StephenKMackSD's Blog

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Apr 08, 2026

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Apr 07, 2026

Newspaper Reader.

Mario Savio provides some valuable context from 2 December 1964!

stephenkmacksd.com/

Apr 06, 2026

Is ‘Breaking Poinst’ the latest iteration of reinvigorated ‘Liberalism’ ? that has managed to carve a place for itself, within a strata of the overeucated graduates, whose chatter to each other, for an auidence composed the great grandchildren of Mario Savio?

MARIO SAVIO, “AN END TO HISTORY” (2 DECEMBER 1964)

Berkeley, California

[1] Last summer I went to Mississippi to join the struggle there for civil rights. This fall I am engaged in another phase of the same struggle, this time in Berkeley. The two battlefields may seem quite different to some observers, but this is not the case. The same rights are at stake in both places—the right to participate as citizens in [a] democratic society and the right to due process of law. Further, it is a struggle against the same enemy. In Mississippi an autocratic and powerful minority rules through organized violence to suppress the vast, virtually powerless majority. In California the privileged minority manipulates the university bureaucracy to suppress the students’ political expression. That “respectable” bureaucracy masks the financial plutocrats; that impersonal bureaucracy is the efficient enemy in a Brave New World.

[2] In our free speech fight at the University of California, we have come up against what may emerge as the greatest problem of our nation—depersonalized, unresponsive bureaucracy. We have encountered the organized status quo in Mississippi, but it is the same in Berkeley. Here we find it impossible usually to meet with anyone but secretaries. Beyond that, we find functionaries who cannot make policy but can only hide behind the rules. We have discovered total lack of response on the part of the policy makers. To grasp a situation which is truly Kafkaesque, it is necessary to understand the bureaucratic mentality. And we have learned quite a bit about it this fall, more outside the classroom than in.

[3] As bureaucrat, an administrator believes that nothing new happens. He occupies an ahistorical point of view. In September, to get the attention of this bureaucracy which had issued arbitrary edicts suppressing student political expression and refused to discuss its action, we held a sit-in on the campus. We sat around a police car and kept it immobilized for over thirty-two hours. At last, the administrative bureaucracy agreed to negotiate. But instead, on the following Monday, we discovered that a committee had been appointed, in accordance with usual regulations, to resolve the dispute. Our attempt to convince any of the administrators that an event had occurred, that something new had happened, failed. They saw this simply as something to be handled by normal university procedures.

[4] The same is true of all bureaucracies. They begin as tools, means to certain legitimate goals, and they end up feeding their own existence. The conception that bureaucrats have is that history has in fact come to an end. No events can occur now that the Second World War is over which can change American society substantially. We proceed by standard procedures as we are.

[5] The most crucial problems facing the United States today are the problem of automation and the problem of racial injustice. Most people who will be put out of jobs by machines will not accept an end to events, this historical plateau, as the point beyond which no change occurs. Negroes will not accept an end to history here. All of us must refuse to accept history’s final judgment that in America there is no place in society for people whose skins are dark. On campus students are not about to accept it as fact that the university has ceased evolving and is in its final state of perfection, that students and faculty are respectively raw material and employees, or that the university is to be autocratically run by unresponsive bureaucrats.

[6] Here is the real contradiction: The bureaucrats hold history [h]as ended. As a result significant parts of the population both on campus and off are dispossessed, and these dispossessed are not about to accept this ahistorical point of view. It is out of this that the conflict has occurred with the university bureaucracy and will continue to occur until that bureaucracy becomes responsive or until it is clear the university cannot function.

[7] The things we are asking for in our civil rights protests have a deceptively quaint ring. We are asking for the due process of law. We are asking for our actions to be judged by committees of our peers. We are asking that regulations ought to be considered as arrived at legitimately only from the consensus of the governed. These phrases are all pretty old, but they are not being taken seriously in America today; nor are they being taken seriously on the Berkeley campus.

[8] I have just come from a meeting with the Dean of Students. She notified us that she was aware of certain violations of university regulations by certain organizations. University friends of SNCC, which I represent, was one of these. We tried to draw from her some statement on these great principles, consent of the governed, jury of one’s peers, due process. The best she could do was to evade or to present the administration party line. It is very hard to make any contact with the human being who is behind these organizations.

[9] The university is the place where people begin seriously to question the conditions of their existence and raise the issue of whether they can be committed to the society they have been born into. After a long period of apathy during the ‘50s, students have begun not only to question but, having arrived at answers, to act on those answers. This is part of a growing understanding among many people in America that history has not ended, that a better society is possible and that it is worth dying for.

[10] This free speech fight points up a fascinating aspect of contemporary campus life. Students are permitted to talk all they want so long as their speech has no consequences.

[11] One conception of the university, suggest by a classical Christian formulation, is that it be in the world but not of the world. The conception of Clark Kerr by contrast is that the university is part and parcel of this particular stage in the history of American society; it is a factory that turns out a certain product needed by industry or government. Because speech does often have consequences which might alter this perversion of higher education, the university must put itself in a position of censorship. It can permit two kinds of speech, speech which encourages continuation of the status quo and speech which advocates changes in it so radical as to be irrelevant in the foreseeable future. Someone may advocate radical change in all aspects of American society, and this I am sure he can do with impunity. But if someone advocates sit-ins to bring about changes in discriminatory hiring practices, this cannot be permitted because it goes against the status quo of which the university is a part. And that is how the fight began here.

[12] The administration of the Berkeley campus has admitted that external, extralegal groups have pressured the university not to permit students on campus to organize picket lines, not to permit on campus any speech with consequences. And the bureaucracy went along. Speech with consequences, speech in the area of civil rights, speech which some might regard as illegal, must stop.

[13] Many students here at the university, many people in society, are wandering aimlessly about. Strangers in their own lives, there is no place for them. They are people who have not learned to compromise, who, for example, have come to the university to learn to question, to grow, to learn—all the standard things that sound like clichés because no one takes them seriously. And they find at one point or another that for them to become part of society, to become lawyers, ministers, businessmen, people in government, that very often they must compromise those principles which were most dear to them. They must suppress the most creative impulses that they have; this is a prior condition for being part of the system. The university is well structured, well tooled, to turn out people with all the sharp edges worn off, the well-rounded person. The university is well equipped to produce that sort of person, and this means that the best among the people who enter must for four years wander aimlessly much of the time questioning why they are on campus at all, doubting whether there is any point in what they are doing, and looking toward a very bleak existence afterward in a game in which all of the rules have been made up, which one cannot really amend.

[14] It is a bleak scene, but it is all a lot of us have to look forward to. Society provides us no challenge. American society in the standard conception it has of itself is simply no longer exciting. The most exciting things going on in America today are movements to change America. America is becoming ever more the utopia of sterilized, automated contentment. The “futures” and “careers” for which American students now prepare are for the most part intellectual and moral wastelands. This chrome-plated consumers’ paradise would have us grow up to be well-behaved children. But an important minority of men and women coming to the front today have shown that they will die rather than be standardized, replaceable, and irrelevant.

Textual Authentication

Newspaper Reader’s quick sketch.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Apr 06, 2026

Newspaper Reader’s quick sketch.

Old Socialist.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Apr 06, 2026

Headline: You Can Smell It Now: The Trump Presidency Is in Total Free Fall

Sub-headline: A loyal army of followers, a huge disinformation network, and a party of soul-selling cowards can crowd out facts for a long time. But eventually, reality catches up.

Editor: Michael Tomasky is a paid political apologist for the Clintons. Yet what might the reader think of the Joe Biden candidacy as a check on Bernie Sanders?

These were and are Trump’s four pillars (there is considerable overlap between the first two groups, but they’re somewhat different). They have sustained him in and out of power for more than a decade, and they’ve proven stronger than the two things that in theory have the power to bring Trump down: the political opposition and plain reality.

But take a good, contemplative whiff of the zeitgeist right about now, and you’ll smell change in the air. The opposition is stronger. And I don’t mean chiefly the Democrats in Congress. We all know that some of them are effective, others not so much, but even those who do speak to the anger so many Americans feel don’t have much institutional power to do anything about it.

No—the opposition arose not in Washington, but in Chicago and Minneapolis, and in the thousands of No Kings Day marches that brought eight million Americans out into the streets. And as Trump is not a normal American politician, this is not a normal political opposition. These millions of Americans aren’t merely against his policies, although they surely are that. They’re against his hatred and lawlessness and corruption, and the moral rot he’s spreading over this country like blight over trees.

Editor: Reader note that ‘No Kings Day’ is about the political erasre of the utterly bankrupt New Democrats Bill and Hillery, and there coterie of a Political Technocrats like Tomasky!

…

I never understood, in 2024, how all these people convinced themselves that Trump could lower the price of a gallon of gas and a pound of ground chuck. He has raised the price of gas through his war on Iran. The price of beef is at an all-time high, and while that’s not really his fault—it’s mainly because cattle inventories are at a 75-year low due to drought and other factors—the increase makes the crucial point that there are many price inputs over which a president has no control.

I also never understood why anyone believed that he wouldn’t start dumb wars if the circumstances, in his mind, warranted doing so. The one fundamental fact about Donald Trump is, as my late friend and great Trump chronicler Wayne Barrett famously put it, he’ll say whatever he needs to say to wriggle through the next 10 minutes. He said what he said about wars to get elected. Period. Anyone who believed otherwise was, frankly, an idiot. And so now here we are, with Trump mocking Allah and likely this week to commit acts defined as war crimes under the Geneva Convention.

A loyal army of followers, a huge disinformation network, and a party of soul-selling cowards can crowd out facts for a long time. But eventually, reality catches up. It’s finally happening. I’d say we should celebrate. But there now arises the question of how he’ll react as reality closes in on him. I fear we haven’t begun to see the worst.

Editor: The final paragraph of Tomaski’s rant is awash in Sturm und Drang! Trump was elected President and served from 2017–2021, and was suceed my Joe Biden as predident from 2021 to 2025. Perhaps my comment on Age of Fracture by Daniel T. Rodgers of September 7, 2011 might offer some insights?

Age of Fracture reviewed by Almost Marx

Posted on September 7, 2011 by stephenkmacksd

I finished Age of Fracture almost a week ago and decided that I would give some time to let my thoughts on this book coalese, but the further I got from that point in readerly time the more distant my thoughts became, the more faded, as if I had read a novel that rivited my attention only for the time of my engagement and was lost upon turning the last page. I reread the Epilogue to remind myself, to reacquaint with that dissatisfaction.I was very dissatisfied when I first completed my reading of it. I found that the Epilogue was a complete disappointment, a summing up that somehow didn’t really match the obvious research and time that went into this fascinating act of historical/intellectual reconstruction. It could have been entitled From Reagan to Obama: A Political History, but that, of course, would not carry the World Historical import that Age of Fracture carries with it, for good or ill. Professor Rodgers is an utterly conventional thinker, in some ways, not that you would be able to grasp that fact from the chapters that proceed the Epilogue, which are gems of historical prose and analysis. This book is a pleasure to read and worthy of your time and attention, the only real test, as far as I’m concerned. It is rather disappointingly obvious when the summing up of the Epilogue is finished, that the chapters that precede it are the worthy center of this history. Please read this book for the pleasure of its’ cast of familiar characters who come to vivid life illuminated by a more careful reading of history. I am a plodder, so it took me a week to read this book, but for that pesky Epilogue this is first rate.

Almost Marx

Age of Fracture: The Rediscovery of the Market

Posted on August 25, 2011 by stephenkmacksd

Here is Professor Rodgers stunning historical precis of the Mythology of the Market as idea, political,economic and legal practice, in our national life. The pernicious idea of the Market as metaphysical quantity,historical/political actor and household god is here treated to a breathtakingly rigorus thirty five page history. He manages to make this historical recreation completely, absorbingly readable, and to top it off,not withstanding it utter complexity, comprehensible.Bravo!

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/426151/summary

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Apr 03, 2026

FT’s Janan Ganesh: Businessman Trump learns not everyone has a price

The great cynic did not expect Iran to fight out of conviction

Editor BizNews

Published on:

02 Apr 2026, 3:47 am

By Janan Ganesh

Who is the anti-Trump? The human opposite of him? Robert Mueller, who once investigated the US president, had a strong claim. He spent the great bulk of his career in unremunerative public life. He joined the Marines because a friend died in the corps, not despite that fact. In obituaries since his own death last month, the word “integrity” recurs. Donald Trump instead went with: “Good, I’m glad he’s dead.” Perhaps this wasn’t just personal animus talking but also total mystification at the values of someone like Mueller.

Trump does not understand people who believe in things. Recognise this blind spot, and his current struggles abroad become easier to explain.

Editor: How did Robert Mueller come to dominated Ganesh’s lattest – reader think of it as the nessesary ballist, to hold his feather-weight chatter aloft mere inches from it’s imminent collapsec ?

If Iran has put up more of a fight than he had expected, that is because it really is devoted to certain causes. The survival of the Islamic revolution is one. National amour propre is another, for the less theologically minded in the regime. Then there is plain hatred of America and Israel. You need not admire these beliefs to recognise their motivating power in Tehran.

Editor: Ganesh presents a highly inflected version with his minscule Iranian acters.

Trump struggles to make that imaginative leap: to think himself into the mind of a zealot. To this businessman, Iranian slogans (“The blood in our veins is a gift to our leader”) sound like the opening bluster of a negotiation. It is the equivalent of quoting an extortionate price for a distressed asset. That Iran means it — that anyone means anything — strikes him as incredible.

…

Editor: The reader who once read Timothy Snyder for his Anti-Russian hysterics now confront a political actor who tired of Zelenskyy, and has moved on?

Consider the other foreign policy failure of his second term. It genuinely baffles Trump that he cannot foist a quick settlement on the warring parties in Ukraine. It baffles almost no one else. Ukrainians believe in their independent nationhood. Vladimir Putin is no less attached to the idea of a Greater Russia that includes Ukraine. And so the conflict, while terrible, is not weird or anomalous — except to someone who cannot believe that other people believe.

Editor: These nexxt three paragraphs are awash in a Ganesh public morilizing about Trumps ‘faulty picture of the world’ ! This morsel of Ganesh chatter signafies what?

Trump has been irreverent enough about Americans who are captured or maimed in the line of service. How is he to fathom foreigners who make that sacrifice?

There is a kind of cynicism so extreme that it crosses over into naivety. If Trump will not credit that people often act out of conviction, that human behaviour can have a moral or ideological root, he isn’t “red-pilled”. He isn’t “based”. He just has a faulty picture of the world. And so, as we are seeing, a lack of purchase on world events.

His colleagues are open about his confusion in the face of other people’s intransigent beliefs. According to his envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump found it “curious” that Iran did not surrender as soon as the US amassed force in the region. All that firepower should have scared the regime into making concessions. “And yet it’s sort of hard to get them to that place.” Adorable.

Editor: This above sentence of Ganesh chatter in italics signafies what?

Or consider this from JD Vance about his boss’s way of thinking: “Rather than Russia and Ukraine killing one another, why don’t they actually engage in some commerce with one another . . . ?” In other words, how could people let national feeling get in the way of win-win economics? No one is more damning about Trump than a colleague striving to praise him.

His cynicism is sometimes borne out, of course. When he raised tariffs on Europe a year ago, the continent more or less folded. At home, the GOP is made up of once-proud men and women who abased themselves to him in return for high office or a quiet life. Given how often Trump has seen people forfeit their ideals under duress, he can be excused his low view of humankind: his belief in the essential negotiability of everyone. He is right often enough.

When he is wrong, however, the consequences are world-changing. China countered his tariffs with its own. A year on, it seems the saner if not the more attractive superpower. Ukraine did not submit to Trump’s invidious peace plan and has lived to fight on. But the example that should shatter the Trump worldview is Iran. The regime turns out to have the ideological conviction to sustain a fight, not just the military assets.

Editor: The Reader developes a kind of politial/moral ennui as Ganesh attempts to stitch together the whole, with collection of disparate parts?

If Trump had true believers around him, he might at least gain a vicarious insight into how some foreign governments think. Instead, he has the likes of Vance, a former moderate who turned hard right when it became convenient to do so. Marco Rubio is another changeling. Witkoff and Jared Kushner are commercial animals. Stephen Miller is a rare zealot, with no cabinet rank. And the “administration”, if an increasingly crowded gravy train can be so dignified, sits on top of a Maga base that has reversed its opinion about foreign wars essentially overnight.

Editor : Ganesh attempts to dignose, via in the above quotation, that Trump and his four operatives: Vance, Rubio, Kushner & Miller have not just failed but are without a clue?

…

Editor: On the very question of Fascism, as related to Trump and his minions, Ganesh applies this well worn platitude, : ‘The theme here is not “fascism” — a word cheapened through overuse — but almost total emptiness.’

The theme here is not “fascism” — a word cheapened through overuse — but almost total emptiness. Of course, a government of spivs and cynics is not the worst thing. (Try a government of fanatics.) But it is ill-equipped to understand and therefore to navigate a world of sincere believers, whether these be Chinese communists, Russian irredentists or Iranian clerics.

Editor: In his political deperation Ganesh now postulates the notion/reality of a ‘Rightwing Marxist’

In the end, Trump is what might be called a rightwing Marxist. He is sure that material interest is what drives people, that ideals are mere dressing for base motives. It is hard to conceive of a president less suited to taking on a revolutionary state in war. The lesson of the past month, though obvious, might be too much for a man of Trump’s commercial ken to accept. Not everyone has a price.

© 2026 The Financial Times Ltd.

Newspaper Reader

stephenkmacksd.com/

Apr 02, 2026

A year has passed since President Donald Trump appeared in the White House Rose Garden to announce sweeping tariffs on US imports. “Liberation day” marked a dramatic turning point for the international economic system and its seemingly inexorable march towards lower trade barriers and global integration. The results have been remarkable.

The past year has also proved as disruptive to the discipline of economics and the overconfidence of its most prominent practitioners as it has been to supply chains. The folly of tariffs was among their most deeply held beliefs, hard-coded into their models, proudly professed in every interview. Tariffs, they insisted, would lead to sharply higher inflation and much slower growth, a likely recession and millions of jobs lost. They would prompt retaliation and lead to appreciation of the dollar, crippling exporters and leading to further deindustrialisation.

But none of this happened. The dollar weakened. Countries came to the table rather than retaliating and reached agreements favourable to the US. Inflation slowed, logging an increase in the price level of 2.4 per cent over the past 12 months, as compared to 2.8 per cent for the previous year. Real GDP growth accelerated, up an annualised 2.9 per cent over the last three quarters of 2025, as compared to 2.5 per cent in 2024.

Tellingly, the response from doomsayers has not been to admit error, but rather to argue that they would have expected strong economic performance given the president’s many revisions to the tariff policy. The retroactive tolerance for robust protectionism underscores the extent to which the old orthodoxy has collapsed and the window for new thinking opened.

…….

Editor: if you need more:

Editorial Le Monde: The law, passed Monday by the Israeli parliament, tramples on the ideal

stephenkmacksd.com/

Apr 02, 2026

Death penalty for Palestinians accused of ‘terrorist’ murder continues Israeli government’s downward spiral

Editorial

Le Monde

The law, passed Monday by the Israeli parliament, tramples on the ideal that Israel long claimed to embody, of a nation committed to values forged by a history of persecution and mass crimes.

Published today at 1:06 pm (Paris) 2 min read Lire en français

A single detail can sum up a shift. That was the case with the noose worn proudly, as an emblem, by some Israeli lawmakers on their clothing during the Knesset debate on the bill establishing the automatic application of the death penalty to Palestinians accused of murder committed in the context of “terrorist” actions. This bill was championed by the supremacist minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who represents a political faction long banned in Israel due to its extremism. It was adopted on Monday, March 30, by a clear majority of 62 votes to 48. It received the support of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is the subject of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. An appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court.

The law states that any person causing the death of another “with the aim of harming an Israeli citizen or resident out of an intention to put an end to the existence of the State of Israel shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.” The death penalty will be the default penalty for Palestinians in the West Bank for acts deemed as terrorism by the military courts. The death penalty has existed in Israeli law since its founding, but has only been pronounced and carried out once, in 1962, against a Nazi war criminal for his central role in the Holocaust, Adolf Eichmann.

At a time when Israeli terrorism has spread in the occupied Palestinian territories – alarming even the army, which has regularly been complicit in increasingly uninhibited abuses and violence – the passage of this legislation represents a grave error and a betrayal. The discrimination it institutes isolates Israel from the countries with which it once identified. This law tramples the ideal Israel long claimed to represent: that of a nation mindful of values forged through a history of persecution and mass crimes.

A quarter-century ago, the rise of extrajudicial assassinations targeting Palestinians accused of violence fueled heated debates within Israeli society, both over the principle and the number of acceptable collateral victims resulting from these eliminations. The cycle of war triggered by the October 7, 2023, massacres carried out by Hamas, and the terrifying number of Palestinian civilians killed by strikes officially targeting armed militants, have shown that these debates are no longer taking place.

Israel is moving away from the state that long boasted of being the only democracy in the Middle East, forgetting that it has already subjected millions of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank to the arbitrariness of occupation. The administrative detention of Palestinian men and women by the military authorities, without charge or trial, for an unknown and indefinitely renewable period, remains a prime example of this practice.

On the eve of the vote, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom warned Israeli lawmakers against the “adoption of this bill,” which “would risk undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles.” Their warning went unheeded and now leaves these countries facing a choice: to remain faithful to these principles, which obliges them to take action in response to this vote, or to accept their own powerlessness.

Read more _{Subscribers only} Palestinians voice anxiety and anger over Israeli law introducing death penalty for certain detainees

Le Monde

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2026/04/02/death-penalty-for-palestinians-accused-of-terrorist-murder-continues-israeli-government-s-downward-spiral_6752048_23.html

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Apr 02, 2026

Editor: The reader has to explore the mind set of Bret Stephens! in his capacity as a fellow traveler of the Zionist Entity, so the circuitous route is an attempe to blind the reader to his actual alligence? Though that well worn path by now is very familier to his reader! These paragraphs denote that attempt. Though a wise elder is aware of his shtick! The first five quoted paragraphs gives the game away!

It’s understandable that America’s NATO allies — bullied, disparaged and threatened by President Trump — hardly want to lift a finger to help the United States and Israel in their war in Iran.

It’s understandable that congressional Democrats — barely briefed and entirely unconsulted — are skeptical of a war the president describes as a mere “excursion,” and seek a partisan windfall in a strategic failure.

It’s understandable that everyday Americans — having been told by Trump that Iran’s nuclear program had already been “obliterated” last June — wonder why they’re paying $4 a gallon to obliterate it once again.

Understandable but misguided. Even the most vociferous opponents of the war have a stake in a military result that leaves the regime in Tehran unable to terrorize its region, the world and, hopefully sooner than later, its own people.

Getting some of those opponents to see the point may be the intent behind Trump’s reported musing to his aides that he may be willing to end the war without using force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The president “decided that the U.S. should achieve its main goals of hobbling Iran’s navy and its missile stocks and wind down current hostilities while pressuring Tehran diplomatically to resume the free flow of trade,” The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. “If that fails, Washington would press allies in Europe and the Gulf to take the lead on reopening the strait.”

Editor: some selective quotations from this war mongeing advocacy are iluminating!

…

Maybe Trump is bluffing, to get more international support to open the strait.

…

Editor: The bellicose Stephens call out the Europeans as lacking both ‘will and nerve’ this is grade school invective!

The Europeans lack the means, the will and the nerve to challenge Iran if diplomacy failed — as it almost surely would. And the United States, despite being a net exporter of energy, would still feel the economic hit in a world in which the price of oil is essentially set globally.

…

Editor: Stephens then becomes presecriptive is his shaming way:

A better strategy for the administration would be to board tankers carrying Iranian crude as they emerged from the strait and then deliver the seized oil to friendly ports, much as we did starting in December against Venezuela. The principle would be “all or nothing”: Either energy flows freely from the strait, unimpeded by Tehran, or it doesn’t flow at all.

…

But whatever the administration decides to do, what isn’t viable is for Americans and our allies to pretend that they can be indifferent to the outcome of the war. When someone like Boris Pistorius, the German defense minister, says, “This is not our war,” the appropriate response is: Are you serious?

…

“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you” is a line widely attributed to Leon Trotsky. If that’s the case — and history tells us it is — shouldn’t you be interested in winning it, too?

Editor: Stephens continues his prescritive path, yet his experience of actual political power, is any way shape or form is nil! In sum Stephens is a New York Times Zionist who in his final paragraph quotes Leon Trotsky to bait his readership!

Newspaper Reader.

Newspaper Reader.

stephenkmacksd.com/

Mar 31, 2026

Starmer’s Labour Suspends Critic as Premier Girds for Challenge

Keir Starmer

Photographer: Tolga Akmen/EPA/Bloomberg

By Alex Wickham

March 31, 2026 at 6:23 AM PDT

Keir Starmer’s governing Labour Party suspended an ardent critic in a sign the UK prime minister is preparing to face down his internal rivals ahead of a possible leadership challenge.

Karl Turner, a 54 year-old Labour Member of Parliament who’s represented the Kingston upon Hull East district of northeastern England since 2010, was informed by government chief whip Jonathan Reynolds that he was having the Labour whip suspended on Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the matter. Turner himself posted on X that he hadn’t been informed.

The decision was taken in light of Turner’s recent conduct, the person said, without specifying any particular behavior. It would be reviewed at a later date, they said.

Turner has been one of Starmer’s most vocal Labour critics in recent weeks, campaigning in particular against a government plan to restrict jury trials. He told HuffPost UK this month that Starmer “undoubtedly” faced a leadership challenge if — as polls suggest — the party performs poorly in May’s local elections.

And just last week, Turner suggested Starmer’s former top aide, Morgan McSweeney, had faked the theft of his mobile phone in an attempt to avoid scrutiny over his conduct during a recent scandal over former UK ambassador to Washington Peter Mandelson’s links to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Removing the whip from Turner could suggest Starmer is preparing to take on his rivals by cracking down on internal critics. For months, speculation has swirled around Westminster that the premier could face an attempt to oust him after the local elections, when polls suggest the party will hemorrhage seats as well as losing control of the Welsh Parliament for the first time.

The move may, however, attract further criticism from sections of the Labour Party, which opposed previous suspensions of Labour MPs over the government’s plans on child benefits.

Editor: After his incarseration of dissenting British citizens, without the prospect bail or of a Jury Trial! What are Keir Starmer’spolitical chances?

Newspaper Reader.