A friend of mine messaged me with the following:
It's good to find at least one other person who understands what's going on in Ukraine. This involves human-rights atrocities comparable to Israel-Palestine, yet even "Democracy Now" reports it like the NYT reports Israel-Palestine. I don't get it . . . some on the "Left" who ought to know better appear to have bought into the corporate media saturated lies and omissions.
At least DN has had Stephen F. Cohen on as a guest several times; his most recent appearance (that I'm aware of) was also during Israel's latest concentrated genocidal actions in Gaza; Cohen's appearance was preceded by an extended report on that--which was exactly what you would expect from DN. Cohen wasn't given much time, so he effective shamed both hosts then present--Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales--about their corporatist, faulty coverage of Kiev-Eastern Ukraine, and stated that the report they had just done before he came on--on Gaza--that, exactly the same thing was simultaneously happening in Eastern Ukraine, and why weren't they covering that?
Amy and Juan both looked pretty sheepish at that, and had no response. I just don't get it--why is DN acting like the NYT on this? And why are so many other prominent, Left public intellectuals so conspicuous by their silence? As Cohen keeps (practically) screaming, this has the very real, proximate and near-term possibility of escalating into, effectively, a nuclear Armageddon.
No one outside knows whom, if anyone, is advising Obama on this--aside from the PNAC, lunatic-fringe "hawks" Obama has surrounded himself with. Even Henry Kissinger, who meets with Vladimir Putin twice each year to discuss world affairs, and has done so for many years, cannot get an audience with Obama--and he has tried, several times. Just a few policy-wise individuals and academics/experts, including Kissinger, Cohen and John Meersheimer, have spoken out--but most of the media ignores them (including DN); the MSM has taken to character assassination against them.
Just the human rights atrocities alone should make this prominently, heavily and accurately covered by the "Left" media, such as it is; and the global implications of the kind of scenario Stephen Cohen points out could, again, lead, quickly, to the nuclear annihilation of most life on the planet.
Why the silence and/or complicity by the "Left" on this? It just makes no sense to me, none at all . . . Can you enlighten me at all on this? If/when you have a minute, I would appreciate your feedback.
Here's what I told him:
No problem. I hope what I relate below will help you.
As you know, the liberal left is not the same thing as the democratic-socialist left.
Once you then look at that democratic-socialist left, you have to divide it into where the emphasis is placed: anti-"democratic-capitalism" imperialism versus the "social-liberal" facet.
The social liberals amongst the liberal left (which isn't very left in terms of fiscal policies) and also amongst the socialists, even the social democrats (who are, as you know, mostly just left-leaning-mixed-economy types), hate Putin and his party for its "conservative" social policies. They hate that about them more than they hate Western neoliberal-imperialism. Those social liberals would rather back libertarian-capitalists of the Reason.com variety than allow Putin to continue. They'd rather have neocons running the show backing the Right Sector, et al., than allow the Russians in Eastern Ukraine, who are mostly decidedly anti-fascist and anti-neoliberal/neoconservative but not anti-Putin and his relatively conservative views concerning the Orthodox Church and what are called "family values" over here.
As you know, I'm a pacifist. I'm not for coercing people. Even with that, I'm very unpopular on both the right and left because leftists who are opposed to radically liberal (actually anarchistic) sexual mores, are a tiny, tiny minority in the West. Democracy Now fits that anarchistic strain.
I'm actually more tolerated by the right than the left, even though I'm a Christian socialist of the New Testament Acts variety. You'd think the libertarians would hate me more than the social liberals do, but it's not the case. The libertarians are fine with me because I'm not out to coerce them into socialism.
The social liberals, on the other hand, rail against me no matter that I'm a pacifist and anti-capitalist. Of course, many social liberals, as I alluded to above, are often so-called classical liberals (laissez-faire capitalists).
So, I suppose you can boil it down to that I'm saying that social-anarcho-whatevers stick together on that first. Issues of peace and economic justice come in a far-distant second. For me, it's nearly the opposite, though I do necessarily believe in freedom and liberty. I just define those first in terms of peace and economic justice. I think Putin does also.
I relate better to Putin than I ever thought I would. I suspect he covered up the Moscow apartment bombings carried out by Russian intelligence as a pretext to crush the Chechens. I think he has recently, however, shown much greater maturity and restraint and that he has clearly grown immensely in office. I pray he can keep as much peace as possible over there. He's been walking a tightrope over a minefield, and Obama is obviously both stupid and insane.
Now, since I'm being very open with you. Let me add that there is a huge Zionist component. Zionists generally hate Russia for its rising Christianity and see that as a rising threat to their plans for first Middle-Eastern dominance and then global dominance in the first position (no longer as Jews in high places in national governments but as the new global hegemons). They have simply been using the US to those ends. They'll drop the US in an instant when they can put together a stronger Zionist coalition.
Yes, Cohen is obviously a Jew, as are others you mentioned. They are of the realist school and willing to forego some things for others. Democracy Now is not realist but ideological, not willing to prioritize gains, not willing to sacrifice the sexual "liberation"/anarchy for the sake of peace and a "more perfect" economic system.
That's how I see it right now.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)