Star Trek SNW Reviews H

I am now starting to do “reviews” of episodes of the new Star Trek series “Strange New Worlds.” Unlike earlier ST review posts this time I’ll be doing, at least MOST of the time, one relatively long essay for a single episode that merits some significant commentary (I wouldn’t be surprised if out of a final total of 46 episodes I’ll do one or two posts that are very brief). I’ll be focusing almost exclusively on the political aspects of the episodes but will usually not comment on the pervasive multiculturalism and gender equality of ST.

“Under The Cloak Of War” Episode Eight, Season Two. See this for a plot summary.

This episode is in at least one way perhaps the best anti-war episode of all ST. It is also a little difficult to follow closely to figure out if there is any significant REVELATION that addresses the question- is Federation Ambassador Dak’Rah something more sinister than the Federation knows? I’m going to focus on that part first. Partly because it is the more difficult part and I have a habit of often doing the difficult stuff first, and partly because it’s implied here and there that he is not the great man of diplomacy people think he is.

You should read the episode “summary” I link to above, but it is REALLY long and many readers might want something shorter, so here is a summary of the stuff about Dak’Rah.

One battle of the Klingon War became even uglier at one point when the Klingon commander (on the planet focused on) ordered that anyone without a Klingon uniform should be killed. That commander was Dak'Rah BEFORE his apparent transformation, but it’s not clear to the audience and unknown to a lot of people in StarFleet. The story is that the future diplomat fought in hand-to-hand combat with 2 or 3 of his subordinates to stop the slaughter of civilians. We learn that M’Benga was actually the one who fought the Klingon subordinates while Dak'Rah escaped. Although it’s still not totally clear to me, I believe this fact is the main revelation to StarFleet- not that the original order was given by Dak’Rah.

The former Klingon commander, apparently around the time that the war ends, goes through some kind of transformation politically/philosophically and defects to the Federation where he becomes a popular and inspirational ambassador. The timeline is not super clear because he was probably a Federation Ambassador no more than 2-4 years before the events in this episode, but I guess he got a lot done. There’s some suggestion that there’s something shady about how much distance he has (or ostensibly has) put between his past during the war and his new work with the Federation- that he has moved on and forgiven himself too much and unreasonably expects people like M’Benga to also forgive him and treat him as a friend. I initially was kind of inclined to think that M’Benga and Chappel and Ortegas were being too hard on Dak’Rah, that he had made a legitimate and total transformation, and maybe it wasn’t on an unrealistic timeline and he had apparently done a lot of really good work for the Federation. 

If someone believes that a relatively or very rapid total transformation like that is just totally unrealistic, think about the true story movie “The Best of Enemies” in which, over a small number of months, a very active, immersed Klan leader becomes anti-Klan and pro-integration, and then goes to work for the AFL-CIO (America’s labor movement and at the very least a sort of anti-racist force).

Anti-War Stuff

The other part of this is not obscured at all. It is a very anti-war episode up there with Deep Space Nine episodes “… Nor The Battle To The Strong” and “The Siege Of AR-558.” In general there’s a lot about war from the perspective of a StarFleet field hospital. You get the impression that among the hospital staff there’s a lot of casualties and/or a lot of turn-over in general (possibly from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder if not from actual weapons). Probably the main thing worth mentioning is that, although it’s not explained how this works (it’s long before StarFleet in the last three seasons of Discovery where they have individual transporters you carry with you like a communicator) apparently the wounded arrive at the hospital by transporter and that means that once in a while or often there’s a repetitive computer-voiced announcement of “incoming transport-incoming transport” which basically means, at least usually, that a lot of wounded are going to arrive. There’s something about the repetitive nature and the electronic voice of the announcement that caused me some kind of anxiety (although I’ve never been in a war I have some imagination of how upsetting it must be and since my mom’s death I have become a bit hyper-emotional). It kind of reminds me of how on the 1970s TV show MASH the sound of approaching helicopters would alert the staff that wounded would be there in seconds. But it’s even more powerful.

Star Trek: SNW Reviews F

I am now starting to do “reviews” of episodes of the new Star Trek series “Strange New Worlds.” Unlike earlier ST review posts this time I’ll be doing, at least MOST of the time, one relatively long essay for a single episode that merits some significant commentary (I wouldn’t be surprised if out of a final total of 46 episodes I’ll do one or two posts that are very brief). I’ll be focusing almost exclusively on the political aspects of the episodes but will usually not comment on the pervasive multiculturalism and gender equality of ST.

“The Broken Circle” Episode One, Season Two. See this for a plot summary.

There is some good dialogue about the need to avoid war. There is some talk about the Enterprise’s second-in-command being prosecuted for lying about her species and the fact that she was genetically engineered, something I go into here. And there is an incident of a StarFleet officer, a main character on this show, engaging in torture.

War and Profits

The main story is that a mining syndicate on a planet that had benefitted financially from the Klingon-Federation War of a few years earlier was determined to get the war started again in order to make massive profits again. I think that sort of thing happens fairly often in reality. One thing I want to highlight is that in this case it isn’t a BANK that wants war, it’s a MINING COMPANY. I think that sometimes the role of banks in capitalism is exaggerated by some people who oppose capitalism and the role of banks in war is exaggerated by some people who oppose war (I also believe that some socialists, as tempting as this is, exaggerate the role economic forces play in the development of wars) . Although banks might be somewhere between important and key to capitalism, they are/were part of social democracy and Soviet communism and in capitalism are often not on the front lines of the class war- corporations are not puppets whose strings are pulled by banks- corporations that bust unions do it for there benefit, not because banks want them to. Arms manufacturers are thinking more of their profits when they push for militarism than they are thinking of whether or not they can get a loan. Believing that banks are key to capitalist efforts to push nations into war for their own financial reasons is a good fit for anti-Semitism, considering the untrue stereotype of Jewish people and bankers.

Torture and Star Trek

There is one scene where a StarFleet officer very briefly engages in what is basically torture- about 60 seconds of questions and physical assault. Star Trek and it’s fictional creation the Federation are generally against torture, but there was a tiny bit on Voyager, a bit more on Enterprise, and now on this series (and maybe one more on Discovery and/or Picard that I can’t remember). On Voyager, the second-in-command objects when Captain Janeway tortures and I wrote the following in a review of VOY episode “Equinox”:

“There is one bit of politics. At one point Janeway engages in what is basically torture and is stopped by Chakotay. She ends up suspending him but shortly after she re-instates him, she says something which could be acknowledged as admitting that she was wrong (she says that Chaoktay might have been justified if he had taken control of Voyager in response to what the Captain was doing).”

On Enterprise the torture was also limited to 1-3 incidents and I wrote the following in a review of the ENT episode “Home”:

In the last post (while discussing the episode “Zero Hour”) I talked about how Archer did some things that were immoral during the mission to find the Xindi weapon. I basically said that although he shouldn’t be tossed in jail or even tossed out of StarFleet, he should get some punishment, to make other officers understand that there are consequences for breaking or bending the rules, even for hero Captains, and they should only do so when very necessary. There is nothing about him getting in any trouble in this episode, nor the three after it (I sometimes do reviews at a slower pace than I watch the episodes at). At the end of his de-briefing, the Vulcan ambassador says that he (Archer) did some immoral things, but says they were necessary for his mission to succeed.

It turns out that in some ways, Archer is doing what needed to be done about his immoral tactics. Mountain climbing with a fellow Captain (Erika Hernandez), Archer explains why he wanted to go climbing.

Archer: I figured this was the last place I’d run into anyone who’d want to shake my hand or take my picture or tell me I’m an inspiration to their children. If they knew what I’d done...

Hernandez: You did what any Captain would have done.

Archer: Does that include torture or marooning a ship full of innocent people- Cause I don’t remember reading those chapters in the handbook.


I’m still disappointed that he didn’t receive some kind of punishment, but that exchange is better than nothing.

In this episode, the StarFleet officer is trying to stop something that could easily re-start the war and he is very familiar with what war is like. It might also be relevant that he injected himself with some kind of sci-fi version of the spinach that Popeye the Sailor ate, which might possibly have had some effect on his brain.

Some of the writers, etc. behind the show and many people in America might say that it’s just realistic to have them torture once in a while. The problem is that, in addition to torture being amoral and illegal, the idea that it is effective is what’s UNREALISTIC. Something like most of the time, or at least a lot of the time and maybe all the time, people being tortured for information will say whatever they think will end the torture- if they DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEIR TORTURER THINKS THEY KNOW, THEY WILL MAKE SOMETHING UP. This is well illustrated in the 2007 movie “Rendition.” People acting on information gathered through torture might not realize it’s bad intel until they do something horrible and/or unjustified, and/or unhelpful, and/or dangerous to those acting on the bad intel.

Star Trek: SNW Reviews E

I am now starting to do “reviews” of episodes of the new Star Trek series “Strange New Worlds.” Unlike earlier ST review posts this time I’ll be doing, at least MOST of the time, one relatively long essay for a single episode that merits some significant commentary (I wouldn’t be surprised if out of a final total of 46 episodes I’ll do one or two posts that are very brief). I’ll be focusing almost exclusively on the political aspects of the episodes but will usually not comment on the pervasive multiculturalism and gender equality of ST.

“A Quality of Mercy” Episode Ten, Season One. See this for a plot summary.

This episode has four main political themes that I’ll briefly discuss.

First, it touches on the issue of genetic engineering, which I discussed here, in relation to the LEADERSHIP of StarFleet going after Pike’s second-in-command for being engineered.

War (General)

Second, the issue of war and paranoia and bigotry. Although it’s suggested that had Pike acted a little less like a StarFleet Captain and more like an officer of the US military, it would have prevented war, I don’t think that means the writers, producers, etc. are veering off to the right. The tendency in a Cold War-type context to say “we can’t trust them” (referring to the enemy) is well-illustrated and Pike’s response to that sort of thing is admirable. Especially when you consider that in the possible future he experiences, his attempt at peace-making probably would have gone somewhere if the Romulan ship’s second-in-command hadn’t violated a direct order from his peace-sympathizing superior. To a large degree you also can’t hold it against Pike that that Romulan ship, whose Captain had potential to promote peace, was destroyed as an example to others on the orders of the Romulan Praetor.

We also see some racist hostility towards Spock when it’s learned that Vulcans and Romulans look almost exactly the same. As it’s in the possible future, we probably won’t see it again (especially since that discovery takes place about 8 years later in The Original Series).

Anti-Muslim Bigotry

In the very last paragraph of a SNW review here I wrote about something that puzzlingly comes up in episode 10. In episode three Pike reads five names- people important to his future. One of them is, I THINK, a Muslim name (Google AI sort of confirmed that for me), but now, in episode 10, another name, taken from Pike’s knowledge of his future, is mentioned but wasn’t mentioned in Episode three. That name is, I am almost certain, a Muslim name- Maat Al-Salah. Even if it’s not a reference to a SECOND Islamic-named character prominent in Pike’s future and ST just decided to re-name that character, it is a second mention of a StarFleet cadet whose ancestors were almost certainly Muslims. Also, Maat’s father is a StarFleet officer.

Trump’s “Great Escape” From Prisoner of War Empowerment

  (“The Great Escape” is a classic movie about Allied POWs in World War II) 

(The image is of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba during the early years of the War on Terror) 

 

Below is something I typed up and, since it was way too long to be a guest opinion, I turned it into a PDF pamphlet-like thing with some interesting format stuff that I can't reproduce here. I sent it to about 15 friends and relatives, about 10 Dem politicians, and two veterans groups that lean to the left and three that lean to the right. I sent it to the vets partly because I thought that a majority of them would represent a large chunk of those Americans who are either pro-Trump or are open-minded about him.

*********** 

Although as a progressive I had a mostly negative view of the late Sen. John McCain, when he was attacked in 2015 by President Trump in connection with McCain’s time as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam, I found Trump’s comment offensive. Trump said that McCain was not a war hero, which I agree with (Hugh Thompson was), but crucially also said that “I like people that weren't captured, okay?” (What does he think of American service members who were killed? In France in 2018 he allegedly referred to them as “losers”). Some of Trump’s supporters would probably say that it was in response to McCain calling Trump’s supporters “crazies.” But there are at least two statements indicating that Trump has always been quite hostile to McCain and I wouldn’t be surprised if that is because of the POW issue. For some bizarre reason, Trump seems to have never suffered much political damage from other Republicans for this.
 

There have been and are international agreements about the treatment of  POWs that make those protocols akin to human rights

I need to briefly state that I believe that what we did in Vietnam was wrong and I am to one moderate degree or another hostile to the US military. And that opinion of Vietnam is influenced not just by progressive analyses of the war, but also by a novel written by the late Vietnam veteran and (usually) hawkish fiction author Nelson DeMille.

There have been and are international agreements about the treatment of POWs that make those protocols akin to human rights and I think this partly reflects the fact that most supporters of, for example, the Allies in WWII, were concerned about the treatment of those captured by the Axis. In general this is probably influenced by the fact that POWs are, to one degree or another, vulnerable (they are physically defenseless and entirely dependent on their enemy captors for food, shelter, medical care, information, etc.).

The attachment that many in war have for their side’s POWs might also be inspired by the fact that many POWs respect their obligation to escape, and one benefit of this is that they tie down enemy forces far behind the front. (I have at least five movies about Allied POWs attempting escape)

I attended the 2002 National Conference of Sinn Fein Youth in Galway, Ireland and bought a shirt (at a SF bookstore in Derry) with an artist’s depiction of an attempted escape tunnel made by IRA prisoners (which said “WE ALMOST GOT AWAY, YOU KNOW” (an inside joke among republicans)). I told some of the kids about what I bought and when I mentioned that shirt one kid said “oh, yeah, my uncle was in on that!” In 1981 10 republicans (seven IRA, three INLA) died on hunger-strike demanding that they be treated as POWs. Many will say they were just terrorists with no popular support. They weren’t terrorists (see this) and when such critics examine more closely the facts surrounding the presence of 100,000 people at Bobby Sands’ funeral (see the middle 3rd, starting with “For about 5 years…” of this), they will know that the Hunger-Strike was a traumatic period for about 80% of the Catholic population in N. Ireland.

I do largely spend my time thinking about POWs focusing on the Allies, and the IRA, and the African National Congress, etc. but I also have my own (VHS) copy of “Hanoi Hilton” about US military pilots shot down over North Vietnam, and I believe that even the Waffen-SS in WWII deserved to be treated as POWs, etc.

As I said, these men and some women (probably especially the women) are (were) in harmful situations which could (have) become nightmares if their captors are (were) a state dismissive of POW rights and they end (ended) up with a psychotic jailer. Do I think they are (were) all heroes? I am far from totally objective and non-partisan and no, most of them are (were) not heroes. But I’m willing to bet that at least around half of them are (were) working-class or poor and very likely in a war that is (was) even more nightmarish than the very few ones I am tempted to call “good.” 

Was John McCain a hero? No, and I probably would have disagreed with about 80% of the votes he cast in the US Congress during his career. But Trump doesn’t understand the need to be at least concerned about the rights of those who get captured (IF his feelings about how POWs are treated reflects that concern he has had several convenient opportunities to express that and he has failed to do so). More critically, he frequently uses the word “loser” to describe McCain and this seems connected to the fact that the late US Senator was captured. McCain was, when he made Sarah Palin his 2008 running mate, a horrible person, but his time as a POW doesn’t mean he was a “loser.”

Some would say that Trump was motivated not by hostility to all American POWs but just hostility to McCain, but there is, in his own words, what he SAID (“I like people that weren't captured, okay?”), and there’s the consistency and intensity of his hostility for McCain, connected, in Trump’s own words, to the fact that he was a POW.

After wanting to do something like this for years, I finally wrote this essay now because a couple weeks ago I saw a bit of CNN video footage taken of the White House, and right below the American flag was the POW/MIA flag. I am sure that millions, maybe tens of millions of Americans who stand with that flag also vote for Trump, and these people would threaten physical violence if a Democrat said what Trump said about American POWs. 

 

Musical Diversity

In the last 33 years I have probably listened to music an average of four hours a day (how is that possible? One factor is that I did about 40 hours a week, for a total of 4 years, at a job that allowed me to listen to music I chose as I was working). There was one period of about 3 years around 2006 where I didn’t listen that much, but in High School and the last 16 years I listened about 6 hours a day on average.

(The value of this post is fairly low- only about 45-55% of it will be political)

Before I get to the best part of it, let me first explain a few minor details and some background to my addiction to music. I pretty much exclusively listened to cassette tapes until some time around 1999. I also have bought very few CDs (my commitment to being a good fan went down at some point in the late 1990s and has pretty much stayed there in terms of buying CDs, etc. instead of mostly just listening to YouTube which is what I’ve done about 4/5 of the time in the last 7-8 years). I have never had an iPod, I don’t listen to streaming music sites (“muve” I believe is one example, or Last FM perhaps). I have been doing almost all of my music-listening the last 16 years on YouTube. About 2/5 of what I listen to is stuff that I paid for earlier when I bought tapes and/or CDs, and with a big chunk of the stuff I DIDN’T ever pay for, I’m very comfortable ethically with that (see “The Music of my Enemy” below).

When I was very young (about 9) I was a fan of Michael Jackson. At 13 or 14 I went to a massive concert which included Vanilla Ice, I BELIEVE MC Hammer, and I THINK En Vogue. I’m almost embarrassed by that, although in the last 35 years there is one En Vogue song that I really like (“Free Your Mind” (the main reason I like it is the moshing in the official music video)). I kind of liked Vanilla Ice and I just learned some stuff about him that is kind of cool. And in a brief spoken word bit on either Home Invasion or Original Gangster Ice-T said something positive about MC Hammer. But I’m still kind of embarrassed about it.  In one, two or three year(s) of Jr. High School I listened to a lot of rap- of the Beastie Boys (“License to Ill”), 2-3 albums by rappers Run DMC (and 1-2 albums by The Fresh Prince, but I think I stopped listening to him in 9th grade and since then I think I’ve listened twice (in the last several years) to two of his hits, just out of curiosity and/or nostalgia).

At the risk of getting a little personal, in 9th grade my two best friends got into Megadeth and some other heavy metal bands. I was sort of open-minded about it, but not very. For various reasons I won’t go into, at the beginning of 10th grade (1991-1992) we had a falling out. I WAS a little guilty in the first 1-2 months after that of suddenly discovering a strong interest in heavy metal and wearing combat boots and that might have been pathetic. But I kept listening to rap, I started listening to more hard-core rap like Public Enemy and Ice-T, and I started listening to miscellaneous stuff that was labeled “alternative.” The bands labelled that way in the 1990s that I still listen to a LOT today include: Rage Against the Machine, Soundgarden, Nirvana, Alice in Chains, Fishbone, L7, Faith No More, Ministry, and Biohazard (I didn’t listen to  Biohazard until 1993).

Starting in the Summer of 1992 I listened to the punk bands The Dead Kennedys and The Dead Milkmen (just an amusing coincidence). More recently I started listening a lot to a CELTIC punk band called Dropkick Murphys. Some of the bands that I lazily put in the metal category have some major connection to punk music. This includes DRI and Suicidal Tendencies who I enjoy listening to. Biohazard is also kind of a punk band.

Going back to my ex-friends in 1991/1992, I am, in one way and one way only, proud of the fact that when they started listening to Slayer and some death-metal bands I didn’t follow them (the thing is, since I didn’t follow them in that direction, it couldn’t be called pathetic). In early 1993 I bought one Slayer album (Seasons in the Abyss) and bought no more until 2 years later, when I was in college. Around the same time that I bought the Slayer album I bought one Napalm Death tape (From Enslavement to Obliteration) (Napalm Death are death-metal) but that was it for death-metal until about 25 years later.

In High School the main two heavy metal bands I listened to were Megadeth and Metallica. I listened a fair amount to some others including Anthrax, Sepultura, Pantera, Nuclear Assault, Body Count, DRI, and Suicidal Tendencies (unlike every other band I mention in this essay, I no longer listen to Sepultura).

There’s one minor heavy metal band that I listened to a little bit in High School that really should have been part of me transitioning towards being a socialist (a transition that took place in High School), but I don’t think it was. In a few minutes I’ll talk about how in general listening to music contributed to me becoming a socialist. The minor  band I just mentioned is called Sacred Reich, and even though in High School I had been less familiar with this, I’ve known for 1-2 decades now that they were progressive. In HS I had an EP of their’s with four songs. One was totally non-political and about evil or monsters or something. One was a cover of the anti-war Black Sabbath song “War Pigs.” The one I remember listening to was a (1980s) anti-intervention song called “Surf Nicaragua. The fourth song turns out to be a very progressive song, but I only identified it as such in the last 16 years. “One Nation” is anti-war, anti-racist, and even a little critical of economic injustice (there’s a brief reference to “greed”).

I can’t remember which came first, but the first bit of political activity I engaged in MAY have happened after I took a music-connected step towards identifying strongly with the cause of anti-racism. That step was going to the first concert I care to remember. It was in 10th grade and it was an Ice-T and Body Count concert. I saw the first band play and there was moshing which I quickly decided I liked and I saw Ice-T do some rap (which also inspired moshing), and then I had to leave before Body Count played because I had to get home before it was too late (my parents didn’t know I was at a concert and wouldn’t have believed that what I told them I was doing would go that late). (In High School and college I was into relatively non-violent moshing (and I felt very strongly about picking up people who fell down)).

***********

The High School Years: Becoming A Socialist

So, a focus on music and my political development. If I ever get around to typing it, a future post about how I became a socialist will overlap heavily with this post.

One aspect of this that I think about is, why did I come to focus more on racism than other symptoms of capitalism and get an Ethnic Studies degree instead of a Women’s Studies degree? I have no idea how I found myself listening to rap music in Jr. High. I wasn’t watching MTV and my parents were no more than moderately anti-racist. I didn’t have older siblings who listened to rap (actually, I might have been watching a LITTLE MTV because I have memories of watching 1-2 music videos by The Fresh Prince). On one hand, as far as I can remember, the rap I was listening to in Jr. High was non-political and only about 3/4 of it involved Black people, but It probably contributed to how I started listening to Public Enemy and Ice-T in late 1991.

I think that listening to that “Hard Core” rap is a huge part of why I did my first political act (and that may have been AFTER the Ice-T/Body Count concert I went to). In the Spring semester of 10th grade, in early 1992, I walked out of my 4th period class (I think it was 4th period) and joined about 50 of my peers walking around Boulder protesting the not-guilty verdict in a California trial of the racist white police officers who beat Rodney King a year earlier. That night I went to a march and rally for the community in general and/or the CU-Boulder campus and I was actually on the front page of the paper the next day (next to me was someone who later was the first or second person to get an Ethnic Studies degree at CU-Boulder, and there was someone wearing a Primus shirt and one person wearing a Body Count shirt).

This is a little embarrassing because I have heard things here and there indicating they’re not progressive, but I think some political stuff by Megadeth and Metallica nudged me towards the left in High School. Those songs are:

Metallica
“Fight Fire With Fire” is about the need to avoid nuclear war.
“Ride the Lightning” is in opposition to the death penalty.
“For Whom the Bell Tolls” could almost be mistaken for an anti-fascist song because it is indirectly inspired by an anti-fascist novel by Ernest Hemingway. The thing is, the MOVIE based on that book retained the anti-war message but not the ANTI-FASCIST message of the book.
“Disposal Heroes” is anti-war.
“Blackened” is about nuclear war.
“…And Justice for All” is basically about politics and power in this country, but I am very unsure about what EXACTLY is it saying. This one may have had no affect on me becoming a socialist.
“One” is anti-war.

Megadeth
“Set The World Afire” is about nuclear war.
“Holy Wars…. The Punishment Due.” The first half I’ve heard might be about international conflicts like Israel and the Palestinians and/or (possibly more specifically) Northern Ireland. Beyond that I’m not sure what to say about it.
“Take No Prisoners” is anti-war.
“Rust in Peace” is about nuclear war.
“Symphony of Destruction” is about politics but I can’t figure out what they’re trying to say.
“Architecture of Aggression” is sort of the same- it probably IS anti-war, but I am less certain than I am when it comes to “Take no Prisoners.” Megadeth just wasn’t consistently and explicitly progressive.
“Foreclosure of a Dream” is I BELIEVE about US federal farm policy in the 1980s. I am just not familiar with farm policy. I DO like the license plates in Colorado that say “No Farms, No Food” but I just don’t know anywhere near enough to comment on this song.

I think that is a pretty complete list of the relevant Megadeth and Metallica songs I listened to in High School that may have nudged me towards the left.

As I have said earlier, the harder rap I listened to, including three Ice-T albums, and 3-4 Public Enemy albums probably had a better effect on me than the Metallica and Megadeth stuff I just referred to. And then there was the Dead Kennedys stuff- some of their songs might not inspire progressive politics but about half of them do. And there was at least a couple that were about economic injustice- “Let’s Lynch the Landlord,” and “Kill the Poor.” There were several other political DK songs whose lyrics I’m too lazy to confirm- with the exceptions of “Police Truck” (police brutality), “Nazi Punks Fuck Off” and “We’ve Got a Bigger Problem Now” (about Ronald Reagan), which I definitely remember (as I was typing this I started listening to the DKs for the first time in about 4-5 years) (I believe that in High School and college I listened to 3/4 or 4/4 of the Jello Biafra DK studio albums).

There were a handful of songs by Suicidal Tendencies that contributed to me becoming   progressive:

“Two Sided Politics” is basically contrasting the life of a rich person with that of a working-class person, and there’ some anti-Reagan stuff, etc. One thing I think is noteworthy is that there’s one line that says “I’m not anti-government, government is anti-me.” I like to think that might be in part an anti-anarchist statement.
“Fascist Pig” could be a little more political (that is, deeper) but Mexican-Americans criticizing the police may have pushed me a bit to the left.
“I Want More” is about the class conflict with some references to the minimum wage.
“Give It Revolution” was a little vague but probably nudged me in the right direction.

There were a handful of songs by a thrash-metal band called Nuclear Assault that pushed me to the left in High School. Although I have listened to their other stuff in recent years, in HS pretty much the only album I listened to was “Handle with Care.”
“New Song” which was a fairly good anti-racist song.
“Critical Mass” is a pretty good environmentalist song.
“Inherited Hell” is also like that.
“When Freedom Dies” Although I’m not sure what it’s saying about US foreign policy during the Cold War, it IS saying that freedom and civil liberties, etc. shouldn’t be weakened in the name of national security.
“Search and Seizure” is sort of similar, but basically about law enforcement harassing metal-heads (I’m not sure whether or how the lyrics-writer would generalize that statement to include punks, hippies, etc.)

Another band that influenced me in High School was a “cross-over” hard-core punk/thrash-metal band called DRI (Dirty Rotten Imbeciles). In HS I saw them play live twice and listened to three of their albums.

First there was the album “Definition” which included the following songs:
“Acid Rain” was about the environment.
“The Application” is about multiple forms of employment discrimination and DOES include a line about racism and a line about homophobia, and one about religion and one that is probably about being HIV+.

The album “Thrash Zone” has several political songs.
“Labelled Incurable” might be about AIDS (as far as I can tell DRI were probably anti-homophobic).
“Kill the Words” is sort of generally about censorship and dictatorship but seems to be at least partly if not totally about that sort of thing in the Muslim world; I have no idea if they’re anti-Muslim or just consistently opposing fundamentalism, censorship, and dictatorship (there IS another song where they condemn religious discrimination in employment, so they probably aren’t anti-Muslim)
“Worker Bee” although it’s not written as a socialist song, I think it’s basically about economic justice and is by a band that I’m pretty sure is in favor of social justice as well (I’m suspicious of bands, people, etc. who are economically progressive but not socially liberal).

There was one Soundgarden song about the environment called “Hands All Over.” Although I don’t feel like looking at the lyrics, I believe that there were at least a few L7 songs I liked politically (one example is “Pretend We’re Dead”).

This will require at least one paragraph. Although I’m not real familiar with this, I have gotten the impression that Rage Against The Machine were a bit to my left politically. One social-dem critic told me that the political forces RATM admired either would have told RATM to fuck off, or alternately, should be killed (I think that may have been a reference to the Peruvian leftist army/terror organization called Shining Path). I sort of stumbled onto RATM a little earlier than most of their fans. Somehow I knew that their performance at a small club in Boulder around late 1992 or early 1993 would inspire moshing, so I showed up. I don’t remember thinking about it much but I guess I liked the music enough and the general vibe and bought their album shortly after the show. At some point at least a couple months later they came to Denver with House of Pain and it was great listening and moshing KNOWING that they were promoting dissent in this country. At that concert I learned about Leonard Peltier, and generally drifted towards the Left. (Right before House of Pain came on stage they played the music sans vocals of a song I mention below called “Just Look Around” by Sick of it All). Yes, RATM was alternately politically vague and/or leaning towards the hard-left. But they contributed to me becoming a dissident of some sort and it’s slightly possible that wouldn’t have happened if not for them. And musically they were pretty cool.

***********

The Last 16 Years

This next section will be pretty brief. It’s about what music I have been listening to in the last 16 years.

Between about 1998 and about 2009 I only listened something like 4 hours a day to music. In 2008, for I think the first or almost first time I got on YouTube. Since then I have listened to almost all of the Megadeth and Metallica that I missed, plus the older stuff. I started listening to practically all Slayer and I started listening to a LOT of death metal. The following bands are the death metal bands I listen to: Carcass, Napalm Death (I love their music and I think that if I paid attention to their lyrics I’d agree with a lot of them), Deicide (MUSICALLY I LOVE Deicide, but I assume I would be offended by their lyrics if I read them), Obituary, Cannibal Corpse, and Morbid Angel.

I got caught up on Body Count albums that I missed after Born Dead and also listened to the first two albums. Although I don’t listen to them much I listen some to stuff I missed earlier from Anthrax, Nuclear Assault, and Testament as well as what I listened to earlier. Although I’ve barely looked at the lyrics I some times listen to stuff I missed by Sacred Reich, and I am even more sure than before that they’re progressive politically.

Yes, my very favorite genre is thrash metal (and/or speed metal- at the risk of sounding stupid, I am not sure what differences there are, if any, between speed and thrash).

I listen to the following Suicidal Tendencies albums, both now and in High School: Their first (self-titled) album, How Will I Laugh Tomorrow When I Can’t Even Smile Today, Controlled By Hatred/Feel Like Shit… DeJaVu, Lights! Camera! Revolution! and The Art of Rebellion. I haven’t listened to any ST that I didn’t listen to in High School. On a related note, I would say the same about DRI albums Definition, Crossover, and Thrashzone.

Today and in high school I listen(ed) to three Ice-T albums: The Iceberg, Original Gangster, and Home Invasion.

Until recently I took a 10-15 year break from listening to more than three songs by Public Enemy.

In the last 5 or so years I listened a little bit to Run DMC (albums Tougher Than Leather, Raising Hell, and probably King of Rock) and the Beastie Boys’ License to Ill and Check Your Head. I listen A LOT to the House of Pain song “Jump Around,” but it has been so long since I listened to the entire album.

I have a huge number of YouTube mix-tape playlists. A large chunk of it is miscellaneous 1990s stuff (some mainstream, some not), and another large chunk is some stuff where the theme of the fan-made video was anti-racist skinheads.

I found a massive playlist of mainstream 1980s pop hits and placed the ones I liked (about 58 of them) in my own playlist. To some extent (not a large one) I was exposed to many of those songs as a little kid (I was born in 1975) when watching a 1980s movie or when I occasionally was listening to the radio. I listen to that playlist about once a week. And one of the songs on it I have kind of fallen in love with- the music, the images in the video, but I have not examined the lyrics. It’s Holding Out for a Hero by Bonnie Tyler.

I also fell in love with a great song by the Dropkick Murphys called “Out of our Heads.” In the last year I have probably listened to it an average of once a day and I listened to their first three albums once as well.

Since the early 1990s I have been a fan of two Tom Petty albums- Full Moon Fever and Into the Great Wide Open.

I was at least kind of exposed to ska starting when I got into Fishbone in High School and I’ve been increasingly curious about it in the last 23 years. Although they might be more accurately called “Ska PUNK,” I do enjoy listening to The Mighty Mighty BossTones for about half an hour a day on average in the last 5 years.

I listen to a small amount of Irish Republican music. I bought an entire album by Black 47 but for some reason, even though I get the impression they’re progressive, all I listen(ed) to were/are the two republican songs (one of which I believe is a Celtic rap song).

In the last several months I’ve started listening to about seven Beach Boys songs, I have fallen in love with the song “Wooly Bully” by Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs and I like “Smokey Joe’s Cafe” by The Robins.

I have studied (i.e. read articles on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s web-site) skinheads in general and totally opposed Nazi skinheads specifically, and I listen to a fair amount of “Anti-Fascist Oi!” Oi! In general, both fascist and anti-fascist, might bear some resemblance to punk and might be defined by the lyrics (about violence, the working-class, and being a skinhead). The main such band I listen to is The Oppressed.

I listen to a small number of songs by the progressive (largely folk and/or punk) singer-songwriter David Rovics.

In the last 4-5 years I have spent a fair amount of time listening to YouTube playlists of music from the Vietnam era. For some reason I have used that word to find good mix tape playlists of classic rock, including classic rock that I vaguely remember from movies about Vietnam. (I believe that what we did there was wrong and I have evidence from more than just left-wing sources)

Alternative
Rage Against the Machine (the first two albums) Soundgarden (Badmotorfinger and Louder Than Love, and a little bit of some others that I didn’t listen to in High School), Nirvana (all 3 studio albums), Alice in Chains (Dirt and Facelift), Fishbone (Truth and Soul, The Reality of my Surroundings, and Give a Monkey a Brain and He'll Swear He's the Center of the Universe), L7 (Smell the Magic, Bricks are Heavy), Faith No More (The Real Thing and Angel Dust from High School, and We Care a Lot in the last several years), Ministry (The Mind is a Terrible Thing to Taste and ΚΕΦΑΛΗΞΘ), and Biohazard (I didn’t listen to  Biohazard until 1993) (Urban Discipline, State of the World Address, and Mata Leao)

I THINK that covers about 99% of the songs and albums that I should mention here.

**************

The Music of my Enemy

Since late 2008 I have spent probably an hour a day on average listening to Nazi Skinhead music. For multiple reasons, some a little vague, I enjoy listening to the music of my enemy. I stumbled onto it shortly after I first got on YouTube in 2008 and I recognized the name Skrewdriver that I had learned about in 10th grade when researching the racist right for a paper I was writing (primarily about the racist right in this country, but I’m not surprised some of the sources I read mentioned the BRITISH Skrewdriver). Anyway, I liked most of the music (not the lyrics) and just really enjoyed listening to the music of my enemy (yes, I also listen to a small amount of anti-Catholic N. Ireland loyalist music). I also learned a handful of things by studying the lyrics and the imagery in fan-made videos. Crucially, I quickly started to alter the lyrics into anti-fascist poems- in many cases, so that my poems were saying the exact opposite of what the original was saying (when there was a change in topic, there was always at least some conflict between my poems and what the authors of the original lyrics believe (and some times a LOT of conflict- a lot of the N. Ireland poems were based on lyrics by people who supported the British and Unionist causes)). The first poetry post is here.

I wish I could explain in better detail why I enjoy listening to the music of my enemy.

***************

The High School years- the PMRC and “musical intolerance.”

In 11th grade one of my best friends (James, of Portland, OR) and I did a “‘zine” (a very small and unprofessionally written/edited magaZINE). It was kind of political, kind of creative (well, James’ stuff was creative, my stuff less-so but the ‘zine in general (called The Conformist Monthly) seemed pretty popular with our friends and probably about 10% of the BHS students). One thing I did that I am a little embarrassed about is an essay about what I called “musical intolerance.” Although actually typing that and making copies of an issue that contained it is something I probably shouldn’t have done, I DO believe that most of my peers in High School were close-minded about different kinds of music, and at the time I believed that I was better because I listened to metal, rap, alternative, and punk.

Something I wrote for The Conformist Monthly that I AM proud of was an essay about the Parents Music Resource Center. The PMRC was created in the mid-80s, primarily by Al Gore’s wife Tipper Gore, and Susan Baker, the wife of senior GOP leader James Baker. It was largely supported by the religious right and practically no one to the left of Bill Clinton supported it. It’s been decades since I studied it, but the main thing it did was successfully push for an industry agreement to place “Parental Advisory: Explicit Content” stickers on certain albums.

I really am not insensitive to the desires of many parents (probably around 95% of them) to keep young children from listening to songs about sex and drugs and songs which use swear words (I believe there is a spectrum between two situations- one involving children under 13, and one involving young adults who are around 15, and at the latter end of the spectrum I’ll be honest I am not sure if I care about parents wanting to keep their teenage kids away from that kind of content). And these stickers were a problem. In the past, MANY music stores wouldn’t sell those albums. In the past MANY of the artists negatively affected were people of color, and in general, many of the albums targeted contained songs with political messages that were liberal or progressive. This country might have been a better place in the 1990s if those songs had been heard by more people.

***************

“There Goes The Neighborhood”

(The title of a Body Count song about their presence in the punk and metal genres)

As I near a conclusion, the climax to this is something I want to talk about that is very special to me. That is the intersection of rock (or at least the heavier and/or faster variants of it) and rap (I’ll be honest, I think I’ve always failed to understand that many fans of rap and/or hip-hop define one as corporate and the other as something closer to the street, and I’m just going to use the term “rap”).

I don’t listen to a lot of music made between 1998 and today, so I’m going to focus almost exclusively on stuff from the 1980s and 1990s. Here is I think a complete survey of that topic up until some point in the mid- or late 90s.

1. In 1986 Run-DMC and Aerosmith collaborated on a new version of the latter’s song “Walk This Way.”
2. In 1989 industrial metal band Ministry did a song with a rapper- the song is called “Test” and is a great combination of rap and industrial.
3. In 1991 Anthrax and Public Enemy collaborated on a new version of the latter’s song “Bring Tha Noise.”
4. Shortly after that, Public Enemy and Anthrax went on a national tour together.
5. Ice-T and his musician friends created Body Count in 1990.
6. In 1991, Rage Against The Machine was formed with music that was sort of heavy and/or sort of fast and vocals that would often be labeled “rap.”
7. I am having some difficulty nailing down the details, but in the early and mid-1990s Biohazard, who were more or less a hard-core punk band, did at least two songs with a rapper (Onyx) and, crucially, did music videos for the two songs that involved Onyx that I can remember (one reason this is VERY significant is that I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s true that Biohazard had, years earlier, toyed with white supremacy as a marketing tactic in NY City’s competitive music scene, and may have done these 4-5 collaborations (including TWO videos) to make up for that).
8. In 1993 the soundtrack for a movie called “Judgement Night” was entirely devoted to collaborations between rockers and rappers.

I could and probably WILL do a lot of research on this topic in the next year or two and write something very substantial, but I have always had very positive political thoughts about this series of collaborations because I THINK they had some potential to positively affect race relations in this country. IF they HAD that potential it wasn’t something permanent, as 35 years later we are struggling to prevent a white supremacist from occupying the White House. I am not sure what is the status today of that potential- I’m not sure I should be making a big deal about the need for such intersections today, especially because there might be plenty in recent years and/or they are having no impact on American race relations.

When thinking about this topic, I wish I had a better grasp of sociology and psychology.

************

Some miscellaneous thoughts

1. For about 10-15 years until recently, I took a break from being a fan of Public Enemy, although in hind-sight that didn’t involve changing the “Favorite Music” section of my blogger/blogspot profile page. I have listened over the years to about four albums by PE, all of which were either in the 1980s or the very earliest 90s. On one of them, there’s a song that includes two lines I have always found offensive, but which really got me pissed off about 10-15 years ago. One line is applauding homophobic VIOLENCE and another one implies it’s okay for a man to beat his partner if he takes her on vacation around the world. I am still very offended by those lines, but decided to listen to those albums from High School again).
2. In the early 1990s there was one song by the hard-core punk band Sick of it All that I really liked and which I have always really liked. For some reason I have practically never listened to any other SOIA songs. The one I listen to is called “Just Look Around.” The thing is, in 2001 I was at a party for progressives and one person asked the room what is the most progressive hardcore punk band? Part of me DID know that the correct answer was Fugazi, but because of that one SOIA song I said it was SOIA. The guy who asked the initial question said something about a pirate flag and slapping women. For some bizarre reason I didn’t respond. But if you look at the lyrics you’ll see that something like 2/3 of the lyrics are completely acceptable to progressives. The other third is some slightly questionable lines (i.e. mentioning anti-Semitism among blacks when that might not be helpful (for all I know it IS helpful)) and the very worst of the lyrics in that 1/3 is a reference to the “workingman” when “worker” or “working person” would be a lot better (this might be what the guy at the party was talking about when he suggested I wanted to slap women).

In the official music video, when the lyrics refer to “diseases and modern plagues of our times” they flash the “Silence=Death” symbol of the movement calling for a better national response to the AIDS crisis. I guess it could be a negative statement, but I have always assumed it was a positive statement about that symbol, which would probably also mean that SOIA are anti-homophobic. Lastly, another song on that album seems to be about attacking Reagan over Iran/Contra.
3. I organized my first fund-raising show (it was a VERY small venue) in 1995 to support the Left Hand Bookstore (in Boulder) and the college-years ‘zine that James and I did (it was called Subliminal Prison). The opening band was called Sonnus and I don’t have much to say about them. The other two bands were A) a High School band from the Denver area who were probably influenced by punk, and an amazing band called D-Town Brown. The latter’s music I have difficulty describing. I believe it was possibly influenced by rock (at least one of the 2-3 times I saw them playing a regular show there was moshing and 1-2 band members had earlier been involved with a band that was either thrash/speed-metal or death metal)) but I think it was more influenced by some other stuff (mariachi perhaps? (There were 4-5 members in the band and all but one were Chicano (the last member was black)). Although James and I did a publicity campaign in waves, very few people showed up. Not sure why.
4. The second fundraiser I did Involved Sonnus, D-Town Brown and a punk band called Dead Silence. It was for the Colorado Coalition for Single-Payer (the Canadian health-care system) and I gave Denver CCSP a LOT of flyers to put up in Denver (the venue was in Denver, where I didn’t live) and I don’t think any of those flyers were put up anywhere. I’m not saying I was totally blameless, but I do think that most of the blame was CCSP’s. The only reason that a significant amount of money was raised is that the owner of the venue (The Mercury Cafe) took less money than she usually did in that situation.
5. In high school and college, when I went to a show/concert I would dress in the spirit of taking nonconformity as far as I could. If I was at a Dead Milkmen show, I’d wear a Megadeth shirt, if I was at a Primus concert I would wear a Public Enemy shirt, etc.
6. You might like a post I did about whether or not Slayer is racist.

UPDATE 12/25/24 I unintentionally left out a handful of bands I should have mentioned, but with one of them I feel like I really need to do this update. In 10th grade I started listening to the heavy metal band Ugly Kid Joe, and after about two decades I just recently re-discovered them. I started listening to their EP "As Ugly As They Want To Be" (their first release) and their first full length album "America's Least Wanted" in High School. They describe themselves as neither glam nor thrash and I think that's accurate. In a minute I have something more important to say, but first a little story. In the Summer of 1992 there was a tour with (from top to bottom) Ozzy, Slaughter, and Ugly Kid Joe. I have pretty much never liked Slaughter, but I have always had at least some positive thoughts about Ozzy and in the last several years probably 1% of all the music I listen to is Ozzy. The concert was at an amazing venue called Red Rocks and although it doesn't facilitate moshing (I THINK I remember that right) I'm glad I went to a concert there. But I got lost on the way there, so A) I somehow missed almost all of UKJ's set (I think they may have started early??), and B) after I heard ALL of Slaughter's set I had to leave after about 30 minutes of Ozzy because my Mom didn't know where I was I and I was afraid if I got lost again I'd get home so late she would worry. BUT I GOT TO SEE ALL OF SLAUGHTER'S SET!!!!! (The important part of mentioning UKJ is that on the first full-length album there's a fairly good anti-racist song ("Same Side"). It's not militant, it's not angry, but I think it's pretty cool despite that. As I was typing this and listening more and more to the song, I started asking myself some critical questions about the idea that it's an anti-racist song and then I remembered that the vocalist, Whitfield Crane contributed to a special re-recording of the Motorhead song "Born to Raise Hell" where he and ICE-T did some of the vocals and in the official music video they appear together)

************

Conclusion

Although there was one gap that lasted about 3 years where I listened to very little music, it was a huge part of my life in High School and college and in the last 16 years. I find listening to it very enjoyable and it contributed to the several factors that led me to embrace progressive political values, and it generally makes me feel very good. Although I don’t think I’ll be expanding my interest in music any further (I don’t think I’m going to try bluegrass for example) I am (perhaps too) proud of the fact that I have fairly wide-ranging interests in music.

Most of the time I was typing this up I was listening to a song from the very early 1990s by a band called EMF. It’s called “Unbelievable” and I think it’s sort of a dance song but could also inspire moshing. The song, and to a greater degree the video as well, is very energizing and I got so much done with the multiple writing assignments I gave myself.

Sinn Fein and anti-Semitism

Recently I spent a day typing a lot of updates on this blog relevant to Sinn Fein and anti-semitism. Then, about 8 hours later when I woke up, one of the first things I saw on the Web was a story about a SF TD (MP in the South) being accused of anti-Semitism. I couldn’t fucking believe it. First, there are two more stories you might want to read (if you feel like subbing to the Irish-Times) here and here.

I was of course curious what exactly the tweets had said. Even though SF (and possibly Cronin as an individual) seems to be admitting that they were anti-semitic, I wanted to know because supporters of the Palestinians are often falsely accused of being anti-Semitic but even some of the progressive ones ARE anti-Semitic. So I found the Irish news site that broke the story. An update to their original story is here. The story that has the details of the controversial tweets is here.

First, the first article linked to says:


“She had previously made the news this past weekend when the Sunday Times reported that she had accused Israeli intelligence of interfering in the recent UK election to prevent the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister. Mr. Corbyn himself had been accused of anti-semitism in the run-in to that election.”

I haven’t followed the anti-Semitism controversy in the Labour Party very much. I DO know that one of the most outspoken critics (in terms of how big they think the problem is) of anti-Semitism in the party is also VERY supportive of the Palestinians. On the other hand, a friend who is a very solid opponent of anti-Semitism says that the accusations are pro-Israel nonsense. I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel IS involved, but at the same time the allegation about the Mossad mentioned above comes from someone who I think IS or WAS an anti-Semite.

Why do I think she is or was an anti-Semite? Let me quote and discuss each of the actually or allegedly anti-Semitic tweets.


“Israel have taken Nazism to a new level, by showing they can get away with it.”

This is the most solidly anti-Semitic of the tweets. Calling Israel Nazi is anti-Semitic. First, a friend points out that some Jews do that. That’s different. It’s fairly comparable to black people in America using the n-word. Here are my thoughts about this:

1. It's not too different from calling people of color in America racist.
2. You can call Jewish people fascists, but not Nazis.
3. If you want to say that Israeli policy towards the Palestinians could shift towards the genocidal, fine, but don't call them Nazis (for info about how horrible Israeli policy towards the Palestinians is, see this and many of the articles you’ll find here).
4. If you absolutely insist on comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, write a detailed, argumentative, well-documented 10,000 word essay, not a tweet.

From the Gript story: “Deputy Cronin once responded to a message containing an image of a large number of monkeys sitting at computers by saying that she had thought it was an image of the inside of the Israeli embassy.”

The Israeli embassy represents a fairly democratic state and the tweet was four years before the controversial “Jewish Nation State” law was adopted. Although this fairly democratic state is also engaged in something colonial, it, for better or worse is defined as the Jewish State. Many would say that’s the problem and I kind of agree (I will soon do a post about that and related matters (UPDATE 3/8/20 That post is here) and for those of you who think I am a hypocrite because I’m an Irish republican, see the brief essay at the bottom of this post), but it is 80% Jewish and although, yes this is also a problem, the State is politically even more Jewish in terms of who has power. The Jewish population in Israel is roughly between 35% and 44% of the world’s Jewish population and probably another 30%-38% (that is, a large majority of Jewish-Americans) identify with Israel (and probably 50-75% of the rest of the world’s Jewish population identify with Israel). And the best Cronin can do is the tweet described above. It shows a complete lack of willingness to take the Jewish population seriously and treat their representatives with some respect. An embassy is more a representative of a State (in the European sense) than a Government. So it’s not Netanyahu she’s making fun of. I am saying something similar to what I said in item #4 when I discussed calling Israel Nazi, but I certainly find substantive criticism of Israel much more acceptable than calling it Nazi, it's just that this tweet was not substantive criticism.

The next example of anti-Semitism is something she  re-tweeted that I almost dismissed as misunderstood by her critics- I thought it couldn’t have been anti-Semitic because it criticized Hitler. It said, according to Gript, that Hitler was a pawn of the Jewish-founded Rothschild bank. Not only was the bank owned by a Jewish family, it is frequently referred to by people who are definitely anti-semites. The thing is, this claim is saying that Jews were responsible for the Holocaust or POSSIBLY is saying that the Holocaust didn’t happen.

According to Gript.ie and some of the screen shots they show in their article, she believes strongly that banks control the world and at least once mentions a bank owned by the Rothschild family. She also tweeted that “those wars were instigated and funded by banks.” There is an anti-Semitic stereotype of bankers as Jewish and Jews as bankers. I don’t know what the stats are about religion and bankers, but if you look at a 2016 Pew Research Center poll, only 44% of Jewish-American households had a yearly income of $100,000 or more. Yes, that is higher than other religious groups, but how many bankers don’t earn A LOT more than that? I mean, if a banker’s household is earning $100,000 a year, they must be a a horrible banker. And even if we focus on those Jews earning as much as successful bankers earn, what about all of them who get rich from various other businesses such as retail, manufacturing, real estate, Hollywood, the media, etc? Also, you need a college degree to be a banker, and to one extent or another (depending on the bank and how senior the position is) you need a graduate degree, and I’m sure many people at the very top have a Ph.D. According to the PRC, in 2016, 59% of Jewish-Americans had a college degree. Ahead of them were Hindus at 77%, and Unitarian Universalists at 67%; tied with Jews were Anglicans at 59% and right below them were Episcopalians at 56%, and of course all the other religious groups and Atheists were below that. First, like I said, to one extent or another you need a graduate degree to be a banker. Second, finance is only one of roughly 100-150 degrees available in America. Anti-Semites would say that there is some kind of strong integration among Jewish people that connects the bankers and the non-banker (ridicuously vast) majority. Even during the Nazi era there was division among Jews. A minority wanted to fight, another minority collaborated or supported collaboration or advocated for it, and most were passive. Look at voting in America. In recent decades about 2/3 of those who vote vote Democratic, about 1/3 vote Republican, and although Jewish voter turnout is a little higher than it is with the general population, that still leaves a lot of Jews staying home. And on Israel there are similar divisions. In 2013 (according to the PRC), only 70% said they feel “very” or “somewhat” attached to Israel. According to a 2020 poll of Jewish-Americans (described in an article here (the Times of Israel is only slightly pro-Israel and publishes so many articles that expose what I call Israeli Apartheid that about half the articles I link to from my post about that are in the TI)) commissioned by the Jewish Electoral Institute:

Only 32% of Jewish voters characterized Israel as “one of the most important” issues to them in the upcoming election. Of far greater concern to Jews are healthcare, medicare and social security, and gun safety.

Although 91% said they were generally pro-Israel, 56% identified themselves as “critical” of the Netanyahu government, a government which had the support until recently of a majority of MKs (MPs) and which might possibly be returned to power with a similar majority of MKs.

The article describes some more results of the poll, in reference to Trump:

Fifty-one percent said they supported his Israel policies; 39% said they didn’t. A slightly larger majority (52%) said they approved of his decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty of the Golan Heights.

The US Jewish community appeared much more divided on Trump’s decision to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which roiled the White House’s relations with the Palestinians. Whereas 45% approved of the move, 42% said they were opposed to it.

American Jews are similarly split on a dimension of the president’s peace plan that would allow Israel to annex the existing West Bank settlements: 44% approve of that policy and 40% disapprove of it.

Although this is anecdotal, I’d like to address the idea that Jews with a lower income somehow benefit from the wealth of those bankers who ARE Jewish. I have lived in Boulder, CO my entire life. As you may know, Boulder is an expensive place to live, it has always been more expensive than the county that surrounds it, and recently it has gotten very expensive and the supply of affordable housing is insufficient. I think that most of the Jewish people I have known who either work in Boulder or who I went to high school with, live/lived outside Boulder and I’m pretty sure it’s for financial reasons. 

I’m not sure if I just addressed some of what leads people to become anti-Semitic, but I think I may have.

Crucially, an aspect of this is the idea that bankers are central to capitalism. I’m not an economist or business school graduate, but I think the role of bankers in capitalism is slightly if not significantly exaggerated by people who generally like capitalism but (probably) don’t like Jews. The bankers are coordinating capitalism and the flow of capital, but are not making decisions about wages, benefits, working conditions, unions, etc. They don’t make decisions about whether or not to shift production to low-wage areas. They don’t make decisions about what to produce. I’m not saying that it’s impossible for them to make decisions about loans based on their agenda (and apparently they play a major role in urban development), but I think this is exaggerated. They want to make the loan so they can make money on it by collecting interest, and once the loan is made I seriously doubt they’ll make a negative decision if the company recognizes a union, for example- I’ve never heard of that happening and I have been a socialist for 25 years (and I doubt that hardly any businesses would take a loan whose terms involve the absence of a union because if they lose a certification election, they default on the loan). Investors do that sort of thing, and although banks are to one degree or another part of that community, they are not all of it. Unions invest, individuals invest, corporations invest, pension plans invest, non-profits invest, etc. This hostility towards banks also implies that they are inherently capitalist and do nothing good for society, communities and individuals. I have tried to find out if anti-Semites are known to also attack credit unions, an institution which I have no problem with at all. If they ARE hostile to credit unions because they extend their stereotype about Jews and bankers to them as well, that just proves beyond any doubt that they are motivated not by any hostility towards capitalism, but simply bigotry. And, although this might fuel anti-Semitic hostility towards credit unions, here and there and maybe more often than that, Jews have organized credit unions.

The actor Mel Gibson, clearly an anti-Semite, once said that all wars were the fault of Jews. Even IF there was more than the tiniest amount of truth to the stereotype about Jews and bankers, I would have to say, even as a socialist, that wars are not always solely the result of economics (and as I said, there are more components to capitalism besides banks). Imperialism is of course almost always present and there is an economic dimension to that, but there is also right-wing nationalism, racism or some other kind of bigotry. There is often support for war among the military (who often have great influence while a decision to GO TO war is being made), and that is almost always independent of capitalist beliefs and/or the defense industry. I won’t go anywhere near an exhaustive survey of war, but here are my thoughts on some wars.

1. The “American Revolution.” Although I’m not happy with the European settlement that preceded it or the westward expansion that followed it, the colonists had legitimate, non-capitalist complaints against London. I suppose some would say that the British effort in that conflict was for the benefit of banks, and there’s probably some truth to that.
2. The American Civil War. Yes there was an economic dimension, but there was also a great deal of principled opposition to slavery on one side and racist support for it on the other (yes that racism was encouraged by capitalists, but the most direct explanation for popular opposition to abolition was racism).
3. World War I. This was incredibly imperialistic and nationalistic, although I think the racist nature of that nationalism was almost nil. There was militarism. This may have been a war that could be largely attributed to bankers.
4. World War II in the Pacific. I’m not real familiar with what I call Japanese Imperialism (you could also call it Japanese Fascism). There was an economic dimension, although I’m not sure to what degree it was for the benefit of capitalists. There was undoubtedly militarism, possibly even more so than was the case with the Nazis (these Imperialists believed in what you might call a ridiculously negative and fascist warrior code that included killing prisoners or treating them much worse than the Nazis treated POWs of WESTERN Allied states). There was incredible racism towards other Asians (remember that race is socially constructed; I did a few google searches and it seems that at least MANY Japanese have light skin; Apartheid South Africa, for economic reasons, classified Japanese as White and I don’t think it was JUST economic; they were allied with Nazi Germany; I read about how an American white supremacist music label would receive a lot of orders for CDs from Japanese people who considered themselves the “white men of the East”). Although some powerful people in the United States may have primarily been worried about Japan as an imperialist rival, and FDR pursued a foreign policy that put us on a collision course with Japan, A) Japan WAS doing bad stuff, B) FDR was NOT a solid capitalist, C) Pearl Harbor was attacked, D) FDR may have allowed it to happen so that he could go to war with Germany (see below).
5. World War II in Europe. Although the Nazis were sort of capitalist and capitalists supported them, they were driven much more by bigotry, militarism, imperialism, (a crude, populist) anti-Communism and a reverence for power and strength and violence. I’d say roughly the same thing about Italian fascists, with less anti-Semitism and perhaps a little closer to socialist instead of NATIONAL socialist. The Soviet Union fought largely because they were going to be destroyed, although there were certainly some genuinely anti-fascist tendencies in Moscow (if you believe they were more than tendencies, what about the non-aggression pact between Moscow and Berlin that lasted until Germany invaded?). The British were certainly an imperialist and capitalist power at the time, but they were also a liberal democracy and recognized Nazi Germany for what it was in terms of authoritarianism and expansionism. And shortly after the war the British Left/Center-Left won a massive electoral victory, so I think most of the people at every level were motivated by a left-wing opposition to fascism. The United States quite possibly allowed a situation to develop where they would go to war with Nazi Germany. Yes, America was a capitalist and imperialist country, but once again, it was also a liberal democracy, and there seemed to be a massive center-left/left minority in the years leading up to the war and during the war, and FDR was just to the right of that (although as President he was fairly disappointing when it came to racial justice and equality, his wife was not and that’s not totally irrelevant).
6. Vietnam. The Vietnamese had been fighting for independence from the French (and briefly the Japanese) for decades and wanted a united, communist nation-state. I’m not real familiar with Vietnamese communism but banks are not inherently capitalist, and I just did some searches and apparently, for better or worse, there are almost zero Jewish people there. The United States was certainly motivated in part by capitalism. JFK and LBJ were economically to the right of FDR and Nixon certainly was. But there was also a conflict between a block of liberal (and often social) democracies and a block of communist countries that, whatever the progressive value of their social, economic and foreign policies, were authoritarian. Although the US introduced the nuclear weapon to the world, and aimed missiles at the USSR, there were a bunch of them aimed at the US.
7. Israel. Conflicts involving Israel are not anywhere near as much the fault of Jews as many people think. First, although Zionism is very flawed in multiple ways (See this) and I have serious problems with what happened to the Palestinians, the seizing and settlement of lands beyond the pre-1967 borders and states defined by ethnicity and/or religion, Israel’s Arab neighbors wanted in the past to DESTROY Israel- not in the sense that a one-state solution would “destroy” Israel, but in the sense that Jews would be driven into the sea. And this was just decades after the very flawed pacifistic response of European Jews to the Nazis contributed to 2/3 of that population being killed. As far as American fuel for Israel’s behavior towards its neighbors, see some of the material in this post. As far as an alleged Jewish role in the Bush administration’s decision to invade and occupy Iraq, see what I’ve said about support in America for Israel, and consider what I wrote elsewhere on this blog:

Bush's reasons for invading Iraq were many, Israel was a small part of it. There was the opportunity to give lots of money to corporations in multiple ways, the strong desire for using the US military that most GOPers have, the desire to teach the world a lesson in terms of what the US will do to them if they piss off D.C., the desire for oil, the idea of democratizing the Middle-East. I also heard something about it being connected to countering the growing strength of the Euro. It's possible they half believed that stuff about WMDs and Al-Qaeda. Israel was a small part of it.

I’m going to end my discussion of war there.

I believe that TD Raeda Cronin was an anti-Semite. The relevant tweets were made about 6 years ago, and she has apologized. In connection with what I write here (the first article I link to in that post is not relevant, but the rest of that post is) I’m not against the idea that SF should expel her or at least have her stand down as a TD, but I’ll continue to support SF even if they don’t. As I sort of prove here, SF is against anti-Semitism. I did this post largely because the controversy gave me a chance to discuss anti-Semitism among progressive supporters of the Palestinians, and to combine the anti-bigot part of this blog with the Ireland/N. Ireland part of the blog.

**********************

I’ve referred twice to my concern about Israel being officially called The Jewish State and being defined by ethnicity and/or religion. Some would call me a hypocrite because I’m an Irish republican. So let me explain this. Don’t call me a hypocrite. You will lose every time you try that.

After the War of Independence in Ireland, in 1920-1925 the South became what was called a “Free State.” Its independence from the UK was limited. For example, members of Parliament had to swear an oath to Queen. The 1937 Constitution created the position of President and the first President was a Protestant. Presidential terms are normally seven years and someone can serve two terms. In the 1970s there was another Protestant President for about 2 years before he died. So out of nine Presidents, two were Protestant. As far as the 1937 Constitution and Catholicism, it’s true that early drafts emphasized Catholicism and the Catholic Church, but there was GREAT opposition to that. The final draft of the relevant section recognized the existence of the main Protestant churches in Ireland, as well as the Jewish religion, and it recognized “the special position” of the Roman Catholic Church “as the guardian of the faith professed by the great majority of the citizens.” This special place for the Catholic Church was done away with in 1972. The ban on divorce was done away with in 1995. There were of course homophobic laws (only in 1993 was homosexuality decriminalized) and the constitution had to be amended in 2015 to allow for gay marriage (there wasn’t anything in the document about “a man and a woman,” but still, only in 2015 was it amended to solidly legalize gay marriage in a country where a law could be more easily overturned by politicians if the country drifted to the right) and abortion is 99% illegal there, but there is plenty of homophobia and pro-life politics among Protestants, Jews, Muslims, etc. (also, although the Catholic Church is in two ways sexist, that can be exaggerated, and in recent decades, FREQUENTLY the Tánaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) has been a woman and between 1990 and 2011 the slightly powerful position of President of Ireland was held by women, one of whom went on to be the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights)

Is Ireland defined by ethnicity? Until about 20 years ago the South was almost literally 100% white, and there weren’t many non-Irish white people (in the last 20 years there has been bigotry that sort of resembles racism towards, for example, Poles). In 2004 there was an Amendment to the constitution that eliminates birthright citizenship for people born to parents who are not both citizens of Ireland. But if one parent is a citizen, they get citizenship. Also, although naturalization has been restricted, it’s still possible and it’s still fairly easy for citizens of the European Community, although that could be interpreted as racist, but I don’t think they had much of a choice as a member of the EU. First, the parties in Ireland I primarily support (SF and Irish Labour) opposed it as racist (and also as being in conflict with the Good Friday Agreement). Second, although I couldn’t have said this until recently, the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) of Ireland for the last few years was a man named Leo Varadkar, whose father is Indian. Also, he’s an openly gay man. I don’t like him or his party (Fine Gael, who are sort of socially liberal but sort of pro-British and in love with capitalism). According to wikipedia, he was a government minister between 2011 and 2017 when he became Taoiseach. Between 2007 and 2011, when FG were in Opposition, he was a  Spokesperson (shadow minister?). The Irish language is recognized by the Constitution as the first official language and English is recognized as the second. A lot is done to promote the former, but practically everyone practically always speak the latter and everything official is available in both languages. The British came very close to stamping out the Irish language (and they WERE trying to).

The South is not comparable to the Jewish State. And SF doesn’t want a United Ireland to be any more Catholic or Irish than the South is now. The second half of this (starting with the sentence “A lot of people…”) talks about the former, and most of this deals with the latter.

Babylon 5 Reviews C

Years ago I did what you might call “reviews” of Star Trek episodes. I mostly just briefly noted what progressive politics were involved and sometimes used that as an excuse to talk about similar situations in reality.

Last year I finally watched all five seasons of Babylon 5, another sci-fi show, one I had thought of watching once in a while stretching back a couple decades. It isn’t as political or as progressive as ST but there’s some good stuff there- in fact, on one issue, a progressive take on the working-class and/or labor movement, B5 is better than ST. Because there is so little progressive material, I’m going to do one post for every four episodes reviewed, and only mention the episodes that have some progressive political stuff. I might ignore some of the more minor and/or less unique stuff about conflict resolution because from what I remember, it’s very common in this series. Also, although less so than is the case with Star Trek, multiculturalism is a big part of Babylon Five and I will also only be commenting on that when it is more significant than usual. Lastly, there are issues raised about telepaths- I’m going to completely ignore stuff about telepaths when reviewing these episodes.


**Season 1 Episode 15 “Grail”** See this for a plot summary.

After some serious criminal activity, the stations’ security chief wants to do a sweep through a high-crime area that, of course, is also a very poor area (A: Earth and B5 aren’t utopias like the Federation  is on Star Trek, and B: the security chief seems to be a mixture of different political tendencies whereas the commander is  more consistently progressive (the doctor, and, maybe, the second-in-command are also progressive)). The Commander rejects that request and says: “most of them are just people with no where else to go. They come here looking for a new life, a new job and when they don’t find it they can’t afford transport back.”


**Season 1 Episode 16 “Eyes”** See this for a plot summary.

At one point the chief of security, a male, refers to God with a female pronoun.


**Season 1 Episode 17 “Legacies”** See this for a plot summary.

Commander Sinclair agrees to take part in a memorial service sort of thing for a late military leader of the Minbari who was a hero of the Earth-Minbari war Sinclair had fought in. He says that it would help with the reconciliation between the two alien races. I think that sort of approach is often a good idea. Possibly not when it comes to WWII (I think that had it been tried after WWII it might have made de-Nazification less successful, and it might have contradicted the message that Hitler’s wars of aggression were war crimes). On the other hand, I think that it would have been acceptable and helpful after the American Revolution and the American Civil War, for example; and I am fairly okay with the actions taken by mainstream republican leaders to advance the N. Ireland Peace Process by meeting with people like the Queen, or Prince Charles, or (on a similar note) by marking the Battle of the Somme (something important to Unionists), etc. etc.


**Season 1 Episode 21 “The Quality of Mercy”** See this for a plot summary.

There are about four issues raised by this episode:

1. I can’t remember what we learned about this in earlier episodes, but it seems that B5 doesn’t believe in juries. On the other hand, a judge refuses to allow the sometimes right-wing security chief to go on a “fishing expedition” in relation to a criminal who may have committed more murders than he was charged with and convicted of.

2. Aside from mutiny and treason, the death penalty is not used anymore (well, they CAN sentence someone to having their mind wiped, which seems at best a little bit less offensive than killing someone, but the show still makes a good statement against the death penalty as we know it today)

3. Although this is unclear, we might learn in this episode that one of the main characters is both male and female. This positive statement is slightly diluted by the fact that A) he’s a “bad guy” for the most part; B) he’s an alien; and C) the character he outs himself to is at least a little uncomfortable with it.

4. The very best thing about this episode is that it promotes free health-care. As I’ve said, Earth and B5 aren’t utopias like the Federation on Star Trek. There’s a lot of poverty on B5 and the head doctor there spends some of his time running a free clinic in the poor area of the station. He even gets the second-in-command, Ivanova, to help him with it. UPDATE 5/17/17 In the season 2 episode "A Race Through Dark Places" the doctor says that he was using the free clinic to help telepaths who were on the run. So, I guess it's not nearly as impressive a political statement as I thought it was (on the other hand Ivanova DOES agree to help him, thinking that it's a free clinic for "normals.")

Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews Q

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST. 

I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“The Cloud Minders” See this for a plot summary.

This episode is basically about privilege. You could also mention national oppression, but privilege seems more appropriate (“elitism” is also very accurate). At one point Spock says: “this troubled planet is a place of the most violent contrasts. Those who receive the rewards are totally separated from those who shoulder the burdens. It is not a wise leadership.” You could also use the phrase “environmental racism.”

There is a scene where torture is being used. Although Kirk and Spock make it very clear they and the Federation won’t stand for that, the planet which is witnessing the use of torture by the government is IN the Federation. The torture is stopped and Kirk ends up leaving the planet when he is ordered to.

So, it is largely about inequality. At the end it appears that progress is being made, and there are moves towards equality.

I give it one star out of five.

"The Savage Curtain” See this for a plot summary.

This episode contained a lot of political or at least sort of political stuff.

At the end, there is the question, from an alien culture’s point of view (without these concepts)- which is stronger, Good or Evil?

The alien concludes that both use the same methods, and achieve the same results. In the battle that the alien had just watched, as far as I could tell, the methods were largely the same, although one fourth of Kirk’s team tried to resolve the conflict non-violently and was killed by the other side. There’s a large amount of truth that in war, most methods are used by both sides. The majority of the time, I’d say there’s no problem with that- the problems arise with things like torture and intentionally killing innocent civilians. In response to a series of sectarian murders of Catholics in south Armagh, some republicans (likely the PIRA (now known simply as the IRA)) killed 10 innocent (and possibly ANTI-sectarian) Protestant civilians. That (the "Kingsmill Massacre") was incredibly wrong (it was also the sort of thing the IRA absolutely or almost absolutely never did (there may have been about 5 times when a much smaller number of people were killed in resprisals for the sectarian murders of Catholics, but even with that, only about .2% of the IRA's operations intentionally resulted in civilian death)). As far as results go, there’s always or usually some (at the very least) large differences (I think you have a good idea of what I consider “Good” and what I consider “Evil,” so I won’t explain that here).

Some other items worth mentioning:

1) Lincoln. In general I have pretty good thoughts about Lincoln. I’m reading an article about how he was friendly to labor and got along via letters with Karl Marx. Although he wasn’t an abolitionist, he leaned in that direction for years before the Emancipation Proclamation- he often was critical of slavery and as President took some earlier steps in the direction of ending slavery.

2) There is one conversation involving Lincoln and Uhura which at first I thought was problematic in a racist way, but a friend convinced me it was was basically saying that the 23rd Century was more enlightened than the 19th Century.


I give it three stars out of five.

“All Our Yesterdays” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it three stars out of five.

“Turnabout Intruder” See this for a plot summary.

There are a few things I wanted to note in this review.

First, it’s said that there are no female Captains. Kirk doesn’t disagree with her on this, although we know that in ENT there was a female Captain. It seems likely that even though she was kind of wrong, there WAS a big problem with equality for women in StarFleet (looking at the main characters of all the series also suggests that problem, although it’s only a very serious problem if we assume that in the future women will be half of the military instead of a minority of it (I've been meaning to ask several women what they think about that, I might change my mind about that and assume that they WILL be about half))

There is one line that stands out- a woman says something about the “indignity of being a woman.” After looking at the definitions of the word “dignity,” I’m still not sure what she meant. It almost sounds as if she’s saying that women don’t deserve esteem or respect. I’ll be honest, I’m not as familiar with gender studies and feminist theory as I should be, but if that is what she’s saying, that’s obviously untrue, but beyond that statement I’m not sure what else to say.

We also are reminded that with one crime as an exception, the death penalty is abolished in the Federation. Connected with that, we see something sort of close to a mutiny by some officers, including Chekov and Sulu. That’s fairly inspirational.

This is the last episode of the series, and apparently they didn’t feel like doing something special. Anyway, I give it three stars out of five.

Star Trek: The Original Series Reviews I

This is one of my posts where I “review” Star Trek episodes. I will be giving each one a star rating. I sometimes will make some comments about non-political parts of them that I like or don’t like. I’ll sometimes use the issues raised in the episode to discuss similar issues in real life. And I will sometimes simply high-light the progressive politics of ST. ST is in-line with the three original themes of this blog, as I explain in the first ST post where I offer some general thoughts about ST.

I have been more or less ignoring this- the need for me to become familiar with The Original Series. In general I don’t like much of what I’ve seen. In any case, I am now watching it and will be doing reviews of those episodes. I will be giving pretty low scores, probably no higher than three stars out of five- I just don’t like TOS.

Lastly. multi-culturalism is such a pervasive theme in ST that I only comment on it when it goes beyond the norm (i.e. inter-species partners).

“The Trouble with Tribbles” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode but a good one. Actually my opinion of it is high because of the Deep Space 9 episode which uses footage from this episode and where DS9 characters travel through time and the actors and actresses appear to interact with TOS actors and actresses. That episode’s summary is here.

I give it three stars out of five.

“The Gamesters of Triskelion” See this for a plot summary.

There’s some political stuff to comment on here:

1) In one scene, it seems like Uhura is getting raped, or at least her attacker is trying to rape her. First, Kirk just keeps asking her if she’s alright. There is nothing said about it afterwards. If it was rape or attempted rape, it’s very disturbing that nothing else was said about it.

2) Kirk’s behavior towards his drill thrall is fairly inappropriate. Between that and the dialogue at the end, this episode is incredibly annoying.

I give it one star out of five.

“A Piece of the Action” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it one star out of five.

“Immunity Syndrome” See this for a plot summary.

A non-political episode. I give it two stars out of five.

“A Private Little War” See this for a plot summary.

Even though it’s a fairly political episode, I’m going to keep this kind of brief.

The first political issue is simply about war. I would say that as far as I can tell it’s horrible, but sometimes it’s necessary and justified and helpful.

The second political issue is the arming of one side in a conflict, and then someone else arms the other side in the same conflict and this escalates in an arms race and fuels war for generations. Whoever starts that would almost definitely be doing something horrible. What is the response to that? Depending on some political aspects (who can be described as oppressed?) and other details, I might reluctantly say that the other side should be given arms- at least as good as what their opponents have.

(I should also say that in a significantly different situation, one comparable to the anti-Apartheid struggle, I would also support arming a group comparable to the ANC's military wing)

In the real world I would also add that there needs to be more work in the direction of a peaceful, just and democratic planet. I generally believe that, as Dr. Martin Luther King said, “peace is not simply the absence of tension, it is the presence of justice.” So, I think pursuing justice should probably be a higher priority than disarmament, but a gradual disarmament is a good (and realistic) idea, especially if efforts are made to keep arms out of the hands of people perpetrating injustice. Also, on the international stage, nations that are gradually disarming and trying to spread peace could form a mutual security coalition and in the event that one is attacked, the total armed forces of the countries would be pooled together and most used for coming to that country’s aid.

I give this episode two stars out of five.