1. Who is the new Cuban President and how was he elected?

The new Cuban President is 58 year-old Miguel Díaz-Canel. He was born on April 20th, 1960, one year after the advent of the Cuban Revolution. After graduating as an engineer in 1985, he began teaching at the Central University of Las Villas. In 1994, he was elected First Secretary of the Provincial Committee of the Communist Party of Villa Clara Province. He quickly acquired a reputation for being modest, hardworking and honest. Ten years later, in 2003, he came to hold the same position in Holguín province. In 2003, his exceptional record, as well as the recognition of the inhabitants of the region, allowed him to accede to the Political Bureau of the Cuban Communist Party. From 2009 to 2012, he held the position of Minister of Higher Education. In 2012, he made his entry into the Council of Ministers as Vice-President in charge of Education, Science, Sport and Culture. In 2013, he was elected by the Cuban Parliament as First Vice-President of the Councils of State and Ministers, which is Cuba’s highest office after the Presidency of the Republic itself.

Miguel Díaz-Canel has been President of the Republic of Cuba since April 19, 2018. He was elected, though indirect suffrage, by the 605 deputies of the Cuban Parliament, the President of the Council of State and the President of the Council of Ministers for a five-year term of office. His position combines the functions of President of the Republic and Head of Government. He succeeded Raul Castro, in power from 2006 to 2018, and thus became the first leader born after the triumph of the Revolution to occupy the highest office in the country.

2. Why are Cuban presidential elections indirect?

In order to come to power, Miguel Díaz Canel was first elected as a member of the Cuban Parliament by direct, universal and secret ballot. He was then elected by the Parliament as head of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers, in other words, the Presidency of the Republic.

Cubans are convinced that, in terms of presidential elections, indirect suffrage is the most democratic means. Indeed, other than symbolically, it is materially impossible for a directly elected President of the Republic to be held accountable to voters. On the other hand, if the President is elected by Parliament, as is the case in a number of Western countries, Spain or the United Kingdom for example, Parliament is in a position to exercise control over the executive. Thus, it is much easier to hold accountable the Head of State who must come before Parliament to defend his or her actions and answer the questions posed by those who directly represent the nation. Furthermore, an indirectly elected President will be less likely to feel omnipotent, a characteristic that sometimes defines those who claim the direct legitimacy of all the people. In other words, a President elected by a Parliament has less power than a President directly elected by the people.

3. Have Fidel Castro and Raúl Castro led the country since 1959?

Contrary to popular belief, revolutionary Cuba, that is to say post-1959 Cuba, has had no less than five Presidents of the Republic. Manuel Urrutia was the first to occupy this position, a post that he held from January to July 1959. Osvaldo Dorticós assumed  the position from July 1959 to December 1976. Then, after the adoption of the new Constitution of 1976, Fidel Castro held the post of President of the Republic from 1976 to 2006, having been duly voted into office every five years. Following his retirement from politics in 2006 for reasons of health, two years before the end of his mandate, Raúl Castro, then Vice-President of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers, took over until 2008, as provided for in the Constitution. From 2008 to 2018, Raúl Castro was elected President of the Republic and served two successive terms. During his second term, wishing to limit the duration of executive mandates to a maximum of ten years, he expressed his desire not to run again for office. The executive mandate measure should be integrated into the next constitutional reform. Thus, Miguel Díaz-Canel was elected President of the Republic until 2023, with the possibility of carrying out a second mandate until 2028.

If the importance of Fidel Castro in the history of Cuba is undeniable, talk about a Castro brothers’ Cuba is inaccurate on the political level. After 17 years as Prime Minister, Fidel Castro served as President of the Republic for 30 years. For his part, Raúl Castro was President of the Republic for 12 years. No other Castro siblings have held executive positions in Cuba. Fidel Castro has seven children and Raúl Castro, four. None of them has ever held any position in the government.

In terms of longevity in power, for comparison, François Mitterrand was President of the French Republic for 14 years. Felipe González was head of the Spanish government for 14 years. Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, once her fourth term ends in 2021, will have spent 17 years as the head of Germany.

4. Can one speak of democratic elections when there is but a single party?

In Cuba, unlike other countries in the world, the Communist Party is not an electoral party. It does not propose electoral candidates. Cuban legislation is formal in this regard. Only electors can nominate candidates at the municipal, provincial and legislative levels. It is therefore strictly forbidden for the CCP to present any candidate for election.

This is the procedure: before the elections, citizens gather at public meetings in their constituencies to nominate candidates. For each election, a minimum of two and a maximum of eight candidates are required. Once chosen by the base, the candidates’ résumés are posted within their constituencies. Election campaigns are strictly prohibited. For municipal, provincial and legislative elections, suffrage is universal and secret.

Cubans are convinced that their system is more democratic than those of many Western countries. Their point of view is the following: France has a multi-party system. In the vast majority of cases, whatever the election, it is the political parties that designate the candidates. Thus, French citizens choose between the various candidates designated by the various political currents. In France, however, less than 5% of the citizens are members of a political party, the only affiliation that gives them the opportunity to participate in the nomination of candidates. Thus, 95% of all voters have no opportunity to participate in the nomination of candidates for various elections, their choice being limited to opting for such and such a candidate designated by a particular political party.

5. What is the composition of the new Cuban Parliament?

The composition of the new Cuban Parliament is broadly representative of Cuban society and its ethnic and social diversity. First of all, voter turnout was 85%. Therefore, nearly 50% of the deputies (293) are neither members of the Communist Party nor of the Communist Youth Union. Contrary to popular belief, one does not become a member of the CCP by simply applying. Quite to the contrary. To join the CCP, you must be proposed by a member and go through a protracted selection process. The idea that all Cubans are required to be members of the CCP is pure fantasy. Of the more than 8 million voters in Cuba (out of a total population of 11.2 million), only 800,000 are CCP members, barely 10% of the electorate. If we add the 400,000 members of the Communist Youth Union, that makes a total of 1.2 million people, or 15% of the voters. Thus, 85% of the electors are not members of the CCP or the UJC.

More than 53% (322) of the deputies are women. More than 56% (338) have been elected to the Parliament for the first time. The average age of the Parliamentarians is 49 and 13% of the elected representatives (80 members) are between 18 and 35 years old. Nearly 90% of MPs were born after 1959. More than 40% are black or of mixed heritage. The Speaker of the Cuban Parliament, Esteban Lazo, is black. Ana Maria Mari Machado, a woman, is Vice-President. The Parliament’s secretariat is also headed by a woman, Miriam Brito.

Salim Lamrani

Université de La Réunion

 

Original text :

Cinq questions/réponses sur les élections présidentielles à Cuba

humanite.fr, April 23 2018

Translated from the French by Larry R. Oberg

 

 

Ph.D in Iberian and Latin American Studies at the University of Paris IV-Sorbonne, Salim Lamrani is a lecturer at the University of La Réunion, and a journalist specializing in relations between Cuba and the United States.

His new book is titled Fidel Castro, héros des déshérités, Paris, Editions Estrella, 2016. Preface by Ignacio Ramonet.

Contact:[email protected]; [email protected]

Facebook page:https://www.facebook.com/SalimLamraniOfficial

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Five Questions and Answers Concerning the Presidential Elections in Cuba
  • Tags:

The Maiming Fields of Gaza

May 5th, 2018 by Dr. Derek A Summerfield

Since 30 March 2018, Palestinians civilians living as refugees and exiles in Gaza ever since they were driven out from Palestine have been gathering in mass, unarmed demonstration about their right of return to the homeland they lost in 1948. Confronted by the Israeli army, including 100 snipers, the toll of dead and wounded Palestinian civilians is mounting at a shocking rate as we write.

There is a background to this. Firstly, there is the ongoing impact of the 12 year long Israeli blockade of Gaza on the care and health of her people, and the degrading of its health services. The violence and destruction inflicted by Israeli military action in Operation Protective Edge in 2014 and Operation Cast Lead in 2008-9 marked a distinct turning point in the pauperization of Gaza, against a backdrop of an ever tightening blockade since 2006.That assault in 2014 killed over 2,200 civilians, a quarter of whom were children, wounded 11.000, destroyed 15 hospitals, 45 clinics and 80,000 homes.(1)

Since 2014 Israel has further tightened the passage of essential medicines and equipment into Gaza, and of the entry of doctors and experts from abroad who offer technical expertise not available locally. Gazan hospitals have been depleted of antibiotics, anaesthetic agents, painkillers, other essential drugs, disposables, and fuel to run surgical theatres. (2) Patients die while waiting for permission to go for specialist treatment outside Gaza. All elective surgery has been cancelled since last January 2018, and 3 hospitals have closed because of medication, equipment and fuel shortages (3). Medical personnel have been working on reduced salaries. Gazan health professionals find it almost impossible to get Israeli permission to travel abroad to further their training.The regular episodic military assaults on Gaza and the current targeting of unarmed demonstrators are part of a pattern of periodically induced emergencies arising from Israeli policy. The cumulative effects of the impact on healthcare provision for the general population have been documented in multiple reports by NGOs, UN agencies and the WHO. (4).This appears to be a strategy for the de-development of health and social services impinging on all the population of Gaza.

The current systematic use of excessive force towards unarmed civilians, including children and journalists, is provoking a further crisis for the people of Gaza. Since 30 March 2018, snipers firing military grade ammunition have caused crippling wounds to unarmed demonstrators.(5) As of 23 April 2018,5511 Palestinians, including at least 454 children, have been injured by Israeli forces, including 1,739 from live ammunition according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza. As of April 27, the death toll has reached 48 and additional hundreds wounded.

Even the BBC has shown films of the deliberate shooting of people who were standing harmlessly or running away, including children and journalists (6). The sniper-fire is mostly not to the head, with most of the wounds to the lower torso and legs. Dozens have needed emergency amputation of either one or both legs, and a further 1,300 required immediate external fixations which will entail an estimated 7,800 hours of subsequent complex reconstructive surgery if the limbs are to be saved. This is calculated maiming. More may die or incur life-long disability because of the degraded state of health service sand the prohibition by Israel of the transfer for the seriously wounded (7). How is Gaza to survive this situation? And meanwhile, the many that have lost non-emergency healthcare because of the ongoing lack of medicines and energy will be joined by many more now that all scarce resources are going to life and limb saving efforts.

Whilst various UN and WHO agencies have condemned Israeli actions, Western governments have not uttered a murmur and thus bolster the impunity Israel seems always to have enjoyed in its treatment of Palestinian society. Others who seek to document and to draw attention to events like this, including in medical journals, are often subject to vilifying ad hominem attacks, as have journal editors (8). These are matters of international shame.

*

Derek Summerfield, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College, University of London.

David Halpin, Retired orthopaedic and trauma surgeon. Member – British Orthopaedic Association.

Swee Ang, Consultant Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgeon, Barts Health, London

Andrea Balduzzi, Researcher, University of Genoa, Italy

Franco Camandona, MD, OspedaliGaliera, Genoa, Italy

Gianni Tognoni, Mario Negri Institute, Milan, Italy

Ireo Bono, MD, Onncologist, Savon, Italy

Marina Rui, PhD Università di Genoa, Italy

Vittorio Agnoletto, MD, University of Milan, Former MEP, Italy

Notes

(1) 50 days of death and ddestruction. Institute for Middle East Understanding. https://imeu.org/article/50-days-of-death-destruction-israels-operation-…

(2) Emergency Delegation to the Gaza Strip. Physicians for Human Rights Israel.
http://www.phr.org.il/en/phri-emergency-delegation-to-the-gaza-strip-apr…

(3) –https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180213-work-at-main-gaza-hospital-st… February 13, 2018
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/02/palestinians-die-israel-refuses-me…

(4) -Unnecessary loss of life http://gisha.org/updates/8742
-Humanitarian Coordinator calls for protection of Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza alongside support for urgent humanitarian needs –https://www.ochaopt.org/content/humanitarian-coordinator-calls-protectio…
-Israel/OPT: Authorities must refrain from using excessive force in response to Palestine Land Day protests https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/israelopt-authorities-mus…

5) World Health Organisation Special Situation report- Gaza, Occupied Palestinian Territory.https://israelpalestinenews.org/who-special-situation-report-gaza-occupi…

6) The Palestinian Day of Return: from a short day of commemoration to a long day of mourning K. Elessi 27 April 2018, Lancet
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30940-1
Civilians, health workers, journalists and children killed and wounded march 30-april 27, 2018
http://www.msf.org/en/article/palestine-msf-teams-gaza-observe-unusually…
-Horrific injuries reported among Gaza protesters https://www.map.org.uk/news/archive/post/828-horrific-injuries-reported-… Palestinians killed and hundreds injured in Gaza during demonstrations along the fence https://www.ochaopt.org/content/four-palestinians-killed-and-hundreds-in…
-New MAP film from Gaza: health workers under attack
https://www.map.org.uk/news/archive/post/827-new-map-film-from-gaza-atta…
-Adalah& Al Mezan petition Israeli Supreme Court: Order Israeli army to stop using snipers, live ammunition to disperse Gaza protests http://www.mezan.org/en/post/22754/Adalah+%26+Al+Mezan+petition+Israeli+…

(7) – https://www.ochaopt.org/theme/casualties
https://mailchi.mp/phr/muwsh5pulz-991741?e=19b7f93641

(8) Pressure on ‘The Lancet’ for Gaza letter another example of pro-Israel assault on freedom of expression 11 novembre 2014 |Catherine Baker pour Mondoweisshttp://www.aurdip.fr/pressure-on-the-lancet-for-gaza.html?lang=fr

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Maiming Fields of Gaza

Western Chauvinism Against Russia Gone Berserk

May 5th, 2018 by Michael Averko

For you non-sports minded Russia watchers, the ethically flawed antics of the IOC (International Olympic Committee), WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) and Western mass media at large, highlight a predominating anti-Russian bias that have a definite bigoted aspect. Having personally penned the title of this essay, let me say that the February 1 CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) decision favoring Russian athletes, is proof positive that not everyone in the West is motivated (subconsciously or otherwise) by anti-Russian sentiment.

Upon announcing its decision to ban Russia from the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics (with some Russian athletes competing under the Olympic flag and “Olympic Athlete from Russia” designation), the IOC indicated that the WADA propped McLaren report’s claim of a Russian state-sponsored Olympic and Paralympic doping campaign hasn’t been proven. Yet, this fact hasn’t stopped the BBC and New York Times from falsely stating that the IOC decision is based on a primary Russian government culpability. Without definitively making the case in the open, the IOC said that there were testing irregularities at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, that favored some Russian athletes.

The February 1 CAS decision took into consideration that a good number of the IOC banned Russian athletes have been extensively tested inside and outside of Russia over a lengthy period of time, without ever being found guilty of a drug infraction. In addition, the CAS (on the known facts) reasonably concluded that the claimed 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic testing irregularities haven’t been firmly concluded. Even if these irregularities occurred (something that remains unclear on account of the claim not being fully presented in the open), one then practically wonders whether it was with the knowledge of any or all of the effected Russian athletes and if their actual test results were indeed positive? Meantime, the prior and post 2014 Winter Olympic Olympic drug tests of a good number of these athletes reveal innocence.

In reply to these particulars, I’ve heard some Western chauvinist spin, saying that the CAS cleared Russians athletes aren’t necessarily innocent, on account that they still could’ve cheated without getting caught. That very same logic applies to non-Russian athletes who might very well have succeeded in finding a way around the process.

The CAS found 11 Russian Olympians to have been previously found guilty of a drug infraction, that warranted a ban from Pyeongchang, as opposed to the hypocritically flawed IOC decision to implement a lifetime ban against them. The hypocrisy concerns the number of non-Russian athletes found guilty of doping, who didn’t receive lifetime bans.

On the matter of gross anti-Russian hypocrisy, note famed US Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps’ 2009 admission of smoking pot. Phelps wasn’t banned from Olympic competition for that action. On the other hand, the IOC feels that it’s appropriate to ban the Russian 1500 meter speed skating world record holder Denis Yuskov from the upcoming Winter Olympics, for a prior marijuana smoking episode in 2008. The unfairness of that move has been noted by some earnest folks in the West. Another of several repugnant anti-Russian IOC acts, concerns the banning of Russian short track speed skater Viktor Ahn.

As I’ve previously noted, Richard McLaren’s claim that 1000 Russian athletes benefitted from a Russian government involved illicit regimen of cheating, would likely mean that ALL of the Russian athletes in question, would be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to have taken such a course. This hasn’t been proven at all, with a note that the combined Russian Summer and Winter Olympic and Paralympic participating athletes is (if I’m not mistaken)under 1000.

On the US based National Public Radio, I heard the WADA connected American legal sports politico Travis Tygart (in rather self serving fashion) suggest his objectivity, by noting how he went after the legendary American cyclist Lance Armstrong. This is sheer BS, as Tygart never advocated banning all American cyclists and-or all US athletes from major competition.  In comparison, Tygart (along with Canadian sports legal politico Dick Pound and some other pious blowhards) have favored a collective ban on all Russian athletes.

The likes of Tygart have a committed track record of extreme bias against Russia. In contrast, the IOC President Thomas Bach, comes across as a wishy washy sort, not fit to serve his position. It’s a high point of chutzpah for Bach to second guess the CAS ruling on Russia, by saying that the CAS needs to be revamped. Bach and his fellow IOC cronies have belittled the CAS decision, with the announcement that none of the cleared Russian athletes will be invited to the upcoming Winter Olympics. Russian Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko befittingly said that the IOC and WADA are in need of restructuring.

At the 2016 Rio Summer Olympics, Bach took the position that the individual sports federations should decide on whether to restrict Russian partition. With rare exception, most of these IOC affiliated sports bodies decided (based on facts) that Russia shouldn’t be penalized at that Olympiad. This time around, Bach has leaned towards the “pressure”, as constantly rehashed by leading Western mass media outlets “to do something” against Russia.

February 2 RT article, provides a healthy offset to the overall biased Western mass media reporting on the subject of Russian sports doping. The former details numerous reasons for not believing much of the negative allegations against Russian Olympians. Among the particulars, is the faulty notion that Russian athletes live and train under the same state manipulated structure. In actuality, a good number of them train outside Russia, with non-Russian coaches. Touching on this last point, The Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins had an August 10, 2016 article, that showed how Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova, had taken performance enhancing drugs on her own, while training in the US, as opposed to some Russian state-sponsored method. (On the subject of Russian sports doping, Jenkins’ aforementioned piece is an exception to the generally biased trend in Western mass media.)

It’s matter of established record that Italy has the most Olympic sports dopers, despite having a smaller number of competing athletes when compared to Russia. Per capita, India, Turkey and Iran have higher rates of such doping infractions than Russia, with South Africa and Belgium having about the same percentage of positive doping as Russia. The December 24, 2017 Worlds Apart show, suggests that a disproportionate number of Western athletes have been given exemptions for drugs having a performance enhancing capability. (That RT show had earlier featured Dick Pound, which I followed up on.)

Moments before the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympic opening ceremony, CAS came out with another decision on Russian athletes, which contradicts its February 1 ruling. Bigotry has been given a boost over the idea of judging people as individuals. To quote The New York Times’ Juliet Macur:

The whistle-blowers are holding their breath. The Russians and clean athletes are, too.”

As I noted:

Substitute ‘Russians’ for some other group in such a negatively applied way and see the selective outrage. No NYT journo would write a bigoted comparison that differentiates between law abiding citizens and African-Americans, followed by a utilization of crime statistics as ‘proof’ for such a presented contrast.”

Along with numerous other Western mass media journalists, some of Macur’s other commentary have a noticeable anti-Russian bias. I wonder if she learned that slant from her father, who she wrote about?

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Review

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. A closely related version of this article was initially placed at the Strategic Culture Foundation’s website on February 8.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Western Chauvinism Against Russia Gone Berserk

Trotskyist Delusions. Split into Rival Tendencies

May 5th, 2018 by Diana Johnstone

I first encountered Trotskyists in Minnesota half a century ago during the movement against the Vietnam War.  I appreciated their skill in organizing anti-war demonstrations and their courage in daring to call themselves “communists” in the United States of America – a profession of faith that did not groom them for the successful careers enjoyed by their intellectual counterparts in France.  So I started my political activism with sympathy toward the movement.  In those days it was in clear opposition to U.S. imperialism, but that has changed.

The first thing one learns about Trotskyism is that it is split into rival tendencies. Some remain consistent critics of imperialist war, notably those who write for the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS).

Others, however, have translated the Trotskyist slogan of “permanent revolution” into the hope that every minority uprising in the world must be a sign of the long awaited world revolution – especially those that catch the approving eye of mainstream media.  More often than deploring U.S. intervention, they join in reproaching Washington for not intervening sooner on behalf of the alleged revolution.

A recent article in the International Socialist Review (issue #108, March 1, 2018) entitled “Revolution and counterrevolution in Syria”indicates so thoroughly how Trotskyism goes wrong that it is worthy of a critique. Since the author, Tony McKenna, writes well and with evident conviction, this is a strong not a weak example of the Trotskyist mindset.

McKenna starts out with a passionate denunciation of the regime of Bashar al Assad, which, he says, responded to a group of children who simply wrote some graffiti on a wall by “beating them, burning them, pulling their fingernails out”.  The source of this grisly information is not given.  There could be no eye witnesses to such sadism, and the very extremism sounds very much like war propaganda – Germans carving up Belgian babies.

But this raises the issue of sources.  It is certain that there are many sources of accusations against the Assad regime, on which McKenna liberally draws, indicating that he is writing not from personal observation, any more than I am.  Clearly, he is strongly disposed to believe the worst, and even to embroider it somewhat. He accepts and develops without the shadow of a doubt the theory that Assad himself is responsible for spoiling the good revolution by releasing Islamic prisoners who went on to poison it with their extremism.  The notion that Assad himself infected the rebellion with Islamic fanaticism is at best a hypothesis concerning not facts but intentions, which are invisible.  But it is presented as unchallengeable evidence of Assad’s perverse wickedness.

This interpretation of events happens to dovetail neatly with the current Western doctrine on Syria, so that it is impossible to tell them apart.  In both versions, the West is no more than a passive onlooker, whereas Assad enjoys the backing of Iran and Russia.

“Much has been made of Western imperial support for the rebels in the early years of the revolution. This has, in fact, been an ideological lynchpin of first the Iranian and then the Russian military interventions as they took the side of the Assad government. Such interventions were framed in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric in which Iran and Russia purported to come to the aid of a beleaguered state very much at the mercy of a rapacious Western imperialism that was seeking to carve the country up according to the appetites of the US government and the International Monetary Fund”, according to McKenna.

Whose “ideological lynchpin”?  Not that of Russia, certainly, whose line in the early stages of its interventionwas not to denounce Western imperialism but to appeal to the West and especially to the United States to join in the fight against Islamic extremism.

Neither Russia nor Iran “framed their interventions in the spirit of anticolonial rhetoric” but in terms of the fight against Islamic extremism with Wahhabi roots.

In reality, a much more pertinent “framing” of Western intervention, taboo in the mainstream and even in Moscow, is that Western support for armed rebels in Syria was being carried out to help Israel destroy its regional enemies.  The Middle East nations attacked by the West – Iraq, Libya and Syria – all just happen to be, or to have been, the last strongholds of secular Arab nationalism and support for Palestinian rights. There are a few alternative hypotheses as to Western motives – oil pipelines, imperialist atavism, desire to arouse Islamic extremism in order to weaken Russia (the Brzezinski gambit) – but none are as coherent as the organic alliance between Israel and the United States, and its NATO sidekicks.

It is remarkable that McKenna’s long article (some 12 thousand words) about the war in Syria mentions Israel only once (aside from a footnote citing Israeli national news as a source).  And this mention actually equates Israelis and Palestinians as co-victims of Assad propaganda:  the Syrian government “used the mass media to slander the protestors, to present the revolution as the chaos orchestrated by subversive international interests (the Israelis and the Palestinians were both implicated in the role of foreign infiltrators).”

No other mention of Israel, which occupies Syrian territory (the Golan Heights) and bombs Syria whenever it wants to.

Only one, innocuous mention of Israel!  But this article by a Trotskyist mentions Stalin, Stalinists, Stalinism no less than twenty-two times!

And what about Saudi Arabia, Israel’s de facto ally in the effort to destroy Syria in order to weaken Iran?  Two mentions, both implicitly denying that notorious fact. The only negative mention is blaming the Saudi family enterprise for investing billions in the Syrian economy in its neoliberal phase.  But far from blaming Saudi Arabia for supporting Islamic groups, McKenna portrays the House of Saud as a victim of ISIS hostility.

Clearly, the Trotskyist delusion is to see the Russian Revolution everywhere, forever being repressed by a new Stalin.  Assad is likened to Stalin several times.

This article is more about the Trotskyist case against Stalin than it is about Syria.

This repetitive obsession does not lead to a clear grasp of events which are not the Russian revolution. And even on this pet subject, something is wrong.

The Trotskyists keep yearning for a new revolution, just like the Bolshevik revolution.  Yes, but the Bolshevik revolution ended in Stalinism. Doesn’t that tell them something? Isn’t it quite possible that their much-desired “revolution” might turn out just as badly in Syria, if not much worse?

Throughout history,revolts, uprisings, rebellions happen all the time, and usually end in repression.  Revolution is very rare.  It is more a myth than a reality, especially as Trotskyists tend to imagine it: the people all rising up in one great general strike, chasing their oppressors from power and instituting people’s democracy.  Has this ever happened?

For the Trotskyists, this seem to be the natural way things should happen and is stopped only by bad guys who spoil it out of meanness.

In our era, the most successful revolutions have been in Third World countries, where national liberation from Western powers was a powerful emotional engine.  Successful revolutions have a program that unifies people and leaders who personify the aspirations of broad sectors of the population.  Socialism or communism was above all a rallying cry meaning independence and “modernization” – which is indeed what the Bolshevik revolution turned out to be. If the Bolshevik revolution turned Stalinist, maybe it was in part because a strong repressive leader was the only way to save “the revolution” from its internal and external enemies.  There is no evidence that, had he defeated Stalin, Trotsky would have been more tender-hearted.

Countries that are deeply divided ideologically and ethnically, such as Syria, are not likely to be “modernized” without a strong rule.

McKenna acknowledges that the beginning of the Assad regime somewhat redeemed its repressive nature by modernization and social reforms. This modernization benefited from Russian aid and trade, which was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed.  Yes, there was a Soviet bloc which despite its failure to carry out world revolution as Trotsky advocated, did support the progressive development of newly independent countries.

If Bashar’s father Hafez al Assad had some revolutionary legitimacy in McKenna’s eyes, there is no excuse for Bashar.

“In the context of a global neoliberalism, where governments across the board were enacting the most pronounced forms of deregulation and overseeing the carving up of state industries by private capital, the Assad government responded to the heightening contradictions in the Syrian economy by following suit—by showing the ability to march to the tempo of foreign investment while evincing a willingness to cut subsidies for workers and farmers.”

The neoliberal turn impoverished people in the countryside, therefore creating a situation that justified “revolution”.

This is rather amazing, if one thinks about it.  Without the alternative Soviet bloc, virtually the whole world has been obliged to conform to anti-social neoliberal policies.  Syria included.  Does this make Bashar al Assad so much more a villain than every other leader conforming to U.S.-led globalization?

McKenna concludes by quoting Louis Proyect:

“If we line up on the wrong side of the barricades in a struggle between the rural poor and oligarchs in Syria, how can we possibly begin to provide a class-struggle leadership in the USA, Britain, or any other advanced capitalist country?”

One could turn that around.  Shouldn’t such a Marxist revolutionary be saying:

“if we can’t defeat the oligarchs in the West, who are responsible for the neoliberal policies imposed on the rest of the world, how can we possibly begin to provide class-struggle leadership in Syria?”

The trouble with “Trotskyists” is that they are always “supporting” other people’s more or less imaginary revolutions.  They are always telling others what to do. They know it all. The practical result of this verbal agitation is simply to align this brand of Trotskyism with U.S imperialism.  The obsession with permanent revolution ends up providing an ideological alibi for permanent war.

For the sake of world peace and progress, both the United States and its inadvertent Trotskyist apologists should go home and mind their own business.

*

Diana Johnstone can be reached at [email protected]. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trotskyist Delusions. Split into Rival Tendencies

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse with this Congress, a bipartisan pair of senators have teamed up to write the single most dangerous piece of unconstitutional legislation of this Congress. 

Last week, Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) introduced S. Res. 59, which is a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). An AUMF is roughly the modern equivalent of a declaration of war, and the Corker-Kaine AUMF gives President Trump and lots of future presidents the authority to take the country to war against an endless list of groups and individuals in an endless list of countries.

The result will be true global war without end.

The two senators wanted to get a quick vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week and have the bill rocket through the Senate and House and onto the president’s desk. Fortunately for all of us, senators from both parties, from Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to Sen. Jeff Merkely (D-Ore.), forced a slowdown. But Corker and Kaine are working overtime to try to jam through their AUMF, which is a dumpster fire of bad ideas.

Here are just some of the harms packed into their proposed AUMF:

It immediately authorizes war against eight groups. With literally no strategic or operational restrictions, the Corker-Kaine AUMF authorizes immediate war against eight groups in six countries. The American military could be sent into battle in countries such as Libya, Somalia, or Yemen to fight groups that most Americans have never even heard of. This could lead to the immediate deployment of tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of American military service members to fight if Congress passes and Trump signs this AUMF.

The U.S. could declare war on a person. The president — not just President Trump, but likely every president for the next generation or longer — will be able to add new groups or new countries to the AUMF by simply sending a one-paragraph note to Congress. Absurdly, the Corker-Kaine AUMF even gives the commander-in-chief the option of going to war against a “person.” The president would not even have to explain why the new group or person is an enemy or what kind of danger awaits from military action in a newly added country.

Congress abdicates its war-making powers. In a stunningly unconstitutional move, the Corker-Kaine AUMF takes the most important power that the Constitution gives to Congress alone — the power to declare war — and turns it almost entirely over to this president and every future president. The only way that Congress would be able to stop a determined president from going to war everywhere and against anyone the commander-in-chief chooses would be to get a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress to override the president’s veto.

This flips the constitutional order on its head since the Constitution says a majority of both houses must agree to go to war before military action is taken. By contrast, the Corker-Kaine AUMF requires two-thirds of both houses to try to stop a president from using the war power that the AUMF would give the president.  This provision to swap the Constitution’s requirement of a majority in both houses to declare war for a two-thirds majority of both houses to stop war breaches checks and balances and the separation of powers. It can’t possibly be constitutional.

So, what more could be added to a piece of legislation that unconstitutionally sets us up for war everywhere and forever?

How about amping up the authority for any president to use the military to lock people up with no charge or trial? And expanding this authority with no boundaries — and with no statutory prohibition in the AUMF against locking up American citizens or anyone picked up even in the United States itself?  We believe it would still be unlawful for a president to try it (again), but why risk it?

Congress went down this same road in 2011, with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and hundreds of thousands of activists from the ACLU and our allies called and emailed their members of Congress urging its defeat. It narrowly passed, and President Obama signed it — with a promise not to use it against American citizens, but without denying that a president could have the power to order military detention.

The Intercept has an explanation of how this new detention provision could work. It is truly hard to believe that anyone in Congress would believe that it is a good idea for the legislature to head down this road again. Please sign our petition urging your senators to do everything they can do to make sure the Corker-Kaine AUMF never becomes law.  

The Corker-Kaine AUMF is beyond dangerous.  It is unconstitutional. And it is set up to never end. The Senate has a duty to kill this legislation immediately and show all members of Congress and the executive that abdicating Congress’s duty to declare war stays with the people’s representatives and no one else.

*

Christopher Anders is Deputy Director, ACLU Washington Legislative Office.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons.

This article was published on April 24, 2010 by Occupation Magazine.

Shalom and good evening,

My name is Rami Elhanan. Thirteen years ago, on the afternoon of Thursday the fourth of September 1997, I lost my daughter, my Smadar, in a suicide attack on Ben-Yehuda street in Jerusalem. A beautiful sweet joyous 14 year old girl. My Smadar was the granddaughter of the militant for peace, General (Ret.) Matti Peled, one of those who made the breakthrough to Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. And she was murdered because we were not wise enough to preserve her safety in Matti’s way, the only correct and possible way – the way of peace and reconciliation.

I do not need a Remembrance Day in order to remember Smadari. I remember her all the time, 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, 60 seconds a minute. Without a pause, without a rest, for 13 long and accursed years now, and time does not heal the wound, and the unbearable lightness of continuing to exist remains a strange and unsolved riddle.

But Israeli society very much needs Remembrance Days. From year to year, like clockwork, in the week after Passover, it is drawn into the annual ritual: from Holocaust to the Rebirth of the nation, a sea of ceremonies, sirens and songs – an entire people is swept into a whirlpool of addictive sweet sorrow, eyes tearful and shrouded; mutual embraces accompanied by `Occupation songs` and sickle and sword songs [1] against the background of images of lives that were cut short and heart-rending stories … and it is hard to avoid the feeling that this refined concentration of bereavement, fed directly into the vein, is intended to fortify our feeling of victimhood, the justice of our path and our struggle, to remind us of our catastrophes, which God forbid we should forget for a single moment. This is the choice of our lives – to be armed and ready, strong and resolute, lest the sword fall from our grasp and our lives be cut short.[2]

And when all this great sorrow is dispersed with the smoke of the barbeques, [3] when Israelis return to their daily routines, I am left enveloped in great sorrow. I miss the old good Land of Israel that never existed, and I have feelings of alienation and estrangement that keep increasing with the passage of years, from war to war, from election to election, from corruption to corruption.

And I think about the stations of my life, on the long journey that I have taken on my way to a redefinition of myself, of my Israeliness, of my Jewishness and of my humanity. About the light-years that I have travelled, from the young man who 37 years ago fought in a pulverized tank company, on the other side of the Suez Canal, from the young father who 28 years ago walked the streets of bombed Beirut, and it did not at all occur to me that things could be otherwise. I was a pure product of a cultural-educational and political system that brainwashed me, poisoned my consciousness and prepared me and others of my generation for sacrifice on the altar of the homeland, without any superfluous questions, in the innocent belief that if we did not do it, they would throw us – the second generation after the Holocaust – into the Mediterranean Sea.

Nearly 40 years have passed since then, and every year this armour of victimhood continues to crack. The self-righteousness and the feeling of wretchedness keep dissipating, and the wall that separates me from the other side of the story keeps crumbling.

When Yitzhak Frankenthal recruited me to the Bereaved Families Forum 12 years ago, for the first time in my life I was exposed to the very existence of the other side – to this day I am ashamed to say that for the first time in my life (I was 47) I encountered Palestinians as normal human beings, very much like me, with the same pain, the same tears and the same dreams. For the first time in my life I was exposed to the story, the pain and the anger, and also to the nobility and the humanity of what is called “the other side.”

The climax of that journey was the meeting between me and my brother, the “terrorist” who spent seven years in an Israeli prison, the peace-warrior Bassam Aramin, who wrote to us, among other things, the following moving words:

“… Dear Nurit and Rami. I wanted to express my identification with you as a brother on this sad day, the anniversary of the death of your beautiful and pure daughter, Smadar. There is no doubt that this is one of the saddest days, and from the moment we met I did not have the courage to write to you about it, for fear of adding more sorrow and pain to your hearts. I thought that time would likely heal that deep wound. But after I myself drank from that same bitter cup that you drank from before me, when my daughter Abir was murdered on 16 January 2007, I understood that parents never forget for a moment. We live our lives in a special way that others do not know, and I hope that no other human beings, Palestinians or Israelis, will not be forced to know …”

Today my perception of the two sides is completely different from what it was 40 years ago.

For me, the line that separates the two sides today is not between Arabs and Israelis or Jews and Muslims. Today the line is between those who want peace and are willing to pay the price for it, and all the rest. They are the other side! And today, that other side, to my dismay, is the corrupt group of politicians and generals that leads us and behaves like a bunch of mafia dons, war criminals, who play ping-pong in blood among themselves, who sow hate and reap death.

But this evening I want to talk specifically to those who are in between, who are sitting on the fence and watching us from the sidelines, I want to talk to the satiated Israeli public that does not pay the price of the Occupation, the public that sticks its head in the sand and does not want to know, that lives within a bubble, watches television, eats in restaurants, goes on vacation, enjoys the good life and looks after their its own interests, shielded by the pandering media that help it to hide from the bitter reality that is concealed only a few metres from where they live: the Occupation, the theft of lands and houses, the daily harassment and oppression and humiliation, the checkpoints, the abomination in Gaza, the sewage on the streets of Anata …

On this evening, especially, I want to address the Left public in all its shades, those who are disillusioned and angry, those who are afflicted with apathy, with despair and weakness, those who enclose themselves in the bubble of themselves and grumble on Friday nights, but are not involved with us in this hard war against the aggressive pathogen of the Occupation that threatens to destroy the humanity of all of us. And on this evening, the evening of Remembrance Day for the dead on both sides, I want to ask them to join us in our war against this fatal affliction! I want to tell them that to be bystanders is to be complicit in crime! I want to tell them that there are many who are not willing to stand aside, who are not willing to be silent in the face of evil and stupidity and the absence of basic accountability and justice!

And I want to tell them about the true anonymous heroes of our dark age!

About those who are willing to pay a high personal price for their honesty and decency, those who dare to stand in front of the bulldozers with rare and amazing courage, the refusers who say no to the omnipresent militarism, the combatants for peace who discarded their weapons in favour of non-violent resistance, the resolute demonstrators who crush against the terror of the police and the army in Bil’in, in Ni’lin, in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan every weekend, the lawyers who struggle every day in the Ofer camp military Court, and in the High Court of Justice, the heroic women of Mahsom Watch, the dedicated peace activists from abroad, like the late Rachel Corrie who gave her life, and also the those who blow the whistle on crimes and conspiracies, from Anat Kam to Gideon Levy and Akiva Eldar, and also the peace organizations of both peoples, and especially the bereaved Palestinian and Israeli families who are bringing about the miracle of reconciliation despite their tragedies.

The darker the sky gets, the more visible are these stars gleaming in the darkness! [4] The more the oppression becomes opaque and evil, the more they, with their heroism and their noble struggle, save the honour and the humanity of all of us!

And today we desperately need to expand the circles of non-violent opposition to the Occupation! This evening I call on you from here and from the bottom of my heart: get out of your bubble! Join the mosquito that buzzes unceasingly in the ears of the Occupation, [5] that annoys and irritates and harasses, and does not let Filth prevail in silence! [6] Don’t let the other side steal the future of all of us! Don’t let the other side continue to endanger the security of our remaining children.

Thank you.

*

Translated from Hebrew for Occupation Magazine by George Malent

Notes

[1] The sword and sickle songs of the singing company of the Nahal (a brigade in the Israeli army). http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Nahal2.jpg

[2] Moshe Dayan’s Eulogy for Roi Rutenberg (April 19, 1956).
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/dayan1.html

[3] Israelis traditionally have barbeques on the eve of Independence Day.

[4] Martin Luther King

[5] Ali Abu Awad

[6] Ze’ev Jabotinsky: Betar Song. www.saveisrael.com/jabo/jabobetar.htm

New York Times Cairo bureau chief Declan Walsh went to Benghazi, Libya, which is in ruins, to find out how it got that way.

“When I went to Benghazi, I was guided by one main question: How did the city come to this?” he declares in his multimedia presentation, which combines text, audio, video and large-format photography. One thing that’s not conveyed via any medium, though: Seven years ago, the United States and its allies used military force to overthrow Libya’s government. The country has been in almost continual civil war since then, which you would think would be crucial in explaining “how the city came to that.” But apparently you don’t think like a New York Times bureau chief.

The thing is, when President Barack Obama—egged on by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—called for an attack on Libya, the justification they offered was that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi would otherwise destroy Benghazi. So the fact that military intervention actually turned out to lead to the destruction of Benghazi seems like something you might want to tell Times readers, or Times consumers of multimedia, anyway.

But Walsh, despite his stated objective, seemed to go out of his way to avoid talking about how Libya has come to be a place where major cities are turned to rubble. Here’s how the piece opens:

NYT: Chasing the Ghosts of Benghazi

When a “mob attack” killed the US ambassador in 2012—”that’s when the real fight began.” In other words, the “real fight” didn’t begin a year earlier, when NATO added its overwhelming military might to a rebel uprising against Gadhafi.

It’s almost as if Walsh thinks that his audience, conditioned as they are by corporate media’s indulgence of the Republican Party’s absurd obsession with whether  Clinton accurately characterized the motivations of the militants who killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, can only use that frame of reference to understand Benghazi. So we get assurances that not every Benghazi resident hated the United States—some brought flowers!—but no explanation for why Libyan resentment of the United States might be justified:

NYT: Fahad Bakoosh

“That shouldn’t be forgotten”—unlike the US destroying the government of Libya and leaving the nation to be fought over by warlords.

It’s not like Walsh hasn’t heard of history—he notes the historical trivia that Benito Mussolini once gave a speech from a Benghazi balcony. There’s room  in the piece to mention Mussolini, but Obama and Clinton? They don’t come up.

NYT: In the old royal palace, a balcony lay crumbling where Benito Mussolini...once delivered grand speeches.

This is not the first time US media, or the New York Times in particular, have erased US responsibility Libya’s travails. Ben Norton wrote a piece for FAIR (11/28/17) about coverage of the return of slave markets to Libya; the Times did better than most outlets by acknowledging that the resurgence of slavery was connected to the chaos following the downfall of Gadhafi—but couldn’t bring itself to remind readers that their own government helped bring about that downfall.

But when a journalist sets out—”guided by one main question”—to understand the roots of devastating violence in a particular city, and fails so utterly to take the overwhelming role of Washington intervention into account…. Well, I’ve been doing this a long time, and I have to say I was startled by the complete erasure of quite recent, utterly relevant events.

You’re left wondering what Walsh does intend to offer as an explanation for Benghazi’s destruction. Perhaps it’s inherent in the Libyan character, as he suggests is illustrated by locals’ enthusiasm for doing “doughnuts” in their cars—a sport that reminded Walsh “of so many young Libyans I met—restless after years of war, impatient to go somewhere and yet turning in circles.”

*

Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org, the website of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. Since 1990, he has edited Extra!, FAIR’s print publication, now a monthly newsletter. He is the co-author of Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh’s Reign of Error, and co-editor of The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the ’90s. 

All images in this article are from the author.

Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, has published evidence suggesting that a D-notice has been issued to the press to protect MI6, hiding its connections to the Russian double-agent, Sergei Skripal. According to the Conservative government and a pliant media, Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned by Russia with a “novichok” nerve agent.

A D-notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) is used by the British state to veto the publication of potentially damaging news stories. Formally a request to withhold publication, the slavishness of the mainstream media ensures these notices function for the most part as gag orders.

Murray initially reported the claims of famous whistleblower Clive Ponting that a D-notice had likely been issued in relation to some aspect of the Skripal affair. He then noted Channel 4 journalist Charles Thomson’s confirmation that a D-notice had, in fact, been issued and that it related specifically to censoring the identity of Skripal’s MI6 handler.

Murray suggests that the MI6 agent in question is called Pablo Miller.

As Murray notes, the specific attempt to protect Miller’s identity is highly significant. Miller is an associate of former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, first in espionage operations in Russia and more recently in the activities of Steele’s private intelligence firm, Orbis Business Intelligence.

Steele was responsible for compiling the Trump–Russia dossier, comprising 17 memos written in 2016 alleging misconduct and conspiracy between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the Putin administration. The dossier, paid for by the Democratic Party, claimed that Trump was compromised by evidence of his sexual proclivities in Russia’s possession. Steele was the subject of an earlier (unsuccessful) D-notice, which attempted to keep his identity as the author of the dossier a secret.

If Miller and, by extension, Skripal himself were somehow involved in Orbis’ work on the highly-suspect Steele–Trump dossier, alongside representatives of British and possibly US intelligence, then all manner of motivations can be suggested for an attack on the ex-Russian spy and British double agent by forces other than Russia’s intelligence service, the FSB.

Miller’s official career comprised a period of service in the British Army—the Royal Tank Regiment and the Royal Green Jackets—and then postings as a diplomat in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Nigeria from 1992, Tallinn in Estonia from 1997, and Warsaw in Poland from 2010 to 2013. In 2015, he was awarded an OBE by the Queen “for service to British foreign policy.”

In 2000, the FSB accused Miller of being “head of British intelligence in Tallinn” and claimed he had turned an FSB officer, Valery Ojamae, for MI6. Seven years later, Miller was again named as an intelligence operative, this time in connection with another MI6-recruited former Russian security officer, Vyacheslav Zharko. The FSB statement at the time indicated that Miller had also been suspected of involvement in the turning of Sergei Skripal.

His connections with Skripal do not end there. On March 7, before the government had got its narrative in order, the Telegraph newspaper reported that the Russian had been close to a “security consultant” living nearby: “The consultant, who The Telegraph is declining to identify [i.e. has been told not to], lived close to Col Skripal and is understood to have known him for some time.”

Miller, according to his LinkedIn profile—swiftly deleted following the Skripal affair—had retired from British diplomacy/intelligence to settle down in Salisbury. The same profile also reportedly listed Miller’s “consultancy work” at Orbis Intelligence, linking Skripal, Miller and Steele.

When this connection was first made in early March, the BBC’s security correspondent Gordon Corera and Guardian ’s Luke Harding rushed to issue denials. Corera tweeted:

“No link Chris Steele to Sergei Skripal: sources close to Orbis Intelligence—ex MI6 officer Chris Steele’s company which did Trump ‘dossier’—tell me no links whatsoever to Russian targeted with nerve agent.”

Harding joined him, saying,

“The @Telegraph story claiming a link between Sergei #Skripal and Christopher Steele’s company Orbis is wrong, I understand. Skripal had nothing to do with Trump dossier. Nor did unnamed ‘security consultant’ ever work for Orbis.”

At the time, replies to Harding pointed out that, though Miller’s LinkedIn page had been deleted, a search for “Pablo Miller” and “Orbis Business Intelligence” still brought the dead page up first on Google’s listings—with none of the other Pablo Millers on the site featured in the results. Another pointed to a forum on which the presence of Orbis Intelligence on Miller’s profile was mentioned, with a link to the same LinkedIn address.

Beside these points, there is the timing of Steele’s, Miller’s and Skripal’s intelligence activities in Russia. Miller, as we have seen, was closely involved with the turning and handling of Russian double-agents at least during his time in Tallinn from 1997 to 2010. Skripal was passing information to the British from 1995. Steele was posted to Moscow as a spy between 1990-1993, returned to London as part of a group of Kremlin specialists and was head of MI6’s Russia desk by 2006.

Professor Anthony Glees, the director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies at the University of Buckingham, has commented,

“It is beyond doubt that he [Skripal] would have known Steele and Steele would have known him.”

Miller, meanwhile, would have been working under Steele.

As to why Corera and Harding omitted any research along these lines, in Corera’s case, one could point to the recent National Security Capability review which cited the BBC as an element of Britain’s programme for advancing its geostrategic position. Harding, on the other hand, seems to have a telepathic link with the minds of Britain’s leading security personnel. His most prominent work of late consists of hatchet jobs on Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and propaganda pieces against Russia.

While the precise nature of the relations between Skripal, Miller, and Steele are hidden, enough is already known to raise sharp questions about Skripal’s ongoing involvement with British intelligence.

Was he, as Murray suggests hypothetically, in fact, a participant in the creation of Steele’s Trump dossier? Did he have inconvenient knowledge of ongoing British operations in and against Russia? And, most significant of all, was he targeted by MI6 or the CIA in a preemptive strike to ensure his silence?

These revelations come amid the latest expression of the ongoing collapse of the official Skripal narrative. Yesterday, the UK’s National Security Advisor, Sir Mark Sedwell, admitted that the security agencies had no suspects in the Skripal case.

On April 20, the Daily Telegraph reported,

“Police and intelligence agencies have identified key suspects in the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia… Counter-terrorism police are now trying to build a case against ‘persons of interest,’ who are believed to be back in Russia.”

The Telegraph had “been told” that “a search of flight manifests in and out of the UK has yielded specific names in the hunt for the Skripal’s would-be assassins.”

This story had a shelf-life of eleven days. None of these issues will be probed by the media because the war drive against Russia will suffer no criticism.

*

Featured image is from the author.

On May 20th Venezuelans will exert their right to elect their president and other local officials. It will be the 25th time that election of any type, and the fifth presidential election to take place since 1999 when Hugo Chavez was elected president. Venezuelans take great pride in this fact in a region that has seen far too many coups, military and otherwise.

However, there is a persistent campaign, endorsed by the US and Canadian governments, that this election will be a fraud. They will not give any proof for their assertion.  On the other hand I decided to learn more about the Venezuelan electoral system to see if such a deception is even possible. For that purpose I interviewed Wilfredo Perez Bianco who is Consul General of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in Vancouver, BC. What follows is my report from our conversation.

The first thing that Mr. Perez pointed out was that in order to understand the process that guarantees the right of Venezuelans to fairly elect their representatives, two articles of the Venezuelan constitution have to be kept in mind.

Article 62 of the Venezuelan constitution of 1999 establishes the democratic foundation of the electoral process in Venezuela. The first paragraph says,

All citizens have the right to participate freely in public affairs, directly or through their elected representatives.”

And the last paragraph concludes,

It is the obligation of the State and the duty of society to facilitate the generation of the most favorable conditions for its practice.”

It is significant to note that both State and society have a role in this process.

Article 63 of the constitution in turn establishes,

Suffrage is a right. It is exercised through free, universal, direct and secret ballots. The law will guarantee the principle of individuality of suffrage and proportional representation.”

The Venezuelan Electoral Power bases all its actions on the 1999 constitution, the Organic Law of the Electoral Power, the Organic Law of the Electoral Processes and the Organic Law of the Civil Registry. According to the division of powers established in the constitution, it has functional and budgetary autonomy, which guarantees its independence from other State bodies.

“Its governing body is the National Electoral Council (CNE for its name in Spanish), responsible for the transparency of electoral and referendum processes that guarantee to all Venezuelans, the efficient organization of all electoral events that take place in the country,” stated Mr. Perez. “It is their responsibility to regulate, direct and supervise the activities of their subordinate bodies, as well as guarantee compliance with the constitutional principles attributed to the Electoral Power,” he continued.

Currently, the voting system in Venezuela is a fully automated process and can be audited in all its phases. In 2004, Venezuela became the first country in the world to hold a national election with machines that printed the voucher or receipt, and in 2012, the first elections were held with biometric authentication of the elector and the subsequent activation of the voting machine.

This technological platform allows the use of a conventional voting (electronic) ballot where the voters press the name, face or party affiliation of the candidate for the election office. This method of voting was further strengthened with the use of the Integral Authentication System (SAI), the last phase of automation, which allows the voter to activate the machine with his fingerprint.

“This represents another guarantee for the integrity of the vote.”

Once the fingerprint of the voter is authenticated, the machine is activated so that the voter can vote directly on the machine’s screen or on the electronic ballot. The selected option appears on the screen and the voter has the possibility to confirm his vote by pressing the VOTE option.

This vote is stored randomly in the memory of the machine and at the end of the day is recorded in the printed totaling records. Said votes are collated with the physical vouchers of the receipt box in the subsequent audit.

Mr. Perez emphasized,

“The voting package of each machine travels encrypted through a secure network provided by the state telecommunications company CANTV. The network is isolated from the Internet and has multiple levels of security and authentication. No external computer can penetrate the election results.”

The totaling system rests on powerful servers, which receive the electoral results from all the voting machines distributed in the country. The totaling system only receives data from voting machines authenticated and authorized by the CNE, which are protected with an encrypted alphanumeric key through an electronic signature. This key does not depend on any single party because it is shared between the CNE and all participating political organizations.

The Automated Voting System follows various phases of vote verification protocol:

  • Audit of the automated system itself
  • Citizen verification
  • Processes following the election in the presence of representatives of the parties.

The complete system of electoral guarantees also includes an international presence – International Electoral Accompaniment Program – to accompany and observe the electoral process, get to know the operation of the Venezuelan system, and even contribute to its improvement.

Mr. Perez clarified,

“The participation allows electoral experts and other accredited persons, in all the technical and institutional stages, prior to the electoral event, during its development and after it. At all time, the accompanying persons interact with electoral authorities, technical teams of the CNE, electoral officials and with technical and political representatives of the participating political organizations, as well as with the media, within the framework of the conditions set by the CNE for the sovereignty and independence of Venezuela.”

In the upcoming elections of May 20 fifteen audits will be conducted in the different areas involved in the process of the Presidential Elections and Legislative Councils, and will comply with the standards used in the 2012 presidential and parliamentary elections of 2015 to guarantee transparency in the exercise of the vote.

The audits will be carried out in the presence of witnesses of political organizations, national observers, international accompaniers, and technicians from different accompaniment missions. Mr. Perez informed

“these activities of revision can be followed in live broadcasts by clicking on the banner Canal CNE TV of the official site www.cne.gob.ve for anyone, anywhere to see.”

It appears that in compliance with the constitutional mandate, the CNE has created a unique legally bound and technologically sound electoral system, backed by the most comprehensive system of guarantees, which makes elections in Venezuela a safe, transparent and reliable expression of the sovereign will of the people and a full demonstration of a vibrant, participatory and protagonist democracy.

In concluding, the Venezuelan Consul stated,

“democracy is taken very seriously and is intensely lived in Venezuela. For Venezuelans, to live in a democracy is to debate, participate and be full protagonists in the construction of their destiny. In Venezuela, the right to elect or be elected is conceived as an essential human right and the State strives to guarantee and secure that right by all means available. Transparency is at the heart of the electoral system for the May 20 elections in Venezuela”

*

Nino Pagliccia is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The Israeli Nuclear Elephant in the Room

May 5th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Iran and Israel are polar opposites on the nuclear issue – what’s rarely acknowledged in Western capitals or publicly discussed.

The Islamic Republic has no program to develop them, and wants them entirely eliminated to prevent their use.

The power of today’s thermonukes can turn metropolitan areas like New York to irradiated rubble.

Nuclear wars can’t be won. They risk nuclear winter if nukes are used in enough numbers.

“(N)uclear technology threatens life on our planet with extinction,” Helen Caldicott explained, adding:

“If present trends continue, the air we breathe, the food we eat, and the water we drink will soon be contaminated with enough radioactive pollutants to pose a potential health hazard far greater than any plague humanity has ever experienced.”

A “single failure of nuclear deterrence (could) start nuclear war.”

Devastating consequences would follow, potentially killing “tens of millions of people, and caus(ing) long-term, catastrophic disruptions of the global climate and massive destruction of Earth’s protective ozone layer.”

“The result would be a global nuclear famine that could kill up to one billion people.” Enough thermonuke detonations could potentially end life on earth.

Nuclear winter is the ultimate nightmare. No antidote exists, no coming back if things go this far. What should terrify everyone is never discussed publicly, largely ignored by Western media.

Humanity has a choice – eliminate these weapons entirely or they may eliminate us.

Washington, its Western partners and Israel unjustifiably criticize Iran over the issue of nuclear weapons it doesn’t have or want.

Run by extremely dangerous Zionist zealots, the Jewish state has been nuclear armed and dangerous since development of its capability began shortly after the nation’s founding.

David Ben-Gurion (Israel’s first prime minister) and Shimon Peres were the driving forces behind Israeli development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

The Eisenhower administration aided Israeli development of nukes, supplying the country with its first small nuclear reactor in 1955.

In 1964, France built the Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev. Israeli production of nukes began in the 1960s. South Africa collaborated with Israeli nuclear weapons development until the early 1990s.

Israeli missiles, warplanes and submarines can launch nukes to reach targets far distant from its borders. It has hundreds of warheads in its arsenal.

Image on the right: Mordechai Vanunu in 2004 shows the article for which he was imprisoned.

In the mid-1980s, Dimona nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu publicly revealed the existence of Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

Today its thermonukes can potentially destroy large cities. In 2009, anti-nuclear activist John Steinbach published a paper on Israel’s nuclear weapons program, saying:

“With several hundred weapons and a robust delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the world’s fifth largest nuclear power, and now rivals France and China in terms of the size of its nuclear arsenal” – while maintaining nuclear ambiguity to this day.

Israel has no nuclear power plants for electricity generation. It’s nuclear program is focused on weapons development and production.

Its sophisticated capability heightens the regional and global risk it poses. Its open secret is well known.

In Pentagon report, a Pentagon report titled “Critical Technology Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations” was Washington’s first official acknowledgment of Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

It includes a vast array of facilities – “equivalent to (America’s) Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratories,” the report said, adding:

They’re “an almost exact parallel of the capability currently existing at our National Laboratories.”

Its program includes extensive R&D facilities, factories, private companies, and government research centers devoted to developing, upgrading, producing and maintaining Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

Today, Israeli nuclear sophistication is far more advanced than 30 years ago. Its regimes were given or stole US technology for decades.

Knowledge about it was systematically ignored or suppressed. Political, economic, military and technological partnership between both countries is longstanding.

Washington actively aided Israel develop sophisticated nuclear weapons able to incinerate cities far distant from its borders – violating US law.

The 1961 US Foreign Assistance Act prohibits aiding nations develop nuclear weapons. Israel was secretly exempted.

Both nations are run by neocon extremists, waging endless wars, Israel against Palestinians and Syria, America against humanity at home and abroad.

Iran hasn’t attacked another nation in centuries, threatening none now. It’s armed with conventional weapons alone – solely for defense, not offense.

Yet Washington and Israel consider it an existential threat – a bald-faced lie, a pretext for wanting its sovereign independence replaced by pro-Western puppet rule.

Iran threatens no one. Washington and Israel threaten world peace and humanity’s survival.

If launched, war on Iran could be devastating far beyond its borders. Catastrophic global war could follow, the world’s two dominant nuclear powers possibly pitted against each other.

What’s unthinkable could happen because of extremists in charge of warmaking in Washington and Israel.

The human species could become the first one ever to destroy itself – and virtually everything else along with it.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

China’s reported deployment of anti-ship and cruise missiles to its reclaimed islands in the South China Sea was the inevitable action of a country that chose to act first in order to thwart its American adversary from doing the same thing at a more disadvantageous time in the future.

All of Asia seems to be talking about what’s being framed in the Mainstream Media as China’s “provocative” decision to deploy anti-ship and cruise missiles to its reclaimed islands in the South China Sea, with pundits decrying this move as “militarizing” the region and therefore signifying a “threat” to so-called “freedom of navigation”. Avoiding the polemical quagmire of forever arguing over the international legality of Beijing’s nine-dash line, the simple fact is that China was the strongest regional party to assertively stake out its claim, a dramatically proactive measure that stands in stark contrast to this country’s characteristic overabundance of caution.

The People’s Republic must have intensely carried out years of scenario planning before ever making its first move in the South China Sea, understanding that the process that it set into motion would be irreversible and have a global strategic impact given the importance of this waterway to the world economy and the symbolism of China going so far as to establish tangible “facts on the ground” (or rather, in this case, water) to back up its claim. Evidently, China came to the conclusion that it would be better for its long-term interests to act and risk international opprobrium than to passively sit back and let the US reclaim its regional allies’ islands and fortify them with military equipment instead.

It might seem “unfair” for the comparatively weaker countries of the South China Sea to countenance, but the only real actors that matter when it comes to this waterway are China and the US, with the remaining states leaning more closely to one or the other in helping their “patron” establish the control that they aspire to wield. Extrapolating even further, the dichotomy is essentially between the competing models of multipolar and unipolar globalization, whereby the former Chinese-led model sees Beijing attempt to reform the existing “rules of the game” to it and its partners’ advantage while the latter American-led one tries its best to retain the current system to it and its own partners’ benefit.

Vietnam is firmly in the American camp when it comes to the delineation of the South China Sea, whereas the US’ former colony of the Philippines has pivoted towards China ever since President Duterte came to office almost exactly two years ago. The Pentagon’s “pincer” plan to “trap” China between two weak but American-backed “Lead From Behind” claimants supported by the “Quad’s” other Indo-Japanese and Australian members has therefore failed and presented Beijing with the window of opportunity that it needed in order to break through the “containment” wall that was being built around it. It’s in this geopolitical context that it felt comfortable enough with the progress it’s made in backing up its claims to deploy state-of-the-art weaponry there.

The US and its allies are predictably fear mongering that this will somehow infringe on what they like to term as “freedom of navigation”, but the reality is that China wouldn’t “cut off its own nose to spite its face”, so to say, by interfering with maritime shipments through this route and inadvertently sabotaging its own trade networks. For that matter, Japan also wouldn’t be interested in this either, but the economic survival of the remaining three members of the “Quad” and their regional Vietnamese partner isn’t dependent on traversing the South China Sea beyond the disputed islets, hence why they’re less sensitive to any potential trade disruption here as the expected result of a forthcoming crisis.

China has proven that it’s the most powerful force in the South China Sea and has neutralized the US’ Vietnamese-Philippine “pincer” through the skillful use of Silk Road diplomacy with Manilla, meaning that Washington’s only real hope for responding to Beijing’s latest missile move in the region is to enhance its and the rest of the “Quad’s” military cooperation with Hanoi. As a prelude to this eventuality kicking into high gear, it can be anticipated that an infowar offensive will be launched in the near future in attempting to scare Vietnam into thinking that these Chinese armaments are directed against it and not the US naval assets in the area.

The “Quad” wants to formalize Vietnam’s already de-facto inclusion into this framework in order to create what could then be described as the “Quint”, but it first needs to manufacture a “publicly plausible” pretext for selling this unprecedented foreign policy realignment to the country’s public. The ASEAN state isn’t anywhere near powerful enough to challenge China on its own, hence why it would need to rely on the military expertise that only the US could realistically provide for it through a military partnership focusing mostly on naval and missile technologies. As ironic as it may be to imagine, there’s the distinct possibility that China’s missiles might one day soon be countered by American ones sold to Vietnam, but only if the infowar succeeds in making this “deal with the devil” “acceptable”.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare.

Featured image is from EF.

2018: When Orwell’s 1984 Stopped Being Fiction

May 5th, 2018 by Jonathan Cook

This is the moment when a newspaper claiming to uphold that most essential function in a liberal democracy – acting as a watchdog on power – formally abandons the task. This is the moment when it positively embraces the role of serving as a mouthpiece for the government. The tell is in one small word in a headline on today’s Guardian’s front page: “Revealed”.

When I trained as a journalist, we reserved a “Revealed” or an “Exposed” for those special occasions when we were able to bring to the reader information those in power did not want known. These were the rare moments when as journalists we could hold our heads high and claim to be monitoring the centres of power, to be fulfilling our sacred duty as the fourth estate.

But today’s Guardian’s “exclusive” story “Revealed: UK’s push to strengthen anti-Russia alliance” is doing none of this. Nothing the powerful would want hidden from us is being “revealed”. No one had to seek out classified documents or speak to a whistleblower to bring us this “revelation”. Everyone in this story – the journalist Patrick Wintour, an anonymous “Whitehall official”, and the named politicians and think-tank wonks – is safely in the same self-congratulatory club, promoting a barely veiled government policy: to renew the Cold War against Russia.

It is no accident that the government chose the Guardian as the place to publish this “exclusive” press release. That single word “Revealed” in the headline serves two functions that reverse the very rationale for liberal, watchdog-style journalism.

First, it is designed to disorientate the reader in Orwellian – or maybe Lewis Caroll – fashion, inverting the world of reality. The reader is primed for a disclosure, a secret, and then is spoonfed familiar government propaganda: that the tentacles of a Russian octopus are everywhere, that the Reds are again under our beds – or at least, poisoning our door handles.

British diplomats plan to use four major summits this year – the G7, the G20, Nato and the European Union – to try to deepen the alliance against Russia hastily built by the Foreign Office after the poisoning of the former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal in Salisbury in March.

This – and thousands of similar examples we are exposed to every day in the discourse of our politicians and media – is the way our defences are gradually lowered, our critical thinking weakened, in ways that assist those in power to launch their assault on democratic norms. Through such journalistic fraud, liberal media like the Guardian and BBC – because they claim to be watchdogs on power, to defend the interests of the ruled, not the rulers – serve a vital role in preparing the ground for the coming changes that will restrict dissent, tighten controls on social media, impose harsher laws.

The threat is set out repeatedly in the Guardian’s framing of the story: there is a self-evident need for “a more comprehensive approach to Russian disinformation”; Moscow is determined “systematically to divide western electorates and sow doubt”; “the west finds itself arguing with Russia not just about ideology, or interests, but Moscow’s simple denial, or questioning, of what the western governments perceive as unchallengeable facts.”

Tom Tugendhat, son a High Court judge, a former army officer who was honoured with an MBE by the Queen in his thirties, and was appointed chair of the Commons’ important foreign affairs select committee after two years in parliament, sets out the thinking of the British establishment – and hints at the likely solutions. He tells the Guardian:

Putin is waging an information war designed to turn our strongest asset – freedom of speech – against us. Russia is trying to fix us through deception.

Second, there is a remedy for the disorientation created by that small word “Revealed”. It subtly forces the reader to submit to the inversion.

For the reasons set out above, a rational response to this front-page story is to doubt that Wintour, his editors, and the Guardian newspaper itself are quite as liberal as they claim to be, that they take seriously the task of holding power to account. It is to abandon the consoling assumption that we, the 99 per cent, have our own army – those journalists in the bastions of liberal media like the Guardian and the BBC – there to protect us. It is to realise that we are utterly alone against the might of the corporate world. That is a truly disturbing, terrifying even, conclusion.

But that sense of abandonment and dread can be overcome. The world can be set to rights again – and it requires only one small leap of faith. If Russian president Vladimir Putin truly is an evil mastermind, if Russia is an octopus with tentacles reaching out to every corner of the globe, if there are Russian agents hiding in the ethers ready to deceive you every time you open your laptop, and Russian cells preparing to fix your elections so that the Muscovian candidate (Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn?) wins, then the use of that “Revealed” is not only justified but obligatory. The Guardian isn’t spouting British and US government propaganda, it is holding to account the supremely powerful and malevolent Russian state.

Once you have stepped through this looking glass, once you have accepted that you are living in Oceania and in desperate need of protection from Eurasia, or is it Eastasia?, then the Guardian is acting as a vital watchdog – because the enemy is within. Our foe is not those who rule us, those who have all the wealth, those who store their assets offshore so they don’t have to pay taxes, those who ignore devastating climate breakdown because reforms would be bad for business. No, the real enemy are the sceptics, the social media “warriors”, the political activists, even the leader of the British Labour party. They may sound and look harmless, but they are not who or what they seem. There are evil forces standing behind them.

In this inverse world, the coming draconian changes are not a loss but a gain. You are not losing the rights you enjoy now, or rights you might need in the future when things get even more repressive. The restrictions are pre-emptive, there to protect you before Putin and his bots have not only taken over cyberspace but have entered your living space. Like the aggressive wars of “humanitarian intervention” the west is waging across the oil-rich areas of the Middle East, the cruelty is actually kindness. Those who object, those who demur, do so only because they are in the financial or ideological grip of the mastermind Putin.

This is the moment when war becomes peace, freedom becomes slavery, ignorance becomes strength.

*

Jonathan Cook is an award-winning British journalist based in Nazareth, Israel, since 2001. He is the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The world is in a depth of crisis that extends well beyond the more obvious outbreaks of geopolitical strife.

Regardless of who, if anyone, is a “good guy” or a “bad guy,” science and technology have allowed collective humanity to develop weapons of mass destruction sufficient to destroy not just homo sapiens, but all life on Earth. Pollution and environmental degradation from industrial, military, and technological uses, including ubiquitous electronic and/or chemical contamination of air, water, and soil, have resulted in a level of peril difficult to diagnose and seemingly impossible to regulate.

We are also seeing a telling correlation between the soaring human population and an epic die-off of non-human species. One result is a documented decline of species at the bottom of the food chain: pollinating insects on land and plankton in the oceans. Already we are seeing a decline in bird populations that feed on the vanishing insects.

As the food chain collapse works its way up to the level of human food supplies, mass starvation could result. We are already seeing adverse effects through lower food quality, as high-glycemic products containing empty calories replace more nutritious and natural foods. A probable result is an explosion of inflammation-caused illnesses like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s.

The spectacle of nations and alliances fighting over supremacy on our radically endangered planet shows humanity’s insane short-sightedness, even as communication and transportation technology have brought people from faraway places closer together. Politically, the destruction is being wrought under a paradigm of nationalism and imperialism that reflects underlying ideologies of competition/predation vs. cooperation/compassion.

“Get what you can while there’s still time,” seems to be the ruling age-old mantra.

All is not lost, perhaps, as sizeable numbers of people are seeking truth through the spirit, which conceivably could also result in a greater sense of personal responsibility and long-term improvement of external conditions. But the immediate danger remains. Can anything bring us out of it short of global catastrophe?

What about the organized religions? The number of people who declare themselves “spiritual but not religious” testify that the two are not the same. Where then is hope for the future to be sought, and how does that hope play out in social, economic, and political life within and among nations?

I have written on these themes since retiring as a federal government analyst in 2007 and publishing my book Challenger Revealed: An Insider’s Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age. I believed then, and do now, that the Challenger disaster was a microcosm of our era: incredibly complex technology blowing up in our faces and taking human life, mainly due to failures arising from our dishonesty and hubris.

Today’s crisis has a profound ethical dimension: what is right and wrong in our approach to life, how did we get into the present mess, and what we can do now, at the 11th hour, to solve our dilemmas? Inevitably, these questions invoke theology: the study of the divine.

Is there a God? How does He/She/It factor into the problems we face? Can we pray for help or are we stuck with the necessity of solving problems on our own? Are human beings ultimately immortal in spirit, or are we even moral, spending as much time as we do fighting each other over who is right and wrong and over things?

In presenting the following thoughts I want to acknowledge at the outset that I am speaking mainly of life in the West: largely the Americas and Europe (along perhaps with Australia and New Zealand), which is the portion of the world shaped historically by Christianity.

I limit myself in part because of the constraints of time and space. Also, I do not have the direct personal experience needed to comment similarly on life in the Islamic world or those nations formed historically by followers of the Eastern religions.

Nevertheless, the same questions may apply to those parts of the world as well. Let the reader be the judge.

Also, at the outset, I wish to offer the reader an apology. I am neither a scholar nor a specialist, nor someone with any unique knowledge or wisdom. I am an ordinary man, a retired analyst with the U.S. federal government, and an occasional commentator on world events.

But I like to write, and I like to think about “the big issues.” I believe that the urgency of the times requires us to speak up, despite our limitations.

I am grateful to the Global Research website for carrying my material over the last decade. The internet gives may of us a voice who otherwise would have been ignored or suppressed by the powers that control the corporate media.

So, if the thoughts expressed in this essay are of any interest to you, that’s fine. If not, that’s okay too.

The article is long, so relax and take your time. Comments are welcome at the email address appearing at the end.

Lets Start with the American “Evangelicals”

We are talking about “big issues” indeed. Here in the U.S., we are accustomed to the notion of “separation of church and state,” where matters of faith are not supposed to influence public discourse. We are expected to get by through manmade laws, social customs, discussion and compromise, representative democracy, and our innate sense of right and wrong.

You now may be laughing. How is any of this helping today? How much of these things, and their effectiveness, is self-delusion or wishful thinking? Maybe all of it?

Where does religion then fit in? It’s a fact that despite the separation of church and state, the laws of the U.S. and most other nations are religion-based and may be found, for instance, in the Ten Commandments—at least portions of those Commandments that contain prohibitions on murder, stealing, bearing false witness, and adultery, plus an admonition for fair play implied by the prohibition on coveting what belongs to our neighbor.

Like it or not, our laws are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, even though portions of our society, including many corporations, politicians, and intelligence agencies—not just common criminals—appear to consider themselves exempt.

But in both the U.S. and other nations, religious establishments—some ancient but others newly minted—struggle to find relevance. Still, at least in the U.S., public figures cite religious beliefs or predilections to gain support or justify decisions. Beneath the surface, however, is a tremendous spiritual ferment that affects all of society.

Onlookers generally agree that the election of Donald Trump as president of the U.S. would have been unthinkable without the votes and vocal support of white “evangelical” Christians, especially in the South and Midwest. The role of the evangelicals as a political force dates from President Richard Nixon’s 1968 “Southern Strategy,” when the Republicans brought about a shift of the “Solid South” away from the Democrats by playing on white resentment of President Lyndon Johnson’s civil rights reforms.

Image below is from Politico

Lede-1.jpg

Now, as the Trump administration attempts to navigate “Russiagate” and keep the Republican Party afloat with the 2018 midterm elections approaching, the president’s strongest source of cheerleading comes from the so-called “Christian Right,” via such figures as former Arkansas governor Mike Hukabee, who broadcasts on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, and standby Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network. Also instrumental, among many others, is the support of Jerry Falwell, Jr., who succeeded his father as the head of the immensely influential Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA.

Observers underestimate the emotional force that drives these allegiances. How strongly did Hillary Clinton’s calling-out of Trump’s “deplorables” in the 2016 election backfire?

The politicians who rely on evangelical support have an array of hot-button social issues at their disposal to arouse anger and fear and get out the vote, including abortion, crime among racial minorities, same-sex marriages, and “entitlements,” including the numbers of people on welfare, food, stamps, and Medicaid.

Underlying much of the resentment is good-old-fashioned racism. Many of the more politically visible evangelicals are angry white people. Some of the anger even extends to social programs largely paid for by individual lifetime earnings, such as Medicare and Social Security.

The evangelicals, being good Republicans, are among those who oppose government “interference” in social and economic life, including limitations on assault weapons. Yet they support the biggest “welfare” program of all—the military/industrial/intelligence complex with its millions of employees and multi-trillion dollar budget.

A potent alliance has also taken shape between the evangelicals and the nation of Israel. The evangelicals are heavily influenced by the ideas of “Dispensationalism,” which is a system of theology that began in Great Britain early in the 19th century and takes as literal the supposed prophecies in the Biblical Book of Revelation pertaining to a time of great tribulation, culminating in a final battle between good and evil preceding the Second Coming.

The return of the Jews to Israel in modern times is viewed as an essential stage, with war in the Middle East culminating in the battle of Armageddon. But then comes the “Rapture”(!) when the Chosen People of God will be rewarded for their faith and fortitude.

Some find traces of modern-day Zionism in the political agitation carried out over a century ago by the British Dispensationalists who first developed it into a system under someone named John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). This agitation, along with centuries-old persecution of the Jews in Europe, often led by the Catholic Church, led to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the creation of the state of Israel in Palestine after World War II.

The leaders of modern Israel have consciously allied themselves with the American evangelicals, including financial support for institutions like Liberty University, paid trips to the Holy Land, etc. Dispensationalism has also made inroads into the Catholic Church, as well as the chaplain services at the military academies and the regular armed forces.

But is Dispensationalism the truth? Its claims have been debunked by many scholars, including Elaine Pagels of Princeton University.

In her book Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation, Pagels makes clear that the Biblical text does not refer to a supposed “end of the world” that may happen any time, much less in the 20th-21st centuries, but rather images, themes, and ideas growing out of the destruction of Israel through the Jewish-Roman wars of the 1st and 2nd centuries.

For followers of the author of The Book of Revelation, John of Patmos (not John, the disciple “whom Jesus loved” and supposed author of the Fourth Gospel), the “Whore of Babylon” was pagan Rome and the state religion based on emperor-worship. But by the 4th century, when Christianity had become the official religion of the Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine, this “Whore” became whatever “heresy” happened to be current among competing groups of Christians.

Many of those labeled heretics were so-called because they did not accept, or had no need, for the increasingly powerful hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons ruling over the dioceses the imperial rulers had parceled out.

In other words, Church officialdom didn’t have a clue of what John of Patmos might have meant when he wrote The Book of Revelation three centuries earlier. Rather the violent imagery of God smashing up the enemy of the hour proved a handy device of power politics for the ruling structure.

“God is on our side” has a long pedigree.

This organizational imperative assured that, under Constantine and his successors, the strange document John of Patmos wrote made it into the official Bible. Ever since, Christians have been wondering what The Book of Revelation is really about, with some gaining encouragement to periodically give away all they own and stand on hilltops awaiting an end that does not come.

One of the latest was Harold Camping, “the California preacher who used his evangelical radio ministry and thousands of billboards to broadcast the end of the world and then gave up public prophecy when his date-specific doomsdays did not come to pass.”

Camping died in 2013 at age 92. “His independent Christian media empire spent millions of dollars—some of it from donations made by followers who quit their jobs and sold all their possessions—to spread the word on more than 5,000 billboards and 20 RVs plastered with the Judgment Day message.”

A few centuries ago, the great Protestant reformer Martin Luther said the Bible should not even contain The Book of Revelation, as “there is no Christ in it.” (Elaine Pagels, Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation, Viking Penguin, 2012, p.3) Yet today, John of Patmos’s narrative, with the Four Horsemen, the Apocalypse, Armageddon, and the rest, still provides immense emotional backing for U.S. policy of endless war in the Middle East.

Spirituality in the West Today

With Catholics also, the social issues of abortion, etc., have brought about a shift toward the right, even though Catholics, back when many were newly-immigrated from such nations as Ireland, Italy, and Poland, traditionally formed the backbone of big-city Democratic Party politics. The growing conservatism of Catholics has manifested through the ongoing reaction against the reforms of Vatican II, reforms that began in the early 1960s but have largely ground to a halt today.

This conservatism has led many Catholics to oppose Pope Francis, who has had the nerve to suggest that divorced people might still be allowed at Mass or that Catholics should stop breeding “like rabbits.” Some even regard Francis as an “anti-pope,” due to his attitudes of inclusivity.

The 1960s not only saw Vatican II, along with a tremendously popular surge among Catholics in individual religious experience through the Charismatic Renewal, but liberalizing tendencies among both Protestants and Jews that played important roles in the agitation against the Vietnam War, and in the civil rights and antipoverty movements. But the upsurge of the 1960s was not carried on by the next generation, so, along with the aging population from that era, has tended to fade away.

For many people who no longer found sufficient meaning in the Christian churches or Jewish synagogues, Eastern spirituality also appeared on the scene in a big way in the 1950s and 60s. Today, Eastern practices such as yoga, meditation, and traditional Chinese medicine have replaced or supplemented church participation for millions of people.

Some Christian churches have taken to practices like “meditation with mantra,” a kind of spiritual exercise borrowed from Hinduism/Buddhism, but also found among such early Christians as the Desert Fathers.

Unlike the evangelicals, practitioners involved in Eastern teachings tend to support progressive causes or have dropped out of politics altogether. Also influential, especially among Middle Eastern immigrants or many African-Americans, are the teachings of Islam.

Another spiritual movement with major social impact has been Alcoholics Anonymous and related 12-Step recovery programs. AA is based on principles of spiritual practice drawn largely from Christianity but often much more intensely personal and experiential than what is found in the churches.

AA provides a home for many people who are, or consider themselves to be, outcasts. AA can be found worldwide, including among Native American populations, and specifically eschews any political bias. Members may still have strong political opinions, of course.

Speaking of Native Americans, a powerful revival of native spiritual traditions is underway throughout the Americas, sometimes, but not always, in combination with Christianity. This includes some Amazon shamans who venerate Our Lady of Guadalupe along with Jesus and the saints.

Many people find spiritual value in their activities of daily life—family, profession, team or individual sports, interpersonal relationships, or contact with nature. This may or may not be found in combination with institutional religion or may satisfy a person for a while but intensify into something deeper or more personal as time passes. Of course such activity may be mixed up with motives of greed, fear, or obsession, but so may formal religious practice.

There are also people who find a deeper spiritual sense by grappling with personal or psychological problems, including the huge numbers affected by childhood traumas and abuse, by PTSD, or by issues arising through health crises, addictions, financial stress, or victimization. Often these issues are impervious to generalized religious guidance and require intense one-on-one-work with a professional therapist. Such therapy may include a spiritual dimension.

For many people, one-on-one or group therapy doesn’t work or is not affordable. Many rely on the vast array of psychoactive drugs for relief. For some, such medication is the only thing that makes normal life even possible.

Even atheism and agnosticism may attempt to offer a quasi-spiritual solution to the problems that beset everyone as part of human life. The philosophy of existentialism speaks to people in their loneliness and lack of guidance in a world where everyday values of achievement and acquisition offer little comfort.

Much of modern literature, art, and music is based on existential themes. Carson McCullers’ book The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter captured the mood. So did J.D. Salinger’s A Catcher in the Rye. Existentialism has penetrated theology through such works as Paul Tillich’s The Courage to Be.

Of course there is often a thin line between existentialism and a nihilism that may lead to self-destruction.

With these diverse movements underway, all of which can be experienced in combination with others, and taking into account the pervasive materialism of consumer culture, attendance at mainstream churches has plummeted, with many closing their doors or barely keeping afloat.

Some churches attempt to remain relevant by offering meeting space to community groups or by doing volunteer work among the poor, the sick and dying, or prison populations. Others try to survive as bastions of tradition, though often with declining congregations.

Others rely on emotionalism or spreading the fear of damnation to attract, engage, or keep followers. Often churches or individual ministers broaden their appeal by TV, radio, or on-line broadcasts.

But many people are sleepwalking through life without being particularly interested in anything other than the ups and downs of daily existence. For them, such a life may be sufficient, although they are easily manipulated by propaganda, advertising slogans, political electioneering, mindless media fare, etc. The sleepwalking masses may in fact be the most dangerous component of society.

The Dark Side

Spirituality definitely has a dark side. We already discussed some of that with our reflections on the link between Dispensationalism and endless war.

There are many other inhabitants of the shadowy world of borderline cults—the lairs of gurus, secret societies, occultists, covens, esoteric groups, channelers, “the UFO community,” on-line “masters,” various spiritual predators, etc. Fortunes are often made by these practitioners through their appeal to people’s fascination with the mysterious and the unknown, thereby taking advantage of our genuine need for companionship and reliable guidance.

Cheats and swindlers abound in these fields, including many, it is said, who are themselves deceived by demonic entities that inhabit the twilight spheres. The internet is an apt vehicle for all this.

Then there is the world of alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution, pornography, loan sharking, money laundering and other deviant pastimes intended to captivate souls. There does in fact appear to be a powerful Satanic presence on planet Earth that utilizes these things for its purposes.

One of these purposes may be to waylay or even destroy souls that are seeking to escape the downward pull of planetary life through their spiritual striving. All who are serious about their spirituality recognize the power of such allurement, as well as the temptations of fame, power, and greed.

The Satanic forces are aided by their human minions who make billions of dollars off their fellow beings by corrupting and destroying them. These minions pay a heavy price, of course, for the benefits received.

It would be nonsense to claim that such deviance does not have a political role. Hitler and the Nazis were occultists. It has been acknowledged by the CIA Office of Inspector General that the spy agency is involved in international drug dealing. Profits are widely believed to fuel the “black budget” used to overthrow foreign governments, etc.

One of the kingpins who was key in financing Donald Trump’s successful 2016 presidential bid, thereby contributing to the upright goals of the Christian evangelicals (!), was a Las Vegas casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson. Among the most important early financiers of Israel was the American organized crime figure, Meyer Lansky.

This is not to say, of course, that religious institutions that appear on the surface to be legitimate are not corrupted as well. Sometimes such corruption breaks the surface, as with the scandal involving widespread pederasty among the Catholic priesthood. When asked about corruption in the Papal Curia, Pope Francis reportedly said:

“And, yes…it is difficult. In the Curia, there are also holy people, really, there are holy people. But there also is a stream of corruption, there is that as well, it is true….The ‘gay lobby’ is mentioned, and it is true, it is there….We need to see what we can do…”

But the existence of evil in the world does not necessarily support the perspective presented by the Book of Revelation that has been used over millenniums to justify attacks by the orthodox on dissenters. It was the Christian churches that exploited the “good vs. evil” paradigm it inherited from the Roman Empire, with those who are “good” going to “heaven” and the “evil” going to “hell.”

As Elaine Pagels describes in her book previously mentioned, this attitude actually was formed in a very short time during the formation of what became the Catholic Church in the 4th century C.E., when Christianity became the Roman Empire’s official religion. (Ibid, p.133ff) As noted earlier, the Book of Revelation then became the club the Church used to bludgeon people who fell outside the structure of diocesan religion headed by bishops, priests, and deacons. For them, ordination assured a salary, state approval, security, and status.

Gradually, the clergy became a celibate cadre of professionals who held the “Keys to the Kingdom.” Scripture, often ambiguous in meaning, was used—possibly even forged—to prop up the system.

The good vs. evil mythology has continued ever since to support wars, crusades, genocides, inquisitions, pogroms, witchcraft trials, “clashes of civilization,” etc.

The same mentality continues today as the U.S. fights much of the world to uphold its self-image—and privileges—as the “exceptional nation.” It’s part of the same self-centered delusion. Meanwhile, the real sources of evil slip through the net of discernment.

The brand of organized Christianity that developed through history as the handmaiden of the imperial state was based on an “us vs. them” psychology. The “us” would be saved; the “them” condemned.

It’s really the psychology of the wolf-pack—the destruction by the strong of the weak. Social Darwinism has played into this mentality.

The Protestant Reformation was intended at first to correct this twist by allowing every believer to be a “priest” in studying and applying the teachings of Jesus. But the Protestants were never able to complete their revolution. They were taken over by the rise and dominance of the European nation-state.

Protestants too fell in line with the power of the imperial establishment, eventually becoming the evangelicals of today. Jesus, the mediator of love for all, cannot be blamed for this.

Of course the European nation-state gave way to the might of the U.S. through two world wars and countless smaller ones. We might note the strange resemblance between the power and privileges of the Christian clergy, at least up until recent times, to today’s military hierarchy. Both are afforded an adoration verging on worship.

Both are intensely conservative. Both also have as their objective control—of human populations and of resources.

Both aim to preserve the wealth and power of societal elites. Both give lip service to religious values.

Both have depended for their livelihood on demonization of an enemy—heretics for the churchmen, “terrorists” and Russians for those in uniform today. It’s even more uncanny that both derive at least some of their justification from The Book of Revelation, with today’s evangelicals bridging the gap of almost two thousand years.

The fact that both are outdated is shown by their total inability to bring humanity back from today’s brink of self-annihilation. Something new, different, unique, and positive is needed.

Listening to the Germans

While the foregoing provides enough material about the present status of spirituality in the U.S. to make the necessary points, the same also applies to what may be found in Europe, as well as Australia and New Zealand. There is one big difference in that the clergy of mainstream churches in some countries are paid a salary by the government. This may keep a church in operation, even though it may have little active congregation.

Not that such support is inappropriate. Many European churches, for instance, are very old and integral parts of a nation’s cultural heritage. They can and should be preserved, including their traditional liturgy for those who want and need it. Nevertheless, in countries with a state-supported church, taxpayers can usually opt out by declaring that they do not have a religious affiliation.

As in the U.S., most churches in Europe today are searching for a mission. In both England and Ireland, we see a search for the spirituality of the past going back to Celtic or Druid days. Europe, including Russia, is also host to a huge diversity of spiritual paths, including those from indigenous Eastern religions. Also within Russia can be found a profound revival of the Orthodox Church.

But Europe has something the U.S. and the other English-speaking nations lack; namely, a deep familiarity with the cultural accomplishments of the Germans, including those of the German-speaking Austrians and Swiss.

We are familiar with parts of this tradition. We appreciate the heritage of the great German composers, especially Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. In philosophy we have a passing acquaintance with Kant and Hegel. We have heard of Goethe. We know that modern psychology was pioneered by German-speaking practitioners like Freud and Jung.

We are handicapped by an anti-German prejudice left over from the two world wars. Another handicap is American ethnocentrism that prevents us from learning foreign languages. This is caused by a combination of factors: national pride, the size and relative isolation of the U.S. from other parts of the world, and plain laziness.

But to truly plumb the depths of what the German world has to say to us today, we must humble ourselves and dig deeper. If we do so, we sooner or later will end up at the doorstep of Karl Barth. Standing near him is the martyr of World War II, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Karl Barth: 20th Century Prophet

First, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945), who died too young, executed by the Nazis even as the Americans were fighting their way into Germany at the end of World War II. Bonhoeffer was hanged for his association with the army plots to assassinate Hitler. Much of his relatively slender body of work is available in English translation, including the poignantly-titled The Cost of Discipleship.

When Bonhoeffer came to the U.S. as a young man to study for a couple of semesters at the Union Theological Seminary in New York, he found the lectures boring because they mainly aimed at preparing students for holding jobs as church pastors.

This led to shallowness and complacency in the teaching. Nor could Bonhoeffer abide the fundamentalism and racism he found when traveling to the American South.

So he ended up spending much of his time at the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem presided over by Rev. Adam Clayton Powell, Sr. He said the blacks were the only ones he found in America with enthusiastic devotion, and for the rest of his short life he continued to play and sing their music—he was a pianist—among his students back in Germany.

But it is Karl Barth (1886-1968) to which I wish to devote most of the rest of this essay. Barth’s is a name many have heard spoken, but few know what he actually said and how that is relevant today. He became world-famous after World War II, making the cover of Time in 1962, when he traveled to lecture to large audiences in the U.S.

But time was not kind to Barth. He was not easy to understand, though contemporaries compared him to such figures as St. Augustine, St. Thomas of Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. His writings were studied by Catholics and Protestants alike, as a small library of commentaries appeared.

But today the English translations of most of his books are not even in print. Copies of his magnum opus, the fourteen-volume Church Dogmatics (a forbidding name!) are almost impossible to locate, and even so, may cost hundreds of dollars for a used edition.

The German Protestant theologians were tough-minded thinkers. They started the “historical Jesus” movement and rejected notions they thought were borrowed from Greek mythology like the Virgin Birth. Many rejected infant baptism or argued against a physical resurrection of Jesus’s human body.

Like their forebears Luther and Calvin, Protestants rejected the idea of a celibate clergy, so their clergy married and raised families. The Protestants also viewed monasticism as unnatural and running away from life. Many of them also took seriously Jesus’s affections for the poor and downtrodden.

In his first assignment as a pastor in Safenwil, Switzerland, the young Karl Barth spent so much time helping the workers in his congregation organize a trade union that he was called “Comrade Pastor.” This earned him the ire of local industrialists who thought a clergyman should help the riff-raff happily keep quiet. Later Barth joined the Social Democratic Party.

In December 1911, at the age of 25, Barth published an article in the socialist daily Free Aargau that defined his views of the relationship between social justice and Christianity to which he would adhere for his entire life. The article was explained decades later by his biographer, Eberhard Busch:

“In it, Barth drew a contrast between the church, which for 1800 years had failed to deal with social needs, and Jesus Christ as the partisan of the poor, for whom there had been ‘only one God, in solidarity with society,’ and according to whom one ‘has to be a comrade to be a man at all.’ True socialism was the true Christianity for our time. However, true socialism was not what the socialists were doing but what Jesus was doing. This was also the socialists’ ultimate aim, but only their aim.

“Barth did not say all this in order to win the workers to the church. How could he? ‘Jesus is not the church’; indeed, with its ‘pie in the sky’ attitude towards material needs, the church was opposed to Jesus Christ.

“Barth spoke as he did, rather, because he believed that the Kingdom of God was close to the poor and that Jesus identified himself with them. In this sense, ‘the real significance of the person of Jesus can be summed up in the two words ‘”social movement.”’ Therefore, ‘the spirit which counts before God is the social spirit.’” (Eberhard Busch, Karl Barth: His Life from Letters and Autobiographical Texts, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1994, p.70)

At a time when mankind had fallen in love with his own image, following on the Enlightenment and the triumphs of the Industrial Revolution, Karl Barth, of a lineage of Swiss Reformed theologians and growing up in small Swiss city of Basle with its palpable medieval heritage, saw humanity instead as a community of down-to-earth people striving to live by faith, but always susceptible to failings of character and intent.

While some theologians were tearing down the mythology the churches had always attached to the person of Jesus and seeking through liberalism and humanitarianism to find a way to have human goodness without qualification or sacrifice, Barth felt deeply the inability of people to live decent and humble lives without the revelation from God the Father that came through his Son Jesus Christ.

For Barth, the parable of the prodigal son was central to an understanding of how far unredeemed humanity could stray from the true meaning of life. He took seriously the idea that a Christian life began with the baptism of repentance as taught in the pages of the New Testament and saw as its central image the suffering of Jesus on the cross, followed by his death and spiritual resurrection.

Barth’s journey brought him eventually to a theology based on the Word of God as taught in the Bible and given to mankind through grace. His departure from the newfangled and modernistic doctrines that departed from this vision led him to a lifelong work referred to today as “neo-orthodox.”

His teachings were also called “Christocentric,” in that theologians were not called upon to give their own interpretations but to make accessible to contemporary humanity what Jesus was really saying. Notably, he did not include any of the “millennial” teachings based on The Book of Revelation in his ministry.

As indicated in his views on social justice, Barth viewed Jesus as having special care for those broken in life and needful of compassion. At the height of his fame, and upon his mandatory retirement from teaching at age 70, he spent a significant part of his time ministering to men and women in prison.

He didn’t just preach there; he also spent time with individuals in their prison cells, getting to know them, and seeing the light of goodness in their hearts, minds, and souls.

Barth’s attitude saw special meaning in the horror of World War I and the complete destruction of human pride, especially in Europe, by the useless sacrifice of millions of young men in the trenches and on the battlefields of both the Western and Eastern fronts. Following that war, the demoralization of humanity was complete, with a Germany seething in anger at the punitive measures adopted by the Allies at Versailles.

After the war, Barth became known for his book on The Epistle to the Romans. Here was a theologian who actually believed what the Gospels said, without promulgating his own subjective interpretations to suit the church politics of the day.

Barth first published his book on The Epistle to the Romans when he was only 32 years old. It was significant that he found the heart of Jesus’s teaching in the presence of God manifested through the interaction between the Apostle Paul and the early Roman Christian congregation.

Paul wrote the Epistle sometime between 55-58 CE. This was long before a formal church with bishops, priests, deacons, dioceses, and a formally-approved canon of approved scriptures even existed.

Accordingly, Barth was not writing about the churches. In The Epistle to the Romans, he spoke of “the criminal arrogance of religion,” as opposed to “that final apprehension of truth which lies beyond birth and death—the perception, in other words, which proceeds from God outwards.” (Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, Translated from the Sixth Edition by Edwyn C. Hoskyns, Oxford University Press, 1933/1968, p.37)

Barth’s book became a best-seller and radically altered the course of theology in the German-speaking world. He was not attempting to destroy organized religion, but to get it to change.

After a time, he was called to teach at Bonn University in Germany. While there he saw the rise of Nazism first-hand and was appalled. The elevation of the German state and later of Hitler as Führer to semi-divine status was, to Barth, in direct contradiction to the First Commandment: “I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20: 1-3)

When the German churches fell in line behind a Nazi-ordered dictate to make religion a branch of the almighty German Reich, Barth was instrumental in organizing a counter-movement called the Confessional Church. In a statement written by Barth, Jesus Christ was affirmed as the sole head of the German Protestant religious establishment.

In 1935, after Barth was dismissed from his post in Bonn by the Nazi regime, he was accompanied on a train out of the country by the Gestapo. Barth was not the first, nor the last, to be persecuted by government for “whistleblowing.” He returned to Basle, where he taught at the university for over two decades.

It was then he wrote Church Dogmatics as guidance and instruction to the Protestant ministry, along with many shorter books, sermons, addresses to meetings and conventions, and an enormous private correspondence.Church Dogmatics eventually reached 14 volumes, though Barth viewed it as unfinished.

Barth knew everyone of spiritual stature in Europe and welcomed students and visitors from around the world, including the U.S., India, and Japan. He was also read and studied by Catholic scholars and was invited as an observer to Vatican II, though he declined to attend for health reasons.

But he was not always popular, especially with the press, with both church liberals and conservatives, and with many political authorities. After World War II he encouraged the churches to reach out and minister to the defeated Germans, including ex-Nazis, and he refused to take a stand against communism, sometimes traveling behind the Iron Curtain and helping ministers who were in trouble with state authorities.

Barth took a public position firmly against atomic weapons, as well as any preparations for atomic war. He considered even the existence of these weapons a sin against God and urged their abandonment by Western governments, even unilaterally.

He opposed any hint of rearmament in Germany as well as any movement toward militarization in Switzerland. But he was not a doctrinaire pacifist. He believed in the right of self-defense and carried a rifle during World War II as part of the home reserve.

He also opposed the literalism of Biblical fundamentalists and the vehemence of evangelism, even though the German Lutherans also called themselves “evangelical.” Barth had some harsh words for Billy Graham, who came to preach in Switzerland in 1960. He wrote:

“He acted like a madman, and what he presented was certainly not the gospel. It was the gospel at gunpoint. He preached the law, not a message to make one happy. He wanted to terrify people. Threats—they always make an impression. People would much rather be terrified than be pleased. The more one heats up hell for them, the more they come running.”

The gospel, wrote Barth, is not an “article for sale.…We must leave the good God freedom to do his own work.” (Eberhard Busch, op.cit., p.446)

Barth addressed the idea of “sin” differently from most. This concept is perhaps the chief stumbling block for people faced with the stance of most Christian churches in the West.

People have been berated, preached at, made to feel guilty, threatened with damnation, and even burned at the stake for their “sins.” Jesus’s saying to “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is thus ignored.

Catholics and Protestants alike have “cast the first stone,” with many people leaving the churches as a result, while viewing church authorities, often concealing their own peccadilloes, as hypocrites. This led Barth to conclude that many churches are not Christian at all. Some churches he saw as “dead,” while others as anti-Christian.

Condemnation of suffering humanity as an attitude was foreign to Barth. He chose instead to view sin as error, often, if not always, resulting from ignorance, immaturity, or illness. He equated sin with “stupidity.”

For Barth the three primary “sins” that separate us from God are “arrogance, sloth, and lies.” He wrote, however, that “Christian ethics cannot itself give commands, but only guidance on the right way to put the question, ‘What shall I do?’, so as to hear God’s answer readily and openly.” (Ibid, p.443)

In other words, Barth did not abandon or water down the central teachings of Jesus, but he focused on Christ as a person, “appointed” as the Son of God, who gave up his earthly life in order to show people that there were higher values than physical existence and that once it ended here on Earth, life still went on. Jesus was living proof of the immortality of not just the soul, but of the human person.

In our time, this insight has been strongly affirmed by the testimony of the many people undergoing near-death experiences who returned with messages about the continuation of life on the “other side,” and about the love emanating from the spiritual beings they have met, including, at times, a figure sometimes referred to as Jesus Christ himself.

If you want to know what Karl Barth was talking about, first read the Gospels carefully, especially the Sermon on the Mount. But I would suggest you read them with joy and gratitude for what has been made available to us as individuals and a community. We can try to see how they might be applied in our daily lives, not as a club to beat up others with.

The goal, as Barth wrote about at length in Church Dogmatics, is reconciliation between man and God. God always takes the initiative in this, though man must seek help and then cooperate when it comes. It was Jesus on the cross that made—and makes today—reconciliation possible.

We can now return to the opening theme of the crisis in human affairs that threatens annihilation but may also mark the end of an era and the start of the next. Karl Barth was a prophet of the next stage of human development.

But he said, and this is important, that Christianity “is not a religion.” By that he seemed to be referring to all the paraphernalia of religion, including services, structures, organizations, and the blasphemous worship of the state. Barth said there “may be a religious West, but there is not a Christian West: there is only Western man confronted with Jesus Christ.” (Ibid, p.468)

So for Barth, what life is about is the resurrection of the individual. “…The experience of salvation is what happened on Golgotha.” (Ibid, p.447)

What makes this possible while we are alive on Earth is a spiritual energy that can reach us within our own consciousness. This energy Barth associated with the Holy Spirit. He said that a person “can have the experience of God’s spirit come on him and over him.” (Ibid, p.456)

Decline of Religion

Meanwhile, church membership in Europe has plummeted far more than in the U.S. Barth was aware this would happen. He even foresaw a time when followers of Jesus would meet in small groups. This decline includes Germany, in spite of the fact that Germany’s ruling coalition under Chancellor Angela Merkel is headed by the party that calls itself the Christian Democratic Union.

The traditional strongholds of the CDU are in Catholic regions of Germany to the west and south, including, in particular, Bavaria. There, an independent Christian Social Union exists parallel to the national CDU.

But even in Germany, the prevailing post-World War II cultural affinity to a resurgent traditional Christianity is fading as society changes. A 2013 article entitled “Germany’s Great Church Selloff,” in Spiegel Online said, “Dwindling church attendance and dire financial straits are forcing the Catholic and Protestant Churches in Germany to sell off church buildings en masse. Some are demolished, while others are turned into restaurants or indoor rock climbing centers.

My own sense is that people today are so distracted by the spectacle and busyness of life they have lost acquaintance with the world of the heart, soul, and spirit that lies within A major factor that numbs consciousness is the obsession with media fare, whether it be on a computer (iPad, iPhone, laptop, tablet, Kindle, etc.), in front of a TV, or at a movie or a loud concert, or some other dream activity or event.

It is as though a spell has been cast on humanity, as in the fairy tale “Sleeping Beauty.” The sleep is a fitful one, of course. More often than not, it is a nightmare. Each of us inhabits his or her own nightmare, though they often overlap or coincide.

No one knows what will happen to the world and humanity over the decades to come. Of course we hope that sin, a.k.a. “stupidity,” will not play itself out to its seemingly logical conclusion of a worldwide nuclear war.

To see leaders of the U.S. and some other nations flirting with such a possibility is appalling. To see religious leaders falling in behind such political figures can only be viewed with astonishment—and disgust.

A greater betrayal of real spirituality cannot be imagined. What are they thinking?

What must be changed is the fundamental idea that “goodness”—defined, of course, by the power structure—can only be brought about by force through the might of the totalitarian state acting as God’s agent on Earth. This idea is destroying humanity and the planet.

Spirituality for the Future: The Teachings of Bô Yin Râ

Let us hope that out of the darkness a new day may dawn. I believe this could happen, especially for those who care to investigate the possibilities voiced by another German who began speaking in the early 20th century.

Few people outside of Germany have heard of the spiritual master Bô Yin Râ, who was a little older than Karl Barth. He was born near Frankfurt, Germany, in 1876, and passed away in Massagno/Lugano, Switzerland, in 1943.

His birth name was Joseph Anton Schneiderfranken. Bô Yin Râ was a name he received from his spiritual mentor whom he discusses in his work, The Book of Dialogues. 

By profession, Schneiderfranken was a talented landscape painter. As a spiritual guide, he had thousands of students in the German-speaking world. Some readers may have heard his name in association with Eckhart Tolle, who was inspired by the writings of Bô Yin Râ while a young man.

To conclude this essay, I will quote verbatim from a review on Amazon.com of Bô Yin Râ’s book, Bô Yin Râ: An Introduction to His Works. The review is by someone named “Richard Montana”:

“The man who was perhaps the most important spiritual master in the West during the 20th century is almost unknown to English-speaking readers. He was a German artist and author whose spiritual name was Bô Yin Râ. (Birth name Joseph Anton Schneiderfranken, 1876-1943.)    “For the last 20 years of his life he resided with his family in Switzerland. During his lifetime he published a 32-volume compendium of spiritual books that he termedHortus Conclusus, meaning, in his words, a ‘self-protecting enclosed garden.’
“In the latter part of the 19th century, starting with the Theosophical Movement, rumors had begun to circulate in the West that somewhere in the heart of Asia was a high spiritual center that was the source and overseer of all planetary spirituality. Bô Yin Râ confirms the existence of such a center and identifies himself as its authorized representative in bringing true information about its teachings to light.

“In 1976 the Kober Press of Berkeley, CA, began to publish translations in English of books in the Hortus Conclusus cycle. The result is an astonishing unfoldment of deep and authentic spiritual guidance that, in my experience, has no parallel, including the publications in English from other schools and centers that claim to possess hidden knowledge.
“What is unique about Bô Yin Râ is the clarity and force of his expositions that not only explain spiritual ideas but also show clearly how they may be put into practice in life-changing ways. The volume Bô Yin Râ: An Introduction to His Works is an invaluable companion to the much larger body of work, with the added benefit of containing commentaries on his life and work by the master himself.

“Among the many topics covered are the awakening of an individual’s spiritual senses, making contact with helpers from the spiritual world, and how he himself acquired his spiritual experience and decided to make his teachings public, despite his natural inclination to remain silent.
“Bô Yin Râ also includes in his body of work detailed information about the life and mission of Jesus of Nazareth, whom he describes as an authorized Luminary from the planetary center. While the life and teachings of Jesus (known as Jeshua during his lifetime) were utilized to construct the religion we know as Christianity, deeper meaning on individual spiritual transformation is available.

“For instance, Volume 11 of Hortus Conclusus, entitled The Wisdom of St. John, has chapters on ‘The Authentic Teaching’ and related topics that will prove highly practical for seekers who wish to delve beyond the explanations found in religious creeds. I am grateful to the Kober Press for their work in opening Bô Yin Râ’s work to English-speaking readers and am looking forward to more volumes appearing in the months and years ahead.”

I would only add to this review Bô Yin Râ’s indications that, if a person is satisfied with the simple faith of his or her inherited religion, there is no need to read his books. For the rest of us, including the “lost,” the case may be different. These are the ones he was trying to help.

Today, we in the West are indeed “lost.” But in his book On Prayer, Bô Yin Râ explains the meaning of Jesus’s advice: “Seek, and ye shall find.” This is advice well worth investigating.

*

Richard C. Cook is a retired federal government analyst. He is author of “Challenger Revealed: How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age,” along with “We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform,” and numerous print and internet articles on public policy issues. Mr. Cook may be reached at [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Religion and Geopolitical Strife Helped Create the World Crisis; Spirituality Shows the Way Out

Florida’s Senate Race: Does It Matter?

May 5th, 2018 by Renee Parsons

In recognition that the two party system is little more than an innocuous venue for the election of empty vessels on both sides of the political spectrum, the 2018 Senate race in Florida is one such prime example.

Florida print media, in an effort to build readership, has referred to the race as the “clash of the titans” which may, in reality, be more like a contest against the Mouse that Roared as hackneyed 75 year old  incumbent Sen. Bill Nelson (D) is being challenged by the intransigent 64 year old Gov. Rick Scott (R), both of whom continue to accept Big Sugar campaign money and are perfunctory supporters of Israel.

Until recently, the Florida Senate race has been a safe bet for the Democrats to retain their Senate seat until Scott announced his candidacy in early April labeling himself  an ‘outsider’ and Nelson a “career politician”.

What makes this race one to watch, besides the obvious implications on the balance of power in the Senate, is whether Florida voters are so self-satisfied to re-elect Nelson as an old guard, “moderate milquetoast” establishmentarian  or whether Scott’s avoidance of criminal prosecution will still matter two decades later  or whether thousands of newly-arrived emigrants from Hurricane Maria will register to vote; thus perhaps permanently altering Florida’s voting demographic.

Despite what might appear to be radical differences between the candidates in style, personality or occasional social policy, those differences are worth little comparative attention given that the most critical, vital issue of foreign/military policy, the cutting-edge issue of our time, continues to spiral out of control; especially as that policy relates to the Middle East and Israel.

The Nelson-Scott match up is, upon closer examination, little more substantive than peas in a pod or birds of a feather who will flock together just as the unlikely duo of Sen. Marco Rubio (Fl-R) and Nelson have established a level of curious camaraderie.

A bona fide son of Florida whose family settled the Panhandle in 1826 and a past president of the International Kiwanis (1959-1960), Sen. Nelson  has followed a political career having been elected to the Florida State Legislature (1972-1979) followed by six terms in the House of Representatives (1979-1991), then elected as Florida State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner (1994-2000) and finally to the US Senate in 2001 where he currently serves.  A graduate of Yale University and member of its “Book and Snake” society and the University of Virginia’s School of Law, Nelson joined the US Army Reserve in 1965 as the Vietnam War escalated and retired in 1971 as Captain.

In 2009, while the Affordable Care Act was being debated in Congress, Nelson attended the Democratic Party’s Nominating Convention.   As Nelson took the stage to speak, the assembled delegates rose from their seats in unison with one passionate voice chanting “Public Option, Public Option” until Nelson, with no words of support, fled the stage to a safe space.   No doubt a long forgotten incident, Nelson will now need those same Democrats to keep his Senate seat.

While early polls suggest a Nelson-Scott tie with Nelson at 51% approval rating and Scott at 58% approval, Nelson has had the good fortune to run against a bevy of significantly lackluster Republican candidates than Nelson himself who attributes his electoral successes to ‘I assume nothing.  I run scared like a jackrabbit.”  In facing his most formidable opponent since 1972, Nelson will need every jackrabbit advantage he can muster.

By 2010, as Scott was gearing up to run for governor, many Floridians were already familiar with his name as GW Bush’s co-owner of the Texas Rangers and as CEO of a company under Federal investigation for the largest Medicare fraud case in history.   A political novice before his 2010 election, the aggressive Scott has proven to be a master at eking out two state-wide  election wins with a 1% margin, both against conventional  Democrats like Nelson.

In 1987, venture capitalist Scott began buying and merging hospitals across the country into what became Columbia/HCA as his publicly traded company grew to the nation’s largest health care chain including more than 340 hospitals, 135 surgery centers and 550 home health locations in 37 states and two foreign countries.

With insider whistleblower assistance in 1997, the Federal government raided Columbia’s offices and hospitals and four months after the investigation became public,CEO Scott was forced to resign.   The company was charged with “systemic fraud”by padding Medicare/Medicaid bills, charging for tests not ordered and procedures not conducted, falsifying diagnoses to increase hospital reimbursements and kickbacks to doctors.   Four Columbia executives were indicated, the company was charged with fourteen felonies, plead guilty to three conspiracy fraud charges and paid $1.7 billion in fines.

By July, 2000, Scott invoked his Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination by refusing to answer seventy five questions during a deposition hearing on a related civil case.  In the aftermath, a former FBI agent voiced regret that criminal charges were not pursued against Scott who was never questioned by a grand jury nor ever personally contacted by Federal investigators.   Scott left Columbia with a$10 million severance payout and $350 M in stock and options.    His net worth as of December, 2016 is estimated at $149 Million and spent $88 Million on his two gubernatorial races.

As the country’s third largest state with a population of 20.4 million, the increase of Puerto Rican emigrants after Hurricane Maria may dramatically alter the state’s voting patterns just in time for the 2018 election.  The 2000-2010 Census tallied the Puerto Rican population at 847,000 while the current total island population in Florida reached 1.06M by 2016.  The Demographic Estimating Conference estimated in December, 2017 that at least 53,000 evacuees arrived from Puerto Rico at Relief Centers throughout the state immediately after Maria.  Enough new voters to decide an election, Nelson has been quick to suggest that newly arrived evacuees immediately register to vote thereby increasing his own election odds.

Enter Florida’s junior Sen. Marco Rubio (Fl-R) who told state wide media recently that he would not campaign against Nelson stating that “I could not ask for a better partner.”  Rubio has, however, reconsidered his earlier purge of Scott saying that  “I want to be in the majority.  I want to be Chair of the Small Business Committee and then Chair of Intelligence or Foreign Relations after that.”   A former Rubio staffer explained that during the 2016 campaign “Nelson never campaigned against Marco…there was a moment when (Dem candidate former Rep. Patrick Murphy) Murphy made some unfair attack on Marco and Nelson came to our defense.”

So what can be attributed to this unusual level of solidarity between a staid Dem and an ambitious Republican and how will Rubio will tread the fine partisan line?

One perspective may be found in the US Federal Election Commission data of PACs and individual donations over $200 as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics.   According to the CRP’s Top 20 list of Pro-Israel PAC recipients, Nelson received a minimum total of $662,901 beginning with his 2000 Senate campaign in which he received $110,370 with donations in 2006 of $324,141 and another in 2012 for $228,450.  These numbers reflect Nelson’s donations to include him in the CRP’s list of “Top 20” recipients of Pro Israel Pac money and do not identify other monies from Pro Israel PAC’s that were not large enough to qualify as a Top 20 recipient.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl) was elected in 2010 and became The Top 20 Senate recipient in 2016 of Pro-Israel money with $468,307, according to the CRP.

Although Scott’s Pro-Israel campaign donations as Governor have not yet been tracked, the recent announcement of his third trip to Israel to attend the May 14th dedication of the US Embassy’s move to Jerusalem is indicative of Scott’s priority in wooing the state’s powerful block of Jewish voters.   In affirming support for Israel on a 2017 trip while lobbying for Israel start-ups to join a Florida high tech accelerator project,  Scott affirmed that ‘it is important that our Embassy is moved to Jerusalem.  We should do whatever we can to constantly support Israel.  They are a great ally to the US.”

It may be assumed that Nelson and Rubio have already signed their loyalty oath to Israel and that if Scott has not yet done so, he will in the near future.

*

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Florida’s Senate Race: Does It Matter?

Environmental campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason has just written to the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, Vice President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans and Health Commissioner Vytenis Andruikaitis. As set out below, she asks these top officials some very pertinent questions about the EU’s collusion with the agrochemical corporations. 

1) In authorising glyphosate on behalf of the Glyphosate Task Force led by Monsanto, why did President Juncker fail to state the European Chemicals Agency’ (ECHA) risk assessment in full?

2) Why did the EU collude with corporations that made nerve gases in WW2 for chemical warfare and for use in the Nazi concentration camps? These firms continued to use similar chemicals in agriculture to poison ‘pests’, beneficial insects, birds and people.

3) Could it be that is it is because biocides regulations in the EU are merely designed to make corporations money and are ultimately controlled by the agrochemical industry?

4) Why did Monsanto, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the ECHA and the industry-funded UK Science Media Centre suppress the paper by Gilles-Eric Seralini of the two-year rat feeding study of GM crops and Roundup that produced organ damage and tumours at four months?

5) Do the commissioners know that Cancer Research UK was hijacked by the Agrochemical Industry in 2010 with the full knowledge of the UK government? Michael Pragnell, former Chairman of Cancer Research UK (CRUK), was founder of Syngenta and former chairman of industry lobby group CropLife International. The CRUK website says that there is no convincing evidence that pesticides cause cancer. Instead, CRUK links cancer to life style choices and individual behaviour and blames alcohol use, obesity and smoking.

6) Why did the EU regulators and David Cameron, on behalf of the British government, ignore the Letter from America in 2014 from nearly 60 million citizens, warning you not to authorise GM crops and Roundup because of their toxicity to human health and the environment?

7) Where have all the insects and birds gone as a result of intensive chemical agriculture? The UK, Germany, France, Denmark and Canada are rapidly losing biodiversity. US farmland growing GM Roundup Ready crops has become a biological desert.

8) Did Monsanto and President Juncker conceal the ECHA harmonised classification of glyphosate as “toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects” because it would explain the accelerating deterioration of coral in the Great Barrier Reef?

Mason concludes her letter by reiterating the damning advisory opinion of the International Monsanto Tribunal delivered in 2017. She also sent the commissioners a recent letter signed by 23 prominent organisations criticising the EU’s decision to renew the license for glyphosate and outlining Monsanto’s undue influence over decision making.

Along with her letter, Mason also sent a 22-page document containing detailed information on:

  • The European Commission’s flawed renewal of the license for glyphosate
  • The causes of decline in coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef
  • European legislation existing for the benefit of the agrochemical industry
  • Contamination by glyphosate and neonicotinoid insecticides causing dramatic declines in insects and birds
  • Glyphosate being present everywhere
  • The International Monsanto Tribunal and various alarming reports on pesticides, their use and impacts

To date, there has been no response from the commissioners to Mason.

In 2003, the World Wide Fund for Nature (UK) concluded that every person it tested across the UK was contaminated by a cocktail of highly toxic chemicals, which were banned from use during the 1970s. Over the years, Mason has cited a range of sources to show the harmful impact of pesticides and that the amount and range of pesticide residues on British food is increasing annually. She also notes a massive rise in the use of glyphosate between 2012 and 2014 alone.

In her many detailed documents and letters (which contains her own views on all the questions she poses above to the commissioners) she has sent to officials over the years, Mason offers sufficient evidence to show that the financial and political clout of a group of powerful agrochemical/agribusiness corporations ensure that its interests are privileged ahead of public health and the environment to the detriment of both. Mason has gone to great lengths to describe the political links between industry and various government departments, regulatory agencies and key committees that have effectively ensured that ‘business as usual’ prevails.

The corporations which promote industrial agriculture and the agrochemicals Mason campaigns against have embedded themselves deeply within the policy-making machinery at both national and international levels. From the flawed narrative that industrial agriculture is necessary to feed the world to providing lavish research grants and the capture of important policy-making institutions, global agribusiness has secured a bogus ‘thick legitimacy’ within policymakers’ mindsets and mainstream discourse.

By referring to the Monsanto Tribunal, Mason implies that governments, individuals and civil groups that collude with corporations to facilitate ecocide and human rights abuses resulting from the actions of global agribusiness corporations should be hauled into court. Perhaps it is only when officials and company executives are given lengthy jail sentences for destroying health and the environment that some change will begin to happen.

From Rachel Carson onward, the attempt to roll back the power of these corporations and their massively funded lobby groups has had limited success. Some 34,000 agrochemicals remain on the market in the US, many of which are there due to weak regulatory standards or outright fraud, and from Argentina to Indonesia, the devastating impact of the industrial chemical-dependent model of food and agriculture on health and the environment has been documented by various reports and writers at length.

What is worrying is that these corporations are being facilitated by the World Bank’s ‘enabling the business of agriculture’, duplicitous trade deals like the US-India Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, the Gates Foundation’s ‘opening up’ of African agriculture and the bypassing of democratic procedures at sovereign state levels to impose seed monopolies and proprietary inputs on farmers and to incorporate them into a global supply chain dominated by these powerful companies.

For the reasons set out in my previous piece, pleading with public officials to roll back the actions and influence of agrochemical/agribusiness corporations may have no more impact than appealing to a slave master to set you free.

Ultimately, the solution relies on people coming together to challenge a system of neoliberal capitalism that by design facilitates the institutionalised corruption that we see along with the destruction of self-sufficiency and traditional food systems. At the same time, alternatives must be promoted based on localisation, the principles of a politically-oriented model of agroecology (outlined herehere and here) and a food system that serves the public good not private greed.

*

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

Report by Wol-san Liem

After a hassle with cancelled flights, a US Labor Against the War delegation arrived in Seoul May 1. They will spend a week in Korea showing solidarity for Korean workers and peace-loving people’s fight for peace and unification and to imprisoned labor leaders and discussing steps for collective action to end US militarism in East Asia with their Korean counter parts. On Tuesday, they participated in the Korean Confederation of Trade Union’s (KCTU) International Workers Day (May Day) rally and march. Korean workers are welcoming the improvement in North-South relations following the inter-Korea summit on April 27. They are calling for a peace treaty and other real measures to ensure a lasting peace ahead of the U.S.-North Korean summit. They are also clear that they want the new era of peace to be accompanied by greater rights and equality for workers and ordinary people. To this end the May Day rally focused on the KCTU’s demands for reform of the chaebol-centered economic system, eradication of precarious work, and amendment of the Constitution and labour law to expand workers’ rights. The rally also highlighted the labor movement’s work for peace and unification, including exchange with North Korean workers, and efforts to bring the #MeToo movement to the workplace.

Report by Jason Roe

Standing in front of the US Embassy in Seoul, South Korea, workers from Korea and the United States of America held a joint press conference demanding the US end its interventionist policies and work toward a path to peace on the Korean Peninsula. Among their demands is that the US military stop the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system in South Korea, an extension of Cold War era policies. Speakers were affiliated with the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) and a delegation of American workers, students, and organizers lead by US Labor Against the War (USLAW).

(Source: U.S. Labor Against the War)

“As a grandchild of someone who fought in the Korean War, I understand my role in what we’ve done to your country,” said Elandria Williams of People’s Hub.

“We are calling on the US government to rise up to this occasion and opportunity for peace and end its historic role in the world as a force for evil, oppression, and colonization,” said Aaron Goggans, a member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).

“It is an opportunity for the people in the United States to discuss our own transition from a military economy and towards a peaceful, just, and sustainable economy,” said Michael Leon Guerrero, Executive Director of Labor Network for Sustainability.

The May 3rd event comes days after the April 27th Inter-Korean Summit where South Korean President Moon Jae-in, and Chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea Kim Jong-un met. This was the first meeting of Korean heads of state on the divided peninsula in 11 years. US foreign policy has an integral role in achieving a lasting peace in Korea.

*

Wol-san Liem is Director of international and Korean Peninsula affairs, KCTU-Korean Public Service and Transport Workers Union (KPTU)

Jason Roe is a member of the U.S. Labor Against the War Solidarity Delegation to Korea.

All images in this article are from the authors.

Respondents indicated widespread dissatisfaction with the quantity and quality of mainstream news coverage and highlighted a desire for more investigative reporting and scrutiny of the aid sector itself.

The in-depth survey was conducted before the widely reported Oxfam UK sexual misconduct scandal by Dr Martin Scott, a senior lecturer in media and international development at the University of East Anglia (UEA), and humanitarian news agency IRIN News.

It investigated how people working or interested in the humanitarian aid sector view global media coverage of humanitarian issues. Does the coverage do justice to critical issues? Does it include sufficient field reporting and reflect subject expertise? What are the main news sources? What impact, if any, does news coverage have on the respondents’ professional work?

Many of the 1,626* respondents, who included aid workers, researchers and government officials, said mainstream news coverage concentrates on a small number of crises, thus relegating most crises as ‘neglected’ or ‘forgotten’. More than 70 percent of respondents said the mainstream news media does not offer enough coverage of humanitarian issues. A common complaint was that mainstream news coverage was “sensationalist” and “lacked in-depth analysis”. Reporting of humanitarian issues and crises was frequently referred to as “reductive”, “cursory”, “simplistic” and “shallow”.

Overall, the most sought after aspect of reporting on humanitarian issues is expert analysis.

“Respondents want more and bolder investigative reporting and more consistent expert analysis of humanitarian issues and crises, including analysis of the aid sector as a whole,” said Dr Scott.

However, many think there is insufficient investigative reporting on the sector.

One reader commented that “bosses are more likely to react to news stories about sexual harassment of and by employees, than to their own employees raising concerns”. That view was echoed by UK International Development Secretary Penny Mordaunt‘s recent words:

“Remember, we only learned about… the recent Oxfam scandal… from journalists, operating in a free press, in our democratic country.”

Respondents indicated that quality news coverage can play an important role in shaping responses to crises, most commonly by stimulating further research and/or advocacy and by informing organisational or operational priorities.

“These findings show that news coverage of international humanitarian crises matters – and that quality journalism matters,” said IRIN Director Heba Aly.  “Readers are yearning for deeper, more meaningful journalism about the challenges our world faces; and when we as media organisations deliver that kind of reporting, we can have real impact. We shouldn’t underestimate the power – nor the responsibility – that we hold.”

Only three mainstream news outlets were mentioned by more than half of the respondents as a key source for news and analysis on humanitarian issues: the BBC, The Guardian and Al Jazeera English. Alongside The New York Times and the Washington Post, these were frequently described as the only “exceptions” to the mainstream news media’s poor coverage of humanitarian crises.

Respondents identified the most popular specialist news providers as Devex, Foreign Policy, IRIN, ReliefWeb, News Deeply, the Thomson Reuters Foundation and UN Dispatch.

Read more about IRIN’s survey results here.

***

Note

*the majority of respondents were IRIN readers and the results have been interpreted with this in mind.

Survey respondents included individuals working for international NGOs (28%), the United Nations (9%), academia (9%), national or local NGOs (8%), government organisations (8%) and in the corporate sector (5%). A majority of respondents were either mid-career (32%) or senior professionals (41%) and had either “some” (34%) or a “significant” amount (30%) of decision-making authority within their organisations. While most were based in the US or Europe, others worked around the globe, from Mexico to Kenya, at headquarters and in the field.

The survey is part of an ongoing research project into humanitarian journalism. The Humanitarian Journalism project is investigating how the news media report on humanitarian crises, what shapes their coverage and its impact and influence. It is supported by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). Led by Dr Scott, the research team includes Dr Kate Wright (Edinburgh University) and Dr Mel Bunce (City, University of London).

For further information about the project and to view the survey report “Attitudes towards media coverage of humanitarian issues within the aid sector”, see www.humanitarian-journalism.net

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mainstream Media Coverage of Humanitarian Crises Falls Short, New Survey Finds

Selected Articles: Washington’s War on Western Minds

May 4th, 2018 by Global Research News

Dear Readers,

More than ever, Global Research needs your support. Our task as an independent media is to “Battle the Lie”.

“Lying” in mainstream journalism has become the “new normal”: mainstream journalists are pressured to comply. Some journalists refuse.

Lies, distortions and omissions are part of a multibillion dollar propaganda operation which sustains the “war narrative”.

While “Truth” is a powerful instrument, “the Lie” is generously funded by the lobby groups and corporate charities. And that is why we need the support of our readers.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

When the Lie becomes the Truth, there is no turning backwards. 

Support Global Research.

*     *     *

What’s Washington Really Doing in Armenia? Color Revolution against Moscow?

By F. William Engdahl, May 04, 2018

There has been considerable speculation in recent days as to whether the recent and ongoing protests across former Soviet Armenia constitute another Washington Color Revolution destabilization or whether it represents simply the angry revolt of citizens fed up with the deep corruption and lack of economic development under the regime of Prime Minister Serzh Sargysan.

Trump’s Phony Trade War

By Dr. Jack Rasmus, May 03, 2018

Trump announced his 25% steel and 10% aluminum tariffs in early March, getting the attention of the US press with his typical Trump bombast, off-the-wall tweets and extremist statements. The steel-aluminum tariffs were originally to apply worldwide. But the exemptions began almost immediately.  In fact, all US major trading partners were quickly suspended from the tariffs—except for China.

Has Critical Thinking Become Extinct? Washington’s War on Western Minds

By Mark Taliano, May 03, 2018

The late Zbigniew Brzezinski was an architect in the use of fanatical terrorists to invade and destroy countries.  Washington used the tactic in Afghanistan, and Washington is still using so-called “jihadi” terrorists to destroy non-compliant countries.  Washington has been destroying Syria with these anti-democratic,  extremely misogynist, cult-intoxicated “Wahhabi” terrorists for over seven years now.

The Koreas Unified and at Peace? – How About Syria, Iran and Venezuela?

By Peter Koenig, May 03, 2018

Peace – in the Koreas, is what the world expects; and Peace in the world is what humanity expects, the vast majority – 99.9% of the world population wants peace, but it’s the 0.1% that commands war and destruction, since war and destruction is what runs the western economy.

North and South Korea: A Handshake that Shook the World

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, May 03, 2018

One of the memorable events of the Summit of Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un was the unexpected impact of the historical handshake between the two leaders. Many would agree with me that the Kim-Moon handshake shook the world. But I am asking this: “Did the handshake make the summit a success?”

Video: The North-South Korean Peace Agreement. Michel Chossudovsky

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Michael Welch, May 02, 2018

In a special breaking report for GRTV, Professor Michel Chossudovsky comments on the significance of this meeting, coming as it does weeks before another expected meeting between the North Korean leader and US President Trump.

Japan to Build Roads Out of Radioactive Fukushima Dirt

By Vicki Batts, May 04, 2018

Even in 2017, the amount of radiation being produced by the damaged reactors was lethal. In spite of the obvious risk, Japanese government officials are now looking to make use of the radioactive Fukushima — by using dirt from the site to build new roads.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Washington’s War on Western Minds

On April 30th, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada released the first ever section 63 report under the Species at Risk Act, (SARA), where the Minister found that outside of protected areas, provinces and territories have failed to protect almost all of boreal caribou critical habitat.

Seven environmental groups from across North America welcome the report’s release and are concerned by its findings.

This marks the first time the federal government has released one of these reports updating the public on at-risk species protection as required by law. The public has a right to know whether provincial and territorial laws are protecting critical habitat for boreal caribou. This is an important step toward increasing transparency.

As concerned citizens, scientists and people on the ground expected, the results are troubling.

The environmental groups remain concerned that even after the October 2017 deadline, provinces and territories continue to abdicate their responsibilities to threatened caribou. For example, in the past six months:

  • the Government of Ontario extended the forestry industry’s exemption to the province’s Endangered Species Act, allowing significant leeway to degrade caribou habitat and stymieing recovery efforts;
  • the Government of Quebec announced that it was too costly to recover caribou in the Val D’Or range and abandoned the herd after allowing decades of industrial development degrading boreal caribou critical habitat; and
  • the Government of Alberta announced that it was suspending efforts to protect areas identified as viable in an earlier mediation process.

This must change. The groups call on all responsible provinces and territories to stop expansion of the industrial footprint in boreal caribou ranges that have exceeded 35 per cent disturbance, and take immediate steps to protect critical habitat. We expect provinces and territories to do this in partnership with Indigenous Peoples, fully respecting their knowledge and rights including the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

Image result for Mishigamish

There is hope in Canada, and it is coming from the leadership of First Nations and other communities. For example, Fort Nelson First Nation completed a Boreal Caribou Recovery Plan for their territory called the Medzih Action Plan. Doig River First Nation identified priority areas for caribou habitat restoration based on Indigenous knowledge and science. The Cree First Nation of Waswasnipi have been waiting for years to resume negotiations with the Quebec government on their proposal to protect the Mishigamish, which includes critical boreal caribou habitat. We are also heartened by voluntary recommendations for creating a sustainable economy recently reconfirmed by leaders in northeastern Ontario on the Abitibi River Forest that overlaps with boreal caribou in the Kesagami Range. There are all examples of good work being done across the country. Provincial governments need to support and build upon them.

The groups call on the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change to fulfill her duties under SARA by, for example, continuing to issue timely section 63 reports for boreal caribou and begin issuing them for other species, and also by issuing safety net orders for critical habitat that remains unprotected.

Signed:  

Alberta Wilderness Association
David Suzuki Foundation
Greenpeace Canada
Natural Resources Defense Council
Ontario Nature
Wilderness Committee
Wildlands League


Overview of the Status of Provincial Boreal Caribou Protection

This backgrounder provides an overview of the state of caribou protections in Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and British Columbia at the time of the release of the Canadian Government’s Progress Report on Unprotected Critical Habitat for the Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou), Boreal Population, in Canada (hereafter 2018 Progress Report). This backgrounder also includes information on the international marketplace’s call for Canadian governments to implement increased caribou protections. 

Ontario:

Boreal caribou in Ontario are in a decline. Today, only two of Ontario’s thirteen boreal caribou ranges have sufficient undisturbed habitat to sustain caribou in the long-term. The others are uncertain or insufficient. And latest disturbance information shows increasing disturbances in southern caribou ranges where there has been long history of industrial development along with a declining population trend. At current rates of decline, the species could be extinct in the province within the lifetime of children living today. Since 2008, the government of Ontario has failed to implement protections for caribou consistent with original intentions of the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA). In October 2017, the Ontario government missed the federal government’s five-year deadline for protecting critical habitat. While Ontario has released a recovery strategy and other habitat guidance documents for caribou, these do not create any mandatory and enforceable protection for boreal caribou critical habitat.

In April 2018, the Ontario government announced it was extending the exemption for forest operations from the province’s ESA for another two years. This exemption was originally enacted in 2013 and allows logging companies to harm or harass caribou and destroy caribou habitat, as long as they are operating under an approved forest management plan. The situation is bleak in Ontario and the ongoing exemption for the forest industry does not promote the recovery of species at risk. There are solutions being put forward that the government of Ontario needs to build upon like the work being done in northeastern Ontario by municipal leaders, First Nations, industry and environmental groups in the Abitibi River Forest to ensure a sustainable economy and healthy caribou population. See more about that innovative effort here.

Quebec:

Quebec has some of the most at-risk caribou populations in Canada. In 2015, Quebec’s Chief Forester found that 70 percent of studied caribou habitat in the province was too disturbed to support caribou populations in the long-term. This unsustainability will only increase, the Chief Forester concluded, as “the current management strategies will provide, in the long run, a decrease the remaining habitat where caribou self-sufficiency is still possible.” Despite this warning, Quebec failed to meet the federal government’s October 2017 deadline for creating caribou range plans.

Quebec did create an action plan for boreal caribou habitat management, which commits the province to take “immediate” steps to protect boreal caribou. However, Quebec set no timetables, gave little guidance as to what habitat would be protected, and set no plans for implementation. Under this plan, in November 2017 Quebec created a protected area for caribou habitat in the Montagnes-Blanches region of the province. While this is an important step, the protection plan still allows for mineral exploration and does not include certain critical habitat areas. The starkest example of Quebec’s failure to protect boreal caribou is seen in the decline of the Val d’Or caribou herd. Despite decades of warnings from that the herd was declining, Quebec took little action to protect the herd. In 2016, the herd had declined to 18 individuals, and in 2018 the province announced that it was too costly to recover the herd and that it would not take action to restore the population.

Alberta:

Because of years of intensive industrial activities that have fragmented or cleared older forests, Alberta has some of the most highly disturbed caribou ranges in Canada. Its overall caribou population is estimated to be falling by 50% every eight years. Alberta has spent decades in research and planning processes, but has not yet produced effective habitat management plans. In September 2015, Alberta’s Environment Minister affirmed her government’s commitment to achieving self-sustaining caribou populations. However, two years later, ECCC reported that human-caused habitat loss continues to rise in almost every Alberta caribou home range, pushing them further towards local extinction. Alberta’s December 2017 Draft Provincial Woodland Caribou Range Plan presented broad ideas to restore and protect caribou habitat, but it did not include range-specific plans showing how the minimum 65% undisturbed habitat threshold would be achieved and maintained. The government has yet to produce range plans that would adequately protect habitat.

Image result for caribou habitat in the Montagnes-Blanches

Woodland Caribou in river (Source: NRDC)

In March 2018, Alberta’s Environment Minister announced they were “suspending” consideration of potential Northwest protected areas until socio-economic impacts could be determined. These are the same areas that her appointed consultant, now her Deputy Minister, identified in his May 2016 report as having minimal negative economic impacts. In March 2018 the Alberta government also requested federal funding and even more time to complete range plans, while range habitat worsens.

British Columbia:

Woodland caribou populations in British Columbia are in various states of long-term decline. The southern mountain caribou (a woodland caribou ecotype distinct from boreal caribou) are currently facing extinction in British Columbia in the near term, with declining populations across their historic ranges. The 2018 census showed a reduction of the entire southern mountain caribou population from about 4,500 last year to 3,800 this year. Two herds of the southern mountain caribou have now become functionally extinct—the South Selkirk and the south Purcell herds. Boreal caribou, meanwhile, have an estimated minimum of 728 animals across five range areas in northeast British Columbia, and are facing declines as a result of widespread habitat loss and displacement. Northern mountain caribou are likewise declining.

The B.C. government missed the federal government’s October 2017 deadline to create a SARA-compliant boreal caribou protection plan, and now is insisting that more time is needed for recovery planning for both boreal woodland and mountain caribou. B.C. has drafted a recent caribou recovery strategy that will include plans for each of the province’s 54 herds. However, First Nations and conservation groups have criticized the plan for falling short on setting proper population targets, adequately protecting critical habitat, and facilitating restoration. The B.C. government also created a Section 11 Conservation Agreement for the protection of the Southern Mountain Caribou. Yet, this plan does not put any habitat protection targets on low-elevation or other key habitat that is more accessible for resource extraction. Caribou will not recover under a plan that does not protect a majority of their habitat. When it comes to caribou recovery, the B.C. government is putting forestry and oil and gas interests first, over the primary goal of caribou population recovery across the province. In response to this inaction, First Nations have led their own recovery efforts, including creating their own action plans.

International Marketplace Response

International demand for forest products, especially from the United States, is a major driver of the Canadian forestry industry’s continued push into undisturbed boreal forest and remaining boreal caribou habitat. The international marketplace consumes about half of the Canadian forest products by revenue, and of these exports, the United States alone accounts for more than two-thirds. Major purchasers like Procter & Gamble, Kimberly-Clark, and Ben & Jerry’s have expressed increasing concern regarding Canada’s lack of sufficient boreal habitat protections. In October 2017, these and other companies voiced their desire for “materials that are free of controversy and have been acquired through sustainable harvesting.” The companies asked for “robust caribou habitat protection plans that are grounded in science” and created in consultation with Indigenous Peoples. Today, companies are continuing to press the federal and provincial governments to fulfill their obligations to protect boreal caribou, demonstrating the international marketplace’s desire to purchase forest products that do not come at the expense of boreal habitat and wildlife.

The full October letter from companies can be found here.

I find myself wondering if Russia understands the Washington criminal with whom Russia is so desperate to negotiate peace and understanding.

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov is excited that Trump has invited Putin to the White House “to jointly curb the arms race.”

Of course the US military/security complex wants to curb an arms race in which Russia is 30 years ahead. Will the Russian government in all its delusions and romanticized view of the US and its vassals again be sucked into meaningless agreements that leave Russia exposed to annihilation?

How can Russia expect any agreement with Washington or any European country to mean anything when in front of Russia’s very eyes the US, alone in the world, is breaking the agreement the US made with Iran with regard to Iran’s enrichment of uranium?

Why does Lavrov want to negotiate another agreement with Washington that Washington will break as it has every other negotiated agreement with Russia since the Clinton regime. Does the Russian Foreign Ministry find it difficult to learn from experience?

Russia has the winning hand, but does not know how to play it. The caution with which the government operates encourages more provocations, whereas a more decisive policy would discourage provocations.

Washington interprets Russia’s conciliatory behavior as weakness, and now also so does the tiny country of Israel. Believe it or not, Israel has issued an ultimatum to Russia. Israel, a country so small that it can be wiped out by conventional weapons alone has now ordered the world’s primary military power to get out of the way of Israel’s illegal military attacks on Syria.

A country that can be given an ultimatum by Israel, whose army was twice routed and utterly defeated by a small Lebanese militia, has no respect in the West. This is Russia’s problem. Even the militarily impotent British talk about going to war with Russia as if that is a riskless undertaking.

As long as the Russian government conveys indecisiveness and weakness in its responses to extreme provocations, the provocations will continue to push the world to World War 3.

*

This article was originally published on Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Does Russia Know What’s Up? Trump Has Invited Putin to the White House

Diplomatic work continues in some of the areas with the highest geopolitical tensions in the world. In recent days there have been high-level meetings and contacts between Turkey, Iran and Russia over the situation in Syria; meetings between Modi and Xi Jinping to ease tensions between India and China; and finally, the historic meeting between Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un. The common component in all these meetings is the absence of the United States, which may explain the excellent progress that has been seen.

The last seven days have brought a note of optimism to international relations. The meeting between Modi and Xi Jinping in China offered a regional example, confirmed by the words of Wang Yi, member of the State Counsel of the People’s Republic of China:

“Our [India and China] common interests outweigh our differences. The summit will go a long way towards deepening the mutual trust between the two great neighbors. We will make sure that the informal summit will be a complete success and a new milestone in the history of China-India relations”.

Given the tensions in August 2017 in the Himalayan border area between the two countries, the progress achieved in the last nine months bodes well for a further increase in cooperation between the two nations. Bilateral trade stands at around $85 billion a year, with China as India’s largest trading partner. The meeting between Modi and Xi also serves to deepen the already existing framework between the two countries in international organizations like BRICS, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), in which they are integral participants. It is imaginable that negotiations on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) will be in full swing, with Beijing keen to involve New Delhi more in the project. Such a prospect is particularly helped by three very powerful investment vehicles put in place by Beijing, namely, the New Development Bank (formerly the BRICS Development Bank), the AIIB, and the Silk Road Fund.

Image on the right: Indian PM Modi and Chinese President Jinping

Image result for modi and jinping

Xi Jinping will be seeking to ​​progressively entice India closer to the BRI project through attractive and mutually beneficial commercial arrangements. However, this objective remains complicated and difficult to implement. Beijing is aware of this and has already expressed its intention not to impose the BRI on the neighboring country. With much of the future global and regional architecture depending on these two countries, the good understanding shown between Xi Jinping and Modi bodes well, especially given the commonly aligned objectives represented by the multitude of international organizations and frameworks on which China and India sit side by side.

Another bit of important news for the Asian region has been the meeting between Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong-un, which was recently examined in an article published in Strategic Culture Foundation. As discussed in that article, the intention of the two leaders is to reunite the two Koreas, to denuclearize the peninsula, and to sign a peace treaty between the North and South, whose unprecedented implications entail such questions as whether there is a future role for the United States on the peninsula. As stated before, the rapprochement between the two Koreas does not play into Washington’s favor, which relies on the South as a strategic foothold to contain China, justifying its presence on the purported need to confront North Korea. With an all-encompassing peace agreement, this justification would cease to exist. It seems that the goal for US policy-makers will be to find an opportunity to sabotage the North-South agreement and blame Kim Jong-un for its failure. Without engaging in a diplomatic tiff with its South Korean ally, the deep state in Washington does not intend to surrender one inch of its military presence on the peninsula, and would even look favorably on the negotiations failing to further damage Trump and his administration.

This is an internal deep-state war that has been going on for years. Obama wanted to abandon the Middle East in order to focus on containing China, altering the military’s structure accordingly to return to a more Cold War stance. This explains the agreement with Iran in order to free the US from its Middle East involvement so as to be able to focus mainly on Asia and to promote it as the most important region for the United States. This strategic intention has met with enormous opposition from two of the most influential lobbies in the American political system, the Israeli and Saudi Arabian. Without the United States, these two countries would be unable to stop Iran’s peaceful but impressive ascent in the region.

Listening to four-star generals like Robert Neller (Commandant of the Marine Corps) and others less distinguished, one comes to appreciate the extent to which the US military is in strategic chaos. The military has been the victim of epochal changes with each presidency. Pentagon planners would like to simultaneously confront countries like Russia, China and Iran, but in the process only decrease effectiveness due to imperial overstretch. Other politicians, especially from the neocon area, argue for the need to transform the US armed forces from a force suitable for fighting small countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria), Middle Eastern insurgencies, or terrorist groups (a pretext originating from the 1990’s and the first Gulf War), to a military able to face its peer competitors with all weapons available. Such a realignment does not occur over a short period of time and requires an enormous amount of money to reorganize the armed forces.

In this struggle between components of the deep state, Trump lumbers into a policy that stems from his electoral campaign rather than a considered strategy. Trump showed himself in his campaign to be strongly pro-Israel and strongly pro-armed forces, which has had the practical result of increasing military spending. Tens of billions of dollars worth of agreements have been realized with the richest country in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, for arms purchases, and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is viewed negatively. Trump’s interventions in Syria confirm that he is under the strong influence of that part of the deep state that is adamant that the United States should always be present in the Middle East, should openly oppose Iran, and, above all, should prevent the Shiite arc from extending its influence to cover Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

The reasoning employed by Trump and his administration confirms this direction in Washington’s strategy, involving greater cooperation with Beijing to solve the Korean issue; less of an effort to decrease Moscow’s influence in Syria and in the Middle East in general; and greater belligerence towards Iran, with a general shift away from Asia and towards the Middle East, backtracking away from Obama’s pivot to Asia.

Trump seems to give the impression of wanting to face China from an unprecedented direction, with a trade war that would inevitably end up damaging all sides.

In this ad hoc strategy, the European allies play an important role in Washington’s intention to cancel or modify the Iranian nuclear agreement. Following the meetings in Washington between Trump and Macron, and then with Merkel, both European leaders seem more or less open to a modification of the JCPOA, provided that Trump backs away from placing tariffs on European countries, an appeal to which the English premier Theresa May adds her name. It seems a desperate tactic, given that one of the issues Trump is pinning his 2020 campaign on is being able to fix the trade imbalances between the US and the EU, without which he will be unable to claim to have kept his promises.

The United States has many cards to play, but none is decisive. In Korea, the peace process depends very little on Trump’s intentions and more on the willingness of the two key parties to reach a historic agreement to improve the lives of all citizens of the peninsula. I predict the deep state will try to blame the DPRK for a failure of the negotiations, thereby bringing to Asia the chaos in international relations that the US has successfully brought to other parts of the world. The People’s Republic of China will therefore try to replace the United States in negotiations in order to bring the two negotiating parties closer together.

In the same way, an attempt to sabotage the JCPOA will only drive Russia, China and Iran into a strategic triangle, about which I was writing more than a year ago. A unilateral exit from the nuclear agreement will help delegitimize Washington’s international role, together with the sabotage by the deep state of the peace agreement in Korea. It will be a pincer effect resulting from the chaos and the internal struggle of North American and European elites.

Success in the negotiations in Korea could pave the way for a protection umbrella for the DPRK guaranteed by China and Russia, in the same way the two could grant Iran all the diplomatic support necessary to resist the American and European pressure to cancel the JCPOA. Ultimately, the rapprochement between India and China, in view of important agreements on the BRI, could seal comity and cooperation between the two giants, leading the Eurasian area under the definitive influence of India, China, Russia and Iran, and guaranteeing a future of peaceful economic development to the most important area of ​​the globe.

The United States finds itself divided by a war within the elite, where Trump’s presidency is continually attacked and de-legitimized, while the coordinated assault on the dollar continues apace through gold, the petroyuan, and blockchain technology. US military power is showing itself to be a paper tiger unable to change the course of events on the ground, as seen recently in Syria. The loss of diplomatic credibility resulting from the sabotage of the JCPOA, and Washington’s inability to sit down and sincerely negotiate with the DPRK, will deliver the final coup de grace to a country that is struggling to even remain friendship with her European allies (sanctions imposed on Russia, sanctions on European companies participating in the North Stream 2, and tariffs in a new trade war).

The US deep state remains on this path of self-destruction, perennially torn between opposing strategies, which only accelerates Washington’s unipolar decline and the emergence in its place of a multipolar world order, with New Delhi, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran as new poles over an immense area  comprising the Middle east and all of Eurasia.

*

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on As US Military Effectiveness and Diplomatic Efforts Fade into Irrelevance Many Countries Start Ignoring Washington

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

The Skripal incident was likely hatched by both countries, one episode among numerous longstanding efforts to demonize Russia – improved relations ruled out entirely.

US/UK policies toward Russia are joined at the hip, both countries partnering in Russophobic harshness.

On Thursday, Sergey Lavrov blasted Britain, saying

“Russia is worried over the health and position of the Skripals, whom the British authorities dragged into this provocation,” adding:

“The British authorities’ refusal to grant consular access is a reason enough to consider the current situation as abduction or intentional isolation.”

This is utterly unacceptable” – Washington equally responsible for what happened, he failed to stress. Virtually all Russophobic actions by either country are joint efforts, neither regime going it alone on relations with Moscow.

Despite no chance for improved relations with both countries in the near, intermediate, and likely longterm, official Russian policy seeks mutual cooperation.

Lavrov:

“We are ready for concrete cooperation with Britain. We urge London to cooperate honestly within the framework of the criminal case Russia’s Investigative Committee opened over an attempt at premeditated murder and of the relevant queries the Prosecutor-General’s Office dispatched to Britain.”

He extended a similar overture to Washington, despite continuing deterioration in bilateral relations, nothing showing signs of improvement, endless examples of the most dismal relations in the post-WW II period.

Lavrov:

“We have repeatedly stated that we positively assess President Donald Trump’s desire to establish normal dialogue between our countries,” adding:

Despite positive-sounding Trump rhetoric, it’s “reversed by Russophobic sentiments soaring in the US establishment” – near unanimously by Congress, notable hostility from Trump’s war cabinet.

Raging hawks John Bolton and Mike Pompeo are militantly Russophobic. Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation director Alexandra Bell said

“(b)etween (them), you’re looking at a neocon foreign policy jacked up on steroids.”

Lumping Russia, China, Syria, Iran, and North Korea together, Bolton said

“(a) national security policy…based on…faith that (these countries) will honor their commitments is doomed to failure.”

He called (nonexistent) Russian US election meddling “a casus belli, a true act of war, and one Washington will never tolerate,” adding:

“For Trump, it should be a highly salutary lesson about the character of Russia’s leadership to watch Putin lie to him” – a bald-faced lie, continuing:

“And it should be a fire-bell-in-the-night warning about the value Moscow places on honesty, whether regarding election interference, nuclear proliferation, arms control or the Middle East: negotiate with todays Russia at your peril.”

Diplomatic engagement with Washington expecting positive results when betrayal followed many times before is hoping for what’s unattainable.

Pompeo considers Russia Washington’s mortal enemy. During his Senate confirmation hearing, he said

“Russia continues to act aggressively, enabled by years of soft policy toward that aggression. That’s now over,” adding:

“The actions of this administration make clear that President Trump’s national security strategy, rightfully, has identified Russia as a danger to our country.”

Relations are polar opposite – Washington a mortal threat to Russian security, not the other way around.

As America’s top (undiplomatic) diplomat, Pompeo promised toughness in advancing US interests, notably in dealing with sovereign independent countries like Russia, China, Iran and others.

Lavrov said the Kremlin wants to establish “friendly relations with the US” without compromising its principles and national interests.

Washington demands no less, wanting all other nations bowing to its will, making improved relations with Russia and other independent countries unattainable.

Hoping for improving relations won’t change things. Hegemons don’t operate that way, wanting control, not mutual cooperation.

America wages endless wars of aggression to achieve its goals, Russia on its target list for regime change. Chances for improved bilateral relations are virtually nil.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

The Ministry of Defence has revealed for the first time – seemingly accidentally – that British drones are firing thermobaric weapons in Syria.  The disclosure comes in an Freedom of Information (FoI) response to Drone Wars detailing the use of Reaper drones over the previous three months.

In the response, officials give a breakdown of the type of Hellfire missiles fired, stating that 19 AGM-114N4 and 44 AGM-114R2 had been used. The ‘N’ version of the missile uses a Metal Augmented Charge (MAC) warhead that contains a thermobaric explosive fill using aluminium with the explosive mixture. When the warhead detonates, the aluminium mixture is dispersed and rapidly burns. The sustained high pressure explosion is extremely damaging, creating a powerful shock wave and vacuum. Anyone in the vicinity is likely to die from internal organ damage.

Thermobaric weapons, sometimes called ‘vacuum’ weapons have been condemned  by human rights groups and, as the Times reported in 2008 ,

“the weapons are so controversial that MoD weapons and legal experts spent 18 months debating whether British troops could use them without breaking international law.”

The ‘debate’ came to an end when a ‘Yes Minister’ solution was offered – they “redefined” the weapon as an ‘enhanced blast missile’.

Test of thermobaric missile warhead

In 2010, the MoD specifically refused to answer questions in the House of Commons by then Oxford East MP Andrew Smith on whether British drones were firing the thermobaric version of the Hellfire missile.  Thanks to this diligent answer from an MoD official we now know they are.

However, the answer raises new questions.  Given the extremely harmful nature of the weapon why are so many – roughly a quarter of the weapons fired from British drones in the first three months of the year – being used?  Has the use of this weapon been at the same level since 2014?  Or are they being used more frequently now?

The revelation comes alongside news that UK drone strikes have hugely intensified in Syria since January.  In the first three months of 2018, UK drones fired as many weapons in Syria (92) as they have over the previous 18 months. And, despite the MoD regularly insisting that its Reaper drones are primarily used for surveillance and intelligence gathering, UK Reaper drones have now fired more weapons in Syria than the UK’s dedicated bomber, the Tornado.

*

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The “Japanese Village” at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah: An Unexamined Context to the Firebombing of Japan

On Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave his most grandiose anti-Iranian performance to date, revealing what he believed was direct proof that Iran “lied” about its nuclear program. This isn’t the first time Netanyahu has overhyped the threat of Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons program. He has been crying wolf over Iran since as far back as 1992.

The aim of this performance is to cast doubt on the efficacy of the Iranian nuclear accord signed in 2015, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which U.S. President Donald Trump has long intended to completely derail. Netanyahu, of course, is totally on board with this goal.

Following Netanyahu’s speech, the White House released a statement of its own, saying Israel’s intelligence confirms what the U.S. had already known — that

Iran has a robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program that it has tried and failed to hide from the world.”

Not long after, the White House issued a second statement that changed the word “has” to “had,” appearing to suggest that Iran no longer possesses a nuclear weapons program. However, a White House official later explained to NBC News that the wrong tense was the result of a “clerical error.”

Either way, despite the uncompromising anti-Iranian narrative, the prevailing truth appears to be that Iran is in full compliance with the JCPOA, and the main officials involved — including Trump and Netanyahu — are well aware of this. In his April 12 Senate confirmation hearing, then-CIA director Mike Pompeo (who this week began his tenure as secretary of state) said he has “seen no evidence that they [Iran] are not in compliance today.”

Just last month, the State Department once again issued a report declaring that “Iran continued to fulfill its nuclear-related commitments” under the JCPOA following an ongoing pattern of the State Department even under the watch of Rex Tillerson, who essentially forced Trump to certify Iran’s compliance. Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis has also said Iran is “fundamentally” in compliance with the nuclear agreement.

Further, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also confirmed Iran’s compliance at least nine times, as have the European partners to the JCPOA and practically the entire EU.

“The deal is working, it is delivering on its main goal which means keeping the Iranian nuclear programme in check,” said Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy chief, before acknowledging that the JCPOA is “making the world safer and … preventing a potential nuclear arms race in the region.”

In fact, as the Atlantic’s Peter Beinart has explained, it is Donald Trump’s administration that is most likely violating the JCPOA — not Iran.

According to Beinart:

“The more interesting question isn’t whether Iran has been complying with the nuclear deal. It’s whether America has. American journalists often describe the agreement as a trade. In the words of one CNN report, it ‘obliges Iran to limit its nuclear program in exchange for the suspension of economic sanctions.’ But there’s more to it than that. The deal doesn’t only require the United States to lift nuclear sanctions. It requires the United States not to inhibit Iran’s reintegration into the global economy. Section 26 commits the U.S. (and its allies) ‘to prevent interference with the realisation of the full benefit by Iran of the sanctions lifting specified’ in the deal. Section 29 commits the U.S. and Europe to ‘refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran.’ Section 33 commits them to ‘agree on steps to ensure Iran’s access in areas of trade, technology, finance and energy.’”

This is the interesting part. According to those sections, the U.S. has been violating the JCPOA for some time now.

As Beinart explains further:

“The Trump administration has likely been violating these clauses. The Washington Post reported that at a NATO summit last May, ‘Trump tried to persuade European partners to stop making trade and business deals with Iran.’ Then, in July, Trump’s director of legislative affairs boasted that at a G20 summit in Germany, Trump had ‘underscored the need for nations … to stop doing business with nations that sponsor terrorism, especially Iran.’ Both of these lobbying efforts appear to violate America’s pledge to ‘refrain from any policy specifically intended to directly and adversely affect the normalisation of trade and economic relations with Iran.’”

Or, take for example, sanctions imposed on Iran by the Trump administration in July of last year that targeted “procurement of advanced military hardware, such as fast attack boats and unmanned aerial vehicles, and send a strong signal that the United States cannot and will not tolerate Iran’s provocative and destabilizing behaviour,” according to a statement released by U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin.

Beinart also explains how that 22 of the deal specifically requires the U.S. to allow for the sale of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts and services to Iran,” which, as Al-Monitor revealed“requests concerning permits to export planes to Iran have been piling up … OFAC has not responded to aircraft sales licensing requests since the first of such licenses were issued during the Barack Obama administration.”

In other words, Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA but the U.S. isn’t. Does the U.S. abide by its own rules, or should it be held to the same standards that the world has held Iran ransom to for decades?

It is nothing short of extraordinary that the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons can be the one violating an international agreement all while it consistently demonizes another state for allegedly violating the very same agreement. Why is it that the U.S. can violate the JCPOA with no consequence but Iran is demonized even as it continues to comply with it?

The problem with the JCPOA isn’t that it isn’t working; the problem for people like Trump and Netanyahu is that it is working too well.

*

Featured image is from the author.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Sugar Demons, Sweet Lobbies and Taxes in Australia

May 4th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sugar Demons, Sweet Lobbies and Taxes in Australia
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Medical Assistance for Korean Atomic Bomb Survivors in Japan: (Belated) Japanese Grassroots Collaboration to Secure the Rights of Former Colonial Victims

Despite the propaganda of the ruling class in the United States and the entire capitalist world suggesting that the impact of the Great Recession of 2007-2010 has been completely reversed, poor and working people are still suffering from the lack of adequate employment, substandard education, housing foreclosures and evictions along with a crumbling infrastructure.

Poverty is rising inside the U.S. even among those who work full-time and overtime jobs. There are other aspects of deprivation which are the hallmark of rising austerity including the deterioration of the conditions within the public school systems, the lack of municipal services, environmental degradation, the continuing threats of homelessness and employment dislocation.

All of these issues dominated commemorations for May Day this year both domestically and internationally. Workers took to the streets in order to make their presence felt amid an increasing volatility within the stock markets and other major economic indicators.

In the U.S. educators have been protesting and striking for wage increases and improved conditions of employment. From West Virginia, Kentucky, Arizona, Puerto Rico to Michigan and beyond, teachers and other workers within the educational systems from K-12 to colleges and universities, are exposing the fact that the denigration of intellectual labor is pronounced. Educators are toiling longer hours for less pay and fewer benefits.

Schools are closing due to budget cuts while existing buildings are falling into disrepair forcing students into overcrowded facilities and classrooms. Teachers are forced to utilize greater portions of their meager salaries to purchase supplies for students.

Courses in the arts, sports programs and field trips have been slashed. The frustrations of the teachers could very well dampen the enthusiasm for transmitting and receiving subject matter.

Right-wing pundits have for decades blamed educators for the failure of the public schools in order to justify the further corporatization of education through charter schools and the subsidizing of private instruction with the tax dollars of working people. These fabricated accusations thrown at teachers often accompany attacks on unions saying that collective bargaining is antithetical to scholastic achievement.

These allegations are blatantly false and designed to erode the capacity of working families to provide their children with a quality education. All of the concocted narratives take on a racist character in that there is a growing demographic majority of children from African American, Latinx and Asian communities who are matriculating within the public systems in municipalities around the country. (Source)

As a report on the settlement proposed to the Arizona teachers so aptly noted:

“After the 2008 recession blew up its budget, Arizona implemented sweeping cuts to education spending. Many teachers accepted this austerity, on the assumption that it would end when the downturn did. But by the time the recovery arrived, Republicans had taken full control of Arizona’s government — and they felt it more important to cut taxes than to restore funding for public education.”

Of course the tax cuts benefit the upper class under the guise of providing “incentives” for investment which ostensibly creates jobs for the working class. This is a ridiculous assumption which has proven itself as such over the last three decades.

Wealth has become more concentrated among the very few while the productivity of workers has accelerated. The problem with this scenario is that real wages are continuing to decline overall and the social conditions of the masses are becoming even more unbearable.

The shrinking quality of life for the workers and oppressed is clearly reflected in the education crisis which is not just confined to the states where teachers have struck. Nonetheless, this same article cited above emphasizes in regard to Arizona that:

“As a result, the Grand Canyon State spends 14 percent less per pupil on school funding today than it did a decade ago, making its education system among the most poorly funded in the nation — and its public-school teachers, the least well-paid of any state’s, once one accounts for cost of living.”

Consequently, the Conservative trend within state and federal governments has rendered the essential requirements for a quality education unfulfilled. However, the program of the Democratic Party on the local, state and national levels does not offer any real alternative which can provide hope for a significant improvement.

From the National Conference to Defeat Austerity to May Day

In Detroit a conference held on March 24 was both timely and substantive as it relates to the current situation in the U.S. and internationally. The National Conference to Defeat Austerity (NCDA) brought together over 200 delegates from across the country and Puerto Rico.

Panel discussions, workshops and cultural presentations not only addressed the necessity of united action in the areas of housing, water rights, education, municipal services and finance, anti-racism and legal injustices, the gathering provided an outline for the contemporary movements which are anti-capitalist in character. Renewed plans for the realization of water sustainability, a moratorium on mortgage and property tax foreclosures, an endorsement of the renewed Poor People’s Campaign (PPC), the demand for higher wages for restaurant and hospitality workers, unconditional solidarity with the people of Puerto Rico who are being subjected to a similar contrived bankruptcy which Detroit had experienced during 2013-2014, were some of the resolutions passed at the conclusion of the NCDA.

May Day in Detroit attempted to continue the alliance which has been developing since October of last year when the Moratorium NOW! Coalition and a host of other organizations challenged the reckless public relations myths generated by the corporate and bank-led administration of comprador Mike Duggan when he hosted the World Conference of Mayors. Detroit is by no means a model for urban revitalization due to the ongoing ruling class-driven policy which is further entrenching poverty among the majority African American population.

Every scheme purportedly designed to turn the city into a showcase for capitalist vultures and voyeuristic tourists has not resulted in the desired outcomes. The infamous Q-Line (Quicken Loan) which took millions of dollars to build, funds which could have been utilized to enhance the citywide and nearly non-existent regional transit system, has not even collected 50 percent of its projected revenues. Here is yet another “white elephant” such as the Little Caesar’s arena on the outskirts of downtown where the taxpayers are potentially liable for the $800 million plus for a prestige project which will not benefit the people who live in the city.

Clark Park on the southwest side was the scene of the Detroit May Day rally and demonstration through this heavily Latinx and increasingly Muslim neighborhood. The unity of African Americans, Latinx, Asians and progressive whites was in evidence. The framework of such a coalition of forces portends much for future of the city and the U.S. as a whole.

Capitalism and imperialism in the contemporary period can only drive down the standard living of the people. State repression and corporate greed are the twin sides of an economic system which has long outlived its effectiveness and usefulness.

Trump’s militaristic program against Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan, the African Union member-states, Cuba, the People’s Republic of China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the entire region of the Caribbean and Latin America poses a profound challenge for those who understand the legacy of colonialism and neo-colonialism. The dreaded Pentagon budget is not letting up in its devouring of the social wealth of the working people.

The only way to provide relief and ultimate liberation of the workers and the oppressed is through the building of principled coalitions of opposition forces. Recent developments in the education, municipal, anti-racist and environmental movements are providing a template to advance the imperatives of the majority at the expense of the ruling minority.

*

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author.

Video: Who’s Funding the White Helmets?

May 4th, 2018 by Ben Swann

As the U.S. moves closer toward all out war in Syria, a lot of what our government seems to base its intelligence on, especially claims of chemical weapon use by they Syrian government, is an impartial humanitarian group called the White Helmets.

You’ve no doubt, heard of the White Helmets. They have been praised in the media as heroes and have reportedly saved more than 100,000 lives as of April 2018.

But who are the White Helmets really? Are they a legitimate organization or pawns, funded for the purpose of regime change?

Let’s give it a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

Despite a recent U.S. funding freeze for humanitarian aid for Syria, the U.S. continues to fund the controversial group, known as White Helmets.

The White Helmets claim to be a neutral entity in Syria. They say they are just helping people caught in the middle of a civil war. But are they?

Follow the money and you will find numerous ties to government funding from not only the U.S., but the U.K., the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany.

Untangling these ties to the White Helmets is complicated, so stay with me.

According to their website, the Syria Civil Defense, nicknamed the White Helmets, formed in “late 2012- early 2013” as self-organized groups.

Realizing they needed training, 20 Syrians went to Turkey back in March 2013 to learn from a former British army officer named James Le Mesurier.

Le Mesurier has ties to the failed NATO intervention in Kosovo. He developed a training program for Syrians that included trauma care, command and control and crisis management courses.

He is credited for helping form the White Helmets’ structure and operations.

Le Mesurier was able to fund this training program through Mayday Rescue, his Netherlands-based non-profit funded by grants from the Dutch, British, Danish and German governments.

Now, this brings us to December 2013, when the U.K.-based PR machine backing the White Helmets was established.

It’s called the Voices Project, set up as a private limited company for public relations and communications activities.

Part of the Voices Project’s articles of incorporation state that the organization seeks to “influence public opinion” and “influence governmental and other bodies and institutions regarding reform … legislation and regulation.”

Who set up the Voices Project? The first listed director on the articles of incorporation is Jeremy Heimans, the co-founder and CEO of the global PR platform “Purpose” and a co-founder of controversial online activist network “Avaaz”.

Though Heimans stepped down from his position with the Voices Project in 2015, his connection to the project is worth noting. Here’s why.

In February 2014, New York-based “Purpose” listed a job posting for interns to “help launch a new movement for Syria.”

By March 2014, the Voices Project set up The Syria Campaign NGO, which they describe as “a human rights organisation that supports Syria’s heroes in their struggle for freedom and democracy.”

This, coinciding with the graduates of the Mayday Rescue training establishing new teams in Syria.

(READMORE)

Six months later, in October 2014, a conference of these teams came together to establish the Syrian Civil Defense as an official, national organization. They then became known as the White Helmets, thanks to The Syria Campaign.

According to their website, the White Helmets have been directly funded by Mayday Rescue, and a company called Chemonics, since 2014.

Yet there’s evidence that both of those organizations started supporting the White Helmets back in early 2013, right around the time the White Helmets claim to have formed as self-organized groups.

Mayday Rescue, as we said, is funded by the Dutch, British, Danish and German governments. And Chemonics?

They are a Washington, D.C. based contractor that was awarded $128.5 million in January 2013 to support “a peaceful transition to a democratic and stable Syria” as part of USAID’s Syria regional program. At least $32 million has been given directly to the White Helmets as of February 2018.

The firm has been funded by USAID for years, and carries a record of failures in supporting so-called humanitarian interventions, including in Libya.

What you need to know is that first, this was only part one of our look at the White Helmets.

There are even more dots to connect here, including the relationship between USAID, Chemonics, Jeremy Heimans and Azaaz. We will make those connections in another episode of Reality Check.

But for today, let’s make this clear: there are very real questions about the authenticity of the voice of the White Helmets as representative of the Syrian people.

It is also clear that the White Helmets have ties to organizations that are being funded by governments that have been seeking, and right now continue to, seek to overthrow the Assad government and to establish a new regime in Syria.

And yet our media and government act as if the information coming from the White Helmets is coming from an impartial observer. When in fact, it appears to actually be coming from an organization that is being funded with an agenda to see the Syrian government overthrown.

*

Ben Swann is an investigative journalist working tirelessly to dissolve the left/right paradigm prevalent in most mainstream media narratives. As a news reporter and anchor in the earlier days of his career, he has gained a wealth of experience while earning two Emmy Awards and two Edward R. Murrow awards.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pakistan: Missing Persons Issue Swept Under Rug as Pashtun Anti-war Movement Spreads

“We will stay by the side of those who long for freedom and we will confront their oppressors,” Vice President Mike Pence

Ramping up interventionist rhetoric and policy against progressive governments in the region, United States Vice President Mike Pence said working for “freedom” in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela is a priority for Donald Trump’s administration during a ceremony in which new U.S. ambassador to the Organization of American States (OAS), Carlos Trujillo, was sworn in.

“We will stay by the side of those who long for freedom and we will confront their oppressors,” Pence said during the event in the White House.

During his speech the U.S. vice president singled out Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Of Cuba he said the island continued to live “under tyrannical legacy,” using terminology and rhetoric used by right-wing Cuban Americans against the communist government of Cuba.

Later it was Nicaragua’s turn. Pence accused Daniel Ortega’s government of “brutally repressing” peaceful protesters, a common allegation used by successive U.S. governments and their western allies to justify interference despite lacking proper evidence to back their claims.

The he attacked the Venezuelan government calling President Nicolas Maduro a “dictator” and charged him with turning “one of South America’s most prosperous countries into one of the poorests.”

Over the years Washington has maintained economic and political attacks against these three countries hoping to bring about regime change.

Since 1960 consecutive U.S. governments have imposed an economic blockade against Cuba. In the 1980s U.S. President Ronald Reagan began financing and training a paramilitary group within Nicaragua known as the Contras. In 2015 the Obama administration declared Venezuela a “threat to its national security” and the policy of economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation was unleashed.

The U.S. Senior Director for Latin America Juan Cruz called Monday for the Venezuelan military to overthrow Maduro under a constitutional provision that justifies rebellion against dictatorial rule.

 

Earlier this year former U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also hinted at a military coup in Venezuela.

The new U.S. ambassador to the OAS announced Wednesday that the OAS general assembly meeting scheduled for June will include a debate on the situation in Venezuela.

“We can get there with a resolution condemning Venezuela for not accepting basic humanitarian aid. That is the first step,” Trujillo explained.

Maduro has refused to accept international aid because he says he is certain that the economic crisis Venezuela faces has been created by the U.S.-sponsored sanctions that affect all Venezuelans.

Pence is expected to address the OAS permanent council next Monday.

Irresistible Urges: Surveilling Australia’s Citizens

May 4th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Irresistible Urges: Surveilling Australia’s Citizens

A team of elite US Green Beret commandos deployed to the Saudi border of Yemen last year to help find and destroy Houthi rebel missile caches, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

The Army special operations soldiers arrived in December to help Saudi counterparts locate launch sites and destroy the Houthis’ missile supplies, according to the Times, which cited US officials and European diplomats.

Citing operational security, the Pentagon said it could not comment on the makeup of forward-deployed forces.

The Pentagon’s “limited non-combat support, such as intelligence sharing, focuses on assisting our partners in securing their borders from cross-border attacks from the Houthis,” military spokesman Major Adrian Rankine-Galloway said.

The Times said there was no indication the commandos had crossed into Yemen. 

The unannounced move shows a deepening US involvement in Yemen’s war that has seen the country spiral toward famine and claimed almost 10,000 lives.

Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia has led a US-backed coalition of Arab states fighting to roll back the Houthis in Yemen and restore its neighbour’s internationally recognised government to power.

Officials told the Times the US troops are training Saudi forces to secure the border, which has seen an increase of Houthi ballistic missiles cross into the kingdom in recent months.

The Saudi troops are also working closely with US intelligence experts in the southern Saudi city of Najran, the Times said.

The Houthis, who hail from northern Yemen, control Sanaa and much of the country’s north – which borders Saudi Arabia – and the key Hodeida port on the Red Sea coast.

US lawmakers have sounded growing alarm about America’s support for the Saudis in Yemen, while President Donald Trump has bolstered ties with Riyadh and fostered a close relationship with Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Separately from Yemen’s civil war, the Pentagon has been bombing al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula for several years, and has sent in ground troops to conduct raids against the jihadists.

The campaign against AQAP, which has taken advantage of the war to expand its presence in several areas to the south and east, has intensified under Trump.

Civilian casualties from coalition airstrikes have drawn criticism from rights groups, and in October the United Nations placed the Saudi alliance on a “blacklist” for killing and maiming children.

Along with its air campaign, the Saudi-led coalition has imposed periodic blockades on Yemen’s ports. Both actions have killed more than 10,000 people – most of them civilians – and have left more than 18 million in need of aid, according to the UN.

The Saudi-led coalition’s war against Houthi rebels has led to the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis”, the UN said.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Japan to Build Roads Out of Radioactive Fukushima Dirt

Featured image: Democract Now! host and producer, Amy Goodman. (Source: Flickr/Aditya Ganapathiraju)

The dust had barely settled after last weekend’s U.S.-led bombing of Syria before a split in the political class developed. While some Beltway figures, media personalities and former officials hailed the bombings, others decried the “limited” nature of the airstrikes. At the grassroots level, a somewhat different debate gripped the left and the right — those who opposed the bombings were accused of buying into the propaganda of the Syria-Russia-Iran alliance, while would-be defenders of human rights called for increased military measures to degrade the killing capacity of the “Assad regime.”

Democracy Now!, the daily hour-long news show hosted by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, has long been the flagship institution for U.S. progressives. With its jaunty 90s opening theme, timely coverage of world events, liberal (maybe radical-liberal) take on global affairs, and impressive range of top-tier guests including authors, government officials, policy experts and activists, the syndicated program is seen as an exemplary display of independent journalism.

No doubt, the New York-based show is in a class of its own when compared to the vapidity and sensationalism of shock-jock right-wing radio or smug, Beltway liberalism of Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartmann or Cenk Uygur. Like a gust of oxygen in the choking smog of AC360-Maddow infotainment, Amy Goodman resembles an enlightened aunt at a Fourth of July party — a female version of Ira Glass who brings a kale, cauliflower, almond cheese and cumin-spiced casserole to the potluck while discussing difficult topics in an unshakeably calm, Zen-like manner.

Despite its reputation as a standard-bearer for left-of-center “alternative media,” Democracy Now isn’t immune to the pressures of U.S. politics: sometimes the Battle of Seattle veterans canvas their suburbs for Barack Obama; sometimes Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky get out the vote for Hillary.

In a similar manner, Democracy Now frequently accommodates narratives that would seem at home on CNN or the state-run Voice of America. With alarming regularity, the “war and peace report” has showcased passionate voices advocating Pentagon or State Department solutions to dire human-rights crises across the globe, including “regime change.”

Case-in-point: Syria. Since the country plunged into the depths of withering all-sided conflict and proxy war pitting the government of Bashar al-Assad against a range of opposition groups – from Gulf Arab-funded jihadists to Western-funded secular armies, with few independent players in between – the program regularly features interviews with activists who feel that Washington can play a progressive role for the people of the region through the deployment of the U.S. Armed Forces, covert aid to factions on the ground, and the routine violation of international legal norms such as the United Nations Charter.

Democracy Now generally isn’t a Pentagon mouthpiece; a large portion of its coverage does consist of decent progressive journalism. Yet interspersed throughout programming covering genuine popular movements, we find narratives covering the left flank of U.S. imperialism, normalizing the use of U.S. military force for ostensibly “humanitarian” purposes.

Interventionist voices for peace

In the course of the last week — since Syria came under cruise missile attack by the trilateral U.S.-U.K.-France alliance — Democracy Now has featured two interviews with activists who unabashedly call for the Pentagon to use military measures against the Syrian government for the sake of easing the Syrian people’s pain. Their arguments resemble the line of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who questioned whether the bombings were the result of a White House “choreographed Kabuki show” with their Russian counterparts rather than the Cuban Missile Crisis-style showdown which seemed apparent prior to the strikes.

On Tuesday, Goodman interviewed Ramah Kudaimi of the Syrian Solidarity Collective. Described as a “grassroots activist” and member of the anti-war movement, Kudaimi argued – as she has for several years now – that the bombings didn’t manage to go far enough in displacing “the regime.” Noting that the U.S., since Obama, has offered verbal support to the “Syrian people’s revolution” while acting in a manner that “strengthened the regime,” Kudaimi accused the Trump administration of continuing to not go far enough in ensuring regime change. Meanwhile, she accused the antiwar left of offering uncritical support to the Bush-style “War on Terror” being waged by what she depicts as the virtually united forces of Syria, Iran, Russia, and the U.S.-led coalition of Western powers and Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces.

Watch | Syrian-American Activist: Limited U.S. Airstrikes Send Signal to Assad He Can Continue Mass Killing

Mocking the very real possibility of the tripartite alliance clashing with the Russian military mission backing Syria’s government, Kudaimi said:

… it was kind of infuriating to see this being presented as breaking news, this being presented as an apocalypse, that we’re about to embark on World War III, especially as has been made clear again and again by the U.S. actions is — and words — is that this was something very limited, just to kind of send a message to Bashar al-Assad that you can go on and kill people with barrel bombs, with anything, but don’t — limit your use of chemical weapons.”

This was followed by an interview on Thursday with Moazzam Begg, a British Pakistani survivor of illegal detention and torture at the U.S. prisons in Bagram airbase in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, who now heads the human-rights group CAGE. In his interview, Begg stressed the need for a No-Fly Zone over the last remaining rebel stronghold of Idlib to prevent an “unprecedented massacre.”

Maintaining that he is “completely against Western intervention” on account of his own first-hand experience, Begg complained that the U.S.-led intervention in the country continues to target the Syrian opposition rather than the government, dourly noting that the U.S. hasn’t limited itself to fighting ISIS alone but also those groups that fought alongside it or alongside other groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, the rebranded al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Instead, he implied, the U.S. should attack the root of the conflict: the Syrian air force. Begg said:

At least we know that in the Kurdish regions, for example, during the Iraq War, there were no-fly zones. Indeed, in Bosnia …  it was bad enough, but a no-fly zone at least stopped those who had air forces to carry out even further killing with mass casualties.

Neither guest mentioned the significant proportion of “regime supporters” who reside in Syria, or the need for a resumption of negotiations between beleaguered opposition forces, the government and the various powers who are militarily involved in the conflict.

These are far from the first occasions that Democracy Now’s guests, like the New York City-based Democratic socialists of Jacobin magazine, have propagated a line favoring humanitarian intervention in Syria. Past interviewees and headline readouts enthusiastically supported the NATO-backed uprising in Libya against the government of Muammar Gaddafi as well, regularly citing the inflated figures of government-caused deaths published by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Black Agenda Report head editor Bruce Dixon noted at the time:

Something is really wrong with this picture. We have to wonder … at least as far as the war in Libya goes, whether Democracy Now is simply feeding us the line of corporate media, the Pentagon and the State Department rather than fulfilling the role of unembedded, independent journalists.”

Humanitarian crises and the pro-imperialist illusions “of idiots”

A denunciation of war crimes and indiscriminate bombings by the Syrian Arab Army or Russian Aerospace Forces — be it through hypersonic missile, artillery shell, barrel bomb, chemical warfare, etc. — is hardly our point of dispute. Nor is earnest solidarity with any people suffering at the hands of a state that disregards or does damage to their life-or-death interests.

Yet the position that any resistance to a reassertion of U.S. or European hegemony in Syria is a product of “fake news” indoctrination or a “pro-fascist anti-imperialism of idiots” — as Leila Al Shami argued in a widely-shared blog post — woefully misses the mark and cynically equates principled opponents of imperialist war with reactionary misanthropes on the far right.

To assert that Washington, London or Paris can act as guarantors of human rights or allies of the Syrian people is not only criminally naive, it provides ammunition to ideological fusillades aiming far higher than the low-hanging fruit of the Ba’athist regime alone.

For Washington and its European allies, as well as its junior partners in the region, Damascus is simply a pit-stop on the road to Tehran (and possibly Moscow) — a means by which so-called “Iranian imperialism” and the aims of rival powers can be thwarted, allowing hegemonic powers led by the U.S. to continue a policy of global conquest stretching from the Caribbean through the Mediterranean to the Sea of China.

The assertion that the war-stricken Assad regime is uniquely fascistic — unlike the region’s dynastic/sectarian, Zionist, militarist, or neo-Ottoman regimes — illustrates a selective indignation which dangerously feeds illusions that unlawful wars waged by top-tier Western powers to effect regime change will improve the lives of the most oppressed groups in the region and meet their need for a just peace. In what country, on what planet, do such precedents exist?

Let’s provide a reminder of these actors’ regional deeds in the past century: two world wars, Sykes-Picot, the partition plan, the War on Terror, police-state fascism, Wahhabist despotism, the shredding of the Middle East’s social fabric, and so forth. Doesn’t this offer at least a bit of proof that imperialism, neocolonialism, the military-industrial complex and the finance oligarchy at its helm aren’t in the least bit concerned about advancing human rights, democracy, peace and social justice in the region?

Endless warfare — endless disorientation?

Throughout the late 20th century but especially since the end of the Cold War, the United States arrogated to itself the right of aggressive military intervention across the globe on various pretenses. From Yugoslavia to Afghanistan, across Africa and the Middle East — Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Yemen — the U.S. cited a combination of national security concerns like terrorism and human-rights crimes to justify a total disregard for international law and consensus, not to mention the subsequent war crimes its military carried out in the course of “humanitarian” warfare.

While the U.K.’s successive governments have eagerly played the “poodle” role in support of Washington’s military adventures, the British people still maintain a vibrant anti-war movement. Anti-war and even anti-imperialist voices are frequently heard in the media, while Jeremy Corbyn’s left-wing faction of the Labour Party has waged a stiff opposition to Tory Prime Minister Theresa May’s eagerness to participate in attacks on Syria. As a result, only 28 percent of the British public supported May’s “commitment to combat” Syria while 36 percent opposed it, according to a poll by The Independent.

US Support for Syria Strikes

In the United States, Pew Research Center data from last year showed that over twice that ratio of Americans – 58 percent – supported such missile strikes.

The U.S. anti-war movement stagnated prior to the dusk of the George W. Bush administration and the onset of 2008’s election season, due in no small part to inroads by the Democratic Party and sectarian infighting by dominant leftist groups. In anticipation of the election of Barack Obama, the movement and its peace parades simply ground to a halt.

Following the jubilation of Obama’s electoral success and his post-inauguration resumption of Bush-era policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine-Israel, and Guantanamo, the grassroots opposition never reactivated. Mocking the movement’s co-option by the Democratic Party, activist Cindy Sheehan noted at the time that she began referring to the “anti-war left” as the “’anti-Republican War’ movement.”

In a study of the movement’s failure titled “Partisan Dynamics of Contention,” University of Michigan researcher Michael Heaney wrote:

As president, Obama maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan. The anti-war movement should have been furious at Obama’s “betrayal” and reinvigorated its protest activity. Instead, attendance at anti-war rallies declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement dissipated … the election of Obama appeared to be a demobilizing force on the anti-war movement, even in the face of his pro-war decisions.”

This grim state of affairs — ideological confusion, misplaced hopes, demoralization, disintegration — gives us ample cause to criticize the humanitarian window-of a center-left that’s now been housebroken, domesticated and rendered oblivious to the main enemy at home: U.S. imperialism.

Who pays the piper calls the tune

The rise and fall of popular left-wing currents — anti-war movements, militant workers’ struggles, and Black, Native American, Puerto Rican and Latin American immigrant liberation struggles — has followed predictable trends: there is the violent counter-insurgency conducted by a reinvigorated repressive state apparatus, white nationalist vigilantes, and other far-right groupings; and then there’s the low-intensity counterinsurgency conducted through the ideological state apparatus of media and academia; the formation of new electoral alliances and installation of minority “faces in the right places” of power; as well as the key factor, which is the co-option of movement figures by non-profit foundations backed by major capitalist philanthropic figures.

While open repression – the iron fist – tends to radicalize movements and galvanize popular support for them, the persuasive approach of the “velvet glove” forms a much more effective, less explosive and more demilitarized way of neutralizing mass opposition — transforming the revolutionary into the reformist, the radical into the tame, and the left to the centrist.

Much has been made of the role of figures like Hungarian-born billionaire George Soros and his Open Society Foundations, whose proclaimed mission is to protect dissent and “build vibrant and tolerant democracies” through philanthropic grants that ostensibly serve oppressed or marginalized communities. Much of the critique can veer toward the conspiratorial, or exaggerates his role as some all-powerful impresario of the global left. Yet Soros is a major activist financier both abroad and at home, one of many players invested in what’s been called the “Non-Profit Industrial Complex” or NPIC,which comprises a complex web of relations between local and federal governments, the capitalist class, philanthropic foundations, NGO/non-profit social-service and social-justice organizations.

A look at who sponsors Democracy Now! shows just how dependent it is on NPIC. It’s worth quoting last year’s analysis of DN’s funding structure by Danny Haiphong at length:

Democracy Now runs interference for imperialism because it is beholden to funding sources, as are all non-profits and non-governmental organizations … An analysis conducted in Critical Sociology found that the Pacifica Foundation received upwards of 148,000 USD between the years of 1996-1998 from the Ford, Carnegie, and other foundations to launch Democracy Now.

The Lannan Foundation gave Democracy Now an additional 375,000 USD packaged in a number of grants, according to the foundation’s IRS 990 forms since 2008. Patrick Lannan, the capitalist mogul who founded the organization, sat on the board of ITT corporation in the late 70s and early 80s. The ITT corporation was instrumental in the CIA-backed fascist coup that overthrew the democratically elected socialist Salvador Allende in 1973.

… Foundations wield a form of “soft power” on behalf of U.S. imperialism. Their main purpose is to provide a “civil society” infrastructure in targeted nations capable of fomenting conditions of regime change.

“Fake news” and critical consumption

The compromised nature of Democracy Now doesn’t render it entirely useless for genuine anti-imperialists and listeners opposed to war, be they “humanitarian” or not. Strong critical voices are often heard on Democracy Now – as may be the case on CBS, NBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, RT, MintPress News, PressTV, even maybe once in a blue moon on Fox News or CNBC.

When looking at any of these organizations we need to remain critical of the banalities they may spew such as a liberal-versus-conservative paradigm that upholds systems of power like global monopoly capitalism (imperialism), despite distracting debates over the finer points of how the system is upheld – is it for a more “humanitarian” world order, a more “secure” one?

All of us have a duty – as media producers and media consumers – to look beyond the rhetoric of social justice deployed by center-left establishment figures, and instead see the structures and principles they both depend on and uphold. “Fake News” in terms of bias, propaganda and lie by omission is unavoidable, but the key question remains “cui bono?” – who benefits from the propagation of this narrative?

In the case of Democracy Now!, we have incorporated non-profit 501(c)3s and big Wall Street money underwriting the ostensibly “independent” and alternative media. As usual, we should remain on guard.

The “war and peace report,” as progressive as it may often sound, has long ceased to be a purely listener-supported project, and this lack of economic independence has spilled into its politics. The clearest sign of that is an implicit support, especially in the Arab Spring era, of imperialist wars on “authoritarian” regimes who find themselves in the crosshairs of the U.S. government.

*

Elliott Gabriel is a former staff writer for teleSUR English and a MintPress News contributor based in Quito, Ecuador. He has taken extensive part in advocacy and organizing in the pro-labor, migrant justice and police accountability movements of Southern California and the state’s Central Coast.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

On March 18, physician, University of Illinois Chicago Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Health, Cancer Prevention Coalition chairman Samuel Epstein passed away at age-91 of cardiac arrest in Chicago.

Epstein was an internationally recognized cancer expert and its avoidable causes, especially exposure to industrial carcinogens in air, water, food, consumer products, pesticides, prescription drugs, and workplace environments.

Born and educated in England, he came to America in 1960. In Boston, he founded the Laboratories of Carcinogenesis and Toxicology, and The Children’s Cancer Research Foundation.

He was appointed Senior Research Associate in Pathology at Harvard Medical School, later coming to Chicago to teach at the University of Illinois.

He wrote numerous scientific articles, many others in national newspapers, along with seven books – notably The Politics of Cancer and The Politics of Cancer Revisited, discussed below.

Based on 2012 – 2014 data, over 38% of Americans are diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes, one of the nation’s leading health problems.

Decades after Richard Nixon signed the 1971 National Cancer Act, vowing to find a cure in his State of the Union address, cancer rates proliferated to epidemic levels.

In 2018, an estimated 1,735,350 new cases of cancer will be diagnosed in America, 609,640 people perishing from the disease, according to the National Cancer Institute – the toll exceeding US combat deaths in all its wars from WW II to the present.

Cancer occurs when body cells divide and spread uncontrollably. If untreated, it metastasizes and kills. Why is the war on it being lost?

According to Epstein,

it’s because “(t)he cancer establishment is fixated on damage control – diagnosis, treatment and basic genetic research – and is indifferent, if not sometimes hostile, to cancer prevention – getting carcinogens out of the environment.”

“The second factor is conflicts of interests, which are significant when it comes to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), but profound and overwhelming (for) the National Cancer Society (NCS).”

These organizations are incestuously tied to the “drug industry, the mammography industry, the pesticide industry, and other such industries” that profit from cancer proliferation. It’s big business. The more victims, the greater the bottom line benefits.

Image result for Samuel Epstein

Epstein believed the war on cancer is winnable by avoiding carcinogenic exposure. He supported enacting laws, criminalizing corporations and their officials for knowingly introducing carcinogens into the environment.

Epstein’s “Politics of Cancer Revisited” updated his earlier classic, explaining the limitations of cancer research.

He discussed case histories and political infighting on issues relating to asbestos, vinyl chloride, bischloromethylether, benzene, tobacco, red dyes #2 and #40, saccharin, acrylonitrile, female sex hormones, pesticides, aldrin/dieldrin, chlordane heptachlor, and nitrosamines.

He also focused on challenging and debunking “cancer establishment” policies and its US/UK apologists, aiding and abetting continued harm to public health.

He stressed the war on cancer is being lost because profits take precedence over human health, in his preface explaining:

“Cancer is caused mainly by exposure to chemical or physical agents in the environment. The more of a carcinogen present in the human environment, hence the greater the exposure to it, the greater the chance of developing cancer from it.”

“There is no known method for measuring or predicting a ‘safe’ level of exposure to any carcinogen below which cancer will result in any individual or population group.”

He documented occupational, environmental, prescription drug, and consumer product carcinogens. Examples include:

  • diethanolamine (DEA) absorbed in the skin, used in cosmetics, soaps and toiletries;
  • permanent and semi-permanent dark hair dye, producing 20% of female non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in America;
  • food colorings, pesticides, fungicides, nitrites, and hormones in foods;

Most US cattle and sheep receive carcinogenic growth-promoting hormone implants (usually testosterone or estrogens).

Packaging is harmful, containing dangerous chemicals able to migrate into food and other edibles.

Epstein said hazardous prescription drugs “may pose the single most important class of unrecognized and avoidable cancer risks for the US population.”

In 1992, he and three colleagues proposed “war on cancer” reforms, endorsed by 64 national cancer prevention, public health and preventive medicine experts in a statement, saying:

“(T)he generously funded cancer establishment, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the American Cancer Society (ACS), and some 20 comprehensive cancer centers, have misled and confused the public and Congress by repeated claims that we are winning the war against cancer.”

“In fact, the cancer establishment has continually minimized the evidence for increasing cancer rates, which it has largely attributed to smoking and dietary fat, while discounting or ignoring the causal role of avoidable exposures to industrial carcinogens in the air, food, water, and the workplace.”

Everyone can vote with their pocketbooks. They can make responsible choices, avoiding harmful products, buying safer ones, encouraging others to do the same thing.

That’s how important battles are won, by ordinary people at the grassroots – getting informed, doing the right thing, telling others, and proving where real power lies when used constructively.

Epstein explained it’s easier to pollute than protect public health. Powerful monied interests influence government policymaking at the federal, state and local levels, serving their own interests at the expense of public health and welfare.

Cancer is a growth industry because of governmental failure to combat it – emphasizing treatment, not prevention.

The “cancer establishment” spread misleading information for decades, predicting lower future incidences and mortality rates, eventually eliminating suffering and deaths from the disease in all forms.

Instead, it’s more prevalent than ever because of government inaction and inattention to root causes, nothing done to prohibit known carcinogens from the environment, workplaces, food, air, consumer products, and prescription drugs.

Industry is free to produce harmful products because nothing is done to stop it.

The only message corporate predators and organizations supporting them understand is hitting them in the pocketbook where it hurts most – the most effective way to get their attention.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Seven years before he was appointed as US National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski published Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. In this 1970 futurist treatise on American political science, Brzezinski forecasts how “[t]he post-industrial society is becoming a ‘technetronic’ society: a society that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially, and economically by the impact of technology and electronics—particularly in the area of computers and communications” (9).Almost fifty years later in 2018, President Donald Trump is ushering in Brzezinski’s technetronic new age by accelerating President Barack Obama’s 2009 Educate to Innovate initiative[1].

According to the Obama White House archives, the technetronic Educate to Innovate program financed “science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)” education programs that were bankrolled with “over $700 million in public-private partnerships” between the federal government and “leading companies, foundations, non-profits, and science and engineering societies.” During Obama’s presidency, which was counseled by Brzezinski[2], the corporate-fascist Educate to Innovate project orchestrated public-private political-economic planning with “leaders such as Ursula Burns (Xerox), Sally Ride, Craig Barrett (formerly of Intel), and Glenn Britt (Time Warner Cable) to leverage the business community interest in improving STEM education. Together, they recruited over a 100 other CEOs.”Additionally, Obama’s neoliberal regimepushed Brzezinski’s technetronic agenda even further by “help[ing] [to] launch Change the Equation, a new [2010] non-profit with full-time staff dedicated to mobilizing the business community to improve the quality of STEM education in the United States.”

On September 25th of 2017, the technetronic policies underlying Obama’s Educate to Innovate were ramped up by Trump’s signature of a $200 million Presidential Memorandum on Creating Pathways to Jobs by Increasing Access to Jobs by Increasing Access to High-Quality Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education. According to a report from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, “[t]his Presidential Memorandum (PM) directs the U.S. Secretary of Education to make promoting high-quality STEM and computer science education one of the Department of Education’s top priorities, and beginning in fiscal year 2018, to take this priority into account when awarding competitive grant funds.” The Trump Administration also launched other STEM education initiatives such as Executive Order 13801 “Expanding Apprenticeships in America,” which allocates federal resources for public-private “career-pathways” partnerships between schools and corporations that train students in hi-tech skills needed “to prepare workers for the jobs of the future.”

To condition students for these computerized jobs of the technetronic future, Secretary Betsy DeVos (image on the right) is advocating “virtual education” through public-private partnerships between public schools and for-profit ed-tech corporations that implement “adaptive-learning” computer modules in online courses or “blended-learning” classes that hybridize computerized instruction mixed with traditional human teaching. Moreover, to fascistically plan the technocratic economy of the future, these technetronic edu-corporations will data-mine each student’s cognitive-behavioral learning algorithm(s) in order to predetermine his or her “career pathway” into a future-tech job under the “competency-based education” (CBE) stipulations of the new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

In retrospect, Brzezinski, who was a prominent member of the Council on Foreign Relations, presciently forecasted this future in which the schooling system is managed by private corporations that utilize computerized technologies to psycho-behaviorally condition students for workforce placement in a technocratically planned economy[3]. Of course, hi-tech cognitive-behavioral conditioning of the student body through stimulus-response learning algorithms for the purposes of techno-fascist workforce planning is exploitative enough. Yet there is a more sinister ulterior motive behind technetronic workforce conditioning through adaptive-learning CBE software: the replacement of human instructors with automated teaching bots to perfect the scientific management of hi-tech psychosocial engineering through public-private techno-fascism.

“Individualized”/“Personalized” Education = Computerized Edu-Conditioning:

If you think that these dystopic predictions sound far-fetched, then consider the following statement given in 1984 by Dustin Heustin, a member of Utah’s World Institute for Computer-Assisted Teaching:

“[w]e’ve been absolutely staggered by realizing that the computer has the capability to act as if it were ten of the top psychologists working with one student . . . Won’t it be wonderful when the child in the smallest county in the most distant area or in the most confused urban setting can have the equivalent of the finest school in the world on that terminal and no one can get between that child and that curriculum?” (qtd. in Iserbyt 8).

Note how Heustin is medicalizing ed-tech by comparing teaching software with psychologists, not with educators or academicians; Heustin’s analogy clearly implicates that teaching computers are the hi-tech perfection of the stimulus-response method of psychological conditioning for the purposes of workforce schooling[4]. Furthermore, notice how Heustin is glorifying instructional technologies that can supersede a human teacher or tutor from “get[ting] between” the student and the preprogrammed curriculum, thereby exalting educational technology above human teachers as the highest authority over the student’s learning process. Lastly, observe how Heustin is implying that, by supplanting human instructors with computerized teaching technetronics, the traditional ratio of one teacher per several students is ostensibly inverted so that each student receives “individualized” attention from ten expert psychologists simultaneously.

This quote from Heustin is perhaps dated. Nonetheless, up-to-date adaptive-learning CBE technetronics currently deliver the same types of computerized learning that facilitate Heustin’s dream of preventing human teachers from “get[ing] between” the student and the career-pathways conditioning software.

  • Affective-Behavioral Data-Mining for CBE Workforce Behaviorism: Indeed, these adaptive-learning CBE technetronics are currently used to not only substitute human educators under the pretense of “individualized” instruction; they are also used to replace human psychologists as the digital stimulus-response algorithms are programmed to rewire a student’s cognitive-behavioral conditioning. In fact, it is admitted that CBE adaptive-learning algorithms are derived from the stimulus-response psychological method of behaviorist conditioning.

A 2011 issue of the peer-reviewed journal, Computers in Human Behavior, explains how CBE-style adaptive-learning algorithms data-mine not only a student’s academic content knowledge, but also his or her behavioral and affective responses to the computerized curriculum stimuli. This article, entitled “The Contribution of Learner Characteristics in the Development of Computer-Based Adaptive Learning Environments,” reports that “[t]he development of learner models takes an active part in upcoming [computer-based] adaptive learning environments. The purpose of learner models is to drive personalization based on learner and learning characteristics . . . such as cognitive, affective and behavioral variables” (Vandewaetere, Desmet, and Clarebout 118). In other words, a student’s adaptive-learning career-pathways algorithms are “model[ed]” from the “personaliz[ed]” data-mining of his or her behavioral reflex responses as well as his or her emotional and attitudinal responses to computerized lesson-plan stimuli.

This behavioral-affective adaptive-learning method of computerized workforce conditioning is guided by competency-based pedagogy, which is likewise rooted in the stimulus-response method of behaviorist psychology [5]. In 2005,the British Journal of Educational Technology published an article that historicizes how computerized CBE can be traced back to the manipulation of behaviorist psychological sciences for workforce edu-conditioning: “[c]ompetency-based training (CBT) has its origins in the behaviourist movement which sought to focus attention on intended outcomes of learning and observable student behaviours (Bowden & Masters, 1993; Velde, 1999). This focus represented a shift from establishing an individual’s ‘knowledge’ to an emphasis on ability to competently perform specific workplace tasks and roles and, as argued by Velde (1999) and Mulcahy (2000), the adoption of CBT has been driven by economic and social forces, rather than educational ones” (Phelps, Stewart, and Allan 69).Entitled “Competency, Capability, Complexity and Computers: Exploring a New Model for Conceptualising End-User Computer Education,” this academic article examines how CBE pedagogy is integral to computerized adaptive-conditioning curriculums for STEM education: “[n]otions of competency have dominated the computer education literature, and have underpinned Competency-Based Training (CBT) in information technology at all levels of education and training” (Phelps, Stewart, and Allan 67).

In sum, these scholarly publications reveal how students’ career pathways curriculums are programmed by CBE adaptive-learning software that data-mine the students’ cognitive, behavioral, and affective stimulus-response algorithms to “individualize” hi-tech workforce conditioning in a technocratic planned economy.

  • How Stimulus-Response UII “Personalizes” Workforce Conditioning: Under competency-based education statutes, a student can learn at his or her own pace as he or she works through computerized teaching modules that “individualize” psycho-behavioral conditioning based on his or her performance. As the student generates responses to the computerized teaching stimuli, the software in turn generates “user interaction information” (UII), which the software then processes into “personalized” algorithms that determine the academic or career “pathway” a student must follow. If a student responds more or less proficiently to a computer stimulus, then the digitalized curriculum will be set for more or less challenging “academic” pathways (potentially at an accelerated pace); if a student responds more or less incompetently to a computer stimulus, then the digitalized curriculum will be set for more or less remediated “career” pathways (potentially at a slower pace). Thus, rather than all students receiving the same general curriculum delivered by a single human teacher, each student receives an “individualized” curriculum that is “personalized” according to his or her stimulus-response-based algorithms calculated by his or her UII generated on his or her separate computer-conditioning modules.  The student’s career or academic pathway may be further “personalized” according to the student’s behavioral-affective responses associated with his or her cognitive-behavioral responses.

A 2015 issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Learning Analytics breaks down this “personalized” stimulus-response process of data-mining psycho-behavioral UII for CBE workforce conditioning. The scholarly article, entitled “A Competence-based Service for Supporting Self-Regulated Learning in Virtual Environments,” analyzes the “psychological mathematical framework” for data-mining UII with CBE adaptive-conditioning algorithms: “Competence‐based Knowledge Space Theory (CbKST) incorporates psychological assumptions on underlying skills and competences required for solving specific problems (Korossy, 1997; Heller Steiner, Hockemeyer, & Albert, 2006). In this approach, competences are assigned to both learning objects (taught competences) and assessment items (tested competences).  . . . CbKST provides adaptive assessment algorithms for efficiently determining the learnerʼs current knowledge and competence state, which builds the basis for personalization purposes. Based on this learner information, personalized learning paths can be created.Goal setting can be done by defining skills to be achieved (competence goal) or problems to be capable of solving. The competence gap to be closed during learning is represented by the skills that are part of the goal, but not part of the competence state of a learner” (Nussbaumer, Hillemann, Gütl, and Albert 106).

To simplify this passage, a student’s CBE career-path “goal[s]” are “personalized” by “psychological mathematical” adaptive-learning “algorithms” that are data-mined from the student’s UII responses on computerized “assessment items (tested competencies)” as his or her UII responses are recursively conditioned with digital lesson stimuli programmed with “learning objects (taught competencies).”

Such CBE adaptive-conditioning software are commercialized for “personalized” edu-consumption through corporate-trademarked “courseware” programs, including Alta (engineered by the Knewton Corporation), Intelligent Adaptive Learning™ (designed by the Dreambox Learning Corporation), Brightspace LeaP™ (purchased from Knowillage Systems by the D2L Corporation), and the Adaptive eLearning Platforms owned by the Smart Sparrow Corporation[6]. These and other for-profit courseware products are integrated into blended-learning classrooms at numerous KIPP charter schools; and they are also mainlined into online virtual schools such as Khan Academy and Capella University.

In 2015, the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) Center on Higher Education Reform published an article titled “The Student Experience: How Competency-Based Education Providers Serve Students,” which reviews the“computer adaptive education” software programmed into the “FlexPath model at Capella” (Baker 10). According to the AEI, Capella’s FlexPath courseware “individualize[s]” workforce edu-conditioning through “course-based instruction [that] is maintained by bundling competencies within courses. Students register for particular courses and can work at their own pace and in any order to demonstrate mastery of each competency. Capella states that the assessments ‘simulate work you’ll be expected to do on the job.’ 39 Students at Capella have personalized competency maps (figure 3) for each course that summarize how many competencies they have mastered and how many assessments they have completed” (Baker 10). In a nutshell, Capella’s online FlexPath platform conditions workforce competences through non-linear learning modules that allow the student to opt between various stimulus-response lesson paths that are sequenced throughout “personalized competency maps” for job-specific career-pathway curriculums.

Nevertheless, this “individualization” is not student centered. Instead, it is computer centered because a student’s conditioning through a career-pathway curriculum is predetermined by the preprogrammed parameters of the adaptive-learning courseware algorithm(s). The CBE software algorithm cannot be fundamentally altered by student UII responses; for it is impossible to create a new career-pathway curriculum regardless of how ingeniously a student generates UII responses to the adaptive-learning stimulus data. It is only possible to vary the competence-lesson paths within a prescribed career-pathway curriculum.

The AEI concurs:

“the components of traditional higher education programs that are typically the most flexible and able to be personalized (like choice of major, choice of classes within majors, and learning objectives within individual courses) are often fixed in CBE programs” (ii).

Obviously, if the “major, . . . classes . . . , and learning objectives” are all “fixed” in CBE computer-learning modules, then the only thing that could possibly be personalized are the competence paths which the student chooses to take through the fixed major, courses, and lessons that are required for certification in his or her prescribed career-pathway curriculum.

Ultimately, UII only enables the software algorithms to sort students “individually” into pre-planned career pathways because cognitive-behavioral stimulus-response algorithms cannot be scripted for jobs that have not yet been planned. As P. Wildman points out, “competencies tend to be prescriptive and are designed for a more stable environment with familiar problems” (qtd. in Phelps, Hase, and Ellis 69). In other words, competence-conditioning modules can only be preprogrammed with stimulus-response algorithms if those job competences have already been standardized in a “stable” career-pathway “environment” in which the particulars of workforce competences have been “familiar[ized]” and regimented in a planned economy.

Therefore, since workforce-competence algorithms are programmed in accordance with the market prospects and labor demands of a corporate-fascist planned economy, such workforce-competence algorithms must be fixed within the parameters of industry-specific career-pathway quotas that have been pre-planned by a public-private corporate-fascist elite [7]. As a result,

“[t]he problem with competency training,” notes C. Price,“is that it is always in danger of equipping the young for the performance of yesterday’s jobs” because corporate-government planning cannot account for the jobs of tomorrow which have not yet been planned (qtd. in Phelps, Hase, and Ellis 69).

*

(This article is excerpted from Klyczek’s soon-to-be-released book, School World Order: The Technocratic Corporatization of Education, which can be pre-ordered from Trine Day Press).

John Klyczek has an MA in English and has taught college rhetoric and research argumentation for over seven years. His literary scholarship concentrates on the history of global eugenics and Aldous Huxley’s dystopic novel, Brave New World. He is a contributor to the Intrepid Report, the Dissident Voice, OpEdNews, News With Views, and Natural News. He is also the Director of Writing and Editing at Black Freighter Productions (BFP) Books.

Sources

Baker, Rachel B.  “The Student Experience: How Competency-Based Education Providers Serve Students.”  American Enterprise Institute Series on Competency-Based Higher Education. The Center on Higher Education Reform of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 2015.  Print.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew.  Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. New York: The Viking Press, 1970.  Print.

Hsu, Chien-Chang and Chih-Chiang Ho.  “The Design and Implementation of a Competency-Based Intelligent Mobile Learning System.”  Expert Systems with Applications 39.9 (2012): 8030-8043.  Print.

Iserbyt, Charlotte Thomson.  The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America: A Chronological Paper Trail. Revised and Abridged Ed.  Parkman, OH: Conscience Press, 2011.  Print.

Nussbaumer, Alexander, Eva‐Catherine Hillemann, Christian Gütl, and Dietrich Albert.  “A Competence-based Service for Supporting Self-Regulated Learning in Virtual Environments.”  Journal of Learning Analytics 2.1 (2015): 101-133.  Print.

Phelps, Renata, Stewart Hase, and Allan Ellis.  “Competency,Capability,Complexity and Computers:Exploring a New Model for Conceptualising End-User Computer Education.”  British Journal of Educational Technology 36.1 (2005): 67-84.  Print.

Vandewaetere, Mieke, Piet Desmet, and Geraldine Clarebout.  “The Contribution of Learner Characteristics in the Development of Computer-Based Adaptive-Learning Environments.”  Computers in Human Behavior 27.1 (2011): 118-130.  Print.

Notes

[1]  The continuity of federal educational governance from the Democratic Obama Administration to the Republican Trump Administration at the White House parallels the continuity of state-level educational governance from Democrat Arne Duncan to Republican Bruce Rauner in Illinois. In my article titled “The Corporatization of Education,” I expose how both Governor Rauner and former Secretary of Ed Duncan, who was previously CEO of Chicago Public Schools, manipulated the Hegelian dialectic of America’s false leftwing-rightwing political paradigm to perpetuate corporate-fascist charter schooling across liberal and conservative party lines in Illinois. Like the Duncan-Rauner dialectic, the Obama-Trump dialectic exemplifies how the US educational system is stage-managed by the Hegelian “full-spectrum dominance” of bipartisan corporatism colluding to fascistically privatize public schooling for the purposes of “cradle-to-career” workforce planning.

[2]  On March 24th, 2010, a professional photographer who was employed by Obama’s Executive Office of the President of the United States, Pete Souza, snapped an “Official White House Photo” (P032410PS-0305) of Brzezinski seated directly beside President Obama during a national security meeting. Prior to this advisory meeting, Brzezinski’s endorsement of candidate Obama was instrumental to Barack’s election to Commander in Chief, and on September 12, 2007, candidate Obama gave a campaign speech in which here ferred to Brzezinski as “one of our most outstanding thinkers.”Obama’s love affair with Brzezinski is highlighted by historian Webster Griffin Tarpley, who wrote the following: “Any lingering doubts about Obama’s status as an abject puppet of Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission ended this morning when the withered mummy of imperialism himself appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe to campaign for Obama, urged on by his own moronic daughter, Mika Brzezinski, an Obama groupie and sycophant. Zbigniew, a low-level Polish aristocrat whose life has been devoted to hatred for Russia, lauded Obama for his 2002 speech opposing the Iraq war, saying that he himself was the source of Obama’s arguments back then – thus confirming Obama’s long-term status as his puppet, which probably began in 1981-1983, when Obama was a student at Columbia University, and Zbig was directing the anti-Russian institute.” After Zbig’s death last year, former President Obama made the following statement: “Zbigniew Brzezinski was an accomplished public servant, a powerful intellect, and a passionate advocate for American leadership. His influence spanned several decades, and I was one of several Presidents who benefited from his wisdom and counsel.”

[3]  Brzezinski, who co-founded the Trilateral Commission with David Rockefeller Sr., foresaw the following predictions for technetronic education in the twenty-first century:

  • Virtual Schooling through Computerized Teaching Technetronics: “The formal educational system has been relatively slow in exploiting the new opportunities for supplementary home-based education through television consoles and other electronic devices” (268). However, “[a] good case can be made for ending initial education (more of which could be obtained in the home through electronic devices) somewhere around the age of eighteen” (267).
  • For-Profit Ed-Tech and Corporate-Fascist Charter School Privatization: “[B]usiness[es] are becoming more involved in education, for psychological as well as for professional reasons. Greater multiplicity in educational training will make for a more pluralistic national community, and the increasing involvement of business companies in education may lead to a more rapid adaptation of the latest techniques and scientific knowledge to the educational process. American business and, to a lesser extent, government have already undertaken extensive programs of managerial ‘retooling’ and retraining, thereby moving toward the intermittent educational pattern” (268-269).
  • Workforce Training for “Career Pathways”: “[I]t [education] could be more generally pursued within a work-study framework, and it should be supplemented by periodic additional training throughout most of one’s active life. . . . Th[e] formal initial period could be followed by two years of service in a socially desirable cause; then by direct involvement in some professional activity and by advanced, systematic training within that area; and finally by regular periods of one and eventually even two years of broadening ‘integrative’ study at the beginning of every decade of one’s life, somewhere up to the age of sixty.  . . . Regular and formally required retraining—as well as broadening—could ensue at regular intervals throughout most of one’s professional career” (266-267).
  • Lifelong P-20/Cradle-to-Career Learning: “The unprecedented spread of mass education in America raises the more general question whether mechanically extending the duration of education will suffice to meet both the psychological and technical needs of the emerging society. . . . By extending education on an intermittent basis throughout the lifetime of the citizen, society would go a long way” (266).

Nearly fifty years after the publication of Between Two Ages, the accuracy of Brzezinski’s foresights above can be seen in the contemporary research that I have documented in the following articles: “The Corporatization of Education,”“Corporate-Fascist Workforce Training for the Hegelian State,”“National Charter School Fascism,”“Betsy DeVos, Big Data, and the Public-Private Planned Economy,” and “Secretary DeVos, Neurocore, and Competency-Based Workforce Training.”

[4]  In“Secretary DeVos, Neurocore, and Competency-Based Workforce Training,” I expound the long and continuing history of psychological conditioning methods used in the classroom for workforce education. In “National Charter School Fascism,” I document how the burgeoning public-private P-20 merger of public schooling and corporate medicine is clinically pathologizing the learning process to expand the institutionalization of such psychological-medical approaches to conditioning cognitive-behavioral learning in the classroom.

[5] In my article titled “Secretary DeVos, Neurocore, and Competency-Based Workforce Training,” I historicize how competency-based education is actually a rendition of outcomes-based education, which emphasizes the use of psycho-behavioral conditioning methods to train students to perform prescriptive workforce-learning outcomes. In “Schooling and the Myth of Objectivity: Stalking the Politics of the Hidden Curriculum,” Dr. Henry Giroux provides a similar historical analysis of OBE-CBE techno-conditioning. Giroux, who is Professor of English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, reveals how “the technological and behaviorist models that have long exercised a powerful influence on the curriculum field were, in part, adapted from the scientific management movement of the 1920’s, just as the roots of the competency-based education movement were developed in earlier research work adapted ‘from the systems engineering procedures of the defense industry’ (Franklin, March 1976, pp.304-305)” (283).

[6]  Other Knewton courseware products are contracted with some of the biggest ed-tech corporations in the educational-industrial complex: Pearson Education, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and Cengage Learning. Dreambox is the beneficiary of millions of dollars in investments from Netflix CEO, Reed Hastings, who is also a corporate philanthropist who lobbies heavily for the overthrow of publicly elected school boards to be replaced with private charter councils that autocratically manage public-private charter-school corporations.  D2L’s Brightspace LeaP™ has even expanded its reaches internationally into Latin America through twenty-seven AliatUniversidades campuses across Mexico.  Smart Sparrow is funded by ACT Inc., the corporation that designs, owns, and distributes the “American College Testing®” standardized test used for college admissions applications.

[7]  According to former Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement for the US Department of Education,Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, this de-individuated computerization of workforce conditioning is not only the corporate-fascist method of edu-conditioning; it is likewise the Soviet-communist method of collectivist-Statist edu-conditioning. In her article titled, “Heritage Foundation, NAFTA, School Choice and the Destruction of Traditional Education,” Iserbyt quotes “Professor Eugene Boyce, University of Georgia . . . : ‘They [communists] do not educate for jobs that don’t exist.’” Iserbyt elaborates:“[n]o matter what your child wants to be/do in the future (welder or ballet dancer) his freedom to pursue his dreams will be limited by whether he is included in the school/business partnership’s ‘quota’ for training. Example: If he wants to be a welder at the shipbuilding company in your town, he will only be able to get training if he is fortunate enough to be included in the training quota. If the company only needs ten welders, and your son/daughter is No. 11 on the list, he/she will NOT receive training.” These parallels between communist and fascist workforce schooling through computer conditioning further demonstrate the Hegelian-dialectical full-spectrum dominance of both “leftwing” and “rightwing” educational politics that are dished out in semantically different flavors of the same pabulum of corporate-government collusion.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cognitive-Behavioral Workforce Conditioning through Online Adaptive-Learning Technetronics
  • Tags:

Did the Cold War Ever Really End?

May 4th, 2018 by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

The official end of the Cold War era in 1989 brought during the first coming years a kind of international optimism that the idea of the “end of history“ really could be realized as it was a belief in no reason for the geopolitical struggles between the most powerful states. The New World Order, spoken out firstly by M. Gorbachev in his address to the UN on December 7th, 1988 was originally seen as the order of equal partnership in the world politics reflecting “radically different international circumstances after the Cold War“.[1]

Unfortunately, the Cold War era finished without the “end of history“ as the US continues the same policy from the time of the Cold War against Moscow – now not against the USSR but against its successor Russia. Therefore, for the Pentagon, the Cold War era in fact has never ended as the fundamental political task to eliminate Russia from the world politics still is not accomplished. Regardless the fact that in 1989 Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe, followed by the end of the USSR in 1991, that brought a real possibility for creation of a new international system and global security[2], the eastward enlargement of the NATO from March 1999 (the Fourth enlargement) onward is a clear proof of the continuation of the US Cold War time policy toward Moscow which actually creates uncertainty about the future of the global security.

After the end of the USSR and the Cold War, there were many Western public workers and academicians who questioned firstly why the NATO has to exist at all and secondly why this officially defensive military alliance is enlarging its membership when the more comprehensive Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the CSCE, today the OSCE) could provide the necessary framework for security cooperation in Europe including and Russia.[3]However, the NATO was not dissolved, but quite contrary adopted the same policy of the further (eastward) enlargement likewise the EU. The Kosovo crisis in 1998−1999 became a formal excuse for the enlargement of both these US client organizations for the “better security of Europe“. The EU Commission President, Romano Prodi, in his speech before the EU Parliament on October 13th, 1999 was quite clear on this matter.[4] However, if we know that the Kosovo crisis followed by the NATO military intervention (aggression) against Serbia and Montenegro was fully fuelled exactly by the US administration, it is not far from the truth that the Kosovo crisis was provoked and maintained by Washington, among other purposes, for the sake to give a formal excuse for the further eastward enlargement of both the EU and the NATO.

NATO expansion

NATO expansion

However, can we speak at all about the end of the Cold War in 1989/1990 taking into account probably the focal counterargument: the NATO existence and even its further enlargement? As a matter of fact, the NATO is the largest and longest-surviving military alliance in contemporary history (est. 1949, i.e., six years before the Warsaw Pact came into existence). No doubts today that the NATO was established and still is operating as a fundamental instrument of the US policy of global imperialistic unilateralism that is, however, primarily directed against Russia. The deployment of the US missiles in Western Europe in the 1980s, regardless on achieved détente in the 1970s in the US-USSR relations, became a clear indicator of a real nature of Pentagon’s geopolitical game with the East in which the NATO is misused for the realization of the US foreign policy objectives under the pretext that the NATO is allegedly the dominant international organization in the field of the Western European security. Although the NATO was formally founded specifically to “protect and defend“ Western Europe from the USSR there are many doubts after 1990 why this Cold War organization still exists as the alleged danger for the Western civilization disappeared with the decomposition of both the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. Basically, the proper answer to this question can be found in the origins of the Cold War.

According to the revisionist approach from the mid-1960s, the main responsibility for both the Iron Curtain and the Cold War is on the American side as the USA:

“…refused to accommodate the legitimate security requirements of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe and also because it overturned the wartime allies’ agreement to treat postwar, occupied Germany as a single economic entity. Furthermore, the Truman administration (1945−53) used the myth of Soviet expansionism to mask the true nature of American foreign policy, which included the creation of a global system to advance the interests of American capitalism.“[5]

Undoubtedly, a dismissal of the USSR by M. Gorbachev in 1989−1991 produced a huge power vacuum in Central and Eastern Europe that was in the coming years filled by the NATO and the EU. The eastward enlargement programme of both the NATO and the EU emerged in due time as a prime instrument by Washington to gradually acquire control over the ex-Communist territories around Russia. A standard Western academic cliché when writing on the eastward enlargement of the EU is that those ex-Communist East European states:

“… wanted to join a club of secure, prosperous, democratic, and relatively well-governed countries. They saw themselves as naturally belonging to Europe, but deprived of the opportunity to enjoy democracy and the free market by Soviet hegemony and Western European acquiescence to that state of affairs. With the fall of Communism this historical injustice had to be remedied, and accession to the EU was to make their return to Europe complete“.[6]

However, it is not clear why seven Western European states currently out of the EU are not able to see all mentioned advantages of the EU membership. Even one of the member states (the UK) decided in 2016 to leave the club (Brexit) and one of the chief reasons for this decision was exactly the eastward enlargement as the critical idea of all Eastern European states to join the EU is to live on the Western EU member states’ financial support. Nevertheless, from the geopolitical perspective, the new EU member states coming from Eastern Europe (from 2004 enlargement onward) are the US Trojan Horse in the club, who are openly supporting the American foreign policy of the imperial design, but with their prime duty as the members of both the EU and the NATO to take an active participation in the coming Western military crusade against Russia in the form of the WWIII. However, these Eastern European nations are going to be the first to experience direct consequences of the war as being a critical part of the Western front-line combat zone against Russia.

Surely, one of the most fundamental anti-Russian actions in Europe at the post-Soviet era was the US decision to expend the NATO eastward by offering full membership to three ex-Warsaw Pact members: Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. Therefore, Reagan-Gorbachev agreement from Reykjavik in 1988 was unilaterally and brazenly violated by Washington under the formal excuse of a combination of events−V. Zhirinovsky’s showing in the 1993 elections in Russia, domestic pressure upon B. Clinton from his Republican opponents at the Congress, and what the US administration saw as the abject failure of the EU to provide an answer to the European problem of the Yugoslav civil war (1991−1999). Washington quickly accused the Europeans to be unable to deal with the Yugoslav crisis that was a major test which the EU failed to pass, but honestly speaking, all the EU peace-making efforts dealing with the Yugoslav crisis really failed for the very reason as they were directly sabotaged by the US diplomacy. Nevertheless, the first new action by the enlarged NATO, only two weeks after its Fourth enlargement, was a savaged bombing of Serbia for the sake to put her Kosovo province under the NATO occupation.

NATO bombing of Serbia

Remains of the Yugoslav Army headquarters bombed by NATO during the aerial campaign in 1999

It has to be recognized that the Cold War bipolarity after 1989 was, at least up to 2008, superseded by the US-led unipolarity – a hegemonic configuration of the US accumulated hyperpower in global politics that presented quite new challenges to the international relations. However, after the event of 9/11, the US administration started to act on the accelerating achievement after the Cold War of supreme political and military power in the globe for the sake to complete a mission of a global hegemon. The US administration, however, purposely presented the 9/11 attack as the work of (only) a network of Al Qaeda, a Islamic terrorist organization led by Osama bin Laden who was a Saudi millionaire’s son but as well as “who learned his terrorist trade, with U.S. assistance, fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s“.[7] The US administration of President G. W. Bush responded very quickly and by the end of 2001 a Taliban regime in Afghanistan, that was a radical Islamic regime which was providing a base of operations for Al Qaeda, became demolished and the biggest part of the country occupied or controlled in a coalition with the US satellite states. That was the beginning of the announced „War on Terrorism“ that actually had to serve as a good excuse to further strengthen the US position as the global policeman followed by the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Therefore, a policy of a global unipolarity – a condition of a global politics in which a system of international relations is dictated by a single dominant power-hegemon that is quite capable of dominating all other states, became an order of the day for both the Pentagon and the White House.

With the US military invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 the US stood alone (with the military support by the UK as the fundamental American client state after 1989) at the summit of the hierarchy of the international relations and global politics up to 2008 when Russia finally decided to protect its own geopolitical and historical interests in some part of the world – in this particular case at the Caucasus. The US, in the other words, became in the years 1989−2008 the sole state in the world with the military and political capability to be a decisive factor in the global politics at any corner of the world. In these years, the US military expenditures exceeded all other states combined – a clear sign of a hegemonic global policy of Washington. It seemed to be that the US had an extraordinary historical ability to dictate the future of the world according to its wishes and design as America became a single world hyperpower as the universal empire stronger than Roman or British empires.

By definition, the empire is a universal state having a preponderant power and being in a real ability to act independently without any restraint.[8] Therefore, the empire is working alone rather than in concert with other states, or at least with those whom we can call as the Great Powers[9] – a fundamental mistake and sin which finally provokes an apocalyptic animosity and clash with the rest of the world. This animosity, from a historical perspective, after certain time, provokes a blowback by the others that exactly, in the case of the US empire, came from Russia in 2008. Central Caucasus, Eastern Ukraine, and the West Middle East today became the regions of a direct clash of geopolitical interests on the global chessboard between declining US empire and the rising economic, political, financial and military power of Russia. The US even from 1990 (the First Gulf War) crossed the moral boundaries in abusing its hyperpower through defiant and brutal unilateralism, becoming, as all other universal states (empires), hated and feared rogue civilization (“rogue gangster state“ according to Stephen Lendman). The universal state is acting as an international outlaw by its own rules, values, norms, and requirements like the US and its NATO satellites in the case of the barbaric bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for 78 days in 1999.

According to Noam Chomsky, in fall 2002 the most powerful state ever existed in history declared the basic principle of its imperial grand strategy as self-intention to keep its global hegemony by the threat to use or by use of its own super powerfully equipped military arsenal that is the most critical US dimension of power in which Washington reigns supreme in the world.[10] It was clearly confirmed by the White House on September 17th, 2002 as a part of the US national security strategy that was going to be no longer bound by the UN Charter’s rules governing the use of force:

“Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States“.[11]

The hawks of the US hegemonic world order after 1989 have been openly emphasized the necessity of America’s self-serving pre-eminent role in the world politics, as Hillary Clinton, for instance, put it at her confirmation hearing as the US Secretary of State in 2009:

“So let me say it clearly: the United States can, must, and will lead in this new century… The world looks to us because America has the reach and resolve to mobilize the shared effort needed to solve problems on a global scale – in defense of our own interests, but also as a force for progress. In this we have no rival“.[12]

However, those H. Clinton’s words were ungrounded as the US empire already was in the process of declination. The gradual decline and probably ultimate demise of the US empire, as any other empire in history, can not be understood without previous knowledge of nature and driving forces of the imperial system. After 1991 the USA remained to function as a „military society“ as there were, for instance, the Roman Empire or the Ottoman Sultanate. That is to say more precisely, the driving force behind the US empire left to be an “external objective“ – the perceived needs to reconstruct the world according to its own values and norms. However, such very ambitious project requires a very systematic policy of overall mobilization of the whole society, economy, and politics. As such mobilization, all the time implies sacrificing a particular sector of the domestic economy for the sake to realize the expansionist aims, the system’s functioning is basically reinforced by the need to replenish resources used up at the previous stage[13] – the need which the US simply could not accomplish successfully.

The US, as a matter of fact, already found itself very costly to maintain its own military dominance in the world. The American soldiers are deployed in almost 80 countries from the Balkans to the Caucasus and from the Gulf of Arden to the Korean Peninsula and Haiti. The US administration is today constantly trapped by the Imperial Overstretch Effect – the gap between the resources and ambitions especially in the foreign (imperialistic) policy which is formally wrapped into the phrase of “domestic security“ needs or international „humanitarian mission“. Undoubtedly, the US costly imperial pursuits and particularly military spending weakened the American economy in relation to its main rivals – China and Russia.

There is a number of scholars (N. Chomsky, M. Chossudovsky, etc.) and public workers (like P. K. Roberts) who predict that after the Pax Americana a multipolar system of international relations will emerge. The fact is that multipolarity, as a global system with more than two dominant power centers, is clearly advocated by V. Putin’s administration in Kremlin instead of both a bipolarity or unipolarity. This concept of multipolarity in international relations has to include alongside the US and the BRICS countries, Japan and the EU. As a multipolar system includes several comparatively equal Great Powers, it is by the nature complex system and hopefully more prosperous for maintaining the global security. The world is in fact from 2008 at the process of power transition that is surely the dangerous period as a hyperpower of the USA is directly challenged by the rise of its rivals – Russia and China. Subsequently, the current Ukrainian and Syrian crisis are the consequences (a global „collateral damage“) of such period of power transition which already marked the beginning of a new Cold War that can be soon transformed into the Hot Peace era. Nevertheless, the US administration is not anymore in position to run with the Bush Doctrine[14] that is the unilateral grand strategy of the George W. Bush’s administration in order to preserve a unipolar world under the US hegemony by keeping America’s military capacity beyond any challenge by any other state in the world as, certainly, the US hegemony is already challenged by both Russia and China. Those two countries are currently in the process of making their own alliance bloc advocating multilateralism as a cooperative approach to managing shared global problems and keeping a collective security by collective and coordinated actions (a group thinking) by the Great Powers.

BRICS leaders

BRICS leaders

The fundamental task of the US foreign policy after 1989 is to protect its own concept and practice of the unipolar geopolitical order in the world, while Russia with the other BRICS countries is trying to create a multilateral global geopolitical order. The BRICS group of countries (Brasil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are clearly expressing the global phenomena of the “Rise of the Rest“ against the US unipolar hegemony. The rise of the BRICS marks a decisive shift in the global counter-balance of power toward the final end of America’s hegemony. A significance of these four fast-growing economies and their global geopolitical power is already visible and recognized with the predictions that up to 2021 the BRICS countries can exceed the combined strength of the G-7 countries.[15]Therefore, here we are dealing with two diametrically opposite geopolitical concepts of the world order in the 21st century.[16] The current Ukrainian and Syrian crises are a just practical expression of it. From the very general point of view, the US administration is not opposing the Russian geopolitical projects because of the fear of the reconstruction of the USSR, but rather for the sake of realization of its own global geopolitical projects according to which Russia has to be a political and economic colony of the West like all the former Yugoslav republics are today but just formally existing as the „independent“ states. The most immediate US task in dealing with Russia after 2000 is to prevent Moscow to create a Eurasian geopolitical and economic block by misusing the EU and NATO policy of the eastward enlargement in East Europe and the Balkans. Ukraine in this matter plays one of the fundamental roles as according to notorious US Russophobe of the Polish origin Z. Brzezinski, Ukraine is a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard as a geopolitical pivot for the reason that its very existence as an independent country helps to halt Russia to become a Eurasian empire what means a center of world power. Therefore, the US policy in Eastern Europe has to be concentrated on turning all regional countries against Russia, but primarily Ukraine which has to play the crucial role of stabbing the knife to Russia’s backbone.[17]

The Huntington’s thesis about the unavoidable clash of the antagonistic cultures at the post-Soviet time basically served as academic verification of the continuation of America’s hegemonic global policy after 1989. The author himself „was part leading academic and part policy adviser to several US administrations−and had occupied this influential space since the late 1950s“[18] what means that Huntington directly was participating in directing the US foreign policy during the Cold War. However, as the USSR together with its Communist satellites finally lost the war, but the US policy of the Pax Americana had to be continued and after the Cold War, Huntington actually by his article and later the book on the clash of antagonistic civilizations, as their value systems are profoundly different, paved the academic ground to the Pentagon to invent, a new and useful enemies that would give the US a new role and provide a new justification for America’s continued hegemony in a post-Soviet world. One of these enemies became a post-Yeltsin’s Russia as a country which decided to resist a global hegemony by anyone.

A new Russia’s foreign policy in the 21st century is especially oriented and directed toward refutation of predicting that the new century of the new millennium is going to be more “American“ than the previous one. It means that the US-Russian relations after 2000 are going from the US-led “New World Order“ to the multipolar “Resetting Relations“.[19] The last military success of the Pax Americana’s geopolitical project was the Second Gulf War (the Iraq War) in 2003 launched by the US Neocon President George W. Bush not only to kick out the “Vietnam Syndrome“, but more important to answer to all those experts who previously had been predicting an erosion of the US influence in the global politics. The architects of a post-Yeltsin’s Russia’s geopolitics, followed by all critics of the Pax Americana, are emphasizing a dangerous effect of the American soft power in the shape of popular culture, fashion, fast food, music, etc., as the products of a primitive sub-culture and a quasi-civilization. Therefore, the global duty of the civilizations at the time of the clash of civilizations is to fight against the quasi-civilization which degenerates the human face around the world. That is one of the critical tasks of Russia in world policy after 2000 as one of the escalating Great Powers. A rising power of the post-Yeltsin’s Russia as one of the leading countries which are challenging the US unipolar hegemony can be seen from the facts that only up to 2008 Russia succeeded to double its GDP, to triple wages in real terms and to reduce the unemployment and poverty.[20]

*

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is Founder & Editor of POLICRATICUS-Electronic Magazine on Global Politics (www.global-politics.eu). Contact: [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Notes

[1] Jeffrey Haynes, Peter Hough, Shahin Malik, Lloyd Pettiford, World Politics, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013, 97.

[2] John Baylis, Steve Smith (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Second edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 111.

[3] Karin M. Fierke, Antje Wiener, “Constructing Institutional Interests: EU and NATO Enlargement” in Frank Schimmelfennig, Ulrich Sedelmeier (eds.), The Politics of European Union Enlargement: Theoretical Approaches, London−New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2005, 99.

[4] European Commission, “Speech by Mr Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, on Enlargement”, European Parliament Brussels, October 13th, 1999, SPEECH/99/130.

[5] David Gowland et al., The European Mosaic, Third edition, Harlow, England: Pearson Education, 2006, 277.

[6] Jan Zielonka, Europe as Empire: The Nature of the Enlarged European Union, New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, 49.

[7] Steven L. Spiegel, Jennifer Morrison Taw, Fred L. Wehling, Kristen P. Williams, World Politics In A New Era, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 2004, 329.

[8] On this issue, see more in [Robert Kaplan, Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos, New York: Random House, 2002]. On the political ideology of a universal state, see [Elen Arveler, Politička ideologija Vizantijskog carstva, Beograd: Filip Višnjić, 1988].

[9] A Great Power is a such state which is ranked among the most powerful states in the world according to hierarchical state-system. There are four fundamental criteria to identify a Great Power state: 1. It is in the first rank of military competence, having full capacity to protect its own national security and to influence other countries; 2. It is an economically powerful state; 3. It has global spheres of interest; and 4. It uses a “forward” foreign policy having actual, but not only potential, impact on international relations and world politics [Andrew Heywood, Global Politics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001, 7].

[10] Noam Chomsky, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance, London: Penguin Books, 2004, 11.

[11] White House, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Washington, September 17th, 2012.

[12] Amitav Acharya, The End of American World Order, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2014, 51.

[13] Andrew C. Janos, East Central Europe in the Modern World: The Politics of the Borderlands from pre- to postCommunism, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000, 330−331.

[14] The Bush Doctrine dealing with the “War on Terrorism” is formulated in two messages delivered to joint sessions of the US Congress on September 20th, 2001 and January 29th, 2002 [Paul R. Viotti (ed.), American Foreign Policy and National Security: A Documentary Record, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005, 244−248]. The Bush Doctrine is directly supported by the USA Patriot Act of October 24th, 2001. The idea of Bush Doctrine is in fact very similar to the idea of the Reagan Doctrine of 1985 formulated to fight the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.

[15] Andrew Heywood, Global Politics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001, 447.

[16] Срђан Перишић, Нова геополитика Русије, Београд: Медија центар „Одбрана“, 2015, 221.

[17] On this issue, see more in [Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, New York: Basic Books, 1997].

[18] John Baylis, Steve Smith (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, Second edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001, 115.

[19] Roger E. Kanet, “From the ‘New World Order’ to ‘Resetting Relations’: Two Decades of US−Russian Relations” in Roger E. Kanet (ed.), Russian Foreign Policy in the 21st Century, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 204−227.

[20] Richard W. Mansbach, Kirsten L. Taylor, Introduction to Global Politics, Second edition, London−New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2012, 165.

All images, except the featured, in this article are from the author.

The recent presentation made by Binyamin Netanyahu purportedly detailing a secret Iranian programme aimed at acquiring a nuclear weapons capability is the latest in a long-term effort on his part to obtain United States assistance in destroying Iran. But the actions of the Israeli prime minister are not only ironic and hypocritical: they bring into focus the connection between the purposeful destructions of Iraq and Libya on the one hand and the attempt to destroy Syria, foment conflict in Lebanon and neutralise Iranian military power on the other. Few Americans are aware of this two decade-long grand strategy followed by successive United States administrations because the compartmentalization of events, short-term memory of the public and government propaganda have all served to murky the fundamental picture, that is, one in which the United States continues to follow a policy of taking down countries which pose a threat to the state of Israel. It is a policy which was adopted without recourse to public debate despite the serious ramifications it has had in terms of the cost to American prestige and an ever increasing national debt.

Most of the world’s major national intelligence services have long concluded that Iran has no nuclear weapons development programme. This includes the intelligence community of the United States and up until recently -if Binyamin Netanyahu is to be believed- Israel’s Mossad. A debate within Iran’s political, military and intelligence circles apparently ended with the nation’s supreme leader ruling against the development of nuclear weapons.

The irony is not lost in the scenario of the leader of Israel decrying the acquisition of nuclear technology by another nation, one that is a signatory state to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and subject to the stringent conditions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action reached between Iran and the ‘Five Plus One’ countries, when Israel is in possession of an undeclared arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Israel’s own nuclear weapons programme, which began with the express disapproval of President John F. Kennedy who felt that it would create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, involved the practice of a grand deception by David Ben Gurion who insisted that the Dimona reactor was for research purposes only and not for the production of plutonium.

A pungent whiff of hypocrisy pervades Netanyahu’s presentation. Israel’s nuclear arms programme has not only been shrouded in secrecy but has involved acts of criminality which according to FBI documents declassified in June 2012 allegedly involved Netanyahu himself. Netanyahu later issued a gagging order directing the unindicted ringleader of a nuclear smuggling ring to refrain from discussing an operation known as ‘Project Pinto’. Israel spied on nuclear installations inside the United States and in the 1960s and it stole bomb-grade uranium from a US nuclear fuel-processing plant.

Netanyahu’s speech is the latest in a campaign by Israel to ignite a war against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran, a plan which is intimately linked to the effort to destroy Syria over the past seven years.

The war in Syria represents the combined efforts of the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia to destroy the so-called ‘Shia Crescent’ of Iran, Syria and Lebanon (Hezbollah). The centrality of Israel in this effort was made clear by Roland Dumas, a former foreign minister of France in 2013. But Israel, along with the United States and Saudi Arabia, has been enraged by the fact that Bashar al-Assad’s secular government with the help of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, has practically defeated the Islamic fanatics who were introduced into Syria for the purpose of overthrowing Assad in order to balkanise the country and stop Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The reason why Israel wants Iranian aid to Hezbollah cut off and the organisation destroyed is not hard to fathom. Hezbollah is the only armed force within the Arab world willing and capable of taking on the Israeli military. Israel has for long coveted southern Lebanon up to the River Litani. But Hezbollah has twice inflicted humiliating defeats on Israel: first in 2000 when Israel was forced to withdraw after an 18-year occupation of the southern part of Lebanon which had commenced with a bloody invasion, and secondly in 2006 when Israel was forced to withdraw after sustaining heavy losses during a 34-day conflict.

Apart from the aforementioned goal of breaking the conduit between Iran and Hezbollah, the balkanisation of Syria would mean that any of the successor states would find it difficult to make a claim for the Golan Heights which Israel conquered in 1967 and which it illegally annexed in 1981. Israel is also supportive of the idea of a Kurdish state being created out of Syria as a means through which the transfer of oil and gas could be facilitated.

Much evidence exists of a pre-existing Israeli plan to destroy Syria. The Yinon Plan of 1982 and a series of position papers produced by Israel-friendly neoconservative ideologues in the United States (the Project for the New American Century’s ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses – Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century’ in 2000) as well as for the Israeli government (‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’ in 1996) bear this out. Each document clearly calls for the neutralising or the “rolling back” of several states including Syria.

The Yinon Plan, the name given to a paper entitled ‘A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s’ which was published in February 1982 in Kivunim (Directions), a journal written in Hebrew, set out Israel’s enduring aim of balkanising the surrounding Arab and Muslim world into ethnic and sectarian mini-states. Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq were prime candidates.

It was not a unique or suddenly arrived at policy, but simply set out in detail an overarching policy pursued by Israel’s leaders since the founding of the state. For  instance, the diaries of Moshe Sharett, an early prime minister of Israel, laid bare David Ben Gurion and Moshe Dayan’s aim of weakening Lebanon by exacerbating tensions between its Muslim and Christian population in the course of which Dayan hoped that a Christian military officer would declare a Christian state out of which the region south of the River Litani would be ceded to Israel.

A crucial point to mention is that the policy of the United States towards Syria and others is congruent with that of Israel. In fact, America has been pursuing a two-decade long strategy aimed at destabilisation and balkanisation regardless of the political stripe of the president in office. After the attack of 9/11, the United States set in motion a plan, in the words of retired U.S. General Wesley Clark, “to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran”.

The secular nations of Iraq, Syria and Libya had no links to the Sunni Islamist al-Qaeda cell which purportedly carried out the attacks on 9/11. Neither did Shia Iran. Yet, America foreign policy has been geared towards destroying nations who happen to oppose Israel and who are supportive of the Palestinian cause.

To quote General Clark again, American foreign policy was “hijacked” without a public debate.

While the adoption of this policy remains officially unacknowledged, the modus operandi by which the United States has sought to destroy these countries is clear. A succession of position papers as well as the intended effect of United States and NATO interventions point to the exploiting of ethnic and sectarian conflicts as well as the use of Islamist proxy armies as the standard tactic utilised to bring down governments.

For instance, a Pentagon-funded report by the RAND Corporation in 2008 entitled ‘Unfolding the Future of the Long War: Motivations, Prospects and Implications for the U.S. Army’ explicitly refers to the need to foment conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims as a means to the end of controlling the resources of the Middle East.

Another tactic alluded to by a 2012 document created by the Defense Intelligence Agency is that of declaring ‘Safe Havens’ -a term synonymous with the often used ‘No-Fly Zones’- ostensibly as a humanitarian policy, but which is a technique used to shield and preserve areas controlled by Islamist insurgents. It was utilised by NATO forces as a means of protecting the al-Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group during its campaign to overthrow the government of Muammar Gaddafi, and an attempt was made to implement this prior to the fall of the al-Nusra-controlled city of Aleppo.

America’s Founding Fathers warned against getting involved in foreign entanglements, yet it devotedly follows a Middle East policy that clearly benefits the interests of another nation state. It is a policy which risks setting off a major regional war based on sectarian lines as well as embroiling it in a conflict with nuclear armed Russia.

For Israel, the goal remains the establishment of its undisputed hegemony in the Middle East. However, while an economic rationale predicated on relieving Europe of its dependency on Russian gas via a pipeline from the gulf is occasionally referenced, there has never been a comprehensive articulation of what America’s fundamental interests are in destroying Syria and Iran.

Pursuing such a policy without having had a full and thorough public debate tends to confirm key areas of dysfunction in the American system of governance. First it highlights the power and influence of those lobbies associated with Israeli interests and the Military Industry, and secondly, the unchanging nature of this policy which has been followed by the respective administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump provide evidence that what Michael J. Glennon terms the ‘Madisonian’ institutions of state are no longer accountable in the manner which people still think they are. Instead power in regard to crucial issues on American national security rests with an unelected group of people outside of the separated organs of government: what Glennon, a professor of law at Tufts University, refers to as ‘Trumanite’ institutions.

The implications for the health of American democracy are all too apparent.

The pursuit of a strategy which has served to diminish American esteem among the global community as well as adding to the increasing national debt represents a catastrophic failure not only on the part of the political class, but also on the part of the mainstream media, which has consistently presented a narrative devoid of its true context. The intellectual community comprised of university academics and scholars working for think tanks must accept a large share of the blame.

Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech, a shameless attempt at goading the United States into breaking its obligations under an international agreement as a prelude to fighting a war which would serve Israel’s interests, ought to ignite a full and transparent debate on American national security policy in the Middle East.

A failure to do this risks future costly disasters which would dwarf the debacles of Iraq, Libya and Syria.

*

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

Featured image is from the author.

Is US-North Korea Summit Doomed to Fail?

May 4th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

If past is prologue, things aren’t encouraging. Throughout the entire post-WW II period, Washington has been militantly hostile toward North Korea – for its sovereign independence, not for any threat it posed.

Intermittent US talks with Pyongyang failed each time initiated. Will this time be different when hawkish US neocon extremists will be dealing with North Korea, a nation they despise?

Prospects aren’t favorable – including what happens if an agreement is reached. US history is clear – a record of breached treaties, conventions and other deals, America agreeing to one thing, then going another way.

Examples are endless. GHW Bush’s secretary of state James Baker’s “iron-clad” pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev not to expand NATO “one inch eastward” toward Russia’s borders was flagrantly breach by succeeding US administrations.

Today, US-led NATO forces surround Russia, posing a major threat to its security. Can North Korea fare better than Russia in dealing with America? It takes a foolhardy leap of faith to believe it.

Twice earlier, Washington engaged in diplomacy with the DPRK, initiatives offering aid in return for abandoning its nuclear weapons program.

Both efforts failed. In 1994, an Agreed Framework was agreed on between both countries.

Pyongyang agreed to freeze and replace its nuclear power plant program with a light water nuclear reactor, along with steps toward normalizing relations with Washington.

The Clinton administration agreed to build two light-water reactors by 2003. In the interim, it would supply Pyongyang with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel annually.

US sanctions would be lifted. The DPRK would be removed from the State Department’s state sponsors of terrorism list. Both countries agreed to provide “formal assurances” against threatened or actual use of nuclear weapons.

Pyongyang agreed to allow Washington to monitor its nuclear sites. The deal collapsed after GW Bush called North Korea part of an axis of evil in his first State of the Union address.

The DPRK upheld its part of the deal. Washington systematically breached it, reneging on its word. North Korea responded by resuming its plutonium enrichment program.

Its nuclear weapons deterrent was developed because Washington can’t be trusted – not earlier, not today, not ever unless or until evidence proves otherwise. None so far exists.

In August 2003, so-called six-party talks were initiated, involving America, China, Japan, North Korea, Russia and South Korea.

In 2005, Pyongyang pledged to abandon “all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.” In 2009, talks broke down following disagreements over verification, along with international condemnation of a DPRK ballistic missile test – what many other countries do without criticism of their programs.

North Korea responded to the breakdown in talks, saying it would never reengage in diplomacy accomplishing nothing. Nor was it bound by earlier agreements.

US hostility, toughness and betrayal defined bilateral relations for years. Pyongyang earlier said

“if the US has a will to drop its hostile policy toward the DPRK, it will have dialogue…the ball is in the court of the US side.”

The key stumbling block always isn’t what Washington pledges. It’s what happens next, repeatedly and consistently breaching agreements reached.

US/North Korea diplomatic initiatives throughout the years were pockmarked with failure, the DPRK falsely blamed for Washington’s betrayal.

Will history repeat under Trump? Will a so far unscheduled summit with DPRK leader Kim Jong-un occur?

If both leaders meet for summit talks in the weeks ahead, is anything positive possible? Can Washington be expected to keep its word on whatever might be pledged?

Will it turn a new leaf for peace on the Korean peninsula, agreeing to steps toward normalizing relations with Pyongyang – including respecting its sovereign independence, formally ending the 1950s Korean War, and removing hostile sanctions?

John Bolton earlier urged ending North Korea, saying:

“The only longterm way to deal with (its) nuclear weapons program is to end (the) regime,” adding:

“It’s not enough…to impose sanctions…(T)his regime poses a threat to stability in the region that undermines security” – promoting war, not diplomatic outreach and peace.

Pompeo earlier lied claiming a North Korean threat, a few months away from being able to strike US cities with nuclear weapons, ignoring its peace agenda, never having attacked another country throughout its history.

Ahead of possible Trump/Kim Jong-un summit talks, he mocked inter-Korean diplomacy, calling it “a faint…not likely to lead to any true change…”

In his first address as secretary of state, he said

“(o)ur objective (on the Korean peninsula) remains unchanged. We’re committed to permanent, verifiable, irreversible dismantling of North Koreans’ weapons of mass destruction programs without delay. Until then, the global maximum pressure campaign will continue.”

Are Pompeo and Bolton actively working to undermine positive results of a Trump/Kim Jong-un summit?

Do they oppose dealmaking with the DPRK? Bolton may have leaked US intelligence information to a right-wing Washington think tank, claiming without evidence that Pyongyang intends to produce nuclear-grade graphite nuclear reactors need to operate, suggesting it violates the spirit of summit talks – to generate public opposition to any agreement with Kim.

Earlier on Fox News Sunday, Bolton said

“(w)e have very much in mind the Libya model from 2003, 2004” in discussions with North Korea.

Gaddafi abandoned Libya’s WMD development. In February 2011, US-dominated NATO launched naked aggression against the country, raping and destroying it, transforming Africa’s most developed country into a dystopian charnel house, sodomizing Gaddafi to death – things remaining violent and chaotic today.

Longstanding hostile US relations toward North Korea suggest it’s unlikely for anything positive to come from Kim/Trump summit talks if they occur – over the longterm, what matters most.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Lebanon: The Most Important Election in the World!

May 4th, 2018 by Brett Redmayne-Titley

In a matter of mere hours, a new election will take place. Unlike seemingly all other national elections worldwide, this election will bring real “hope” to a needlessly impoverished country. This election will see real “change” come to a country far too long restricted and controlled by external foreign powers. For this is an election that is steeped in real democracy; not the US-inspired definition – the one based solely on the archaic shards of what little is left of a desperate empire struggling to hold onto its waning influence. This election will showcase, finally and thankfully, a return to the true definition.

This Sunday, May 6, 2018, is the most important election in the world!

Proving the point, why is this election is being swept under the rug of worldwide US media control? Here, unlike the remaining hapless world, there is a very bright future awaiting for all… an example for an anguished world begging to finally be set free. It will be this democracy, correctly re-defined and judiciously administered, that will, on this coming day, succeed for all.

World, Welcome to Lebanon!

Once Upon a Time: Democracy.

When accurately considering supposed worldwide “democratic” elections, they are routinely a facade and mean little. Once US foreign policy is done, these nation’s elections provide nothing for the people who have no other choice for effecting change other than their single useless vote. For the voter who favours a return to true popular nationalism, in every post-election cycle-unless the result is acceptable to Washington- US hegemony, falsely branded as “democracy,” is designed to quickly negate the result of the multi-months long showcase of a promised electoral process. In reality, elections have not brought true populist hope and change to any country; except for the aristocracy and the power hungry. Instead, further degradation of their internal political processes, elimination off constitutional civil liberties, imposed economic austerity, and civil wars of division are the usual US inspired democratic result. US policy calls for only the election of political leaders who care not for their countries or countrymen and who will sell their souls- and their allegiance- in favour of a goody bag full of promised US rewards.

This Sunday, May 6  at the voting booths across the streets of Lebanon this malignant form of hegemonic democracy will be smashed to bits before the world’s eyes.  An example to all of what could, and what should, be.

Here in Beirut, Lebanon, this election will go on as planned. It results, regardless of the outcome, guaranteed. There will be no interference from the Western troika: the US/UK/ EU. This election will provide a new future, new politicians, national unity and- more importantly- the certification that this fledgling nation will, come the following Monday morning, march forward together with very much to look forward to. In doing so, Lebanon, virtually insignificant in 2000, will soon become a guiding light to a world so desperate for a true return to, “the will of the people.”

Bringing true democracy to the people of Lebanon has already been a decades-long and bloody battle. Surprisingly to most, it has been Hizbullah that has led Lebanon on this path from the beginning. As discussed in a previous article, Hizbullah’s very strong Shia influence, personified by spiritual and political supreme leader, Hassan Nasrallah, provides a very direct, sincere and all-inclusionary path for political development: One that also has a very strong moral and ethical requirement.

This influence in no small measure has lead Lebanon to this Sunday’s election.

Hizbullah was born of a need for a defense against invasion by foreign armies, political or otherwise, its roots steeped in the social uprising of the Lebanese Shi’a community in the late 1960’s and early 70’s.  Divisive Lebanese politics and a  15-year (1975-1990) civil war war spawned by the Israelis, who pitted the Christian militias and the Syrians against the Muslim Lebanese, created, as intended, a fractured country fighting each other in the streets for more than a decade.

Hizbullah formalized a new Lebanese parliamentary structure after bringing the civil war to a close and since democracy has slowly and very methodically flourished.  The current Lebanese parliamentary structure is a result of the negotiations that ended the Civil War. A unique feature of the Lebanese parliament is the principle of “confessional distribution.” Prior, during elections held between 1932 and 1972,  seats were apportioned between Christians and Muslims in a 6:5 ratio. By the 1960s, Muslims had become openly resistant to this system. Postwar, The Taif Agreement of 1989, which effectively ended the civil war, reapportioned the Parliament to provide for equal representation of Christians and Muslims, with each electing 64 of the 128 deputies. With this, each religious community- Shia, Sunni, Alawite, Christain, Druze and Hizbullah-  campaigns for the parliamentary seats.

Lebanon is unusual in that its cabinet of three ministers is by law the country’s executive authority, effectively more powerful than the president, prime minister or parliament, which is the body that elects the cabinet to begin with. This means that a coalition of party seats can bring in a Cabinet of their choosing. It is here that the political power of Hizbullah has been clearly shown.

Hizbullah’s political growth has as much to do with its successes in Lebanese society as with it’s military victories of defence. Beyond an improved military, the fundamental change has been in the area of access to public social services, once substantially missing under the pre-2006 Lebanese government. During and after the 1975-90 civil war, the Lebanese central government of that time neglected service provisions for the public. Municipal elections were not held for 35 years, and thus the municipalities’ human, financial and technical capacities deteriorated, rendering them mere skeleton institutions.

Today, Hizbullah runs a range of philanthropic and commercial activities including hospitals, medical centers, schools, orphanages, rehabilitation centers for the handicapped, supermarkets, gas stations, construction companies, a radio station (Nur) and public service television station (Al Manar).  Health care is now universal and heavily subsidized, if not free. In endearing itself to the Lebanese public as a whole, Hezbollah has developed a highly organized system of health and social-service organizations. The service system is made up of the Social Unit; the Education Unit; and the Islamic Health Unit, which together make up its network of national service providers.

In a Lebanese parliament that had too often in the past echoed the false western model of democracy in that it ignored the true interests of those that did cast votes in their favor, here in today’s Lebanon it is Hizbullah that has been unwavering in directly representing all Lebanese regardless of religion or former nationality. This upcoming example of worldwide leadership is, of course, anathema to the expanding empire and its increasingly draconian, if not barbaric, proffering of their horrifying bastardization once known as “democracy.”

Defining Modern US Democracy.

This year alone has seen far too many new examples of democracy lost. Keep in mind the many previous US successes at regime change and control using the US form of proffered democratic change: the Brazils, the Venezuelas, the Ukraines, Syrias, Yemens, Egypts, Turkeys, of  our world, whose people’s democracies and therefore their futures have already been cast upon the jagged rocks of history. In just a few short months of 2018, one should have noticed the continued, yet similar, the pattern of obvious endemic hegemony.

Start with Honduras, where the populist candidate, Juan Orlando Hernández, was overthrown after his initial presidential electoral victory by a US manipulated run-off election in favor of their candidate, Salvador Nasralla (no relation).  So, true democracy be damned,  victory for Juan Orlando Hernández and the impoverished people of Honduras was so easily turned into defeat. The final election results: Chaos for the Honduran people; control for the US military.

Of course, the established first world democracies have seen their own attempts at populism ultimately thwarted as well. Take the Catalonian Independence vote: one that was more of a “nice try “ than a binding election.  Or Brexit, that is, two years hence, no further along than before the referendum vote was taken and now, as predicted, seems doomed to be blown onto those same jagged rocks  by the minions of the empire- the UK Parliament and House of Lords- which are howling and raging against it daily in the UK press despite the outcome of that vote.

In turn, consider the one UK politician who may- although untested- bring true socialist labour back to Britain, but is assailed by the same press just as regularly as being tantamount to the next Joseph Stalin. Like Lebanon, however, Jeremy Corbyn‘s true threat is not merely his championing a return to populist socialist reform via British democracy: No, it is because his leadership would likely provide hope and change-and a future- for all of Briton. This is, of course, is not acceptable to the established powers that exist to willfully maintain the status quo of continued austerity, trickle-up economics, US/EU subservience, and national social degradation. Hence, Corbyn’s remaining days on earth may be terminally shortened.

A True Democratic Definition for the World.

With the Israelis keeping the 2006 horrors firmly on the minds of all Lebanese while demanding regime change, it seems safe to say that Hizbullah is not a long shot in gaining a legitimate coalition majority in the May 6 election.  If this happens, it will be because of, not a Shi’a majority, but a Lebanese people’s majority made up of all Muslim religious affiliations, as well as Christian, who will likely cross any political party affiliations when they vote. Because of the constitutional voting right of universal suffrage, and Israel’s continued demands for more war, many who vote will indeed have one primary political motivation: self-preservation.

In February 2006,  Michel Aoun and Hassan Nasrallah signed a memorandum of understanding that called for a broad range of reforms, such as guaranteeing equal media access for candidates and allowing expatriate voting. However, Hizbullah appears to be playing it cool in the ramp up to the election. Their TV station, Al Manar, is staying focused on foreign, Syrian and Mid-east news with little election coverage. Interestingly, western media to date also has very little coverage of this very important election, a glaring, if not suspicious, omission.

The Lebanese parliamentary politicians who are elected this weekend will have a lot on their hands, but also a lot of chips to play with. Being pro- Lebanon is a must to be considered for election, but also the love and demand for peace in a nation too often victimized by wars of incursion. With Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah embracing the Lebanese army, the candidates are free to also embrace both and their defense of Lebanon. With the drums of war beating ever louder from Tel Aviv to Washington, a future for Lebanon starts firmly at its own borders. The Candidates know this well.

Foreign military power will not be overturning this election.

Indeed the military wing is now far more organized and prepared for defense than before the 2006 war, however, Hizbullah’s persona under the direction of their spiritual and political leader, Sheikh Sa’id Hassan Nasrallah has also dramatically changed. There is a moral, disciplined side to the militia that comes from the overlying Shi’a religious doctrine espoused by Nasrallah, one that now accepts all religions, but with a firm grasp on professional, ethical performance of its military duties… when necessary.

Although Hizbullah does not reveal troop strength in numbers it is  universally considered to be the largest non-state military in the world  and considerably stronger than the Lebanese army. Estimates indicate at least 20,000 professionally trained soldiers and 25,000 civilian militia fighters are maintained, however, this is a very low-ball estimate considering that US military estimates for the Syrian based Hizbullah units are currently 60,000 and that, with western Syria back under Assad’s control, most of these battle-hardened troops will be returning home soon. Whatever Hizbullah’s military may have been before the Syrian war, it is unquestionable that it is currently far better manned, armed, supplied, and trained than ever before.

Beyond the fact that Lebanon’s defense is now the composite of two well trained and armed armies; and that just one needed to stop Israel three times, Lebanon’s position relative to the other Mid-East nations will soon be of interest to this upcoming parliament.

The biggest defensive disadvantage to the two Lebanese armies is that neither, reportedly, has surface-to-air missiles. This is due to the Lebanese government’s weakness in the 2006 peace deal, however, Hizbullah is reportedly beginning manufacture them in secret. Strategically, Lebanon has so far been nothing more than an Israeli “no-fly” zone used for their attacks on Syria. Israeli warplanes are seen routinely in the skies since the Lebanese armies can do nothing about it. Using this past Saturday’s Israeli attacks on Iranian positions in Hama and Aleppo, Syria as an example, IDF strike forces crossed neutral Lebanon airspace and entering from the  Mediterranean, and thus arriving unscathed at the Lebanon/Syrian border at high speed; their time to target approximately thirty seconds.

Considering the reported Iranian loss of life applied to Russia’s announcement of selling the vaunted S-300 anti-missile/aircraft system to Syria and Putin’s stern warning to Netanyahu before the Israeli attacks of this weekend, it is more than likely that the soon-to-be No-Fly zone in Syria will be expanded into Lebanese territory. This would add to Lebanese defense and more importantly secure the western flank of Syria by a sovereign independent and neutral nation. Never before has Lebanon had a vital place in world geo-strategic politics. With a new ramp-up to US war in Syria brewing, Lebanon will likely be at center stage of preventing an escalation to war very soon.

Democracy and Money.

“Oil wealth is for all the Lebanese.” – Hassan Nasrallah

Lebanon has been impoverished compared to many of its Mid-East counterparts primarily because it did not have its own natural resources to harvest. This means that Lebanese suffer daily electrical blackouts and little in the way of infrastructure such as healthcare and education, a gap filled by Hizbullah via Iranian funding.  Lacking its own gas or oil Lebanon must import expensive diesel fuel at an annual loss to the economy of some $2.5 billion. Lebanon is one of the world’s most indebted countries with debt to GDP of some 145%. The Syrian war and internal Lebanese political stalemate have frozen its offshore energy exploration until now.

In 2010 the oil and gas geopolitics of the Mediterranean changed profoundly. That was when a Texas oil company, Noble Energy, discovered a huge deposit of natural gas offshore Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean, the so-called Leviathan Field, one of the world’s largest gas field discoveries in over a decade. The same Texas company later confirmed significant gas resources offshore in Cyprus waters near the Israeli Leviathan, called Aphrodite. Israel conducted war games in 2017 off the Cyprus coast in preparation to steal these fields as well.

A UK company, Spectrum, conducted geophysical surveys in the offshore Lebanese section of the Levant Basin in recent years, including 3D seismic, and estimated that the Lebanese waters could hold up to 25 trillion cubic feet of economically recoverable gas. Development of those gas reserves would alter the entire economy of Lebanon. And increase its autonomy from foreign influence, while providing a new massive revenue stream that can be used for improving Lebanese society while decreasing foreign debt and its control.

Contracts for initial exploration and test wells have already been signed with XXXX. In a post-election era, Lebanon’s parliament will have the chance to greatly expand on what Hizbullah’s move to parliamentary nationalism has already accomplished. It is no secret that through Hizbullah’s already significant improvements in education and social services have been funded primarily by Iran, but in a Lebanon that barely two decades ago had almost none of these the benefits will show soon. Political corrupt has seen an iron fist from the example of Hizbullah and its Shia allegiance to Islam that promotes educations and is intolerant of political corruption. This means that when it comes to voting on Lebanon’s future these parliamentarians will keep their voter’s true interests true to their hearts…and no one else’s.

Lebanese Democracy: An Example to the World!

This Sunday, a return to a proper definition of democracy will return for the world to behold, cherish and wonder at its results. Meanwhile, in the land of the exceptional US-style democracy in the form of the 2018 mid-term elections has the voter once again uselessly heading to the polls. By the admission of the two political parties; the US voter this time has a new and simple choice to make: Vote for the democrat…as an anti-trump statement; vote RNC and be pro-Trump, or as Trump himself defensively opined last week, “ Vote Republican or the Democrats will have me impeached.” These are apparently the best selling points that US democracy has to offer voters this time.

These two options, of course, are devoid of any domestic policy specifics whatsoever and also fail to draw attention to the failures of the DNC, the RNC and the two/one party US monocracy that furthers the personal disenfranchisement of the voter from their own political system and their own  future. But fly the flag they will as these flag wrapped voters again fail to realize that their political system is equal to the worldwide definition of democracy they pretend to be the exception of.

It is now time for Americans and world citizens across the globe to understand clearly the true definition of US democracy. This is a fraudulent democratic model that is far more akin the the false tenets of ISIS or modern Zionism.

Just as ISIS sold a failure of conscience by offering its own self-serving bastardization of the Koran in order to justify its expansion and sanctioned horrors; just as Zionism manipulates and distorts the Torah and the Talmud while falsely claiming to speak for all Jews worldwide in order to incorrectly legitimise its expansions and horrors, thus we now must compare the US religion of “democracy.”  We have seen all too clearly that US democracy, exposed for what it truly is in our world,  similarly misuses what once was a pure ideology; one of a definitive democracy from long ago, now nothing more than a tool -an excuse- to destroy or conquer.

On Monday morning May 7, 2018, this illusion will be forever smashed to pieces, not just on the jagged rocks of history, but far more importantly…a changing of the minds of all the peoples of our world; those yearning to be free.

For true democracy has only one definition; one that may not be re-defined. It grapples for return within our bones, within our souls and our collective human conscience that has for far too long bared witness to the horrors and the “Sorrows of Empire.” In Lebanon, a land that has suffered much at the hands of empire, here there is only one remaining definition, one that is offered, this coming Sunday to the remaining civilized world…Freedom.

And nothing else!

*

Author’s Note: This article is a continuation is a series direct from Lebanon. The author will be reporting live from the Lebanese election on Sat. May 5 and Sun. May 6, 2018. For more details on this important election and its results please refer back to this publication or visit the author’s archive at www.watchingromeburn.com

Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 150 in-depth articles over the past seven years for news agencies worldwide. Many have been translated. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis that has led to multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, KXL Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out and many more. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk 

It seems like rich nonsense, but should peace be attained on the Korean peninsula, with arrangements entrenched to ensure durability as opposed to unconvincing window dressing, President Donald Trump might well join the list of frauds and charlatans who have obtained the Nobel Peace Prize.

The nomination for the 2019 prize came in a letter from 18 of Trump’s Republican supporters in the House of Representatives to the Nobel Committee chair Berit Reiss-Andersen, which starkly resembled the narrative of fakery the President delights in. Trump, went the signers, should receive the prize “in recognition of his work to end the Korean War, denuclearize the Korean peninsula, and bring peace to the region.”

The Republicans seem to have things the wrong way around.  Rather than incite instability, Trump supposedly calmed the waters.  Rather than creating teeth-chattering fear amongst allies, he brought accord where there was disagreement.  “Since taking office, President Trump has worked tirelessly to apply maximum pressure on North Korea to end its illicit weapons programs and bring peace to the region.” He was the great unifier, bringing on powers such as China “to impose one of the most successful international sanctions regimes in history.” (Never let history get in the way of a good tale.)

All this, despite sketchy details of a as yet unplanned summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un to take place at the end of this month or early June.  Agendas are also in their infancy: where to with the actual issue of denuclearisation, and what lasting security guarantees might be put in place.

There have been some howlers in the hall of Nobel Peace Prize recipients, and Trump’s addition to the role would be perversely fitting.  Henry Kissinger retains the mantle of the manifest absurd, despite being the blood spatted Iago of US foreign policy. Under his sagaciously poisonous direction, democracies were withered in favour of murderous regimes.  Countries – Laos and Cambodia – were subjected to illegal bombings.  Murdering high officials was condoned.

Importantly, he was given the Nobel for supposedly concluding the war in Vietnam despite frustrating the Johnson administration’s efforts to do so in 1968.  (Fun if cruel fact: the Vietnam War would only conclude in 1975, two years after Kissinger’s award.)  Along with that dark lord of mendacity and cunning Richard Nixon, Kissinger sabotaged peace talks between North and South Vietnam in an effort to gain an advantage over Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey in the elections that year.  (Nixon’s order to his close aide H. R. Haldeman on October 22, 1968 was to “monkey wrench” the efforts of the Democrats.) 

Closer in precedent, though not quite stratospherically venal as that of Kissinger was the award given to President Barack Obama in 2009.  Still presidentially virginal, more than a few eyebrows were raised.  “What has he done?” came the obvious question from Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times.  Obama had to agree, though accepted the award.  The Committee had obviously decided to convert the prize into something of a big push to achievement, an act of pure counter-intuition.

In 2015, former secretary of the Nobel committee Geir Lundestad admitted regret.

“Even many of Obama’s supporters believed that the prize was a mistake.  In that sense the committee didn’t achieve what it had hoped for.”

What stands out in Trump’s meaningless nomination is a suggestion that the players on the ground – the Moon Jae-in administration of South Korea, and the Kim Jong Un regime of the DPRK – are mere marionettes directed by Trump and social media mist.  Tweets matter.  Targeted indignation count.  Never mind that the Koreas have taken the first steps and initiated discussions that have been viewed with suspicion by members of Congress.

Nominations, however, remain that. They do not necessarily yield the fruit of an award. President George W. Bush had been floated as a contender at some point, and Thomas E. Ricks would write with acid reflection in 2015 that he probably deserved one.

“The actions of the United States have successfully bolstered the influence of Iran over the region.  Now Iraq and Iran, who in the 1980s fought a long and bitter war, are reconciled!” 

A delightful spoof of the inner world of the peace prize committee, veering dangerously close to its naff rationales can be found in the Pan-Arabian Enquirer.  The satirical publication suggested that the Nobel Committee would award the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize to Bush and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

“These two statesmen have been absolutely instrumental in stopping the Syrian war from escalating into a terrifying global conflict and, for this, they must be congratulated.”

Such is the rationale.  Those who start wars and wage campaigns of terror one day will, at some point, be seen in a different light.  Peace achieved, even over graveyards, can be acknowledged by way of awards.  But in Trump’s case, the resume of extensive violence waged against other states and peoples is still in its infancy. For all that, the Nobel Prize Committee may still have a risible surprise in store, something appropriate for a proclaimed age of Fake News. 

*

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Citizens for Trump.

There has been considerable speculation in recent days as to whether the recent and ongoing protests across former Soviet Armenia constitute another Washington Color Revolution destabilization or whether it represents simply the angry revolt of citizens fed up with the deep corruption and lack of economic development under the regime of Prime Minister Serzh Sargysan. Following days of large protests, the former President was forced to resign on April 23, declaring, 

Nikol Pashinyan was right. I was wrong.”

Armenia is an integral member of Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union and were it to come under control of a pro-NATO opposition could bring a strategic problem for Moscow to put it mildly. The issue is significant.

Ironically, what nominally sparked the protests was the action of Sargysan to in effect do what Turkey’s Erdogan has done, only in reverse. He and his parliamentary majority party managed to strip the office of President of almost all but ceremonial roles, while giving actual decision powers to the office of Prime Minister. That he managed just before he himself became Prime Minister. Reaction from Moscow to the ongoing protests until now has evidently been muted following a statement that it won’t get involved in Armenian internal affairs.

At this point, despite the fact that Sargysan resigned as Prime Minister and did not submit himself as candidate to oppose Pashinyan in the May 1 parliament vote, Pashinyan fell short of the majority needed to be named Prime Minister. As of this writing he has called for a total blockage of traffic and government buildings by “peaceful acts of civil disobedience.” He told a crowd outside Parliament after the failed vote was announced,

“Tomorrow total strike is declared. We block all the streets, communications, subway and the airports starting from 08:15. Our struggle cannot end in a failure.”

Color Revolution?

What evidence points to a directed Washington intervention into a country strategic for Moscow? First we have the established presence of an office in Yerevan of the Open Society Foundations-Armenia. As the anti-government protests built in size on April 17, several NGOs signed an open letter to the government warning that they had identified probable government-backed protest disruptors and warned against their deployment against the peaceful protestors.

The call was signed among others by Helsinki Committee of Armenia, part of Helsinki Committees which in part is funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. The call was also signed by Open Society Foundations – Armenia.

This past February the  OSF-Armenia announced a joint project with the European Union designed to, “focus on engaging youth, young activists and journalists. It will serve as a bridge between the established human rights advocates in Armenia and younger generations of activists interested in gaining more expertise in defending rights of the RA citizens.”

Another signer to the warning statement to the Armenian government was an Armenian NGO calling itself the Protection of Rights Without Borders NGO. It turns out that that NGO is also funded not only by  OSF-Armenia, but also by the EU and by the US State Department USAID, an organization as I describe in my newest book, Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance, that is frequently tied to US Government regime change destabilizations and Color Revolutions.

The fact that Open Society Foundations-Armenia and others signed such a statement directly tied to unfolding events on the streets of Yerevan suggest at the least more than an academic interest in the growing protests.

What about the role of other US-based NGOs in Armenia? The leading US regime-change NGO, National Endowment for Democracy, created in the 1980’s in the words of Allan Weinstein, one of its founders, to do what the CIA used to do but privately, has become far less forthcoming about its grants. Nonetheless some research reveals that the NED has also funded numerous programs in Armenia ranging from promoting rule of law and government accountability in Armenia, as well as funding a 2017 program for Armenian journalists to show “how Georgia benefits from its associations with the EU and how Armenia does not reap similar advantages from the Eurasian Economic Union.” In another generous grant the NED gave more than $40,000 in 2017, a hefty sum in the depressed Armenian economy, to finance Armenian Times Newspaper as they put it, “to improve the quality and increase the availability of independent news…”

Now if we add to the established presence of Washington-financed NGOs the fact that the US State Department actively is in contact with opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan during the recent protests it becomes even more likely we are witnessing a variation of Washington’s Color Revolution. On April 30, the day before the fateful parliament vote, US State Department Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, A. Wess Mitchell, noted he had initiated a phone discussion with opposition Civil Contract MP, Nikol Pashinyan. In his official statement Mitchell merely stated that the

“US government looks forward to working closely with the new government in Armenia, aiming to further deepen the decades-long US-Armenian relationship.”

Wess Mitchell sits in the post held under Obama by the infamous neoconservative Ukraine Color Revolution instigator, Victoria Nuland. It seems he is the continuity of Nuland as well. Mitchell came to the State Department post in 2017 from something called the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) where he was CEO and which he actually founded. Now things get interesting.

The CEPA, a Washington think tank founded in 2004 at the time the US was deep involved in the Ukraine Orange Revolution, describes its mission being “to promote an economically vibrant, strategically secure and politically free Central and Eastern Europe with close and enduring ties to the United States.” A major program of CEPA is “dedicated to monitoring and exposing Russian disinformation in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.”

Indeed Assistant Secretary of State Mitchell comes from a Washington anti-Russian think tank whose funders include NATO, US Defense Department, National Endowment for Democracy, the major military industry giants including Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, BAE Systems, Bell HelicopterNotably after an article in the Russian state RT on the funding of CEPA that portion of their website seems to have vanished into cyber nirvana.

In addition to Russophobe Mitchell in admitted contact with opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan, US Ambassador to Armenia, Richard Mills, a former Senior “Democracy Advisor” (sic) at the US Embassy in Iraq owes his job to Victoria Nuland who reportedly brought Mills to Yerevan to help bring Armenia, like Ukraine, into the US sphere and away from Russia. Mills reportedly played a key role in brokering the sale of an Armenian Vorotan Hydro complex to American company that triggered a failed 2015 attempt at a Color Revolution protest over the ensuing 16% hike in electricity prices. US-funded NGOs argued the main reason for the rising electricity was Russia whose Gazprom dominates the Armenian energy market. Protests were spread then using the social media hash tag #ElectricYerevan.

This time all indications point to a far more refined remake of a US Color Revolution, this time with a credible leader, 42-year old journalist and prison veteran from earlier anti-government actions Pashinyan. Pashinyan has been careful to declare if made Prime Minister he would not take Armenia out of Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union. On May 1 he declared,

“We consider Russia as a strategic ally, our movement does not create threats for this…If I am elected [as the prime minister], Armenia will remain a member of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization.”

At this juncture it is clear, despite Nikol Pashinyan’s soothing words, that the Armenian events are not at all good news for Moscow whose direct options are for the moment limited.

Why Armenia?

Armenia is a strategic ally of Moscow ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. It is bordered by two hostile countries—Azerbaijan and Turkey. Her other neighbors are Iran and Georgia. With the situation in Georgia precarious since the US staged a Color Revolution in 2003 bringing the pro-NATO Mikhail Saakashvili into power, were Armenia to come under influence of a leader determined to pull the country away from Russian dependence, its major trading partner and investor, it would result in some kind of civil war.

Already there are voices in Azerbaijan gleefully anticipating such an outcome. On May 1 as the Armenian parliament refused to vote Pashinyan in as Prime Minister, Azeri parliament member Gudrat Hasanguliyev warned that the situation in Armenia might turn into a civil war. He insisted that Azerbaijan should be prepared to use such a civil war as a chance to retake the secessionist Nagorno-Karabakh whose population is majority Armenian.

Since the Russian-brokered end to a war between a US-backed Azeri army and Armenia in 1994 the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave has been in an uneasy ceasefire. It was broken briefly in 2016 when Azeri forces tried a military occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh before being forced to backdown.

All evidence at this point suggests there is a dirty hand of the US NGOs and State Department pushing to take advantage of the internal discontent inside Armenia to further weaken Russia and its Eurasian Economic Union by at the minimum creating unrest and chaos in Armenia. If this is so will be clear soon enough.

*

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

I use a computer and smart phone for more than 10 hours a day.

So I wasn’t happy to learn that recent scientific studies show the blue light emitted by our computers, tablets and smart phones can cause cancer, ruin your eyes, and cause insomnia.

Device makers use screens that pump out a lot of blue light.  Not for any evil purpose … but just because it’s cheap to make bright LEDs lights which pump out crazy amounts of blue light frequencies (light with a wavelength of between 450 and 495 nanometers).

Cancer

A new study by Spanish, British and Canadian scientists published Monday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that blue light is linked to prostate and breast cancer.

The study found that other bright light – such as red or green LEDs – are not linked with cancer.

Blindness

Numerous studies show that the blue light from our devices can lead to serious eye problems.

For example, blue light is linked with macular degeneration … the main cause of blindness among older Americans.

Insomnia

It’s well-known that exposure to blue light at night can lead to insomnia.

What You Can Do to Protect Yourself

There are numerous blue light filters which you can put on your computer, tablet or phone.  For example, Amazon carries hundreds of them.

For example, I have a clear plastic filter that covers my work computer monitor.

And I just bought a replacement glass cover for my daughter’s iPhone that is a blue light filter.

On my laptop, I applied a clear stick-on film which is a blue light filter.

Finally, I’ve set all of the hand-held devices in my house to “night mode”, so that they shift away from blue light (and towards a more reddish hue) at night. Here’s how to do it for your Windows-based deviceiPhone or Android.

In part 2, we will discuss the thousands of scientific studies on the benefits (believe it or not) of certain red light therapies.  This is the flip side of the blue light problem:  a way to improve your health …

*

This article was originally published on Washington’s Blog.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dark Side of Computers, Smart Phones and Tablets: Blue Light Causes Cancer, Ruins Your Eyes and Makes You Toss and Turn at Night

War Is a Working Class Issue. Black Alliance for Peace (BAP)

May 4th, 2018 by Black Alliance for Peace

Workers from around the world took to the streets on May 1—International Workers’ Day, also known as May Day—to proclaim on their day they were not going to surrender to the logic of capitalist dehumanization and plunder that the ruling class imposes on the peoples of the world.

Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) joined in by declaring our solidarity with those workers because we are those workers. In our statement, we reminded everyone that it is the working class and poor who end up being the cannon fodder for imperialist wars. We repeated once again what is now becoming our slogan: “Not one drop of blood from the working class and poor in defense of the gangsterism of the capitalist ruling class.”

Read our May Day statement here.

Imperialist wars abroad are linked to capitalist-induced class repression on the stolen, occupied land called the United States. On May Day in 2008, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) proved labor strikes can stop these attacks on humanity.

The people of the U.S. colony of Puerto Rico have suffered since September due to a lack of electricity that is a direct consequence of colonial destruction and austerity measures. On May Day, they faced further violence at the hands of goons who work for the colonial overseer when Puerto Ricans rightfully expressed their indignation in the streets.

In France, the neoliberal policies of President Emmanuel Macron sparked massive demonstrations on May 1. Thousands of workers poured into the streets in opposition to his support for an even more militarized agenda than what his predecessors had proposed. This includes a plan to re-introduce a military draft.

Meanwhile, people in the Cuban socialist state 90 miles from the U.S. imperial core say they don’t need to demand their rights as workers because they already have them in place.

Black Activists Still Imprisoned

Afro-Colombians fear for the lives of two leaders of the Black Communities Process, or PCN, the main organization defending the collective land rights of descendants of African slaves. Sara Quiñonez and her mother, Tulia Maris Valencia, were detained on false charges of collaborating with the ELN guerilla group—an allegation that could mark them for assassination. But the PCN is an organization that “promotes peace and peaceful struggle,” said PCN organizer and BAP member Charo Mina-Rojas, who called on leftists everywhere to demand the two women’s release during an interview with BAP member Glen Ford on Black Agenda Report Radio.

You can find information on how you can support these two freedom fighters here.

Upcoming Event

War, revolution and organizing the Black left is on the agenda for the National Assembly for Black Liberation. We encourage Black left forces to participate. Information on the conference can be found here.

No compromise.

No retreat.

Nearly half of Americans have a tough time paying their bills, and over one-third have faced hardships such as running out of food, not being able to afford a place to live, or not having enough money to pay for medical treatment.

Those are some of the grim findings from the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s first-ever survey of financial well-being, released Tuesday.

The numbers parallel MarketWatch’s own State of the American Wallet dashboard, which tracks how Americans are faring financially with data that updates in real time.

The State of the American Wallet shows how Americans are saddled with mounting car loan and credit card debt and not saving enough money — even enough to cover emergency expenses. Meanwhile, people in the top 1% control a growing share of the nation’s wealth.

Similarly, the CFPB survey found a wide range in how respondents felt about their financial well-being. Respondents were assigned scores on a scale of 1 to 100 after answering 10 questions. A score of 50 or lower meant the respondent was likely to be struggling to make ends meet. The average score was 54, but there was a 35-point spread between the top 10% and bottom 10% of participants.

The CFPB, which has faced an uncertain future under the Trump administration, surveyed more than 6,300 people in 2016 for its survey.

The survey included questions on whether respondents could “enjoy life” because of the way they managed their money, and how often respondents had money left over at the end of the month. The public can take the survey and find out their financial well-being score here.

*

Leslie Albrecht is a personal finance reporter based in New York. She worked previously as a local news reporter at the New York City neighborhood news website DNAinfo, and as a reporter at the Modesto Bee and Merced Sun-Star, two McClatchy newspapers in California’s Central Valley. She is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. Follow her on Twitter at @ReporterLeslie.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on One-third of American Households Have Struggled to Afford Either Food, Shelter or Medical Care

Syria – A Case Study in Propaganda

May 4th, 2018 by Chris Kanthan

Dear diary, many of my colleagues are unhappy about the recent events in Syria. They are unhappy that Assad is still in power. However, I see the metaphorical glass as being half full. In a recent poll, 58% of Americans support the bombing of Syria and 19% have “no opinion.” This is wonderful news, since it shows how the vast majority of people are easily manipulated and are simply apathetic. In a democracy, the most important but least understood tool is propaganda. Let me share with you the fundamentals of a successful propaganda campaign.

Here are the five rules of public relations a.k.a propaganda:

  • Keep the message simple
  • Make it emotional
  • Don’t allow nuances or debates
  • Demonize the opposition
  • Keep repeating the message

Rule #1: The principle message has to be simple so that even a 5-year-old can understand. In this case, it was, “Assad used chemical weapons to kill innocent Syrians.” The secondary message was we should do something about it. Everyone who watched TV or read the mainstream/social media got this message loud and clear.

Rule #2: Make it emotional. Propaganda is just marketing. (In fact, the phrase Public Relations was coined to replace Propaganda when the latter became a dirty word after World War I). Every good commercial has an emotional aspect to it. Emotions stop you from thinking and analyzing. Thus, while selling Pepsi, marketers use sexy women, selling a war requires evoking fear and/or anger.

About 120 years ago, when the U.S. wanted to steal Cuba from Spain, it relied upon the exact playbook.

“You furnish the pictures, and I’ll furnish the war,” said the newspaper oligarch William Randolph Hearst to his cartoonist.

The pictures portrayed dying children and brutal Spanish authorities. (Although Spain is white, the picture on the right used a monstrous person with African American features, since a warmonger could also be racist in those days).

Today, the U.S. government tells the White Helmets, “You furnish the videos, we’ll furnish the war.” It’s the same technique used over and over. Remember during Iraq War 1, when a girl testified before the Congress that Iraqi soldiers were killing newborn babies in incubators? Of course, it turned out to be fake news; and the girl turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador.

The Syrian war is also a great study in use of emotional language: “worst chemical attack in Syria in years” (a lie from NY Times that forgot its own article about 52+ chemical attacks by ISIS); “international outrage,” “shocked the world,” “horrific/deadly/ghastly/heinous chemical attack” etc. Also, the Syrian government is always referred to as “regime” and Assad is always a “dictator” or a “butcher” who “kills his own people.” Every word and phrase is designed to have an emotional impact.

Rule #3: No debate allowed. The media and the pundits left absolutely no doubt who the culprit was. Within minutes after the release of pictures/videos, everyone was blaming Assad. So it didn’t matter if you listened to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, or read the NY Times, WaPo or HuffPo … everyone was singing the same tune. Tucker Carlson was the only mainstream person who went off the script, but we are taking care of him.

This kind of consistency is really important in a successful propaganda campaign. No one should be allowed to consider other alternatives – could the attack be staged, could it be a false flag, could it be fake, how do we know when/where the videos were taken, why is it that Assad’s chemical weapons kill only children and civilians and never the jihadists, why do the attacks happen only when Assad is winning etc.?

There was also no discussion of evidence or proofs. We see pictures and videos, and that’s enough. We have a doctor on site who says it’s Sarin or chlorine gas … end of story. Nobody discusses options such as should we send an international team of doctors and experts to the site, should we wait for an autopsy, should we get Assad to answer these charges (gasp!) and so on.

The U.S. Establishment is the jury, judge and the prosecutor. The witness is Al Qaeda who supplies the pictures and the videos, but the average person doesn’t know that either.

The secondary message was also never debated. Even if you assume that the Syrian government used chemical weapons, why should the U.S. do something about it? Is it a moral obligation that only falls on the U.S.? Is it a legal obligation? Does the U.S. intervene every time and anytime some country uses chemical weapons? How about non-chemical weapons? No such discussions are permitted.

Even the bombing was so ridiculous, but the average person doesn’t notice anything suspicious. For example, we bombed the Barzeh research facility that has been inspected and cleared by the OPCW many times, including once in Nov 2017. The fact is that it’s a civilian research and educational center:

Furthermore, the OPCW team had just arrived in Syria on April 13 when the trio of U.S./U.K./France bombed the sites. Wouldn’t it make sense to send the OPCW team to inspect the buildings before bombing them? Also, if the buildings really had chemical weapons, wouldn’t bombing them disperse the chemicals and kill thousands of civilians near by? The real proof for the civilian nature of these buildings is that within a couple of hours after the bombing, there were Syrian journalists and soldiers walking through the rubbles of these lethal “chemical weapons factories.”

Thinking only complicates matters and ruins everything. That’s why propaganda has to keep everything simple.

Rule #4: You have to viciously attack anyone who questions the official narrative. We did a great job of attacking independent journalists and bloggers. Vanessa Beeley, Eva Bartlett and Twitter influencers such as @PartisanGirl and @Ian56789 were all maligned as “Russian bots.” Ian even got banned from Twitter for a few days. Sites such as 21st Century Wire and Russia Insider were brought down by our hackers during the strikes on Syria.

Rule #5: Repetition is key in any successful campaign – selling a product, a politician or a war. Thus the media saturated the airwaves and the Internet with shocking language and pictures and videos. The West really has only one media outlet, but it comes in 100’s and 1000’s of different names in order to give the illusion of choice and diversity. Thus when the same message is repeated so many times by so many people, it comes becomes the truth.

So, you see, it doesn’t matter if Assad is still in power. The most important thing is that people are gullible and malleable, since that allows us to keep the war going and eventually achieve our goals. I assure you, we will get Syria and then we will get Iran. Yes, it will be a humanitarian disaster of epic proportion, but rest assured that the people of the West will feel good about it. That’s the power of propaganda!

*

Chris Kanthan is the author of a new book, “Deconstructing the Syrian War.” Chris lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, has traveled to 35 countries, and writes about world affairs, politics, economy and health. His other book is “Deconstructing Monsanto.”

All images, except the featured, in this article are from the author.

GR Editor’s Note

First published in April 2015, this article constitutes a “Russian perspective” on the deployment of US-NATO troops in Eastern Europe. The US-NATO militarization of Eastern Europe directed against Russia has been ongoing for several years. The threat is real.

It should also be noted that US troops have been stationed in several Western European countries including Germany and Italy since the end of World War II.

(Michel Chossudovsky. GR Ed, May 4, 2018)

*     *     *

The Americans are planning the largest increase of their military presence in Eastern Europe since the Cold War. The Pentagon announced plans to deploy a tank brigade in Europe in February 2017. Why not immediately, especially against the backdrop of the “Russian aggression?” As a matter of fact, there is no aggression. Instead, the United States occupies Europe.

Not that long ago, Pentagon officials announced plans to deploy 4,000 troops, 250 tanks and Bradley armored vehicles, self-propelled howitzers and 1,700 pieces of other wheeled vehicles and trucks in Eastern Europe.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Wark said that many countries of Eastern Europe questioned the readiness of the United States to protect them, especially against the background of  “Russian aggression.” The above-mentioned measures were taken to prove otherwise.

US troops in Europe to outnumber all European troops combined. 57762.jpeg

Poland and Bulgaria 

A report from the European Command of the US Armed Forces said that the total number of US troops in Europe would thus be equal to three brigades. This contingent will be shared between  Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Bulgaria. American people and equipment will be present in each of these countries, Gen. Ben Hodges said. 

According to The National Interest, NATO’s growing presence in the Baltic States – the most likely flashpoint for a confrontation with Russia – will demonstrate NATO’s determination to protect its members. However, it turns out that the tank brigade will not be deployed in Eastern Europe under the aegis of NATO. The move will be made as part of the US program titled European Reassurance Initiative. The $3.4-billion program requires approval from Congress to become reality.

Secondly, who is the aggressor? Is Russia building its bases near the USA to protect Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela and other countries?

Does Russia need to give way to “peace loving” initiatives of the North Atlantic Alliance?

Does Russia’s military doctrine mention anything about a preemptive nuclear strike? No other country has started so many bloody conflicts all over the world. There is also a very nice American tradition to betray allies, should something go contrary to plans.

The Americans prefer to bomb someone and see what happens. They will not die for Europe. The main concern is the Russian-German alliance that targets Asia. Yet, it is possible to end this initiative by bribing politicians and spreading adequate propaganda.

Thirdly, if the threat of the Russian aggression is as serious as it is painted, why not increase the military presence immediately? Why does the USA want the unlucky Balts, Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians tremble with fear for nearly a whole year? Is the Russian aggression an imaginary threat? Why send tanks to Europe if a nuclear conflict could destroy them in minutes?

USA occupies Europe on Roman Empire principles

As for Europe, it is not just dependent on the United States – it is occupied by the United States. The occupation is based on principles of the Roman Empire: the Romans used military garrisons to contain local population should they rebel against Rome’s exploitative and predatory policy.

What if a country of Eastern Europe decides to re-engage with Russia despite the Transatlantic Pact and sanctions? That would be a reason to use American military garrisons. Nobody will dare to utter a word, because US troops in Europe will soon outnumber all European troops combined. With the help of US troops, Poland, Bulgaria and others of the ilk will have the honor to die first in the much-talked about nuclear war.

Russia has no territorial or other claims to Europe. However, moving troops to its borders without a good reason for it is a very dangerous game. Russia will not repeat the experience of 1941. Russia will take necessary security measures in response to NATO’s growing military presence in Europe, especially in the eastern part of the continent, Alexander Grushko, Russia’s Ambassador to NATO said. Moscow’s reaction to such a move will be adequately efficient, he added.

The USA never sends its troops to places where it smells war – it evacuates them from such places instead. For example, We have recently seen the evacuation of NATO’s troops from Turkey, a NATO member.

“The Americans do not want to get involved in a real war. They do not want to mess with North Korea, – Eduard Limonov, writer and political activist told Pravda.Ru. –

Donald Trump says that it is about time the Americans should stop protecting all for free. The Americans have a plethora of their own problems: a huge public debt, high unemployment, and the situation is getting worse. Instead, they spend enormous money on other countries. This will stop soon. The Americans will return to their North America, and their interference in global affairs will decrease.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Troops in Europe to Outnumber all European Troops Combined

Hon. Paul Hellyer

The Globalization of War is an extraordinarily important book. It tags the origin of a long series of wars and conflicts, from the end of World War II to the present, as being direct products of U.S.  Foreign Policy. Nothing happens by accident. U.S. provocateurs, usually agents of the CIA, incite one conflict after another in what Michel Chossudovsky labels America’s “Long War” against Humanity.

It comprises a war on two fronts. Those countries that can either be “bought,” or destabilized by a corrupt international financial system, are easy targets for effective conquest. In other cases insurrection, riots and wars are used to solicit American military intervention to fill the pockets of the military-industrial complex that General Eisenhower warned us about. The “End Game” is a New World Order embracing a dual economic and military dictatorship prepared to use atomic weapons and risk the future of the entire human species to achieve its ends.

Michel Chossudovsky is one of the few individuals I know who has analyzed the anatomy of the New World Order and recognized the threat to the entire human species that it is.

The Globalization of War is a must read for anyone who prefers peace and hope to perpetual war, death, dislocation and despair.

Hon. Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister of National Defence

Michel Chossudovsky’s Book The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity can be ordered directly from Global Research Publishers or Amazon.  Click image above to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Globalization of War. From the End of World War II to the Present

Sexuelle Gewalt: und jetzt?

May 3rd, 2018 by Claude Jacqueline Herdhuin

Ein Aufruf zur Nächstenliebe.
Oder: Hass hält Opfer in der Opferrolle fest.

Ich möchte leben.

In der letzten Zeit läuft es mir angesichts der sozialen und klassischen Medien kalt den Rücken herunter. Genau genommen macht mir ihre Macht Angst, wenn sie ungenügend kontrolliert ist. Kontrollieren bedeutet nicht Zensieren. Redakteure, Moderatoren, Journalisten, Leser und Zuhörer – wir alle tragen eine Verantwortung, wenn die Medien über die Stränge schlagen. Die Kehrseite der sozialen Medien ist es, jedem und jeder zu ermöglichen, seinem/ihrem Zorn freien Lauf zu gewähren. Man wird mich hassen – und das nehme ich voll und ganz hin.

Mein Angreifer ist kein Schwein und ich leide auch nicht unter dem Stockholm-Syndrom.

Die Kampagne „Verpfeif‘ dein Schwein“ („Balance Ton Porc“) löste in mir schlagartig heftige Reaktionen aus. Ich mochte weder den Ausdruck, der ihm gegeben wurde, noch das Ziel, das dahintersteckte. Eine Hexenjagd, die es ermöglicht, jemanden zu beschuldigen und fertig zu machen; offene Rechnungen zu begleichen. Ich bestreite nicht das Leid der Opfer, aber ich denke, dass die Lösung nicht in der öffentlichen Hinrichtung der Peiniger liegt. Angreifen, Belästigen, Vergewaltigen – all dies sind verwerfliche Taten und die Opfer müssen unterstützt und ermutigt werden in ihrem Bemühen Gerechtigkeit zu erlangen. Das menschliche Wesen ist zu Schrecklichem und Wunderbarem fähig. Dabei bilden die Opfer keine Ausnahme.

Ihr Leben lang müssen sie mit der Tat leben, die sie über sich ergehen lassen mussten. Jahre können vergehen, doch die lebendige Erinnerung an den Tag, an dem ihr Leben aus den Fugen geriet, wird bleiben. Diese Tragödie wurde wunderbar in dem Film Festen von Thomas Vinterberg thematisiert. Ein Familientreffen zum 60. Geburtstag des Vaters nimmt eine unerwartete Wendung. Das schreckliche Familiengeheimnis wird von Christian aufgedeckt, der, ebenso wie seine Zwillingsschwester, von seinem Vater missbraucht wurde, als er noch ein Kind war. Letzte hatte sich umgebracht, es war für sie der einzige Ausweg.

Schreiben bedeutet, sich auszudrücken. Sowohl als Kind als auch als Jugendliche wurde ich selbst Opfer sexueller Gewalt. Eine dunkle Kindheit, erschreckende Erinnerungen, dieses Leben scheint kein Ende zu nehmen. Die Angst ist allgegenwärtig. Scham, Schweigen, dann die Flucht ans andere Ende der Welt. Doch die Welt wird niemals groß genug sein, um dieser Vergangenheit zu entkommen. Die Lösung liegt in uns; nur in uns selbst – missbrauchten Frauen und Männern.

Albträume, Wut, Zorn und Hilflosigkeit sind unsere Gefährten. Ein Trauma, das unsere Existenz unbarmherzig zerfrisst. Das Wichtigste ist, zunächst einmal, darüber sprechen zu können, denn das größte Hindernis der Heilung ist das Schweigen – und sein Durchbrechen ist der erste Schritt Richtung Freiheit. Dies entwickelt sich oft in einem Krisenzustand.

Ein Flashback, während man das Geschirr abwäscht. Die Erinnerung dieses Körpers, der schmerzt. Die Schwierigkeit, gar Unmöglichkeit, seine Träume zu erfüllen, zu lieben und sich lieben zu lassen.

Reden ist ein Akt der Tapferkeit. Leider und viel zu oft ziehen es die Menschen aus dem Umfeld und der Familie vor zu leugnen. Als ich anfing, darüber zu sprechen, nach 30 Jahren, sagte man mir: „Wir haben die Wahl dir zu glauben oder nicht”. Man hat sich dazu entschieden, mir nicht zu glauben. Therapiesitzungen folgten, über Jahre hinweg. Meine Leser und die Selbsthilfegruppen haben mir die Augen geöffnet: Nicht durch den Hass auf den Täter würde es mir besser gehen. Ganz im Gegenteil, genau das trug dazu bei, eine bereits eitrige Wunde weiter zu infizieren. Die Heilung lag im Reden, darin, meine Erfahrung mit anderen zu teilen.

Sprechen ist unerlässlich, doch das sollte man nicht einfach irgendwie tun. Und schon gar nicht im Rahmen einer Denunzierungskampagne auf Websites, die zur Lynchjustiz wird.

Bevor man öffentlich darüber spricht, muss man im Privaten darüber sprechen. Es fängt bei einem selbst an, da man sich erst des Ausmaßes dessen, was geschehen ist, bewusst werden muss. Dieser Prozess vollzieht sich einzig im privaten Raum. Ein Kind vertraut sich vielleicht seinem Hund an, ein Erwachsener spricht zuerst mit sich selbst, bevor er sich damit überhaupt an jemand anderen wenden kann. Erst nachdem ein Opfer das Wort ergriffen hat, kann es zur Tat übergehen. Den Täter anprangern, Hilfe suchen, ihn vielleicht sogar damit konfrontieren. Akzeptieren, was passiert ist, die gesamte Energie auf sich selbst richten und auf sich achten, um sich selbst wieder aufzubauen und zu einem glücklichen Leben zu finden. Jede Geschichte sexueller Gewalt ist einzigartig, jedes Opfer ein kostbares Wesen. Ein Schatz, der einfach leben will.

Jahrzehnte nach dem Unwiderruflichen habe ich den Täter damit konfrontiert – ich bot ihm an, ihm zu verzeihen. Er wusste nicht, wie er es akzeptieren konnte. Sei’s drum – ich habe mich davon befreit, und das ist die Hauptsache. Er ist kein Schwein, er ist ein Mann, ein menschliches Wesen.

Während dieses Prozesses, der einem Hindernislauf glich, habe ich getobt vor Wut, gebrüllt, „ihm“ die Pest an den Hals gewünscht. Glücklicherweise habe ich Männer und Frauen getroffen, die mir zugehört, mich getröstet und mir den Weg gezeigt haben. Eines Tages habe ich an einem ganz besonderen Konfliktlösungstraining teilgenommen. Statt den Angreifer zu isolieren und auszugrenzen, lernten wir ihn zu integrieren und ihn einzuladen, Teil der Lösung zu werden. Ein menschlicher Ansatz – sowohl für das Opfer, als auch den Täter. Ich gebe zu, anfangs meine Zweifel gehabt zu haben. Dieser Ansatz erfordert es, gegen sich selbst zu gehen, um mit dem anderen, dem Vergewaltiger, zu kommunizieren. Es ist jedoch eine befreiende Geste, selbst wenn dieser die ausgestreckte Hand ablehnt. Wenn man den anderen als menschliches Wesen sieht, wird man auch selbst als Opfer wieder humaner. Man überträgt die Last dem anderen; so kann das Opfer seine Energie wieder finden, um sich selbst und das Leben zu lieben.

Man wird mich hassen – doch es waren weder feministische Gruppen, noch Denunzierungskampagnen, die mir geholfen haben. Es waren Selbsthilfegruppen, betreut durch Menschen wie mich. Aufgrund der geteilten Erfahrungen gelingt es, über einen Ansatz einfacher Glaubenssätze hinauszugehen.

Gleich wie gut die Absicht, es ist gefährlich in diesem Bereich intellektuell oder durch politischen Aktivismus motiviert Position zu beziehen. Die Sichtweise ist zwangsläufig beschränkt, ja voreingenommen. Es fehlt an Nächstenliebe. An Offenheit angesichts eines Themas, das über das „Schwein und das Opfer“ hinausgeht. Um helfen zu können, muss man lieben. Ich glaube nicht, dass dies bei den Denunzierungskampagnen der Fall ist, deren Ziel es lediglich ist, die mutmaßlichen Angreifer zur Schlachtbank zu führen. Der Hass hat niemals irgendetwas geheilt. Er hält das Opfer nur in seiner Opferrolle fest und verweigert ihm jegliches Recht auf Heilung. Es ist, als ob jeden Tag jemand kommt und die heilende Wunde wieder aufreißt. Es ist nie einfach: Ich kannte eine Frau, die als kleines Kind sowohl von ihrem Vater als auch ihrer Mutter missbraucht wurde.

Ich liebe die Menschen.

Ich hasse die Menschen, die mir das angetan haben, aber ich liebe die Menschen.

Claude Jacqueline Herdhuin

 

https://www.rubikon.news/artikel/was-tun-gegen-sexuelle-gewalt

Violence sexuelle : et maintenant?Je veux vivre.

Bild
Claude Jacqueline Herdhuin lebt in Kanada und hat eine Vorliebe für Worte, weshalb sie bereits in vielen verschiedenen literarischen Bereichen tätig war. Sie ist Übersetzerin und Romanautorin sowie freie Drehbuchautorin und Regisseurin für Spielfilme und Dokumentationen, schreibt Gedichte und kritische Artikel, letztere für Publikationsorgane wie Mondialisation. Darüber hinaus arbeitete sie obendrein für das staatliche-kanadische Radio CIBL. Heute widmet sie sich vorwiegend der Lehre und unterrichtet Französisch als Zweitsprache für Immigranten, internationale Studenten und englischsprachige Kanadier.

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Sexuelle Gewalt: und jetzt?

Half of Unasur’s members suspended their participation in the South American bloc.

The American-friendly governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, and Peru coordinated their move just days after Bolivia assumed the rotating presidency of the organization, justifying their decision on the alleged basis that the landlocked country hasn’t provided any real sense of leadership in the few days that it’s been in charge of this regional integrational group. This explanation is clearly a poorly crafted excuse to disguise the fact that these right-wing governments, some of whom came to power after US-supported “deep state” and “constitutional” coups, are doing Washington’s bidding in trying their best to reverse the regional progress that was made during the leftist “Pink Tide” that swept the region over a decade ago. This move also correlates with the US’ efforts to divide the Mercosur trading bloc that was created around that time too, half of whose members were just involved in what happened with Unasur.

Of the remaining six countries that are still active in the continental organization, half of them are part of the Venezuelan-led ALBA group that also counts Bolivia and Ecuador as members. Their integrational efforts have been faltering over the past few years as Venezuela sank into the depths of US-provoked Hybrid War and was unable to subsidize the organization to the degree that it used to. The other three countries still left in Unasur – Guyana, Suriname, and Uruguay – are small, weak, and relatively impoverished, and Venezuela’s ongoing territorial dispute with neighboring Guyana represents yet another fault line in this already fractured organization. For all intents and purposes, the mass self-suspension of half of Unasur’s members will render the bloc functionally useless as planned but end up ultimately being counterproductive to the continent’s integrational interests, potentially making South America as a whole less competitive in the long-run.

Another point to focus on is the how those six countries blamed Bolivia as their public pretext for pulling out of the group, which might be a prelude to the multilateral Hybrid War pressure that they plan to put on it across the coming months as President Morales prepares for next year’s polls. Following the Venezuelan template that they each have extensive experience with, Bolivia might be excluded from other regional gatherings just like the Bolivarian Republic was from the recent Summit of the Americas. Unlike its ALBA ally, however, Bolivia is landlocked and completely surrounded by four of the six countries who just suspended their membership in Unasur, so there’s a distinct chance that they might one day blockade it under whatever invented pretext in order to put maximum economic pressure on the state in provoking further political tensions within it.

Altogether, the most important significance of what just happened is that it proves the success of the US’ “Operation Condor 2.0” hemisphere-wide unipolar comeback over the past few years in regaining control of most of the continent following its “Pink Tide” multipolar “rebellion” a decade ago.

*

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) Is Unravelling and “It’s All the US’ Fault”
  • Tags:

To underscore the dire situation in Libya and the extent to which extremists will go, on Wednesday at around noon two huge explosions occurred at the HNEC, the Higher National Election Commission’s HQ, in Tripoli, killing over 15 people and wounding many more. The attack suggests that fanatics may be concerned over the rising popularity of Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar and fear that the controversial Haftar could win in the upcoming elections. They may be seeking to derail the vote. If so, their gambit may have the opposite effect: it could actually galvanize Libyan support for elections as a way out of the current political chaos and conundrum.

No doubt a contributing factor to this tragic bombing was the return on Thursday of Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar from a Paris hospital, via Cairo, to Libya on a proverbial “white horse” seen by some to be a drama giving an appearance of a triumphant return to Libya.

Recovered after two weeks of alleged illness, which was much exaggerated by the media and by those houndefinedping, like the UN, to see the back of him.

If as widely reported he was on death’s door, he would not have smiled for the bevy of photographers and TV cameras, even laughing and joking as he was met by dignitaries at the airport in Benghazi following his flight arrival from Cairo.

Haftar gave a brief televised statement at Benina Airport, starting with:

I want to reassure you that I am in good health…. I should be addressing you standing up but I am obliged to do so sitting down…. I won’t respond to those promoting rumors about my health, and you are not responsible for them. But there are those who will answer for them in the appropriate way.

The next week or or two will be telling. it’s believed there is a chance for an eventual end of this civil war through Haftar’s consolidation of power in Libya coupled with a potential offensive on one of the last bastions of power in the hands of extremist jihadists, Derna.

An important indirect factor, which does have an effect on the public, will be the approach of the month long Ramadan starting around mid-May.

A further development last Monday, also in light of Haftar’s return to Libya, was the announcement from Aguila Saleh, the Speaker of Libya’s Tobruk based parliament, the House of Representatives (HoR), calling for presidential elections to be held between September and December. This was quickly publicly supported internationally by both France and Egypt. Others are expected to follow.

Aguila Salah added that such an election would use the former constitution as a basis, not the UN-backed and promoted Libyan Political Agreement (LPA).

The US and UK have wanted regime change in Syria and all over the Middle East. We can thank Gen. Wesley Clark for that information. Many Arabs jokingly cry, “how about the US and UK have a regime change!”

A bizarre statement the other day by long time neocon John Bolton when talking about the Korean Peninsular, who said incredibly publicly he sees Libya as a “disarmament model.” Was Bolton’s intention to encourage and inspire the North Korean leader Kim somehow?

You can’t make this stuff up!

American and Western Foreign Policy has officially descended into a farce.

Today’s Tripoli bombing is just the opening shot by those determined to keep Libya a failed chaotic State. Time will tell if elections take place by end year or anarchy prevails in Libya.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Explosions Rock Tripoli Election Commission: Who’s Trying to Prevent the Vote?

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, a notorious warmonger, serial liar and supremacist racialist who used to lead the closest thing Israel has to a fascist party until parties even more extreme got elected to parliament, is attempting to bamboozle the clueless Trump into getting on a war footing with Iran.

Netanyahu’s breathless announcement that there was a potential weapons aspect to Iran’s nuclear enrichment program has been known for a decade and a half.

Netanyahu even seems to have provoked the White House to issue a communique falsely stating that Iran has a weapons program presently, which it promptly had to retract. The incident is so scary because it shows how easy it is to manipulate the erratic Trump and his not-ready-for-prime-time staff. That sort of thing, David Frum said on Twitter, can cause a war. And he should know.

But the retraction is incorrect, as well. Iran in the distant past had done some things that would be helpful if it had launched a full blown weapons program. It never did launch such a program.

Netanyahu instanced no evidence at all that Iran is out of compliance with the 2015 deal, and UN inspectors continually have affirmed that Tehran *is* in compliance. His allegation that Iran’s recent missiles are designed to be fitted with warheads is simply false.

So why try to put Iran on the front burner of American war-making? It is a desperate attempt on Netanyahu’s part to divert world attention from the ongoing Israeli Apartheid discrimination against the stateless Palestinians, which it militarily occupies (directly with jackboots and colonial settlers on the West Bank, indirectly with military encirclement and the sniping of innocent protesters in Gaza).

In recent weeks, Israeli snipers have used live ammunition to kill some 40 and wound hundreds of Palestinians who were unarmed and peacefully protesting their imprisonment in the Gaza Strip (70% of their families were kicked out of their homes in Israel and now live in squalid refugee camps while European Israelis took over their houses and farmland and are living it up). The sniping victims have including children, journalists, demonstrators distant from the Israeli confinement fence, and worshipers at prayer with the mention of God on their lips. Shooting unarmed people who pose no threat is a war crime, and doing it systematically amounts to a crime against humanity. So too is the crime of Apartheid described in the Statute of Rome as a “crime against humanity,” and Israel manifestly and robustly practices Apartheid against the Palestinians under its military heel.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program (to make fuel for reactors generating electricity) was designed to prevent Iran from weaponizing the program.

All nuclear enrichment via centrifuges is potentially dual use. Uranium can be enriched to 5% for reactor fuel, but if scientists keep feeding it through the centrifuges they can enrich it to 95% for a bomb. The Iran deal was designed to keep Iran from making high enriched uranium (HEU).

Iran accepted spot inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. No country under active inspections has ever developed a nuclear weapon.

Iran vastly reduced the number of centrifuges it has, which means it would take at least a year or even years to make HEU, even if it could do so without the inspectors detecting the signature at the site, which it cannot.

Iran discontinued and bricked in its planned heavy water reactor at Arak. Fissile material builds up on the rods in a heavy water reactor much faster than on a light water reactor, and so the heavy water ones can theoretically aid in making a bomb. Iran no longer even has a plan for a heavy water reactor.

Iran destroyed its stockpile of uranium enriched to 19.5% for its medical reactor. It has no enriched uranium higher than 5%, useful for its three reactors at Bushehr. Iran benefits from nuclear energy because it burns oil for electricity generation, cutting into the money it could make from instead selling it on the open market.

South Korea, Japan and France all use nuclear reactors for electricity generation just as Iran is starting to. France enriches uranium both for that purpose and to make nuclear weapons. If you don’t think Japan could construct a bomb in three weeks if it wanted to, you don’t know Japanese technology (they have a big stockpile of plutonium).

So Netanyahu and the American Right should have sighed in relief, right? Remember, Netanyahu has several hundred actual real nuclear bombs that it could drop on Iran, and Iran has bupkes. Likewise the US is bristling with nuclear warheads. Iran has some old F4 jets Nixon gave them.

In 2007, the National Intelligence Estimate of the CIA assessed that Iran did some experiments with military significance in 2003 but then halted them ever after. The 2011 NIE repeated the conclusion that Iran did not have a weapons program at that time and had not decided to pursue one.

Our sloppy and sometimes propagandistic press keeps talking about Iran’s “nuclear weapons program,” but it is a unicorn. No such thing has ever existed per se, though the experiments and programs Iran pursued as part of its civilian energy program always had potential weapons implications, and Iranian scientists did perform some occasional experiments that might have had weapons purposes.

Because nuclear enrichment is dual use, Iran until 2015 always had the option of going for broke and pursuing a bomb, using know-how gained from the civilian program. That is all the CIA was saying. It was also saying that no such decision had been taken, a conclusion echoed by Israeli politicians like Ehud Barak and by Israeli intelligence.

But the JCPOA forestalled any such decision. Iran could only make a bomb now by kicking out the inspectors and manufacturing thousands of centrifuges, in other words by putting up a huge neon sign saying “I am making a nuclear bomb here.”

Iran’s nuclear enrichment program has also always probably been intended to have deterrent effects against anyone thinking of doing to the country what Bush did to Iraq. I.e. if it was clear someone was planning to invade, Iran could in fact go for broke and try to defend itself.

Since the US right wing and the government of Israel would very much like to see Iran invaded and its government overthrown, and its legs broken, this nuclear latency or the Japan option is an annoyance they would like to remove. It is easier to execute someone if you disarm him first.

But Iran of course is already substantially disarmed, voluntarily. What is going on now is an attempt to pull the wool over people’s eyes about that and to con them into spending $6 trillion on another ruinous Middle East conflict.

That will keep everybody busy while Netanyahu finally succeeds in ethnically cleansing what is left of the Palestinians, his ulterior ultimate goal.

*

Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment and Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History at the University of Michigan.

A note from Nat Parry: 

In the spring of 1971, with war raging in Vietnam, the U.S. peace movement hoped to shut down the federal government in an audacious mass civil disobedience action. Under the slogan “If the government won’t stop the war, then the people will stop the government,” tens of thousands of protesters set out to block major intersections and bridges to bring Washington, DC, to a halt.

A young Robert Parry, then a student at Colby College, drove down from Maine to participate in the demonstrations and ended up arrested along with thousands of other protesters who were swept up in the largest mass arrest in U.S. history. He later wrote about the protests and their significance in the Colby Echo, where he was Editor-in-Chief.

Marking the anniversary of these events, we republish Parry’s article for the first time in 47 years, with an introduction from his classmate Stephen Orlov, who attended the demonstration with him.

***

By Stephen Orlov

It was with a heavy heart that I read Nat Parry’s moving tribute to his father, Robert, on his sudden passing.

Bob was my closest friend at Maine’s Colby College during the turbulent Vietnam War years, when Bob was Editor-in-Chief of our student newspaper, the Colby Echo. He rarely talked with family and friends about his time at Colby, given the enormity of the important issues of the day he addressed tirelessly during his distinguished career. So Nat asked me to share a few anecdotes about Bob during his student days, when he began honing his muckraking journalistic skills and demonstrating to our campus community his inspiring strength of character in speaking truth to power.

I worked with Bob at the Echo, writing anti-war articles as an Associate Editor and Student Government President. We helped lead with a handful of activists the Colby strike against the Vietnam War in May of 1970, following Nixon’s invasion of Cambodia and the National Guard’s killing of protesting students at Kent State. Bob played a key role in our successful lobbying campaign that convinced the Colby Faculty to pass a resolution supporting our student strike.

We replaced classes with a counter-cultural-curriculum of daily workshops led by students and professors on the mass movements that were engulfing America in a tidal wave of social protest—anti-war and nuclear disarmament, civil rights and black power, feminism and gay rights, the American Indian Movement and United Farm Workers Boycott, anti-poverty and pro-environment.

Bob and I drafted a telegram on behalf of student government heads of 16 college and university campuses in Maine to Senators Edmund Muskie and Margaret Chase Smith, which forced them to fly to Colby within days for an all-state anti-war rally that would “give the students of Maine the opportunity to confront you.”

We devoured the non-violent civil disobedience writings of King, Thoreau and Gandhi, discussing for hours how to best apply their theory and practice to our plans for being arrested together at anti-war demonstrations in Washington DC that spring. And a year later at the May Day demonstrations in 1971, the friendly elderly stranger arrested next to us turned out to be Dr. Benjamin Spock, who had penned the classic baby-care “bible,” we both would later rely on as parents.

Image below is Robert Parry in 1971

At a speech to Alumni donors during the strike, Colby President Robert Strider attacked Bob’s editorial stewardship of the Echo, decrying “the uncontrollable barbarism, with its obscenities, libel and innuendo, of the college press.” The following semester, Strider moved to end the College’s near century-old sponsorship of the Echo because of Bob’s editorial choices.

Strider wrote to Bob officially demanding the removal of the Colby name from the Echo and he convinced the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees to propose at a Board meeting we attended a resolution to disassociate the College from its student newspaper. Strider had highlighted swear words and an Echo photo of students frolicking “au natural” as just cause, but we countered that the heart of the matter was Bob’s anti-war editorial position. Bob refused to remove the Colby name from the Echo and he delivered an unflinching defense of freedom of the press, convincing the Trustees to reject the censorship resolution of their Board Chair and College President.

On a personal note, Bob lamented a painful rift with his father, William, who was the publisher of the Framingham News, nearby Boston. He told me how his dad had always preached to him the need to consider multiple points of view for every story, a principle Bob embraced throughout his career, and yet William dogmatically dismissed off-hand Bob’s anti-war position as being anti-American, and he ardently supported the war effort in his paper. Perhaps that personal experience later helped Bob emotionally confront the surreptitious maneuvers by government and media power brokers to blacklist him within the Washington press corps for his courageous reporting.

Bob and I remained in close touch during our first few years after graduation. We traveled together to Miami in 1972 for anti-war demonstrations at the Republican National Convention, sleeping in a pop-up tent in the protester’s camp at Flamingo Park, where we bathed in the Park swimming pool. We drove there from Mass. to Florida in a car Bob had recently bought. He was rather proud of the fact that he had tuned it up himself after studying an auto-maintenance manual.

After I moved to Montreal and he to Virginia, regrettably we rarely saw each other, occasionally catching up on work and family life from a distance. I can still remember decades ago, Bob describing passionately his visionary plans to begin publishing an online investigative journal in the tradition of his hero, I.F. Stone. I was thrilled to learn that Bob was honored in 2015 with Harvard’s Nieman Foundation I.F. Stone Prize for Journalism, and later with the Martha Gellhorn Award. Ironically, when the Colby Trustees refused forty-five years earlier to back the Board resolution disassociating the College from the Echo, they appointed Trustee Dwight Sargent, the curator of Harvard’s Nieman Foundation of Journalism at the time, to head a study committee, which never censored Bob or the Echo.

Throughout his life’s journey, Robert Parry cast the shadow of a giant, and on his path he left a signature footprint marked by strength and integrity. Bob’s passing is a personal loss of a friend I’ve admired my entire adult life, a loss of far greater magnitude for his loving family. His legacy shall endure, inspiring investigative journalists the world over.


“May Day”

By Robert Parry

(Originally published in the Colby Echo student newspaper in May 1971)

There was the air of a mighty athletic contest about it. A super bowl played out in the streets of the nation’s capital. And the news media always alert for any incident that will appeal to America’s sports-minded viewing public played the athletics of the situation to the hilt. To the media, it was the kids coming off several big seasons of demonstrations against the seasoned veterans of the Washington police force. The demonstrators with their potent offense trying to throw the city into chaos; the cops, led by their elite Civil Disturbance Unit and backed up by thousands of Marines, Army, and National Guard, putting up a great defense to maintain social order.

It was to be the biggest story of the week, perhaps of 1971, and the participants’ temerarious victory predictions and scoffs at the strength of the opposition reminded some viewers of Joe Namath psyching the Baltimore Colts out of the ’69 Super Bowl. The demonstrators had stated, “If the government won’t stop the war, then the people will stop the government.” And President Nixon had countered with assurances that he would not be intimidated. Chief of the D.C. police, Jerry Wilson, who would guide his team on the field, went on saying that the demonstration would be only a minor “nuisance.”

So the lines were drawn and the kids readied themselves for game time Monday morning. But the police started things early with a foray into the demonstrators’ home base at dawn Sunday. At that time, 41,000 people were camping at West Potomac Park. The police dispersed them hoping that many would go home, but most remained in Washington and others, like the nine members of the Colby contingent, had been staying elsewhere.

But with the thrust into the park, the police had taken the play away from the offense-minded demonstrators. The kids charged foul, but their cries went unheeded. Rules for the week’s struggle were fuzzy at best, and with their early move, the police gave warning that many of the fair-play guidelines were out the window for as long as threats of disruption continued. The lack of rules reflected an even greater confusion which would plague observers and commenters throughout the week – how could anyone tell who won.

Nine of us from Colby – Steve Orlov, Dick Kaynor, Bob Knight, Lyndon Summers, Ken Eisen, Joel Simon, Andy Koss, Peter Vose and me – had come to Washington to commit civil disobedience. Most of us expected to be arrested; some were prepared to be clubbed. We had come because we opposed the war and wanted to demonstrate through the power of non-violent civil disobedience that our commitment to the war’s end went beyond placards and petitions to congressmen.

We had come expecting to engage in Gandhian civil disobedience (passive non-violence); we learned, however, on meeting up with our regional group Sunday afternoon that the tactic now being favored was “mobile non-violence.” Apparently because of fears that the numbers of demonstrators had been significantly reduced by the park clearing and because of a greater concern for the ends (who would win the “Stop the City” Bowl Game) rather than the means, regional leaders favoring “mobile” tactics had prevailed over others wanting more passive disobedience. Gandhi was to be mixed with Abbie Hoffman and the result would be a kind of touch football in the streets.

The kids were up early Monday but, as the slogan goes, the police department never sleeps. The cops and the troops were out in force and they had already had the four bridges from Virginia to D.C. neatly in their pockets. Ken and I drove our cars into the city before six. Our job was to use the cars for blocking and slowing down traffic. Steve and Peter stayed with us in case of trouble and the others disembarked on the D.C. side of the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge. From the beginning it was clear that things were not going our way.

Image result for may day 1971

Steve and I drove around participating in and occasionally starting traffic jams. Scenes from Godard films met us at nearly every corner. Police charging and swinging into clumps of demonstrators, police cars chasing kids across parks, the grey smoke of tear gas rising everywhere, troops in their full, khaki battle gear lining the city’s bridges. The government had responded to the threats of a shut-down with force and throughout the morning they had the kids running from their attacks and reeling from the tear gas. Traffic was snarled (some places for hours) but as the government pointed out, the workers got through.

When the Colby contingent returned to Ken’s house in Arlington, we evaluated what had happened and discovered that Jody and Lyndon had been arrested. Everyone at the Eisen’s was disappointed with how the demonstration had developed. We had come to be arrested and instead spent the whole day avoiding arrest. All of us agreed, no more of the same.

That evening, however, Bob, Steve and I talked with Hosea Williams, a leader of the SCLC, and he told us that his organization would lead a march to the Justice Department Tuesday afternoon which would end in a mass sit-down and, almost certainly, arrests. Six of us decided to go; four of us (Ken, Steve, Dick and I) got arrested. (Bob and Peter had taken a lunch break during the speeches and when they returned from their “Justice Department” sandwiches, they found four rows of police blocking off access to the several thousand demonstrators.)

The demonstrations at Justice were what we had been hoping for. When the police arrived, the two or three thousand protesters sat down and pulled out handkerchiefs to use in case of tear gas. The police moved toward us in rows, a tear gas canister was set off accidentally. The people didn’t panic, they didn’t run, they stayed together. The police began the arrests. At first, there were some incidents of violence, police clubbing and macing demonstrators, but when the cops realized that there would be no resistance, the arrests came orderly and peaceful.

The arrested demonstrators were taken in buses to areas of detention. The four of us from Colby and about 800 other people were placed in the U.S. District Court cell block. We were held in a cell (50’x20’) with 100 other protesters and later in a cell (15’x15’) containing 66 people.

The over-crowding, the oppressive heat, and the bologna sandwiches served with rancid mayonnaise made life in the cells difficult. But it also served as a crucible test for the principles of communal living. When food was provided for us, we asked to be allowed to pass the food back to the back of the cell in an orderly way. The people sitting against the back wall ate first. We overcame the difficulties of too many people by communicating with each other and arranging shifts for sleeping (while some slept, others stood or sat uncomfortably). In short, we survived by learning to live with and care for each other.

At 10:30 Wednesday morning, I was taken in a bus to court. Ken, Steve, and Dick had to remain in an even smaller cell (8’x12’) with 33 people until five that evening. Dick, Ken, and I were fortunate to be arraigned before Judge Halleck, the judge most sympathetic to our cause in the city. Halleck was accepting pleas of nolo contendere (no contest) and giving sentences of two days or $20 (the two days considered already served). Steve and Jody were released on bond and the charges against Lyndon were dropped.

People have asked us since we’ve returned to Colby what was accomplished in Washington. The media, knowing that nobody likes a tie game, had ruled that the police had won. And indeed there are strong arguments to support that conclusion: the city was kept open, the government did function, and the war still continues. The police statistics were also impressive: virtually all government employees made it to work and almost 14,000 demonstrators had been arrested. And the people who watched on their sets at home saw the police always on the offensive and the demonstrators on the run.

But one thing that the media seemed to forget was that the shutting down of Washington was only one of May Day’s aims. The demonstrators were designed to project an image of Washington, D.C., to the world as the scene of social chaos brought on by the country’s involvement in Indochina and the problems of racism and poverty at home. By forcing the government to line its streets with thousands of soldiers the demonstrations created an image not easily washed away.

But more importantly, May Day was the first large-scale application of non-violent civil disobedience by white Americans. The arrest tallies which are pointed to with such pride by Chief Wilson stand perhaps as a greater monument to the determination and will to sacrifice of the protesters. As we were being taken away from the Justice Department in a bus, the cry of the people with us was not of defeat but of victory. As we passed people on the streets kids leaned out the windows shouting “We won, we won.”

But the greater measure of victory of defeat had to lie in the effect the actions had on those not participating. The initial reaction from television commentators and politicians indicated that the demonstrations were not well received, but other adults who were more immediately involved with the May Day occurrences felt differently. For instance, a reporter for theWashington Star who was arrested at Justice and served time in our cell block wrote on Thursday, “I … was radicalized, but not just in the political sense. When I was separated from the group in the cell block, I told them I didn’t know whether to flash a V sign for peace or a fist for power. ‘Give them both,’ said a friend. I did.”

The spirit, he wrote, comparable to that of the “Britons in their bomb shelter during World War II or civil rights workers in the south” – was the feeling of men and women with a vision of a new society that is coming. Everyone I’ve talked to who experienced that feeling left Washington knowing that they had found 14,000 brothers and sisters by being in jail. The whole question of victory or defeat became submerged under all of us win or all of us lose.

*

Stephen Orlov is an award-winning playwright, who recently co-edited with Melbourne-based Palestinian playwright and poet, Samah Sabawi, Double Exposure: Plays of the Jewish and Palestinian Diasporas, the first English-language anthology worldwide in any genre of drama, prose, or poetry by Jewish and Palestinian writers.

Haftar’s Return to Libya

May 3rd, 2018 by Richard Galustian

Featured image: Haftar last Thursday early evening at Benghazi’s Benina Airport (Source: LNA website & social media)

Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar returned from a Paris hospital, via Cairo, to Libya on a proverbial ‘white horse’.

Recovered after two weeks of alleged illness, much exaggerated by the media and by those interested, like the UN, to see the back of him.

The last thing the awful regimes we have in both the UK & USA presently, want is to have a man like Haftar to fight their surrogates extremist terrorists.

Haftar ‘ain’t perfect’, in particular, his sons. But if we, and I mean ‘the West’, want to eradicate terrorists, in for a start, Libya, Haftar, as imperfect and old school that he maybe, is the man to do it.

In part, many believe it was a ruse by Haftar to ‘disappear’ these past 14 days or so to ‘flush’ out the traitors and double crossers, something peoples of this region are regrettably particularly culturally prone to be.

If he was on death’s door, he would not have smiled for the bevy of photographers and TV cameras, even laughing and joking as he was met by dignitaries at the airport in Benghazi following his flight arrival from Cairo.

Haftar gave a brief televised statement at Benina Airport, starting with:

“I want to reassure you that I am in good health,” further stating “I should be addressing you standing up but I am obliged to do so sitting down,” Haftar jokingly added.

Haftar continued

“I won’t respond to those promoting rumors about my health, and you are not responsible for them. But there are those who will answer for them in the appropriate way,” Haftar almost menacingly concluded.

Libya for the first time in 7 years, given Haftar’s enhanced popularity evident to all who watched TV, on his return, or who spoke to Libyans who watched it, that his return has a consequence of increasing his popularity that could tip the balance of power in his favour given the motley crew that are his opposition.

The next week or two will be telling. It’s believed there is a chance for an eventual end of this civil war through Haftar’s consolidation of power in Libya coupled with a potential offensive on one of the last bastions of power in the hands of extremist jihadists, Derna.

An important indirect factor, which does have an effect on the public, will be the approach of the month long ‘Ramadan’ starting around mid May.

A further interesting development on Monday, in the light of Haftar’s return to Libya, was the announcement from Aguila Saleh, the Speaker of Libya’s Tobruk based parliament, the House of Representatives (HoR), who has called for presidential elections to be held between September – December. This was publicly supported internationally by both France and Egypt. Others are expected to follow.

Such an election would use the former constitution as a basis, not repeat not the UN-backed Libyan Political Agreement (LPA).

The US and UK want regime change in Syria, all over the Middle East in fact, because of a perceived Zionist agenda. How about the US and UK have a regime change, many Arabs jokingly cry!

A final thought is a statement the other day by long time neocon John Bolton who said publicly he sees Libya as a ‘disarmament model’ – was Bolton’s intention to encourage and inspire the North Korean leader Kim somehow?

You couldn’t make this stuff up!

American and Western Foreign Policy is descending into a farce.

Commemorating The Odessa Massacre of 2 May 2014

May 3rd, 2018 by Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli

WARNING: This post includes documentation of most gruesome scenes at the crime scene. First published in May 2014, updated in February 2015 

New update 20 February 2015

First-hand information on how the Odessa operation was organized and executed (+18 GRAPHIC)

Update 1 June 2014

A reply to BBC’s Tim Whewell article “Ukraine crisis: Dark new narratives in Odessa“. He meant that a variety of  “myths” cannot give a factual explanation on the causes of the fire and who their perpetrators were. And also a rebuttal to the declarations by Sweden’s ex – Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who blamed “Russian criminal gangs” for the Odessa incidents.

***

I

This is a horrifying photo showing, among other, the Odessa massacre perpetrated by fascists forces on the 2nd of May 2014:

horrifying fascist Odessa masacre 2 May 2014

Martyr of the fascist Odessa massacre of 2nd May 2014. Composition by Arte deNoli based on a video

II

Below: Young women wrapped with the Ukraine flag prepare cocktails Molotov that will be thrown against the  people under siege, and forced locked in the building from outside – to burn them alive

young women preparing cocktails odessa fire

See it on video in Part VIII down below, position 4:28

III

new video to blogg

This video appeared on YouTube late night on the 14th May 2014 – uploaded by an account of name Brogorovic Ivan. I happened to be the first one viewing the video, so I shared the link in Twitter. Soon afterwards YouTube removed the  video.

IV

odessa blogg1 in cicled

I posted this on Twitter, May 4th 2014, using all available evidence that had emerged up to that date. The text refers to the video above.

events in odessa by profeblogg.jpg_large

V

Beating wounded survivors

beating a survivorZCUAArTXb.jpg_large

VI

finishog up

The still video above (see the whole video by clicking the image) shows, among other a) “Ukrainian activists” finishing up survivors that manage to escape the building on fire, killing them with baseball bats (man in circle on the image); b) a woman who survived is interviewed and confirms that the Ukrainian activists entered the building after set it on fire throwing some semi-asphyxiated people from the windows. Also explains that among the death found inside the building, some of them had bullet wounds.

VII

burning tire to Odessa fire

Ukrainian nationalists bring a burning tire to the building

This  still image corresponds to a video posted in YouTube (seems removed), and which has not got much viewers (only 160 viewers up to this date) despite it was uploaded on the very 2nd of May. The video is call in Russian “В Одессе правосеки штурмуют Дом профсоюзов 02 05 2014 Украина”, which means (free transl.) “Provocateurs storm the Trade Unions Building in Odessa, Ukraine, 2 May 2014.” The link provided to @Professorsblogg by Anna Shlyapnikova ‏(@shlyapnikova).

VIII

odessa massacre what really happened

Click on image above for a seriously documented video-material posted later in YouTube (May 12, 2014). Link to the site (Recommended)

IX

“Bloodbath in Odessa guided by interim rulers of Ukraine”

Two relevant articles on the background of the Odessa bloodbath in Voltaire.org: see this and this.

For much of Iran’s political elite, and its overwhelmingly young population, the nuclear deal is becoming a story of failure. This situation risks impacting on Tehran’s willingness to engage politically and to reach diplomatic compromises with Western powers. Last week European leaders were in Washington for a last push to keep the United States on board ahead of the 12 May deadline for Donald Trump to issue waivers required under the nuclear deal. During his visit, Emmanuel Macron suggested that the US and Europe could work on a “new deal” with Iran – one which preserves but expands on the 2015 accord. But with Iran kept out of the European-US talks, Hassan Rouhani has questioned the legitimacy of proposals now put forward by Macron and Angela Merkel for Iran to negotiate further deals on its nuclear programme and regional issues. In the process of wooing Washington on this bigger and better deal, Europe must ensure it does not end up losing Tehran, whose buy-in will be essential to succeeding in this effort.

Iran’s rethink on Europe

Despite increasing pressures coming from Trump, Iran has continued to fulfill its part of the deal, as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency 11 times since the deal was implemented in January 2016. Iran has waited to see what actions Trump would take and carefully assessed the ability and willingness of Europe to safeguard the nuclear deal. In October, Tehran sent out clear signals that it would consider sticking to the deal so long as Europe, China, and Russia could deliver a package that served Iran’s national security interests. But as talks between the US and the EU3 (Germany, France, and the United Kingdom) have stepped up over the last few months, Iranian thinking on European positioning has begun to sour.

Officials and experts from Iran, interviewed on condition of anonymity over the past month, outlined a growing perception inside Tehran that Europe is unable and/or unwilling to deliver on the nuclear agreement without the US. Even those who defend the nuclear deal inside the country are finding it difficult to continue to do so, not just because of Trump but also because of European tactics, which one Iranian official described as “appeasement by Europe to reward the violator of the deal and Iran’s expense”.

This perception has contributed to considerably hardened Iranian rhetoric in recent weeks around a possible US withdrawal. The secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), which includes the most important decision-makers inside the country, warned that Iran may not only walk away from the nuclear deal, but also withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Such public statements from senior figures signal that a rethink may be taking place over Iran’s foreign policy orientation and openness to engaging with the West. Decision-makers in Europe should be alert to the gravity of such political shifts.

Keeping Iran on board

Iranian officials have repeatedly outlined that Iran will abide by the nuclear deal so long as the US does not violate the agreement. If Europe wants to keep Iran on board with the agreement in the scenario where Trump does not issue the sanctions waivers required, or to even sell a new European-US framework to Iran, it will need to shore up its fast-diminishing political capital with Tehran. While Macron’s hour-long call with Rouhani on Sunday was a good start, greater activity is urgently needed.

First, Europeans should seek to alleviate growing Iranian fears that the price of saving the deal will be a wider “pressure package”, one which returns their relations to the pre-2013 policy of isolation and sanctions. While the focus is understandably now on securing ongoing US support for the deal, the EU3 should not neglect the fact that any new framework agreed will require at least some Iranian buy-in to make it workable. In the current political climate in Iran, this is not a given.

As such, the EU3 should, as a unified coalition, work at the highest level with Iran’s foreign ministry to shore up confidence regarding the nuclear deal. In advance of the 12 May deadline, if it looks increasingly likely that Trump will not waive sanctions, the newly appointed German foreign minister should follow up on Macron’s call to Rouhani with a visit to Tehran to meet with their Iranian counterpart and consider contingencies (some measures for which are outlined below).

Second, EU member states should delay the prospect of new sanctions targeting Iranian regional behaviour, at least until firmer guarantees are in place regarding Trump’s decision on the nuclear deal. The timing of such sanctions has reportedly been the topic of heated debate among the 28 member states. At a minimum, the countries supporting such measures should step up their public messaging to communicate the reasons and the targeted nature of new sanctions, including a commitment that these are not the start of more far-reaching sanctions that will hurt the wider Iranian economy. This is particularly the case with Iran’s private sector, which constantly meets new hurdles placed in its way when seeking to do business with Europe.

Third, European governments should double down on efforts to maintain Iranian compliance to the nuclear deal if Trump fails to renew waivers due on 12 May. Such action by the White House would result in the snap-back of US secondary sanctions and are likely to be viewed in Tehran as significant non-performance of the nuclear deal. Europe will need to coordinate with Russia and China to persuade Iran to continue adhering to its nuclear obligations, at least for a period of time. The exhaustion of the dispute resolution mechanism under the nuclear deal can buy time (estimated to be between 2-3 months) for contingency planning while allowing Iran to save face.

In this scenario, European governments will need to convince the US that it will be in their mutual interest to agree on an amicable separation on the nuclear deal. Europeans will need to argue that such a settlement would allow Trump to claim victory with his base for withdrawing US participation in the JCPOA, while avoiding deeper damage to transatlantic relations and possibly maintaining Europe’s quiet compliance on regional issues. This path should also allow the US to reverse its course (Europeans should continue to encourage such a reversal, whatever the 12 May decision).

As part of this contingency plan, to keep Iran on board Europeans will need to offer some degree of economic relief. It will be critical to reach a pan-European deal with the Trump administration to limit the extent to which the US secondary sanctions that may snap back are actually enforced by US regulators. This should include a series of exemptions and carve-outs for European companies already involved in strategic areas of trade and investment with Iran, with the priority being to limit the immediate shock to Iranian oil exports.

European governments should further make a strong case to the Iranian government and public as to why the nuclear deal can continue to serve Iran’s security and economic interest even without the US. They should emphasise the immediate economic benefits of continued oil exports to Europe and possible longer-term commitments for investments in the country. Sustained political rapprochement between Europe and Iran could also influence Asian countries that closely watch European actions (such as Japan, South Korea, and India) to retain economic ties with Iran.

Finally, regardless of the fate of the nuclear deal, Europe should keep the pathway open for regional talks with Iran. Germany, France, the UK, and Italy should establish and formalise a regular high-level regional dialogue with Iran that builds on those held in February in Munich. It is a positive sign that a second round of such talks is reportedly due to be held this month in Rome. Such engagement will become even more important if the US withdraws from the nuclear deal, increasing the risk of regional military escalation that is already surfacing between Israel and Iran in Syria. Europeans should focus these talks on damage limitation and de-escalation in both Yemen and Syria, to help create an Israeli-Iranian and Saudi-Iranian modus vivendi in both conflict theatres (something which the US seems uninterested in).

Ultimately, Iran’s willingness to implement any follow-up measures on regional issues will be heavily influenced by the fate of the nuclear deal and how the fallout over Trump’s actions is managed. Europe may well not be capable of salvaging the deal if the US withdraws from or violates it. But Europe must at least attempt to do so and demonstrate its political willingness through actions that serve as a precedent for the international community. To do otherwise is likely to have an immediate and consequential impact on Iranian foreign policy and significantly reduce Europe’s relevance for the Iranian political establishment. For Iran’s youth, as the largest population bloc in the country, this will be an important experience in how far Europe is willing to go in delivering on its promises to defend the nuclear deal, whose collapse would affect the Iranian psyche and domestic political discourse for years to come.

*

Ellie Geranmayeh is senior policy fellow for the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations. She focuses on European foreign policy in relation to Iran, particularly on the nuclear and regional dossiers.

Trump drew the mockery of many when he said that the US doesn’t want to be the “world’s policeman”, but what people don’t realize is that cops handle small-time activities such as what in this context would be “peacekeeping”, while what the President actually has in mind is a much grander mission of Great Power competition on such a larger scale that the best comparison is to that of America’s federal marshals.

The internet collectively let off a loud laugh when Trump said with a straight face that the US doesn’t want to be the “world’s policeman”, with many social media users instantly mocking him for striking Syria last month on the false flag basis that it supposedly violated international legal and humanitarian standards through the use of chemical weapons. What these people don’t realize, however, is that Trump has something altogether differently in mind than what they think, and that the “Kraken” doesn’t even conceive of his country’s attack on Syria as a small-time “police” action but as something much grander and akin to using the country’s federal marshals to complicate the large-scale activities of America’s adversaries.

Background Concepts

For the non-American readers who may be unfamiliar with what the marshals are, they’re the US’ oldest law enforcement agency and are many levels higher than regular cops. Due to their federal nature, they operate across state lines and only in instances dealing with serious criminal offenders, unlike policemen who just have a limited geographic jurisdiction and sometimes have to seek the support of more competent judicial and quasi-military authorities (such as the FBI and SWAT teams). Trump is known for thinking big, and true to form, his statement about America not wanting to be the “world’s policeman” is a case in point.

Being as savvy as he is of social media sentiment, he knew right away how this would be perceived, and that’s partially why he phrased his statement the way that he did. Speaking next to the President of Nigeria, Trump hoped to imply that the presumed responsibilities of the “world’s policeman” are those of so-called “peacekeeping” missions such as the disastrous one that took place in the early 1990s in Somalia. The American audience largely understands that to have been a “police operation” with no clear national security interests other than the ambiguous concept of “preserving a rules-based system” which means nothing to the average person.

Police vs. Marshals

That same objective, however, is what drives America’s self-designation as the “world’s marshal”, but a unambiguous distinction needs to be made at this point between that role and the former one of the “world’s policeman”. The latter is thought by US decision makers and strategists to deal mostly in the “peacekeeping” realm of small-scale direct military engagement during or after civil wars (even those that are American-provoked) in “Global South” countries, while the former concerns acts of Great Power competition where the national interest is much more clearly defined and relatively (key word) understandable to many. Both, it should be said, also deal with the “preserving a rules-based system”, but in different ways.

The “world’s policeman”, per the second-mentioned word, operates at a more local level in enforcing US-defined rules and standards within any given country and all the way down to its literally local level such as when responding to ethnic violence within society. The “world’s marshal”, though, operates at a much grander scale in enforcing US-defined rules and standards that uphold the fading American-led international system of unipolarity, thus making it more applicable in responding to multipolar Great Power challengers than non-state ethno-religious militias that fall within the competencies of the “world’s policeman”.

As proof that the US conceives of its mission according to the aforementioned “marshal” role, one need look no further than its National Security Strategy and National Defense Strategy, both of which outline in the plainest of terms how the US aspires to “contain” Russia, China, and Iran. These policy-guiding documents also signal a strong shift away from the previous “policeman” role and towards this newfound but unstated “marshal” one in focusing more on Great Powers than non-state actors. Like it was earlier said, this also entails “preserving a rules-based system”, but on a much larger scale that will now be explained.

Rules, Rules, Rules

The “Washington Consensus” that took control of the world after the end of the Cold War was designed to indefinitely sustain unipolarity, meaning that every single “rule and standard” was supposed to uphold the US’ global dominance in one way or another. Accordingly, the US has a self-interest in preemptively stopping any prospective challengers to its hegemony (the so-called “Wolfowitz Doctrine”), which is why it’s now simultaneously at odds with Russia, China, and Iran for different reasons related to this fear and thus feels compelled to respond to them in its “marshal” capacity. On their own, none of them are profoundly shaking the US-led system, but their whole gestalt poses a much more serious systemic threat.

For example, Crimea’s historic reunification with Russia changed internationally recognized post-Soviet borders in Europe via a democratic referendum and secured Moscow’s naval base in the Black Sea, thus thwarting the US’ efforts to have “EuroMaidan” pave the way to future American control of what Westerners have derided as being a “Russian lake”. Similarly, China’s “9-dash line” in the South China Sea stakes out Beijing’s claim to this energy-rich waterway through which a large bulk of the global economy traverses, therefore preventing the US from taking full control of it and blackmailing the People’s Republic. As for Iran, the US has wanted to curb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program in order to allow its “Israeli” ally to maintain its military dominance in the Mideast.

Each of these three abovementioned challenges to the US-dictated “rules and standards” of the post-Cold War world collectively combine to present a formidable multipolar push for reforming the global system and diversifying its stakeholders to the extent that America would no longer be the sole unipolar hegemon. In addition, these three Great Powers are coming together through the Chinese-led One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity to fundamentally transform international economic networks and consequently facilitate the emergence of new political, military, and ultimately strategic models that altogether lead to global paradigmatic changes. US-initiated Hybrid Wars are being waged to forestall these developments, but they’re thus far insufficient to fully stop this process.

Concluding Thoughts

That’s why the US is expanding its role from the “world’s policeman” to the “world’s marshal” in assembling various “Lead From Behind” coalitions to assist with its “containment” measures on the state-to-state level, ergo why last month’s Syrian strikes should be seen less as a “police” operation in responding to a false flag chemical weapons attack and more like the “marshal” one that it truly is in complicating the stabilizing efforts of two of the US’ three Great Power challengers in this globally significant battlespace. Police operations aren’t usually a big deal but it’s always a major event whenever the marshals get involved, which is yet another observation in favor of reframing the Syrian strikes because of how they confirmed the existence of the New Cold War.

All told, the world should expect Trump to continue carrying out grand military and political actions as he embraces his country’s newfound strategic role as its “marshal” in counteracting the multipolar advances of its Great Power adversaries. The US is thinking big, but its critics are still stuck in the same old paradigm of “smallness” in belittling it as “merely” being the “world’s policeman” when in reality America itself has reconceptualized its strategic responsibilities on a much larger scale that regrettably appears to be beyond the comprehension of most observers. The sooner that people start taking Trump and his declarations seriously and maturely analyzing his words for what they really mean, then the sooner that the rest of the world will realize what America’s new strategy is and begin thinking about the most effective ways to counter it.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

Andrew Korybko is an American Moscow-based political analyst specializing in the relationship between the US strategy in Afro-Eurasia, China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, and Hybrid Warfare. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

War on Iran Coming?

May 3rd, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

If launched, war on Iran could threaten world peace more than any other post-9/11 conflict.

The Islamic Republic is far stronger militarily than Iraq, Libya or Syria. Iranian missiles with destructive warheads can hit Israeli targets, as well as US regional ones.

In early 2017, senior Iranian official Mojtaba Zonour, a National Security and Foreign Policy Commission member, warned Tehran would retaliate swiftly if its territory is struck – able to hit regional targets with destructive force in minutes.

“(O)nly seven minutes is needed for (an) Iranian missile to hit Tel Aviv,” he said.

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, head of its airspace division, said

“(i)f the enemy makes a mistake, our roaring missiles will come down on them.”

On Wednesday, Islamic Republic Defense Minister General Amir Hatari “warn(ed) the regime occupying (Jerusalem) al-Quds and its allies that they must stop their conspiracies and dangerous behavior, because Iran’s response will be surprising and make them regretful.”

Bush/Cheney neocons prepared war plans to attack Iran, updated over time, not implemented so far.

US/Israeli anti-Iran covert operations have been ongoing for years. In early 2008, Bush signed a secret finding, complicit with Israel, authorizing an unprecedented in scope covert offensive against the Islamic Republic.

It included targeted assassinations, funding opposition groups, destabilizing the Islamic Republic, Syria and Lebanon, as well as preparing for war on Iran not launched so far.

What’s going on now is cause for great concern, including Israeli and US strikes on Syrian sites, escalating war in the country, provoking Iran to respond militarily, Netanyahu’s anti-Iran Monday bluster, Trump likely heading toward pulling out of the JCPOA next week, followed by reimposition of US nuclear-related sanctions on the Islamic Republic, prompting its resumption of pre-JCPOA nuclear activities – perhaps used by Washington and Israel as a pretext for launching hostile actions against the country.

On Tuesday, NBC News cited three unnamed US officials, saying Israeli warplanes struck Syrian military sites near Hama and Aleppo last weekend.

“On the list of the potentials for most likely live hostility around the world, the battle between Israel and Iran in Syria is at the top of the list right now,” one senior US official was quoted saying.

NBC News:

“US officials believe (Iran supplying Syria with weapons and munitions is) meant both to shore up Iranian ground forces and to strike at Israel” is utter nonsense.

Iran threatens no other countries. Claims otherwise are bald-faced lies, heightening regional tensions, risking greater conflict than already.

On Monday, US war secretary Mattis spoke to Avigdor Lieberman in Washington, his Israeli counterpart – Syria and Iran the focus of discussions.

“The Iranian forces…or the proxy forces have tried to get down closer to the Israeli border, I mean very close to it, and you’ve seen Israel take action over that,” Mattis belligerently claimed.

Iranian military advisors are helping Syrian forces combat US/Israeli-supported terrorists, not preparing to attack Israel cross-border – a US and Israeli specialty, not anything Iran or Syria intend.

Washington and Israel are at war on Syria without formally declaring it.

NBC News:

“During the past week, senior Israeli military leaders have been meeting with senior US counterparts, both in the region and in the US, looking for US support for stronger action against Iran in Syria.”

Days earlier, CENTCOM chief General Joseph Votel met with IDF chief of staff General Gadi Eizenkot and Israeli intelligence officials days discussing Syria and Iran.

Netanyahu’s Monday theatrical presentation on Iran was an exercise in deception, bald-faced lies, bravado without substance.

His “Iran files” weren’t secretly stolen from a Tehran warehouse, as he falsely claimed. Material was largely old news well-known to the IAEA, repackaged to appear damning – no experts fooled.

Netanyahu is a serial liar, clear to anyone following his earlier antics. Nothing he says is credible.

Sovereign independent Iran is Israel’s main regional rival, why Washington and the Jewish state are hellbent to replace its government with pro-Western puppet rule.

Strategy involves regime change in Syria, isolating Iran, followed by a similar strategy to topple its government.

Things seem headed for something much more serious than already. Escalated regional conflicts could spark confrontation between the world’s dominant nuclear powers.

All bets are off if it happens.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

Soon after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a televised address in which he unveiled a cache of 55,000 pages of documents and 183 CDs that he claimed comprised Iran’s alleged “atomic archive” of documents on its nuclear program, supposedly proving the existence of an illegal and ongoing secret program to “test and build nuclear weapons” called Project Amad, the UN’s atomic agency weighed in to directly negate the claims. 

But right on cue, Reuters now reports that

“Trump has all but decided to withdraw from the 2015 Iran nuclear accord by May 12but exactly how he will do so remains unclear, two White House officials and a source familiar with the administration’s internal debate said on Wednesday.”

On Tuesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued an assessment in response to Netanyahu’s speech firmly asserting that there are “no credible indications” supporting Netanyahu’s claims of a continued Iranian nuclear weapons program after 2009.

According to the AP summary of the IAEA assessment:

The U.N. nuclear agency says it believes that Iran had a “coordinated” nuclear weapons program in place before 2003, but found “no credible indications” of such work after 2009

The documents focused on Iranian activities before 2003 and did not provide any explicit evidence that Iran has violated its 2015 nuclear deal with the international community.

The IAEA statements followed on the heels of a number of international Iran analysts weighing in to say there appeared “nothing new” in terms of “evidence” which Netanyahu confidently presented as if it were an open-and-shut bombshell revelation of Iranian malfeasance.

One such specialist in an op-ed for the New York Times called the supposed Israeli Mossad intelligence haul a big “nuclear nothingburger” full of things already well-known to the world, with the further implication that the intelligence operation that netted the files itself appears hokey and untrustworthy.

Middle East analyst Steven Simon noted in the Times piece that:

The archive had been stored in what Mr. Netanyahu described as a derelict warehouse in Tehran. The photos he displayed indicated that there did not even appear to be a lock on the door. One wonders how important the Iranians thought these documents were, given the slapdash approach they took to storing them. In any case, the Mossad operation that netted this haul apparently took place in January and President Trump was briefed on it shortly afterward.

Meanwhile, former Israeli National Security Advisor Uzi Arad in response to Netanyahu’s claim that Iran lied about its nuclear program, said that “at no point was there any indication that Iran violated the agreement.”

Indeed, after Netanyahu’s bizarre performance which in typical fashion made heavy use of stage props and simplistically styled visuals (who can forget the absurd bugs bunny cartoon bomb image he held up at the U.N. in 2012?), there’s been little reporting focused on just how a team of Mossad agents waltzed into Iran to steal from “a dilapidated warehouse” over 100,000 of the country’s most sensitive and damning documents.

To underscore this far-fetched scenario is literally the claim being made — that a large Mossad team walked into an Iranian warehouse to physically carry and secretly transport bulk print files and CDs out of the country — a senior Israeli intelligence official was widely quoted as saying of the covert operation,

“We didn’t take everything because it was too heavy.”

To this we might reply it was so nice of the Iranians and their feared and paranoia-driven Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to leave their most secretive and “hidden” files so unguarded and out in the open, and in an old unsecured building in which there “did not even appear to be a lock on the door” according to the NY Times.

Below is the official account currently circulating of the details of the Mossad operation inside Iran, sourced to high level Israeli officials and posted to Axios by Israeli national security reporter Barak Ravid:

  • Israeli officials say the Mossad received intelligence that showed the Iranians were trying to hide all documents concerning the military dimensions of their nuclear program.
  • The official said that in a highly secret operation known to a handful of Iranian officials, the Iranians transferred tens of thousands of documents and CD’s from several different sites around the country to a civilian warehouse in Tehran. The Israeli official said the Iranians did all that because they were afraid IAEA inspectors would find the documents.
  • The Mossad put the warehouse under surveillance and started preparing for a possible operation to seize the documents. According to Israeli officials, more than 100 Mossad spies worked on this operation and, in January 2018, it was implemented.
  • A senior Israeli intelligence official said the Mossad managed to put its hands on most of the documents in the warehouse. “We didn’t take everything because it was too heavy”, he said.

The trove of Persian language documents are still being reportedly translated and analyzed by separate teams of Mossad and CIA specialists.

Assuming any of the details of the claimed Mossad “secret files” heist are accurate, the likely correct version of events is that being offered by the IAEA,  while the Iranians themselves remained unmoved by the strange presentation, slamming  the Israeli PM’s accusations, calling him “an infamous liar” who “can’t stop crying wolf.” As evidence for this assertion, the Iranians can simply point to Netanyahu’s testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in 2002 on Iraq’s mythical WMD program.

Netanyahu argued in the lead up to the disastrous Iraq war:

 “There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing toward the development of nuclear weapons, no question whatsoever.”

And asserted that the United States must pursue regime change because, “make no mistake about it, if and once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have  nuclear weapons.” He said there was “no question (Saddam) hadn’t given up on his nuclear program” and that the Iraqi leader was “hell-bent on achieving an atomic bomb, atomic capabilities.”

Of course, all of this was dead wrong.

And then there’s this stellar track record:

Though it’s possible that Trump might not actually go through with unilaterally collapsing the deal altogether, the possibility of that Obama-era 2015 deal surviving through 2018 is hanging by a thread.

While Reuters further reports Trump’s top aides are attempting to talk him down from nixing it all together, citing a White House source who said “it was possible Trump will end up with a decision that ‘is not a full pullout’ but was unable to describe what that might look like” — current momentum since Netanyahu’s speech seems going in the direction of a pull-out.

If so, this will not bode well for the prospects of a greater Israeli-Iran-Syria-Hezbollah war that is sure to set the whole region on fire.