21 Apr 2018

Global Weirding

William Hawes

Oh, what fun it truly was to experience the “bomb cyclone” in January in New England: the snowfall gave a sense of peace and calm, the winds were less strong than predicted, and the snow, while heavy, was not dense enough to take down trees and power lines in most areas. The following period of intense cold through February and March in the eastern half of the US, on the other hand, seems a harbinger of climate instability which will most likely worsen in upcoming years. As the jet stream weakens and buckles due to climate change, storm intensity and temperature fluctuations are certain to get worse.
The biggest danger for East coasters will remain the hurricane, as September 2017 registered as the most active month in recorded history for the Atlantic.
On the West coast, things are getting a bit Biblical: raging fires alternate with intense flooding and mudslides in Montecito and southern California a few months ago. The 2017 fire season set aflame over eight million acres mainly in the Western states. It’s not just a domestic issue: Portugal faced an epic firestorm in June of last year, killing close to 100, partly due to the monocultures of eucalyptus trees planted across the country. Millions face conditions of famine and drought worldwide.
Sadly, most reporting and discussion of global warming and climate change serves to abstract the issues into a diversionary attitude that the Earth is in crisis. Well, the planet, as a self-regulating super-organism, will do just fine without us, even if it takes millennia to recover from our misdeeds. It is stable and abundance-providing ecosystems that are in crisis, species that are going extinct at 1000 times the background rate, and humanity is the culprit.
Even though man-made global warming is acknowledged by most people, there is still a conflation going on in the West that the all-devouring Earth-mother is out to get us. Rather, it is Western civilization which is stalking any chance for future generations to live and prosper.
Ecosystems in Crisis
In Germany, a study was done measuring insect populations in nature reserves, and it was discovered that there was a 75% drop in total insects collected in only 25 years. Scientists estimate that 30-50% of all species may become extinct by 2050.
Tragically, regarding honeybees, scientists have discovered an important link between fungicide use and the herbicide glyphosate (Round-Up), showing a negatively synergistic effect on bee colonies and resistance to fungal infection. Bees seem to actually prefer honey set in traps with a small percentage of Roundup or fungicides added. Humans are not the only species to enjoy mind-altering drugs, even poisonous ones.
All of our problems involving the destruction of habitat are ultimately bound up in the fact that there are too many of us, conditioned to respond in violent outbursts, consuming too many resources, leading to stress, war, and unimaginable acts of cruelty. These acts are often sanctioned by the state or the corporation or religion or patriarchal vertical hierarchies.
The exponential population growth from the industrial revolution is already slowing and bound to top off at anywhere from 10-12 billion people by 2050-2100, if we manage to avoid the many catastrophes hurtling our way. Thus the growth curve will resemble an S-curve barring unforeseeable circumstances, with small waves and ripples due to the complexities of changing times, food sources, and a multitude of variables. In theory this population model could then lead to a steady decrease in total population due to a voluntary decision by humanity to slowly and carefully have fewer children due to stresses on ecosystems and natural resources. If we don’t convert to decentralized renewable energy and organic, communal-based agriculture, however, there is another model we may follow, and it’s not pretty one. Fossil fuel use is the habit that must be kicked for humanity to help recreate a sustainable world.
One of the most famous examples from studying mammalian populations is the debacle of St. Matthew Island, a warning to humanity. A tiny island located in the Bering Strait, with no carnivores, some lonely US coast guard officers decided to introduce reindeer onto the island. From a starting population of 29 in 1944, the hungry caribou ate through the entire island’s many lichen species, ballooning to 6,000 by 1963. Within two years and no other food source, the die-off was drastic, and only 42 remained in 1965. The entire population vanished by the 1980s. If our coal, gas, and oil run out without a democratic and scientific plan to make the leap to renewables, we are doomed to the same path.
The Unspoken Links
It would be simplistic to relegate these new and unprecedented levels of strangeness to the spheres of ecology and climate science. The deep wounds Western man has inflicted on fellow species and the planet are also inflicted on ourselves. From everything to decreased attention spans, the rise of xenophobia and mistrust towards minorities and immigrants, and billions living in poverty, these are by and large self-inflicted wounds. We must learn to see ourselves in the other, and see the other in ourselves.
Cell phone, TV, tablet, and computer use, dubbed “screen time”, can now be understood to have a net-negative effect on human communities when consumed in vast quantities, as it drives anti-social behavior and isolation from the wider community. A recent study concluded the average screen time for US adults was around 70 hours per week. Keep in mind, that means for every person getting 40 hours of screen time there is another getting 100 hours per week.
The rising rates of cancer, autism, diabetes, auto-immune diseases, heart disease, and many other chronic conditions may be partly due to the stressors and conditions of modern life, including longer lifespans, but they do not account for the majority. Our polluted world and environmental crises play a mostly invisible role in the West, as our federal agencies such as the EPA and FDA have become corrupted by pharmaceutical and corporate interests.
With no way to systemically study or properly account for the rise of ill health and mental stupefaction of the public, medical and health professionals, shackled in their dim caves staring at shadows, have designated the “genetic” component to dis-ease as the Holy Grail. There is some truth to this: undoubtedly certain forms of breast cancer are linked to specific areas on chromosomes, etc. The idea, however, that billions of dollars in research must be shunted into the reductionist model of DNA manipulation and gene therapy is a huge waste of time, resources, and brainpower. (No, I don’t have mainstream “credentials” or a PhD, but I was happy to have my suspicions about targeted gene therapy confirmed straight out of the mouth of a former top researcher at the National Cancer Institute.)
The best way I’ve heard it phrased, regarding chronic disease and our toxified world, is like this: genetics is the loaded gun, and the environment is the finger pulling the trigger. Yes, many people are at risk due to genetic inheritance for many forms of cancers, diabetes, and the list goes on, but magnifying the capacities of the double helix as the primal cause of these conditions is not only dubious, it’s intellectually dishonest and dangerous. One may be at higher risks for certain disorders, but a healthy lifestyle can often slow, negate, or reverse chronic disease.
Many of today’s chemical dangers are invisible and thus fly under the radar of doctors and scientists. Yet, there are visible changes in our bodies that have manifested with the rise of industrial agriculture after World War Two. One change being the rise in obesity worldwide. Yes, we have increased meal portion sizes and live more sedentary lifestyles, and yes, food serves as a palliative for depression and anxiety.
Yet, this does not explain the study (summarized in an Atlantic article here) which concluded that, between 1988 and 2006, a person with the same diet, nutrient and exercise routines would be 10% heavier in 2006. This is a historic finding, and I can find nothing in the literature which reports a change in size of any other species in such short a time frame (18 years), other than weight gain in the abhorrent factory farming conditions of chickens, pigs, and cows.
The problem is, as the authors of the study note, there are so many factors it’s nearly impossible to determine what the culprit is. There are persistent organic pollutants, hormones in our food which act as endocrine disruptors, prescription drug overuse which leads to weight gain, and the possibility of a change in our gut bacteria due to mass antibiotic use in animal produce. In all likelihood, it is a combination of all of these factors that is driving the obesity and cancer epidemics. While many researchers are waking up to effects from increasing use of digital technology and social media, hardly anyone in the scientific community and academia have bothered to think about the huge changes to our bodies in the past few decades.
For every one human cell in our bodies, there are about 10 symbiotic bacterial cells. We are in very real sense super-organisms, and the huge influx of herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotics in our food is forming a negatively synergistic effect on our ability to reason, to exercise, to relax, and to resist these new forms of genetic-biologic oppression.
This comes down to the nexus of corporate agribusiness, complicit federal health “experts”, lack of funding for research and grants for responsible scientists, and a poisoned food and water supply which has hijacked and somehow rewired our metabolism, endocrine system, and immune-response pathways. Have no doubt, this is an uncontrolled experiment being run on us all, without our permission.
The rise in cancer in particular can be tied to the atmospheric nuclear tests in the 1950s, as I and many others have posited. Estimates range that anywhere from 1 million to 50 million or even higher have already died/may die in the coming century earlier than they otherwise would have, because of cancer due to nuclear radiation from these tests.
The chance of getting cancer in one’s lifetime is expected to rise to a 33% chance for women and a 50% chance for men by 2050. This is the microcosm within the macrocosm of a world system based on infinite growth on a finite planet. The ideology of capitalism is death, and there should be no mystification as to why the clear unhealthiness of the hegemonic socio-economic system has been transported into our very bodies via cancer.
A major problem is that modern medicine has become ideological and insular, with predictably deadly results. There can be no patents for plants, herbs, mushrooms, meditation, yoga, and mindfulness practices, thus no conglomerate, multinational, corporate money to be made.
If it becomes clear on a mass scale that traditional practices including, but not limited to, herbal medicine, meditation, yoga, holistic traditional healing, Ayurvedic and Traditional Chinese Medicine has immense value beyond the instrumental rationality of allopathic medicine, the gig is up for mainstream pill-pushers. Most health professionals would be unveiled as the educated fools that they are, drug pushers promoting dangerous drugs for children and the elderly, not to mention endless unnecessary tests and procedures which make billions for Big Pharma and medical technology companies.
Let me be clear here: I am not by any means trying to scapegoat every medical professional, as researchers and people who treat medical emergencies, trauma, surgeons, and doctors dealing with acute medical conditions do amazing work every day. What I’m driving at is the allopathic way of treating most chronic conditions is a farce, and our society should return to promoting preventative, holistic treatments.
Thanato-politics
Sadly, there is a legitimate reason why so much of society is organized around ignorance, fear, violence, denial of the body, and consumption: the death-drive. One does not have to subscribe to Freud’s exposition of thanatos to understand this: the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the desertification of our world, the razing of habitat shows this quite clearly.
Modern civilization does not only lead to obedience, submission, and structural violence, but also to a certain form of captivity. Humans tend to rebel against such a depraved social order, even if only symbolically, with varying amounts of success. Some do so constructively, forming social movements and protests, yet masses have fallen prey to the siren-songs of nationalism, consumerism, addiction, and war. Along with the enclosure of public land and the destruction of the commons (“There is no such thing as society”) comes a culture of fear, cruelty, and ultimately projections of the outer world as scary and downright evil.
Captivity in action: consider the recent missile alert in Hawai’i. Was this not an example of a captive audience, doomed by elites to worry and scatter over a phantom nuke over the horizon? None of us asked for this. Most of humanity simply wants to be left alone from the vagaries of government and corporate rule to live stable, happy lives. Yet the sad truth of the matter is the elites are not going to leave us alone. Their appetite is insatiable, and they will in fact drag down the entire biosphere, because in their current state of mind, they hate life, and want to transcend this world, either to heaven (the Christian fundamentalists) or have their consciousness uploaded or bodies cryogenically frozen for future immortality (the Kurzweillian techno-futurists).
Evil, or rather, a disdain for authentic living, is banal in many senses: one of these is the utter unimaginativeness resting in the dark hearts of our political leaders. Evil is a lack, a poverty of the soul. It is incapacity to create, an absence of imagination, spontaneous creativity, and compassion. You can sense this in our “technocratic” leadership, pushing us ever closer to the abyss of economic depression and ecological ruin.
It often conjures up a chuckle when I remind people of David Graeber’s comments (paraphrasing here) on the elitist corporate/managerial/bureaucratic mindset: “These are the most unimaginative people ever.” This is basically a gallows humor, as the elite are numbing citizens of the will, mental capacities, and physical abilities to organize and resist effectively, and are setting up the masses for collapse of our civilization.
Reclaiming Eros
If there does exist some sort of death drive (most explicitly recognized in Nazi, Italian, and Spanish fascist ideology: “¡Viva la muerte!”) that modern civilization is imposing on us, is there a countervailing force?
Countering the bleak pessimism of Freud’s Civilization and its DiscontentsHerbert Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization offers clues. We can extrapolate and widen their focus on libido to consider Eros as an analogy for life-force or life-energy, similar to Eastern notions of prana and chi. If modern society has in fact regimented our lives around a Marcuse-esque performance principle, it does so at the cost of our very souls. It was no mythological coincidence that the ancient Greeks wedded the god Eros in immortal bliss with Psyche. One cannot exist without the other.
Alienation in the workplace is so all-pervasive it often goes unnoticed or unremarked upon. Perhaps this orientation around surplus repression is most visible in leisure activities such as today’s gyms, the insular form of physical exercise for the corporate workers and bosses. Regimenting the mind in the office is not enough: bodies must be splayed across endless rows of treadmills and metal strength-enhancing machines like legions of marching ants, with the requisite phone or Ipod and headphones attached. As for the flabby and out-of-shape, it is once again a lack of discipline and failure to take individual responsibility, rather than any oppressive social structure which is the causal factor.
These are the pod people, exemplified in a New York Times piece about a former Nike exec and artist who has refused to watch or read any news since Donald Trump became elected, who even goes to far as to use noise-canceling headphones blaring white noise in coffee shops to not overhear any chatter about world affairs. Why not just play music? “Stray conversation can creep in between songs.” The same game goes for the power elite: stray news about the poor and oppressed, and any possibilities of social transformation, are simply shushed away.
Thus, when the business and political elite blurt the snide “Be reasonable!” they are at the same time using the cynical trope of “no grand ideologies” (read: Marxism) which, of course, hides behind the moral relativism and lack of conception of the good life which liberal democracy has always played at, which is ideology at its purest: “the end of history”, “there is no such thing as society”, “there is no alternative”.
These people, whose ideas simply parrot the cultural hegemonic ruling class framework, are asserting the “logic of domination”. Drawing on Arendt and Orwell, Alexander Stern has dubbed this “Bingespeak”. Following Marcuse:
“Reason is to insure, through the ever more effective transformation and exploitation of nature, the fulfillment of the human potentialities. But in the process the end seems to recede before the means: the time devoted to alienated labor absorbs the time for individual needs- and defines the needs themselves. The Logos shows forth as the logic of domination. When logic then reduces the units of thought to signs and symbols, the laws of thought have finally become techniques of calculation and manipulation.” 
This corrupted Logos seems to have pushed aside Eros in the modern world. Nietzsche would call it Apollonian overtaking the Dionysian. As the socially-constructed ego has developed under patriarchy, civilization, and capitalism, it has done so with the fear of the maternal-based clan, and the Earth-based tribal modes of life. Returning to Marcuse:
“The Narcissistic phase of individual pre-genitality ‘recalls the maternal phase of the history of the human race. Both constitute a reality to which the ego responds with an attitude, not of defense and submission, but of integral identification with the ‘environment.’ But in the light of the paternal reality principle, the ‘maternal concept’ of reality here emerging is immediately turned into something dreadful, negative. The impulse to re-establish the lost Narcissistic-maternal unity is interpreted as a ‘threat,’ namely, the threat of ‘maternal engulfment’ by the overpowering womb. The hostile father is exonerated and reappears as savior who…protects the ego from its annihilation in the mother.” 
Does this fear not play out between the lines of today’s discourse around the environment? It cannot be the patriarchal, murderous version of global capitalism which is at fault, but rather, an all-consuming mother planet bent on destroying us all (even though it’s all our own fault due to rampant fossil fuel use). In fact, the father figure of global capital now swoops in to act as a savior for everything he has destroyed.
Contrast, for example, the rush to space and immortality that the Silicon Valley techno-utopian folk seem to prefer, or even the “pragmatism” of Steward “we are as gods and have to get good at it” Brand; with the ecocentric approach of Lynn Margulis and James Lovelock, co-creators of Gaia theory. Corporate funded mainstream environmentalists would have us geo-engineer the planet and proliferate dangerous 5G technology via an internet-of-things around the globe. Rather, we should convert to small scale, decentralized renewable tech, and attempt to live in harmony with the biosphere by adhering to an ecological precautionary principle.
Thus, the “primal father” version of the future which Brand and his “green capitalist” (an oxymoron) acolytes believe in necessarily involves sacrifice of the masses and more exploitation of natural resources. We are told this everyday: “austerity” is needed for economic recovery; delay gratification to pay off debts; foreigners must be killed and are simply collateral damage to protect the world from terrorism, public land is off-limits or only for recreation, not sustainable agriculture and agroforestry; etc.
Reconciling Apollo and Dionysus, Logos and Eros, a less repressive society would not simply focus on what we must sacrifice, but allow space for passion, imagination, and desire. A democratic society would allow for collective decision-making regarding the scale and scope of a host of socioeconomic issues, including sustainable agriculture, genetic research, preventative medicine, animal testing, as well as chemical use in farming and industry.
With a healthy balance between Logos and Eros, we can transcend the deadly framework of instrumental reason and positivism to build a livable future. Some like to call this a “supra-rational” outlook, a transpersonal and holistic view of the world, where emotional intelligence is blended with the analytic, intuition with abstract logic.
What lessons can we draw here? There must be a concerted effort to blend work and play, especially in regards to communal farming, collective homebuilding, and low-scale renewable energy, to create the grounds for authentic liberation from capitalism.
Sustained and coordinated efforts to build autonomous zones free from governmental and hierarchical organization are paramount: indigenous movements throughout South America and worldwide, the mass strikes in France, Christiania in København, freedom fighters in Chiapas and Rojava, and the MST in Brazil offer models of resistance.
We are going to have to adopt a type of bricolage (Levi-Strauss) culture, scavenging what has not been absorbed by global capital, to create beauty in the ruins of empire. Thus, we can begin the Herculean effort to deterritorialize (as in Deleuze and Guattari) and thus reassemble a heterogeneous, co-evolving, transformational commons; to decolonize our minds from a simulated, mechanical mode of life; to detach from the Spectacle; to unlearn and deschool ourselves (Illich) from the oppressive social systems designed to rob and eventually destroy everything we know and care for.

Syria: Another Victim of U.S.-led Barbarism

Ghali Hassan

“I would clarify here that the history of these three states [U.S., Britain and France] is built on using lies and fabricated stories to wage aggressive wars in order to occupy states, seize their resources, and change governments in them by [genocidal] force.” Dr Bashar al-Jaafari, Syrian Ambassador to the U.N.
On 14 April 2018, the U.S., France and Britain committed another barbaric act of aggression against the majority-Muslim nation of Syria. Donald Trump, Emmanuelle Macron and Theresa May claim that their combined aggression was in response to the alleged “chemical attack” in the Damascus suburb of Douma (in the Ghouta district) by the Syrian Government. The aggression was an act of state terrorism in flagrant violation of UN Charter, the principles of international law and civilised norms.
The attacks targeted a University building, the Higher Institute for Applied Science and Technology (HIAST). Before the attack, the building is used to produce pharmaceutical products and testing toys for safety for a nation under criminal sanctions. By targeting a university and a research centre, the U.S.-led criminals were apparently trying “to destroy Syria’s scientific capabilities as the Centre was pursuing various civilian-use [research] objectives,” said Anton Utkin, a Russian chemical weapons expert.  It is a deliberate war crime. The building was previously used by the international Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The other targets were empty storage facilities near Homs, and the Dumayr airfield. The timing of the aggression came just hours before the OPCW experts were set to arrive in Syria – at the request of the Syrian government – to visit the suburb of Douma on Saturday to establish whether chemical weapons had been used there last week. It is possible that the attacks were aimed at sabotaging the OPCW mission and preventing a serious investigation. Tampering with evidence is a U.S. tradition.
The reaction of the Russian government to U.S.-led aggression was restrained, despite having considerable military forces, including advanced military aircrafts and ant-aircraft missile batteries, legally deployed in in Syria. With the usual “civilised” rhetoric towards Western leaders, Russian President Vladimir Putin rightly observed that, the attacks were, “an aggression against a sovereign state which is at the forefront of the fight against international terrorism”. One thing the aggression on Syria proves, is that the U.S., France, and Britain are acting as air force for the terrorists, protecting them and facilitating their terror advances.
Meanwhile, the Syrian and Iranian governments condemned the aggression as a “barbaric” and “criminal” violation of Syria’s sovereignty that would only embolden the remaining terrorists there. “The attitude of the French, British and Americans is the same attitude, which used by Adolf Hitler in 1939 to enter into World War Two,” said senior German politician (CDU,) Mr Willy Wimmer. The difference is that, the U.S and its vassal-state allies (namely Britain, France and Israel) are far more dangerous and pose greater threat to world’s peace and humanity than Germany under Hitler. The U.S.-led reign of terror is holding the whole world hostage.
While the world’s eyes have been glazed over by the propaganda of chemical attack in Syria, little notice is given to the on-going massacre of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators by the Israeli army. They were protesting on their own land occupied by the Israeli fascist regime. On “Good Friday”, Israeli soldiers deliberately and in cold blood murdered more than 20 unarmed Palestinian protesters inside the Gaza Concentration Camp, many of them shot in the back. The U.S. gave the Israeli terrorists the green light to shoot to kill peaceful Palestinian protesters. The massacre of Palestinians was endorsed by most Jewish organisations, including the fifty-two Major Jewish American Organisations, who control the U.S. Congress. It is certain that the U.S.-led aggression on Syria was at the Israeli regime’s behest to divert attention away from the regime war crimes against the Palestinians.
The U.S., Britain and France pretend to be concern about “human rights” in Syria in the same way Hitler used human rights to justify his aggression and war crimes. Trump, Macron and May claimed that the aggression against Syria was in retaliation to what they alleged a chemical attack by the Syrian Government on civilians in the city of Douma, which was until recently occupied by Western-backed international terrorists (ISIS, al-Qaeda, Jaish al-Islam and their affiliates). They did not provide any evidence to substantiate their allegation. More on this later.
Since when these three outlaw imperialists became concern about civilians? In fact, in all their wars and genocidal sanctions against sovereign nations, the civilian population were the main target. The U.S., Britain and France have killed far more civilians in the countries they attacked than any other military power. The mass murder of innocent Iraqi civilians is a case in point.
The U.S., Britain and France are the greatest violators of human rights. Their imperialist hands are stained with the blood of African, Iraqi, Syrian, Afghan, Libyan, Palestinian and Yemeni women and children. The U.S. and its attack dog Israel have used chemical weapons to attack civilians in Vietnam, Iraq, and Palestine. Only the most naïve people in the world would buy into such a cock and bull story. Their compassion for the victims of their imperialist wars stops at their borders. For example, the U.S. has admitted no more than 40 Syrian refuges to settle in the U.S. this year, a more than 99% decrease from the 5,800 admitted last year (Washington Post, 12 April 2018). Britain, France and other U.S. vassal-state allies are not better when it comes to human rights of refugees.
There was no chemical attack in Douma. According to on the ground reports by German n-tv and Robert Fisk of the Independent newspaper, People were suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss because of dust clouds created by the terrorists’ intense shelling (YouTube Video).  The morally-corrupt U.S., Britain and France are falsely accusing President Bashar al-Assad of “gassing his own people”. They did not provide a single shred of evidence to support this dirty propaganda. Indeed, on 12 April 2018, U.S. Secretary of Defence James Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee that the U.S. government does not have any evidence that sarin or chlorine was used by the Syrian forces, and that he was still looking for evidence. Furthermore, the Syrian forces have no reason to use chemical weapons. Having liberated Ghouta and Douma from the Western-sponsored international terrorists, who were recruited, armed, funded and defended by the U.S. and its allies (Anderson, 2016), it is increasingly unlikely that the Syrian forces would use chemical weapons against their compatriots, mostly women and children.
There are overwhelming evidence that the allegation of chemical  attack was a false flag terrorist attack staged by Western-sponsored terrorists and Western media as detailed by Gregory Shupak, Fair, and Virginia State’s Senator Richard Black. Moreover, former Britain’s Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford told BBC Radio Scotland, that the chemical attack in Douma “has been staged”. False flag terrorism is a Western tradition. The false flag attack was coordinated with the British intelligence services, the C.I.A. and Western-funded NGOs, such as “White Helmets” (a.k.a. al-Qaeda). The “White Helmets” are funded by the C.I.A. and the British Foreign Office, while the “Syrian-American Medical Society” or SAMS is funded by the USAID and the State Department. Both NGOs are propaganda organs working on behalf of the terrorists (Max Blumenthal, Mint Press). They fabricate lies as a provocation to mislead public opinions and justify aggression against Syria, and of course whip up anti-Russia hysteria. They have unfettered access to Western media to disseminate anti-Syria propaganda. Western NGOs are funded, not because of their “humanitarian” work. They are funded to shape the way abuses and crimes are reported. They are funded because they are cheerleaders for Western aggression.  For example, in the West, the “White Helmets” group is known as a humanitarian NGO, but in Syria, it is a terrorist group that committed atrocities against Syrian civilians living under the terrorists imposed reign of terror.
The Syrian government destroyed all its chemical stockpiles several years ago. In 2013, Syria’s stockpiles were handed over to the U.S. and Russia as part of a joint international deal and were destroyed aboard U.S. naval vessel. It was verified by OPCW inspectors. Hence, Syria is clean of chemical weapon. It is important to remember that, in 2003, the U.S. and Britain used the same fabricated lies – accused Iraq of possessing weapons of mass destruction – to justify a premeditated and indiscriminate barbaric attack on Iraq. The illegal military invasion and subsequent military occupation of Iraq caused the death of more than 2.5 million innocent Iraqi civilians and left Iraq lies in ruins. Iraq remains under Nazi-like U.S. military occupation. Today’s Iraq has practically no domestic industry, most Iraqis are living below the poverty line and the literacy of the population has never been as low as it is today. The looted country has become a dumping ground for cheap and outdated U.S. products. Only immoral people will want Syria to suffer the same reign of terror and suffering inflicted on Iraq.
According to the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Web Site,  Zero Hedge: Out of the 103 or 105 Tomahawk “smart” missiles used by the three aggressor states against Syrian targets, 71 were successfully shot-down by the Syrian Arab Army using out-dated 30 year old Soviet era anti-aircraft systems. In addition, the French Navy confirmed that several French missiles failed to fire. The Dumayr airfield, one of the coalition main targets, emerged completely unharmed. The aggression was nothing more than a hollow show of force that failed to produce Trump’s so-called “perfectly executed mission”. It is a political charade. Independent media reports from Syria after the attacks show Syrians dancing in the morning following the Syrian military’s successful repulsion of an attempted Western aggression on their nation. The “Syrian people are celebrating a historic victory in a battle that threatened to take the entire world to war”, writes Venessa Beeley, an independent correspondent for 21stCentury Wire. The silence of Western media designed to cover-up a different reality, which if it is exposed it will destroy U.S.-Western fabricated image of military “invincibility”.
The U.S. and its vassal-state allies have no interests in Syria. Their primary interest is to destroy and occupy Syria for Israel. The destruction of Syria is part of a planned U.S. aggression to destroy seven Muslim-majority nations, starting with Iraq, moving to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. The perpetrators of this criminal plan are the pro-Israel U.S. neo-Nazis, better known as the “Neocon cabal”. Their aim is to destabilise the region to safeguard Israel’s fascist interests. It is important to remember that, Trump, Macron and May were put in their positions by big corporations and wealthy pro-Israel Zionists, “the Deep State”, which controls most Western regimes. The deep State constitutes of wealthy and influential (special interests) Jews who control the Western media, the Internet (Google and Facebook), Hollywood industry, and world’s financial system, including Wall Street, and Rothschild Bank. In fact, Emmanuel Macron, Europe’s most enthusiastic supporter of terrorism today, was groomed and put in office by pro-Israel wealthy Jews, including his former employer, Rothschild Bank. It follows that, the barbaric aggression against Syria – like all other U.S.-led wars on Muslim-majority nations – is a war for the fascist state of Israel. The aggression against Syria was an attempt by both Macron and May to show their loyalty and win the approval of the pro-Israel Zionists who put them in office.
As professor Tim Anderson writes: “Although every war makes ample use of lies and deception, the dirty war on Syria has relied a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory.” The U.S.-led aggression against Syria is another clear case of barbarism. It is paramount that the force of lies and propaganda be exposed and defeated to save world’s peace. Trump, Macron and May should be held accountable in court of law for their barbaric aggression on Syria.

Italy continues without a government

Marianne Arens

Six weeks after the March 4 parliamentary election there is still no new Italian government in sight. On April 13, President Sergio Mattarella also broke off the second round of consultations without any result.
A coalition between the strongest single party, the Five Star Movement (MoVimento 5 Stelle, M5S), and the far-right Lega has so far failed because the leaders of these two parties, Matteo Salvini (Lega) and Luigi di Maio (M5S), both lay claim to the office of Prime Minister. M5S and Lega came closer together in March when they agreed to elect the chairmen of both chambers of parliament.
The Five Star Movement is ready to form a coalition with the Lega only on condition that Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia is not part of the government. “There are political synergies with the Lega,” explained Di Maio, “but Silvio Berlusconi must step aside.” A government in which Forza Italia was also involved “is absolutely out of the question.”
The Five Star Movement had gained support mainly through the denunciation of the widespread corruption, which Berlusconi personifies. It fears that joining forces with the media billionaire could cost it masses of votes. M5S member Alessandro di Battista even referred to Berlusconi on Facebook as the “absolutely worst in our country.”
Arithmetically, Lega and M5S do not need the support of Forza Italia to govern together. But for Salvini, breaking with Berlusconi is still an unacceptable condition. If the Lega were in government alone with the M5S, it would be the smaller coalition partner, and as a result, Salvini would have to leave the post of Prime Minister to Luigi di Maio.
In the elections, the Lega received just over half (17 percent) as many votes as the M5S. However, together with its allies, Berlusconi’s Forza Italia and the fascist Fratelli d’Italia, it is the strongest group in parliament, at almost 40 percent.
To the president, too, a government involving Forza Italia appears less risky. Sergio Mattarella is now trying to get the 82-year-old Berlusconi on board, who is unable to hold office himself because of a tax evasion conviction. On April 17, he called the new Senate President Elisabetta Casellati (Forza Italia) and the new Chamber of Deputies President Roberto Fico (M5S) to the Quirinal Palace and involved them in the formation of a government. Elisabetta Casellati, a long-time confidante of Berlusconi, was commissioned with negotiating with the M5S to persuade them to accept Berlusconi.
Berlusconi himself has so far refused to collaborate with the Five Star Movement, which in his words, “does not even master the ABC of democracy.” He advocates a “grand coalition as in Germany” that would encompass the entire right-wing alliance and the Democrats (PD).
The PD has so far rejected all coalition offers. It was the loser of the March 4 election and its seats have more than halved in the 630-seat parliament, from 377 to 163 seats. In the Chamber of Deputies it has only 111 seats and in the Senate only 52 seats.
Although Matteo Renzi, the former government head and PD general secretary, would be quite willing to collaborate with Berlusconi, the current transitional leader of the party, Maurizio Martina, has so far insisted on leading the Democrats into opposition. He also rejected a call for talks by Luigi di Maio.
However, after its election defeat in September 2017, the German Social Democrats had vowed to go into opposition, only in the end to enter Merkel’s grand coalition again. Similarly, the PD could again play a role in a coalition government with the right-wing alliance or in an all-party government of “national unity.”
But Matteo Salvini wants to avoid such a solution above all. He is counting on the upcoming regional elections in Molise (April 22) and Friuli Venezia Giulia (April 29), where he hopes for a further upswing of the Lega vote. On Sunday, at an election campaign in Molise, he said, “It must be clear to all: If we win in Friuli and in Molise, then we will form the government in fourteen days.” Otherwise, the Lega would call for new elections.
President Sergio Mattarella has so far categorically ruled out new elections. As a last resort, he could possibly install a so-called technocratic government, like the Mario-Monti government, which came about under pressure from the EU in 2011 to replace Berlusconi. Even such an emergency solution would depend on being tolerated by a parliamentary majority.
The crisis in forming an Italian government makes clear how deep is the gulf opening up between the population and official politics. The demise of the PD was because it had tried to resolve the crisis at the expense of the working class. It made employment even more precarious through the Jobs Act and other measures, sharply attacking pensions and other social gains. Poverty has doubled; more and more young people are leaving the country to find a job abroad.
Any future government will continue this course, under pressure from the EU and global capital and to rescue the ailing Italian banks. Moreover, a Lega or M5S government will massively intensify measures against refugees and migrants. Salvini has already announced that he would expel 600,000 so-called “illegal immigrants.”
Added to this is the pressure to participate in the EU’s war strategy and to defend its own economic interests through rearmament and war. This has once again been shown by the reaction of all parties to the bombing of Syria. While the majority of the population, which had already vehemently opposed the Iraq war and the Libyan war, regards the war in Syria with disgust, leading politicians welcomed the April 14 attack.
Paolo Gentiloni (PD), the caretaker government head, stressed in parliament on April 17 that Italy was not neutral. Although it had not participated in the bombing, it supported it “in recent days and will continue to do so” to counter Assad’s alleged chemical weapons. PD head Maurizio Martina uncritically reiterated the unsubstantiated allegation of a Syrian chemical weapons operation in Duma and expressed his full support for the Gentiloni government, the EU and the UN.
Luigi di Maio commented in a similar vein. The head of the Five Star Movement, which has so far been marked by EU scepticism, explicitly emphasized his devotion to the EU, the UN and the Security Council. “We stand by the side of our Allies,” said di Maio. “In this difficult phase, I believe that the EU must have the strength to stand together and united.” Berlusconi poses as a staunch supporter of accelerated rearmament and demanded: “We need a strong army.”
Salvini and Giorgia Meloni, head of the post-fascist Fratelli d’Italia, spoke out against the attack. Not because they oppose militarism, but because they do not see it taking enough account of Italy’s imperialist interests. While Salvini praised “far-sighted Putin,” Meloni said her party was against the attack, “not because we are friends of Putin or Assad, but because we are a movement of patriots. The nations that are intervening in Syria have geopolitical interests: are they ours too?”

Turkish government calls snap election for June 24

Halil Celik

Trapped by the war preparations of its NATO partners against Syria and confronting a deepening economic crisis, the Turkish government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has decided to hold parliamentary and presidential elections on June 24, 17 months ahead of schedule.
The decision came after a short meeting on April 18 between Erdogan and his key supporter, Devlet Bahceli, the leader of the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). Following the meeting, Erdogan told reporters that his ruling Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) executive board had “discussed ... and decided to give a positive response” to Bahceli’s proposal “on holding early elections.”
On January 8, Bahceli had stated his party’s unconditional support for Erdogan in the next presidential election—a crucial move at a time when it became clear that the AKP cannot win 50 percent of the vote to secure the presidency and a parliamentary majority. In return, the MHP, which remains below the 10 percent threshold needed to enter parliament, would get into parliament by means of an electoral alliance with Erdogan.
Admitting that it was “the intensification of Turkey’s internal and external agenda” which “obliged” his government “to remove the uncertainties through early elections, as soon as possible,” Erdogan was actually referring to growing pressure from Ankara’s NATO partners in the context of the escalating war drive against Syria and the worsening Turkish economy.
On the same day Erdogan declared the snap election, the Turkish parliament, with the votes of the AKP and MHP, extended—for the seventh time—the ongoing state of emergency for another three months. Thus, the upcoming early elections will be held under emergency rule.
On April 19, the constitutional committee of the Turkish parliament hastily approved a motion on early presidential and parliamentary elections that will be passed in parliament with the votes of the AKP and MHP. This is despite the fact that the Turkish parliament has yet to pass new laws regulating the electoral procedures in accordance with the constitutional amendments approved by an April 16, 2017 referendum, which replaced the parliamentary system with a presidential one with no checks and balance.
On the same day, the Turkish parliament stripped two more lawmakers from the pro-Kurdish Peoples Democratic Party (HDP) of their deputy status, increasing the number of HDP MPs who have been stripped of their parliamentary seats to 11.
The rush to new elections reveals that powerful factions of the Turkish ruling class are well aware of the growing unrest within the working class and the youth that could erupt into a revolutionary mass movement. This goes along with the danger of a Kurdish insurrection provoked by a further Turkish invasion of the Kurdish enclave in Syria.
The decision to hold elections on June 24 was welcomed by the main pro-Western opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP). Its only fear is that the extended state of emergency could cast a shadow over the elections.
On April 18, CHP leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu boasted that his party would be victorious in the parliamentary and presidential elections. According to the Turkish daily Hurriyet, Kilicdaroglu told members of the Central Executive Board of his party, “We are ready for the elections. The statement Erdogan made shows that he will lose. The nation will get rid of them. 2018 will be the year for democracy. They will be given a lesson on democracy.”
The same position was expressed by the HDP. Speaking to a meeting of provincial party leaders in Ankara, its co-chairperson Sezai Temelli vowed that the AKP-MHP alliance would be defeated in the snap elections. He called on “all democratic forces and labor organizations” to join the HDP in “the struggle for democracy.”
Meanwhile, the nationalist Islamist Felicity Party, from which the AKP split in 2001, stated that it wanted to hold a meeting with Abdullah Gul, founding member of the AKP and its former chairperson, who also served as minister of foreign affairs, prime minister and Turkish president under successive AKP governments. The Felicity Party wishes to nominate Gul as its presidential candidate in the upcoming elections. The party’s chairperson, Temel Karamollaoglu, has also stated that it is ready for electoral alliances with other parties, saying, “We are open to dialogues. We’ll meet with everyone.”
The Kemalist CHP is also pursuing a policy of alliances, which provides its only possibility for winning the election. Speaking to reporters on April 19 in Istanbul, CHP leader Kilicdaroglu stated that his party was open to all factions that are for democracy. He will hold meetings with other party leaders and then make a decision. “Whoever stands for democracy, whoever is against a one-man regime, whoever wants people to live in peace and to express their thoughts freely, we invite them to the June elections,” he said.
Bringing together the wide range of Erdogan’s opponents, from Islamists to Kemalist and central-right secularists and Kurdish nationalists, however, is no easy task. They have not even agreed on a common presidential candidate, calculating on nominating their own in the first round of voting, and then lining up behind the one who would stand against Erdogan in the second round.
Moreover, a big question remains of how the pro-Kurdish HDP would form an alliance with the CHP, IYI Party and Felicity Party, all of which supported the AKP’s crackdown on Kurdish nationalists in Turkey’s Kurdish-populated areas and backed the Turkish invasion in northern Syria.
It is, however, not totally excluded that all these bourgeois forces will get together in desperation over Erdogan rule—a feeling that also reigns among petty-bourgeois pseudo-left circles, who now support the CHP as the only progressive alternative against what they call “Erdogan/AK fascism.”
None of these bourgeois opponents of Erdogan and his party, however, offer any solution to the deepening economic and political crisis of imperialist system other than escalating the drive to war and dictatorship in line with Ankara’s traditional imperialist allies.
They view the crackdown of the AKP government on workers and youth as a useful tool for manipulating democratic and anti-war sentiments, just as imperialist powers use them as a pretext for their regime change operations around the world.

Social inequality and oligarchy in the US and Europe

Eric London

A paper published in March by French economist Thomas Piketty cites data showing that the “democratic” political systems in the US, France and Britain are oligarchies in which all the major parties are tools of the super rich, serving to manipulate the population and crush social opposition from below.
The paper, titled “Brahmin Left vs. Merchant Right: Rising Inequality and the Changing Structure of Political Conflict,” shows that the traditional “left” parties of the political establishment—the Democratic Party in the US, the Labour Party in Britain and the Socialist Party in France—have become the preferred parties of significant sections of the ruling elite, abandoning any pretense of social reform. Though the study does not explicitly address parties such as the German Social Democratic Party, the Spanish Socialist Party and the Italian Democratic Party, the process Piketty describes is a universal one.
“The general conclusion is clear,” Piketty writes. “We have gradually moved from a class-based party system to what I propose to label a ‘multiple-elite’ party system. Back in the 1950s-1960s, the party system was defined along class lines: the vote for the left-wing parties was associated to both low-education and low-income voters, while the vote for right-wing parties was associated to both high-education and high-income voters.”
These days are gone. Today, the political systems in these three countries have “little to do with the ‘left’ vs. ‘right’ party system of the 1950s-1960s” because the formerly “left” parties now mirror in social composition and program their Republican, Gaullist and Tory counterparts. “Each of the two governing coalitions alternating in power tends to reflect the views and interests of a different elite,” Piketty writes.
The absence of any major party with working class support helps “explain rising inequality”, because there are no mechanisms through which the working class can influence the direction of government policy. This has produced widespread disillusionment in the working class, which Piketty claims is responsible for both the rise of mass abstentionism and the strengthening of right-wing populism “as low education, low income voters might feel abandoned.”
The chart below tracks the difference between the Democratic Party share of voters in the top 10 percent of the income scale versus the Democratic Party share of voters in the bottom 90 percent over time.
The chart shows that in the 1940s through the early 1970s, working class voters were far more likely to support the Democratic presidential candidate. This began to shift in the mid-1970s, changing drastically over the course of the Obama presidency and culminating in the 2016 election, in which the Democratic vote share was 10 percent higher among the top 10 percent than it was among the bottom 90 percent.
The following chart breaks down the share of the Democratic vote by income decile over the course of each presidential election from 1948 to 2016. The bright red line, showing the Democratic share in 2016, indicates that almost 60 percent of voters in the top 10 percent, top 5 percent and top 1 percent voted for the Democratic Party, the first time a majority of the wealthy and affluent voted for the Democratic candidate. The Democrats have won more than 40 percent of the wealthy vote only in the 1990s and 2000s. In the 1950s through 1970s, the top 1, 5 and 10 percent supported Republicans by margins ranging from 70 percent-30 percent to 85 percent-15 percent.
In France, a similar process is playing out. In the 2017 elections, for the first time in the history of the Fifth Republic, voters in the top 10 percent of the income distribution were more likely to support “left” parties (including the Stalinist French Communist Party, Jean-Luc Melenchon’s France Insoumise and Emmanuel Macron’s La République En Marche).
In Britain, the same basic shift is taking place, though the Labour Party’s share among the bottom 90 percent remains about 11 percent higher than among the top 10 percent. However, this figure is down substantially from the roughly 40 percent higher vote share which Labour received among workers in the 1964 and 1966 general elections, won by Labour candidate Harold Wilson.
The Democratic, Labour and Socialist parties have found new social constituencies among the elite as they have loyally prosecuted the interests of the capitalist class. In each country, they have slashed funding for social programs, reduced workers’ wages and provided trillions in bank bailouts and corporate tax cuts, paving the way for an unprecedented growth in social inequality.
The British Labour Party, despite the pacifist phraseology of Jeremy Corbyn, is no less pro-war than the Tories, while in France and the US the Socialists and Democrats are the most aggressive advocates of imperialist expansion. Under Democratic President Barack Obama, Socialist Party President Francois Hollande and Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, these parties have bombed, invaded or established a military presence in most of the Middle East, Central Asia and large parts of North and Central Africa. Just last week, these parties and their conservative counterparts joined forces to bomb Syria on the basis of a fabricated pretext.
The immense concentration of wealth within each country and worldwide has transformed the governments of the “democratic” imperialist countries into oligarchies that can brook no opposition to their programs of war and social counterrevolution. Such forms of rule are incompatible with basic democratic rights, as evidenced by the Democrats’ oversight of mass surveillance and police violence in the US, the Socialist Party’s implementation of a permanent state of emergency in France, and the Labour Party’s refusal to protect whistleblower Julian Assange from the looming threat of US prosecution.
The leaders and functionaries of the Democratic, Socialist and Labour parties have joined enthusiastically in the march to the right, which was made possible by the trade unions, which suppressed and isolated the struggles of the working class in each country. Employing the poison of nationalism, the unions responded to the globalization of the world’s productive forces by entering into a corporatist alliance with “their” ruling classes against the workers. They chained workers politically to the Democratic and Labour parties in the US and UK and to the Socialist and Stalinist parties in France.
The data underlying the Piketty report makes clear that the “left” bourgeois parties and the trade unions are institutions of oligarchic domination, which is why workers are abandoning these organizations in droves. But at precisely this moment, pseudo-left groups such as the International Socialist Organization (ISO) and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) in the US, Momentum and the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in the UK, and the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) in France are urging workers and youth to put their faith in efforts to work with these parties and the trade unions, pressuring them to adopt pro-worker reforms.
This bankrupt orientation is not merely a political mistake. It a reflection of the rightward shift within the upper-middle class layers that form the base of these anti-Marxist and anti-working class organizations.
On a world scale, a massive political polarization is taking place. The top 10 percent, fearful of losing its privileged position, is shifting to the right. The bottom 90 percent—billions of workers worldwide—is entering into a conflict with the oligarchy and its political representatives that has revolutionary implications.

Nearly 30,000 single-parent families made homeless in England in 2017

Dennis Moore

New figures published by the UK government show that nearly 30,000 single-parent families were made homeless last year, an increase of 8 percent on five years ago. Up to three quarters of homeless households in England are single-parent.
Figures released for the period 2016–2017 by the Department of Communities and Local Government showed that single mothers represented 47 percent of the overall figure for those deemed as statutory homeless, yet they only represented 9.2 percent of households.
Most single-parent households are working households, with many of these parents struggling to balance work and child care costs. Many are faced with cuts to their income due to cuts to welfare benefit payments and increasing private rental costs.
Last year, single-parent charity Gingerbread published research showing that a third of single parents had been affected by welfare cuts, while 39 percent are struggling in low-paid, often insecure work. The numbers of single parents on zero-hours contracts—at the beck and call of employers with no guaranteed working hours—has increased tenfold over the last decade, with 40,000 now employed this way.
Dalia Ben-Galim, Gingerbread’s policy director, said many more single parents were reaching out to the charity for advice and support when facing eviction and homelessness. She described a “perfect storm of rising living costs, stagnating wages and changes to the benefit system eroding an essential safety net for families, single parents are hard hit and struggling to keep a roof above their children’s heads.”
The research highlights that the living standards of single parents, employed and unemployed, were decimated under welfare reform programmes introduced by the 2010–2015 Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. Between those years, single parents were the worst affected household type, and are predicted to be the worst effected from 2017 onwards.
It is estimated that average single parent families will lose 15 percent (£3,800 annually) of their net income by 2021–2022 because of 2010–2017 tax and benefit reforms—constituting the biggest loss among different household types.
Child poverty is projected to rise sharply, with 63 percent of children in single parent families expected to be living in poverty by 2021–2022.
The statistics show that the number of households in temporary accommodation have risen by two thirds since 2010. Jon Sparkes, CEO of homeless charity Crisis, said, “Temporary accommodation is often cramped, unsuitable and sometimes even dangerous.”
A report by homeless charity Shelter last December described the conditions for many families living in temporary accommodation as “a national scandal.”
One of those interviewed, a 17-year-old girl, described how her parents and three siblings lived in one room for four months. She told researchers, “Three people sleep in the double bed with one person at the bottom and two people at the top.”
Research from Gingerbread concluded that many single-parent families are only just managing financially, with half of those surveyed, rarely, if ever, left with spare income after paying the main household bills. They have often accrued debts when trying to set up a new home and can barely survive on a low income.
This virtual hand-to-mouth existence can easily tip over into disaster when a financial crisis occurs, such as having to replace broken household goods or carry out essential car repairs.
Single parents face financial difficulties because the welfare benefit cap disproportionately affects this group.
The roll-out of Universal Credit (UC) will place many single-parent families at risk of not being able to meet “conditionality” to be able to claim this benefit.
Since April 2017, parents of preschool-aged children will need to look for work, as a condition of receiving out-of-work benefits, or face financial sanctions on their welfare payments. A claimant will now have to look for work as a condition of claiming when the youngest child turns 3, in contrast to a decade ago, when the age of the youngest child was set at 16.
The “in work progression” component of UC not only requires all claimants to look for work, but also expects them to progress while in work, requiring less dependency on work benefits. Claimants could be encouraged to increase hours to be able to earn more money, take on additional jobs, or find a new job.
The pressures on single household parents to find flexible working conditions and affordable child care places a greater burden on this group of claimants, with the cost of child care consuming a greater part of their overall income.
The cuts to the work allowance under UC will have a greater effect on single-parent households, with up to 1 million working single parents expected to claim. Gingerbread’s analysis shows that the cuts to the work allowance will leave the average working single parent losing at least £800 a year (3.9 percent of income) by 2020–2021. The poorest working single parents will lose most, with the poorest fifth losing 7 percent, equivalent to nearly a month of their income over a year.
Single parents face a far greater risk of being sanctioned than they did a decade ago, following the introduction of more stringent rules and harsher penalties in 2012.
This was most notable under the Labour governments of Tony Blair (1997–2007) and Gordon Brown (2007–2010). They introduced compulsory work-focussed interviews for single parents on income support who had previously been exempt from work preparation—and the introduction of Lone Parent Obligations. The latter removed entitlement to income support, by ending eligibility when a single parent’s youngest child turned 5 rather than 12.
This had the effect of pushing many single parents onto Job Seekers Allowance, with full-time job-seeking conditions attached.
In a report last year, Gingerbread found that that one in seven single parents on Job Seekers Allowance were sanctioned in a single year. In the last decade, more than 209,000 single parents were sanctioned, including some who had been referred more than once.
Single parents are disproportionately sanctioned unfairly, in comparison to other claimants with 62 percent of sanctions against them overturned when formally challenged, as against 53 percent of challenges to other sanctions.
The sadistic sanctioning system of ending or withholding benefit payments only increases the vulnerability and risk of debt, rather than moving them to a more-secure financial footing, and thus into work as the government claims.
Gingerbread’s report calls for action from the government and other “stakeholders” including employers, suggesting that senior politicians have a key role in leading the way.
The only action the government will take, as revealed by the creation of tens of thousands of homeless families under their rule, will be to pile up the misery of the poorest. Successive Labour and Tory governments have enforced changes to welfare that have led to a lack of secure and affordable housing, and inherently unfair conditionality demanded of benefits claimants.
The policies of the parties representing the ruling elite are predicated on the need to claw back everything that has been won by the working class in the post-war period, from the safety net of social housing to social welfare.

UK: Report by building research firm reveals scale of criminality that led to Grenfell fire

Barry Mason 

An interim report by building research body BRE Global is a devastating indictment of the callous indifference to the safety of residents that led to the deaths of at least 72 people in last June’s Grenfell Tower inferno.
The 210-page report, leaked to the Evening Standard, is dated January 31 and was commissioned as part of the Metropolitan Police investigation into the fire. BRE Global is the certification arm of the Building Research Establishment (BRE). It was established out of the 1997 privatisation of the national building laboratory.
More than 10 months after the fire, not a single person has been charged or even arrested for the deaths or the devastation caused to the many survivors and bereaved. The police claim that no such prosecutions can take place until their now-10-month-old “criminal investigation” finishes—which could take years.
These claims should be rejected with contempt. Alongside the public inquiry headed by Sir Martin Moore Bick, the police investigation is part of a concerted cover-up in order that the real criminals responsible for social murder evade justice. Moore-Bick’s inquiry, which has no powers to prosecute anyone, has still not called a single witness or heard a word of evidence. Its initial report is not set to be published until the end of the year.
The fact is that just the information contained in the BRE Report alone is ample evidence to allow for immediate arrests and charging to proceed. It shows that the deaths were entirely due to a criminal neglect for the safety of the Grenfell residents by the local council, its management organisation and the various corporate entities involved.
The report describes how the 2014-2016 “refurbishment” of Grenfell Tower transformed it from a relatively safe building into a death trap.
The Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KCTMO) carried out the £10 million refurbishment. KCTMO is the arms-length organisation set up by the Conservative-run Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council to run its social housing stock.
Kensington and Chelsea, in west London, has some of the most expensive residential properties in the world. The council’s main purpose in carrying out the refurbishment was to apply a cladding to the building and to cover its concrete façade, to make the view more acceptable to any of its rich residents casting an eye in that direction.
The June 14 fire started in Flat 16 on the fourth floor with the malfunction of a fridge-freezer. Flames from the flat spread through an open window and—due to the highly flammable cladding put on the building—quickly destroyed the entire 24-storey, 70-metre-high building.
The Evening Standard comments, “The first conclusion of the report is that the fire would not have spread beyond Flat 16…and would not have claimed even a single life if the original facade of the building had not been re-clad ” (emphasis added).
The BRE emphasises the relative structural integrity of the original building erected in the early 1970s. It notes, “Grenfell Tower as originally built, appears to have been designed on the premise of providing very high levels of passive fire protection.
“The original facade of Grenfell Tower, comprising exposed concrete and, given its age, likely timber or metal frame windows, would not have provided a medium for fire spread up the external surface. In BRE’s opinion…there would have been little opportunity for a fire in a flat of Grenfell Tower to spread to any neighbouring flats.”
The BRE explains that such was the ferocity of the blaze that it could have led to a partial or full collapse of the building. That it did not was due to the inherent fire resistance, “not the less stringent modern standards,” notes the Standard, engineered into the original building.
Grenfell Tower was deprived of even the most basic safety systems, with the BRE noting the lack of a sprinkler system and that the single staircase was narrower than regulations allow.
The BRE’s analysis of the aluminium frame holding the cladding in place showed it had a plastic, flammable core, which was instrumental in the spread of the fire.
The BRE found five areas where existing building regulations were significantly breached. When cladding insulation is applied to a concrete building, there is a gap between the cladding and the concrete so there is no build of condensation. This chimney effect, while helping overcome condensation build up, can help in spreading flames in the event of a fire.
To prevent this cavity, barriers are installed. These are designed to expand in the event of a fire and close off the gap. But in the case of Grenfell, the barriers installed were designed to close off a 25-mm gap when the gap was 50 mm. This meant they failed and the fire took hold. In addition, some of the barriers were incorrectly installed, being upside down or back to front.
Another major contributor to the deaths were the window frames installed as part of the refurb. These were also not wide enough to fill the space between the columns, leaving a gap of several centimetres at each side. The gap was plugged with various filling materials, none of which provided the necessary 30-minute resistance in the event of fire. BRE found that the insulation foam used was combustible, thus aiding the rapid spread of the fire up and across the building.
This meant when the fire took hold, smoke was quickly able to penetrate the gap entering flats, producing “a direct route for fire spread around the window frame into the cavity of the facade…and from the facade back into flats.”
In the case of Flat 16, the window refurb only provided “fuel” instead of a barrier, as “The construction of the window did not provide any substantial barrier to fire taking hold on the facade outside.”
The BRE addressed the automatic door-closing mechanisms on the front door of each flat. Closers fitted to these doors should have automatically closed the door as residents fled the fire. BRE found almost half the door-closing mechanisms were either missing or faulty, breaching building regulations.
As a result, when residents fled their flats on the night of the fire, a significant number of doors were inadvertently left open. “Where this occurred, the fire in each flat appears to have emitted large quantities of smoke and later fire directly into the immediate lobby, and these have gone on to affect the lifts and single stairwell.” The Standard comments that this “would have affected residents’ life chances as they sought to escape down the single stairwell.”
The BRE looked at issues relating to the firefighters’ response. Landscaping and the lack of space around the base of the tower block—about which the Grenfell Action Group had warned the TMO of what the “catastrophic” consequences would be—meant that only one fire engine could park adjacent to the tower. In addition, the riser allowing access to get water to the top floors was a dry riser making it difficult for one fire engine alone to pump water to the height needed to reach the upper floors. The BRE report notes the tower should have been fitted with a wet riser—with water present along the length of it making it easier to pump water to the top floors.
The Evening Standard showed the leaked report to a specialist architect who said, “The question is could this fire have been avoided? This damning report is saying it absolutely could have been and the refurb was to blame.”
He added, “These findings could result in people going to prison. But the report has left open the vital questions as to whether the design of the installation was at fault, whether the works were approved and/or inspected, or whether it was a combination of all of these. The buck stops with the owner of the building Kensington and Chelsea council, and its management organisation, which should have ultimate duty of care. Some people will not be sleeping well at night once this report is made public. You read it and think: heads are going to roll.”
A spokesman for Grenfell United, which speaks for survivors of the fire, told the Standard: “It was clear to us the refurbishment was shoddy and second rate. We raised concerns time and again. We were not just ignored but bullied to keep quiet. That a refurbishment could make our homes dangerous and unsafe shows that the contractors put profit before lives. It’s an industry that is broken.
“It’s also an industry that has been allowed to get away with this behaviour. Six people died in a fire at Lakanal House in 2009 and the Government failed to act and make changes to regulations that would have stopped a fire like that happening again. Tonight we know people are going to sleep in homes with dangerous cladding on them.”