For some reason
that is thought to be politically advantageous, 60 year
anniversaries of past events are being celebrated all
over the world. Why? What does 60 years signify, that 59
were not good for? Or even one, or two ?
May
25, 2004: Maxime Rodinson, a
specialist on the Arab world and an anti-Zionist
thinker, died at 89 in Marseille. The author of
numerous works on the history of Islam, Rodinson,
who was Jewish, also published major anti-Zionist
polemics, including Israel and the Arab
Refusal, Israel: A Colonial Settler
State and Jewish People or Jewish
Problem. Rodinson was born in Paris and,
apart from a short period as a teacher in
Lebanon, spent his life in France.
|
May 31, 2001: Faisal
Husseini, a top PLO official who had a leading
role in the launching of the peace process with
Israel and was a longtime campaigner for
Palestinian claims in Jerusalem, died Thursday of
a heart attack. He was 60. He died in a hotel
room in Kuwait. He was considered by many as the
best man to be the new president of Palestine. |
My experience of English speaking people, of which I am
one, has informed me that they are never happier than
looking back into space and populating it with their
memories and renovations of moral purpose.
Two years ago, was it, the governments started
apologising for massacres and historical crimes, now we
are supposed to have entered a new moral juncture where
the victim has to be thrust into the past under the
heaviest weights that can be found. Now not only it seems
possible that insecure humans can never satisfy their
shame and guilt without making themselves more and more
ridiculous, but they also hunger for new victims, new
crimes.At the present time during this prolonged period
of crisis extending, amid different violations of human
life on this planet; war is unleashed by governments in
the interest, not only of an imaginary rational,"War
on Terror", but we have to realise there is also a
demographic war. The rich in their hideouts believe that
the world's huge population is a terrible threat to their
existence.
Any responsible government's incompetence to solve social
problems is perhaps occurring because there are too many
of us and too few of them ?! In addition there are people
everywhere refusing to accept the nomad, the refugee; and
just as the British once hounded their government to stop
the Irish immigrant workforce who constructed both road
and railtracks in that country, they are at it again
against the legal immigration of European workforces.
These people have a craven court of propagandists, the
BBC and the media.
Anarchists
Against the Wall in PalestineBefore his
arrest Johan Persson from Sweden explained why he
was in a barrel on the route of the
annexation wall " It is the responsibility
of the international community to enforce
international law. Since our governments and the
UN are allowing Israel to continue committing war
crimes with impunity it has become the
responsibility of citizens like myself to do what
we can to stop them" |
On another tack
altogether, I ask is there a considerable and growing
population aware and alert to the fact that as Europeans
we now deserve to have access to the best in European
news, literature and film, art and philosophy. Infact it
appears that the governments of England and Ireland are
utterly devoid of any intelligent responsibility toward
their citizens, and that they have something to hide, and
something to push : - a political agenda.
In early May the
Guardian published the facts about a huge radioactive
leak at Sellafield that happened at the end of April -
The Handstand added this instantly to its STOPPRESS page.
Looking through the news media of several kinds there was
no other information on this matter, and none from the
BBC. In addition the information in the Handstand
navigation column was removed by outside interference.
The news on the relevant page overwhelmed the nuclear
paragraphs, and someone with the power to interfere sat
back content.
Below is one of John Pilger's finest pieces on Media
Ommissions, Propaganda, and other devices for
mis-information.And below that I repeat the Guardian
article in reference to Sellafield. In addition I am
pleased to have new material of interest, several
excessively long drafts which I hope readers will print
out to read and keep. A Philosophy page on Judaism by
Professor Ariella Atzmon and the massive page on the
evolution of Democracy that occurred under Robespierre
and St.Just during the French Revolution, (excerpts from
a book that warns us of the tangled knot that
"democracy" can never hope to undo, the
corruption that is inevitable despite the reins of
justice.) Warnings that have been born out in present
time because money income has become the only real
ambition or motivation and the constand anxiety of
mankind. We must now, subject to commercial interests
live in this New Age as a simulcra of the parasites,
without our centuries' old self- resources and
independence, everyone in "Western" society and
the world, that is expected to imitate us, from the
laughably "sovereign" kings and queens, (of
whom all but the Irish in the EU are the subjects) to the
poor man or woman begging on the street.
Jocelyn Braddell, editor
Let's face it - the state
has lost its mind
The media coverage of this past election was a pastiche.
Our right to know what our rulers are doing to people the
world over is being lost in the new propaganda consensus.
By John Pilger
05/12/05 "New Statesman"
- - In 1987, the sociologist Alex Carey, a second Orwell
in his prophesies, wrote "Managing Public Opinion:
the corporate offensive". He described how in the
United States "great progress [had been] made
towards the ideal of a propaganda-managed
democracy", whose principal aim was to identify a
rapacious business state "with every cherished human
value". The power and meaning of true democracy, of
the franchise itself, would be "transferred" to
the propaganda of advertising, public relations and
corporate-run news. This "model of ideological
control", he predicted, would be adopted by other
countries, such as Britain.
To many who work conscientiously in the media, this will
sound alarmist; it is not like that in Britain, they will
say. Ask them about censorship by omission or the
promotion of business ideology and war propaganda as
news, a promotion both subtle and crude, and their
defensive response will be that no one ever instructed
them to follow any line: no one ever said not to question
the Prime Minister about the horror he had helped to
inflict on Iraq: his epic criminality. "Blair always
enjoys his interviews with Paxo," says Roger Mosey,
the head of BBC Television News, without a hint of irony.
Blair should enjoy them; he is always spared the
imperious bombast that is now a pastiche and kept mostly
for official demons. "Watch George Galloway clash
with Jeremy Paxman," says the BBC News homepage like
a circus barker. Once under the big top of Newsnight, you
get the usual set-up: a nonsensical question about
whether or not Galloway was "proud of having got rid
of one of the few black women in parliament",
followed by mockery of the very idea that his opponent,
an unabashed Blairite warmonger, should account for the
deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people.
Seven years ago, when Denis Halliday, one of the United
Nations' most respected humanitarian aid directors,
resigned from his post in Iraq in protest at the
Anglo-American-led embargo, calling it "an act of
genocide", he was given the Paxo treatment.
"Aren't you just an apologist for Saddam
Hussein?" he was mock-asked. The following year,
Unicef revealed that the embargo had killed half a
million Iraqi children. As for East Timor, a triumph of
the British arms trade and Robin Cook's
"ethical" foreign policy, the presence of
British Hawk jets was "not proved", declared
Paxo, parroting a Foreign Office lie. (A few months
later, Cook came clean.) Today, napalm is used in Iraq,
but the armed forces minister is allowed to pretend that
it isn't. Israel's weapons of mass destruction are
"dangerous in the extreme", says the former
head of the US Strategic Command, but that is a permanent
taboo.
In the Guardian of 9 May, famous journalists and their
executives were asked to reflect on the election
campaign. Almost all agreed that it had been
"boring" and "lacked passion" and
"never really caught fire". Mosey complained
that it had been "very hard to reach out to people
who are disengaged". Again, irony was absent, as if
the BBC's obsequiousness to the "consensus of
propaganda", as Alex Carey called it, had nothing to
do with people's disengagement or with the duty of
journalists to engage the public, let alone tell them
things they had a right to know.
AN INTERESTING
LETTER TO THE PRESS: The article "British
election may serve to redefine war options
"(May5) is entirely right to draw attention
to the broader government implications of the
decision to embark on a war in Iraq, because
central to the process by which the British came
to find themselves committed to the war was a
ROYAL PREROGATIVE, and the abuse of it by an
Executive in England. This is the power that for
centuries has enabled kings and queens of England
to wage war without the full and proper authority
of a British Parliament, and all that has
happened in recent years is that the potential
for abuse that the prerogative presents has
passed from one address in London to another.
Ricard Ede,Liverpool |
It is this right-to-know that is being lost behind a
wilful illusion. Since the cry "freedom of the
press" was first heard roughly 500 years ago, when
Wynkyn de Worde set up Caxton's old printing press in the
yard of St Bride's Church, off Fleet Street, there has
never been more information or media in the
"mainstream", yet most of it is now repetitive
and profoundly ideological, captive to the insidious
system that Carey described.
Omission is how it works. Between 1 and 15 April, the
Media Tenor Institute analysed the content of television
evening news. Foreign politics, including Iraq, accounted
for less than 2 per cent. Search the post-election
comments of the most important people in journalism for
anything about the greatest political scandal in memory -
the unprovoked bloodbath in Iraq - and you will find
nothing. The Goldsmith affair was an aberration, forced
on to the election agenda not by a journalist but by an
insider; and no connection was then made with the
suffering and grief in Iraq.
In the middle of the election campaign, Dr Les Roberts
gave a special lecture at the School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine in London. It was all but ignored. Yet
this is the extraordinary man who led an US-Iraqi
research team in the first comprehensive investigation of
civilian deaths in Iraq. Published in the Lancet, the
most highly regarded medical journal in the world, with
the tightest peer-review procedures, the study found that
"at least" 100,000 civilians had died
violently, the great majority of them at the hands of the
"coalition": women, children, the elderly. He
also described how American military doctors had found
that 14 per cent of soldiers and 28 per cent of marines
had killed a civilian: a huge, unreported massacre.
This great crime, together with the destruction of the
city of Fallujah and the 40 known victims of torture and
unlawful killing at the hands of the British army, as
well as the biggest demonstration by Iraqis demanding the
invaders get out, was not allowed to intrude on a
campaign that "never really caught fire". The
airbrushing requires no conspiracy. "The
thought," wrote Arthur Miller, "that the state
has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent
people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be
internally denied."
In its ideological crusade, the Blair regime has bombed
and killed and abused human rights directly or by proxy,
from Iraq to Colombia, from tsunami-stricken Aceh to the
14 most impoverished countries in Africa, where the sale
of British weapons has fanned internal conflict. When I
asked a television executive why none of this had been
glimpsed in the election "coverage", he seemed
nonplussed. "It was not relevant to the news,"
he said. What is relevant in the wake of the election is
a propaganda consensus promoting the "potential
greatness" of Gordon Brown, as the greatness of the
now embarrassing Blair was once promoted. ("My God,
he will be a hard act to follow. My God, Labour will miss
him when he has gone," wrote Blair's most devoted
promoter, Martin Kettle, in the Guardian, skipping over
his crimes.)
That Brown is the same ideologue as Blair is of no
concern. Neither is his commitment, not to ending poverty
in the world, but to the rehabilitation of imperialism.
"We should be proud . . . of the empire," he
said last September. "The days of Britain having to
apologise for its colonial history are over," he
told the Daily Mail. These views touch the nostalgic
heart of the British establishment, which, under Margaret
Thatcher and Tony Blair, has recovered from its long
disorientation after Hitler gave all imperial plunderers
a bad name. This and the appeasement of British
imperialists is rarely mentioned in the endless
anniversaries of the Second World War, whose triumphalism
in politics and popular culture has bred imperial wars,
such as Iraq.
Thus, Blair's foreign policy adviser Robert Cooper caused
little controversy when he wrote a pamphlet calling for
"a new kind kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a
world of human rights and cosmopolitan views". This
is conquest redefined as liberation, evoking the same
moral claims that were not questioned until Hitler.
"Imperialism and the global expansion of the western
powers," wrote Frank Furedi in The New Ideology of
Imperialism, "were represented in unambiguously
positive terms as a major contributor to human
civilisation." That imperialism was and is racist,
violent and the cause of suffering across the world -
witness the ruthless expulsion of the people of Diego
Garcia as recently as the 1970s - is "not relevant
to the news". Observe instead the BBC swoon at
Gordon Brown's 19th-century speeches about ending African
poverty on condition that business can exploit and arm
Africa's poorest.
All this chimes in Washington, where Bush's drivel of
"democracy and liberty on the march" is
swallowed by leading journalists. On both sides of the
Atlantic, a vintage imperialist campaign is under way
against strategic and resource-rich Arab nations: indeed,
against all Muslim peoples. It is the "clash of
civilisations" of Samuel Huntington's delusions. The
Arabs being Semites, it is one of the west's greatest
anti-Semitic crusades.
That, you might say, is well discussed. Perhaps. What is
not discussed is a worldwide threat similar to that of
Germany in the 1930s, certainly the greatest threat in
the lifetime of most people. This is not news. Consider
the unreported demise of the "war on terror".
In his inaugural speech in January, Bush pointedly said
not a word about that which he had made his signature. No
terrorism. No Osama. No Iraq. No axis of evil. Instead,
he warned that America's new targets were those living in
"whole regions of the world" which "simmer
in resentment and tyranny" and where "violence
will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross
the most defended borders, and raise a mortal
threat".
The monumental paranoia is almost beside the point. Bush
was lowering the threshold. The American military can go
anywhere, attack anything, use any kind of weapon in
pursuit of its latest, most dangerous illusion: the
"simmering resentment" and the "gathering
violence". Unreported is the military coup that has
taken place in America: the Pentagon and its civilian
militarists now control "policy". Diplomacy is
"finished . . . dead", as one of them put it.
Andrew Bacevich, soldier, conservative and professor of
American military strategy at Boston University, says
that Bush has "committed the United States to waging
an open-ended war on a global scale".
Britain, with its profound understanding of imperialism,
is a pioneer of this new danger. In 1998, the Blair
government's Strategic Defence Review stated that the
country's military priority would be "force
projection" and that "in the post-cold war
world we must be prepared to go to the crisis rather than
have the crisis come to us". In 2002, Geoff Hoon
became the first defence secretary to declare that
British nuclear weapons could be used against non-nuclear
nations. In December 2003, a defence white paper,
Delivering Security in a Changing World, called for
"expeditionary operations" in "a range of
environments across the world". Military force was
no longer "a separate element in crisis
resolution". Almost a third of public spending on
research now goes to the military - far more than is
spent on the National Health Service.
On 6 August, it will be the 60th anniversary of the
atomic bombing of Hiroshima which, with the destruction
of Nagasaki, stands as one of the greatest crimes. There
is now a nuclear renaissance, led by the nuclear
"haves", with America and Britain upgrading
their "battlefield" nuclear weapons. The very
real danger is, or should be, clear to all of us. The
Guardian says Blair, having won his "historic"
third term, ought to be "humble". It is truly
humbling that only 20 per cent of eligible voters voted
for him, the lowest figure in modern times, and that he
has no true mandate. No, it is journalists who ought to
be humble and do their job.
This
article first appeared in the New Statesman. For the
latest in current and cultural affairs subscribe to the
New Statesman print edition.
(In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes.
Huge
radioactive leak closes Thorp nuclear plant
Paul Brown,
environment correspondent
Monday May 9, 2005
The Guardian.
A leak of highly
radioactive nuclear fuel dissolved in concentrated nitric
acid, enough to half fill an Olympic-size swimming pool,
has forced the closure of Sellafield's Thorp reprocessing
plant. The highly dangerous mixture, containing about 20
tonnes of uranium and plutonium fuel, has leaked through
a fractured pipe into a huge stainless steel chamber
which is so radioactive that it is impossible to enter.
Recovering the liquids and fixing the pipes will take
months and may require special robots to be built and
sophisticated engineering techniques devised to repair
the £2.1bn plant.
The leak is not a
danger(???) to the
public but is likely to be a financial disaster for the
taxpayer since income from the Thorp plant, calculated to
be more than £1m a day, is supposed to pay for the
cleanup of redundant nuclear facilities. A problem at the
plant was first noticed on April 19 when operators could
not account for all the spent fuel that had been
dissolved in nitric acid. It was supposed to be
travelling through the plant to be measured and separated
into uranium, plutonium and waste products in a series of
centrifuges. Remote cameras scanning the interior of the
plant found the leak.
Although most
of the material is uranium, the fuel contains about 200kg
(440lb) of plutonium,(nearly the entire yearly production
of plutonium at the plant) enough to
make 20 nuclear weapons, and must be recovered and
accounted for to conform to international safeguards
aimed at preventing nuclear materials falling into the
wrong hands.
- Plutonium 239, one
of the most dangerous elements known to
humans, is so toxic that one-millionth of
a gram is carcinogenic. More than 200kg
is made annually in each 1000-megawatt
nuclear power plant. Plutonium is handled
like iron in the body, and is therefore
stored in the liver, where it causes
liver cancer, and in the bone, where it
can induce bone cancer and blood
malignancies. On inhalation it causes
lung cancer. It also crosses the
placenta, where, like the drug
thalidomide, it can cause severe
congenital deformities. Plutonium has a
predisposition for the testicle, where it
can cause testicular cancer and induce
genetic diseases in future generations.
Plutonium lasts for 500,000 years, living
on to induce cancer and genetic diseases
in future generations of plants, animals
and humans.
Plutonium
is also the fuel for nuclear weapons -- only 5kg
is necessary to make a bomb and each reactor
makes more than 200kg per year. Therefore any
country with a nuclear power plant can
theoretically manufacture 40 bombs a year.
Helen Caldicott
|
The liquid will
have to be siphoned off and stored until the works can be
repaired, but a method of doing this has yet to be
devised.
On Friday the
British Nuclear Group, a management company formed to run
the Sellafield site on behalf of the NDA, held a meeting
with the government safety regulator, the Nuclear
Installations Inspectorate (NII), to discuss how to mop
up the leak and repair the pipe. The company has to get
the inspectors' approval before proceeding.
Martin Forwood, of
Cumbrians Opposed to Radioactive Environment, said the
NDA had been "naive" in placing trust on income
from Thorp, given its track record. "Reprocessing is
blatantly incompatible with the official cleanup remit of
the NDA, which will now find itself out of pocket as a
result of the latest Thorp accident. The new owners would
do the taxpayer the greatest service by putting Thorp out
of its misery and closing it once and for all." The
managing director of British Nuclear Group, Sellafield,
Barry Snelson, who ordered the plant to be closed down,
said: "Let me reassure people that the plant is in a
safe and stable state."
The Irish Times:Sat
14th May. A recent leak at the Sellafiel
nuclear plant was reclassified to a category
three incident.The leak at the Thorp facility is
now being described as a serious incident. (There is a 7 Point
Nuclear Event Scale)Minister
Dick Roche said that the "timely
notification of this matter by the UK authorities
was a matter of some satisfaction"!!! |
|