Daniel Imperato – Official Website
Daniel Imperato For President 2024
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post Dr. Rosalie Bertell: Zero Tolerance for the Destructive Power of War appeared first on Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post Modern Iran’s Advanced Information and Communication Technology appeared first on Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post Uranium Dossier. ”Yugoslav Scenario” appeared first on Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to …
The post The U.S.’s ‘Democratic’ Model for Dictatorships appeared first on Global Research.
The Movement and the Madman, recently broadcast on PBS as part of its American Experience series, claims that anti-war protests in 1969, called “The Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam,” prevented President Nixon from escalating the Vietnam War, including nukes. The claim is dubious though the story is fascinating.
Nixon was elected in 1968 wanting honorably to end the U.S. war in Vietnam, knowing it had destroyed his predecessor and deeply divided the nation. The PBS documentary recalls Nixon contrived a “madman” theory about himself that would scare North Vietnam and their Soviet patrons into concessions. Nixon, banking on his reputation as a fervid anti-communist, wanted these adversaries to think he was capable of anything.
These “madman” warnings would potentially be followed by Operation Duck Hook, a planned escalation against North Vietnam that included increased saturation bombing, mining harbors, destroying dikes, targeting bridges between North Vietnam and China, and potentially nuclear weapons against economic and political targets.
Duck Hook was opposed by the Secretaries of Defense and State, and ultimately by National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger. Nixon abandoned it by the end of 1969. The documentary credits the massive anti-war protests mobilization for cancelling Duck Hook.
Nixon was very conscious of the protests even while publicly insisting they would have no influence on him. But the documentary likely overdramatizes the role of the protests, in which students and religious activists like Yale Chaplain William Sloane Coffin were especially prominent. Reinhold Niebuhr even attached his name to The Moratorium.
People like Coffin and Niebuhr, much less the student protesters, were not Nixon’s constituency, of course. He expected and disdained their opposition. But middle America was increasingly impatient with the war. There was also little evidence that much of Duck Hook would be militarily decisive. Blasting the dikes potentially would kill hundreds of thousands of North Vietnamese, as would nuclear weapons, neither of which was politically palatable.
Nixon had hoped that Kissinger’s warning about the “madman” to the North Vietnamese at the secret Paris negotiations, and to Soviet Ambassador Dobrynin, would suffice. But neither was evidently persuaded. The North Vietnamese were confident of their stoic ability to absorb whatever destruction America could unleash. And the Soviets knew Nixon too well to believe he was seriously a madman. The “madman” gambit was probably mostly a psychological exercise in Nixon’s own head. The documentary quotes a Nixon aide saying he disbelieved his boss was capable of truly following through on the mass destruction that he threatened.
The empty threats recalled a warning by Eisenhower, under whom Nixon served as vice president, to his young grandson who suggested threatening North Vietnam with nukes: Don’t ever threaten what you’re unwilling to carry out. Nixon did not heed this insight.
Big threats about Operation Duck Hook gave way to Operation Giant Lance, in which Nixon dispatched nuclear armed B-52s to patrol the Arctic Circle. The operation was kept secret from the public and was designed for detection by the Soviets, who were supposed to be intimidated. But in fact, they were not, and there was little to no impact on Soviet support for North Vietnam.
The documentary credits The Moratorium with blocking Operation Duck Hook, with Operation Giant Lance a frightening postscript. It laments the tragedy of Nixon continuing the war until 1972, portraying him as indifferent to the human suffering. Nixon could be caustic in his private trash talk. But these claims are superficial and unfair.
His bluffs and threats having failed, Nixon settled into a slow Vietnamization of the war, which withdrew U.S. troops while strengthening South Vietnam forces. Nearly all U.S. forces were out by 1972, by which time a peace accord was finally reached with the North Vietnamese after Nixon’s landslide reelection. Nixon hoped South Vietnam could survive, even though the accord left North Vietnamese troops inside South Vietnam. Kissinger more coldly only expected a decent interval between U.S. withdrawal and South Vietnam’s fall.
Both Nixon and Kissinger believed that America’s Cold War credibility required the U.S. not to suddenly abandon its southeast Asian allies to Soviet-aligned communist forces. From their perspective, the antiwar movement only prolonged the war by giving hope to North Vietnam that America would surrender and withdraw without any meaningful concessions by North Vietnam.
The Movement and the Madman faults Nixon and Kissinger for needlessly prolonging the war without considering that North Vietnam, by refusing any concessions on its demand to control South Vietnam, also prolonged the war. This intransigence cost North and South Vietnam hundreds of thousands of lives.
Also absent from the PBS documentary is any sympathy for South Vietnam, most of whose people did not want control by communist North Vietnam. Nixon, for all his coarseness, felt a genuine moral obligation to South Vietnam. He also feared the global strategic consequences of direct U.S. military defeat.
The documentary faults Nixon’s rallying of pro-war opinion against The Moratorium, especially with his 1969 “Silent Majority” speech. In that broadcast, he recalled that the communist takeover in North Vietnam had resulted in the murder of “more than 50,000 people and hundreds of thousands more died in slave labor camps.” He noted a more recent communist foray into the South Vietnamese town of Hue had resulted in 3,000 civilians “clubbed, shot to death, and buried in mass graves.” Sudden American withdrawal meant the “these atrocities of Hue would become the nightmare of the entire nation-and particularly for the million and a half Catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam when the Communists took over in the North.”
Even more importantly, Nixon warned: “For the United States, this first defeat in our Nation’s history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership, not only in Asia but throughout the world.”
Nixon’s speech directly responded to The Moratorium, one of whose largest protests was in San Francisco:
In San Francisco a few weeks ago, I saw demonstrators carrying signs reading: “Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home.” Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.
And Nixon masterfully concluded: “Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that.”
The Movement and the Madman mocks the support for Nixon’s speech that his administration drummed up. But polls evince that his speech was effective. Americans did not want to lose a war, and they, like Nixon, did not want to abandon allies to destruction.
The Moratorium, in contrast, was indifferent to the consequences of communist conquest in southeast Asia, which did indeed result in the mass murder of hundreds of thousands, especially in Cambodia, amid torture, mass incarceration, and totalitarian imposition, provoking a refugee crisis as hundreds of thousands fled, often at risk of their lives on the seas.
In the end, America could not save southeast Asia from communism. Attempting to do so, especially with hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground troops, may have been calamitously unwise. But it was not, as the Moratorium and PBS documentary insist, wicked.
The Movement and the Madman celebrates The Moratorium’s protestors. But they were merely actors in a wider and complex tragedy laced with good intentions, hubris, and confusion on all sides. Reinhold Niebuhr, even though he endorsed The Moratorium, would recognize the nuances that this documentary chose to ignore.
The post PBS’s “The Movement & The Madman” appeared first on Providence.
The family of a 15-year-old high school sophomore, Christopher DiPrima, has announced that he passed away due to a ‘freak accident at a ski resort in New Hampshire.
The incident occurred Saturday night at Pats Peak Ski Area in Henniker, 90 miles north of East Boston.
He was skiing with his family, including his cousin Steven Gingras, on the Duster ski trail at Pats Peak Ski Area when the tragedy occurred at approximately 6:35 p.m.
Gingras reported that Christopher had hit a bump, landed incorrectly, and complained of chest pains before his death. He had only begun skiing last year and was familiar with the trail. However, the cause of his death remains unknown.
Christopher was taken to the base area for a rescue squad and then transported to Concord Hospital, where he sadly passed away.
Christopher was a student at Excel Academy Charter High School in Boston and had previously graduated from Excel Academy Greenway. The school posted a tribute on their Facebook page stating, “Christopher was a kind and caring person who brought joy to everyone he met. He will be truly missed.”
The General Manager of Pats Peak, Kris Blomback, offered sympathies to Christopher’s family during this difficult time.
Those who knew Christopher described him as intelligent and a film fanatic with a newfound interest in skiing and a love for technology. Steven Gingras had a message to the public when speaking to the media, to not take for granted their time with their loved ones.
Narendra Modi waves to the supporters during a public rally in Ahmedabad, India. (Atul Loke / Getty Images)
In 2022, sixteen academics based at the University of Melbourne resigned from their posts at the Australia India Institute, citing interference from the Indian High Commission. The complaint wasn’t just about Indian authorities themselves — for they also cited a lack of support from their own university authorities in protecting academic freedom.
Over in Canada, the Indian High Commission pressed the organizers of a student film festival sponsored by Toronto Metropolitan University to remove a documentary from the program because it hurt the sentiments of Hindus. The sponsoring faculty member and university administrators capitulated to the pressure, censoring the student’s work.
Again last year, there were suspicions of similar interventions when the University of Chicago withdrew an invitation for the head of Amnesty International India, Aakar Patel, to deliver a lecture on campus. He tweeted “[I] asked if someone close to the govt of [I]ndia had pressured them. [N]o response yet.” His passport was then confiscated by government authorities, and he was prevented from leaving India to deliver other invited lectures at US universities.
In India itself, attacks on academic freedom and government repression of students and faculty have increased dramatically since Narendra Modi’s rise to power in 2014. There has been a rash of government policies targeting academics who refuse to promote — never mind oppose — Hindu nationalism in the classroom and in their research. New “anti-terror” legislation has brought rising numbers of arrests of academics and students.
Student organizations linked to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) not only openly hurl threats and abuses at academics researchers, but have attacked faculty members as well. In the most serious cases, scholars on the Left who have opposed the extremist ideology of Hindutva have been murdered. Studies of poverty, caste discrimination, women’s rights, Dalit politics, and histories of Muslims and Christians are viewed as direct threats to a glorious Hindu history, and increasingly prohibited.
In the midst of this academic landscape, on January 5, the University Grants Commission (UGC) in India unveiled its plan to allow foreign universities and institutions to establish campuses in India. According to the UGC, any university listed in the top 500 of global rankings is open to apply through a formal process. As university administrators and financial officers start modeling price/cost ratios for opening campuses in India, it’s vital to keep in mind that India today is experiencing the most profound and troubling education crisis in its history, one closely tied to the government’s ever more repressive policies — and the broader democratic backsliding they represent.
Indeed, according to the V-Dem Institute, one of the leading measures of democracy, India now ranks in the bottom 10-20 percent on its Academic Freedom Index.
To cite only the most recent example, in January, the government deployed emergency powers to ban the recently aired BBC documentary India: The Modi Question because of its criticism of the prime minister’s role in the infamous 2002 Gujarat riots; when students at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi organized a screening of the film on campus, the university administration cut the electricity, and the students were attacked by thugs associated with the Hindu right. At other campuses, students were arrested or suspended for watching it.
India has seen a rash of government policies targeting academics who refuse to promote — never mind oppose — Hindu nationalism in the classroom and in their research.
The government’s long-term plan clearly seems to be the replacement of all administrators and academics who object to Hindutva. The other tactic is to shut down institutions, as demonstrated in the case of the prestigious Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi. The UGC has already eliminated topics at universities that are considered “anti-national” and “seditious.” Syllabuses are censored to remove histories, texts, and ideas that do not promote Hindutva. More broadly, academics, journalists, filmmakers, comedians, and NGOs have been warned that they would be the new targets of the state if they did not celebrate the greatness of Hindus.
We have already seen how direct attacks, censorship, and even expulsion of foreign academics occurred without any pushback from New York University (NYU) and other university administrations in China and the Persian Gulf, prompting universities to act like “careful guests” afraid to offend their hosts’ sensibilities. At NYU Shanghai, to take one example, there is a specific agreement to respect the laws of the host country, which in China’s case would clearly include prohibiting criticism of the government or conducting research on topics deemed too sensitive.
Further, in 2017 the United Arab Emirates denied visas to two NYU scholars who were invited to teach at the university’s Abu Dhabi campus; thereby, causing a furor within the US academy about academic freedom and censorship. There is little reason to imagine universities would behave differently in India, which would only further legitimize and reinforce such policies, to the detriment of students and the academic community alike. In these circumstances, opening a campus in India would be tantamount to giving a thumbs up to large-scale government-imposed censorship in the world’s most populous country.
The presence of elite US universities will only legitimize the ongoing crackdowns in higher education at a time when India now views its civil society as an “internal enemy.” The new security and military agreements between the United States and India will also provide a cover for increased violence and restrictions on free expression, peaceful assembly, and other basic rights guaranteed by India’s constitution. US universities’ involvement will legitimize increasingly aggressive policing of the speech and activities of “overseas” academics conducting research on India, as they are already regularly monitored and even threatened.
The paradigm for this dynamic is the US-Israel relationship, where an increasingly close military, economic, and political partnership emboldened the Israeli government over several decades to intensify its repression of Palestinians, deepen its occupation and settlement program, and gradually wear away whatever democratic protections were previously the norm at least for Jewish citizens.
Indeed, the centrality of higher education and research to the US-Israel relationship made it a focus of the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, precisely because of how powerfully the normalization of academic collaboration with Israel has functioned to deflect criticism of systematic Israeli human rights abuses, censorship, and violations of academic freedom, both within Israel and in Occupied Territories.
So-called “Israel supporters” have systematically worked to deny jobs, fellowships, and even tenure to critics of the government’s policies. The strong-arm tactics that led Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government to rescind the invitation to former Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth to take up a prestigious fellowship, and the donor-led pressure that successfully blocked the hiring of renowned human rights scholar Valentina Azarova as director of the University of Toronto’s International Human Rights Program are just the most recent high profile examples.
Most recently, the Supreme Court has let stand an Arkansas law penalizing BDS supporters, despite it being a blatant free speech violation. Not surprisingly, corporations are already pressing states to enact similar anti-boycott laws against the long-cherished citizen-boycott tactics used to pressure corporations to stop environmental and other harmful practices.
There is little doubt that India hopes to replicate the success of Israel in creating a ‘Palestine exception to free speech’ on campuses and in the public sphere more broadly.
There is little doubt that India hopes to replicate the success of Israel and its supporters in the United States, Canada, and Europe in creating a “Palestine exception to free speech” on campuses and in the public sphere more broadly. When Caltech, Chicago, Columbia, Duke, Georgetown, MIT, Princeton, and a dozen state schools all have collaborative agreements with Israeli universities, most of them involving STEM fields, that buys a lot of good will and support from academia at large, regardless of Israel’s policies toward Palestinians across the “Green Line” where few scholars ever venture.
The new clarion call for the Hindu right is to declare all critics of the Indian government policies as “Hinduphobic.” As India’s ambassador to the UN noted in 2022, Hinduphobia needed to be condemned in line with antisemitism as a form of religious hatred. Indian leaders have looked to the Jewish community as a model for organization since the beginning of this century, while leaders of both diaspora communities in the United States have reached out to each other in recent years to increase cooperation at the communal and, even more important, political levels, seeing their current or ancestral homelands as sharing similar military, strategic, and economic interests that can be bolstered by a united front against critics.
Already, during Modi’s tenure the India-Israel relationship has become increasingly close at the economic as well as security levels. That New Delhi will leverage its relationship with Washington and Tel Aviv to implement ever more repressive policies is no longer supposition; the only question is how successful it will be in doing so. Tellingly, however, the Biden administration has thus far refrained from commenting on the changing landscape facing India’s civil society.
In this context, opening American campuses in India will not just increase the prevalence of dangerous policies there, but further erode academic freedom in the United States. The question is ultimately whether the corporatized bottom line at American universities, which has already done so much harm to higher education at home, will continue to sacrifice academic freedom globally in the quest for ever more revenue.
Governor Hochul’s proposed charter cap raise could mean the creation of close to 320 additional charter schools statewide. (Chris Hondros / Getty Images)
Last year, centrist New York governor Kathy Hochul used state budget negotiations to push through a massive giveaway of public funds for the construction of a new Buffalo Bills stadium in her hometown. With this year’s budget process — apparently unfazed by the Democratic state legislature’s embarrassing rejection of her nominee for chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals — Hochul is again pushing conservative priorities. This time, that includes advancing the school privatization movement.
Hochul’s preliminary $227 billion state budget proposal for the fiscal year 2024, unveiled on February 1, contains a proposal to lift the statewide cap on privately run charter schools. This would create licenses for more than eighty new charters to operate in the state; it would also revive close to two dozen “zombie” charters, charter schools that had previously failed. Factoring in a loophole in state law that allows each corporate charter to operate an elementary, middle, and high school, the charter cap raise could mean the creation of close to 320 additional charter schools statewide.
Creating more privately run yet publicly funded charter schools was a terrible idea under former NYC mayor and “school choice” evangelist Michael Bloomberg, and it’s even more indefensible today.
Under the current cap, New York has about 460 charter schools operating statewide, with just under 300 of those in New York City alone. Already about 14 percent of New York City’s one million students attend corporate charters. (This pales in comparison to localities such as Buffalo, where 25 percent of students are in charters; the Buffalo school board recently reached a unanimous decision not to approve more charter licenses, citing the oversaturation of the school system.) The governor’s plan would also eliminate New York City’s local cap on charters permitted to operate within the five boroughs.
Advocates for the city’s public school system fear this means the bulk of New York State’s new charters would open within city limits, creating more competition for fewer students. Adding new privately run charter schools to an already oversaturated educational landscape would be a disaster for New York City’s public school students and working-class families.
The origins of the school choice movement can be traced to the neoliberal theories of the Chicago School economists of the 1950s, including Milton Friedman. Using the language of choice, supporters of publicly funded charter schools proposed ways of limiting the role of government in schooling. These efforts took advantage of the genuine concerns of public school parents related to racial segregation in the public school system and concentrated urban poverty.
Parents’ desire to escape underfunded and overpopulated public schools is understandable to this day. But corporate education reform has proven to be an abject failure for charter school students, especially those from the most vulnerable families. The school choice movement has instead been a vehicle for the further privatization of public goods and the weakening of organized labor. (Most charter schools are nonunion, which is a big reason why their advocates love them.)
Charter schools, which are typically nonunion and subject to less oversight than regular public schools, systematically drain resources from the public school system. Though privately run, charter schools receive public funding through a voucher system, which allows per-pupil funds to follow students to the charters where they enroll. (They also benefit from additional private funding via their corporate backers.)
Traditional public schools therefore lose tax dollars and, sometimes more important, space to their corporate rivals. Many charters are colocated in already overcrowded public school buildings that house multiple schools, with the Department of Education footing the rent. Some charters with campuses in separate buildings even charge rent to public schools that rely on the utilization of these spaces.
Corporate charter schools are also notorious for what’s known as “creaming”: selecting for enrollment only the students they deem most desirable, then dumping those who don’t make the cut back into the public school system that is legally obligated to absorb them. The students who aren’t given seats tend to be the most vulnerable, especially English-language learners and those with the most acute special needs. These kids then end up back in progressively more crowded and underfunded public schools. It’s a vicious cycle: charter schools drain money and space from traditional public schools and then use the dire state of those schools to argue for diverting even more resources to charters.
The governor’s budget proposal includes raising spending on public education, with around $34.5 billion to be allocated for school districts, amounting to about a 4.5 percent increase in per-pupil funding. This represents a 10 percent increase in state funding compared with the previous budget. But which schools and students will actually benefit from this increase in funding? According to the Alliance for Quality Education, an advocacy group for traditional public education, during the 2022–23 school year, New York City public schools received a $349 million increase in state aid. A staggering $200 million of that additional funding went to cover the increasing costs of privately run charter schools. In effect, 57 percent of the increased state education aid to the city went to only 14 percent of its students. If the cap is raised, we can expect an even more lopsided sum to end up in private hands.
Charter advocates point to the 9 percent drop in public school enrollment since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as proof that New Yorkers prefer charter schools. This talking point conveniently omits the fact that, while charters have grown 8 percent over the same time period, this is only because of grade-level expansions at existing schools. Charters that were already offering K–12 education have seen their enrollment shrink across the board by around 58 percent. Charters only continue to grow by siphoning students and funding from the traditional public system — showing why it is imperative that the cap remain in place.
Though Hochul’s desires are clear, the charter school cap can only be raised if approved by the state assembly and senate. Our representatives must make it clear to Governor Hochul what New Yorkers have known for years, that the charter school experiment has been a failure, and that we demand a robustly funded public school system that delivers transparency, accountability, and quality education for all.
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) on mass shootings: “We’re not going to fix it.” (Brennan Murphy / Twitter)
“We’re not going to fix it.”
That was Tennessee Republican congressman Tim Burchett’s surprisingly honest response when reporters asked him about the recent school shooting in Nashville, a couple hours west of his district. When asked if he was concerned for his own school-age daughter’s safety, Burchett responded no — because she is homeschooled.
“Some people don’t have that option and frankly, some people don’t need to do it. I mean, they don’t have to. It just suited our needs much better,” he continued.
One definition of a gaffe is a politician accidentally telling the truth. In a place with a saner political culture, Burchett’s comments might have qualified. But I suppose it’s only a gaffe if anyone cares. Instead, faced once again with the overwhelming horror of children murdered in their classrooms, the country’s political class shrugs.
We’ve seen this all countless times before. Republicans simply refuse to act. (In fact, they are set to make it even easier to get a hold of guns without any oversight, regulation, or training.) Joe Biden and Democrats claim to be helpless. Self-styled moral authorities exhort them to do better. I am certainly not immune to this cycle of futility. Except for the part about Burchett, this article could have been written by any of a thousand columnists at almost any point in the last twenty years.
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) on school shootings:
“We’re not gonna fix it.” pic.twitter.com/yZZCbJleUA
— Brennan Murphy (@brenonade) March 28, 2023
For the rest of the country, the victims’ unspeakable pain is a rerun of the world’s shittiest TV show, where we know everything that’s going to happen even though we can’t remember anything.
Without looking it up, can you remember where the last mass murder to make the news before Nashville took place? How many people died? Any of their names?
It is commonplace now to blame the gun industry for the current state of affairs; or the Republican Party who serves it; or the Democratic Party that has tried nothing and is all out of ideas. And all of that is justified. It’s also true that the country’s lax gun laws, its glorification of violence and militarism, and its pervasive sense of despair is unique among liberal democracies.
But to me, what’s notable about Burchett’s six words is how apt they are — not just when it comes to shootings but to everything. Pick any of the existential or even the merely consequential issues humanity faces that the United States government is in a unique position to ameliorate. For every single issue, the most accurate thing you could say is exactly what Burchett said: we’re not going to fix it.
The only things the Right does with any real enthusiasm are advance the interests of the billionaire class and find new scapegoats to try to explain away why everything keeps getting worse for everyone else. The only thing that really gets most Democrats going, meanwhile, is undermining the few politicians in their ranks who are serious about breaking the country’s grim stalemate.
As for America’s kids, it’s not just the risk of getting murdered at school endangering them. Kids have been dying from suicide, overdose, and homicide of all types in dramatically higher numbers over the last decade and a half. The number of kids hospitalized for suicidal behavior has more than doubled in the last decade.
We can’t look at these tragic facts divorced from the country’s political context. Pick your issue, and we’re not going to fix it: apocalyptic climate change; crushing student debt; depressed real wages at dead-end jobs; draconian welfare requirements that make it very hard for poor parents to spend time with their children; constant cuts to schools and libraries, even as curricula become more overbearing and full of transparent propaganda; a health care system that you can never really be sure will help you, and that can easily bankrupt you even when you have insurance; a law enforcement culture of unaccountable murder; a recent president accused many times of sexual assault and rape with seemingly no impact on his popularity; a corporate and governmental response to a deadly pandemic that swung dramatically back and forth from merely half-hearted to entirely reckless. It must be very difficult to grow up in this environment and believe that anyone with any influence in the world gives a damn about you.
If there is any hope to be had, it is not in the capitalist status quo but in the increasing number of younger people who reject it and support socialism instead. Maybe before things can get better, we have to stop pretending everything is okay.
Dear Readers,
We publish pieces by a wide variety of contributors including journalists, scholars, political analysts, historians, ex-military and intelligence personnel, scientists, and environmental experts among others. The publications are not selected in the interest of pushing a specific narrative …
The post Global Research Donation Drive appeared first on Global Research.