Home Blog Page 1791

Juliet Moses does NOT speak for ALL New Zealanders

15

The assertion by Juliet Moses on 6 January in the New Zealand Herald article, Israel vote was an affront to all New Zealanders, echoes the arrogance of Zionism’s unjustifiable claim to speak and act on behalf of all Jews. What is offensive, is to assert that all New Zealanders would be affronted by the passing of a Security Council Resolution that upholds the tragically hard-won provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Moses writes that Resolution 2334 “deems” all settlements beyond the 1949 armistice lines to be a flagrant violation of international law. The resolution doesn’t merely ‘deem’ them to be – it is a reminder to the world of an undeniable fact of international law. Her article refers to “Israel’s policy of trading land for peace”. Israel needs to be told that to attempt to trade stolen land is a criminal act. On 3 July 1969, UN Security Council Resolution 267 recalled that, since the adoption of earlier resolutions, “Israel has taken further measures tending to change the status of the City of Jerusalem” and reminded Israel, yet again, of “the established principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible”. The UNSC confirmed that “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel which purport to alter the status of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties thereon, are invalid and cannot change that status”. These principles of international law are non-negotiable.

Israel and the United Nations
At the time of Israel’s ‘Declaration of Independence’ there was no United Nations ceremony and no welcoming speeches by world leaders at the unfurling of the new Israeli state’s flag. The United Nations Partition Plan, with good reason, had still not been implemented. Instead, on 14 May 1948, David Ben-Gurion (Israel’s first Prime Minister) pre-empted the Partition Plan by unilaterally asserting the existence of the state of Israel in Palestine.

There was disagreement in Washington over the ‘Declaration of Independence’, especially between President Harry Truman and Secretary of State, George C. Marshall, and the majority of the US foreign policy establishment. In March 1948 The Washington Post columnist Richard Holbrook wrote that Truman had already promised the future President of Israel, Chaim Weizmann, that he would support the Jewish Agency’s proposal to partition Palestine and split it apart. That promise had been made in confidence. According to Holbrook, “With only a few hours left until midnight in Tel Aviv”, Clark Clifford, Truman’s aide, “told the Jewish Agency to request immediate recognition of the new state, which still lacked a name.” Just eleven minutes after the Tel Aviv declaration, at 6:11pm on May 14, Truman announced US recognition. According to Holbrooke, this was done so rapidly that in the official announcement, the typed words “Jewish State” are crossed out and replaced with the words “State of Israel”. The President of the United States created the precedent for recognition of Israel and other world leaders quickly fell into line.

Facts on the ground
Following the adoption of UN Resolution 181, there came the destruction of Palestinian homes, either blown up or bulldozed, as Israel violently forced three-quarters of a million Palestinians to become refugees. From 9 to 11 April, a month before the ‘Declaration of Independence’ and confident of US support, Israeli forces set about the ethnic cleansing of the village of Deir Yassin and the implementation of Israel’s own version of the UN Partition Plan. The massacre exemplified the malevolence that Zionism harbours towards the indigenous people of the land it covets. Today, Israel’s expanding West Bank settlement programme continues to push the Zionist project ever forward, and Palestinian homes continue to be bulldozed and blown up.

UN General Assembly Resolution 181
The UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was established on 15 May (Resolution 106), charged with the task of investigating further and to “submit such proposals as it may consider appropriate for the solution of the problem of Palestine”. The UNSCOP report concluded that Palestine was being denied the same right to self-determination that was adhered to with regard to other Arab territories. This denial of Palestinian independence was due to support by powerful interests for the goal of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine.

While UN General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended that the UNSCOP partition plan be accepted and implemented by the concerned parties, that did not, of itself, confer upon the Zionist leadership any legal authority to unilaterally declare a state. For there to be any legal basis for such an outcome, both sides would have had to have formally agreed to it. That they clearly did not.

Zionist discrimination within the Israeli state
The blight of Zionist discrimination asserts itself both within Israel and in the Occupied West Bank. For example, Rabbi Arik Ascherman, founder of Jews and Arabs for Defence of Human Rights, reports that on 15 January this year, yet more residents of the Bedouin village of Umm Al-Hiran will be forced from their homes. Israel aims to remove these people in order to establish the Jewish-only town of Hiran. Ascherman notes that a 100-year-old Israeli Bedouin citizen, Musa Hussein Abu Al Qian, is among those to be evicted, along with his family “simply because they aren’t Jewish.”

Juliet Moses calls for the co-existence of a “secure” Jewish state alongside a Palestinian state that she envisages as merely “viable”. Israel’s founding ideology, it seems, simply cannot acknowledge the Palestinian people’s right to security. So while Palestinian refugees continue to be denied their right of return, the Israeli military goes on creating more Occupation facts on the ground. The Palestinian people can only look to the world community, that chose to place them in this invidious situation, for support now in requiring Israel to respect and abide by international humanitarian law.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Cough-cough – this is ‘Noted’ the new home of in-depth current affairs in NZ – it’s NOT FAKE NEWS, honest

9

Oh the lolz, ‘Noted‘ is apparently the the new home for in-depth current affairs and culture in New Zealand and apparently it’s powered by the country’s most trusted journalism sources.

Cough-cough.

Here’s one of the stories they are pimping…

…well thank Christ someone has finally managed to get to the bottom of the incredibly important issue of pubic-hair removal!

This is NZ current affairs at its sharpest folks.

Now a cynic might suggest that ‘Noted’ is in fact the same bullshit fake news from the corporate media wrapped in a new wrapper pretending to be in-depth current affairs and culture, and you would be right.

It’s the deathly dull and middle class Listener with the ok North & South, the tired as fuck Metro and PaperBoy, whatever the Christ that is.

I like watching dinosaurs that don’t know their dead yet putting on trendy clothes 4 decades too young for them trying to hit the dance floor with the kids.

Meh.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Mainstream Corporate Media debating the important issues of our day (what to wear on screen)

1

Here’s the Mainstream Corporate Media debating the important issues of our day and apparently it’s what you should wear on TV….

Amber Sherlock asked to explain actions as insiders say that ‘there will be a witch hunt’ at Channel Nine over outfit row video

These are the pressing issues folks, and this is why when this industry has the audacity to scream ‘fake news’ they look so terribly foolish.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Confronting racism is key to realising working class unity and power (Part 1)

4

 

Working people need to confront racism, sexism and anti-immigrant prejudice if we are to be successful in uniting our class sufficiently to take on the huge power of the one percent – the super-rich owners of most productive wealth in society.

Workers face many challenges uniting against their common enemy – the boss class and its paid servants.

We are usually brought up to see our role in life as being nothing more than cogs in someone else’s machine. Creativity is discouraged. Aspiring for “something better” is seen as only leading to disappointment and failure. Rebellion is crushed.

Our role in life is to become a wage slave working for “the man”.

Organising collectively is the worst crime and can result in being banished from polite society as a “communist unionist”, or “haters and wreckers”.

Since humanity emerged from the stage of primitive communism 10,000 years ago all human societies have been run by those who control the wealth. The dominant ideas of those societies are the ideas that promote the interests of the ruling class. We are told that those who make up the ruling class are superior in some way. Identities we have in common to the ruling class are promoted. Those of us who provide labour and create the wealth for the rulers be that as peasants, slaves or workers are taught to think as members of a kingdom, a nation or a race rather than as members of a class.

Before class society existed there were no special forms of oppression that could be imposed. Women were equal. “Race” did not even exist as a category. However, with the development of agriculture, there was a surplus in production that was able to be monopolised by a separate class of owners. This was the first revolution in production and witnessed the subordination of women as a “second sex”. Institutionalised discrimination followed.

This was referred to as the “world-historic defeat of the female sex” by socialist pioneer Frederick Engles writing over 100 years ago.

Today the bosses use the differences that have been bequeathed to them like the oppression of women to their advantage. The second class status of women was simply institutionalised under modern capitalism into paying women less.

Racism, however, was created as a tool by capitalism at its birth to justify the degradation and super-exploitation of non-whites. Racism emerged with the development of world trade (including trade in slaves) in the sixteenth century. It became a central tool of the capitalist rulers as part of the growth of colonialism to justify the barbaric methods needed to sustain the system of rule and exploitation.

The legacy of that racism remains an important part of maintaining sections of the population of different countries in a second-class status in order to super-exploit them. It is also a key element of modern imperialism’s colonial and neo-colonial relationship between the “first” (white) and “third” (Black, yellow and brown) worlds.

Colour differences, however, are not essential. The British empire maintained a discriminatory and oppressive relationship with the Irish people for centuries and justified it through a completely different narrative.

The colonisation and oppression of the Irish in Ireland was supplemented by forcing them into a second class status within the workforce in  England itself. Lower wages, super-exploitation and super profits followed.

The ruling class is very conscious about using any differences to promote disunity whenever they are threatened by working class unity and struggle.

An instructive example is from the colonisation of North America. Initially, there was no system of slavery. Indentured labour was used instead. Approximately 250,000 English, Irish, and other impoverished white people, as well as some blacks purchased from the slave traders, were forced into “service”. They all worked together as indentured servants usually for three to seven years before gaining freedom. The ruling class created all sorts of reasons to treat these people as “filth and scum” deserving few rights. Shared misery and class exploitation prevented the rise of racism between the servants. However, all that was to change following the 1676 Bacon Rebellion in Virginia.

This was an uprising against the aristocratic landowners in which the indentured servants, runaways, landless free labourers and small farmers united. It was brutally crushed.

A conscious policy was then followed that institutionalised slavery for life for blacks while improving the conditions for the white servants. Living quarters were segregated. Whites were given better housing, work and clothing. Whipping of whites was prohibited. Anti-black racism was promoted so the whites would consider themselves superior to the slaves.

Black slavery was established as the norm for the rapidly expanding cotton industry through the southern states of the US. Anti-black racism became the ideological weapon to maintain that system. It has survived well beyond the formal abolition of slavery because it continues to serve the interests of the ruling class to super-exploit black labour directly and to prevent any unity developing between working people who are black and those who are white.

The abolition of slavery did open up that possibility occurring again. This is depicted in part in a recent film called “Free State of Jones” which is a true story of black slaves together with poor white farmers and workers joining together in the struggle against the white slave-owning confederacy in the closing days of the civil war.

The period of “Radical Reconstruction” following the civil war saw blacks and whites working together to carry out the promise of “40 acres and a mule” to every free man. State governments were formed of freed slaves and poor whites that began to carry out the most progressive social programmes seen in the US up to that time (or since). Crushing those governments and the emerging black-white plebian unity was accomplished by the North withdrawing the protective army and the local ruling class of former slave owners organising a massive terrorist assault through a racist militia called the Klu Klux Klan.

Blacks were effectively denied the right to vote and excluded from access to normal protections or welfare. A semi-apartheid “Jim crow” system was established. Black workers who were excluded from most unions. The new racist and right-wing state governments instituted anti-union laws that remain in place today.

The civil rights movement overthrew formal segregation in the 1950s and 60s but right through to today it remains a fact that all working people across the southern Unite States – black and white – are much poorer on average than their Northern counterparts.

The success of the ruling class in destroying working class unity across the southern united states made it much harder for workers who were white to protect their interests as workers as well.

The weakening of unions and other working class institutions in the northern states in recent decades associated with the collapse of many traditional union strong industries like auto and steel has seen the spread of anti-union laws and practices from the south as a consequence.

The failure of the union movement nationally to challenge Jim Crow and anti-black racism effectively in the southern states is now taking its revenge. The poorers wages and conditions of work are moving north. At first, this was because the union leaderships were trapped in the dead-end strategy of supporting the Democratic Party – which while seen as responsible for the New Deal policies associated with active job creation in the 1930s, dominated the South as the former slave-owning party of racist “Dixiecrats”. Ultimately the racist right-wing Dixiecrats were replaced by racist right-wing Republicans but the situation of working people remains dire.

The same is true in what is called “Northern Ireland.” As part of the British colonisation of Ireland in the 16th and 17th Century a large protestant minority transported to and installed in the north of the country. The businessmen and landowners of this group were given effective governance rights over the whole country. The peasants and workers who were Protestant were encouraged to see the Catholics as their enemy.

Eventual Irish independence which was achieved at least in part in 1921 excluded six of the 32 counties situated in the north of the island. At that time the northern statelet of about 1.2 million had a Protestant majority and more importantly most of the major industries.

The end result of decades of Protestant supremacy, including excluding Catholics from better-paying jobs, was for the working class who were protestant to be poorer on average than any other citizen of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland” (except, of course, the Northern Ireland Catholics).

Genuine class consciousness is needed to fight uncompromisingly for your own rights. You have to understand that your rights as a worker are in opposition to not just your own boss but the whole class of parasites that he belongs to.  That means knowing that the class interests of your fellow worker – black, brown, yellow, Catholic, Protestant or Muslim, native born or migrant  – are much the same as your own. Allowing the bosses to use prejudice, national chauvinism, or racism to marginalise and subjugate a portion of the working class so that they are able to pay them less money and impose inferior conditions on them, will only strengthen those same bosses against you when you try to improve your situation.

Russian socialist leader Vladimir Lenin, who led the Russian revolution in 1917, said a genuine socialist leader is not a narrow trade unionist but “the tribune of the people…able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it appears, no matter what stratum or class of the people it affects”–and they must be “able to generalize all these manifestations and produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation…in order to clarify for all and everyone the world-historic significance of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat.”

These words remain relevant today and a challenge to all of us wanting an end to capitalist exploitation and oppression.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Political Caption Competition

4

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Daily Blog Guerrilla Radio – Loser – Beck

0

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

TDB Top 5 International Stories: Saturday 14th January 2017

0

5: Israel Lobby: Anti-Semitism battle in UK Labour Party

Members, activists and at least one MP of Britain’s main opposition Labour Party described as “anti-Semitic” a member who challenged their pro-Israel ideas, despite some uncertainty over whether the member’s comments were actually racist, an investigation by Al Jazeera has found.

The charges, made at September’s Labour Party conference, led to the member being suspended pending a full investigation.

In total, the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) said it had seen three cases of anti-Semitism during the first day of September’s Labour Party conference, with the group of Israel supporters later debating the validity of two of them.

The complaints came in the wake of the Chakrabarti Inquiry, an investigation during summer 2016 into anti-Semitism within the Labour ranks. That report had concluded racism, including anti-Semitism, was not endemic within Labour.

Aljazeera

4: James Mattis Calls for U.S. Military to Be More Lethal at Defense Secretary Confirmation Hearing

President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, retired General James “Mad Dog” Mattis, testified Thursday at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Mattis’s 41-year career in the Marine Corps included field commands in the Persian Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan. He led U.S. troops during the 2004 battle of Fallujah, earning himself the nickname “Mad Dog” Mattis. In May 2004, Mattis ordered an attack on a small Iraqi village that ended up killing about 42 people attending a wedding ceremony. He went on to lead United States Central Command from 2010 to 2013, but the Obama administration cut short his tour over concerns he was too hawkish on Iran. We host a roundtable discussion, starting with retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich, author of “America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History,” and Aaron Glantz, a senior reporter at Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting whose latest investigation is headlined “Did defense secretary nominee James Mattis commit war crimes in Iraq?”

Democracy Now

 

3: Now That Two Thirds of New Zealanders Support Euthanasia, Is it Time To Change the Law?

Since the death of euthanasia campaigner Lecretia Seales, public opinion seems to have reached a tipping point but the political will is slow to catch up.

The majority of New Zealanders support euthanasia. A new University of Auckland study has found 66 percent of New Zealanders are in favour of doctors being legislatively allowed to end a person’s life if they’re suffering for a painful incurable disease. Only 12 percent said they are strongly opposed.

Vice News

2: French newspaper abandons opinion polls in run-up to election

France’s love-hate relationship with opinion polls is in the spotlight after a newspaper announced it would stop commissioning polls in the run-up to the French presidential election and instead do more on-the-ground reporting to sound out the public mood.

The unprecedented decision by the daily Le Parisien came after months of discussion in the paper’s newsroom following the UK’s vote to leave the European Union and Donald Trump’s election in the US – both of which caught media and some pollsters by surprise.

The Guardian 

 

1: Obama Opens NSA’s Vast Trove of Warrantless Data to Entire Intelligence Community, Just in Time for Trump

WITH ONLY DAYS until Donald Trump takes office, the Obama administration on Thursday announced new rules that will let the NSA share vast amounts of private data gathered without warrant, court orders or congressional authorization with 16 other agencies, including the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security.

The new rules allow employees doing intelligence work for those agencies to sift through raw data collected under a broad, Reagan-era executive order that gives the NSA virtually unlimited authority to intercept communications abroad. Previously, NSA analysts would filter out information they deemed irrelevant and mask the names of innocent Americans before passing it along.

The change was in the works long before there was any expectation that someone like Trump might become president. The last-minute adoption of the procedures is one of many examples of the Obama administration making new executive powers established by the Bush administration permanent, on the assumption that the executive branch could be trusted to police itself.

The Intercept

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The Daily Blog Open Mic – Saturday 14th January 2017

2

openmike

 

Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.

Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.

 

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Why NZers wouldn’t support Euthanasia if they read this – why Jenny Shipley makes me never want Euthanasia

14

New propaganda survey in the war to legalise euthanasia is out, supporters of euthanasia say it’s proof that NZers want to pass this legislation.

I say that those NZers would quickly change their mind if they read this.

I don’t support euthanasia in NZ.

I’ve heard the arguments, I’ve listened to the debate, and I just don’t support it.

“If you were an animal you wouldn’t let it suffer” – Yes but we aren’t animals are we. We are self-conscious free thinking human beings.

“Letting people live in pain is wrong”. Yes it is, and we have incredible pain management these days, only very rare cases are left to writhe in agony.

“People have the right to end their life”. No they don’t. They may have the right to commit suicide if you want to go that far, but the right to ask another to end their life? That’s not been agreed to at all!  This is a decision whanau and the wider community are all party to because of it’s ramifications upon the very fabric of our society.

I have 3 main reasons I disagree with euthanasia in NZ.

The first is the type of person and the reasons they push for euthanasia. It always seems to me to be alpha type personalities. Over achievers, people of deep independence who pride themselves on that independence. People who would consider the embarrassment of being unable to control their body functions worse than death itself. Their demand for death revolves around their inability to control the process of death. That doesn’t warrant allowing another to administer a medical cocktail that ends life.

Which brings me to my second reason, the humility of death. Dying as a process isn’t supposed to be clean and efficient. It’s painful, it’s human, it requires the family and friends you’ve built in a  lifetime to nurse you through your final moments. It is a deeply emotional time, a journey where the journey is far more important than the destination. The process of letting go, of saying goodbye is a deeply personal and intimate part of the human experience. To deny that is to deny one of the most important rituals of human life.

But the biggest reason I would never want euthanasia in NZ is Jenny Shipley.

One of the most important pieces of journalism investigative reporter Selwyn Manning ever wrote was in the mid 1990’s when he single handedly managed to expose a secret program by then Minister of Health Jenny Shipley to begin a defacto state euthanasia policy…

Back in the mid 1990s Jenny Shipley (then Minister of Health in the Bolger National Government) established a governmental body called the Core Health Services Committee (CHSC) which was chaired by former broadcaster Sharon Crosbie.

The CHSC was known to exist, but no one paid much attention to it, and also getting information out of it was problematic as it would cite commercial confidentiality as a reason for withholding information. So a lot of its work went under the radar.

Back then, National had created a commercial model that replaced health boards with Regional Funding Authorities (RHAs) and hospitals became Crown Health Enterprises. It wasn’t until 2000, that the new Helen Clark-led Labour-Alliance Government disestablished the RHAs and CHEs and reestablished publicly elected health boards, and, hospitals became public hospitals once again.

But back in the early to mid-1990s the Core Health Services Committee was accountable directly to the Minister of Health, Jenny Shipley, and was tasked with creating health funding frameworks, protocols, criteria that the then RHAs would rely upon when deciding what health services the government would pay Crown Health Enterprises (CHEs) for – when providing health ‘services’ to ‘clients’ (patients).

The Core Health Services Committee was tasked to evaluate a way of reducing the cost-burden on the Government for health services and come up with a set of criteria that CHEs and doctors would have to abide by when deciding which ‘clients’ (patients) would get treatment and, importantly, who would not.

In August 1994, I became aware that the Core Health Services Committee had been evaluating the most costly procedures, including renal dialysis treatment for people with end-stage renal failure. I was told by sources that the CHSC had drafted a document that included a framework for how expensive treatments would be handled, and that the Minister of Health had approved the plan.

Generally, there are two types of criteria:

inclusion – (meaning patients that met certain criteria would be eligible for treatment)

exclusion – (meaning those that could be labeled as possessing or exhibiting specific criteria would exclude then from being offered treatment.

In August 1994, I was leaked documents that displayed how the Minister had approved the CHSC protocols that used exclusion criteria and that the protocols had been presented to doctors and the exclusion criteria enforced.

What this meant was people who presented with end stage renal failure, and who required dialysis to stay alive, would be excluded from getting this life-saving treatment if they were deemed:

* to be blind

* to have an intellectual disability

* had a history of mental illness

* exhibited or expressed anti-social behaviour

* had a history of imprisonment

* had an unrelated health condition that may cause complications

* were over the age of 65-years…

The set of exclusion criteria continued on.

Without a public debate having ensured, CHE doctors were required to administer the changes and CHEs were required to report back to the RHAs with details on how the exclusion criteria was being applied.

Up until then, doctors and clinicians had decided on whether a patient would get dialysis treatment – the assessment was based on what health benefits a patient could expect, and were not required to consider exclusion criteria that were determined by the State.

The doctors silently rebelled and, as a journalist, as I mentioned above, I was leaked the CHSC protocols and exclusion criteria documents.

…the National Party were actively and secretly looking for ways to disqualify the sick and vulnerable from state health care. If they were prepared to do it when euthanasia was illegal in the 1990s, imagine how quickly they will begin to pressure hospitals to start euthanasia as a cost cutting measure if it becomes legal?

We know how poorly Corrections look after the welfare of prisoners. We know how badly CYFs looks after children in their care. We know how damaging Housing NZ, WINZ and the Ministry of Development treat beneficiaries.

So what would stop Government agencies applying the same disregard for the poor and sick if euthanasia is passed?

The demands of those too proud to die needing others, denial of our humility in death and a hard right Government who see euthanasia as a cost cutting mechanism are not good enough reasons to legalise euthanasia.

Mountain climbing lawyers might consider ending their life on their own terms a victory, but the real losers will be the poor and voiceless in state hospitals being pushed into ending their expensive treatment of a life.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Greenpeace inflatables intercept world’s biggest seismic oil ship, 50 miles out to sea

1

Greenpeace crew have made contact with the world’s biggest seismic oil ship after travelling 50 nautical miles on two rigid-hulled inflatables off the coast of Wairarapa.

The boat crews, consisting of members from Greenpeace and local iwi, located the 125-metre seismic ship, Amazon Warrior, searching for oil off the East Coast of New Zealand on behalf of oil giants Statoil and Chevron.

From on board one of the inflatables, Greenpeace campaigner Kate Simcock radioed the master of the Amazon Warrior to deliver an open letter of protest signed by over 60,000 New Zealanders.

Polynesian voyaging waka captain and East Coast resident, Reuben Raihania Tipoki (Ngāti Kahungunu), also delivered a message on behalf of over 80 indigenous communities from the East Coast of New Zealand, demanding Statoil and Chevron cease activities in their customary waters.

Tipoki is a highly experienced captain, and his voyages have included captaining Okeanos for eight months during a 10,000 nautical mile journey from Fiji through Rotuma, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, to Palau.

Tipoki says it’s important to see first-hand what seismic blasting ships are doing in his iwi’s customary waters so he can bring the stories back to his community.

“The burning of fossil fuels is changing our world – we are changing our world. We are calling in Armageddon, and it will be destruction by our own hands,” he says.

“If we are to stem climate change, indigenous philosophies about how to fit in with nature and not expect nature to fit in with us must be re-adopted.”

The Amazon Warrior currently has two support vessels circling it, acting as guard dogs of its behemoth seismic array. They are the Ocean Pioneer, a New Zealand-owned fishing vessel often used as support by the oil industry; and the Maria G, a supply ship sent over from Panama.

From on board, Greenpeace climate campaigner, Kate Simcock, says the sheer size of the Amazon Warrior is “daunting”.

“This is one big beast and it’s eerie to see it out here roaming such a beautiful stretch of coastline. In order to find oil, it’s blasting sound waves into the ocean every 8 seconds, 24 hours a day, from massive arrays that are the length of 80 rugby fields,” she says.

The oil industry itself admits they are comparable in sound to an underwater volcano, so just imagine how distressing they must be for the dolphins and whales who live here.

“And this is all for the very oil that science says can’t be burned if we are to avoid a climate catastrophe. It’s a complete betrayal that our Government has invited this climate-wrecking machine to roam our unique coastlines.”

The crew is monitoring the Amazon Warrior and its support vessels throughout the day as they search for oil.

This will include taking underwater recordings of the seismic blasts that can deafen whales, and collecting data which will be fed through to scientists to measure the effects on marine life.
Photos and drone video of the Amazon Warrior and the journey will be available once the boats return to shore here

Kate’s radio transmission to the Amazon Warrior can be read here

Greenpeace crew members will be available for interviews via satellite phone from the water on request.

Updates are being posted here

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

For everyone claiming Gareth Morgan couldn’t win the Mt Albert By-election

16

As I’ve pointed out, the decision by the Greens to abandon the spirit and symbolism of the Memorandum of Understanding to contest the Mt Albert by-election against Labour is a strategic blunder of such a magnitude that whatever clown staff member in Wellington brain farted it up should be removed.

Most of my contacts inside the Greens have privately admitted to me that it’s a fuck up but have all assured me that there’s no chance of a real threat from Genter’s candidacy becuase Gareth Morgan would never stand or have any hope of winning.

To which I say, “Really”?

Here are the 5 reasons why Gareth Morgan would be a fool not to stand in this by-election…

1 – He needs the practise and a dry run in February would be powerful to train him.

2 – His involvement would guarantee massive media attention and he is far better at challenging existing policy and proposing better solutions than either Genter or Ardern.

3 – TOP policy will be released in the first week of February, perfect timing to run and get that policy out.

4 – Could argue to the electorate that Genter and Ardern are already in Parliament and that voting for him him sends a far more powerful message to the Government.

5 – Genter and Ardern could split the vote and he could possibly come through the middle.

…now let’s look at the numbers.

In 2014 election, Labour took 10,823 party votes and Greens took 8,005 party votes. But look at the National Party vote take – a staggering 14,359 party votes!

In a  field that has Penny Bright, Joe Carolan, Jacinda Ardern AND Julie Anne Genter, the ability for Gareth Morgan to come through the middle with numbers like that in the electorate is actually entirely possible!

The Greens have already damaged the perception of unity by running in this by-election, let’s all pray to Gaia that Gareth Morgan isn’t serious about his political party and won’t run.

We’ll know when candidate nominations close midday on the 1st of February whether or not Morgan is in. The clever money would be him running and announcing as late as possible his candidacy to ensure the Greens remain in the race.

The damage caused to the sense of unity by fighting the by-election is bad enough, losing the electorate altogether would ensure the Greens got shafted by Labour and NZ First in any post election Government formation.

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

From Langley, With Love.

14

NEVER BEFORE have the puppet-masters’ strings been more exposed. Clearly, something very close to a full-scale civil war is raging across the dark institutions of the American Deep State.

In the days immediately preceding the 8 November presidential election we witnessed the critical intervention of the New York Office of the FBI. Faced with the near certainty of “strategic leaking” by his own agents should he refuse, the hapless FBI Director, James Comey, agreed to inform Congress (and the world) that the Bureau was re-opening the investigation into the Clinton E-mail Scandal.

At the time it seemed reasonable to speculate that the FBI’s New York Office was a hot-bed of Trump supporters gone “rogue”. But, as Glen Greenwald’s recent posting on The Intercept makes clear, the true motivation for the New York Office’s political intercession was very probably the CIA’s own political interventions on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

The FBI’s disdain for the CIA’s legally questionable (to say the least!) rules of engagement is well known in US national security circles. In the lurid light of the strategically leaked “Russian Dossier”, the re-ignition of the Clinton E-Mail Scandal is beginning to look more and more like a pre-emptive FBI strike.

That such a politically compromising document – unsourced and unverified – has been injected into the bloodstream of the American body politic just eight days before Trump’s inauguration as the 45th President of the United States is as unprecedented as it is alarming. As Greenwald rightly states: “The threat of being ruled by unaccountable and unelected entities is self-evident and grave. That’s especially true when the entity behind which so many [Trump opponents] are rallying is one with a long and deliberate history of lying, propaganda, war crimes, torture, and the worst atrocities imaginable.”

Just how this overt effort to undermine the duly-elected President-Elect of the USA plays out will depend largely on how most Americans view the role and conduct of the CIA. On the one hand, there is what might be called the “Jason Bourne” view of the agency, and, on the other, the view inspired by the television series “Homeland”.

The Jason Bourne CIA is presented as a murderous law unto itself. Unrestrained and unaccountable, this version of the Agency would not hesitate to cobble together a damning dossier and use it to weaken, perhaps fatally, the administration of a president deemed (by itself) to be a person inimical to the USA’s long-term strategic interests.

The Homeland CIA offers a much more nuanced view of America’s national intelligence agency. Above all else, the Agency’s operatives are portrayed as patriots. Their contradictory obligations: to remain loyal to the US Constitution; and to take whatever steps are necessary to protect America’s interests; repeatedly reduce characters like Carrie Mathison, Peter Quinn and Saul Berenson to guilt-ridden wrecks.

Of the two views, the Homeland CIA is by far the more dangerous. By painting over the blood-red crimes of the Agency with reassuring coats of ambivalent grey, the series’ writers encourage the view that although it is often necessary to uphold the Constitution by subverting it, and to preserve America’s international reputation by tarnishing it, the agents responsible never, ever, stop loving the United States.

One could almost say that the Jason Bourne CIA is how American liberals view the Agency when the evil Republicans are in power; while the Homeland version provides them with the excuses they need when the CIA’s misdeeds are authorised by a Democrat. So, if the Russian Dossier really is a CIA concoction, then, as far as Trump’s liberal opponents are concerned, it’s from Langley, with love.

Greenwald rails against this anything-to-rid-America-of-Trump double standard: “There are solutions to Trump. They involve reasoned strategizing and patient focus on issues people actually care about. Whatever those solutions are, venerating the intelligence community, begging for its intervention, and equating their dark and dirty assertions as Truth are most certainly not among them. Doing that cannot possibly achieve any good, and is already doing much harm.”

Greenwald’s sterling defence of the US Constitution, notwithstanding, the situation in Washington may already have moved beyond the power of the most conscientious journalist to remedy. Regardless of Trump’s ultimate fate, the men he has nominated to defend US interests are quietly reassuring their Senate interlocutors that the continuity of America’s military, foreign relations and national security policy is not about to be upended by 3:00am tweets from the White House.

The unchanging priorities of the American Deep State crowd around Trump like ancestral ghosts: hemming him in; whispering in his ear; by turn inflaming and freezing his untutored political heart. His supporters should not be surprised. Though they may not know it, making America great has never, ever, been the President’s job.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

‘Social Investment’ is simply mass surveillance of beneficiaries designed to limit the neoliberal welfare state even more

6

It’s nice to see the media catching up with the concerns TDB were putting forward last year regarding the scam that is ‘Social Investment’.

‘Social Investment’ is simply mass surveillance of beneficiaries designed to limit the neoliberal welfare state even more.

Bill English who is pushing a hard right wing religious crusade against welfare is using ‘social investment’ as a pretence to help the poorest while ripping away welfare for everyone who isn’t the poorest.

It’s a sick joke using the crisis of the worst to deny those not so desperate any state help whatsoever.

The corporate mainstream media of course haven’t gotten their head around that part of Social Investment yet and won’t even acknowledge that big data is reliant on mass surveillance powers that English has been quietly giving his crusade.

English will intrusively spy on the poor to justify ending Welfare for any but the very worst cases.

It’s a scam to kill off Government Obligations by redefining who the most needy are. It’s sad the corporate mainstream media and most political pundits refuse to recognise that.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

TDB Summer Election Special: Green Party strategic failure in Mt Albert

11

Now before I post up my TDB Summer Special on the Greens, it’s only fair to acknowledge that ever since MMP, one of my two votes has always gone to the Greens. I am a long time supporter and believe they have some of the best ideas for moving forward this country needs and I have a lot more respect for their MPs than almost any other Parliamentarians.

I accept that I pull my punches and let them off the hook a lot.

So let’s get into the criticism.

I don’t know what fucking clown is running shit back stage right now, but the strategic cluster fuck the Greens have kicked off in the Mt Albert by-election has the potential to damage a Labour/Green Government come the election or even worse still, lose the electorate altogether.

It is utter madness that the Greens have decided to do this. It’s people who play checkers trying to play chess.

There were two reasons why the Memorandum of Understanding was urgently signed last year. The first is that the left faction within the Greens had caught wind of a plot by the blue-green and Identitarian factions to push for a neutral stance going  into the 2017 election. The MoU was rammed through to stop this plot from being declared at the Green Party Conference last year.

The second reason was that the Labour Leadership had finally realised that they had to look unified alongside the Greens if they were to have any hope of convincing soft National voters to vote for them.

So the MoU was a symbolic gesture to show that they were a Government in waiting and not bickering opposition parties.

It worked in Mt Roskill where the lessoning of choice made the vote for change far more powerful and it should have held for the Mt Albert by-election.

But it hasn’t.

Instead for the 4 weeks that is the news doldrums of February, they will be the only event occurring so that the Nation wide narrative is Labour vs Greens.

That is not the picture you want in voters minds going into a fucking election year!

What the Greens SHOULD have done is said to Labour, we won’t run in Mt Albert, but we want something in return. You don’t field a candidate in Central Auckland and allow Chloe Swarbrick an unchallenged run against Nikki Kaye.

That would have been smart, instead they risk damaging the sense of unity the MoU has given them for a pointless shot at a Labour stronghold.

If you listen to the Green response (and I had a run in with Julie Anne Genter on Twitter before Christmas on this), they claim the MoU allows this.

To which I say, “bullshit”.

If the Greens are having to trawl through their own MoU to find and justify loopholes to run in a meaningless by-election, it shows how blind with impatience they have become. The point of the MoU wasn’t a legalistic binding of two parties, it was the symbolism of unity. For 4 weeks the country aren’t going to see a policy debate, they are going to see Greens Vs Labour. That is not the image you want to look like if you are aiming to be seen as a unified Government in waiting.

Labour and the Greens have both come out and tried to pretend that this will be unlike every other political race in history because Julie Anne Genter and Jacinda Ardern will apparently arrive at events holding hands, skipping while singing ‘Micheal row the boat ashore’. That’s right folks, they state this won’t be a bickering competition, oh no, it will all be sweetness and light with pet unicorns frolicking in the background..

Two things about this garbage justification.

The first is that Green Party activists on line are some of the most alienating and counter productive groups of human beings on the face of the planet, (second only to the Wellington Comms Office of the PSA) and Labour Party activists won’t back down to Greenie Hipsters so the ability for this to get out of hand is beyond their ability to control and secondly, it still will appear to the rest of the country that they are fighting each other.

No one remembers the Mt Roskill by-election for its nuanced discussion on policy, they remember Labour kicked National’s arse. All the rest of NZ will see is the Greens and Labour fighting.

Now, what happens if Julie Anne Genter gets close? Or God forbid, won? If she gets within 1000 of Jacinda it makes Labour look weak in a stronghold, if she actually beat Jacinda it would destroy Jacinda’s political reputation and the Greens inherit a furious Labour Party who will do everything to shaft them using NZ First come the Government formation.

Even if the Greens do well or win, they cause more damage than just running and losing badly.

Mt Albert should have been left for Jacinda while the Greens cut a deal elsewhere.

So what is actually going on here?

Ultimately I think this is a staffing issue within the Green. I love Deborah Morris, I have nothing but admiration and praise for her as Chief of Staff, but I think she is being appallingly advised. It’s the person who has advised her on this that is the clown and that clown needs to be quietly shushed next time they have anything to say and replaced for the election.

Let’s also acknowledge it could get worse.

We can’t ignore the possibility that Gareth Morgan could seize this moment and stand in the electorate as well.

Here are the 5 reasons Gareth would be a fool to not stand:

1 – He needs the practise and a dry run in February would be powerful to train him.

2 – His involvement would guarantee massive media attention and he is far better at challenging existing policy and proposing better solutions than either Genter or Ardern. 

3 – TOP policy will be released in the first week of February, perfect timing to run and get that policy out.

4 – Could argue to the electorate that Genter and Ardern are already in Parliament and that voting for him him sends a far more powerful message to the Government.

5 – Genter and Ardern could split the vote and he could possibly come through the middle.

The Greens had better pray to Gaia that Gareth Morgan isn’t actually all that serious with his Political Party and won’t exploit the strategic blunder they’ve just made.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Political Caption Competition

15

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

STAY CONNECTED

11,996FansLike
4,057FollowersFollow

Foreign policy + Intel + Security

Subscribe | Follow | Bookmark
and join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday

MIL Public Webcast Service