TOKYO MASTER BANNER

MINISTRY OF TOKYO
US-ANGLO CAPITALISMEU-NATO IMPERIALISM
Illegitimate Transfer of Inalienable European Rights via Convention(s) & Supranational Bodies
Establishment of Sovereignty-Usurping Supranational Body Dictatorships
Enduring Program of DEMOGRAPHICS WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of PSYCHOLOGICAL WAR on Europeans
Enduring Program of European Displacement, Dismemberment, Dispossession, & Dissolution
No wars or conditions abroad (& no domestic or global economic pretexts) justify government policy facilitating the invasion of ancestral European homelands, the rape of European women, the destruction of European societies, & the genocide of Europeans.
U.S. RULING OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR TO SALVAGE HEGEMONY
[LINK | Article]

*U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR* | U.S. Empire's Casino Unsustainable | Destabilised U.S. Monetary & Financial System | U.S. Defaults Twice A Year | Causes for Global Financial Crisis of 2008 Remain | Financial Pyramids Composed of Derivatives & National Debt Are Growing | *U.S. OLIGARCHY WAGES HYBRID WAR*

Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? —Who wants to make free people free?
[info from Craig Murray video appearance, follows]  US-Anglo Alliance DELIBERATELY STOKING ANTI-RUSSIAN FEELING & RAMPING UP TENSION BETWEEN EASTERN EUROPE & RUSSIA.  British military/government feeding media PROPAGANDA.  Media choosing to PUBLISH government PROPAGANDA.  US naval aggression against Russia:  Baltic Sea — US naval aggression against China:  South China Sea.  Continued NATO pressure on Russia:  US missile systems moving into Eastern Europe.     [info from John Pilger interview follows]  War Hawk:  Hillary Clinton — embodiment of seamless aggressive American imperialist post-WWII system.  USA in frenzy of preparation for a conflict.  Greatest US-led build-up of forces since WWII gathered in Eastern Europe and in Baltic states.  US expansion & military preparation HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED IN THE WEST.  Since US paid for & controlled US coup, UKRAINE has become an American preserve and CIA Theme Park, on Russia's borderland, through which Germans invaded in the 1940s, costing 27 million Russian lives.  Imagine equivalent occurring on US borders in Canada or Mexico.  US military preparations against RUSSIA and against CHINA have NOT been reported by MEDIA.  US has sent guided missile ships to diputed zone in South China Sea.  DANGER OF US PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES.  China is on HIGH NUCLEAR ALERT.  US spy plane intercepted by Chinese fighter jets.  Public is primed to accept so-called 'aggressive' moves by China, when these are in fact defensive moves:  US 400 major bases encircling China; Okinawa has 32 American military installations; Japan has 130 American military bases in all.  WARNING PENTAGON MILITARY THINKING DOMINATES WASHINGTON. ⟴  

September 05, 2016

British Capitalist State Political Imprisonment of Australian Journalist Julian Assange - Costs in Pounds Sterling









UNDEMOCRATIC


Political Imprisonment

of Australian Journalist

Julian Assange

Costs in Pounds Sterling



JULIAN ASSANGE



AUSTRALIAN JOURNALIST

UNLAWFULLY & UNDEMOCRATICALLY IMPRISONED BY

RULING CAPITALIST BASTARDS


POLITICAL PRISONER
UNDEMOCRATIC


CAPITALIST-CONTROLLED STATE POLITICAL PERSECUTION
POLITICAL IMPRISONMENT  U.K.



COST COUNTER
UPDATE


Updates:  per Seconds

Figure based on that of https://govwaste.co.uk/ site as at 16 July 2016 (£15,474,518.15) |  site currently down

{ basis of current calculation }

£ GBP.COSTS £
FREE ASSANGE
JULIAN ASSANGE
POLITICAL PRISONER
BRITISH CAPITALIST-CONTROLLED STATE
EMBASSY SIEGE






FREE ASSANGE
UNLAWFULLY DETAINED
JULIAN ASSANGE
WikiLeaks
WikiLeaks Twitter
Justice4Assange
POLITICAL PRISONER


UNDEMOCRATIC

POLITICAL PRISONER

UNDEMOCRATIC

UNDEMOCRATIC



CORRUPT UK

CAPITALIST-CONTROLLED CRIMINAL STATE U.K. Spent More Money 'Guarding' Assange than on IRAQ ILLEGAL WAR PROBE by February 2015:
at just over the then 2.5 year mark of criminally & undemocratically detaining Aussie journalist JULIAN ASSANGE by UNLAWFUL ECUADOR EMBASSY SIEGE (UN PANEL RULING | LINK)
EXTRACTS TELESURTV
U.K. authorities have previously threatened to forcibly enter the embassy to capture Assange, but backed down after the Ecuadorian government slammed the proposal as a violation of international norms.

Australian-British journalist and Assange supporter John Pilger has described the U.K.'s response to the asylum standoff as a “farce.”

“Their quarry is an Australian charged with no crime, a refugee from gross injustice whose only security is the room given him by a brave South American country. His true crime is to have initiated a wave of truth-telling in an era of lies, cynicism and war,” he stated.

source
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/UK-Spent-More-on-Guarding-Assange-than-Iraq-War-Inquiry-20150205-0006.html

archive
http://archive.is/txsoH


Assange: the untold story of an epic struggle for justice
31 July 2015
John Pilger | LINK


UNDEMOCRATIC
POLITICAL PRISONER
EMBASSY SIEGE
*
5 Sept 2016*
16,305,655.23 GBP

21,676,085.84 USD
186,222,322.80 SEK
28,633,219.75 AUD
19,430,797.11 EUR

*Figures based on earlier estimate/cost counter that has since been adjusted; ballpark figures therefore require subsequent adjustment in due course (but good as a guide for time being).

POLITICAL PRISONER

324,756,474.08 ARS

38,003,427.59 BAM

38,003,427.59 BGN

150,533,809.08 BOB

70,592,073.19 BRL

28,170,791.37 CAD

14,749,041,397.39 CLP

144,847,864.05 CNY

64,376,914,414.75 COP

144,582,734.09 DKK

192,496,249.76 EGP

286,143,346,577.89 IDR

81,499,578.20 ILS

1,443,039,726.12 INR

677,804,926,757.86 IRR

2,253,218,002.25 JPY

32,676,629,610.40 LBP

211,044,747.87 MAD

402,990,192.60 MXN

88,571,503.93 MYR

29,724,231.14 NZD

2,263,201,628.84 PKR

2,393,409,460.34 RSD

63,963,172.11 TRY

579,238,019.98 UAH

482,996,488,776.97 VND
POLITICAL PRISONER



UNDEMOCRATIC


September 04, 2016

The Kitchen - Beef Burgundy



Planet Tokyo
The Kitchen


Planet Tokyo

Beef Burgundy
Boeuf Bourguignon

Using this recipe as a guide.  Slight variation, but pretty much along the lines of this.  Used a Cabernet Sauvignon.  Tasted nice, but I couldn't drink more than a couple of sips.  More than I would have spent on something for cooking (I'm not the shopper here, which is kind of cool ... don't miss it one bit), but it tastes nice and the sauce tastes nice, too.

Stove top browned and prepared, then tipped into slow cooker. Cooked on a high temperature to get it done in time, but it's something that can be set to slow maybe in the late morning or even done overnight and reheated when needed.

It smells so good. Tastes good, too. Dipped bread in, while I was stirring.  :)  Didn't need stirring ... I just couldn't help fiddling and tasting.

Will serve with mashed potato and crusty bread.

I like a thickened sauce, so my meat cubes were covered with flour before browning and then I made a flour roux before I deglazed the pan with red wine, and adding stock and tomato paste, ahead of throwing the meat into that (together with the chopped mushrooms) and pouring all of that into the slow cooker (containing several quartered and browned onions, browned halved cloves of garlic, and browned carrots, sliced capsicum (which I wanted to get rid of) and herbs (fresh thyme from the garden and dried bay leaves).

Seemed like there might not have been enough liquid at first, so I poured in another cup of beef stock on top.

A little more liquid than I anticipated (which is what happens when things cook down), but it's no problem.  Plan to pour in a cornflour slurry, to thicken my liquid over the next hour or so, although it's quite acceptable as it is now.  I just like it thicker.

The shopping instructions I gave were for gravy beef, or for some cheap cut of beef roast or beef cheek (which I've never tried, but it's a budget meat).  We wound up with a blade roast that was on special, and we trimmed and cubed that.
Braised Beef Cheeks in Red Wine sounds much like a Beef Burgundy.

Cinnamon is the variant.  Served on mushed peas. 
Next on my plan is Stroganoff, using pork loin, which I've not done before.  We usually have Beef Strog.




Wow, the Beef Burgundy was really nice.

Ate too much. Got really lazy sitting in front of TV for a change.

Somehow got hooked on renovation and real estate shows selling the capitalist dream. Watched one after the other, interrupted by annoying ads selling more of the same ... and fantasy cosmopolitan 'intellectual' eye-wear ... LOL) , often skipping the local/national spin altogether. Who are these ads for, a PR (propaganda) fantasy 'multicultural' capitalist consumer 'cosmopolitan'?

Got me thinking about the pointlessness of our existence and the pursuit of all manner glittering things, and then you die.

Bored with myself. Been meaning to change my eyebrows. Did that after my long session of vegetating in front of the TV I normally don't watch. Now I have myself a new pair of eyebrows and a new me. LOL

Kitchen is a disaster area. I don't know what I used all those pots for.

Might crash out after a microwave warmed coffee and a cigarette out the back.


I like this every now and then ...

 Brand New Key

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FPn5noN_qs


Capitalism Is Incompatible With Democracy



Capitalism & Democracy
Capitalism Is Incompatible With Democracy
Capitalism Unjust and Unsustainable
Capitalist Rule Companion, 'Democracy', Is A Lie


Noam Chomsky


RECD =  Really Existing Capitalist Democracy (Noam Chomsky phrase)

https://chomsky.info/20130305/

Can Civilization Survive Capitalism?
Noam Chomsky
Alternet, March 5, 2013


The term “capitalism” is commonly used to refer to the U.S. economic system, with substantial state intervention ranging from subsidies for creative innovation to the “too-big-to-fail” government insurance policy for banks.

The system is highly monopolized, further limiting reliance on the market, and increasingly so: In the past 20 years the share of profits of the 200 largest enterprises has risen sharply, reports scholar Robert W. McChesney in his new book “Digital Disconnect.”

“Capitalism” is a term now commonly used to describe systems in which there are no capitalists: for example, the worker-owned Mondragon conglomerate in the Basque region of Spain, or the worker-owned enterprises expanding in northern Ohio, often with conservative support — both are discussed in important work by the scholar Gar Alperovitz.

Some might even use the term “capitalism” to refer to the industrial democracy advocated by John Dewey, America’s leading social philosopher, in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

Dewey called for workers to be “masters of their own industrial fate” and for all institutions to be brought under public control, including the means of production, exchange, publicity, transportation and communication. Short of this, Dewey argued, politics will remain “the shadow cast on society by big business.”

The truncated democracy that Dewey condemned has been left in tatters in recent years. Now control of government is narrowly concentrated at the peak of the income scale, while the large majority “down below” has been virtually disenfranchised. The current political-economic system is a form of plutocracy, diverging sharply from democracy, if by that concept we mean political arrangements in which policy is significantly influenced by the public will.

There have been serious debates over the years about whether capitalism is compatible with democracy. If we keep to really existing capitalist democracy — RECD for short — the question is effectively answered: They are radically incompatible.

It seems to me unlikely that civilization can survive RECD and the sharply attenuated [reduced] democracy that goes along with it. But could functioning democracy make a difference?

Let’s keep to the most critical immediate problem that civilization faces: environmental catastrophe. Policies and public attitudes diverge sharply, as is often the case under RECD. The nature of the gap is examined in several articles in the current issue of Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Researcher Kelly Sims Gallagher finds that “One hundred and nine countries have enacted some form of policy regarding renewable power, and 118 countries have set targets for renewable energy. In contrast, the United States has not adopted any consistent and stable set of policies at the national level to foster the use of renewable energy.

It is not public opinion that drives American policy off the international spectrum. Quite the opposite. Opinion is much closer to the global norm than the U.S. government’s policies reflect, and much more supportive of actions needed to confront the likely environmental disaster predicted by an overwhelming scientific consensus — and one that’s not too far off; affecting the lives of our grandchildren, very likely.

As Jon A. Krosnick and Bo MacInnis report in Daedalus: “Huge majorities have favored steps by the federal government to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated when utilities produce electricity. In 2006, 86 percent of respondents favored requiring utilities, or encouraging them with tax breaks, to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases they emit. Also in that year, 87 percent favored tax breaks for utilities that produce more electricity from water, wind or sunlight [ These majorities were maintained between 2006 and 2010 and shrank somewhat after that.

The fact that the public is influenced by science is deeply troubling to those who dominate the economy and state policy.  [comment:  how do we know public is influenced by science and not by lobbying NGOs funded by capitalist interest, as is usually the case, and how do we know that the science that the public purportedly relies on is correct? ]

One current illustration of their concern is the “Environmental Literacy Improvement Act” proposed to state legislatures by ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-funded lobby that designs legislation to serve the needs of the corporate sector and extreme wealth.

The ALEC Act mandates “balanced teaching” of climate science in K-12 classrooms. “Balanced teaching” is a code phrase that refers to teaching climate-change denial, to “balance” mainstream climate science. It is analogous to the “balanced teaching” advocated by creationists to enable the teaching of “creation science” in public schools. Legislation based on ALEC models has already been introduced in several states. [comment:   K-12 refers to kindergarten to year 12 of capitalist-controlled government indoctrination of children in capitalist serving education system- here  ]

Of course, all of this is dressed up in rhetoric about teaching critical thinking — a fine idea, no doubt, but it’s easy to think up far better examples than an issue that threatens our survival and has been selected because of its importance in terms of corporate profits.

Media reports commonly present a controversy between two sides on climate change.

One side consists of the overwhelming majority of scientists, the world’s major national academies of science, the professional science journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  [comment:  but they are sponsored by capitalists, so how can we trust them? ]

They agree that global warming is taking place, that there is a substantial human component, that the situation is serious and perhaps dire, and that very soon, maybe within decades, the world might reach a tipping point where the process will escalate sharply and will be irreversible, with severe social and economic effects. It is rare to find such consensus on complex scientific issues.

The other side consists of skeptics, including a few respected scientists who caution that much is unknown — which means that things might not be as bad as thought, or they might be worse.

Omitted from the contrived debate is a much larger group of skeptics: highly regarded climate scientists who see the IPCC’s regular reports as much too conservative. And these scientists have repeatedly been proven correct, unfortunately.

The propaganda campaign has apparently had some effect on U.S. public opinion, which is more skeptical than the global norm. But the effect is not significant enough to satisfy the masters. That is presumably why sectors of the corporate world are launching their attack on the educational system, in an effort to counter the public’s dangerous tendency to pay attention to the conclusions of scientific research.  [comment:  Wonder if the propaganda dissemination is at all associated with Tavistock Institute disciple organisations? ]

At the Republican National Committee’s Winter Meeting a few weeks ago, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal warned the leadership that “We must stop being the stupid party … We must stop insulting the intelligence of voters.”

Within the RECD system it is of extreme importance that we become the stupid nation, not misled by science and rationality, in the interests of the short-term gains of the masters of the economy and political system, and damn the consequences.

These commitments are deeply rooted in the fundamentalist market doctrines that are preached within RECD, though observed in a highly selective manner, so as to sustain a powerful state that serves wealth and power.

The official doctrines suffer from a number of familiar “market inefficiencies,” among them the failure to take into account the effects on others in market transactions. The consequences of these “externalities” can be substantial. The current financial crisis is an illustration. It is partly traceable to the major banks and investment firms’ ignoring “systemic risk” — the possibility that the whole system would collapsewhen they undertook risky transactions.

Environmental catastrophe is far more serious: The externality that is being ignored is the fate of the species. And there is nowhere to run, cap in hand, for a bailout.

CONTINUED
https://chomsky.info/20130305/

COMMENT

Influence of policy by 'public will' sounds good on the surface, but it's not good at all. 

The public really *is* stupid.  However, rule by capitalist elites is just as stupid, because they go against the interests of what are supposed to be their own people.  I say 'supposed' to be.  It's hard to say what a capitalist economy site with mixed disparate populations actually might be.  It is difficult for me to view such places as 'nations'; to me, these places are stations (like cattle ranches).  So, it is rule by oligarchy in disparate capitalist controlled cattle stations that the West has and that Western Europe is turning itself into.

We have seen the public march demanding what will damage what is left of the public's nation, because the public is denied informed consent and the public is easily indoctrinated and manipulated.

'Democracy' as a system cannot work in any form.

I would prefer a dictatorship that is based on enshrined values and aims of a related European people that are a people, and a socialist or communist economy.

Chomsky refers to public opinion versus government policy in the US regarding environmental issues.  But public opinion doesn't impress me at all, especially when you consider the amount of money that is poured into shaping public opinion.  Scientists are also capitalist-owned, and there is dissenting scientists with opposing views.  So who is right?

That the capitalist take that step further to project their influence on the already indoctrinated children in the American education system (via passage of the ALEC Act) is an interesting extension of the already enormous influence and indoctrination, in service of the capitalist rule by oligarchy fake American 'democracy'.

Found myself thinking, if man ceased to exist on the planet, would it be such a bad thing?  While there are special men, man is not that special.  And everything has to cease to exist at some point.  The end is inevitable.


September 03, 2016

The Kitchen




Planet Tokyo



Beef stirfry -  made up as I went along - was today's selection, as there's only so many nights in a row we can eat Butter Chicken.  LOL

Had to get rid of the refrigerated vegetables.  Opted for stirfry to do that, although a stew was tempting.  Thought maybe like a Beef Burgundy based stew.  But I'd left it late and I wouldn't have had a cooking wine.  Stirfry seemed the more economical option.

Forgot the garlic, in all the prep and batch frying saga of getting stirfry together.  Must be going senile.

Tried something different:  stirfried French fries to throw into the mix.  Difficult cooking the potato off.  Went in the microwave ... but sort of got stuck together and turned limp and unappetising looking.  Still threw my chips in, along egg, onion, carrots, capsicum, cauliflower, cabbage shreds, fried rump steak strips and an improvised sauce:  light soy, Kecap Manis, Char Su sauce, chilli paste, tomato sauce, splash of water, few drops of sesame oil (later thickened with cornflour slurry).

Tastes nice.  Could have maybe done with a bit more sauce.  But it's OK, considering I just made it up as I went along.

The prep and small batch frying everything takes forever, but I cook enormous proportions.  Batch frying makes all the difference, as the food gets sort of charred and wok smoked instead of steamed as it would do cooking in big batches.

I got the vegies out of the way, tipping those into a stainless steel bowl as I went along.  Meat was last.  Batches again and tipped into separate bowl, so that I could then give the meat some time to soak in the sauce, before tipping all the vegetable into the sauce, which I have thickening in the wok by that stage.

The wok smoking I did yesterday has seasoned my wok nicely.  It was a breeze using it, all the way through the meat batches.


Same shit, different day.
F*cking assh*le. Threw back who knows how many drinks while I was preparing the meal.

It has gone from relaxed and normal to arguing with a d*ckhead who is insisting to me that I am the problem and that he's not drunk, while he's indulging in conducting himself like a poorly behaved adolescent and talks absolute sh*t at me and then argues and argues and argues and argues, like he's suddenly sprouted a vagina.

The personality change in him and the change in his demeanour disgusts me, while the argument takes me to the edge of tolerance.

It rapidly turns into an argument. He's cocky and full of sh*t and he just won't let up. Full of absolute sh*t, escalating argument about sh*t.

I can't f*cking take a minute more of him.

This is how just about every day with him is. It will begin OK. It ends in sh*t.

Now it's muttering loud enough for me to hear from the next room. Obviously, it's something that's supposed to be insulting. It's his favourite form of torment. Having already argued and already going from composed to wreck in the space of minutes of dealing with this pissy moron, I will try not to react.

I feel sick. I feel extremely tense and shaky.

It's impossible to imagine continuing to live with this insanity.

My fucking existence thrown into chaos by this assh*le, who drinks for no sane purpose and imposes this on me.

Refusing to blow in the 'breatho'. Mouthing off at me.

It's psycho, saying "I won't do any test for you, you c*nt."

So much for the claim it's not drunk.

We seriously can't live together. This is insane. He's off his head. The stuff he's rambling doesn't even make sense.

I'm freaked out and shaking.

Took me forever to find the device, because he wouldn't find it himself.  Wasn't even sure what I was looking for.  Finally found it, half expecting to get a whack for my troubles, but determined to know the reading.  Last time this happened a few days ago, I'd let it go.  But I'm curious.  I want to know what it takes.

Meanwhile, he's playing Ramone's 'Psycho Therapy' loudly on his mobile, just to aggravate me, I guess.  Or he finds it funny.  No idea.

Finally got him to blow:  0.87.  0.087

Muttering that I'm a 'Nazi c*nt' (for having insisted he blow in tester). 

Now he's muttering about 'Nazi feminists'.  That would be any female that doesn't want to take crap, I'd say.

So we went from perfectly amicable and at peace to entirely at odds, and having an insane disruptive 'argument' that wasn't even really an argument about anything real or material ... it was just mayhem and unpleasantness for no reason, that erupted while I'd joined him to watch some TV program.
Just him being unpleasant, overbearing and at odds, displaying a degree of aggression or hostility (without reason) that I found quite unpleasant (although it was displaced); and being unwilling to pipe down, even when I've clearly expressed that I've had enough and erupted in an outburst of my own by this stage.

All that changed in the 'before' and 'after' mayhem scenarios is his alcohol intake (which isn't even all that much, I would think).

I find this particularly stressful, because I feel I need to decide what I'm doing in future. I can't just keep repeating this.  But there seems to be no getting this through to him.

All quiet on the Tokyo Front.

Felt so upset that I went to bed and tried to sleep, but I couldn't.  Lay there feeling really anxious and freaked out for ages.  Overwhelmed and really emotionally charged.

At one stage he came in, flicked on the overhead light, swore at me, gathered up whatever he'd left on top of the bed.  This was really uncalled for, as I wasn't arguing with him or anything; I'd retreated.

Told him that if this kept up, we'd both be homeless.  Said he didn't care because he's got a swag.  LOL ... I'm sure he's not serious, but the problem is that we *will* wind up homeless if this keeps up.

Lay there feeling sick and really worried.  Kept personalising what had happened, like it was a deliberate attack on me or something.   Began wondering what sort of 'sick individual' would deliberately do this to someone. But I don't really think it is as deliberate as it seems to be at the time, after I've had time to calm down.  However, highly charged arguments usually follow a deliberate act, in so far as it is a deliberate act to get into a state that leads to what I guess is disinhibition that usually precedes the dramas; so, in that sense, it is a deliberate act.

At the height of feeling overwhelmed and emotionally flooded and wired, I feel like I could just about have a breakdown.  I feel this more keenly than I have before.

Eventually got up to do a kitchen clean.  Sort of feeling teary, but I don't cry.  The crying part of me is generally blocked.  

Resumed reading Coleman's book about Tavistock Institute.  But felt too guilty to focus on that.

My companion's still engrossed in Ramones videos, but he's got earphones in now.

It's taken me something like 4 hours to calm down and to wonder WTF even happened.

I don't understand what happened.

We were on good terms earlier, it was all calm, we were getting along (I even got a present) ... and then everything just sort of exploded out of nowhere.

I think it's highly emotionally charged scenes I can't handle.  Suddenly, it was high intensity and high-energy, out of nowhere and unrelated to anything that was happening, and my angry protests just sort of fuelled that (instead of putting it to a stop), and it just got more highly charged, unpleasant and chaotic.
At the time and for some hours later, I found it really distressing, infuriating, emotionally disturbing.

Before that, I had an anxiety sort of mounting.  Suspected alcohol was being consumed and I'd hoped to avoid exactly the scene that was played out ... only I wasn't expecting one just out of nowhere, like that.  But I suppose that's where all these scenes always come from:  it's like a wildfire set off by some small spark.

I don't know what I could have done differently.

"You should have kept your mouth shut", he says.  He's dreaming.  It's not as though one person can be sort of wired, high-energy, disinhibited and sort of aggressive (or aggressive-appearing), and that the other person in close proximity (and disturbed by the dynamic etc) can just ignore it like it's not happening and ignore that their angry protests are met with more of the same.
It is impossible not to react and then not to get more distressed if angry protests are met with more of the same sort of arguments, insults and high-energy drama that's suddenly erupted.
Even so, once the dust had settled I found myself feeling guilty wondering if I was maybe me:  was it my fault? 

Woke up feeling like I'd been hit by a truck.

First act of the day was accidentally dropping my coffee cup (which luckily fell in the sink and didn't break).  Spilled coffee all over the kitchen cupboards and floor.   Barely a mouthful left, but I took that outside so I could have a cigarette.

Tried to discuss things, but I'm not being heard.  Walks off mid-way during my attempted discussion to fuss with kitchen cleaning, when I'd mentioned I'd lost my coffee.  That annoyed me.  Anything to avoid addressing what has to be addressed, matches the various subsequent denial manoeuvres that I'm also familiar with.

Conceded that he'd had too much to drink.  But it's like dealing with a lunatic, because I still cannot get a promise out of him not to drink around me again.  The 'controlled' approach to drinking that he proposes (and he was already supposedly exercising during the months of these same dramas) is exactly what I told him it would be:  a failure.  But, no matter how many dramas we have (and no matter the mental breakdown I'm about to have), he refuses to do the rational thing and simply stop drinking.  He's going to drink less, he says.  But his record so far demonstrates that this is lunacy, and that this not within the means of control once it is under way as a habit.
So I'm stuck playing Russian roulette with a lunatic, unless I'm prepared to make us both homeless now.  That's pathetic and I'm a prisoner.

I don't understand why he will not just stop drinking in my presence.  Point blank refuses, even though we will be homeless because I cannot cope with this.  It's not like it's a big ask for him to drink elsewhere; but he refuses to do this, even though it is proven that he is capable of desisting and that the zero alcohol approach works well.
His refusal to stop subjecting me to this leaves me feeling like I'm dealing with a lunatic.







HOSTILE RULING CAPITALIST PROPAGANDA INSTRUMENT NEW YORK TIMES - ATTACK ON ASSANGE




CAPITALIST-CONTROLLED
THE NEW YORK TIMES
VOICE  OF USG AS AGENT OF CAPITALISM
HOSTILE RULING CAPITALIST PROPAGANDA INSTRUMENT
ATTACK ON ASSANGE
PAVING WAY TO ELIMINATION OF JOURNALIST ASSANGE BY RULING CAPITALISTS



Bill Van Auken Article, WSWS

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/02/wiki-s02.html

http://archive.is/whyJ2



New York Times launches McCarthyite witch-hunt against Julian Assange

By Bill Van Auken

2 September 2016  



The New York Times Thursday published an article entitled “How Russia Often Benefits When Julian Assange Reveals the West’s Secrets.” The 5,000-word piece, covering three columns of the top half of its front page, boasts three bylines. Presented as a major investigative news article, it is a piece of pro-government propaganda, whose style and outright character assassination against the WikiLeaks founder seems to have been cribbed from the vilest McCarthyite smear jobs of the 1950s[comment:  'cribbed' = plagiarised ]

Stringing together half-truths, innuendos, totally unsubstantiated assertions presented as facts and vicious ad hominem attacks on a man who has been persecuted and is effectively imprisoned because of his exposures of the crimes of US imperialism, the article has essentially three related purposes.

The first is to brand Assange as a “dupe” if not outright agent of the Kremlin and
Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The second is to discredit in advance any forthcoming information from WikiLeaks exposing the sordid and potentially indictable activities of the favored presidential candidate of both the Times and the US military and intelligence complex, Democrat Hillary Clinton.

And the third and most essential is to advance the relentless propaganda campaign mounted by the New York Times to prepare public opinion for military confrontation with Russia and intimidate and undermine the broad popular opposition of the American people to war.

This anti-Russian campaign was sharply escalated following the WikiLeaks release last month of Democratic National Committee emails exposing the collaboration of the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp in the attempt to sabotage the campaign of her rival, Bernie Sanders.

The response of Clinton and her supporters was to suppress any discussion about the content of the emails by waging a hysterical campaign indicting the release of material as a national security crisis deliberately provoked by the Kremlin in an attempt to subvert the US elections. This led to the open suggestion that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is Putin’s pawn, a theme that has been promoted as part of Clinton’s bid to rally the Republican national security establishment behind her campaign on a platform of aggressive war.

The Times piece repeats this type of unfounded allegation, stating, “United States officials say they believe with a high degree of confidence that the Democratic Party material was hacked by the Russian government.” Who are these “United States officials?” What is the basis of their “high degree of confidence?” What, if any, evidence exists to substantiate this allegation? The lengthy Times piece includes not a word in answer to any of these questions.

Nonetheless, using this unsubstantiated allegation as its foundation, the article advances its agenda with the kind of innuendo that the anti-communist witch-hunters of the House Un-American Activities Committee would have instantly recognized: “Has WikiLeaks become a laundering machine for compromising material gathered by the Russians. And more broadly, what precisely is the relationship between Mr. Assange and Mr. Putin’s Kremlin?”

To bolster its political indictment, the Times asserts, “Whether by conviction or coincidence, WikiLeaks document releases, along with many of Mr. Assange’s statements, have often benefited Russia, at the expense of the West.”

Among these “statements,” the Times paraphrases Assange’s comments in a televised interview last September, asserting that the US “has achieved imperial power by proclaiming allegiance to principles of human rights while deploying its military-intelligence apparatus in ‘pincer’ formation to ‘push’ countries into doing its biding.”

It cites his charge that the 2014 coup in Ukraine was the result of Washington “trying to draw Ukraine into the Western orbit.” It also accuses him of being critical of NATO, an organization that “Putin would like nothing more than to defang or dismantle.”  [comment:  NATO is a criminal capitalist mercenary force that is a global aggressor and is known to have sent Serbian children graffiti bombs, while conducting illegal bombing of their nation ... and that's just Serbia. ]

It accuses WikiLeaks of publishing damning “leaks of material from Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which are United States allies.” The article further adds that the leaks “came during times of heightened tensions between those countries and Russia.”

It even attributes its publication of documents exposing secret talks on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a US-sponsored trade and investment deal devised as an economic arm of the US “pivot” to Asia and the military buildup against China, to the hidden hand of the Kremlin, because Russia was also excluded from the pact.

Given these criteria, one can only conclude that anyone who opposes US imperialist interventions, or, indeed, employs their critical faculties in relation to any aspect of US foreign policy, stands in danger of being indicted by the Times as an “agent” or “dupe” of the Kremlin.

Further “evidence” uncovered by the sleuths of the Times that Assange is a Kremlin asset, is that he appeared in a short-lived television series broadcast in 2012 by Russia Today (RT), a television network partially funded by the Russian government. The article suggests that the show was a hidden means for the Putin government to keep WikiLeaks afloat. “How much he or WikiLeaks was paid for the 12 episodes remains unclear,” it comments.  [comment:  ...  and the Israelis could have sent bitcoins in covert support.  ]

Assange, however, was not employed by RT, but rather the network (like a dozen other broadcasters) paid a fee to air the program. Under similar arrangements, RT regularly broadcasts a series featuring Larry King, the 25-year veteran interviewer of CNN’s “Larry King Live.” So far he has not been named by the Times as a suspect.

In the course of its report, the Times quotes Gavin MacFadyen, a WikiLeaks supporter and director of the University of London-based Centre for Investigative Journalism, as noting that “intelligence services had a long history of using news organizations to plant stories, and that Western news outlets published ‘material that comes from the C.I.A. uncritically.’”
[comment:  The New York Times history shows CIA ties. ]

Of course the premier example of this practice is to be found in the record of the New York Times itself, most infamously in placing both its news and editorial pages at the service of the Bush administration’s preparation of a war of aggression against Iraq, promoting and embellishing upon the phony intelligence about Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction.”

Two of the three bylines on the Times hit piece against Julian Assange bear closer examination. One is that of Eric Schmitt, the newspaper’s national security correspondent, who serves as a regular conduit for the CIA and the Pentagon. Among his services rendered was a 2002 feature article, published at the height of the CIA’s waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Sarcastically headlined “There are ways to make you talk,” the article was based entirely on the lying assurances of US officials that the interrogation methods being employed by the American military and CIA were all in strict compliance with the Geneva Conventions and that “torture is not an option.”

Schmitt was also heavily involved in the Times’ handling of the major document leaks by WikiLeaks, which exposed US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as US conspiracies around the globe, in the “Cablegate” release of State Department documents.

He was one of the Times reporters who was sent to the White House in 2010 to brief Obama administration officials on the contents of the material obtained by WikiLeaks and to consult on how the newspaper should handle it.


The newspaper’s then-Editor Bill Keller commented that the US government had praised the Times for “handling the documents with care.” In describing the paper’s treatment of the WikiLeaks revelations, Keller said that “in consultation with government officials,” the newspaper censored any information that “could harm the national interest.”
[comment:  'national interests' is CAPITALIST INTERESTS, which usually does not coincide with the interests of the masses that are the nations that these capitalists deceive, control and exploit. ]

[edit:  Eric Schmitt] ... went on to enunciate an Orwellian vision for the role of the media: “We agree wholeheartedly that transparency is not an absolute good. Freedom of the press includes freedom not to publish, and that is a freedom we exercise with some regularity.”

In early 2011, Schmitt was cited as the source for a vicious personal attack on Assange, penned by Keller in defending his role as a gatekeeper for the US security services in the WikiLeaks affair. Schmitt is quoted as describing Assange as looking “like a bag lady walking in off the street,” and having “smelled as if he hadn’t bathed in days.”

In relation to Assange, who is under constant surveillance by the US intelligence agencies, has been described as a “terrorist” by US officials, and whose assassination has been regularly demanded by elements of the right, this kind of language has a definite purpose. It is designed to invoke the hostility and distaste of the newspaper’s upper middle class readers and thereby make it easier for the state to either jail the WikiLeaks founder or kill him.

The other noteworthy byline is that of Steven Erlanger, the newspaper’s London bureau chief and a 30-year veteran of the Times. In addition to his reporting duties, Erlanger serves as a governor of the Ditchley Foundation, which organizes Bilderberg-style, closed-door conferences of top state officials and big business figures to discuss strategic issues of concern to US and British imperialism. Other governors include the former head of MI6, the British secret intelligence service, various bank chiefs and the senior director of Goldman Sachs. Honorary governors include former Tory prime ministers David Cameron and John Major. The chairman of the group is Lord (George Islay MacNeill) Robertson, a senior advisor to BP and former secretary general of NATO.

In the kind of secret talks held by the Ditchley Foundation, the subject of how best to dispose of Julian Assange would certainly not be out of place.

That such “journalists” should sit in judgment of Assange, after indicting him, based on no evidence, as an asset of the Kremlin, is an obscenity. Their entire article stands as a devastating self-exposure of an American media that functions as a quasi-official state propaganda organ, mobilized in the buildup to war and in which outright intelligence agents play a decisive role.  [comment:  Wow, I wish I could send this article & the capitalist NYT hit piece to Noam Chomsky, especially after watching his 1989 video about the media and manufacturing consent.  ]

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/02/wiki-s02.html

http://archive.is/whyJ2


Bill Van Auken
b. 1950
politician and activist
Socialist Equality Party
presidential candidate in U.S. presidential election of 2004
VP nominee:   U.S. presidential election of 2008

full-time reporter for the World Socialist Web Site
resides in New York City
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Van_Auken



Imperialism and War

"The SEP asserts that capitalism leads inevitably to war, as imperialist states seek geo-political dominance, spheres of influence, markets, control of vital resources, and access to cheap labor.  Therefore, the SEP encourages and supports the widest mass protests against US militarism and its plans for war. The War on Terror is viewed as an assertion of imperial aggression on behalf of corporate interests, and the SEP calls for an end to the conflicts in the Middle East."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Equality_Party_%28United_States%29




NATO | Serbia
 [RIGHT-CLICK IMAGE, 'NEW TAB']

COMMENT

That was a very good article.

I like Bill Van Auken.

He's telling the truth and he's able to articulate what we, the great unwashed, already know to some degree if we've been following how this is shaping up.  Auken also fills us in on missing pieces we may not be aware of, completing the picture of capitalist controlled media acting with and in support of capitalist-serving government (as official agent of controlling capitalists and not agent whatsoever of the controlled masses, despite the rhetoric); thus both capitalist media (the fake 'Fourth Estate') and capitalist government acting as agents/tools for advancing the interests of Western capitalist ruling elites, often at the expense of the information denied, indoctrinated, misled, exploited and controlled masses.

This fits in nicely with Noam Chomsky's 'Propaganda Model' of Western media ... and then the entire thing locks in with overlapping corporate and media and government positions, capitalist established and funded NGOs serving capitalist interests, the capitalist business and government revolving door and overlap, completing the picture of the fraud of Western capitalist 'democracy', which is rule by the iron grip of arm's length, faceless,  unaccountable, mobile, capitalist elites who serve up lies as 'news', who suppress truth and deny information; who lead us into wars of aggression; who give away our European nations and heritage from under us; who put our physical safety at risk; who put the ongoing existence of our own kind, in what are our illegitimately usurped and misappropriated nations, in jeopardy; and lying, exploiting capitalists and their agents, who act in together to persecute, imprison or assassinate truth-tellers, refusing to be held to account for fraud, corruption and crime committed in the name of capitalism, while capitalist crimes are perversely defended to the man on the street as matters of 'national security' (the same man in the street that is denied a nation and robbed of a nation by capitalists as policy and deprived of the safety that ought to be borne of what they refer to as 'national security' (but is merely a shield for pursuing hostile capitalist interests with impunity, and by unified hostile Western capitalist policy), granting the criminal agents of the criminal capitalists (ie Western capitalist fraud that is known as 'democratic' government(s)) the licence to illegitimately control, exploit and violate nations, peoples, and individuals with impunity.
It is these capitalist criminals and their capitalist criminal agent governments, which are acting in cooperation with one another (as their capitalist interests and their capitalist crimes are mutual & their agenda for global hegemony is the same), that are responsible  for the undemocratic 6-year without charge imprisonment and political persecution of Australian journalist Julian Assange, who has unlawfully been denied political asylum granted by Ecuador in 2012.

ASSANGE & KITTY
CAPITALIST STATE
UNDEMOCRATIC IMPRISONMENT OF JOURNALIST EMBASSY SIEGE