Saturday, April 15, 2017

On Syria - Peggy Mason is a dog of war dressed as a human rights defender

Canadian dogs of war dressed as human rights defenders, from Trudeau to NGOs. A very tired trick that must be exposed. Thank you Ken Stone.

AND SEE 2017-04-15 UPDATE BELOW.

2017-04-12:
<< Ken Stone challenges Peggy Mason to a public debate.

Based on her attribution of the recent chemical attack at Khan Sheikhoun on the government of Bashar-Al-Assad, I wish to challenge Peggy Mason to a public debate. She is not fit to lead a peace organization in Canada.

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 6:06 AM, Peggy Mason <margaretpeggy.mason@gmail.com> wrote on the "peace-listserve":

"Dear Folks,

We should be calling for an independent UN investigation, with full access, so we have the evidence needed to hold Assad to account, whenever that might be. Because he cannot be prosecuted now, does not in any way mean that it can never be prosecuted. There is no immunity for war crimes.
But the starting point is independent, credible evidence. BTW Putin has said he will agree to an independent investigation. Tillerson should nail this down.

Peggy"

Peggy Mason is president of the Rideau Institute and a leader of Ceasefire, the Institute’s main public outreach and advocacy arm.

I am available to debate Ms. Mason publicly at a time and place which can be negotiated between the two of us.

Ken Stone
Treasurer, Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War >>


2017-04-15 UPDATE:
PEGGY MASON HIDES FROM DEBATE, AND KEN'S RESPONSE TO HER EVASION:

<< Dear Peggy,

Thank you for your prompt reply and your admission that you were wrong to to conclude, before an investigation took place, that President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the April 4th gas attack at Khan Sheikhoun, Syria.

It’s unfortunate that you don’t wish to debate the widely different attitudes within the peace movement towards the US missile strike on the Shayat Airbase in Syria. Nonetheless, the Canadian peace movement still has to consider the issues you don’t want to debate.

In your reply, you touched on the key issue of investigation and judgment before any consequential action should take place. However, in your original e-mail message to the “peace listserver”, you wrote that “Putin has said he will agree to an independent investigation. Tillerson should nail this down.”

I think you have got things backwards. US Secretary of State Tillerson did not wait for (or even call for) an independent investigation of the April 4 incident. Rather, on his watch, his country rushed to engage in an act of war on the sovereign country of Syria which killed several civilians and pushed us towards a wider war in the Middle East, while Putin (as you noted) did call for an independent investigation.

So, here is where we have a difference. In my opinion and that of our Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War, the peace movement in Canada needs to be clear and consistent about international law. No country is above that law. The USA and its coalition partners, including Canada, are violating international law by overflying and stationing military forces in the sovereign country of Syria without the permission of the Syrian government. They are also violating international law by inserting, funding, and arming proxy armies of terrorist mercenaries to achieve regime change in Syria. They have levelled onerous economic sanctions upon Syria, causing great distress to the Syrian people, without the approval of the UN Security Council. The US-led coalition used military force against the Syrian government in its attack on Sharyat Airbase on April 7, 2017.

Where we have another difference with the Rideau Institute and Ceasefire is that you have decided to put pressure on the wrong parties. You seem to want to hold the Russian government to account when it appears that it had no hand in the incident and although its military forces are legally stationed in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government. Moreover, you seem to be deeply invested in the campaign to delegitimize the Syrian government and to demonize its elected president.

Neither of your approaches is helpful. And these are very important matters which should be aired in public.

Another important point: what have you, the Rideau Institute, and Ceasefire said about the performance of Prime Minister Trudeau in the context of Khan Sheikhoun? Trudeau initially called for an investigation into the claims of a gas attack. Then, less than 24 hours later, he endorsed the USA cruise missile strike on Syria's Sharyat airbase. Now, his Minister of Global Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, imposes new unilateral sanctions on Syria, which are illegal under international law, because they lack the approval of the United Nations Security Council. Your comments would be appreciated by our Coalition members.

Finally my parting comment on your parting comment that (you) are “paying your dues every day” in the peace movement. As far as I know, you are paid a salary. Am I wrong?

Ken Stone
Treasurer,
Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War

From: Peggy Mason
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2017 8:44 AM
To: ernie yacub
Cc: Robin Collins ; Ken Stone ; peace list
Subject: Re: [Peace-l] CW and cruise missiles - I wish to challenge Peggy Mason to a public debate

Sorry to disappoint but I have no intention whatsoever of wasting my time on such a ridiculous debate.


On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 8:34 PM, <ernieyacub@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Robin Collins <robin.w.collins@gmail.com> wrote:

Ken S,
If you read closer you will see that Peggy refers to war crimes committed by Assad, and those may include his alleged use of chemical weapons on April 4.

if you read much closer, you will see the bias in her statement...
"We should be calling for an independent UN investigation, with full access, so we have the evidence needed to hold Assad to account, whenever that might be."

i would very much like to see a debate between pm and ks - what do you say peggy?
ey >>

Friday, April 14, 2017

Until Death


It is not my prison. It is my liberation.

Depression and despair versus action and agency. Starts and is maintained in the head and heart, no matter the circumstances.

Friday, April 7, 2017

Ontological anxiety

My today's attempt at clever:

Ontological anxiety is the defining psychic luxury of privileged existence.

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Who is Daniel J. Levitin?

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD


Who is Daniel J. Levitin, and why is he saying false things about me?

Mr. Levitin is a university professor, a psychologist, and the author of the 2016 book "Weaponized Lies: How to Think Critically in the Post-truth Era".

Wikipedia states the following about Mr. Levitin's book: "His interest in writing the guide [was] to help people develop techniques to distinguish factual information from that which may be distorted, out-of-date, unscientific or in error".

Therefore, Mr. Levitin presents a goal of wanting to be factual and accurate, and of not misleading.

In an article he penned on April 4, 2017, entitled "It’s time to stop letting so-called “experts” comment on subjects they know nothing about", Mr. Levitin had this to say about me:

Scientists like myself are partly to blame here. When one of our own goes on TV or in front of the press and starts making false claims, we don’t stand up and denounce them. We figure it’s not our personal problem. But it is. In this age of overwhelming untruth, pseudo-expertise is a problem that has to become every individual’s responsibility.

Nowhere is this more clear than among the climate-change deniers—almost entirely pseudo-experts—who contradict ample scientific evidence and lend support to devastating public policies. The list of leading climate-change deniers includes Denis Rancourt, who holds a PhD in physics and is an expert in magnetic field theory; Freeman Dyson, another physicist; Harrison Schmitt, a geologist; and Myron Ebell, who has a master’s in political theory and no advanced research degree. What about the people who hold PhD’s in—you know—climate science? Among this group, according to a number of studies published in peer-reviewed journals, 97% agree or more that climate change is real and man-made.

Thus, Mr. Levitin makes false statements and misleads by omission, as follows.

I will mostly leave aside Mr. Levitin's device of casting scientific questioning of CO2-alarmism as "climate-change denial" because that is simply wrong for an intellectual alleging to be concerned with truth. Everyone agrees that there are transitions beween different regional and global climate regimes in the history of our planet. Here is proof that I certainly do: "Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2".

Mr. Levitin states that I am "an expert in magnetic field theory" (sic). I know what a "magnetic field" is. I know what a "theory" is. But I don't know what "magnetic field theory" is. There are "field theories" in several areas of physics, but "magnetic" is not one of them. If it is, then I don't know about it, so I could not possibly be an expert in it as asserted by Mr. Levitin.

If Mr. Levitin had taken the care to examine my public Google Scholar page, he would have immediately noticed that my most cited paper is in an area of theoretical spectroscopy, which is evidence of my ability to understand resonant scattering of infrared radiation from so-called greenhouse gases. He would have noticed that my second most cited paper is in environmental science "Nanogoethite is the dominant reactive oxyhydroxide phase in lake and marine sediments", in which I was the research director. And he would have noticed that many of my most cited papers are in environmental science, including carbon cycling in sediments and soils, related to aquatic sediments, soil evolution, environmental bacterial reactions, hydrothermal fluid input into sea water, and so on.

Alas, Mr. Levitin did not see or chose not to mention any of that, but instead characterizes me as a "physicist" (solely on the basis of my 1984 PhD) in the fictitious area of "magnetic field theory". In contrast, Mr. Levitin characterizes himself on his website as a "scientist, musician, author and record producer", quite a universal man despite having obtained his PhD in one specialized field.

I think that Mr. Levitin was trying to make the incorrect point that I am not qualified to comment about climate, and that I should not be a "leading climate-change denier". Well, the only way to establish whether I am qualified to comment about climate is to examine the substance and scientific value of my actual work about climate.

But wait. Is Mr. Levitin qualified to judge my calculations about the physics of radiation balance applied to the planet earth? Did Mr. Levitin dismiss my calculations on the basis that they were made public and discussed openly with leading climate scientists rather than published in a scientific journal: "Radiation physics constraints on global warming: CO2 increase has little effect"?

If Mr. Levitin dismisses scientific work by an appeal to authority (of scientific journals), or by an appeal to majority view (his quoting of the "97% consensus"), is that not in opposition to his book about the need for independent thought?

An equally interesting question, which Mr. Levitin might consider pondering moving forward, is "How many in the alleged '97%' understand and can practice the physics of planetary radiation balance?" Although, my evidence is anecdotal, I would confidently assert "not many".

More importantly, Mr. Levitin misleads his readers by omission. He concentrates on climate "deniers" that he incorrectly implies are not qualified to comment, but he leaves out any mention of the many "deniers" who are well-established formally-trained climate scientists. Here are examples of a few from many he could have mentioned:


I would suggest to Mr. Levitin that he reset his ability to seek and communicate truth. If he has some time, he could practice by analyzing the arguments recently (March 29, 2017) presented to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:



Denis Rancourt is a former tenured full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, on physics and environmental science, and writes social theory articles. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism, and a regular contributor to Dissident Voice. His articles and interviews about the science and politics of climate linked here.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Academic Freedom? - Michael Ignatieff is pathetic

Failed politicians never die. They become embassy ambassadors and university presidents. After Michael Ignatieff crashed the Liberal Party of Canada he returned to Harvard University, was given an Order of Canada by Trudeau, and became president of the Soros-funded Central European University in Hungary. Hungary wants the Soros cancer out but globalist Ignatieff is screaming "academic freedom".

What many commentators fail to understand is that: (1) "institutional independence" of universities is a myth, and (2) even ideal "institutional independence" is a distinct concept from "academic freedom". "Institutional independence" is falsely cast as "academic freedom" by university bosses but is really just an argument to be free of public oversight. Whereas "academic freedom" is the individual freedom of expression and inquiry of students and academics, which needs to be protected against both institutional and state controls so that the individual researcher can pursue uncomfortable truths and social influence.

At the perverse highest level "academic freedom" itself is a myth and is really just a legalistic device to prevent meaningful political or social engagement of professors (see the history of academic freedom, as surveyed by Schrecker in her book "No Ivory Tower").

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Latest development in my academic freedom case: Supreme Court refuses to fix administrative tribunal law

By Denis G. Rancourt

SUMMARY: The Supreme Court of Canada today refused to clarify and fix the Canadian common law of affidavits needed to remedy an absence of transcripts in administrative tribunal hearings.

I was fired under a false pretext in 2009, at the University of Ottawa where I was a tenured Full Professor of Physics. [1][2][3]

Following a lengthy legal process, in 2014 a labour arbitrator upheld the dismissal. [4]

My union immediately filed for a judicial review (appeal) of the arbitrator's decision, on many grounds, including violation of my natural justice rights. [5]

The arbitrator's decision incorrectly relied on a report prepared by a student who was hired by the university to covertly spy on me, on and off campus, including using elaborate false cyber identities and misrepresentations to third parties. The student spy did not testify at arbitration and her report was not accepted as evidence.

The problem arises because there is no transcript or recording of the arbitration. The arbitrator ruled from his chair that the report would be used solely as a memory aid regarding witness questioning, but then incorrectly relied on and quoted from the report in his decision.

Therefore, my union filed an affidavit by one of its layers in attendance to tell the appellate court what had occurred at arbitration; again, since there is no transcript or recording of the arbitration.

The university, which has used every possible delay tactic over the years, did a motion seeking to strike the affidavit. My union squarely won that motion and the affidavit was allowed. The motion judge had this to say about the student spy [6]:

MAUREEN ROBINSON

[15] The circumstances of Maureen Robinson's involvement in this entire matter is troubling at best. Throughout the relevant portion of the Award by Arbitrator Foisy, Ms. Robinson's written notes were referred to "the report on Professor Rancourt's address prepared by a University of Ottawa student"

[16] Pursuant to the Udell Affidavit, and based on evidence from the hearing, the student being Maureen Robinson was the editor of the student newspaper who had been hired by the University in what the University described as in a clerical capacity to assist Professor Rancourt in his office, without his input on her hiring.

[17] Either in consultation with her employer, the University, or on her own, she monitored the activities of Professor Rancourt both on and off campus and reported her finding back to the University. In an email to Dean Lalonde, she admitted to having a "personal grudge" against Professor Rancourt and went so far as to liken her monitoring of Professor Rancourt as "posing as a young girl to catch a pedophile". Ms. Robinson was not called as a witness at the hearing and, the parties agreed that her "report" would be considered as an "aide memoire" only.

[18] The University referred to the "report" thereafter as a transcript which such description was objected to by the APUO. Similarly, Arbitrator Foisy made certain findings which appear to be based solely on the report which was not evidence.

[19] Given the unique circumstances, paragraphs 3 - 13 are necessary and in keeping with Keeprite and Kingston Utilities, this affidavit evidence should be admitted on the judicial review to "show an absence of evidence on an essential point".

DEAN LALONDE'S CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THE TESTIMONY OF STUDENTS P AND V

[20] It is difficult to separate the input of the evidence or lack of evidence of Ms. Robinson and the circumstances of her somewhat bizarre involvement in this matter, from the other areas of concern identified by the Applicant, APUO. [...]

The university appealed that decision by the appellate court's motion judge to a panel of three judges of the same appellate court.

The panel overturned the first judge's decision and completely struck the affidavit. The panel decision was wrong in that the panel quoted from a document it erroneously said corroborated content of the spy report. In fact, the quoted words were from the spy report itself. Furthermore, the panel relied on Ontario common law (the so-called Keeprite test) that puts an unjust burden on litigants needing to bring affidavits to remedy an absence of transcripts of the proceedings being reviewed.

My union therefore sought leave to appeal to the highest appellate court in the province (Court of Appeal for Ontario). Even though the common law for affidavits filed to remedy an absence of transcripts is both unjust and arguably unclear, and even though the panel made obvious and substantial errors, the Court of Appeal can simply refuse to hear an appeal, without giving any reasons.

In fact, errors of law themselves are not a consideration when the Court of Appeal decides whether to grant leave in such circumstances, no matter how egregious those errors may be.

The Court of Appeal refused to grant leave to appeal, and did not provide any reasons.

Therefore, my union sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, on the grounds that the Canadian common law of affidavits to remedy an absence of transcripts is unclear and unjust. It also pointed out the egregious error of the panel that struck the affidavit, of finding corroborating evidence where there was none.

The Supreme Court's decision was released today. The Court refused to grant leave for an appeal (no reasons are provided, as usual) and it ordered my union to pay the university's costs in opposing the leave application.

Thus, the Supreme Court of Canada today refused to clarify and fix the Canadian common law of affidavits needed to remedy an absence of transcripts. This is significant because absence of transcripts is the norm in virtually all administrative tribunals in Canada, whether they are labour arbitrations or human rights tribunal hearings.

Just like that, the Supreme Court of Canada can decide not to fix a common law that is at odds with principles of fundamental justice and with international norms of fair judicial processes, such as those prescribed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada has signed.

Here are the Supreme Court of Canada documents about its today's decision:



Endnotes

[1] Statement By Denis Rancourt Regarding His Dismissal By The University Of Ottawa, ZCommunications, 2009-04-16. https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/statement-by-denis-rancourt-regarding-his-dismissal-by-the-university-of-ottawa-by-denis-rancourt/

[2] Dismissing critical pedagogy: Denis Rancourt vs. University of Ottawa, by Jesse Freeston, rabble.ca, 2009-01-12. http://rabble.ca/news/dismissing-critical-pedagogy-denis-rancourt-vs-university-ottawa

[3]  Ottawa's Dismissal of Denis Rancourt, by Kenneth Westhues, University of Waterloo, 2009-08. http://www.kwesthues.com/Rancourt09.htm

[4] University of Ottawa v Association of Professors of The University of Ottawa, 2014 CanLII 100735 (ON LA), 2014-01-27, <http://canlii.ca/t/gxcr2>

[5] APUO statement, 2014-03-10. http://www.apuo.ca/denis-rancourt-arbitration/

[6] University of Ottawa v Association of Professors of The University of Ottawa, Endorsement of Justice Robert Scott, Divisional Court for Ontario, 2015-10-26. https://archive.org/details/20151026MotionToStrikeAPUOVUniversityOfOttawaEndorsement

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Pernicious effects of political correctness

"Were third-party bugging a prevalent practice, it might well smother that spontaneity—reflected in frivolous, impetuous, sacrilegious, and defiant discourse—that liberates daily life."
-- Justice Harlan, dissenting (Supreme Court of the US), United States v. White, 401 U.S. 745 (1971).

The presumed harmful effects against people of both state surveillance and political correctness are of the same character. 

Most Liberals opposes surveillance but participate in political correctness. Many Conservatives reject both, which is at least consistent. 

I believe that language intolerance, regarding both form and content, is a major liability against freedom, democracy, and personal emancipation.

Monday, March 6, 2017

One simple rule to improve Western "representative" democracy

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Representative democracy is designed to limit popular interference with elite rule, while providing a nurtured illusion of community and justice.

However, if the system goes too far in dissociating itself from the popular will, then the entire society is at risk of destabilization.

My recommendation especially applies to the Western states Canada and the USA, which incidentally both shun proportional representation. Canada shuns proportional representation because the managerial elite can get away with it, while continuing to sell off the country. The USA shuns any improvement because it is already the freest and greatest nation in the history of the universe.

Nonetheless, purely out of academic interest, I make the following considered suggestion.

In order to create and improve democracy in the USA and Canada, I would implement this simple rule:

Voter registration for each election requires attending one all-candidates debate or presentation in person in a riding for the upcoming election, whether federal, provincial, or municipal, from beginning to the end of the debate or presentation part, at least; in which all candidates are invited to and accommodated in the said debate or presentation.

If you don't care to attend at least one such session in the 4 years between elections, then it is presumed that you don't care to vote and the collective prefers that you not vote.

The simple rule:
  • ensures that sufficient such events are held
  • brings the focus onto representation rather than blinded leader selection
  • increases so-called transparency and accountability
  • reduces the chance of over-influence from payed-for or manipulated propaganda
  • gets you meeting the candidates and trusting your live impressions
  • gets you into the community meeting your neighbours who care to vote
  • makes for better all-candidates events
  • invigorates the democratic process
  • informs you like nothing else can
  • gives you a chance to ask questions and communicate your views directly to the candidates ...

I would add "parliamentary privilege" for all attendees, so one can say what one wants to say without the societal cost of prosecution or litigation.

Bring back the town hall meeting, as a first step. Then we can talk about proportional representation, referendum mechanisms, independence of government watchdogs, actual whistle-blower protection, rules against moneyed interest groups, campaign donations, and, eventually, even participatory democracy.

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Islamic Republic of Iran

Tehran, Iran

Now THAT is "hate speech"::: The USA criminal regime (always aided by the so-called “white supremacist terrorist” Trudeau of the moment in Canada) openly threatens a mass war of murder and destruction against Iran, a modern state that it has attacked with aggressive sanctions during four decades, for daring in 1979 to oust a 1953 CIA-installed puppet administration.

Iran is a unique and diverse modern society that wants security and sovereignty, two forbidden commodities in the USA-dominated Middle East. Iran has 83 million citizens. 

Iran lost approximately 200,000 lives in the 1980s, during the USA-sponsored Iran-Iraq war. Iran supports the Palestinian struggle, and the independence of Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, which are viciously attacked by the USA-et-al war enterprise for the "crime" of wanting independence from USA domination. 

The on-going war crimes perpetrated by USA-supported terrorists in Syria and USA-Canada-supported Saudi military in Yemen are off-scale, comparable only to USA atrocities in Latin America, Asia...

Stop the USA criminal regime from making more war and from supporting more terrorists and exploiters on every habitable continent.

Force the USA by public opinion to follow international law and to respect national sovereignty. We owe it to ourselves in the West to stop the USA's mass criminality.

Saturday, February 18, 2017

My today's list of Trump PROS AND CONS

I get a lot of heat for seeing positive signs in Trump. But I do. It's what I honestly see. I may be totally wrong. If his actual acts contradict the positive indicators after we have had time to see statistics, then I will certainly admit my error.

Why does Trump-hate have to be a religion that we all follow? (I reserve the emotions of love and hate for the people I know personally.)

I like Trump's consistent spoken messages about:

1. Wanting to get along with the emerging powers Russia and China. (link)
2. Wanting to move away from regime-change wars and globalist interventions (except to negotiate new deals to advantage the domestic economy). I like that he wants other countries to pay for NATO, because that will weaken NATO, etc.
3. Letting go of (accepting the resignation of) his anti-Iran maniac. (Trump keeps saying nonsense about Iran but hopefully reality will prevent an actual military intervention.)
4. Trashing of the CO2 nonsense and the drive for a carbon economy for the globalists. (link)
5. Constant and correct criticism of the corporate media.
6. Intention to economically and infrastructure enable the inner cities, to solve the social ills, he says. (However, this may well be just a scam...? link)
7. Disregard for political correctness. Much needed in the spiraling madness of "words that wound".
8. The fact that Washington DC hates him and all these insiders work against him.

I worry about:

a. His possible approach to Syria and Iran. But I think reality will prevent military escalation.
b. His treatment of Mexican immigration (and will it actually be worst than what Obama was doing? link).
c. What his dealings with Israel will actually be. (link)
d. His apparent lack of respect for international law! (torture, assassinations, whistle-blowers, economic sanctions, etc.) (and will it actually be worst than what Obama has done?)

But he has not actually done much yet. And good that his stupid blanket travel ban against 7 countries has been reversed by the courts.

Amnesty International has discredited itself more than usual with its Syria propaganda


How easy is it for the US regime to buy out parts of Amnesty International for use in its war propaganda against Syria? 
 
Answer: This easy! 
 
SEE THESE MANY LINKS CRITICAL OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL'S RECENT WAR MONGERING PROPAGANDA, BELOW.

Amnesty International has the resources to send crews of young workers into Ottawa (Canada) neighbourhoods for door-to-door propaganda just prior to putting out its sham "report".

Amnesty International exploits the good will of ordinary concerned citizen, in order to support US-regime war campaigns.














( From 2015, very thorough:






Monday, January 30, 2017

Causes of Quebec mosque terrorism

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

My blame list for the Quebec mosque terrorism, in order of importance:

  1. The increasingly unjust and authoritarian enforced class hierarchy in Canada, which attacks all in all of us: our very minds, families, communities, cultures, personalities, freedoms of expression, privacy, independence... using all the state institutions of education, media, law, enforcement, surveillance, health... (We become maintained zombies without independent thought or feeling.)
  2. Together with Canada's vicious foreign policy of global exploitation and war aggression, aligned with US dominance-imposition mass crimes and military threats in Latin America, Africa, Middle East, Eurasia...
  3. Specifically, the Quebec state and corporate media (prominently including Radio Canada CBC) campaigns that constantly and heinously vilify Muslim cultural and political independence that is rightly critical of the Quebec state, as exemplified by the unending barrage against Adil Charkaoui [1].
  4. The Canadian state use of "Security Certificates" that destroys Muslim families and communities across the country, and that serves the state's political and propaganda agendas without any societal benefit. (And the associated "security" assault-campaigns against Muslim communities.)

Endnote

[1] See my analysis of this example of many: Denis G. Rancourt, "Vicious media mobbing of Adil Charkaoui, in Quebec", Veterans Today, 2015-04-20.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Brutal reality about the immigration-policy motives of dominant states

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

I'm going to express this controversial generalization.

The omnipresent propaganda of immigration is just that: propaganda. Immigration is virtually always solely to benefit the host country. It is never an act of charity, except incidentally for its propaganda value. Family reunification included.

Immigration reception by aggressor nations is a mechanism to recruit collaborators in geopolitical campaigns in some cases, economic policy in others, and an aggression by theft of human resources in still others. In addition, immigration loss is generally harmful to the attacked country, and as such can be a weapon of war. 

The question should not be how to "help" with immigration, which is a deceptive question, but rather how to stop covert and overt military and economic aggression led by the "free world", and how to actually help populations in the regions where they are devastated by both foreign regime-change designs and brutal globalist-led economic exploitation.

Impulsive Trump/Obama policies [1], therefore, if applied as actual bans, are harmful to the USA and will not last or even mostly not be implemented. Such is the cruel reality of empire dominance. Trump is a master manipulator of public sentiment but he will soon settle down regarding immigration.

Endnote

[1] See the excellent analysis: Seth J. Frantzan, "Obama’s administration made the “Muslim ban” possible and the media won’t tell you", January 28, 2017.
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/




Sunday, January 1, 2017

Socio-Political Analysis of the Racism Charge against Outing of Racism

By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

(This article was first published on Dissident Voice.)

When one is critical of the human-rights violations of the state of Israel, there follows a vehement charge of “antisemitism”. When one supports institutional measures to counter systemic racism, there follows a charge of “reverse racism”. And when a white person is critical of a black person’s apparent support for systemic racism, there again follows a charge of “racism”.

In all these examples, a charge of racism is levied in response to words used to criticize actual physical racism occurring on a spectrum from outright violations of personal safety to exclusion from status and resources.

The reason that such fallacious responses have sting is because there is a strong cultural taboo that racist language is as nefarious as violent physical racism itself. In present middle-class Western society, there is a pathological extreme intolerance against any expression that has cognitive similarity to racist expression.

The said taboo is not as present in the working-class because the economically stressed classes live a high degree of physical and status discrimination themselves. This discrimination is a higher priority to them than identity-tied system-ideology maintenance via personal investments in language policing.

The said taboo is poison because it precludes needed frank discussions and arguments about actual physical racism and hierarchical dominance. It also contributes to creating a class divide between those manipulated to adopt the identity politics of language purity and those who have less to gain from self-censorship and who “fucking need to speak”.

Thus, the taboo against racist and racist-sounding language is of great utility in enforcing an excessively totalitarian social hierarchy. Therefore, the said taboo is systemically promoted and enforced by major institutional instruments, including universities and the legal system.

In a healthy democratic society, free discussion between individuals and classes reigns and shapes a sustainable distribution of power and status. In a defective society, totalitarian encroachment is enabled by class divisions and by suppression of free expression. And there can be runaway encroachment when there are feedback pathologies such as when criticism of racism itself is reflexively tainted with the stigma of racism, or when social-media comments lead to terminations of employment, and so on. Excessive and widespread correctness policing is a recipe for disaster.

In that limited sense, the Trump and Brexit phenomena may well be expressions of natural societal repair mechanisms against runaway totalitarianism, rather than causal factors towards “fascism”. The said phenomena may be “indicators” of totalitarian encroachment by being indicators of responses against totalitarian encroachment (loss of democracy, globalization).

If so, the more the establishment bosses attempt to impose and leverage class-based containment against free expression and free political participation, the greater the danger of large future negative consequences for society as a whole.


Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is a researcher for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. He has published more than 100 articles in leading scientific journals, on physics and environmental science. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. Read other articles by Denis at Dissident Voice.