceful removal of the bureaucracy, and clarifies the formulas in the documents on the new International. In the main this is the position we have maintained to the present. (On the question of an historical analogy with Thermidor, a correction was made in February 1935.)
Another question required a good deal of attention in the discussions at Saint-Palais: that of our relation toward other organizations. The Left Opposition had its attention focused exclusively on the various Communist parties. Our organization was made up, with a few rare exceptions, only of expelled members of Communist parties or Young Communist leagues. All our activity was subordinated to the perspective of reform. As early as June 15, 1933, that is, before the turn toward a New International, Trotsky addressed to the sections of the Left Opposition an article, Left Socialist Organizations and Our Tasks, in which he pointed out a new field of activity: The victory of German fascism had brought a crisis to the Social Democracy. The Comintern was losing its power of attraction. We could expect that the centrist organizations of the left would turn towards us. It was therefore necessary to turn our attention and our efforts in this direction.
In fact, the whole political atmosphere, our orientation towards a new International, the arrival of Trotsky in France, actually attracted towards us the eyes of organizations which, in different periods had broken with the Second and Third Internationals. Numerous were the visits in Saint-Palais of leaders of these organizations (German S.A.P., English I.L.P., Dutch O.S.P. and R.S.P., etc.). The Dutch party of Sneevliet (R.S.P.) declared itself ready to join our ranks immediately.
The excitement provoked by the shameful bankruptcy of the two Internationals in Germany was so great that not less than fourteen organizations, belonging to neither of the two Internationals, decided to unite. Nevertheless, they were far from having a common program. To complain about the old official organizations in articles and speeches is one thing. To undertake to build a new International is another. Our organization decided to participate in the conference of the fourteen groups held in Paris at the end of August 1933. Our policy was clear: to draw our conclusions from events to the end, to propose our program of creating a new International, to denounce those who wanted to remain equivocal and ambiguous. Together with a few organizations which recognized the immediate necessity of a new International (S.A.P., R.S.P., O.S.P.), our organization signed a programmatic document known under the name of Declaration of the Four. Some months later the S.A.P. was to deny its signature.
The conference in Paris proved to be the maximum effort of which the centrist groups were capable. It remained without results. All the perspectives gradually revealed themselves to be empty, unrealistic, with the exception of one: to create a new International. The formal founding of the Fourth International took place five years later, in 1938.
Eleven years have passed since that summer of 1933 when the Fourth International was conceived. Its progress has been slow, always too slow for our hopes. It was born amidst the defeats provoked by the old official organizations of the working class. While a defeat will stir the best elements of the vanguard to examine its causes and to build a better organization, its effect on the class as a whole is one of disorientation, discouragement and passivity. It takes years and years to eradicate its marks; a new generation which has not known cynicism must raise its head.
We have found in our path the putrid corpse of the Comintern, an organization which has utilized the immense prestige of the victorious Russian Revolution precisely to disorientate, disorganize and crush, where necessary, the revolutionary emancipation of the working class.
Following defeats in a series of countries, a catastrophe has descended upon the peoples—a new world war. For five years now, hundreds of millions of men have been confronted with the terrors of war, but today the sound of the cannon can no longer drown out the melody of revolt. Throughout all Europe fists are clenching. Tomorrow tens and hundreds of millions will rise to demand and accounting from the old order which generated oppression, misery and wars. Gaining consciousness of their strength, they will cast aside their false leaders, the perfidious agents of the enemy. They will need a stainless banner. There is only one: ours, the banner of the Fourth International, of the World Party of the Socialist Revolution.

Special thanks to the web site of the International Bolshevik Tendency which transcribed this work for the Internet.

 

As The 100th Anniversary Of The First Year Of World War I (Remember The War To End All Wars) Continues ... Some Remembrances-Poet’s Corner-German Poets   

 

German War Poetry

Self-portrait as a Soldier of 1914 by Otto Dix

Contributed by James Nechtman (Landsturm@gnn.com)

See also: The Sonnets of John Allan Wyeth Italian War Poetry

Here's some German war poetry in German. These are not the verse of polished poets, that is to say "poets turned soldiers", these poems are the work of front line soldiers, "soldiers turned poets". There's quite a difference between the two art forms. These poems were the soldier's way of coping by expressing their feelings about such topics as fallen comrades and the homeland, which in once sense was so close, but in another, was a million miles away. They may be considered rough by some and lacking in form or content by others, but they do manage to capture the everyday thoughts of the soldier and the mood of the trenches. If anyone out there is more comfortable in their mastery of the German language than I am and would like to translate any of these works, I would be more than happy to create an English language version of this page.

Click here for the English translations. Note: Page is under construction. Unsere Rauscher Von Ludwig Streil. Heut haben sie angegriffen Bei der erste Kompagnie. Schon vorher haben sie mit Granaten geschmissen Und ihre Kugeln haben gepfiffen, Der Teufel hole sie. Unsern Leutnant haben sie durch die Lunge geschossen, Manch anderer wurde zu Tode getroffen; Doch der kleine Leutnant hat sich noch einmal gestreckt Und hat den Mut seiner Leute geweckt Und sprang an die Brüstung, tat Schuß um Schuß! Schießt zu Kameraden, durch kommen sie nie - Hier steht Leutnant Rauscher und die erste Kompagnie So kämpfte die kleine Leiberschar Allein in dem engen Felsenkar. Von oben der Feind, von unten der Feind, Nun ist er auch schon in die Flanke gekommen Und hat uns den Posten weggenommen. Da hat sich der Leutnant nochmals gestreckt: "Werft Handgranaten!" Gut - das hat gefleckt. Der Feind mit seinen Eviva Gefängen Blieb an den Latschen der Felsen hängen - Doch bald greift er wieder in Massen an Und bricht sich durch die Flanke Bahn, Ruft: "Ergebt Euch, Leiber, was nützt Euch die Wehr, Höret auf zu kämpfen und senkt das Gewehr!" Da ruft eine Stimme: "In Ewigkeit nie Ergibt sich ein Rauscher und die erste Kompagnie!" Da haben sich die Leiber zusammengeschlossen, Selbst die Verwundeten haben geschossen. Gut gezielt fiel Schuß auf Schuß. - Das Blut tropfte rot auf den Almrosenbusch. Und an der Brüstung mit heißem Blick Da lehnte der Leutnant und blutete mit. Es machte das Regiment wohl manchen Sturm In Serbien, in Frankreich, am Roten Turm. Doch die Taten von Tirol vergißt es nie Von Dir, Leutnant Rauscher, Und der ersten Kompagnie.

***The Spear Of The Nation-Nelson Mandela: Long Walk To Freedom 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mandela_-_Long_Walk_to_Freedom_poster.jpg

 

DVD Review

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman

Nandela: Long Walk To Freedom, Idris Elba, Naomie Harris, 2013   

No question after the black civil rights struggle here in America, headed at various points by Doctor Martin Luther King, subsided with some partial victories around voting and freeing work opportunities the axis of the international black liberation struggle shifted, shifted in American eyes, to the horrible conditions of blacks in South Africa. There under the conscious apartheid policy complete with the hated pass system of the Afrikaner government blacks were held as little more than chattel. And were expected to like it to boot. Something about the white man’s “civilizing mission” although more likely, much more likely his craving for cheap labor to work those money-filled, resource-filled mines that drove the South African economy. The situation called for black resistance, called big time for black resistance, since the white government was not interested in the least in sharing power, any power, except maybe that given to their black front men to control the masses. Enter the African National Congress (ANC), or actually the arrival through fits and starts of lawyer Nelson Mandela into the ANC and you have a leader who the world came to know as the icon of that organization. And this film, Nelson Mandela: A Long Walk To Freedom based on his 1995 autobiography and which opened late in 2013 as he passed away traces the evolution of the man from a free-lancer lawyer to a serious anti-apartheid revolutionary leader.            

Of course any political liberation movement, the black civil rights movement here in America with its bookends of Doctor King calling for non-violent resistance to the oppressor for the redress of grievance and Malcolm X calling for “by any means necessary or the freedom struggle in the early days in the ANC with it non-violent resistance policy and after Sharpsville with armed resistance, has to deal with how it will conduct the struggle. Nelson Mandela (played in a very strong performance by Idris Elba) as shown graphically in the film as the repression worsened helped move the ANC from one policy to the other as the  circumstances dictated and paid the price. That price being the incarceration along with the central leadership of the ANC on desolate Robbins Island for over twenty-five year.

Now in this country we are no strangers to the plight political prisoners, particularly back in the 1960s and the heyday of the Black Panthers some who are still languishing relative obscurity in American prisons. And that has been the fate of any number of political prisoners over the years in many countries. The different in South Africa was that Nelson Mandela and the struggle for his freedom was made a continual international campaign. And in a sense as the film also shows there was no more tireless freedom fighter in her own right for Nelson’s freedom than his second wife, Winnie (played by Naomie Harris). Obviously the love story, the long term deprived of love one story, is a good cinematic hook to tell the story. Tell the story of a personally-driven struggle to get her man back at first. Then as the years passed and new generations were coming to the struggle with more in-your-face ideas about how to bring down the regime how Winnie moved politically to Nelson’s left on the need to do that (as well as growing personal estrangement). That shift in the struggle as exemplified by the Soweto uprising in the mid-1970s did not get enough attention in the film since Nelson was removed from what was going on. That too is the plight of the political prisoner isolated as new possibilities emerge and constituted a strong reason to get him out of jail-fast.

Since we all know that in the end, after all hell broke loose in the early 1990s, that South Africa shifted from white to black-centered rule and Nelson Mandela became the first black president. What is interesting in the last part of the film before he became president is the personal and organizational struggles he, Winnie, and the leadership of the ANC went through to get the white government under de Klerk to see the writing on the wall. No question Mandela was significantly to the right of Winnie (along with other younger fighters) and her “make the townships ungovernable” policy with his sense that blacks could not win a civil war against a determined army and to offer up what, in effect, was a race-neutral black- led government. He may have been right at that time but the evolution of the struggle in South Africa since then with plenty of tough times for the black population and whites still in effective control of the economy makes me wonder.                    

***In The Time Of The Hard Motorcycle Boys- In Search Of History: Hell’s Angels

DVD Review

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman

In Search Of History: Hell’s Angels, starring, well, the various generations of Hell’s Angels since 1948, 2006   

Several years ago when I was trying to finally reconcile myself with the hard upbringing I had had in my old working-class town of North Adamsville south of Boston I mentioned to some new friends that in high school in the early 1960s I had been drawn to and repulsed by the hard ass motorcycle guys from Boston who roamed at will through the streets of our town to get to Adamsville Beach. The beach a local rendezvous for bikers, babes, and watching “submarine races” after midnight. Not all of those together and maybe none together depending on who was down there any given night. Who meaning what young women, and what kind were drawn to that locale when those guys with their chrome-infested bikes came to a stop. The drawn to part of the motorcycle guys for me was that they were “cool,” outlaw guys with those big motorcycles blazing and I fancied myself a rebel. The repulsed part was that they would trash the beach, would pick on regular guys to try to “make” their dates (and hassle those dates too with ugly language and gestures which appalled most of them), and thought nothing of beating up guys for just looking the wrong way at them. In the end I feared them more than saw them as heroic figures, but that was a close thing. All of these points kind of encapsulates the subject of the In Search of History documentary about the most famous outlaw motorcycle club around, the post-World War II West Coast-born Hell’s Angels.

Needless to say after watching this exploration of the roots, the behavior, the legend, and the meaning of the Hell’s Angels as a sub-culture that was not the end, but rather the beginning of thinking through the great American night bike experience. And, of course, for this writer that meant going to the books, the films and the memory bank to find every seemingly relevant “biker” experience. Such classic motorcycle sagas as “gonzo” journalist, Doctor Hunter S. Thompson’s Hell’s Angels and other, later Rolling Stone magazine printed “biker” stories and Tom Wolfe’ Hell Angel’s-sketched Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (and other articles about California subset youth culture that drove Wolfe’s work in the old days). And to the hellish Rolling Stones (band) Hell’s Angels “policed” Altamont concert in 1969. And, as fate would have it, with the passing of actor/director Dennis Hooper, the 1960s classic biker/freedom/ seeking the great American night film, Easy Rider. And from Easy Rider to the “max daddy” of them all, tight-jeaned, thick leather-belted, tee-shirted, engineer-booted, leather-jacketed, taxi-driver-capped (hey, that’s what it reminds me of), side-burned, chain-linked wielding, hard-living, alienated, but in the end really just misunderstood, Johnny, aka, Marlon Brando, in The Wild One.

This documentary touches all those bases and as usual with an In Search of History production is filled with “talking head” commentators from definitive long-time Angels’ leader, Sonny Barger, the above mentioned Hunter Thompson the most credible writer on the subject, various law enforcement types and sociologist to place the Angels in the cultural context. Plus plenty of good photographs and film clips taken at the time to move the fifty-minute sketch along.