5 Sept 2018

Who is to blame for the neo-Nazi rampage in Chemnitz, Germany?

Johannes Stern

On Sunday and Monday, over 7,000 neo-Nazis marched through the streets of the East German city of Chemnitz, formerly known as Karl-Marx-Stadt, attacking foreigners, chanting nationalist slogans and giving Nazi salutes.
“I saw huge groups of people with a racist mind-set,” one witness told Deutsche Welle. “It was a right-wing mob. They were roaming around freely in the city centre. They were chasing migrants… They took over the city.” While all this was happening, the police did nothing to control, much less stop, the fascist riot.
These events have come as a profound shock within Germany, where the population retains a deeply-rooted and bitter hatred of Nazism.
With further demonstrations planned by the extreme right over the weekend, leading figures within the government, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, are engaged in a thoroughly hypocritical and dishonest attempt to absolve themselves of any responsibility for what took place.
“We have video footage of the fact that there was race baiting, there were riots, there was hatred on the streets, and that has nothing to do with our rule of law,” Merkel said.
Social Democratic President Frank-Walter Steinmeier added, “I strongly condemn the extreme right-wing attacks.”
Saxony State Premier Michael Kretschmer, a member of the Christian Democratic Union, said at a press conference on behalf of the state government, “The political instrumentalization by right-wing extremists is disgusting and is rejected by us... We are conducting a determined fight against racism and xenophobia in the Free State of Saxony.”
These individuals are under the impression no one notices that they have systematically built up the very fascistic forces whose actions they now condemn.
The Grand Coalition government of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and Christian Democratic Union (CDU) has effectively adopted the xenophobic anti-refugee policies of the fascistic Alternative for Germany (AfD). A system of camps to hold refugees is being created nationwide, mass deportations are taking place and the media and all the establishment parties are demagogically inciting hatred against refugees.
Merkel, who has long been dubbed the “refugee chancellor” by the media, now emphasizes in every government statement that “a situation like 2015 [in which Germany accepted hundreds of thousands of refugees] cannot be repeated” and calls for “a functioning culture of repatriation in Germany,” i.e., the mass deportation of refugees.
The formation of the Grand Coalition government involved the conscious decision to make the AfD, with just 12.6 percent of the vote, the official opposition party within the German parliament.
The events at Chemnitz and the trajectory of official politics in Germany comprehensively expose all the apologetic claims by historians and politicians that Hitler’s regime was an aberration, that it was not an outgrowth of the crisis of capitalist society, and that it was the response to anti-democratic “left wing extremism” that destabilized the Weimar Republic.
Though there is no politically organized mass socialist movement in Germany, Nazism is again establishing a political presence. And it is indisputable that its growth has been encouraged and supported by the policies of the major bourgeois parties, backed by the media.
The rise of the extreme right and the adoption of the AfD’s policies by the Grand Coalition and de facto, all establishment parties, were systematically prepared ideologically and politically.
For the last five years, going back to 2013, there has been a relentless campaign to revise history, to ideologically legitimize the extreme right and to viciously attack those, particularly the Sozialistische Gleichheitspartei (SGP), who have sought to expose this right-wing campaign.
The media has been engaged in an effort to legitimize the historical relativization of the Third Reich, presenting the Nazi regime as a legitimate response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union and Bolshevism.
The principal ideological leader and beneficiary of this campaign has been the right-wing historian Jörg Baberowski, who teaches at Berlin’s Humboldt University. He has been lauded by the media as Germany’s greatest scholar and transformed into a talk-show and media celebrity. Baberowski’s provocative declaration to Der Spiegel in 2014 that “Hitler wasn’t vicious” has been either ignored or rationalized.
At the same time, the SGP has been the subject of an unrelenting campaign of slander in the media, precisely on account of its exposure of Baberowski and the systematic attempt to rewrite German history and trivialize the crimes of German imperialism.
This right-wing campaign has been endorsed by the administration of Humboldt University, which has protected Baberowski and covered up his links to the extreme right, even though Baberowski himself has been a leading voice of anti-refugee demagogy.
In May 2016, at the Phil.Cologne, an international festival for philosophy, Baberowski asserted that “men in Germany” were helpless in the face of violence from migrants because they were no longer able to fight. This had supposedly been visible on New Year’s Eve, 2016, in Cologne, when, he said, German men had not defended their women from alleged assaults.
“We see that men in Germany no longer have any idea how to deal with violence,” Baberowski argued. His statements were prominently quoted and promoted by Breitbart News in the US and other far right news outlets.
Baberowski’s academic reflections on “violence” have been put into practice by the Nazis rampaging through Chemnitz.
The placing of the SGP on the official list of subversive organizations by Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), as the secret service is called, is the direct outcome of the efforts to suppress its exposure of the far-right. The current BfV report, published in July with a foreword by Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU), includes the SGP as an “object of observation” because it fights against “nationalism, imperialism and militarism” and protests against right-wing extremism.
In other words, from the point of view of the coalition government and the BfV, which maintains close contacts with the AfD itself, it is not the neo-Nazis but their opponents, i.e., the vast majority of the population, that are the real problem.
It is no coincidence that the right-wing extremist mob was able to march through Chemnitz almost undisturbed by the police on Sunday and Monday. In Saxony, the close links between right-wing extremists, the police and government are legion. Confident that they enjoy high level support in the state, the Nazis are intensifying their political provocations.
The dangerous developments in Germany show that, for all the crimes of the Nazis between 1933–45, the German ruling elite is as reactionary, and German democracy as fragile, as ever. Its natural inclination historically is to the extreme right, all the more so when it senses popular discontent and when it sees the need to revive its imperialist strategic ambitions.
But the fact that fascism is once again on the march not just in Germany, but throughout Europe and the world, makes clear that this global process, far from being an accident, expresses the fundamental tendency of the capitalist system.
There is no way to defeat the revival of Nazism and imperialist militarism except through the building of a genuine revolutionary socialist movement. The time has come to revive the great traditions of Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Lenin and Trotsky that have been defended solely by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI) and its sections. The SGP calls upon all workers and youth to join its ranks and take up the fight against capitalism, fascism and war.

4 Sept 2018

Gates Cambridge Scholarships (Fully-funded Masters & PhD) in UK for International Students 2019/2020

Application Timeline:
  • Applications Open : 3rd September, 2018
  • Applications Close: Dependent on your course – either 5th December 2018 or 3rd January 2019
Eligible Countries: international

To be taken at (country): Cambridge University UK

Accepted Subject Areas: Masters and PhD Courses offered by the university

About the Award: Gates Cambridge Scholarships are highly competitive full-cost scholarships. They are awarded to outstanding applicants from countries outside the UK to pursue a full-time postgraduate degree in any subject available at the University of Cambridge. The Gates Cambridge Scholarships programme aims to build a global network of future leaders committed to improving the lives of others.

Type: Masters, PhD

Selection Criteria:
  • outstanding intellectual ability
  • leadership potential
  • a commitment to improving the lives of others
  • a good fit between the applicant’s qualifications and aspirations and the postgraduate programme at Cambridge for which they are applying
Eligibility:
  • a citizen of any country outside the United Kingdom.
  • applying to pursue one of the following full-time residential courses of study: PhD (three year research-only degree); MSc or MLitt (two year research-only degree); or a one year postgraduate course (e.g. MPhil, LLM, MASt, Diploma, MBA etc.)
  • already a student at Cambridge and want to apply for a new postgraduate course. For example, if you are studying for an MPhil you can apply for a Gates Cambridge Scholarship to do a PhD. However, if you have already started a course, you cannot apply for a Gates Cambridge Scholarship to fund the rest of it.
  • already a Gates Cambridge Scholar and want to apply for a second Scholarship. You must apply by the second, international deadline and go through the same process of departmental ranking, shortlisting and interviewing as all other candidates.
Number of Scholarship: Several

Value of Scholarship:
  • Scholarship will cover the full cost of study
  • the University Composition Fee and College fees at the appropriate rate
  • a maintenance allowance for a single student
  • one economy single airfare at both the beginning and end of the course
Duration of Scholarship: For the duration of the programme

How to Apply: Apply Here

Visit the Scholarship Webpage for Details

Award Sponsors: Gates Cambridge Trust

Important Notes:
Gates Cambridge Scholarships are extremely competitive: over 4,000 applicants apply for 90 Scholarships each year.
Given the intense competition, the Trust has a four stage selection process:
  • Departmental ranking – the very best applicants to each department are ranked on academic merit only
  • Shortlisting – Gates Cambridge committees review the applications of ranked candidates using all four Gates Cambridge criteria and put forward a list for interview
  • Interview – all shortlisted candidates have a short interview to assess how they meet all four Gates Cambridge criteria
  • Selection – chairs of interview panels meet to decide the final list of Scholars
  • A good fit between the applicant’s qualifications and aspirations and the postgraduate programme at Cambridge for which they are applying

Facebook International Fellowship for Doctoral Students 2019

Application Deadline: 12th October 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: Domestic and International Students

To be taken at (country): Any country (excluding US embargoed countries)

Research Areas:
  • CommAI
  • Computational Social Science
  • Compute Storage and Efficiency
  • Computer Vision
  • Distributed Systems
  • Economics and Computation
  • Machine Learning
  • Natural Language Processing
  • Networking and Connectivity
  • Security/Privacy
  • Research Outside of the Above: relevant work in areas that may not align with the research priorities highlighted above.
About the Award: Giving people the power to share and connect requires constant innovation. At Facebook, research permeates everything we do. We believe the most interesting research questions are derived from real-world problems. Our engineers work on cutting edge research with a practical focus and push product boundaries every day. We believe that close relationships with the academic community will enable us to address many of these problems at a fundamental level and solve them. As part of our ongoing commitment to building academic relationships, we are pleased to announce the two year Facebook Fellowship program to support PhD students in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 academic years.

Type: PhD, Fellowship

Selection Criteria and Eligibility:
  • Full-time PhD students who are currently involved in on-going research.
  • Students work must be related to one or more relevant disciplines.
  • Students must be enrolled during the academic year(s) that the Fellowship is awarded.
  • The Fellowship Program is open to PhD students globally who are enrolled in an accredited university in any country.
Number of Scholarships: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: Each Facebook Fellowship includes several benefits:
  • Tuition and fees will be paid for the academic year (up to two years).
  • $37K grant (one-time payment during each academic year).
  • Up to $5,000 in conference travel support.
  • Paid visit to Facebook HQ to present research.
  • Opportunity for a paid internship at Facebook.
Duration of Scholarship: Facebook Fellowship Award to cover two years!

Required application materials:
  • 1-2 page research summary which clearly identifies the area of focus, importance to the field, and applicability to Facebook of the anticipated research during the award. Please reference the topical areas below.
  • Student’s CV (with email, phone and mailing address). Please include applicable coursework.
  • 2 letters of recommendation (one must be from an academic advisor).
How to Apply: The Application is now live. Go to the Site and enter your information.

Visit scholarship webpage for details

Award Sponsors: Facebook

Facebook Emerging Scholar Programme for PhD Students in Emerging Regions 2018

Application Deadline: 12th October, 2018

Eligible Candidates: The Facebook Emerging Scholar Award is provided for first and second year PhD students who are underrepresented minorities in the technology industry.

To be taken at (country): US

About the Award:  The Facebook Emerging Scholar Award is provided for first and second year PhD students who are underrepresented minorities in the technology industry.
For the purpose of the Facebook Emerging Scholar award, underrepresented minority group is considered to include persons who identify as: Black or African American, person having origins in any Black racial groups of Africa; Hispanic or Latino, person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South American, Central American, Caribbean, or other Spanish culture origin, regardless of race; Native American or Alaskan Native, person having origins in any of the original peoples of North, Central, or South America and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment; Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, person having origins in the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa or other Pacific Islands.

Type: Fellowship

Eligibility:  
  • You must be currently enrolled in your first or second year of a PhD program to apply.
  • All applicants will need to use their Facebook account to apply.
Selection Criteria: Applications will be evaluated based on the strength of the student’s proposed research and their recommendation letters.

Number of Awardees: Not specified

Value of Scholarship: 
  • Payment of tuition and fees for two academic years
  • $37,000 annual stipend
  • Up to $5,000 towards conference travel funds
How to Apply: 
  • Research Statement: 1-2 page research summary
  • Resume or CV with email, phone and mailing address, along with applicable coursework noted
  • Two letters of recommendation (Please provide reference email addresses): Advisor and one Professional reference (can be from academia or industry)
Visit Scholarship Webpage for details

Award Provider: Facebook

The Paranoid Drive for Military Intervention in Venezuela

Manuel E. Yepe

“Bomb, invade, occupy a country to see it flourish.” Such is the logic of the absurd philosophy of imperialist interventionism that has been applied by the United States throughout the world in the name of the defense of freedom and western culture.
But war is the worst human calamity and, despite the feverish hopes and utopian promises of its promoters, humanitarian interventions almost always result in unimaginable killings, devastation, horror and suffering added to the situations that “justified” them.
The most recent United States wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Syria) should serve as sufficient proof of this fact: Future humanitarian warriors make serious professions of humanitarianism and end up killing many of those they promised to help.
I consider it very interesting to assess this dilemma from the point of view of the defenders of humanitarian warfare as an ideal mechanism to ensure its geopolitical and/or class advantages in circumstances such as the current ones we are analyzing here.
Let us examine what the imperialist camp is proposing about a possible U.S. military intervention in Venezuela by Doug Bandow. He is a senior researcher at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank founded in Washington D.C. in 1974 as the Charles-Koch Foundation, dedicated to lobbying and promoting capitalist public policies that challenge socialism based on the free principles of individual freedom, limited government and the pro laissez faire markets.
Bandow was President Ronald Reagan’s assistant and author of the book “America’s New Global Empire.
Previously, the warmongering “humanitarian” interveners went straight to looting but, over time, they refined their rhetoric and began to talk about trade and investment opportunities, increases in GDP and other more subtle forms of robbery.
According to Bandow, last year, President Donald Trump asked his aides if the United States should intervene militarily in Venezuela. Everyone argued against the idea. He then asked for the opinion of several Latin American leaders who also strongly opposed it.
However, the US intervention had to be assessed from the point of view of the economic benefits that this could bring, both for the oligarchic sectors of Venezuela and for the hegemonic interests of the United States.
Cynically, it was argued that the number of people killed by an American assault on Venezuela would be reduced. Extrapolating data from the U.S. assault on Panama cites an estimate of 3,500 civilian casualties.
He didn’t consider that war is not just another political tool. It is based on death and destruction. No matter how well-intentioned, military action is often indiscriminate. The course of the conflict is unpredictable and often unexpected.
Bandow admits that the pinkish predictions about the results of a U.S. expeditionary force landing in Venezuela are highly questionable. Such intervention could result in a mixture of civil war and insurgency in which the “good guys” would undoubtedly win, but the costs would be severe.
The Cato Institute researcher acknowledges that it is grotesque to try to justify military action on the grounds that fewer people could die if it didn’t happen.  Should lives be treated as abstract numbers in an account balance? Whatever the number of victims, a war would mean that thousands of people would otherwise be alive and would die.
Who authorized US politicians to make that decision? who anointed Washington to play God with the future of other peoples?
If the security and humanitarian arguments are insufficient, the economic justification is laughable: How much economic benefit for life, American or Venezuelan, justifies war? Imagine a president writing to the families of the dead soldiers explaining that his sacrifice was justified because it helped to increase Venezuela’s annual GDP rate.
And then the height of cynicism: “The most important thing would be the impact on the United States. The main responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect its own people, and its uniformed officers, who should not be treated as pawns on tactics in some global chess game. Their lives should only be in danger when their own nation has something substantial at stake.”
Finally, it is striking that these assessments emanate from the ranks opposed to Chavism, and it is certainly the case that attempting a U.S. military intervention in Venezuela would be the worst, and perhaps the last, madness of U.S. imperialism!

Lebanon’s Precarious Neutrality

Robert Fisk

Facing possible invasion from both Britain and Germany in 1940 and determined to remain neutral, the Irish government in Dublin asked one of its senior ministers to draft a memorandum on how to stay out of the Second World War. “Neutrality is a form of limited warfare,” was his eloquent but bleak response.
The Lebanese would agree. For seven years, they have been pleading and praying and parleying to stay out of the Syrian war nextdoor, to ignore Israel’s threats, Syria’s sisterly embrace, America’s warnings, Russia’s entreaties and Iran’s blandishments. I guess you have to be an especially gifted people to smile obligingly – ingratiatingly, simplistically, bravely, grovellingly, wearily – at all around you and get away with it.
“When Lebanon is without a government for a month, you know the Lebanese are to blame,” a friend announced to me over coffee in Beirut this week. “When Lebanon is without a government for three months, you know foreigners are involved.” Armies have clanked through Lebanon for thousands of years, of course, but its current suitors are arriving with almost daily frequency. The Lebanese are being embraced by the newly victorious Syria, threatened by Israel, warned by the Americans, cuddled by the Russians and vouchsafed eternal love by the Iranians who pay and arm the Lebanese Hezbollah militia. And all this with an $80bn national debt, 1.5 million Syrian refugees, and electricity cuts – every day, without exception – since 1975.
It’s a lesson in how to be small, stay safe and live in fear. The caretaker cabinet of Saad Hariri – in effect, the pre-election Lebanese government and the next government rolled into one, each minister chosen under the country’s tiresome Muslim-Christian system of sectarianism – has adopted a policy of “dissociation” from regional conflicts. “Dissociation” is a version of neutrality, in which almost everyone from the Americans to the Iranians and the EU pretends that Lebanon is united in mutual love, and of far more use intact than destroyed in a rerun of the 1975-1990 civil war. The EU, of course, is lavishing money on the bankrupt Lebanese patient because it doesn’t want even more refugees pouring into Europe.
In fact Lebanon’s neutrality also protects it from itself. The Sunnis receive massive funding from the Saudis, who loathe the Iranians, Hezbollah and the Lebanese Shias who support them. The Sunni Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri loves the Saudis – or rather, has to love the Saudis, since they support his premiership and because he holds Saudi citizenship and the Saudis believe he will do their bidding. Readers may remember the gentlemanly kidnapping of Hariri in Riyadh last year and his ghostly reappearance before Saudi television to “resign” his Lebanese premiership until president Macron rescued him from the clutches of crown prince Mohammad bin Salman, and spirited him to Paris where he mysteriously resumed his Lebanese premiership. Hariri, being an eclectic passport holder, is also a French citizen.
The Lebanese Christians, as always, are divided – President Michel Aoun remains a pal of Assad, the rest fear another Syrian “intervention” in Lebanon – while Hezbollah says that if Israel strikes Iran, the war between Shia militias and Israel will restart in southern Lebanon. Israel regularly threatens Hezbollah – to Hezbollah’s delight – and Lebanon. Walid Jumblatt’s Druze still await the destruction of Assad. Try explaining all that to Donald Trump. After all, it’s only a year ago that the dotty US president praised Hariri for being “in the front line of the fight against Hezbollah” – haplessly unaware that poor old Hariri sits next to Hezbollah’s ministers in the Lebanese cabinet.
The Americans (and the Saudis) therefore maintain their constant and useless exhortation to Lebanon that the Shia Hezbollah must be disarmed/disbanded/merged with the Lebanese army – since they are armed by Iran (the font of all evil), the enemy of Israel (the font of all goodness) and the ally of Syria (whose leader the Americans still theoretically want to dethrone as the font of all chemical warfare) – while sending arms to the Lebanese army. Besides, no Lebanese soldier – least of all a Shia – is going to attack his Shia brothers and sisters in south Lebanon for the benefit of the Americans, Saudis or Israelis.
So American support keeps coming, up to a point; just two months ago, Lebanese army commander general Joseph Aoun was in Washington to discuss “counter-terrorism cooperation” – only months after his soldiers and Hezbollah (‘terrorists’, according to the US State Department) had together helped to drive Islamists out of the Ersal pocket in north-eastern Lebanon. The Americans gave the Lebanese army four A-29 Super Tucano light-attack aircraft, powerful enough to shoot up Isis, weak enough to be of no threat to Israel. US military aid to Lebanon stands at a slightly measly $70m a year – compare it to $47bn over 40 years to the Egyptian military, which cannot even suppress the current Isis uprising in Sinai. And US weapons will cease to arrive in Beirut, the Americans have made perfectly clear, the moment the Lebanese are tempted by Iranian offers.
The Iranians, with their crashing rial economy, have been offering Beirut even more cash – from where, exactly, we don’t know – than the Americans, along with guns, agricultural and industrial assistance. After Iran’s new military and defence agreements with Syria, and the “productive role” it will play in Syria’s post-war reconstruction – the words of Iranian defence minister Amir Hatami – not to mention the rebuilding of Syrian military installations, airbases, schools, hospitals (comparatively speaking, this list is of Marshall Plan proportions) there must surely be a merging of funds and fantasy. You wouldn’t think that Iran’s minister of economy had been dismissed this week. The Russians, needless to say, want their stake in the reconstruction of Syria – so do the Lebanese, one might add – but in Lebanon the Russians have a team offering to take tens of thousands of Syrian refugees home under guarantees of safety.
This is good news for President Aoun and his foreign minister Gebran Bassil (who happens to be Aoun’s son-in-law), who want to get rid of the Syrian refugee camps across Lebanon and help to restore “normalisation” to Syria. But there were lots of objections from the Europeans and the UN, who’ll have to get involved and want to make sure the refugees don’t get slapped into prison the moment they cross the border and more than anything want to avoid the “normalisation” of post-war Syria under Assad.
The Syrians, meanwhile, want to resume their formerly “sisterly” relations with Lebanon and are impatient when the Lebanese – especially Hariri – resist. Syria, with massive power cuts of its own, is already offering electricity to Lebanon, and the Lebanese were delighted to hear that the Syrian government had just retaken control of the Syrian-Jordanian frontier post at Nassib. This would surely reopen the only land transit passage for Lebanese exports to Jordan and the Gulf.
But there was a catch. Syria’s ambassador to Beirut, Ali Abdul Karim Ali, made a suitably Baathist remark this week. “Enemies are now looking for ways to put their pride aside, so” – and here he was referring to Lebanon – “what about the brotherly country whose land borders are all with Syria, in addition to occupied Palestine?” For Palestine, read Israel. And, Ali added, “Syria of course needs Lebanon, but Lebanon needs it more.” Then came reports – unconfirmed but distressing for Hariri’s pro-Saudi camp – that while returning refugees could cross the Nassib border post, it was not yet open to Lebanese lorries carrying the country’s fruit and vegetable exports. “Blackmail,” roared Hariri. Even more galling for the Lebanese was a photograph showing Russian military police as well as Syrian troops at the Nassib border.
So if Lebanon needs Syria more than Syria needs Lebanon, I suppose that Lebanon needs America more than America needs Lebanon – but Iran needs Lebanon more than Lebanon needs Iran. And the Saudis need Lebanon, because they can use Hariri as the figurehead of Sunnism against the Shia Hezbollah/Syrian axis and thus damage Shia Iran. And the Lebanese, with their $80bn debt – a result of the policies, ironically, of Hariri’s murdered father Rafiq – need the Saudis. The Russians? Surely, with their fleet sailing the billows off the Syrian coastal city of Tartus, they need no one. Perhaps that Irish minister – Frank Aiken, veteran of the Irish war of independence and the Irish civil war – was right in 1940. Neutrality is a form of limited warfare.

Chemically Induced Frankenstein-Humans

Robert Hunziker

One of the biggest open questions of this century is whether 144,000 different chemicals swirling throughout the world are properly tested and analyzed for toxicity. By almost all accounts, the scale of toxic risk is unknown. This may be the biggest tragedy of all time, a black eye of enormous proportions.
Correspondingly and very likely, not yet 100% proven but probably 99%, as a result of ubiquitous chemical presence, one hundred fifty million (150,000,000) Americans have chronic disease, including high cholesterol, high blood pressure, arthritis, heart disease, diabetes, fibromyalgia, cancer, stroke, asthma, cystic fibrosis, obesity, and osteoporosis (Rand Corporation Review 2017). Why?
According to Dr. Paul Winchester, who discovered the link between chemicals, like pesticides atrazine and glyphosate aka Roundup and epigenetic human alteration, the findings are: “The most important next discovery in all of medicine.” (Source: EcoWatch, Aug. 16, 2018)
Dr. Winchester was one of the researchers/authors of “Atrazine Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Disease, Lean Phenotype and Sperm Epimutation Pathology Biomarkers,” PLOS, published September 20, 2017.
The grisly underlying message of that study is as clear as a bell: Chemicals found far and wide throughout America alter human hormones as well as human DNA, which passes along generation-to-generation known as transgenerational inheritance.
Frankly, nothing more should need to be said to spur outrage and pissed-off people all across the land because, if that seminal study is correct in its analysis that chemicals mess up/distort/disrupt human hormones and alter human DNA in a destructive manner, then the streets of America should be filled with people wielding pots and pans, probably pitchforks, and ready for the fight of a lifetime because, by any account, there has been massive failure of ethical standards and regulations of chemicals for decades and decades. Who’s to blame?
The primary targets are (1) the EPA and (2) FDA and (3) pesticide/chemical manufacturers, like Monsanto, and ultimately the U.S. Congress.
The chemicals in the aforementioned study include the herbicide atrazine, one of the most widely used herbicides in the country and commonly detected in drinking water. The study demonstrated that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor that negatively alters human hormonal systems, as chronic diseases overwhelm American society.
The European Union (EU) banned atrazine in 2003 because of persistent groundwater contamination. However, as for the EPA in America, it’s okay, no problem. But, doubtlessly one of those jurisdictions is dead wrong because it’s a black and white matter. Either toxic chemicals horribly messes up DNA and cause chronic diseases or not, no middle ground. As for America, chronic disease is at epidemic levels at 60% of the population. Where, why, and how if not from environmental sources?
Yet, the most disturbing issue is the epigenetic impact, meaning that environmental factors impact the health of people and also their descendants. It stays with and passes along the human genome generation-by-generation-by-generation.
According to Dr. Winchester, “This is a really important concept that is difficult to teach the public, and when I say the public, I include my clinical colleagues.” (EcoWatch)
Still, atrazine is not the only human hormone-altering chemical in the environment. Dr. Winchester tested nearly 20 different chemicals and all demonstrated epigenetic effects, for example, all of the chemicals reduced fertility, even in the 3rd generation.
Still, why do 150,000,000 Americans have chronic diseases?
Researchers believe that every adult disease extant is linked to epigenetic origins. If confirmed over time with additional research, the study is a blockbuster that goes to the heart of public health and attendant government regulations.
According to Dr. Winchester: “This is a huge thing that is going to change how we understand the origin of disease. But a big part of that is that it will change our interpretation of what chemicals are safe. In medicine I can’t give a drug to somebody unless it has gone through a huge amount of testing. But all these chemicals haven’t gone through anything like that. We’ve been experimented on for the last 70 years, and there’s not one study on multigenerational effects.” (EcoWatch)
The U.S. Congress passed a new chemical safety law for the first time in 40 years with the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act in 2016, but the provisions for regulation are totally overwhelmed by the tasks at hand. For starters, more than 60,000 chemicals came to the market without safety testing, and the burden of proof for regulators previously was so burdensome that the EPA wasn’t able to ban asbestos when necessary.
As for the effectiveness of the new law, consider this statement in the following article, “It Could Take Centuries for EPA to Test all the Unregulated Chemicals Under a New Landmark Bill,” PBS SoCal, June 22, 2016: “The new law requires EPA to test tens of thousands of unregulated chemicals currently on the market, and the roughly 2,000 new chemicals introduced each year, but quite slowly. The EPA will review a minimum of 20 chemicals at a time, and each has a seven-year deadline. Industry may then have five years to comply after the new rule is made. At that pace it could take centuries for the agency to finish its review.”
If that’s the best Congress can do to protect its citizens from toxic chemicals, they should be run out of town tarred and feathered on a rail. One more reason to abandon America’s socio-economic-politico scenario; maybe socialism would work better at protecting citizens.
Meantime, children are caught up smack dab in the middle of this 70-yr. experiment of untested and poorly/ill-tested chemicals.
Roundup (glyphosate) for breakfast? Yes, independent lab tests by Eurofins Analytical Laboratories found hefty doses of the weed-killer Roundup in oat cereals, oatmeal, granola, and snack bars. (Source: Alexis Temkin, Ph.D. Toxicologist, Breakfast With a Dose of Roundup? Environmental Working Group (EWG), Aug. 15, 2018)
“EWG tested more than a dozen brands of oat-based foods to give Americans information about dietary exposures that government regulators are keeping secret. In April, internal emails obtained by the nonprofit US Right to Know revealed that the Food and Drug Administration has been testing food for glyphosate for two years and has found ‘a fair amount,’ but the FDA has not released the findings.” (Environmental Working Group, August 15, 2018)
California state scientists and the World Health Organization have linked glyphosate to cancer. Yet, the chemical is pervasively found in products. Yes, on regular ole grocery store shelves.
EWG found the chemical in several cereals such as Back to Nature Classic Granola, Quaker Simply Granola Oats, Honey, Raisins & Almonds, Great Value Original Instant Oatmeal, Cheerios, Lucky Charms, Barbara’s Multigrain Spoonfuls Original, Quaker Old Fashioned Oats, etc.
Ironically, they all sound so very very healthy.

Why are French media obsessed with Ecology Minister Hulot’s resignation?

Francis Dubois

For a week, the French political establishment has been giving wall-to-wall coverage to the sudden resignation of Ecology Minister Nicolas Hulot on August 28. He announced his resignation in a short statement in an interview on France Inter radio, apparently without warning either President Emmanuel Macron or Prime Minister Edouard Philippe. Just before, he had declared that the government had not reached any of its ecological objectives, because it was not interested in them. He added that his decision had “matured over many months.”
Pundits and politicians turned Hulot, the former presenter on the extreme sports TV show “Ushuaïa,” into a great moral conscience of France, and his resignation into a moral crisis of the government.
Le Point called it “A resignation that hurts,” while Le Monde said the autumn would be “struck by the Hulot storm.” Unsubmissive France (LFI) leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon hailed Hulot’s gesture as “a vote to censure Macron.” Olivier Besancenot, of the Pabloite New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA), applauded Hulot’s resignation on Twitter, writing: “For Macron it’s not just the political back-to-school period, it’s a car crash!”
One-term ex-president François Hollande saluted Hulot, intoning, “He was right!” Hollande added, “I know what he brings, he is both a conscience and an expert of planetary issues.”
Macron’s party, The Republic on the March (LRM), did not admit to being moved, but was at least “bothered” by Hulot’s resignation. Le Monde wrote, “This departure upsets the vast majority of the members of the president’s party, who were deeply attached to the person of this ecologist and the causes he defends.” It cited an LRM leader who said Hulot represented “a struggle for ecology that is based in reality,” that is to say, based on capitalism, that corresponds “perfectly to the political identity of LRM members. His departure leaves us pretty bothered.”
With this flood of platitudes about Hulot, the ruling elite is trying to reassure TV audiences, and itself, on the cheap. Despite the collapse of the big-business Socialist Party (PS) last year and rising working-class anger at austerity, the political establishment is recklessly plunging ahead with plans to demolish the pension system and pledging to spend hundreds of billions of euros on the army. Fifty years after the May 1968 general strike, an explosive confrontation is being prepared.
Indeed, 10 days after an Elabe poll found that only 16 percent of Frenchmen think Macron’s policy helps France, and only 6 percent think it helps them, the media are all talking about Macron’s crisis. But it is only to noisily and endlessly congratulate itself that the ruling establishment contains moral giants, like what they pretend Hulot is, who are capable of being so true to themselves.
The constant praise of Hulot obscures the vast unpopularity of attacks on workers’ social rights; the role played by LFI, the NPA and the trade unions who sign contracts validating Macron’s social attacks; and the real danger of war. As Hulot resigned, Moscow was urgently warning NATO of the danger of a direct military clash in Syria. The official obsession with Hulot only underscores the vast class gulf separating the financial aristocracy from the workers and the perplexity of a ruling class that is historically doomed.
Of course, as the media never tire of repeating, Hulot is France’s most popular politician—though it is from the not-so-towering heights of a 38 percent approval rating. This puts him above Macron, Philippe and Mélenchon (17 percent in July). It is true that unlike Hollande or Macron, the presenter of “Ushuaïa” gives the impression that he would be happier doing TV entertainment than ordering drone murder or shaking the hand of a bloodthirsty dictator like Hollande’s friend, Egyptian General Abdel Fattah al Sisi.
Hulot was clever enough not to comment on the main policies of the government of which he was a member: the vast surge in military spending, the building of a network of internment camps for refugees, and the slashing of workers’ social rights. Unlike Macron, he did not snigger at the death of Comorian refugees drowning in the Indian Ocean or denounce the “crazy amounts of money” that France spends on social programmes for the working poor.
The fact that one becomes by default France’s most popular minister by not commenting on political events testifies, however, not to the strength but the degeneracy of the ruling elite. If this silence won him a small measure of popular sympathy, it does not make him a moral titan.
Hulot did not oppose the policies of the most right-wing government France has known since the Nazi occupation, a government he said he had “immense friendship” with as he resigned. He did not resign after Macron demolished the Labour Code with his antidemocratic decrees, launched an unprovoked bombing of Syria, privatised the National Railways, or rammed through a draconian immigration bill destroying the right to asylum.
He had entered the government knowing full well it was dedicated to austerity and militarism and based its foreign policy on France’s nuclear deterrent. When Macron sent military police to besiege and then brutally assault ecological protesters at Notre-Dame-des-Landes, Hulot approved the assault and hailed the policemen for their “restraint.”
His presence in government underscores above all the hypocrisy and blindness of a certain type of petty-bourgeois Green politics, which criticises the construction of nuclear power plants but calmly watches on as the government plans nuclear war.
Hulot declared a net worth of €7.2 million, including a personal fleet of six cars that attracted criticism for giving Hulot a large carbon footprint. In the context of the #MeToo campaign, Hulot was also targeted this spring by still unverified rape allegations from sections of the PS that were vastly hyped by the media and linked to aggressive calls for his resignation.
Now, he is instead being hailed for choosing the right time to leave the government, whose actions are now directly contradicting Hulot’s statements. The day after he resigned, a joint report of the economy ministry and Hulot’s own ecology ministry, stamped “top secret,” called for the building of six new nuclear reactors in France.
With Hulot running the ecology ministry, the government stepped up the burial of nuclear waste, even as studies confirm the rise of cancer rates around burial sites like Soulaines. Health researchers have confirmed a 28 percent increase in lung cancer mortality in a 15-kilometre radius around the nuclear site at Soulaines compared to the entire Aube and Haute Marne administrative department where Soulaines is located.
To win over the hunting lobby, the Macron government is working on a reform of hunting laws that makes broad concessions to traditionally right-wing hunters’ organisations. Hulot was then beset by criticisms from animal rights and scientific groups.
With relations between the financial aristocracy and the working class tense to the point of breakdown, Hulot carried out a policy that was entirely based on entertaining certain ecological and political illusions in wealthy and conformist layers of society. In the working class, an entirely different type of movement is being prepared, with revolutionary implications.

US push for sanctions of China over treatment of Uyghur minority

Peter Symonds

As the Trump administration escalates its trade war measures with China, a powerful group of US lawmakers headed by Senator Marco Rubio issued a letter last week calling for sanctions against Chinese officials allegedly responsible for human rights abuses against the Muslim Uyghur minority in the western province of Xinjiang.
There is no doubt that the Chinese police-state apparatus is responsible for gross violations of democratic rights against the Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities, as well as the Chinese working class as a whole. Under conditions of slowing economic growth and rising social tensions, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime is terrified that any opposition can become the focus for a broader movement that could threaten its rule.
Washington’s selective spotlighting of human rights abuses, however, has nothing to do with defending the Uyghur minority. It is aimed at whipping up anti-Chinese sentiment and encouraging separatist movements. Rubio chairs the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC)—an anti-China body that last month tabled a report replete with unsubstantiated allegations of Chinese interference in American politics. 
The letter signed by Rubio and 16 other members of congress called on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to impose sanctions on Chen Quanguo, CCP secretary for the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, and other officials involved in human rights abuses. It also called for sanctions against Chinese companies, such as Hikvision and Dahua Technology, that allegedly profit from government contracts for surveillance projects.
“The detention of as many as a million or more Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim ethnic minorities in ‘political re-education’ centres or camps,” the letter declared, “requires a tough, targeted, and global response.” It called on the State Department to engage in “robust diplomatic engagement with likeminded governments to further elevate this human rights crisis” on the international stage.
Just days after the letter was published, the US and international media exploited a report from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to inflate claims of Uyghur persecution in China. The Los Angeles Times headlined its article “UN accuses China of holding more than a million Muslims in secret detention centres.”
The UN report itself was more cautious about its claims, stating that large numbers of ethnic Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities were held without charge or trial under the pretext of countering terrorism and religious extremism. “Estimates about them range from tens of thousands to upwards of a million,” it declared, without citing any evidence to support the claim.
In its submission to the UN committee, the US-based Human Rights Watch suggested that “at least tens of thousands of Uyghurs” have been arbitrarily detained in political education centres. It referred to human rights abuses, including torture and restrictions on movement, freedom of religion and expression.
China, in its submission to the UN committee, said “there are no such things as re-education centres or counter-extremism training centres in Xinjiang,” adding that claims of a million Uyghurs being held in such facilities were “completely untrue.” Such declarations are certainly false. Beijing has cracked down ruthlessly on any protests or expressions of separatist sentiment in Xinjiang and heavily censors news reports.
Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying pointed to the hypocrisy of the US congressmen by suggesting that “China’s ethnic minority policy and actual situation are much better than those of the United States.” Highlighting the atrocious US record on democratic rights and its support for autocratic regimes around the world, however, is not a justification for CCP police-state measures.
Significantly, Rubio and his fellow lawmakers have concentrated on Xinjiang, rather than Tibet, which has been exploited previously in a similar fashion. Their letter hints at why. It declared that “the last thing China’s leaders want is international condemnation” of its abuses, “at a time when the Chinese government is seeking to expand its influence through the Belt and Road Initiative.”
The Belt and Road Initiative is a massive Chinese infrastructure project involving the construction of rail, road, port and communication facilities to link the Eurasian landmass by land and sea. Developed in response to the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” aimed at undermining and encircling China, Beijing is trying to more closely integrate Eurasia economically and in doing so prevent China’s isolation.
As the westernmost province of China, Xinjiang is a focus for many of the land routes and pipelines planned to Central Asia and on to Europe. The congressional letter to the Trump administration seeks to encourage Washington to exploit Uyghur separatism to disrupt the Belt and Road Initiative and potentially fracture China itself.
The CIA and other agencies of US imperialism have long-standing ties with various Uyghur and Tibetan separatist organisations around the globe. Funds have been funnelled through the US-financed National Endowment for Democracy to the Uyghur American Association and the World Uyghur Congress based in Munich, which has close connections to the US propaganda arm, Radio Free Asia. These US activities are used by Beijing as another justification for their own repressive measures.
Democratic rights for the various ethnic minorities in China will not be won through the reactionary intrigues of the US and its various accomplices, but only in unity with the working class throughout China in a struggle against the oppressive CCP regime as part of the fight for genuine socialism internationally.

US report on Chinese “United Front Work” seeks to whip-up hostility towards China

Gabriel Black

On August 24, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission published a new report entitled, “China’s Overseas United Front Work: Background and Implications for the United States.” Written by Alexander Bowe, it argues that China is working to “co-opt and neutralize sources of potential opposition” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the US by funding and directing Chinese cultural student groups.
The report is, in reality, more of a pseudo-factual tirade aimed at whipping up an atmosphere of hysteria towards Chinese “spying” and “overreach” on American soil. It is the latest of many such hypocritical reports and articles that ideologically lay the groundwork for much more aggressive US measures against China, with the ultimate aim being the justification of war.
The main body of the report reproduces a host of alleged incidents of CCP funding and direction of Chinese student organizations in the US, which it claims are part of China’s “United Front” policy of “neutralizing” dissent abroad. The report, however, can only cite examples from two organizations, the Chinese Students and Scholars Associations (CSSA) and the Confucius Institutes.
The CSSA, which is present on many major campuses in the US, is, according to its Wikipedia entry, the “official organization for overseas Chinese students and scholars registered in most colleges, Universities, and Institutions outside of China.” It puts on social events and cultural events, like important Chinese holidays, and helps Chinese students navigate being in a foreign country.
The report notes several controversies surrounding the CSSA, including a CSSA allegedly paying its members $20 each for showing up to see former President Hu Jintao speak in 2011, emails presented by Foreign Policy showing, in 2018, that Georgetown University CSSA accepted funding from the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C., and the UC San Diego CSSA protesting the Dalai Lama speaking, a known asset of US intelligence. The report worries that China is exercising its “soft power” by financing and directing these cultural agencies.
Were all the factual allegations of this report true, they would amount to a small pile of salt next to the towering crimes and interventions of US imperialism in other countries. The US government alleges that the Chinese government is “neutralizing dissent” by funding these organizations on US soil. But, if paying students $20 to attend a speech is part of a larger plan to “neutralize dissent” in China against the CCP, then it would be difficult to find words to adequately describe the blood-soaked century of regime changes and war crimes perpetrated by the US, including numerous coups and CIA-backed civil wars.
An underlying fear in the report, is that positive Chinese-American relations could give Americans a positive association with China. For example, it complains that the Chinese government, through the Confucius Institutes, pays for 6,000 US high school students to visit China. The author writes, “An important goal of these exchanges is to try to build a friendly environment for China’s interests by giving participants favorable views of China, which they then disseminate, helping to legitimize the CCP.”
The report cites favorably a remark from Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, an editor for Foreign Policy and writer for the Daily Beast, who actually advised the writing of the report, that the students would not have been able to afford to visit China had the government not funded it. The implication is that the US state-complex would prefer that US students have less contact with China, not visit the country so much, and not form “favorable views” that could help “to legitimize the CCP.”
Allen-Ebrahimian’s work, which is cited frequently in the report, is also aimed at whipping up anti-China sentiment. Her most recent article, published in the Daily Beast is titled, “NO ESCAPE: Chinese Cops Now Spying on American Soil.”
The Commission report makes the point that the greatest difficulty of China’s so-called “United Front” tactic, is that it “seek[s] influence through connections that are difficult to publicly prove and to gain influence that is interwoven with sensitive issues such as ethnic, political, and national identity, making those who seek to identify the negative effects of such influence vulnerable to accusations of prejudice.” In other words, the United States has a hard time justifying to the public cracking down on, or discouraging institutions, whose primary activity is cultural and social because it would look bad.
In another section, the report says China’s “United Front” tactic poses “a number of difficulties to US law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies.” It continues, “For instance, in light of the fact that the United Front work and China’s intelligence services specifically target ethnic Chinese, US law enforcement agencies attempt to design their counterintelligence protocols to avoid the perception of discrimination, with investigators focusing on tracking the activity of intelligence collectors to find out whom they have targeted, not the other way around.”
The passage then goes on to cite former FBI agent David Major, who testified to the China Economic Security and Review Commission in 2016 that, “It’s not how [the US government looks] at ethnicity; it’s how the [Chinese intelligence] collector looks at ethnicity. The Chinese intelligence services specifically target people who are [Han]. [Chinese-Americans] … have a higher probability of being targeted because of what [China’s] world view is.”
This is a remarkable passage. It is a back-handed justification of a mass dragnet against Chinese nationals living in the US on the basis that they are supposedly susceptible to the actions of Chinese intelligence—all of which is unsubstantiated.
The report must be placed in the context of the intensifying drive to war against China.
In November 2011, President Barack Obama declared the “pivot to Asia,” a comprehensive military, economy, and political strategy to encircle China and undermine its regional influence. The pivot included, among other things, the redeployment of 60 percent of the US armed forces to the Asia-Pacific region. The Trump administration has escalated the confrontation with China with a series of trade war measures which only heighten the danger of conflict.
It also takes place amid bitter infighting in US ruling circles over unsubstantiated allegations of “Russian interference” in the 2016 presidential elections and Trump’s collusion with Moscow. The feuding reflects tactical differences within the American security, military and political establishment over whether Russia or China should be confronted first. The report has the character of riposte by those who consider China to be the greatest danger to US global dominance.
Significantly, the report relies heavily on alleged Chinese interference and influence in Australia and New Zealand as proof of China’s global machinations. In reality, the allegations of Chinese activities in these two countries—both closely aligned with the US against China—are just as threadbare as those in the US report. In a warning of what is being prepared in the US, the Australian parliament has just rammed through draconian new “anti-foreign interference” legislation that creates a battery of new crimes that will be used against individuals and organizations opposed to the US war drive against China.