Davos Men and world revolution

Interesting reading.  Davos has had world income inequality on its agenda for years.  What has been actually done to address world income and asset inequality is -- inequalities have worsened.

One can't expect those who have profited so much from a world economic system to be able to see clearly how and why the system produces the results it produces; nor how to make the revolutionary changes that need to be made to change the system.

It was not possible for Louie XVI to understand why his head was chapped off . Davos Men have a similar problem.  Will there be a similar result?

See French Revolution | Causes, Facts, & Summary | Britannica.com

Read The Wretched of the Earth (French: Les Damnés de la Terre) is a 1961 book by Frantz Fanon.  From Wikipedia:

 Fanon provides a psychiatric and psychologic analysis of the inequalities effects of colonization upon the individual, and the nation, and discusses the broader social, cultural, and political implications inherent to establishing a social movement for the decolonization of a person and of a people. The French-language title derives from the opening lyrics of "The Internationale", the 19th-century anthem of the Left Wing. 

"Colonization" does not need to be the goss kind the West imposed on the world in previous years.  It may be gross but gentler, and have even more dramatic effects, as Fanon suggests.  Or, as the Women's Liberation Movement suggests, it may be dramatic in its formative years, and settle into a steely determination to succeed over the long haul.        

The New York Times

What to Make of the ‘Davos Class’ in the Trump Era

Andrew Ross Sorkin

DEALBOOK JAN. 16, 2017

Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• More
• Save

Doris Leuthard, the federal president of Switzerland, faced President Xi Jinping of China at the beginning of a two-day state visit before he headed to Davos to address the World Economic Forum.CreditPeter Klaunzer/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The concluding paragraph:

“If you bother to read some of the serious analysis of Trump’s support, you realize that it’s a very fragile thing and highly unlikely to deliver what he needs in the crucial first phase of the primaries,” Niall Ferguson, the historian, predicted at Davos in 2016, according to Bloomberg News. “By the time we get to March-April, it’s all over. I think there’s going to be a wonderful catharsis, I’m really looking forward to it: Trump’s humiliation. Bring it on.”

Is United States' unswavering support for genocidal Saudi Arabia justified?

From December 30's New York Times:

In a statement that echoed Mr. Trump’s fierce criticism of the Obama administration, Mrs. May chided Mr. Kerry for, among other things, describing the Israeli government as the “most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements.”

Mrs. May does “not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally,” a spokesman for the prime minister said, using the department’s customary anonymity.

Mr. Kerry’s speech was praised by other European nations, including France and Germany. So the British slap — especially after Mrs. May’s government voted last week for a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction — was something of a shock to Washington.

These questions arise from the Times account:

     1.  Is Kerry correct to describe Netanyahu's government as the "most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements"?

Access to work in Israeli territory worries me.

The purpose is humiliation | Jews for Justice for Palestinians

The settlements worry me.


Portugal joins number of EU countries warning their citizens against doing business with illegal Israeli settlements


So, was Kerry correct in his judgment?

     2.   Was Ms. May correct in her judgment that it is not  'appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally'

I listened to Kerry's speech with care.  I have written, often, about the United States' unstinting support for the genocidal Saudi regime, and begrudgingly concede

  if Israel's survival depend on the good will of Arab countries and
  if Israel's survival is important to the United States,
 then sycophantic behavior is understandable, though not forgivable in so powerful a country ast the United States.

But two caveats:

         (a) Israel does not deny having as many as 250 Bombs; so who would dare attack it?

         (b) If Israel becomes an apartheid state, as Kerry implies, with less chance of modifying its behavior than South Africa had, what then of the United States' unwavering support for it?

         (c) . Consider these facts:

Group[8][9]	Population	Proportion of total	Growth rate
Jews:	6,119,000	75.0%	1.7%
Non-Haredi	5,499 000	65.1%	1.2%
Haredi	750,000	9.9%	5.0%
Arabs	1,688,600	20.7%	2.1%
Other	349,700	4.3%	N/A
Total	8,157,300	100%	1.9%

Dmographics of Israel - Wikipedia

Is Israel headed toward an apartheid state?  If not, why not?


     3 . Finally, is Great Britain's Theresa Mary May going to join the axis of Putin, Erdoğan, and Netanyahu, all three nominally head of democracies?

France, Germany, Austria, the Low Countries, and Scandinavia remain committed to liberal democracy.  Trump is an unknown.  If Trump surprises us, as I think he might, he can become a good president.  If he surprises me he will surely disappoint some of my friends.  I hope he surprises us all, and we muddle through in our usual fashion.' unwavering support of gencidal Saudi Arabia justified'

2016 in Syria and Yemen, from DW's point of view: a good-enough summary

Here, from Deutsche Welle century (Syria and Yemen - gaping wounds in the Middle East | World | DW.COM | 31.12.2016,) is a News, brief status report on the Syrian and Yemeni wars, during 2016.

This observation about the Yeeni genocide struck me as particularly helpful:

The war [in Yemen] is costing Saudi Arabia a fortune, despite Riyadh receiving financial and military support from Washington. The US felt obliged to placate the Saudi royal family after it signed a nuclear treaty with Iran, Saudi Arabia's archenemy. Egypt however, has refused Saudi Arabia's invitations to join Yemen's war on Riyadh's side.

Interesting for these reasons:

-- A European newspaper does not mention British support for Saudi Arabia.  Curious.

--  This is the first I have seen of Egypt's refusal to join in the war against Yemen.  In 2015, Saudi Arabia asked Egypt and Pakistan for  military help against a threatened invasion by the Islamic State.  Pakistan's legislature specifically forbade help.   Egypt gave no public announcement of its response, if any.

--  The United States ' support for Saudi Arabia did not begin with the Iranian Nuclear Deal:  it has, by treaty, pledged to support Saudi Arabia against all enemies domestic and foreign.  The treaty has been in effect since the end of WWII.  Saudi Arabia, in return, gave the United States a 20% reduction in the price of oil, a help in the United States's growth in power in the last half-and. (The subsidy stopped when the United States invaded Iraq during the First Gulf War.) . 

It is vastly disappointing to see the United States actively supporting genocide; and perhaps understandable, given the perceived need to prevent Arab States from actively supporting Palestinians against  Israel.

--  Citing Iran as Saudi Arabia's "arch-enemy" is myopic:  a central tenant of Wahhabism (Saudi Arabia's and the Islamic State's official and only religion, is that the Shia (Iran) are apostate and unclean, and are to be killed whenever possible.  See Nasr,  The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future . [Times review cited].

__________

This is serious business.  Imagine this were your home town, if your don't live in a war zone:

Recent Syrian War Dead:

Recent Yemen War Dead 

 Dead's dead.  Those left behind, thirsting for revenge unto the seventh generation, require our attention.

Please.