Author: admin

It was January 1983, and President Ronald Reagan was in trouble. Although he had handily defeated the Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter just over two years prior, Reagan’s approval rating now sat at a dismal 35 percent. His economic policies had not ameliorated the long-simmering recession nor delivered relief for the overwhelming majority of Americans. The […]

In an important  interview with Judge Napolitano, Scott Ritter describes the Wagner Insurgency:

“as a concerted effort between Wagner, the Ukrainian intelligence service, and their Western sponsors …

Prigozhin is working on behalf of foreign intelligence Services carrying out their …

The post Prigozhin’s Wagner PMC Rebellion against Vladimir Putin. How it All Started appeared first on Global Research.

Free Beacon investigative reporter Andrew Kerr details forensic evidence tying Hunter Biden’s location to President Biden’s Delaware home when he allegedly threatened a Chinese businessman.

The post WATCH: Biden dealt a ‘devastating blow’ from newly released documents appeared first on World Israel News.

Judge Napolitano interviews Scott Ritter on recent developments in Russia, following the insurgency of the Wagner Mercenary Group directed against President Putin.

According to press reports, the Wagner mercenary chief Yevgeny Prigozhin: 

“Ordered his troops to march towards Moscow to …

The post Video: The Wagner Group Insurgency Directed against President Putin. Scott Ritter appeared first on Global Research.

As Knesset moves forward with minor bill from judicial reform package, Justice Minister reportedly working with Smotrich, Ben-Gvir to force Netanyahu to pass full judicial overhaul.

By David Rosenberg, World Israel News

Justice Minister Yariv Levin (Likud), one of the two architects of the Israeli government’s judicial reform plan, is reportedly working with right-wing allies in the coalition to force Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to pass the entire overhaul package.

On Sunday, the Knesset put the ‘Deri Law’ back on the agenda – marking the first time legislation from the judicial overhaul has been considered in the Knesset since Netanyahu froze the reform in late March following massive nationwide protests.

After negotiations with Opposition lawmakers for a compromise hit an impasse amid a dispute over the selection of the Knesset’s representatives for the powerful judicial appointments committee, Netanyahu vowed last week to move forward with two bills: the ‘Deri Law,’ and the ‘Legal Advisors Law.’

The two bills are considered to be minor parts of the judicial reform plan, with Opposition leaders signaling during talks that they would accept the two proposals as part of a toned-down overhaul.

The Deri Law would, if passed, bar Israeli courts from overruling government decisions on the basis of the “reasonableness standard,” under which then-Health Minister and Interior Minister Aryeh Deri (Shas) was forced to resign from his position earlier this year by the Supreme Court.

The second bill would make ministerial legal advisors employees of their respective government ministries, allowing ministers to hire and fire them without consulting with the Justice Ministry. In addition, under the bill, ministerial legal advisors’ opinions would no longer be legally binding.

Hebrew media outlets have reported over the past week that Justice Minister Levin has expressed frustration with the limited number of bills Netanyahu is willing to place on the Knesset agenda.

According to senior Likud officials quoted by Ma’ariv Sunday, Levin is working with the Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionist Party factions to organize a “putsch” against Netanyahu, threatening to topple his right-wing government if it does not move forward with the full judicial reform.

“Yariv is leading the revolt against Netanyahu,” the Likud officials were quoted as saying, adding that the Likud’s second highest-ranking lawmaker has also formed a group of supporters within the party to increase pressure on the prime minister.

“After he established an internal faction within the party and dispatched ministers and MKs to publicly threaten the Prime Minister, now he has moved on to an external putsch, and is using Smotrich and Ben-Gvir to threaten Netanyahu that they will topple his government if the reform is not advanced during the Knesset’s summer session.”

The Likud officials cited in the report also said Levin is hoping to position himself as Netanyahu’s replacement as leader of the party.

“There is only one real winner from the Prime Minister’s fall, and that’s Levin. He wants to replace Netanyahu, while [Netanyahu] is still alive.”

The post Justice Minister Levin planning ‘putsch’ to force Netanyahu to back full judicial reform plan, say senior Likud officials appeared first on World Israel News.

French socialist leader Jules Guesde established the first working-class party in modern history and popularized the ideas of Karl Marx at a crucial time. It’s impossible to imagine the subsequent history of Marxism and the French left without Guesde.

Illustration of Jules Guesde speaking in Paris, France. (API / Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)

Jules Guesde played a central role in the history of French and European socialism. He set up the first working-class party in modern history, the French Workers’ Party (POF) that was created between 1879 and 1882, and he held discussions with Karl Marx in London in 1880. Guesde was the main founder, with Jean Jaurès, of the unified French Socialist Party in 1905. He also helped introduce and popularize Marxist thought in France.

Yet the legacy of Guesde is controversial. In the name of a rigid understanding of class struggle, Guesde refused to support the campaign for the release of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish army officer who was falsely accused of treason and imprisoned in 1895. Guesde took this position not out of antisemitism, but rather because Dreyfus was a soldier, at a time when memories of the repression of the 1871 Paris Commune by the French military were still vivid.

Guesde combined his Marxism with a very pragmatic approach to politics that earned him accusations of opportunism. He became a minister in the French government after the outbreak of war in 1914 and was reviled by those who opposed the war. After 1918, he chose to remain with Léon Blum in the Socialist Party, rejecting the terms of the Bolsheviks for membership of the new Communist International.

On the other hand, there are several aspects of Guesde’s record that stand to his credit. He was an outstanding orator, one of the great figures of the French Chamber of Deputies. As a socialist leader, he was sensitive to the causes of women when others were completely disinterested.

Above all, Guesde was a first-rate organizer who was able to surround himself with loyal followers and build a structured, hierarchical party that functioned, despite difficulties, on a day-to-day basis. Whatever judgement we may reach about Guesde, he remains a key figure without whom the birth and subsequent evolution of the French left and Marxism would be incomprehensible.

Beyond the Caricature

One line of criticism directed against Guesde came from the philosopher Louis Althusser and his students. In For Marx (1965), Althusser condemned what he saw as the “poverty” of French Marxism, which had long been incapable of producing a theory worthy of the name. Indeed, it may seem surprising that France produced no Marxist theorists of comparable stature to Karl Kautsky, Otto Bauer, Rosa Luxemburg, or Vladimir Lenin before 1914, in view of the country’s importance to Marx and its rich revolutionary history.

Jules Guesde played a central role in the history of French and European socialism.

Ten years after Althusser, Daniel Lindenberg directed some barbs at Guesde and his friends, accusing them of sterile dogmatism that had paved the way for the doctrinaire impasses of the French left. Lindenberg railed in particular against the Stalinism of the French Communist Party (PCF) and argued that there was no such thing as a distinctly French Marxism.

Another critical perspective on Guesde contrasts his record with that of Jaurès, presenting the former as the quintessential representative of the dark side of French socialism. In this framework, Jaurès embodied the humanist, staunchly republican socialist tradition, while Guesde was “revolutionary” in words but opportunist in deeds, operating with a narrow conception of the class struggle and unable to grasp the importance of the republican regime and the opportunities it offered for the workers’ movement.

However, this binary view of Guesde and Jaurès is a caricature. It cannot do justice to the complexity of the two men, let alone the political currents they represented.

The Nature of Guesdism

Let us begin by recognizing “Guesdism” as a pioneering and influential current of socialism in France. At first glance, we cannot see this movement as having been “national,” since it was above all the product of local bastions. These strongholds, which were sometimes very powerful, contrasted with entire regions where the supporters of Guesde had little presence.

Guesdism possessed a coherence that no other French socialist current could boast at the time.

We cannot say in deterministic fashion that one category of French workers was more likely to be Guesdist than others, and the way in which his Workers’ Party built itself varied from one context to another. In some cases, party militants saw the fight against clerical domination as a diversion from the class struggle, while in others they were in the vanguard of anticlericalism.

In spite of this diversity and pragmatism, Guesdism possessed a coherence that no other French socialist current could boast at the time. To call oneself a Guesdist, whatever differences there might be in the practice of any given locality, was to embrace a strong and specific political identity. Marxist vocabulary was a key element of that identity, with terms like “class struggle,” “exploitation,” and (more rarely) “dictatorship of the proletariat” used while making political arguments.

For a long time, socialists abroad thought of Guesde and his followers as the “real” French socialists. Christian Rakovsky, a leading figure in the Bolshevik Party after the October Revolution, met Guesde in Paris in 1892. He later recalled that Guesde made a strong impression on him:

I came to the French capital to get to know the man for whom the group of Russian and foreign revolutionary Marxists, inspired by [Georgi] Plekhanov, had a deep and genuine admiration. Along with Wilhelm Liebknecht, who was branded as a Frenchman by Bismarck’s reptilian press because of his internationalism, Jules Guesde was considered to be one of those who best embodied the aspirations of revolutionary and internationalist Marxism.

The Great Task

During Guesde’s lifetime, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels expressed more critical opinions on the man who had introduced Marxism to France. Yet Marx also believed in Guesde. A recently discovered letter reveals that he hoped Guesde would found a militant workers’ party that was independent of the bourgeoisie. At the time, Marx had not yet met Guesde:

No French refugee who has dealings with me could possibly doubt either the deep sympathy I feel for you or the great interest I take in your work. Militant socialism certainly has many supporters in France, but there are few who combine knowledge with courage and dedication as you do. . . . The great task for socialists in France is to organize an independent, militant workers’ party. This organization, which must not be confined to the cities, but must extend itself to the countryside, can only be achieved by means of propaganda and continuous struggle — an everyday struggle that always corresponds to the given conditions of the moment, to current necessities.

We should set these explicit sentences from Marx against a much better-known quote of his that is frequently quoted in discussions of Guesde. According to Engels, when speaking about those who called themselves Marxists in France, Marx exclaimed in annoyance that if this represented Marxism, “what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist.”

Guesde was the bearer of the Marxist tradition, who had rubbed shoulders with the master of ‘scientific socialism’ himself.

However, this line was directed above all at Charles Longuet and Marx’s son-in-law Paul Lafargue, rather than Guesde himself. To the end of his life, Guesde was the bearer of the Marxist tradition, who had rubbed shoulders with the master of “scientific socialism” himself. This gave him a strong sense of historical legitimacy that other socialists sorely lacked.

Popularizing Marxism

One of Marx’s objectives in making his ideas known was to use reliable intermediaries who were talented enough to pass on those ideas. This obviously involved the translation and publishing of his works. But there was another element that was decisive in the history of Marxism at the end of the nineteenth century: the popularization of Marxist theory in the form of summaries that might be short or substantial.

Aware of the difficulties involved in mastering volume one of Capital, Marx took a keen interest in attempts to simplify its meaning so that it could really penetrate the French labor movement. He expressed this aspiration several times to his correspondents. Shortly after Marx’s death, a book appeared by Gabriel Deville, who was a loyal Guesdist at the time, summarizing Capital and presenting the main principles of “scientific socialism.”

Aware of the difficulties involved in mastering volume one of Capital, Marx took a keen interest in attempts to simplify its meaning.

Deville’s summary is of purely historical interest in terms of its philosophical or theoretical merits. While it is clearly written, the book contains numerous intellectual shortcuts and omissions. Yet it was certainly the work that gave many cadres of the Workers’ Party a rudimentary grounding in Marx’s ideas, enabling them to unravel the workings of the capitalist system.

While it may seem incomplete and outdated to us today, it was probably a difficult enough book in itself to grapple with for many such militants. It was surely better to have them study Deville than circulate texts that nobody would read. This approach enabled socialist cadres to grasp some of Capital’s key concepts. As such, the criticisms directed at Guesde and his supporters by figures like Althusser from the vantage point of postwar France are anachronistic.

Practical Efficiency

Marx and Engels were looking for concrete political intermediaries in France. In Guesde and Lafargue, they found effective men whom they initially found quite reliable. In the same spirit, Engels continued to observe French political life closely after Marx’s death in 1883, even hoping for the swing of certain republican radicals such as Georges Clemenceau toward socialism.

Of course, his hopes in that case proved to be groundless. Clemenceau, having been appointed president of the Council in 1906, the equivalent of prime minister today, suppressed strikes and became the sworn enemy of the organized French labor movement. But Guesde had originally been a nonsocialist republican, who then went through an anarchist phase, so it wasn’t absurd to imagine other such figures evolving toward Marxism.

At a time when traditional political organizations are in a state of advanced decomposition, we can learn a lot from revisiting the origins of the first socialist currents. All the more so as certain features of Guesdism will remind us of later political currents: a lack of theoretical reflection can be accompanied by remarkable practical and organizational efficiency.

Bill aims to strip Supreme Court of ability to void legislation or strike down government decisions based on subjective idea of “reasonability.”

By Lauren Marcus, World Israel News

A bill aiming to restrict the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down legislation or decisions made by elected officials based upon “reasonability” is on the Knesset agenda for this week, Religious Zionism MK Simcha Rothman confirmed on Sunday morning.

Israel’s Supreme Court has long justified interfering in laws and government policies based on the so-called “reasonableness clause,” which states that the judiciary may unilaterally move to invalidate decisions it deems to fall outside of the scope of reasonability.

Supporters of judicial reform have noted that the nature of this clause is highly subjective, as what one person may consider unreasonable may be reasonable to someone else, and has no equivalent in any other judicial system in the world.

Rothman’s proposed bill will strip the Court of its ability to hold hearings on matters that are focused on the “reasonability” of government decisions or legislation made by elected officials.

However, the bill would allow the Court to continue to rule on the reasonableness of decisions made by unelected officials and bureaucrats within governmental institutions.

According to Hebrew-language media, the coalition hopes to pass the bill before the end of the Knesset’s summer session.

Since the current right-wing government took office in December 2022, the coalition has had little success in passing much of the reforms.

As of now, the only judicial reform-related bill passed by the coalition was a measure that prevented the Attorney General from declaring Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unfit to serve due to an alleged conflict of interest.

Some members of the right-wing coalition have warned that should judicial reform legislation remain stalled, there will be mass resignations from the government.

Rothman, who is one of the lead architects of the reform, has publicly said that a lack of progress regarding the reforms would lead to the collapse of the coalition.

The post Judicial reform: ‘Reasonableness clause’ bill back on Knesset agenda appeared first on World Israel News.

Billionaire Hollywood and former Israeli spy tells court he gave Netanyahu family lavish gifts including cigars and champagne.

By The Associated Press

Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan was testifying Sunday at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s corruption trial to answer questions about an alleged “supply line” of champagne and cigars funneled to the Israeli leader and his wife said to have been in exchange for help with Milchan’s personal and business needs.

Milchan, who appeared by videoconference from the English city of Brighton, near where he is based, is a key witness whose testimony is essential for prosecutors who are trying to prove that Netanyahu committed fraud and breach of trust in one of three cases brought against him.

Prosecutors hope Milchan’s testimony, which extends through this week and next, will paint a picture of plush favors granted to Netanyahu and his wife that allegedly spurred the Israeli leader to use his position of power to advance Milchan’s interests. The defense will try to lay out its case that Netanyahu wasn’t acting in Milchan’s personal interests and that the gifts were just friendly gestures.

Prosecution and defense lawyers are questioning Milchan in a hotel conference room in Brighton. While no journalists are allowed to be present there, Netanyahu’s wife Sara, on a private visit to Britain, will sit in.

Milchan’s testimony, expected to last six hours a day, is being aired in a Jerusalem courtroom for judges and other lawyers — who can also ask questions of him — and for journalists and other attendees to watch.

Netanyahu, who has attended some of the hearings during his trial, arrived to the courtroom shortly after testimony began, flanked by his security detail and aides. Milchan, who is not charged in the case, greeted him in Hebrew using Netanyahu’s nickname: “Shalom, Bibi!”

Israeli Channel 13 aired footage of Sara Netanyahu and Milchan, 78, walking separately up the stairs in the hotel. A screen was set up in the Jerusalem courtroom to air the testimony.

According to the indictment, Milchan, whose production credits include such hits as “Pretty Woman” and “12 Years a Slave,” gave Netanyahu and his wife boxes of cigars and crates of champagne over a period of several years that, along with jewelry, amounted to a value of nearly $200,000 — what the indictment describes as a “supply line” of lavish gifts.

The indictment accuses Netanyahu of using his influential perch to assist Milchan to secure a U.S. visa extension by drawing on his diplomatic contacts, among them former Secretary of State John Kerry. Prosecutors also accuse Netanyahu of working to push legislation that would have granted Milchan millions in tax breaks.

“Considering the many links between the defendant Netanyahu and Milchan, the defendant Netanyahu should have entirely avoided dealing with Milchan’s affairs,” the indictment says, adding that Netanyahu and Milchan, an Israeli citizen, have had ties since 1999.

Milchan is testifying in one of three cases being brought against Netanyahu. The other two, for which he is charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust, accuse Netanyahu of exchanging regulatory favors with powerful media moguls for more positive coverage.

Netanyahu denies wrongdoing, claiming he is the victim of a witch hunt orchestrated by a liberal media and a biased justice system.

Netanyahu’s legal woes have dogged him politically, putting his fitness to rule while on trial at the center of a political crisis that sent Israelis to the polls for five times in under four years.

They also have fueled accusations by critics that Netanyahu is pushing a contentious government plan to overhaul Israel’s judiciary as a way to escape the charges. Netanyahu denies those charges.

The trial, which began in 2020 and has still not heard from Netanyahu himself, has featured more than 40 prosecution witnesses, including some of Netanyahu’s closest former confidants who turned against the premier.

Witness accounts have shed light not only on the three cases but also revealed sensational details about Netanyahu’s character and his family’s reputation for living off the largesse of taxpayers and wealthy supporters. Milchan’s aide, Hadas Klein, testified last year that the family “loves gifts.”

The idea of a plea bargain has repeatedly surfaced, but prosecutors for now appear determined to see through the trial, despite reports last week that the judges warned them that the more serious crime of bribery will be hard to prove.

The post Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan testifies about ‘supply line’ of expensive gifts to Netanyahu family appeared first on World Israel News.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir demands police explain why collective punishment was permitted against residents of Israeli town.

By Batya Jerenberg, World Israel News

Right-wing activists and politicians fumed Saturday night over what they called a “siege” laid against the Jewish village of Ateret by the IDF after some local Jews rioted in a nearby Arab village earlier that day.

“There’s a blockade here already for long hours,” said lawyer Nati Rom of the Honenu legal aid organization that helps nationalist Jews arrested by the authorities. “The Benjamin Region brigade commander is standing at the entrance, with security forces, the Shabak, with masked faces, are not allowing anyone in or out without checking each car very carefully, and they’re making mass arrests.”

“This is collective punishment that we didn’t see when we asked, for example, in the murderers’ village of Al Muayar, after more than 20 roadside bombs, that they blockade it.”

“They told us ‘We don’t have permission from the political echelon, the commanding officer doesn’t allow it.’ But here, there’s no problem to have collective punishment…. This can’t go on, it’s illegal, it must be stopped immediately,” he added.

As the police were also on the scene, sources close to National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said that the minister made it clear to the police chief and commander of the Judea and Samaria region that “he opposes all law-breaking, but it is still forbidden to punish an entire group. Just as it was not possible to close down [Jerusalem Arab neighborhood and hotbed of terrorists] Issawiya, it’s not clear why it was possible to do so in Ateret.”

Dozens of extreme right-wingers had clashed over the Sabbath with Palestinians near Umm Safa, a few kilometers from Ateret, then entered the village and set at least two houses and several vehicles  on fire.

Israel’s top security echelon had condemned the violence, with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant saying that he had given “a clear directive to our troops to maintain order and stability, and to prevent acts of violence perpetrated by civilians in the area.”

In a joint statement, IDF chief of staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, police chief Kobi Shabtai and Shabak head Ronen Bar said that the recent “violent attacks” against “innocent Palestinians” should be considered “in every way, nationalist terrorism, and we are obliged to fight them.”

Such violence, they maintained, “increases Palestinian terrorism and harms the State of Israel and the international legitimacy of Israel’s security forces to fight Palestinian terrorism.”

Dozens of mostly youthful Jews had also rampaged in a few Arab villages immediately following the burial Wednesday of the two of the four civilians, two of them minors, who had been murdered in a Palestinian terror attack in Eli the previous day.

Both religious and political leaders of the settler movement joined the condemnation while blasting those who paint all those who live in Judea and Samaria as violent.

Rabbi Elyakim Levanon, the Chief Rabbi of Samaria, said Sunday, “I protest the haste with which the heads of the security establishment condemned the settlers, and my words are especially directed at the media, which was quick to blame the ‘settlers.’ If a group of lawbreakers chooses to carry out prohibited actions, both according to the Torah and all human morality, this does not mean that the heroic settlers should be tarnished even an iota.”

He praised the residents of the region “who live under the shadow of constant terror and continue bravely to live regular lives, driving on the roads despite the shootings, Molotov cocktails, rocks and roadblocks they experience.”

His words echoed those of Gush Etzion Regional Council head and Yesha Council chairman Shlomo Ne’eman Saturday, who said, “For more than a year, terrorism has been rampant in our streets and most recently has been increasing, and has reached a peak…. In this reality, a small handful of Jews, out of desperation and frustration, have taken the law into their own hands. We should not mimic our barbarous enemy, go wild, and do indiscriminate harm. We have what the terrorists and their supporters don’t have – a sense of humanity.”

“The residents of Judea and Samaria are not violent and don’t take the law into their own hands,” he continued. “And those who are criminals, should be dealt with to the full extent of the law.”

The post Settlers fume over IDF ‘siege’ of their town after Israeli protesters riot in Arab village appeared first on World Israel News.

Tragedy struck in Saginaw, Michigan on Friday night, as two people were killed and fifteen more were injured in a shooting that occurred at a large street party.

The event had been previously advertised on social media, with the estimated attendance ranging from 300 to 500 people. Local police agencies had tried to disperse the crowd at different locations throughout the evening but were unsuccessful.

The deceased were a 19-year-old male and a 51-year-old female, according to Michigan State Police. It is believed that the shooting started following a fight between some of the attendees, and that afterwards others began firing into the crowd. Many of the injured were also hit by fleeing cars. Five different calibers of weapons were used in the shooting.

The victims were transported to nearby hospitals for medical treatment, though their conditions remain unknown. There are currently no suspects in custody and no threat to the public. The investigation into the shooting is ongoing, and anyone with information is encouraged to contact Saginaw Major Case Unit at 989-759-1605, or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-422-5245.