After receiving death threats, two movie theaters in Canada have cancelled showing the anti-abortion movie ‘Unplanned’. ‘Unplanned’ is the story of anti-abortion activist Abby Johnson. For eight years she was the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic but switched to a Pro-life position after seeing a doctor perform an abortion. The Abortion Rights Coalition in Canada called the movie a “dangerous piece of anti-abortion propaganda.” Last time I checked, adult consumers had a right to make value judgements themselves, whether the secular authorities, the religious authorities, or various NGOs liked it or not. Death threats are unacceptable, and so is censorship. Conservative groups don’t have a right to ban movies that Liberals like, and Liberal groups don’t have a right to ban movies that Conservatives like.
by Serban V.C. Enache
This is a brief case of why I think Iran should leave the JCPOA, in spite of all the bad press it’s going to get on the international stage. The seizure of the Iranian oil tanker bound for Syria should be the last straw. It was nothing short of piracy, completely illegal under international law. Teheran’s strategy of patience vis-a-vis the Western powers was tried and it failed; that’s clear as daylight and any more pussyfooting around will scarcely delay the inevitable [i.e. a permanent cold war situation]. The UN and other international organizations, like the IAEA, simply don’t matter if the Hegemon has set its mind, facts and honor be damned.
The biggest pushers for an Iran-US conflict are the neoconservatives, and sadly, that course of action has support at grassroots level among the Christian Zionists – we’re talking here about the Right, not the Far Right [KKKers and Neonazis]. Despite all efforts made by the likes of Tucker Carlson to educate the Conservative American public about the real situation in the Middle East, many of them remain brainwashed by mainstream propaganda – as is evident in this particular comment section of Newsmax. Here’s a taste of it: ‘If Iran gets a nuke, it will surely use it on Israel’ – ‘Muslims will lie to everyone to get their way’ – ‘They should do what Trump tells them, or have their oil taken as war spoils’ – ‘What have the Iranians done with the billions we gave them?’
That last comment is the type of inquisitive thinking that can’t be raised to Saudi Arabia and Israel – both sponsors of regional instability, terrorist tactics, and terrorist organizations – and the latter [Israel], a big customer of US “aid”. As for the claim that the ‘crazy Iranian jihadists’ will nuke Israel if they get the A-bomb, that’s one of the more easier things to debunk. In over two hundred years, Iran has attacked, get this, ZERO countries. The same can’t be said of the USA or Israel. There is no precedent in history in which a country possessing nukes dropped nukes on another nuclear power. There is no precedent in history in which a country possessing nukes was invaded by a power that had or hadn’t nukes. There’s no better guarantee that you won’t get invaded. Can the West, or better yet, the world as a whole, deliver guarantees that a country won’t be invaded if it disposes of its nukes and nuke-manufacturing facilities? In a rational and just world, yes – such guarantees would exist de jure and de facto. But we’re not living in such a world!
The Right in the US is hungriest to do Israel’s bidding in the Middle East, geopolitical ventures popularized and waged at the expense of US capital and US soldiers’ lives. Bill Maher, years ago asked Netanyahu what’s Israel’s secret for waging speedy wars. Netanyahu answered quickly and truthfully “Our secret is the US.” And no, I haven’t forgotten about the fake doves among the Democrats. Here’s Jimmy Dore utterly destroying Kamala Harris’ hypocritical, hawkish rhetoric.
What trust can the Iranians put in the European powers, let alone in Washington, who betrayed the deal first? The Europeans announce Instex, a system which was developed at a crawl, and one that won’t work if it doesn’t extend to oil sales [which it doesn’t in lack of an accord between Washington and its European allies], and immediately after that, an Iranian oil tanker is seized in international waters. The European signatories of the JCPOE, the actors who allegedly desire a peaceful and diplomatic solution to the situation, haven’t condemned that blatant act of piracy. Worse still, Iran is the target of false flag operations, designed to make it appear as a rogue state that’s asking for “it” [to be bombed and or invaded]. Iran should swiftly pull out of the nuclear agreement, stating objective reasons for the move and just wish everybody a pleasant day.
The West’s double-standards and warmongering are painfully obvious, or they should be to anyone possessing a fraction of a neuron inside their heads. Countries like Pakistan, India, and Israel are not signatories of the non-proliferation treaty, and you don’t see anyone in the Western or Eastern press calling for sanctions against these countries, based on the fact they have nukes and the capability to produce more.
But won’t the Iranian economy suffer if the country pulls out? It is suffering already, and the more it tries to be patient and negotiate with parties only concerned with their own image on the international stage, who aren’t in truth interested in establishing a functional deal, Teheran’s policy will remain unsuccessful.
Iranian imports from and exports to the West aren’t insurmountable market losses. Teheran should pursue closer cooperation with the few strategic partner states it has and should dramatically expand import substitution programs. Consumers are going to pay higher bills, yes, but in the medium term the situation will stabilize, and long term Iran will benefit from fully matured industries in terms of labor skills, output capacity, and know-how [technology level]. As I wrote in a past article, The Sovereign Nation State, in reference to the wisdom of Friedrich List on historical economics, a nation’s true wealth is the full and multifaceted development of its productive powers, not its current exchange values. For example, the nation’s economic education is more important than immediate production of value, and it might be right for one generation to sacrifice its gain and enjoyment to secure strength and skill for future generations. All measure of achievement is attained through sacrifice. The art of statecraft is knowing which sacrifices to make…
Yet the threat of military confrontation remains either way. Eternal vigilance seems a cliche, but I can’t come up with anything better. Iran, through all channels, private and state-run media, especially alt-media channels, needs to debunk all the false flag operations, it needs to shed an inquisitive light on the past deeds and motivations of its would-be attackers today, the past crimes of US administrations, all the hypocrisy, all the double-dealing, all the mythology surrounding the War on Terror, everything. So long as a majority in the Western audience remains wise against the war propaganda, Western governments will have a tougher time selling their hawkish plans, a tougher time engaging in bombing campaigns and invasion. Sanctions will remain, to be sure, they’ll even get harsher – but no enemy can rob you of your will and spirit.
In the third paragraph, the Letter asserts: “While our nation has encouraged more stable and inclusive political systems in the Middle East, the regime in Tehran has spread its influence and destabilized its neighbors for its own gain.” To say this is an outrageous distortion of the truth would be an understatement. There is not a sane Iraqi, Syrian, Lybian, Yemeni and most Muslim Arabs who would vouch to such a distortion. In fact, internationally, the US and Israel are viewed as sources of threat to international peace and security; both have boots on foreign grounds but no foreign boots on their grounds. […]
Beyond any conceivable doubts, the Letter was dictated by Israelis or their advocates in Washington, signed and submitted by the 400 congressmen to Trump; the height of hypocrisy. What is dismaying is that hardly any voices of protests were raised in the American society at large or the political or intellectual segments about the fact that four hundred congressmen, who are elected by Americans to serve American interests, at a time when the US is bogged down in the Arab region, sign and submit a letter to the US President concerned almost exclusively with Israel Security.
These congressmen had an opportunity to make a coherent recommendation on US policy in the Arab region in the interest of American National Interest, but instead chose to make recommendations to safeguard the wellbeing and security of a foreign state: Israel.
Read the full article by Elias Samo here.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the firestorm created by Ann Widdecombe’s speech before the EU, Strasbourg parliament, where the Brexit Party MEP compared the European Union to oppressors – and that people are rising up against their owners, their feudal masters. Widdecombe also singled out Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s Brexit coordinator.
My comment: Labour MP David Lammy, in the all too characteristic fashion of the identitarian left, was quick to exploit Widdecombe’s speech to express how offended he was by it; and made it all about race, “his ancestors” throwing off the bonds of slavery. Obviously, Lammy doesn’t know much about European history [European countries subjugating and killing each other in past epochs]. I applaud Ann Widdecombe. She’s a person who says what she thinks, and isn’t bothered if some people dislike her opinions. She’s a non-misandrist feminist and an ardent critic of misandrist ones, which is refreshing. I don’t agree with her on all issues, but if I was pro-exit, which I am, I’d be happy to have her on my side.
Follow the Duran website, their youtube channel, their iTunes Podcast, their Soundcloud, on Minds, on Facebook, on Twitter, and on Instagram for future videos and great discussions. If you like their content and are able to spare a few bucks, visit their Shop, their Patreon page, their Paypal to show your support.
by Serban V.C. Enache
Years ago, whenever I saw a comment saying “liberalism is a mental illness,” I would shake my head, bewildered on what such a statement means. But after hearing more and more liberals, I’ve come to the conclusion that some sort of synaptic misfire happens in the brains of these people. I saw a recent material on RT live, sadly, I couldn’t find a link to the particular piece, on gender-neutral uniforms being adopted in some schools in the UK. One of the two guests interviewed on RT, Linda Bellos Obe, confessed to being a lesbian, a feminist, and a grandmother [nothing wrong with these things], said she is in favor of school uniforms [again, nothing wrong with that] and that she supports the ban on skirts in schools – all skirts, not just miniskirts, ALL skirts. Then she stated that girls [in schools] object to boys “fetishizing” them. Come again? And this person is a “equality law specialist.” That’s absolutely frightening… She makes the case for [gender-neutral] school uniforms that children and people in general like to be part of a club; and that the uniform signifies membership to that club. That’s just an argument for mass-conformity, something that the ‘cultural left’ fought against decades ago; but it seems that fight wasn’t about liberalization, or the goal was changed / mutated in the meantime. Hence the label “regressive progressive.”
To quote George Carlin, I wouldn’t want to be part of any group in which you either have to wear a hat, or you can’t wear a hat. In school, I experienced both systems: uniforms in primary school and just a dress code in high school [no obscene or vulgar outfits or offensive messages on outfits]. Obviously, the latter system gives the student a lot more leeway and I prefer it. The liberal feminists of today seem bent on shackling women to their political agenda and political organizations, instead of persuading them via a set of moral principles. The former path takes little brain power expenditures and brings in cash, the latter path requires actual work put into debates – and if we’ve learned anything during the last ten years or so, liberals don’t want debate, because such a forum “allows racist and sexist viewpoints to be heard.” That’s the exact same logic religious fundamentalists would invoke, such a forum “allows heretical and blasphemous viewpoints to be heard.” It’s the same logic the Establishment uses to prevent alternative / reformist POVs to spread among people.
I fully agree with the other person who was interviewed, Chris McGovern from CRE. I believe his position was completely sensible and in the interest of both straight and non-straight students. Whether the school in question has a uniform policy in place or not, girls should be able to wear pants if they want to; girls should be able to wear skirts if they want to. Ditto for boys [ever heard of kilts?]. But Linda Bellos Obe, the so-called “equality law specialist,” labeled dissent on this issue among the left as unwelcome infighting. In other words, we mustn’t work out contradictions, because that diminishes the tribal strength. Promoting ‘gender neutrality’ by opposing the manifestation and expression of the feminine is unjust as it is absurd, and it is unworthy of a so-called free and tolerant society.
Now, to the issue at hand. If the parents are down with gender-neutral uniforms, that’s fine. But don’t tout this particular norm as a great leap in human progress, because, if anything, it’s the exact opposite. It’s a policy that limits free expression.
The communist countries of the 20th century and of the 21st century didn’t ban skirts for girls! Not even the Bolsheviks could come up with such a ridiculous thing as to ban skirts, with the possible exception of China under Mao Zedong. But hey, now we know from whence the contemporary liberal-feminist doctrines stem. The communist regime in Afghanistan [prior to the US-backed Talibans collapsing it] allowed women to wear skirts, including miniskirts! If a liberal feminist from the 21st century would have warned an Afghan woman from the ’80s that a skirt makes men “fetishize” her, she would have said you’re crazy, get out of my way, I need to go to work. Here are some pictures. School girls in the [former] Soviet Union. School girls in Cuba. School girls in North Korea. School girls in Venezuela. Women in the [former] Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.
Today’s liberal ideology, which has nothing to do with classical liberalism, is on some issues more oppressive than Bolshevism. Here’s an excerpt from a BBC interview with Noam Chomsky from 1977, in which he accurately explains contemporary liberalism. I don’t know if Chomsky still feels the same today; regardless, his assessment from ’77 was spot on.