Pages

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

‘Action vs. reaction,’ Russia responding to threats from the West


Center for Citizen Initiatives

‘Action vs. reaction,’ Russia responding to threats from the West
Dear Friends,
PLEASE take ten minutes to watch this video with Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos. A week ago, Papadopoulos passionately revealed the truth of the US-Russia relationship at the House of Lords in Britain’s prestigious House of Parliament.
Papadopoulos defines the situation in terms of ACTION and REACTION: Washington/NATO’s ACTION and Russia’s REACTION. If the ACTION stops … Russia’s REACTION will stop. Papadopoulos is spot on.
The situation between Washington/NATO and Russia gets more tense by the day, with the prospect that a full-scale Nuclear War could break out in a matter of days, weeks or a few months––if the current direction isn’t altered. Can you believe the situation has degenerated to this stage?
With American and Russian cities already targeted … and many of the 10,000 nuclear weapons on high alert, one would think that only the insane would continue to move toward nuclear war. Yet this is not the case.
Dr. Papadopoulos gives a full explanation of the needless and relentless wars going on, and rightly points to the cornerstone, The Wolfowitz Doctrine, which was quietly hammered out in the bowels of the Pentagon in 1992 after the USSR collapsed. It was written by Paul Wolfowitz and “Scooter” Libby, later to be made a little more palatable by Dick Cheney and Colin Powell.
If you are not aware of this Doctrine which is today’s underlying strategy for Washington/NATO policy drivers, please Google it. Also please check Papadopoulos’s Youtube or article––both give information that is much needed to educate American minds.
You may ask why educate American minds (and not Russian minds)? Because 90% of our good American citizens don’t know what is behind these Middle Eastern wars and the roles the U.S. and Russia play in them. This is thanks to Americans reading and watching only U.S. mainstream media. Yes, accurate news comes out today through Internet news services, investigative journalists, international media and knowledgeable world thinkers like Papadopoulos––but none of it shows up in our mainstream media.
As for Russian citizens, they are quite aware and deeply concerned, particularly since 31,000 NATO fully-armed troops landed in the Baltic’s (on Russia’s borders) in June. In addition the average educated Russian understands a fair amount of English. They check Internet news daily (including the NYT and other U.S. papers). They see the misinterpreting of what’s going on in the battle zones, whether it be Ukraine, the Middle East or Africa––in addition to the demonizing of their leader and all things Russian.
Alas, back to Americans, most don’t have time to read Internet and investigative journalists. They are busy earning their livings, taking responsibility for their families, neighbors and local communities. Hence, they scan or catch TV news which distorts reality and airbrushes out information that’s inconsistent with policy makers’ priorities. Btw, mainstream Brit and German news always goes along with U.S.mainstream media reports. However leading European officials and citizens are bucking the official line, in part because Europe is paying a heavy price for the U.S.-induced sanctions on Russia — which is one of their top trading partners.
Americans are getting a terribly skewed story on the Middle East wars. It’s not the first time. Remember the repeated clarion call in 2002/2003 to rid the world of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein who “had a storehouse of WMDs”? Our mainstream media journalists covered the story day 24 hours a day for over a year. The hype was taken all the way to the U.N. where Colin Powell made his declarative statement that gave cover to invade Iraq … Later it turned out that U.S./NATO invaded for oil … not WMDs. The whole leadup and war was based on disinformation.
After murdering Saddam, killing over a million Iraqis, an exhaustive Senate investigation proved that NO WMDs WERE FOUND anywhere in Iraq. A similar but yet different story unfolded for Gaddafi in Libya and now is unfolding with Assad in Syria.
WHAT CAN WE GOOD AMERICANS DO?
We can collectively say NO! …
Rapid mass public education is totally possible with today’s technology. We at CCI have programmatic “know-how” and connections to Americans, high and low, all across the United States. If we join our know-how and connections with appropriate technology, we can make a resounding difference. We need help to build, maximize and “go viral” with a public awareness effort.
A combination of tens of thousands of well-informed American citizen/educators combined with America’s top-end VIPs, could stand together and say NO.” With technology it could go out to millions who could join in saying NO! … This War mongering direction doesn’t fit with our American ethics, our basic morals … or our sense of responsibility for our whole nation and the millions of unknown peoples across the world!
Sharon

October 29, 2016

‘Action vs. reaction,’ Russia responding to threats from the West, says Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos (VIDEO)

On Tuesday 25th October, 2016, at the House of Lords, the second chamber of the UK Parliament in London, Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos gave a speech on the origins of the current tension between America and Russia.
In attendance were politicians, journalists, academics, priests and peace activists. The speech was overwhelmingly applauded and credited for having given an informative, accurate and well corroborated assessment of why the world today is witness to a serious standoff between America and Russia.
Below is a video and transcription of the speech:
Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos:
“Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen and can I first of all say thank you to Uniting for Peace for having organised and for having invited me to speak at this event – an event whose subject matter cannot be emphasised enough as it is of paramount importance to every single person in this world today. Indeed, the deterioration in relations between the United States and Russia is, in my estimation, the most dangerous reality facing the world at this moment in time. However, that deterioration is not a surprise – at least not a surprise for any objective and enlightened individual with empathy.
Now, the hook of my talk is “action, reaction”. Action on behalf of the West, reaction on behalf of Russia. When a country is sidelined, has its views and concerns discarded, has its national security threatened, and observes its allies in the world being undermined and/or militarily attacked, sooner or later that country is going to respond.
Indeed, that is human nature. The alarming degree of tension between the US and Russia is due to Moscow having had its face slapped over and over again by Washington since the 1990s. And the Russians are now responding. So in order to try and defuse the current standoff between the US and Russia, it is essential to learn about the Russian mindset and what has happened since the end of the Cold War.
The concept of national security resonates in a profoundly different way with a Russian as it does with an American or a Briton. Over a period of approximately 300 years, Russia was invaded by foreign armies on five occasions – and all five invasions came through Russian’s western borders. In 1605, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth invaded; in 1708, Sweden invaded; in 1812, France invaded; in 1918, Imperial Germany invaded; and in 1941, Nazi Germany invaded.
Those invasions – and in particular the Nazi one, which involved a racial war of extermination against the Soviet Union, resulting in the deaths of 27 million Soviet people – has had a profound, a manifestly huge effect on the Russian mindset, making Russians extremely sensitive and alert to any potential threat to their homeland.
If more people at the Houses of Parliament and in British mainstream media were aware of the unprecedented horrors which Russia endured and eventually prevailed over during the Great Patriotic War, which is the Russian name for the Second World War, then there might be more understanding shown to what the Kremlin is saying today about its security concerns in Europe and the wider world.
If we turn to the year 1992, we see that Russia, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, was in meltdown – politically, economically and militarily. The fabric of Russian society was torn to shreds. Russia had gone, overnight, from being a superpower to a country barely able to stand on its own two feet. For the US, which is the leader of the western world and of NATO, the Russian decline provided a golden opportunity to achieve American global hegemony.
The Pentagon’s Defence Planning Guidance of 1992, more commonly known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine, after its co-author Paul Wolfowitz, argued that: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union…We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” On Russia, the document stated that: “Despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.”
And so, to prevent “the re-emergence of a new rival”, and in light of the Russian nuclear arsenal, the US began advancing NATO eastwards, in 1999 and 2004, taking the alliance to Russia’s doorstep. That is something, which even the former Secretary of State James Baker acknowledged, was told to Mikhail Gorbachev, in 1990, by George H Bush, would not occur. American and British politicians rarely, if at all, consider how they would respond if a Russian-led military alliance was on their borders; for example, in Mexico, Canada or France.
Now, some of you in this room might be thinking: Yes but NATO is a defensive organisation. Well, in 1994 and 1995, NATO attacked the Bosnian Serbs, Russia’s allies; in 1999, NATO bombed Serbia, a historic Russian ally; in 2003, NATO spearheaded the invasion of Iraq, who Russia had close relations with; in 2011, NATO intervened in Libya, which was Russia’s eyes and ears in North Africa; and from 2011 to the present, the US, UK and France – all NATO members, of course – are attempting to overthrow the Syrian Government, which is Russia’s eyes and ears in the Middle East. In short, Moscow, rightly so, views NATO as an aggressive organisation – and one that is used by Washington to prevent a rival power from challenging its global dominance.
We then have two events which are inter-connected and have resulted in the Russian strategic nuclear deterrent being threatened. In late 2001, the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a cornerstone agreement for reducing tension between the US and Russia. The American withdrawal led to the formation by Washington of the Missile Defence Agency, which this year activated a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe which is aimed at Russia. How would the US react to a Russian missile defence system in, say, Mexico or Canada? We all know how the Americans responded to the deployment of Soviet ICBMs to Cuba.
Another dimension to the cordon sanitaire being established by the US on Russia’s wester borders is the training of, and supporting of, pro-Western groups in former Soviet republics, in order to bring forth pro-Western governments in these places. Georgia and especially Ukraine are two major examples of that. In the case of the latter, many of the Maidan activists in Kiev were trained by the Americans in combat, and this training took place in western Ukraine, Poland and Lithuania.
While I have already referred to the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria, it is necessary to emphasise that these countries are all of geo-strategic importance, they have all been subjected to NATO intervention, and they all had/have close relations with the Russian Federation. From the Kremlin’s point of view, one after another of its allies have been targeted by the US, which the Americans are doing in order to weaken Russia abroad which will then help to weaken Russia at home.
However, in recent years, Russia has regained a lot of its lost superpower status and has begun to respond to the American threat. Action, reaction. And yes – let me make something very clear: Russia has a right to national security…something that many Western politicians and journalists seem to think that Russia is not entitled to. Russia has a right to be heard on the international stage, to not be encircled, to not have a missile defence shield on its borders and to not have its allies in the world targeted.
So the US’ action has been to try and encircle and weaken Russia, and Russia’s reaction has been to increase its defence spending, modernise its nuclear arsenal, carry out large-scale military manoeuvres, and fight for the survival of its allies in the world. Action, reaction.
Now, we hear the American and British governments say that Russia is responsible for the tension. Well, as I have demonstrated, the roots of that tension go back to the 1990s, when the Americans began taking steps to keep Russia down in the world and the US up in the world. Did the Americans believe that Russia would countenance their country being encircled and weakened? How on earth were the Russians supposed to respond? Empathy was, and remains, absent in many American and British politicians.
In concluding, action, reaction, explains why Europe finds itself at the heart of a renewed and dangerous standoff between America and Russia: aggressive and selfish actions by America, and defensive reactions by Russia. If the current confrontation between the two superpowers is to be reduced, then Washington and its allies need to examine the policies they have been pursuing in relation to Russia since the 1990s, and ask themselves how they would respond if roles were reversed.
Action, reaction is innate in all human beings. And unless the West starts to listen to and understand Russia’s perspective, then action, reaction will continue and could very well lead to a situation in which the future of the world is teetering on the edge of the abyss.
Thank you very much.”

Tuesday, November 8, 2016

Free e-Books @ Center for Economic and Social Justice

Center for Economic and Social Justice

Center for Economic and Social Justice







Free E-Books :http://www.cesj.org/resources/free-ebooks/

Right-click on titles to download PDFs, or click to read online.



The Capitalist ManifestoBy Louis O. Kelso
and Mortimer J. Adler
Translations

The New CapitalistsBy Louis O. Kelso
and Mortimer J. Adler

Introduction to Social Justice
By William J. Ferree

Social Charity
By William J. Ferree
The Act of Social Justice by Rev. William Ferree, S.M., Ph.D.
The Act of Social Justice
By William J. Ferree

Cuba, A New Beginning:
March from Santa Fé to
Nueva Paz

By Michiel Bijkerk

Monday, November 7, 2016

Election or Revolution? An Open Letter To The People Of The United States


The announcement last week by the United States of the largest military aid package in its history – to Israel – was a win for both sides.Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu could boast that his lobbying had boosted aid from $3.1 billion a year to $3.8bn – a 22 per cent increase – for a decade starting in 2019.
Mr Netanyahu has presented this as a rebuff to those who accuse him of jeopardising Israeli security interests with his government’s repeated affronts to the White House.
In the past weeks alone, defence minister Avigdor Lieberman has compared last year’s nuclear deal between Washington and Iran with the 1938 Munich pact, which bolstered Hitler; and Mr Netanyahu has implied that US opposition to settlement expansion is the same as support for the “ethnic cleansing” of Jews.
American president Barack Obama, meanwhile, hopes to stifle his own critics who insinuate that he is anti-Israel. The deal should serve as a fillip too for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic party’s candidate to succeed Mr Obama in November’s election.
In reality, however, the Obama administration has quietly punished Mr Netanyahu for his misbehaviour. Israeli expectations of a $4.5bn-a-year deal were whittled down after Mr Netanyahu stalled negotiations last year as he sought to recruit Congress to his battle against the Iran deal.
In fact, Israel already receives roughly $3.8bn – if Congress’s assistance on developing missile defence programmes is factored in. Notably, Israel has been forced to promise not to approach Congress for extra funds.
The deal takes into account neither inflation nor the dollar’s depreciation against the shekel.
A bigger blow still is the White House’s demand to phase out a special exemption that allowed Israel to spend nearly 40 per cent of aid locally on weapon and fuel purchases. Israel will soon have to buy all its armaments from the US, ending what amounted to a subsidy to its own arms industry.
Nonetheless, Washington’s renewed military largesse – in the face of almost continual insults – inevitably fuels claims that the Israeli tail is wagging the US dog. Even The New York Times has described the aid package as “too big”.
Since the 1973 war, Israel has received at least $100bn in military aid, with more assistance hidden from view. Back in the 1970s, Washington paid half of Israel’s military budget. Today it still foots a fifth of the bill, despite Israel’s economic success.
But the US expects a return on its massive investment. As the late Israeli politician-general Ariel Sharon once observed, ­Israel has been a US “aircraft carrier” in the Middle East, acting as the regional bully and carrying out operations that benefit Washington.
Almost no one blames the US for Israeli attacks that wiped out Iraq’s and Syria’s nuclear programmes. A nuclear-armed Iraq or Syria would have deterred later US-backed moves at regime overthrow, as well as countering the strategic advantage Israel derives from its own nuclear arsenal.
In addition, Israel’s US-sponsored military prowess is a triple boon to the US weapons industry, the country’s most powerful lobby. Public funds are siphoned off to let Israel buy goodies from American arms makers. That, in turn, serves as a shop window for other customers and spurs an endless and lucrative game of catch-up in the rest of the Middle East.
The first F-35 fighter jets to arrive in Israel in December – their various components produced in 46 US states – will increase the clamour for the cutting-edge warplane.
Israel is also a “front-line laboratory”, as former Israeli army negotiator Eival Gilady admitted at the weekend, that develops and field-tests new technology Washington can later use itself.
The US is planning to buy back the missile interception system Iron Dome – which neutralises battlefield threats of retaliation – it largely paid for. Israel works closely too with the US in developing cyber­warfare, such as the Stuxnet worm that damaged Iran’s civilian nuclear programme.
But the clearest message from Israel’s new aid package is one delivered to the Palestinians: Washington sees no pressing strategic interest in ending the occupation. It stood up to Mr Netanyahu over the Iran deal but will not risk a damaging clash over Palestinian statehood.
Some believe that Mr Obama signed the aid package to win the credibility necessary to overcome his domestic Israel lobby and pull a rabbit from the hat: an initiative, unveiled shortly before he leaves office, that corners Mr Netanyahu into making peace.
Hopes have been raised by an expected meeting at the United Nations in New York on Wednesday. But their first talks in 10 months are planned only to demonstrate unity to confound critics of the aid deal.
If Mr Obama really wanted to pressure Mr Netanyahu, he would have used the aid agreement as leverage. Now Mr Netanyahu need not fear US financial retaliation, even as he intensifies effective annexation of the West Bank.
Mr Netanyahu has drawn the right lesson from the aid deal – he can act against the Palestinians with continuing US impunity.
- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-09-19/palestinians-lose-in-us-military-aid-deal-with-israel/#sthash.fL4Eq28N.dpuf

Election or Revolution?
An Open Letter To The People Of The United States

By Robert J Burrowes

Jonathan Cook is a Nazareth- based journalist and winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism - See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-09-19/palestinians-lose-in-us-military-aid-deal-with-israel/#sthash.H1NbQCac.dpuf
September 20, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - As citizens of the USA with a presidential election approaching you have a wonderful opportunity to ponder whether to participate in this election or to participate in the ongoing American Revolution.

Your first revolution might have overthrown the authority of the British monarchy and aristocracy but the one in progress must remove the US elite which has executed a political coup against your government. And you cannot remove elite coupmakers in a fraudulently conducted election in which the ‘choice’ is essentially between two violently insane individuals, each of whom represents the violently insane US elite. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane’ https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/02/the-global-elite-is-insane/ and ‘Why Violence?’ http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence

The real value of this second revolution, which moves along steadily with routine outbreaks over a multitude of peace, environmental and social justice issues and occasional ‘uprisings’, such as the Occupy Movement in 2011 which spawned a range of new and visionary initiatives, is that it could give citizens of your country the chance to finally reclaim the Republic for those people who genuinely care about ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’. And, just as importantly, have sufficient vision to regard these aspirations as something to be shared with the entire US population, starting with Native Americans, and even those of us in the rest of the world including those countries that are currently victims of US elite violence, whether it be wars, drone strikes, coups, economic exploitation or ecological destruction.

Such a revolution might rewrite your constitution and replace the second amendment ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ with the right to live free of the fear of gun violence. It might result in a form of social organization that distributes wealth equitably (perhaps by actually taxing the wealthy and outlawing the use of offshore tax havens) while reallocating the annual military (killing) budget to life-enhancing projects such as poverty alleviation, affordable housing, free education, free healthcare, clean water, renewable energy technologies, and a substantial budget for compensation to those countries that the US elite has systematically exploited or simply destroyed during the past 200 years. This would allow the 50 million US citizens who live in poverty, and another billion people around the world who also live in poverty, the chance to live a decent life.

Now, you might ask, ‘How are we, the ordinary citizens of the United States, even with our handguns, rifles and assault weapons, going to take on the US military and police to remove elite control of our government?’ Well, the answer is that you do not need even one weapon for this ongoing revolution and, in fact, you are vastly better off without them. Weapons have only one use – to kill people – and any revolution worth the name has a more profoundly ambitious aim than this.

What you need is intelligence, commitment, courage and a sound nonviolent strategy. The US elite controls your government and has crippled your republic because, over successive generations, you have let them. Every time you cooperate with the elite, because you are scared, by paying your taxes (more than 50% of which finances US wars and other military violence), putting your money into their corporate banks, shopping at their corporate shopping malls, buying and consuming the ‘news’ presented by their corporate media, rationalizing their policies as reasonable, participating in their unjust and violent legal system, fighting (as an enlisted person or as a mercenary) in their military forces, working in their prison system, accepting exploited employment of any kind, eating their poisoned and genetically mutilated foods (GMOs), going along with their endless attempts to divide you along racial, class, religious and other lines, you simply consent to their control. Why?

You have a simple alternative. Consciously and systematically participate in the ongoing nonviolent revolution that is already taking place and give it added life by your presence. Remake the US republic as you want it by withdrawing your cooperation with elite structures and processes while creating alternatives that meet your needs and the needs of those around you.

Join those US visionaries who are creating cooperatives where people are both managers and valued workers, take your money out of elite banks and put it into financial organizations that exist or which you create to serve the interests of their members (or, if you prefer, use LETSystems), refuse to participate in or pay for (with your taxes) US imperialism (and win friends all over the world), grow or buy healthy locally-grown organic/biodynamic (and, if you are concerned about the climate catastrophe as well, vegetarian) food, read progressive news outlets so that you know what is really going on in the USA and the world, read literature that deepens your understanding and concern for humanity and doesn’t just offer you a distraction from the horror in which you live, and support or even become one of those many fine nonviolent activists in your country who take personal risks in the struggle to create a better world.

If you want more of what you have, then you should vote and/or buy a gun. They have an equivalent outcome: they both legitimize elite violence and exploitation directed at you and those you love.

If you want to participate in this second and ongoing American revolution, then spend your time participating in the wholesome activities that many grassroots organizations already offer and in creating its next manifestations in your own neighborhood. It is the powerful conscience-based choices that you make as an individual that define your Self. And it is these choices that will have most impact on your family, neighborhood, community organization, trade union, religious organization and elsewhere and that will help decide the future of the USA and its role in the world.

Now you might say, I do some or even all of the sorts of things you mentioned above, so why not vote too? My answer is simply this: Voting is an act of disempowerment. It’s essential message is ‘I appoint you to govern for me’. I prefer to govern myself (both meanings intended). And you?

So what of those who present the ‘lesser evil’ argument: one candidate is so bad that it is better to have the other. This ‘argument’ is not worthy of scrutiny. If you are deceived by this argument, you will vote forever in the delusional hope that you will one day get a choice to vote for someone genuinely decent. In 2008, Barack Obama was supposed to be the candidate of hope and change. Did you get that hope and change? Are you going to get it with Clinton or Trump? Of course not. Elites simply ensure that change via the electoral system cannot happen; its function is to absorb and dissipate our dissent.

If you vote you are saying that you endorse this system of electoral exploitation. The tragedy is that even third-party candidates, who may be people of genuine principle, have no chance. Even worse, they add a veneer of legitimacy to your corrupt electoral system.

In essence, if you vote for the ‘lesser evil’ you are still voting for an ‘evil’ and, more importantly, you have participated in and endorsed an ‘evil’ system: one which denies you a genuine ‘free and fair’ choice to vote for a candidate who actually represents your interests and views and has a reasonable chance of winning. And, having won, is then able to actually implement their policies (rather than be stymied by a power structure that has no intention of letting this happen). Given your circumstances, ‘the only winning move is not to play’ their corrupt game and to put your energy into a genuinely winning move: working for the regeneration of American society.

Look at it this way. If there are two rotten eggs, would you choose the one that is less rotten and eat it? Presumably you would seek another option and only after you have identified and fixed what is causing the problem in the first place. The point is this: Unless you spend your time deeply contemplating the nature of the society in which you want to live and then devoting your time and energy into creating that society, you will never have it. And you have betrayed yourself.

The reality is that either Clinton or Trump is going to be president of the USA for the next four years and a lot of people (both in the US but particularly in foreign countries) are going to die because of it (through US military violence and corporate exploitation). What we can do is to invest our political energy into creating a United States in which, at some point in the future, the likes of Clinton and Trump, and those they represent, no longer drive outcomes in our world.

To reiterate: I am not saying ‘Don’t vote and do nothing’ (as so many people do already). I am suggesting that you ponder the dysfunctionality of your society, do some research into the secretive ‘deep state’ (or military-industrial complex or power elite or the 1% or however you wish to describe it) that controls your ‘republic’ with its electoral system designed to delude you into believing that you have a say in governing your nation, and then consider how you want to engage politically and act in accord with your conscience in doing so. It is only by doing this that we will have any chance of getting the society and the world that we want, even if it is beyond our lifetimes (and assuming we can avert extinction at our own hand in the meantime).

In summary, profound change only occurs from the ‘bottom up’ when enough ordinary people take the initiative to remake their own society. And if you are really interested in doing this, one important place to start is by reviewing the way in which you nurture children. See ‘My Promise to Children’.https://nonviolentstrategy.wordpress.com/strategywheel/constructive-program/my-promise-to-children/

Other straightforward options, in addition to those mentioned above, include participation in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ http://tinyurl.com/flametree and signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.http://thepeoplesnonviolencecharter.wordpress.com

But for those of you who are serious strategic thinkers, I have outlined a strategy for removing coupmakers on the website Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategyhttps://nonviolentliberationstrategy.wordpress.com/ which is a straightforward presentation of the more detailed explanation offered in the book ‘The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach’. http://www.sunypress.edu/p-2176-the-strategy-of-nonviolent-defe.aspx

Is our destiny in our own hands? Only if we have enough people of courage to accept responsibility for it. Are you one of them?

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’  His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is athttp://robertjburrowes.wordpress.com

Saturday, November 5, 2016

HUMAN COSTS in the violence of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan


Costs of War
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures/2016/direct-war-death-toll-iraq-afghanistan-and-pakistan-2001-370000


 

Update on the Human Costs of War for Afghanistan and Pakistan, 2001 to mid-2016


Costs of War
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/War%20in%20Afghanistan%20and%20Pakistan%20UPDATE_FINAL_corrected%20date.pdf

 

War-related Death, Injury, and Displacement in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2014





Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs
Costs of War

Cost of War




Please visit the following website for a sumptuous  feast of worrying information for us and the unborn generations.

http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/about


FREE e-Books from CESJ.ORG




Center for Economic and Social Justice

Center for Economic and Social Justice







Free E-Books :http://www.cesj.org/resources/free-ebooks/

Right-click on titles to download PDFs, or click to read online.



The Capitalist ManifestoBy Louis O. Kelso
and Mortimer J. Adler
Translations

The New CapitalistsBy Louis O. Kelso
and Mortimer J. Adler

Introduction to Social Justice
By William J. Ferree

Social Charity
By William J. Ferree
The Act of Social Justice by Rev. William Ferree, S.M., Ph.D.
The Act of Social Justice
By William J. Ferree

Cuba, A New Beginning:
March from Santa Fé to
Nueva Paz

By Michiel Bijkerk

Justice-Based Leadership


Center for Economic and Social Justice

Center for Economic and Social Justice





What is Justice Based Leadership?

Justice-Based Leadership (JBL) is a philosophy that aligns individual and group values, mission, actions, structures, and systems around a shared understanding of, and adherence to, clearly defined and universal principles of social justice and economic justice. It relates to the development of an individual business or organization, as well as to a larger economic or political system.
To value oneself and, at the same time, subordinate oneself to higher purposes and principles is the paradoxical essence of highest humanity and the foundation of effective justice-based leadership.
To understand the corruptibility of concentrated power (including within oneself as the leader), and to institutionalize effective checks-and-balances within the system to prevent such concentration, is the responsibility of a justice-based leader.
JBM Pyramid Diagram
JBL encompasses concepts of “servant leadership”, “transformational leadership”, and “principle-centered leadership,” all of which recognize the impact of personal and organizational values on the behavior, performance and development of the leader, other members, and the organization as a whole.
Reflected in the JBL philosophy are three aspects of servant-leadership: trust, appreciation, and empowerment of others. The four components of transformational leadership embodied in JBL are: charisma or idealized influence (the leader as role model), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and consideration of the individual. As expressed in JBL, the components of principle-centered leadership include: personal character, competence, and commitment to natural law principles. Principle-based leaders build these principles into the center of their lives, their relationships with others, their agreements and contracts, and their mission statements and management processes.
The goal of JBL is to center all aspects of our lives (including our family, civic and work lives) on correct principles and for every person to develop a rich internal power, as well as personal economic power through capital ownership. Empowerment of others, a fundamental objective of Justice-Based Leadership, comes about when both principles and practices of justice are understood and applied at all levels of an organization or society.
Justice-Based Leadership is a key part of Justice-Based Management. It recognizes that the distribution of direct capital ownership and the rights of private property directly impact the distribution of economic and political power and the degree to which social and economic justice exist within a system.
The challenge to justice-based leaders is to promote a culture that develops, enriches and empowers each member of the group and thereby strengthens the whole. Justice-based leadership drives a dynamic process that seeks constantly to create structures, systems and institutions that decentralize power, and that teach, empower and inspire every person to become a justice-based leader.