Russian Propaganda on Ukraine

There are two elements to the virulent propaganda coming out in Russian organs such as RT (Russian Television in English) and from Russian government officials such as Putin himself and his UN representative. These are first that Russian speakers in Ukraine (who are the majority) are under threat and second that the removal of former President Yanukovich is a coup. Both these claims are complete nonsense. There is zero evidence of threats to Russian-speaking Ukrainians. I know for a fact that there were Russian-speaking Ukrainians participating in the uprising in Kiev. Dnepropetrovsk, which is a city in which Russian is the first language for most residents, had a demonstration of 10,000 people against the Russian invasion on Sunday, March 2 (a friend posted a video on Vkontakte, the Russian equivalent of Facebook, of that demonstration in which the Ukrainian national anthem was sung). Dnepropetrovsk is an industrial city of 2 million people founded by Catherine the Great. Its name was changed from Ekaterinasburg to Dnepropetrovsk during the Soviet period. Certainly, Russian-speaking Crimeans were never under any threat. Again, they are the largest group in the population there and I have seen no reports, even from Russia, of threats to them. So, that is plainly a blatant lie spread by Russia to justify its invasion.

Second, the uprising in Ukraine is no more a coup than was the American revolution. One of the principles of our Declaration of Independence is that an aggrieved people has the right to remove an unjust government. People have an absolute right to exist, but the right of a state to exist is conditional on its behavior. If a state had the absolute right to exist, we would still be living under English rule. Yanukovich was removed when he ordered his snipers to shoot down about 80 protesters from the tops of buildings in Kiev. That horrified Ukrainians, and Yanukovich fled to Russia. Talk of a coup is completely unjustified.

Some left commentators in the US, such as Professor Stephen Cohen, have cited Russian military fears as a Russian motivation, but that is also very far-fetched. Ukraine is a fairly large country and has a large army, but it is dwarfed by the size and military strength of Russia. Ukraine had nuclear weapons when it became independent, but it gave them up (to Russia) under an agreement which guaranteed its security. The idea that Ukraine would or could militarily attack or threaten Russia is preposterous. Putin obviously knows that.

The situation in Ukraine is very fluid, and nobody knows how it will turn out. The Russian invasion is an attempt to shape it in ways that the Russian government, but not the Ukrainian people, would prefer. No matter how loudly Putin shouts and how angry he looks, his actions have no reasonable justification. Putin also alleges that the uprising in Kiev was instigated by Europe and the United States. There is also no evidence of that. Europe and the United States would like to shape the direction of Ukraine just as Russia would like to do so, but they did not and could not instigate a Ukrainian uprising as the US has, for example, in Venezuela. Ukrainians have very strong and very just grievances against their government. They rose up because of those grievances. No outside instigation was required to cause that. Putin makes no mention of those grievances because many of his Russian citizens have similar grievances against him.

Since he has no rational justification for his invasion, it is completely understandable that Putin would order his state organs to disseminate vicious and false propaganda about why he has invaded Ukraine. It is more difficult to understand why some on the American left spread the same sort of false propaganda.

My View of Ukraine

I wrote what is below in response to an article I read on the Columbia1968 discussion group. I don't have permission to post that article so it isn't here. Conn Hallinan's article attempts to explain why Russia is so concerned about Ukraine, among other things. I hear similar arguments from Stephen Cohen on the radio. My main point below is that you don't evaluate events in Ukraine by first outlining the actions and interests of outside powers. You should first try to understand what is happening in Ukraine and then discuss the international factors. Incidentally, I hear Russian leaders asserting that the US government instigated protests in Ukraine, and that is plainly nonsense propaganda.

Conn Hallinan is an old friend of mine (I knew him as Ringo, each of the members of his large family had a nickname), but he is ignoring the first principle of analysis here. There are certainly international machinations from Europe, the US, and Russia over the future of Ukraine. There are certainly fascists in Ukraine and their participation in the uprising was very noticeable (though there are more fascists, for example, in France). But that is not where you start in understanding what is happening. Where you start is in Ukraine. There is and was no doubt that this is a genuine popular uprising involving people from all language groups, classes of the population (aside from the oligarchs), and a very wide range of political views. If you have been to Ukraine in recent times (I went there for 2 weeks in 2010) or talk to ordinary Ukrainians (I do that almost every day recently), the reason for the uprising is blatantly obvious. Their lives have beenunbearable. The police routinely take bribes to allow activities which are legal in most places. Employers stop paying employees (one of my friends had a good job at a bank; they stopped paying her and she quit after 3 months) with no recourse. Her parents are both physicians and live a very modest lifestyle (they invited me to their house for dinner), though, to be fair, physicians have historically not been well-paid there. It's quite difficult to get a visa to travel to the rest of Europe. We now know that something like $70 billion was stolen by government leaders and the oligarchs they work for and stashed abroad. I'm sure every Ukrainian could make a much longer list. The two major parties, that of Yanukovich and that of Timoshenko, both fostered this corruption. That's why Timoshenko is fiercely hated. She came to power in the Orange Revolution, which was also against corruption, and she made things even worse. I'm sure she belonged in jail,perhaps in a cell next to Yanukovich. The current prime minister, Yatsenyuk, (he happens to be Jewish, by the way, and is also partly Romanian) is from her coalition. I'm sure that many Ukrainians look at Europe and the United States and think they see the kind of society they want; the kind of total political corruption we and the Europeans have in which financial and corporate capital controls the political debate and the government is well-hidden from most Ukrainians, as it is, for example, from many Americans. So, this is the starting point. The Ukrainian people were unable to go on in the old way.

Second, Ukraine' s economy is very distorted, not only by corruption, but because of the method of economic organization in the Soviet Union, in which there was a division of labor among the Soviet republics with each part contributing toward the whole economy. After the Soviet Union broke up, what was needed was massive investment to shift industrial production, transportation infrastructure, etc. to create an independent economy with Ukraine' s valuable resources. That did not happen. Instead, Ukraine' s resources were used to enrich a relatively small number of powerful individuals at the expense of everyone else per the corruption above. Ukraine isn't the only place with these problems, but unlike neighboring Belarus, for example, Ukraine has had some political space in which to operate and protests have not been ruthlessly repressed until the day before Yanukovich fell. That is why this happened in Ukraine rather than somewhere else. The Ukrainian
government was unable to continue in the old way.

That is the starting point. The Ukrainian people rose up in a genuine revolutionary uprising which they maintained for months. Clearly, rightwing fascists enthusiastically participated in the uprising and are very visible and militant, but the vast majority of participants were not from this group. Most Ukrainians consider Russian to be their native language, though many are bilingual in Ukrainian. Note that historically, when Ukraine was under foreign control, the most recent such control being from Russia, the foreign rulers tried to suppress the Ukrainian language, and language and literature became strong avenues of resistance. Ironically, both Ukrainian and Russian became modern languages of literature in the 19th century in the hands of Taras Shevchenko and Alexander Pushkin (whose great-grandfather was an enslaved African who became an aristocrat). Tsarist Russia also tried to bring Ukrainians under the Russian Orthodox Church. That is one reason
why Ukraine has insisted on Ukrainian as being the primary language. For example, when you land in the airport in Kiev, the sign in Ukrainian says Kyiv. However, Russian has never been suppressed, despite the silly resolution passed by the new parliament last week.

So, we have a genuine uprising. The participation of fascists is troubling, but they were not powerful enough to be dangerous and unlike Egypt, for example, no foreign powers will be sending them support. Ukraine' s disastrous economy and the uprising presented Europe and the US with what they saw as an opportunity to draw Ukraine into their sphere. Of course, they want to do it with the IMF and its absurd austerity demands, which the Ukrainian people will also see as absurd. At the same time, Russia sees all this as very threatening, not militarily, not from fascists, but precisely because Ukrainians are rising up against essentially the same type of system of control that exists in Russia and Belarus. I've only seen one report of Russian citizens demonstrating support for the Ukrainian uprising, though there are more reports and even small demonstrations against the Russian invasion in Russia now, but we know that there is strong Russian opposition to
Putin which is likely very sympathetic with the Ukrainian uprising. On the other side, if you read RT (English-language Russian television from the Russian government), it has been filled with vicious and false propaganda against the Ukrainian uprising. I'm sure internal propaganda in Russian is just as vicious and false.

So, where should progressives stand? Plainly, we have to side with a genuine uprising as we did in Egypt despite the participation of Islamic extremists in that uprising. The Russian invasion is plainly directed squarely at that uprising. Note that the new Ukrainian government is not a very good reflection of the uprising. The people who rose up generally do not trust the parliamentary leaders, whether it is Yatsenyuk, Klitchko, or others. They see them either as completely intertwined with government corruption or as opportunists who would like to become part of a corrupt government. They lack a party which reflects their aspirations and thus they lack genuine leaders. In these circumstances, just as in Egypt, it is unlikely that the protesters will get what they want in the short-term, although they are very aware of that and suspicious since the 2004 revolution produced no significant change. Unless the Russian invasion stops it, Ukraine is supposed
to have elections in May. I don't know whether there will be candidates who genuinely represent the uprising and its aspirations. That is up to Ukrainians to manage.

Personally, I think our role should be to expose what Russia, the US, and Europe are doing to control Ukraine from the outside and to derail the uprising. Ukrainians have shown that they want to deal with the situation inside their country, and they should be allowed to do so. They may not succeed, but it is their right to try.

The Language of Racism

This morning, I was listening to a fellow talking about racism on KPFA radio in Berkeley. I liked a lot of what he had to say, but he kept using the language of racism, such as referring to people of European descent as Whites, and I had to turn it off. Many commentators have pointed out that the language and labels we use shape the message we send. In my view, you cannot talk about racism without abandoning racist terminology. Even though there are probably millions of Americans who would describe themselves as members of a "White race," critical thinking demands that we point out that no such group exists outside of the racial categories of a racist society. Of course, race itself has no scientific meaning, and it is defined only by racists. For example, in apartheid South Africa, many races were recognized, Whites, Coloureds, Blacks, Asians (Japanese were considered honorary Whites for economic reasons), and quite a few other categories. The South African government had an official body whose job it was to classify people by race. In apartheid Israel, people are classified as Jews and non-Jews, and that system of classification is used to deny most rights to the indigenous Palestinian people except for those descended from Palestinian Jews.

I have commented before that White has no meaning to me in terms of my own identity. I have never heard of a place called Whiteland nor is there any ethnic identify that can be associated with Whiteness. I identify as a descendant of Eastern European Jews. It is certainly true that the American system of racism has granted me many privileges because it classifies me as White and denies those privileges to those classified as Black or Latino. So, how do we discuss this situation without accepting the terminology of racism?

In my view, we have to be very explicit in distancing ourselves from that terminology. We can certainly describe the racist system in its own terms, but we always have to distinguish the false reality described by racist terminology and the genuine reality of nationality and ethnicity. I was offended by the speaker on KPFA because, in his presentation, he described himself and others (by extension, me) as Whites with no qualification whatsoever or an explanation that White is a racist term. When one applies racist terminology to oneself, one grants power to racism and that is completely unacceptable.

December 25 and Secularism: Why I turn off my radio a lot in December

According to the very first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the USA is a secular state. The Supreme Court has always interpreted that as an establishment clause. The government is never supposed to take sides in religious matters. So, the question arises: Why is December 25 a state holiday? December 25 is the date selected by the Roman Catholic church as the birthday of Jesus Christ, an obscure Jewish heretic who was later seized on to found a new religion. Most protestant sects follow that date. Eastern Orthodox churches use a date two weeks later. Therefore, December 25, like Easter (which is not a US holiday), is a purely religious holiday which should be ignored in all official ways by the US government. It is clearly unconstitutional on its face for December 25 to be a government sanctioned holiday. That is my starting point because making that date a holiday sends exactly the wrong message.

As a third generation Jewish atheist (only a small percentage of people belonging to various Jewish ethnicities actually practice the Jewish religion) born and raised in the USA, I have always viewed Xmas as an alien culture which this society tries to impose on me every year. I don't watch Xmas movies (except for "Bad Santa"), and I detest Xmas songs. I listen to the radio a lot, but between Thanksgiving and December 25, I change the station or turn it off a lot. Yesterday, I was listening to one of my favorite music programs on KPFA in Berkeley. The DJ, a friend of mine, played one Xmas song after another, and I turned off the radio. I wish I could get a No Xmas app for my radio, but then it would be silent a lot at this time of year.

What we have here is a conflict between the right of people who want to sing or play Xmas songs, which is guaranteed in the constitution, and my right not to have to listen to them. If there were a completely secular radio station, I could exercise my right and listen to it, but, if such a station exists, I've never heard of it. What do I really want? I want more sensitivity from people celebrating their religious holidays to the fact that not all of us want to share their religion or their holidays. If you are going to do a show of all Xmas songs, say so frequently, and I'll change the station or turn my radio off immediately. Obviously, I cannot completely escape the religious expressions of my religious friends, but I should be able to minimize it and I should have a choice whether to be drenched in it or not. Oddly, I'm not offended in the same way by gospel music, but that is because I know I have the option to listen or not, to sing or not. In December, that option is generally not offered and I find the assumption that December 25 is significant for everyone to be extremely offensive.

The Misguided Left Attempt to Mobilize Support for President Obama

President Obama is under constant attack from the far right for the Affordable Care Act and many other actions of his administration. Some leftists are now calling on us to support him against that attack. That call is irresponsible and makes no sense. During the great depression, much of the left gave support to FDR who was genuinely wringing concessions from the rich and powerful in order to save capitalism. That made sense. Unfortunately, that is not the case with Obama. Obama is a right of center Democrat who seems to see his job as to wring concessions from the poor and downtrodden in favor of the rich and powerful. A strong majority of Americans in poll after poll support single payer healthcare. Obama responded with the Affordable Care Act which was crafted by insurance companies, came out of a conservative Republican think tank, and implemented first in Massachusetts by Mit Romney. The ACA is a piece of crap. It makes a few improvements, such as pre-existing conditions and coverage for adult children, but it doesn't address the hundreds of billions in profit and waste, including unnecessary administrative costs, siphoned out of our healthcare dollars by the insurance companies. Obama deserves no credit for passing the ACA, even if its rollout had been smooth as silk. In fact, the misguided left has made it easy for Obama to capitulate to the right because it has given him support instead of confrontation. The Occupy movement showed that confrontation could shift the discourse and put pressure on the government. Instead of learning that lesson, some in the left continue their huge mistake of supporting Obama in 2008 and 2012. If we are to have any influence on the direction of the USA, we have to be bold in fighting for our ideas. We cannot do that and at the same time support a president who shows no sign of having a single progressive bone in his body. Our response to the ACA should be to raise the demand to expand Medicare to all. Our response to the ongoing financial crisis should be to demand the takeover (not bailout) of failing banks and other financial institutions and the prosecution of criminal financiers. Our response to calls for austerity, such as cuts to Social Security and Medicare, should be to call for increased taxes on the rich and the corporations. These are all very popular ideas among the American public. One of the jobs of the left is to articulate and to fight for those ideas. It is not our job to be co-opted by the moribund Obama administration.

The Brainwashing of Israel and the Spillover into the United States

Israeli universities separate Jewish history from the rest of history, and it is not subject to the normal kind of scholarly review which is customary at universities. This is because the Jewish history they teach is based on false myths which are easily refuted. That would be bad enough, but this same falsified history is also taught to Israeli schoolchildren. Israeli education authorities have even tried to impose this falsified history on their Palestinian citizens, though this has so far been resisted. As a result, the Israeli public, and especially its youth, have beliefs which are ahistorical, racist, and very dangerous. In ancient history, for example, Israeli Jewish history teaches that the Romans exiled the Jews. In fact, there is zero historical evidence that such an exile ever occurred, and it would have been totally out of character for the practices of Roman rule. By and large, the small number of Jews who left ancient Palestine did so as merchants. The vast majority of Jewish communities in the world were descended from converts, for which there is ample evidence, such as the mass conversions in ancient Yemen, in the 9th century Khazar empire, and by Berbers in north Africa, some of whom went to Spain. However, the most dangerous falsification is that which treats Palestinians as foreigners in Israel because this underlies the strong and growing Israeli movement to continue the theft of Palestinian land and for expulsion of more Palestinians from Palestine, whether in the West Bank or inside Israel. Even Palestinian nomads in the Negev, who are not only Israeli citizens but who, along with the Druze, serve in the army are being displaced by the tens of thousands even as I write. Only a tiny group of Jewish Israelis opposes these acts and exposes the blatant lies at the root of Israeli education. Another way to put it is that Israelis are educated to believe in delusions, and the result is a psychotic society, which is willing to take extreme measures to carry out its government's insane policies.

Let's shift gears now and note that Israeli psychotics like Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu have broad access to the media in the United States. That spreads the brainwashing to the American public, who generally believe many easily refuted myths about Israel. One of the most blatant effects is that the fact that Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons combined with a very aggressive military policy against its neighbors is almost totally ignored in the US media. It never comes up, for example, in the current coverage of the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Note that existing US law prohibits any aid to a country with nuclear weapons and does not sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which is clearly the case with Israel. That coverage is filled with easily refuted claims. For example, Iran offered an even better deal in 2003 when it completely halted its nuclear weapons program. That deal was rejected. Nobody has claimed, let alone produced any evidence, that Iran currently has a nuclear weapons program. Therefore, the heavy sanctions imposed on Iran have really had no purpose or effect except to feed the false narrative which comes from Israeli and Western governments and the media. This insanity would be dangerous enough if it only affected public opinion, but much more dangerously it is used as the rationale for insane government policies. It is well past time for responsible citizens to educate themselves and their fellows and reject the nonsense which passes for analysis and history spewing from all this brainwashing.

Films

A friend of mine gave me this idea by publishing a list of films he saw last year. I'm going to list some of the more obscure but great films I've been finding on Netflix for my reference and for the use of others. Here goes.

Akira Kurasawa  (all his films are great)

The Bad Sleep Well 1960: Toshiro Mifune creates mayhem in a large corporation after his father dies.

Stray Dog 1949: Toshiro Mifune plays a young police detective whose gun is stolen on a bus.

Akira Kurosawa's Dreams 1990: Eight short stories including one about a nuclear power plant explosion ("They said it was safe. They lied to us.")

Madadayo 2000: about a retired professor.

Drunken Angel 1948: Toshira Mifune is a young doctor who tries to save a gangster.

Other directors:

Kolya 1996: a Czech cellist ends up caring for a 5-year-old Russian boy.

Cinema Paradiso 1988: a boy in love with the movies. However, this version has about an hour cut from the full film, which I have still yet to see.

Gate of Flesh 1964: Japanese prostitutes band together during the US occupation after WW II.

Comizi D'Amore 1964: Pier Paolo Pasolini documentary about love and sex in Italy.

Mama Roma 1962: Pasolini film about a prostitute trying to leave that life.

Accatone 1961: Another Pasolini film about the dark side of life.

Oedipus Rex 1967: Pasolini's take on the Greek story.

The Hawks and the Sparrows 1964: Another Pasolini classic

Whoever Says the Truth Shall Die 1981: Documentary about the murder of Pasolini in 1975

Brokedown Palace 1999: American teens become entangled in smuggling drugs in Thailand

Free Zone 2005: Natalie Portman gets a tour of Jordan with an Israeli cab driver

Teorema 1968: Pasolini has Terence Stamp visit a wealthy Italian family and seduce each one.

Day for Night 1973: Godard plays a director making a film with Jacqueline Bisset and Jean Pierre Leaud

Elevator to the Gallows 1957: Louis Malle directs Jeanne Moreau in a suspense thriller

The King of Masks 1999: Chinese performer buys a child to learn his skills

Goodbye, Lenin! 2003: a woman falls into a coma before the Berlin Wall comes down and wakes up afterward

La Bete Humaine 1938: Jean Renoir directs Jean Gabin as a murderer trying to cover up his crime

Pepe le Moko 1939: Jean Gabin is a criminal on the run in Algiers

Onegin 1999: English version of Pushkin's masterpiece

Dangerous Beauty 1998: story of a courtesan in 16th century Venice

Divided We Fall 2000: Czech couple shelter a Jewish concentration camp escapee

Underground 1995: Yugoslavs continue making arms in an underground factory because they are not told that the war ended.

Elena and Her Men 1957: Jean Renoir directs Ingrid Bergman as a Polish beauty who drives men mad

Le Corbeau 1943: Clouzot manages to make a searing film under Nazi censorship.

The Saga of Gosta Berling 1924: the Swedish film that made Greta Garbofamous