A new nuclear arms race is beginning. It will be far more dangerous than the last one

With Putin’s threats in Ukraine, China’s accelerated weapons programme and the US’s desire for superiority, what will it take for leaders to step back from the brink?
Guardian, By Jessica T Mathews, Thu 14 Nov 2024
Like Toto in The Wizard of Oz, at their 1985 summit in Geneva President Ronald Reagan and the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev pulled back the curtain to reveal the truth behind the terrifying spectre of nuclear war, which their countries were spending hundreds of billions of dollars to prepare for. “A nuclear war cannot be won,” they jointly stated, and “must never be fought.” They omitted the inescapable corollary of those first six words: a nuclear arms race also cannot be won.
Still, the statement, almost unique among government declarations for its blunt truthfulness, strengthened the case for the arms control and nonproliferation undertakings that followed. Decades of agonisingly difficult negotiations built up a dense structure of treaties, agreements and even a few unilateral moves dealing with offensive and defensive nuclear weapons of short, medium and long range, with provisions for testing, inspections and an overflight regime for mutual observation. Often the two sides would only give up systems they no longer wanted. Frequently the language of the agreements was the basis of future friction. On the US side, the political price of securing Senate ratification of treaties could be extremely high.
But for all its shortcomings, arms control brought down the total number of nuclear weapons held by the two countries from 60,000 to roughly 11,000 today. (The exact number is classified.) Under the most recent treaty, New Start (strategic arms reduction treaty), signed in 2010, each side is limited to 1,550 deployed weapons, with the rest in storage. By any accounting, that 80% drop (95% counting just deployed weapons) is – or was – a notable achievement.
Unfortunately, the past tense is correct, because since the US withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty in 2002 – thereby legitimising the unilateral renunciation of an agreement by one party if it no longer finds the restrictions to its taste – the other agreements have fallen one by one. In February 2026 – about 500 days from now – New Start, the last remaining brick in the edifice so painstakingly built, will expire, leaving the US and Russia with no restrictions on their nuclear arsenals for the first time in half a century.
With tensions among the great powers at a post-cold war high, a new nuclear arms race is beginning. This one will be far more dangerous than the first. It will be a three-sided race – now including China – and thus much more unstable than a two-sided one. And it will be amplified by the advent of cyberweapons, AI, the possible weaponisation of space, the ability to locate submarines deep in the ocean and other technological advances.
To appreciate the danger this represents, it is necessary to look back at the peculiar dynamics of a nuclear arms race and see the craziness that drives intelligent people in its grip to grotesque extremes…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/14/nuclear-weapons-war-new-arms-race-russia-china-us
Claim Ukraine could develop nuclear weapons, fact checked
The report claims Ukraine could build an atomic bomb similar the ‘Fat man’ – the nuclear weapon used by the US in 1945.
Ukraine has denied reports it could acquire nuclear weapons within months following the
re-election of Donald Trump. The Ukrainian foreign ministry was responding
to an article in The Times, which cited a briefing document, prepared by a
non-government think-tank for the Ukrainian defence ministry.
The document outlines how Kyiv could develop a rudimentary atomic bomb if the US
withdraws its military assistance, but did not reveal if the Ukrainian
government was ever presented with the document. Foreign ministry
spokesperson Heorhii Tykhyi said on X: “Ukraine is committed to the NPT
[the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons]; we do not
possess, develop or intend to acquire nuclear weapons.
iNews 14th Nov 2024, https://inews.co.uk/news/world/ukraine-developing-nuclear-weapons-fact-check-3380640
Missing: One nuclear waste dump site. Answers to the name of GDF.
NFLA 14th Nov 2024
Forgive our tongue-in-check headline, but to the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities it appears from an announcement this week that Nuclear Waste Services has lost its preferred nuclear waste dump site in Lincolnshire.
After three years, the former Theddlethorpe Gas Terminal has seemingly slipped the leash of the Geological Disposal Facility and is now being petted by other energy projects, such as a plan to bring in carbon capture and storage technology to the site, which have the potential to be built out in a few years rather than a few decades. Sadly, there appears no prospect of a return to agricultural use as was promised by planners when operations ceased at the terminal.
In the recently published admission, NWS siting and communities Director Simon Hughes candidly advises that whilst the search had been focused on creating a surface site at the former gas terminal to receive shipments of high-level radioactive waste: ‘Over the past year, competing interests in the gas terminal site have matured and it is important we factor these into our approach. We are undertaking a range of studies in the search area and are considering other options for the GDF surface site.’
To the NFLAs this rather suggests that the NWS team will now be scurrying around every nook and cranny of the Theddlethorpe Search Area, desperately hunting to find what they deem to be a potential suitable 1-kilometre square surface site. And seemingly in a hurry too as Mr Hughes also advises in the NWS announcement that ‘we will publish an update early next year and our teams will be out in communities to explain our findings, hear feedback and consider next steps.’……………….
To the NFLAs, the change in circumstances must surely represent a significant setback both to the prospects and timescale of the project, but this is also an opportunity to take decisive action to end it.
For if NWS really wants to hear feedback it has been clear from the start that most local elected officials and members of the community are against this project. Recent surveys have indicated that public sentiment is overwhelmingly of the opinion that GDF is a dog that has had its day and that this unwanted blight will have a massive economic impact on a seaside community dependent on tourism.
Time then to put it out of its misery.
……………………………In a circular to his fellow Councillors on East Lindsey District Council, Theddlethorpe and Withern District Councillor Travis Hesketh, who was overwhelmingly elected on an anti-GDF ticket, appears to suggest the former decisive action:
‘After 3 ½ years, suddenly NWS change tack. They are wandering aimlessly like a zombie trying desperately to find a home for nuclear waste. There is no plan, no local support and clear evidence that a nuclear dump would be catastrophic for the coastal visitor economy. As councillors we need to work together to stop this project. A GDF project has been described as a timeshare, easy to get into but very hard to get out of. Before this goes any further let’s take control and chart our own destiny.’………………………. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/missing-one-nuclear-waste-dump-site-answers-to-the-name-of-gdf/
What to know about Elon Musk’s contracts with the federal government

FATONEWS. by Samuel Azevedo, 15/11/2024
Elon Musk is easily the world’s wealthiest man, with a net worth topping $300 billion.
But even he stands to make more money from his association with the federal government after placing a winning bet on Donald Trump’s election to the presidency.
“It’s going to be a golden era for Musk with Trump in the White House,” Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said.
Musk’s aerospace company SpaceX has received billions of dollars in federal contracts, and could be line for more, while his five other businesses could gain from a lighter regulatory touch.
SpaceX
If there’s one Musk business that could profit the most from the incoming Trump administration, it’s SpaceX.
The company, which announced this year it was moving its headquarters from Hawthorne to Texas, already has received at least $21 billion in federal funds since its 2002 founding, according to government contracting research firm The Pulse. That includes contracts for launching military satellites, servicing the International Space Station and building a lunar lander.
However, that figure could be dwarfed by a federal initiative to fund a Mars mission, which is the stated goal of SpaceX.
“Elon Musk is wealthy, but he’s not wealthy enough to completely fund humans to Mars. It needs to be a public, private partnership, because of the tens of billions of dollars that this would cost, or even hundreds of billions dollars,” said Laura Forczyk, executive director of space industry consulting firm Astralytical.
SpaceX has already made big strides testing his Starship rocket, the most powerful ever built. NASA envisions employing the rocket in its Artemis program to return humans to the moon, but it has been designed to have enough thrust to propel a spacecraft to Mars. What’s more, Trump, during his first presidency, speculated on Twitter about why the United States was focusing on the moon instead of Mars…………………………………………………………………………………………..
SpaceX also has Starlink contracts with the military, including a $70-million award from the U.S. Space Force last year, according to Space News.
Tesla
Trump’s policies could reduce the sales of electric vehicles, but with Musk’s influence, his administration’s policies could boost Tesla — though not with federal funding………………………………………………….
xAI
Musk’s startup xAI doesn’t appear to have federal government contracts, but artificial intelligence companies could benefit in other ways under Trump.
Republicans and Musk have expressed support for cutting regulation to fuel AI innovation, a crucial part of the future of tech companies.
xAI
Musk’s startup xAI doesn’t appear to have federal government contracts, but artificial intelligence companies could benefit in other ways under Trump.
Republicans and Musk have expressed support for cutting regulation to fuel AI innovation, a crucial part of the future of tech companies…………………………………………………………..
“It’s going to be a golden era for Musk with Trump in the White House,” Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said.
Musk’s aerospace company SpaceX has received billions of dollars in federal contracts, and could be line for more, while his five other businesses could gain from a lighter regulatory touch.
Trump has named Musk to co-head a new Department of Government Efficiency,” or DOGE — a nod to the cryptocurrency Musk adores. However, federal law bars executive branch employees, which can include unpaid consultants from participating in government matters that will affect their financial interests, unless they divest of their interests or recuse themselves…………………………………………………………………………….more https://fatonews.com.br/2024/11/15/what-to-know-about-elon-musks-contracts-with-the-federal-government/
Future of Point Lepreau Nuclear Power Plant: “All options must be considered,” including its closure.
Ici New Brunswick, Pascal Raiche-Nogue, 14 Nov 24
It’s time to reassess the future of the Point Lepreau nuclear power plant, according to New Brunswick’s public energy advocate. Closing it permanently should be one of the options under consideration, he said.
The plant, located about 50 kilometres from Saint-Jean, was taken out of service for 100 days last April to carry out maintenance work. However, additional problems have delayed its return to service.
NB Power now expects it will start generating electricity again in December , at least four months later than planned.
“It’s certainly worrying
,” said the public defender for the energy sector, Alain Chiasson, in an interview……………………..
Is Point Lepreau on its way to becoming a white elephant?
He said the time has come to take stock of the current situation and the future of the plant. He believes that difficult questions need to be asked.
The question is: are we putting money into a white elephant that will cost us more than the energy we will be able to get out and the profits? We should do a cost-benefit study to see if Point Lepreau is still profitable for New Brunswickers
, he said.
Mr. Chiasson does not go so far as to make a statement, but he argues that it is better to start thinking about it sooner rather than later, given the complexity of the issue.
“NB Power should start looking at what can be done with Lepreau in the future and consider all options, possibly including closure, if it is for the benefit of New Brunswickers.
“
Will Susan Holt’s government have the political courage to launch this reflection?
“I have no idea and I will let the new government make its decisions
” , replies Alain Chiasson. https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2119748/centrale-nucleaire-futur-energie-nb?
Nuclear Fusion, forever the energy of tomorrow?

Bulletin, By Dan Drollette Jr | November 12, 2024
Nuclear fusion as a source of electricity always seems to be just around the corner. As the old joke goes, “Thirty years ago, fusion was 30 years away from becoming a viable commercial reality”—a comment borne out in the Bulletin’s own pages, if not precisely on a 30-year timescale.
In 1971, physicist Richard Post of what was then the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory published a Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ article featuring a chart that showed how fusion—that is, the fusing of hydrogen atoms to release energy, a process that powers all stars, including the Earth’s sun—would be widely available on a commercial scale, routinely pumping electrons to the electrical grid, by the year 1990 (although he hedged his bets by labeling it “An Optimist’s Fusion Power Timetable” [emphasis added]).
That optimism was widely shared, judging from the literature in the science and technology press of the time. But it proved to be misplaced; although militaries have thousands of nuclear warheads based on the fusion process, everything about commercial fusion as an energy has proven harder and taken longer than expected. For example, more than 60 years passed since the development of the first fusion “tokamak” reactor in the old Soviet Union to the first sustained fusion “burn,” or ignition, at the National Ignition Facility in the United States in 2022.
The difficulties involved in creating a commercial power plant are relatively simple to enumerate, as plasma physicist Bob Rosner—himself the former director of a national laboratory (and former chair of the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board)—explains in his interview, “Ferreting out the truth about fusion.” In a nutshell, the fusion process releases neutrons that are 10 times more energetic than what a commercial plant powered by the splitting of atoms, or nuclear fission, ordinarily emits. These high-powered neutrons are difficult to contain and rapidly degrade the containers proposed for controlling the extremely hot plasma required for a fusion reaction. At the same time, plasmas are just plain difficult to keep stable while producing that all-important steady (or quasi-steady) fusion “burn.”
In fact, Rosner notes, it’s likely that if a disruptive instability ever happens at ITER—the giant international research and engineering effort, based in France, that seeks to demonstrate how fusion could be produced in a magnetic fusion device—the multibillion-dollar experimental facility likely would not recover. For these reasons and more, Rosner asserts that commercial-scale, tokamak-style fusion will not be a reality in his lifetime—“and I think not in my children’s lifetime, or my grandchildren’s lifetime.” In addition, he warns about the hype and public relations fluff surrounding overly rosy projections for fusion, or what Rosner terms “a complex mixture of fact, half-truths and outright misinformation.”
It turns out that getting a reliable, steady source of tritium fuel for a fusion reactor would be an extremely difficult problem to crack, as physicist Daniel K. Jassby—formerly of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory—points out. In his article, “The fuel supply quandary of fusion power reactors,” Jassby argues that the fusion reactors now envisioned would not be able to “breed” enough tritium to supply the reactor’s continued operation, and that even a few such reactors (if they ever became reality) would shortly exhaust the world’s supply of that hydrogen isotope, which is not naturally occurring.
So, why would anyone or any institution even go near fusion research? The same reasons keep popping up, in various forms, among the various experts in this issue of the magazine: There’s the desire to know and understand the basic mechanisms of our universe, and the likelihood that fundamental research and development in fusion could lead to big results in other scientific and technological arenas (“self-healing metals” being one of them). And then there’s what fusion research could do for nuclear weapons research in the immediate near-term. As Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, writes:
“Fusion research for peaceful use and military use are highly intertwined, despite attempts to cloak nuclear weapons with the aura of the so-called ‘peaceful atom.’ ”
Given these considerations, it’s understandable that governments continue to back fusion research, despite the small likelihood that a commercial fusion power plant will come on-line soon. After all, funding basic research and providing for national defense are core goals for any state.
It is harder to understand why prominent players in the private marketplace—including the founders of Microsoft, OpenAI, Paypal, and Amazon—would invest vast sums on an infant field like commercial fusion. More than $1.8 billion was raised to fund just one startup, Commonwealth Fusion Systems, whose website indicates that it seeks to commercialize fusion energy in some form in just 10 years—decades ahead of government-funded efforts. To help explain their thinking, Silicon Valley venture capitalist and University of California Berkeley professor Mark Coopersmith delves into the world of high-finance. In his interview, “Fusion is not a typical bet,” Coopersmith explains the psychology behind putting down large sums despite long odds—assuming one has the money burning a hole in one’s pocket. The prospect of a “super return” of 1,000 or even 10,000 percent makes “deep-tech” research and development attractive, he says, even if the potential payoff could be decades away………………………………………………………. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-11/introduction-fusion-the-next-big-thing-again/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=ThursdayNewsletter11142024&utm_content=NuclearRisk_FusionNextBigThingAgain_11122024
Patrick Lawrence: Zionists in Amsterdam
Western print and broadcast media purposefully falsified all representations of these events to turn reality upside down
November 14, 2024 By Patrick Lawrence / Consortium News, more https://consortiumnews.com/2024/11/12/patrick-lawrence-zionists-in-amsterdam/
In the annals of “anti–Semitism,” if not anti–Semitism in its un-weaponized form, the events before, during, and since an ill-fated soccer match in Amsterdam last week merit a prominent entry.
We find in these chaotic days a picture in miniature of the sickness that has overtaken “the Jewish state,” the shameless apology those purporting to lead the Western post-democracies make for the straight-out barbarities of Zionist zealots, and the full-frontal disinformation spread by corporate and state-funded media as they pose as the first line of defense against disinformation.
It’s a three-fer, then, the whole banana in one place and at one time —all of this in the cause of the Zionist regime as it prosecutes its yearlong genocide in Gaza and sets about expanding its campaign of murder and destruction across West Asia.
Bad enough that planeloads of freak-show Israeli extremists arrived in Amsterdam last week for a match between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Ajax, the famous Dutch side, and instantly set about terrorizing the city in the name of Zionist chauvinism.
Worse were the authorities, starting but not ending with Amsterdam’s mayor and the Dutch foreign and prime ministers, recasting what was bound to follow as anti–Semitism, a 21st century pogrom, and so on down the list of hyperbolic absurdities.
Worst — and I indeed count this worst for its consequences — Western print and broadcast media purposefully falsified all representations of these events to turn reality upside down: Wall-to-wall, the criminals became the innocents in the news accounts, the victimizers became victims, and the victims became condemnable, anti–Semitic menaces to human decency.
See what I mean? Violence, lies, distortion, inverted reality: Two days in Amsterdam last week look now like one of those 16th century paintings the Dutch called “world landscapes,” wherein the whole of the earth is depicted in a compact panorama.
What happened in one Dutch city is the world as we have it since the Zionist regime began its limitlessly barbaric assault on the Palestinians of Gaza, the Western powers blessed it, and Western media determined to hide it from view.
Language is the instrument of my trade, and there must be words adequate to these depravities and corruptions. There must, there must. But the only one I know that matches the task at this point is “No!” Bear with me, please, as I struggle to find others.
It has been long and well documented that the Zionist ideologues who have fashioned a national consciousness among Israelis have systematically cultivated a presumption of Jewish superiority and — the contradiction here is only apparent — a corresponding belief that the rest of humanity detests Jews and the world is in consequence a dangerous place.
This project, wherein Old Testament tales of Jewish barbarities are routinely invoked, predates World War II by many decades; since 1945, as is plain to anyone who looks honestly, the Holocaust has been fully instrumentalized in this cause.
Systematic Indoctrination
I recall video footage shot in Jerusalem during the crisis at al–Aqsa Mosque in May 2021. It showed young Israelis, the girls in prim blue-and-white school uniforms, leaping up and down in a sort of blissed-out frenzy shouting “Kill all Arabs!” and other such obscenities.
What in hell? I wondered. Zionism is racism, yes, but how did it sink to this level of crudity? I should have understood. I did not know then the extent to which the minds of Israelis and Zionists the world over have been mutilated.
Two films — maybe there are more — explain the systematized indoctrination that produced the outcome at al–Aqsa.
Defamation is a cleverly done documentary from 2009 that follows adolescent students as they are brainwashed, during a summer sojourn in Europe, to fear a world that hates them.
Israelism, released last year, shows how American Jews are similarly instructed in Hebrew school — and how the eyes of many of these victims are opening to the frauds and racist cruelties of Zionist ideology.
You can watch Defamation here and Israelism here. These films are brilliant and brave.
And there is a straight line from the purposefully inculcated xenophobia and paranoia they depict to the scene on Jerusalem’s streets during the crisis at al–Aqsa and now — my point here — to the repulsive mobs of Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam last week.
These are people, hundreds of them, who began their provocative aggressions as soon as they disembarked at Schiphol, Amsterdam’s airport.
The video and reported record shows them marching through the streets in what amounts to a rampage, tearing down Palestinian flags displayed on house fronts, vandalizing a taxicab with its driver (Moroccan) inside, attacking local people with pipes and clubs, chanting obscene, probably criminal slogans — “Kill the Arabs,” “Fuck you Palestine,” “There are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left,” “Let the IDF fuck the Arabs,” and on and on in this line.
The last is a reference to recent protests in Israel in defense of Israel Defense Forces soldiers found to have gang-raped Palestinian prisoners. Violent demonstrators, among them members of the Netanyahu cabinet, thought sodomizing Palestinians held in what amount to torture camps, should be made legal.
Numerous videos and news reports detail the horrific conduct of these repellent punks and the to-be-expected response from local people.
Here is one published last Friday in Middle East Eye. Here is a nine-minute video from Owen Jones, The Guardian columnist who has had a lot of things wrong over the years but has this story very right. Here is an exceptionally pithy commentary in MEE by the estimable Jonathan Cook.
On Sunday The Grayzone published the excellent video reporting of a young Dutch journalist-in-the-making that records Israelis attacking a contingent of uniformed Amsterdam police officers.
We can dispense with the ridiculous thought that these are football hooligans of the common variety and do not represent ordinary Israelis. Out of the question.
Owen Jones put out a second video Sunday, this one 17 minutes, that includes within it a video of the scene when the Israelis who went to Amsterdam arrived home. It is another raving paroxysm of racist delirium.
Let us take good care to understand these people and what they signify.
Sickness of a Nation
One, we see in them the sickness of a nation. Amsterdam showed this to the world in real-time video, reports on “X” and various other social media platforms.
I do not know when the apartheid state can be said to have succumbed to a perfectly diagnosable case of collective psychosis, but this is its condition now and it should be treated as such. Israel as now constituted, and arguably from the start, I mean to say, is not an acceptable presence in the community of nations.
See, for easy reference, the international community’s long, eventually successful ostracization of South Africa under the old apartheid regime. The time has come.
Two, it is one thing to indulge in deranged eruptions of hatred toward Palestinians and Arabs generally within the (internationally recognized) borders of an hysterical state.
Let us invoke the principle of noninterference in the affairs of others, even if these affairs amount to crazed ravings, and leave Israel’s freakish majority to itself. Gaza, and the Occupied Territories are, of course, another matter.
The Amsterdam events were something else. They were effectively an attempt to transport the extreme to which Israel has taken a premodern, even primitive ideology into a modern milieu and tell the world it must accept it.
This is what makes the mess in Amsterdam significant. And it is why it is important that it turned out to be, indeed, a mess.
Israeli terror did badly when it put its show on the road in the Netherlands last week. Ajax trounced Maccabi Tel Aviv 5 to zip. Zionism’s score was no better.
To consider this another way, listen carefully to all the racist chants. What were the Zionist deplorables who flew to Amsterdam saying?
In my read they were terrorists asserting that Israeli terror has a legitimate place in what we call Western civilization. They demanded acceptance. And why shouldn’t they try this on, given the Western powers’ unequivocal endorsement of all the state-sponsored barbarism?
The lesson here: It falls to those not of high office but of high principle to defend, in the streets or elsewhere, the remnants of the humane in the Western post-democracies.
Finally, let us not forget that in almost all cases history records, victimizers are also victims.
In this case, to praise gang rape and the slaughter of children amounts to an inverted, perverted admission that one’s psyche has been grotesquely disfigured at the hands of manipulating ideologues desperate to make a nation out of a diaspora that, as various Jews have argued over the years, ought to have remained a diaspora.
As to those who counter-demonstrated as these damaged people ripped through Amsterdam’s streets, it has been de rigueur this past week to include in one’s thoughts and observations some variation of, “There is no excuse for violence in response to the Israelis’ conduct.”
I go back to that important word mentioned above, “No!” The violence of those protesting the Israeli racists as they exported their nation’s terror to Europe, and the extent of this violence cannot be measured and so not known, is perfectly understandable in my view.
We are talking about a city — one with a large Muslim population, as the Israelis surely knew — that was confronted with a manifestation of evil that is nearly as pure as it gets. And those subjected to this viciously aggressive display are to be criticized because they did not respond as angelic pacifists?
I am simply not on for this. It has long seemed to me that we in the West, to dilate the lens briefly, have a very peculiar attitude toward violence given we live under regimes whose policies at home as well as abroad begin and end with violence or the threat of it. But I will leave this topic for another time.
For now, this: However many Muslims were among those countering the Israelis in Amsterdam’s streets, and we cannot know this either, they are absolutely correct to read the small-time terrorists who arrived last week as manifestations of a global system that, in its centuries of racist ideology, has violently made of them its victims.
Israeli officials ran all the miles their legs could carry them as they cast the Amsterdam events as another demonstration of a rampant wave of anti–Semitism sweeping across the globe. “It was a pogrom!” “It was another Kristallnacht!”
And among my favorites in this line for its faux desolation, this from Issac Herzog, the Israeli president: “I had hoped we would never again see these things.”
This kind of stuff is altogether predictable. Zionist officials long ago lost the privilege of being taken seriously.
Dishonesty Exposed
It is the responses of Dutch officials, and soon enough others in Europe, Britain and the U.S., I take seriously indeed. Their dishonesty — pervasive, distant from reality — has consequences running to free speech, all manner of other democratic rights, and popular opposition to terrorist Israel’s gross offenses to our shared humanity.
As is now well-reported in many independent media, in the early aftermath of last week’s chaos Dutch officials and others — among them the egregious Ursula von der Leyen, president of the E.U. Commission — assiduously erased the provocations of the Israeli mobs, turning them into the innocent victims of Jew-hating urban marauders.
This narrative is now more or less in ruins. But there is no indication that officials at any level are prepared to self-correct in light of now-established facts.
“What happened over the past few days is a toxic cocktail of antisemitism, hooligan behavior and anger over the war in Palestine and Israel and other countries in the Middle East.” That is Femke Halsema, Amsterdam’s mayor, diagnosing last week’s events as quoted in The New York Times’ Tuesday editions.
Once again, “No!” There is no equivalence among the three items on Halsema’s list.
The “war in Palestine and Israel” — what does this mean, while I am at it? — is by a long way the main event. Thuggery and anti–Semitism, and I will get to the latter shortly, are of passing importance in any honest evaluation of last week’s chaos.
Dick Schoof, the Dutch premier, asserted that many or most of those so far arrested — 60-odd at this point, and who knows how true this is — were of “a migration background.” He added, “We have an integration problem. This is an expression of that.”
We are now dismissing last week’s events as unimportant, symptoms of the Netherlands’ social problems, nothing more than the resentments of brown people? “No!” once more. This is not an integration problem. It is a Zionism problem.
It was inevitable that the riot of Zionist excess the Netanyahu government set in motion a year ago last month would spill well beyond Gaza and the rest of West Asia, given the Western powers’ enthusiasm for it.
Amsterdam can be reasonably interpreted as merely a chicken come home to roost.
Dick Schoof will not get anywhere near addressing this reality. Dick Schoof is what I mean when I suggest that leadership in the Western post-democracies, artful dodgers all, is hopeless. As we must all face, there is no getting any sense or decency out of them.
It is likely — once again, we have no confirmation of this — that there were declared anti–Semites among those who countered the Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam’s streets.
One cannot condone this, of course, but neither can one take these people, however many their number, as defining of the last week’s events, and neither can we neglect to put their presence in context.
Israel is Judaism and Judaism is Israel: This has long been the Zionist state’s refrain — and the Netanyahu regime’s incessant refrain since it began its assault on Gaza on Oct. 8, 2023.
The identification is, of course, key to the Israelis’ way of protecting themselves against criticism. Attack Israel and you attack the Jewish faith: You are an anti–Semite.
One of the responsibilities of those who oppose Israeli barbarism now is to reject this false congruence as a trap set by Zionist propagandists. This is not so easy for many people.
However many anti–Semites were on Amsterdam’s streets last week, it is likely some did not think this question through sufficiently to refuse the bait. To succumb to anti–Semitic sentiments at this point is to serve, in upside-down fashion, the Israeli cause.
It is years since various government departments, universities, and other entities operating in the public sphere have endorsed the equivalence of opposition to Israel and anti–Semitism.
This is well-enough known. Since the Gaza crisis and the demonstrations across the Western post-democracies, this project has accelerated markedly.
Official responses to the Amsterdam events seem to me disturbing in that they suggest the erasure of this vital distinction now appears to be more or less complete. This is a war not only of words but also of individual and democratic rights in the post-democracies.
Let us not, let us never allow this preposterous conflation to pass without vigorous objection. Voices raised in opposition to Zionist terrorism — at this point to the Zionist state, indeed — are too important to let the charge of anti–Semitism silence them.
Mainstream media across the Western world, as has now been well-exposed, have made an ungodly mess of their coverage of the Amsterdam events — and so of themselves.
By all appearance they complacently assumed they could control the narrative, chiefly by obscuring the chronology of events, and maintain their simply disgusting defense of Israel’s genocide and the freakery abroad among its citizens.
Stories with bold-faced lies, lies of omission, accurate broadcast news segments published and pulled as “not up to our standards”: You had all of this as events unfolded. Those videos Owen Jones put out, linked above, give a good inventory of these derelictions.
As the days went by, it was very fine to see independent media force the corporate press and state-funded broadcasters such as the BBC to run for cover. This has to go down among the most revelatory, embarrassing occasions in the long decline of the mainstream.
I salute all those independent practitioners who got this work done.
The Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the big Swiss daily, published a piece in its Tuesday editions to this effect:
“The reconstruction of events in Amsterdam reveals a differentiated picture: The scenes surrounding the Champions League match between Ajax Amsterdam and Maccabi Tel Aviv went around the world, with top politicians outdoing each other in condemning the anti–Semitic incidents. However, amateur videos show a differentiated picture of the escalation. Maccabi fans were also violent before the anti–Israeli hunts.”
Plenty of blur remains but here you see how the major media in the West are trying to climb out of the hole they dug for themselves without being seen to be climbing. This is likely to prove as far they will go in the direction of honesty.
My favorite in this line involves one of those amateurs the NZZ mentions. In its first-day story from Amsterdam, the Times included a brief, indistinct video showing, it said without equivocation, a gang of Dutch people running down a Maccabi Tel Aviv fan along an Amsterdam street.
“Verified by The New York Times” it assured readers with all that faux authority to which the once-but-no-longer newspaper of record no longer has any claim.
The video made the rounds among mainstream media. And in days following, its maker protested that all those reproducing it had turned it on its head: It was Israeli crazies chasing down a Dutch person. Her name turned out to be Annet de Graaf, and Annet de Graaf went public to demand retractions and apologies.
So far as I know she has had one, from Tagesschau, Evening News, in Germany.
And then this, from a piece in The New York Times Sunday. At this point our friends on Eighth Avenue appear a touch desperate to obscure all the false reporting published in previous days:
“A video taken after midnight by a teenage Dutch YouTube personality and verified by The Times shows a group of men, many wearing Maccabi fan colors, picking up pipes and boards from a construction site, then chasing and beating a man. The incident was also captured in a video shot by a photographer, Annet de Graaf.”
Punks. Joe Kahn, the Times’ executive editor, is a punk to let his foreign desk pull this stunt. This is the same video it published several days earlier with the roles of victim and victimizers reversed.
Zionist Israel lost, lost big in Amsterdam. The horror it has made of itself is now plain for the world to see. The apologist pols, already hanging on for dear life in the post-democracies, lost. Mainstream media lost.
Annnet de Graaf, all the Annnet de Graafs — they won. They spoke the word and spoke for many. They said, “No!”
Let’s be honest about nuclear waste, please

Elly Foster, 19th October 2024, https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/opinion/elly-foster-lets-be-honest-about-nuclear-waste-please-728497?fbclid=IwY2xjawGjYhhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHR3h-H6mNK0lqJo0YWuLUygtj2lAJfQ4D4REpSwouKSrpGR8MIhGn3-udg_aem_3qvtVo9K841CI82s0PxUkA
Climate campaigners have welcomed Angela Rayner’s decision to stop a new deep coal mine being opened in Whitehaven, Cumbria. There’s more to this story. The Chief Executive Officer of West Cumbria Mining Ltd is Mark Kirkbride. His second job is on the Radioactive Waste Management Committee advising the Government how to deal with the massive stockpile of radioactive waste from our nuclear power stations.
Mark’s answer: dig a huge hole, 25 square km, under the Irish Sea, and bury it.In the industry’s parlance this is called a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF). Mark would’ve liked the coal pit next to the nuclear waste dump.
Media Coverage of Amsterdam Soccer Riot Erases Zionist Hatred and Violence

Elsie Carson-Holt 15 Nov 24, https://fair.org/home/media-coverage-of-amsterdam-soccer-riot-erases-zionist-hatred-and-violence/
When violence broke out in Amsterdam last week involving Israeli soccer fans, Western media headlines told the story as one of attacks that could only be explained by antisemitism. This is the story right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants them to tell: “On the streets of Amsterdam, antisemitic rioters attacked Jews, Israeli citizens, just because they were Jews” (Fox News, 11/10/24).
Yet buried deep within their reports, some of these outlets revealed a more complicated reality: that many fans of Israel’s Maccabi Tel Aviv Football Club had spent the previous night tearing down and burning Palestinian flags, attacking a taxi and shouting murderous anti-Arab chants, including “Death to the Arabs” and “Why is there no school in Gaza? There are no children left there” (Defector, 11/8/24).
As Marc Owen Jacobs of Zeteo (11/9/24) wrote, the media coverage revealed
troubling patterns in how racial violence is reported; not only is anti-Arab violence and racism marginalized and minimized, but violence against Israelis is amplified and reduced to antisemitism.
Buried context
“Israeli Soccer Fans Attacked in Amsterdam,” announced NBC News (11/8/24). That piece didn’t mention until the 25th paragraph the Maccabi fans’ Palestinian flag-burning and taxi destruction, as if these were minor details rather than precipitating events.
Similarly, the Washington Post (11/8/24)—“Israeli Soccer Fans Were Attacked in Amsterdam. The Violence Was Condemned as Antisemitic”—didn’t mention Maccabi anti-Arab chants until paragraph 22, and didn’t mention any Maccabi fan violence.
James North on Mondoweiss (11/10/24) summed up the New York Times article’s (11/8/24) similar one-sided framing:
The Times report, which started on page 1, used the word “antisemitic” six times, beginning in the headline. The first six paragraphs uniformly described the “Israeli soccer fans” as the victims, recounting their injuries, and dwelling on the Israeli government’s chartering of “at least three flights to bring Israeli citizens home,” insinuating that innocent people had to completely flee the country for their lives.
Also at Mondoweiss (11/9/24), Sana Saeed explained:
Emerging video evidence and testimonies from Amsterdam residents (here, here and here, for instance) indicate that the initial violence came from Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, who also disrupted a moment of silence for the Valencia flood victims.
But despite that footage and Amsterdammer testimonies, coverage—across international media, especially in the United States—has failed to contextualize the counter-attacks against the anti-Arab Israeli mob.
Misrepresented video
Several news outlets outright misrepresented video from local Dutch photographer Annet de Graaf. De Graaf’s video depicts Maccabi fans attacking Amsterdam locals, yet CNN World News (11/9/24) and BBC (11/8/24) and other outlets initially labeled it as Maccabi fans getting attacked.
De Graaf has demanded apologies from the news outlets and acknowledgement that the video was used to push false information. CNN World News‘ video now notes that an earlier version was accompanied by details from Reuters that CNN could not independently verify. BBC’s caption of De Graaf’s footage reads “Footage of some of the violence in Amsterdam—the BBC has not been able to verify the identity of those involved.”
The New York Times (11/8/24) corrected its misuse of the footage in an article about the violence:
An earlier version of this article included a video distributed by Reuters with a script about Israeli fans being attacked. Reuters has since issued a correction saying it is unclear who is depicted in the footage. The video’s author told the New York Times it shows a group of Maccabi fans chasing a man on the street—a description the Times independently confirmed with other verified footage from the scene. The video has been removed.
‘Historically illiterate conflation’
Jacobin (11/12/24): “Far from acting like tsarist authorities during a pogrom, the police in Amsterdam seem to have cracked down far harder on those who attacked Maccabi fans than the overtly racist Maccabi hooligans who started the first phase of the riot.”
It is undoubtedly true that antisemitism was involved in Amsterdam alongside Israeli fans’ anti-Arab actions; the Wall Street Journal (11/10/24) verified reports of a group chat that called for a “Jew hunt.” But rather than acknowledging that there was ethnic animosity on both sides, some articles about the melee (Bret Stephens, New York Times, 11/12/24; Fox News, 11/10/24; Free Press, 10/11/24) elevated the violence to the level of a “pogrom.”
Jacobin (11/12/24) put the attacks in the context of European soccer riots:
There were assaults on Israeli fans, including hit-and-run attacks by perpetrators on bicycles. Some of the victims were Maccabi fans who hadn’t participated in the earlier hooliganism. In other words, this played out like a classical nationalistic football riot—the thuggish element of one group of fans engages in violence, and the ugly intercommunal dynamics lead to not just the perpetrators but the entire group of fans (or even random people wrongly assumed to share their background or nationality) being attacked.
But Jacobin pushed back against media using the word “pogrom” in reference to the soccer riots:
Pogroms were not isolated incidents of violence. They were calculated assaults to keep Jews locked firmly in their social place…. Pogroms cannot occur outside the framework of a society that systematically denies rights to a minority, ensuring that it remains vulnerable to the violence of the majority. What happened in Amsterdam, however, bears no resemblance to this structure. These were not attacks predicated on religious or racial oppression. They were incidents fueled by political discord between different groups of nationalists….
Furthermore, using that designation to opportunistically smear global dissent against Israel’s atrocities in Gaza as classically antisemitic only serves to trivialize genuine horrors. This historically illiterate conflation should be rejected by all who truly care about antisemitism.
Breaking with the Netanyahu government’s spin, former Israeli President Ehud Olmert said that the riots in Amsterdam were “not a continuation of the historic antisemitism that swept Europe in past centuries.” Olmert, unlike Western media coverage of the event, seemed to be able to connect the violence in Amsterdam to anti-Arab sentiment in his own country. In a more thoughtful piece than his paper’s news coverage of the event, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (11/13/24) quoted Olmert extensively:
The fact is, many people in the world are unable to acquiesce with Israel turning Gaza, or residential neighborhoods of Beirut, into the Stone Age—as some of our leaders promised to do. And that is to say nothing of what Israel is doing in the West Bank—the killings and destruction of Palestinian property. Are we really surprised that these things create a wave of hostile reactions when we continue to show a lack of sensitivity to human beings living in the center of the battlefield who are not terrorists?
The events in Amsterdam called for nuanced media coverage that contextualized events and condemned both anti-Jewish and anti-Arab violence. Instead, per usual, world leaders and media alike painted Arabs and Pro-Palestine protesters as aggressors and Israelis as innocent victims.
Resisting the nuclear export and import policies in the age of climate crisis – Webinar on the International Joint Response to Nuclear Expansion.

No Nukes Asia Forum (NNAF) is organising this webinar on Tuesday 19 November. Note that the time listed for Australia is “ACST” – ie Adelaide time. Please adjust to fit your time zone.
It will be an opportunity to hear about South Korea’s nuclear export program. As you are no doubt aware, South Korea’s APR1400 and APR1000 reactors have been promoted by the Coalition as candidates for Australia. South Korea constructed the United Arab Emirates reactors on which the Coalition is basing its (unrealistic) timeline.
As the climate crisis grows more serious, countries worldwide are promoting energy transition policies to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Meanwhile, some countries also pursue strategies to expand nuclear power plants by including nuclear power in their energy transition policies. The nuclear industry is emphasizing nuclear power as an alternative solution to the climate crisis, and it is expanding with small modular reactors (SMRs) that are costly and not feasible at present and conventional nuclear power plants with long construction processes. In Asia, South Korea and Japan have been promoting the export of nuclear power plants to the Philippines, Turkiye, Indonesia, and Thailand. Nuclear power plants’ safety and economic feasibility are not achievable and this is an undemocratic policy.
In response, we will host a webinar with Asian nuclear disarmament organizations to examine the current status of nuclear power plant exports and explore ways to jointly respond internationally. We look forward to your interest and participation.
○ Date: November 19 (Tue), 2024, 3:00-5:00 PM (UTC+9)
– Turkiye (UTC+3): 9:00-11:00 AM
– India (UTC+5:30): 11:30 AM – 1:30 PM
– Indonesia/Thailand (UTC+7): 1:00-3:00 PM
– Manila/Taipei (UTC+8): 2:00-4:00 PM
– South Korea/Japan (UTC+9): 3:00-5:00 PM
– Australia (ACST, UTC+10): 4:00-6:00 PM
○ Location: Zoom Webinar / Zoom link will be sent via email later
○ Organized by: No Nukes Asia Forum (No Nukes Asia Form)
Korean organizers: Citizens’ Action for No Nukes, No Nukes News Media Cooperative, Yoon Jong-oh(National Assembly’s member) of the Progressive Party of Korea, National Assembly Economy Forum on Climate Crisis & Decarbonization
Philippines Organizer: Nuclear-Free Bataan Movement(NFBM), YoungBEAN, KILUSAN, Green Peace PH
Japan Organizer: Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center
Turkiye Organizer: Nukleersiz
○ Primary language: English / Interpretation: Korean
○ Presentations (15 minutes each)
Moderator: Korea (Kim Hyunwoo, No Nukes News) & Philippines (DJ Janier, KILUSAN)
Presentation 1: Korea’s Nuclear Power Plant Export Strategy and Issues / LEE Heonseok (Energy Justice Actions)
Presentation 2: Problems of Resuming Power Generation at the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant in the Philippines / NFBM
Presentation 3: The Overview of Japanese Failed Nuclear Exporting Project: Hajime Matsukubo(CNIC)
Presentation 4: On Nuclear Power Plant Projects and Problems in Turkiye and the Export Strategy of Russia/ Pinar Demircan(Nukleersiz)
○ Q&A and discussion: 40 minutes
○ Summary and closing remarks: 20 minutes
○ Contact: GreenReds@gmail.com
○ 참가 신청(한국어) : bit.ly/3AB2yjs
○ Registration Form(English): bit.ly/3AE0JlV
Trump’s Appointments Reflect a More Openly Hawkish Face of US Empire

In appointing Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz and Pete Hegseth to his administration, Trump emboldens volatile warmongers.
By Sam Rosenthal , Truthout, November 14, 2024
After mounting his comeback win against Kamala Harris, Donald Trump has already announced a slew of administration appointments. Compared to other presidents-elect, and to his own first term, Trump is ahead of the typical timeline in announcing these appointments, giving observers an earlier-than-usual view into how the second Trump administration could function, both in the domestic and foreign policy arenas.
On the foreign policy front, Trump will inherit several major international crises and tensions that Joe Biden has been unable to resolve during his time in office, chief among them Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, Russia’s war in Ukraine and escalating U.S. rivalry with China over Taiwan. Trump has already named several high-profile cabinet members who will shape much of his foreign policy and could oversee the consequential conclusions of those conflicts.
Marco Rubio, the senator from Florida, has been tapped for the coveted secretary of state position. Rubio is a well-known China hawk who has recently led the charge against TikTok and other Chinese-based tech companies, a stance that dovetails well with Trump’s promise to impose a 60 percent tariff on all goods exported from China. Beyond economic warfare, Rubio has called China the “threat that will define this century” and pushed repeatedly on known pressure points in U.S.-China relations, including the status of Taiwan.
Rubio — the grandson of Cuban immigrants who moved to the U.S. before the Cuban revolution but hated Fidel Castro from afar — is an ardent anti-communist who has argued vociferously against the legitimacy of the sitting governments in Cuba and Venezuela and supported devastating sanctions on both……………………
Rubio’s aggressive stance toward China will no doubt be compounded by Trump’s newly announced pick for national security adviser, Mike Waltz, currently a House representative from Florida. Waltz has pushed his anti-China rhetoric even farther than Rubio, …………………………………….
Arguably Trump’s most surprising pick so far has been his choice for secretary of defense. …………………………….. For his second term, in an apparent attempt to institute more accommodating leadership at the Pentagon, Trump has nominated Pete Hegseth, a Fox News host who served in Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, to lead the Department of Defense.
During his time at Fox News, Hegseth has become known for advocating for leniency for military personnel found to have committed war crimes abroad while serving. Hegseth has no governmental experience whatsoever, nor has he served in any command role within the U.S. military…………………………..
During Trump’s last term, he encouraged the then-president to bomb cultural sites in Iran. As head of the Department of Defense, he might focus on internal house cleaning, seeking to remake the military into a more homogenous, more overtly male-dominated entity, with even less care for international law and a firmer belief in U.S. supremacy.
…………………………………………….Tulsi Gabbard, chosen as director of national intelligence……….. has also frequently trafficked in anti-Muslim rhetoric, repeating right-wing talking points about “radical Islamic ideology” that are often used to justify the criminalization and surveillance of Muslim communities…
………………………….Trump has also begun to announce high-profile ambassadorships. Among these early picks, the most consequential is likely to be his selection of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to serve as U.S. ambassador to Israel. Huckabee, whose daughter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, served as Trump’s press secretary in his last term, is well-known for his Christian evangelicism. …..
Huckabee’s pick as ambassador to Israel likely portends an even more openly hostile stance toward Palestinian human rights and comes with possibly apocalyptic consequences for the West Bank. Huckabee, an avowed Zionist (like President Biden), has long supported Benjamin Netanyahu. …………………………………….. He has said that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are not illegal, contradicting the overwhelming consensus of international law experts…………………………..
Beyond that, though, Huckabee ascribes to a particular brand of Christian evangelical thought, rooted in the belief that the existence of modern Israel is ordained by God. Huckabee has close ties to Christian Zionist organizations, including Christians United for Israel (CUFI), one of the largest of its type in the U.S., which is already celebrating his nomination.
But Huckabee’s connection with Hagee and CUFI isn’t just alarming because of its founder’s overt antisemitism; Hagee is part of an extreme segment of the Christian Zionist tradition that believes that a cataclysmic war in Israel and Palestine will be the precipitating event for the second coming of the Christian messiah. Hagee and others in this line of thinking, therefore, encourage the hastening of violent conflict between Israel and its neighbors as much as possible. Whether Huckabee himself is aligned with this particular strain of Christian Zionism is not clear, but his close connection with the broader movement, and with Hagee in particular, should be enough to raise the highest level of alarm about what policies Huckabee intends to support toward an Israeli state that is already deeply enmeshed in the bloodiest campaign of its entire existence.
It is not a foregone conclusion that all of these nominees will make it through the Senate confirmation process. Although Republicans now control the chamber, more moderate caucus members, or those with more traditional views of how the federal government should be run, might be hesitant to confirm some of Trump’s most unorthodox picks. Hegseth and Gabbard, in particular, could face strong headwinds. However, that is dependent on whether Republicans are willing to risk antagonizing Trump, who is infamous for his ability to hold and prosecute personal vendettas, at the outset of his second term. If these nominees are confirmed, they will comprise among the most unusual, and unpredictable, stewards of U.S. foreign policy that the country has ever had.
How Trump Will Seek Revenge on the Press

Ari Paul, 14 Nov 24,https://fair.org/home/how-trump-will-seek-revenge-on-the-pres
“Revenge—it’s a big part of Trump’s life,” Mother Jones‘ David Corn (10/19/16) wrote just before Trump was elected to the presidency the first time:
In speeches and public talks, Trump has repeatedly expressed his fondness for retribution. In 2011, he addressed the National Achievers Congress in Sydney, Australia, to explain how he had achieved his success. He noted there were a couple of lessons not taught in business school that successful people must know. At the top of the list was this piece of advice: “Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it.”
Knowing this about Trump, Democrats and liberals worry that he will use the Department of Justice, especially if Matt Gaetz is confirmed as attorney general, as an unrestrained vehicle to pursue the prosecution of political enemies.
But given Trump’s constant attacks on media—“the opposition party,” as his ally Steve Bannon called the fourth estate (New York Times, 1/26/17)—journalists fear that he will use the power of the state to intimidate if not destroy the press.
Defunding public broadcasting
Trump called for defunding NPR (Newsweek, 4/10/24) after a long-time editor accused the radio outlet of liberal bias in the conservative journal Free Press (4/9/24). Rep. Claudia Tenney (R–NY) introduced legislation to defund NPR because “taxpayers should not be forced to fund NPR, which has become a partisan propaganda machine” (Office of Claudia Tenney, 4/19/24). With Republicans also holding both houses of congress, bills like Tenney’s become more viable.
Trump has previously supported budget proposals that eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (Politico, 3/27/19).
The infamous Project 2025, a conservative policy agenda many see as a blueprint for the second Trump term, calls for the end to public broadcasting, because it is viewed as liberal propaganda:
Every Republican president since Richard Nixon has tried to strip the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) of taxpayer funding. That is significant not just because it means that for half a century, Republican presidents have failed to accomplish what they set out to do, but also because Nixon was the first president in office when National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), which the CPB funds, went on air.
In other words, all Republican presidents have recognized that public funding of domestic broadcasts is a mistake. As a 35-year-old lawyer in the Nixon White House, one Antonin Scalia warned that conservatives were being “confronted with a long-range problem of significant social consequences—that is, the development of a government-funded broadcast system similar to the BBC.”
All of which means that the next conservative president must finally get this done, and do it despite opposition from congressional members of his own party if necessary. To stop public funding is good policy and good politics. The reason is simple: President Lyndon Johnson may have pledged in 1967 that public broadcasting would become “a vital public resource to enrich our homes, educate our families and to provide assistance to our classrooms,” but public broadcasting immediately became a liberal forum for public affairs and journalism.
PBS and NPR, as FAIR (10/24/24) has noted, has for decades caved in to right-wing pressures—PBS by adding conservative programming, NPR by trying to rid itself of political commentary altogether. But the right will never let go of its ideological opposition to media outlets not directly owned by the corporate class.
‘Whether criminally or civilly’
Trump also has a well known track record of revoking the credentials of journalists who produce reporting he doesn’t like (Washington Post, 2/24/17, 5/8/19; New Republic, 11/5/24). It is realistic to assume that a lot more reporters will be barred from White House events in the years ahead.
While a bill that would grant the secretary of the treasury broad authority to revoke nonprofit status to any organization the office deems as a “terrorist” organization has so far failed (Al Jazeera, 11/12/24), it is quite possible that it could come up for a vote again. If this bill were to become law, the Treasury Department could use this ax against a great many progressive nonprofit outlets, like Democracy Now! and the American Prospect, as well as investigative outlets like ProPublica and the Center for Investigative Reporting.
The department could even target the Committee to Protect Journalists, which has already said in response to Trump’s victory, “The fundamental right to a free press, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, must not be impaired” (11/6/24).
Margaret Sullivan (Guardian, 10/27/24), an avid media observer, said there is no reason to think Trump will soften his campaign against the free press. She said:
In 2022, he sued the Pulitzer Prize board after they defended their awards to the New York Times and the Washington Post. Both newspapers had won Pulitzer Prizes for investigating Trump’s ties to Russia.
More recently, Trump sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for defamation over the way the anchor characterized the verdict in E. Jean Carroll’s sexual misconduct case against him. Each of those cases is wending its way through the courts.
She added:
There is nothing to suggest that Trump would soften his approach in a second term. If anything, we can expect even more aggression.
Consider what one of Trump’s most loyal lieutenants, Kash Patel, has said.
“We’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections,” Patel threatened during a podcast with Steve Bannon. “Whether it’s criminally or civilly, we’ll figure that out.”
Trump has already gone after the New York Times and Penguin Random House since Sullivan wrote this. CJR (11/14/24) said:
The letter, addressed to lawyers at the New York Times and Penguin Random House, arrived a week before the election. Attached was a discursive ten-page legal threat from an attorney for Donald Trump that demanded $10 billion in damages over “false and defamatory statements” contained in articles by Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt, Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner.
It singles out two stories coauthored by Buettner and Craig that related to their book on Trump and his financial dealings, Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success, released on September 17. It also highlighted an October 20 story headlined “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment” by Baker and an October 22 piece by Schmidt, “As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator.”
And just before his victory, Trump sued CBS News, alleging the network’s “deceitful” editing of a recent 60 Minutes interview with Vice President Kamala Harris “misled the public and unfairly disadvantaged him” (CBS News, 10/31/24).
Expect more of this, except this time, Trump will have all the levers of the state on his side. And whatever moves the next Trump administration makes to attack the press will surely have a chilling effect, which will only empower his anti-democratic political agenda.
A comprehensive review of the revolving door between Fox and the second Trump administration

Trump has picked 5 former Foxers — so far
by Matt Gert, 11/13/24
Incoming president Donald Trump’s unprecedented relationship with Fox News is once again creating a revolving door between the right-wing propaganda network and his administration. Trump has named three current or former Fox employees to high-ranking positions in the week since he was elected president — and more seem sure to follow.
Trump, an obsessive Fox viewer whose worldview is shaped by the network’s programming, stocked his first-term White House and federal agencies with familiar faces from the network. At least 20 people with Fox on their resumes joined his administration over the course of his tenure, including Cabinet secretaries, top White House aides, and ambassadors.
Trump also consulted privately with an array of Fox stars, creating a shadow Cabinet of advisers with immense influence over government affairs whose key credential was their ability to attract attention via right-wing bombthrowing. And he frequently made important decisions based on what people were telling him on his favorite network — at times with disastrous results.
As Trump ramps up his second term, he is once again plucking top administration officials from the network’s stable.
The list below will be updated as additional former Fox employees join or leave the Trump administration.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://www.mediamatters.org/donald-trump/comprehensive-review-revolving-door-between-fox-and-second-trump-administration
Trump 2.0 promises US enabled Israeli genocide on steroids.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 15 Nov 24
President Biden set a high bar for enabling Israeli genocide in Gaza. Like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Biden didn’t’ lift a finger to bring the remaining 97 Israeli hostages back safely from Gaza. But he’s used over 50,000 tons of weapons, costing over $18 billion for Israel to complete the genocidal ethnic cleansing of Gaza.
He did nothing to force Israel to provide food, water and medicine to the 2,300,000 sick and starving Palestinians (less the 100,000 or so already dead) as a condition for supplying genocide weapons. On October 12th he issued a demand giving Israel 30 days to start allowing in life saving supplies. When Israel did nothing to comply, Biden essentially said ‘Just kidding about the consequences….keep up the genocide.’
But at least Biden said a ceasefire along with food and medicine were needed to stop the Palestinians’ suffering.
Unlike Biden, Trump will continue US genocide enabling without the veneer of sympathy for its victims. He repeatedly demands that Israel “Finish the job” in Gaza.
His picks on foreign policy promise even more genocide in Gaza compared to Biden’s tough act to follow.
Trump tabbed uberhawk Mike Waltz to be his National Security Advisor. Waltz is totally against ceasefire, charging it will only lead to larger Middle East war, when it’s only the ongoing genocide in Gaza fueling it. He’s a huge fan of Netanyahu’s conduct of the genocide, claiming Biden has been too reactive compared to Netanyahu’s proactive aggression.
Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick to run Defense, is all in for Israeli expanding the genocide in Gaza and bombing of Lebanon, to take out Iranian nuclear sites. He’s enamored of Israeli bombing and assassinations in Iran because he charges Biden is too weak to do it. He carries visible symbols of his beliefs—a large Crusader’s Jerusalem Cross tattoo on his chest and the biblical verse Matthew 10:34, which reads, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword.” When in charge of Defense, Hegseth should change its name to Department of Endless War and Genocide.
Trump’s selection of Marco Rubio to head the State Department is equally dreadful. Rubio defends the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza saying “Israel’s enemies are also our enemies. The Iranian regime and its proxies – Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and a multitude of groups in Syria and Iraq seek Israel’s destruction as part of a multi-stage plan to dominate the Middle East and destabilize the West. The Jewish state is on the front lines of this conflict, fighting with many shared American-Israeli lives.” Rubio would be more accurate in saying ‘Israel is on the front lines of genocide.’
But Trump’s pick of Mike Huckabee to be Ambassador to Israel trumps even Waltz, Hegseph and Rubio for genocidal support. Huckabee, a Christian Evangelist claims “There is no such thing as a West Bank. It’s Judea and Samaria. There’s no such thing as a settlement. They’re communities, they’re neighborhoods, they’re cities. There’s no such thing as occupation….there’s no such thing as a Palestinian.”
As grotesque as Biden’s enabling of Israeli genocide in Gaza is…Trump 2.0 figures to be much worse.
-
Archives
- April 2026 (19)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS




