Global Research

First Kenyans demonstrated to try to get through to their government for ‘encroaching on constitutional rights’ and reversing a GM crop ban, and now a small group of farmers has taken their plea to the courts.

This past week, a petition was filed against the Kenyan government representing a group of small-scale farmers, which claims the lifting of the ban will harm indigenous farmers and their ability to grow non-GM food.

The Kenyan Small Scale Farmers Forum argues that the safety of GM crops is undetermined and the reversal of the GM ban impedes upon public rights, imposing safety and economic risks on small farmers.

For months, activists have been irate over Deputy President William Ruto’s full-steam-ahead attitude to reverse a former GM ban. Supposedly relying on a task force to inform him before making the decision, Ruto is said to have ignored public opinion, and also failed to disclose the results of the task force’s inquiry into GM seed safety before forging ahead to lift the ban.

The current lawyer for the Farmers Forum is trying to have the case classified as an ‘urgent’ lawsuit. It will be heard on September 24th.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has thrown U.S. policymakers what amounts to a lifeline to pull them out of the quicksand that is the Syrian war, but Official Washington’s neocons and the mainstream U.S. news media are growling about Putin’s audacity and challenging his motives.

For instance, The New York Times’ lead editorial on Monday accused Putin of “dangerously building up Russia’s military presence” in Syria, even though Putin’s stated goal is to help crush the Sunni jihadists in the Islamic State and other extremist movements.

Instead, the Times harrumphs about Putin using his upcoming speech to the United Nations General Assembly “to make the case for an international coalition against the Islamic State, apparently ignoring the one already being led by the United States.”

The Times then reprises the bizarre neocon argument that the best way to solve the threat from the Islamic State, Al Qaeda and other jihadist forces is to eliminate Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his military who have been the principal obstacles to an outright victory by the Sunni terrorist groups.

The dreamy Times/neocon prescription continues to be that “regime change” in Damascus would finally lead to the emergence of the mythical “moderate” rebels who would somehow prevail over the far more numerous and far better armed extremists. This perspective ignores the fact that after a $500 million training project for these “moderates,” the U.S. military says four or five fighters are now on the battlefield inside Syria. In other words, the members of this U.S.-trained brigade can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

But rather than rethink Official Washington’s goofy “group think” on Syria – or provide readers a fuller history of the Syrian conflict – the Times moves on to blame Putin for the mess.

“No one should be fooled about Russia’s culpability in Syria’s agony,” the Times writes.

“Mr. Putin could have helped prevent the fighting that has killed more than 250,000 Syrians and displaced millions more, had he worked with other major powers in 2011 to keep Mr. Assad from waging war on his people following peaceful antigovernment protests. … Mr. Assad would probably be gone without the weapons aid and other assistance from Russia and Iran.”

This “group think” ignores the early role of Sunni extremists in killing police and soldiers and thus provoking the harsh retaliation that followed. But the Syrian narrative, according to The New York Times, is that the “white-hat” protesters were simply set upon by the “black-hat” government.

The Times’ simplistic storyline fits neatly with what the influential neoconservatives want the West to believe, since the neocons have had Syria on their “regime change” list, alongside Iraq and Iran, since the list was compiled as part of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu’s 1996 political campaign. The Times’ narrative also leaves out the crucial role of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other U.S. “allies” in supporting Al Qaeda and its Islamic State spinoff.

Bush’s Unaccounted-for Cash

Further complicating Official Washington’s let’s-blame-Putin Syrian narrative is the unintended role of President George W. Bush and the U.S. military in laying the groundwork for these brutal Sunni extremist movements through the invasion of Iraq last decade. After all, it was only in reaction to the U.S. military presence that “Al Qaeda in Iraq” took root in Iraqi and then Syrian territory.

Not only did the ouster and execution of Sunni leader Saddam Hussein alienate the region’s Sunnis, but Bush’s desperation to avert an outright military defeat in Iraq during his second term led him to authorize the payment of billions of dollars to Sunni fighters to get them to stop shooting at American soldiers and to give Bush time to negotiate a U.S. troop withdrawal.

Beginning in 2006, those U.S. payments to Sunni fighters to get them to suspend their resistance were central to what was then called the “Sunni Awakening.” Though the program preceded Bush’s “surge” of troops in 2007, the bought-and-paid-for truce became central to what Official Washington then hailed as the “successful surge” or “victory at last.”

Besides the billions of dollars paid out in pallets of U.S. cash to Sunni insurgents, Bush’s “surge” cost the lives of another 1,000 U.S. soldiers and killed a countless number of Iraqis, many just going about their daily lives until they were blown apart by powerful American munitions. [See, for example, the “Collateral Murder” video leaked by Pvt. Bradley/Chelsea Manning]

But what the U.S. intelligence community is only now assessing is the collateral damage caused by the bribes that the Bush administration paid to Sunni insurgents. Some of the cash appears to have become seed money for the transformation of “Al Qaeda in Iraq” into the Islamic State as Sunnis, who continued to be disenfranchised by Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government, expanded their sectarian war into Syria.

Besides the Iraqi Sunnis, Syria’s secular government, with Assad and other key leaders from the Alawite branch of Shiite Islam, also was set upon by home-grown Sunni extremists and foreign jihadists, some of whom joined the Islamic State but mostly coalesced around Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and other radical forces. Though the Islamic State had originated as “Al Qaeda in Iraq” (or AQI), it evolved into an even more bloodthirsty force and, in Syria, split off from Al Qaeda central.

Intelligence Reporting

U.S. intelligence followed many of these developments in real time. According to a Defense Intelligence Agency report from August 2012, “AQI supported the Syrian opposition from the beginning, both ideologically and through the media. … AQI declared its opposition of Assad’s government because it considered it a sectarian regime targeting Sunnis.”

In other words, Assad’s early complaint about “terrorists” having infiltrated the opposition had a basis in fact. Early in the disorders in 2011, there were cases of armed elements killing police and soldiers. Later, there were terrorist bombings targeting senior Syrian government officials, including a July 18, 2012 explosion – deemed a suicide bombing by government officials – that killed Syrian Defense Minister General Dawoud Rajiha and Assef Shawkat, the deputy defense minister and Assad’s brother-in-law.

By then, it had become clear that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and other Sunni-ruled countries were funneling money and other help to jihadist rebels seeking to oust Assad’s regime, which was considered a protector of Christians, Shiites, Alawites and other minorities fearing persecution if Sunni extremists prevailed.

As the 2012 DIA report noted about Syria,

“internally, events are taking a clear sectarian direction. … The salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria. … The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.”

The DIA analysts already understood the risks that AQI represented both to Syria and Iraq. The report included a stark warning about the expansion of AQI, which was changing into the Islamic State or what the DIA referred to as ISI. The brutal armed movement was seeing its ranks swelled by the arrival of global jihadists rallying to the black banner of Sunni militancy, intolerant of both Westerners and “heretics” from Shiite and other non-Sunni branches of Islam.

As this movement strengthened it risked spilling back into Iraq. The DIA wrote:

“This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi [in Iraq], and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria, and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters [apparently a reference to Shiite and other non-Sunni forms of Islam]. ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”

Facing this growing Sunni terrorist threat — which indeed did spill back into Iraq — the idea that the CIA or the U.S. military could effectively arm and train a “moderate” rebel force to somehow compete with the Islamists was already delusional, yet that was the “group think” among the Important People of Official Washington, simply organize a “moderate” army to oust Assad and everything would turn out just great.

On Oct. 2, 2014, Vice President Joe Biden let more of the cat out of the bag when he told an audience at Harvard’s Kennedy School:

“our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria … the Saudis, the emirates, etc., what were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.” [Quote at 53:20 of clip.]

In other words, much of the U.S.-led anti-Islamic State coalition actually has been involved in financing and arming many of the same jihadists that the coalition is now supposedly fighting. If you take into account the lost billions of dollars that the Bush administration dumped on Sunni fighters starting in 2006, you could argue that the U.S.-led coalition bears primary responsibility for creating the problem that it is now confronting.

Biden made a similar point at least in reference to the Persian Gulf states:

“Now all of a sudden, I don’t want to be too facetious, but they have seen the lord. …  Saudi Arabia has stopped funding. Saudi Arabia is allowing training [of anti-Islamic State fighters] on its soil … the Qataris have cut off their support for the most extreme elements of terrorist organizations, and the Turks … [are] trying to seal their border.”

But there remain many doubts about the commitment of these Sunni governments to the cause of fighting the Islamic State and even more doubts about whether that commitment extends to Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front and other jihadist forces. Some neocons have even advocated backing Al Qaeda as the lesser evil both vis a vis the Islamic State and the Assad regime.

Blaming Putin

Yet, the Times editorial on Monday blamed Putin for a big chunk of the Syrian mess because Russia has dared support the internationally recognized Syrian government in the face of vicious foreign-supported terrorism. The Times casts no blame on the United States or its allies for the Syrian horror.

The Times also hurled personal insults at Putin as part of its equally one-sided narrative of the Ukraine crisis, which the editorial writers have summarized as simply a case of “Russian aggression” or a “Russian invasion” – ignoring the behind-the-scenes role of neocon Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland in orchestrating the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014.

In Monday’s editorial, the Times reported that President Barack Obama “considers Mr. Putin a thug,” though it was President Obama who boasted just last month, “I’ve ordered military action in seven countries,” another inconvenient fact that the Times discreetly leaves out. In other words, who’s the “thug”?

Yet, despite all its huffing and puffing and calling Putin names, the Times ultimately concludes that Obama should test out the lifeline that Putin has tossed to Obama’s Syrian policy which – with all its thrashing and arm waving – is rapidly disappearing into the quicksand. The editorial concluded:

“Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking in London on Friday, made it clear that America would be looking for ‘common ground’ in Syria, which could mean keeping Mr. Assad in power temporarily during a transition. The Russians should accept that Mr. Assad must go within a specific time frame, say six months. The objective is a transition government that includes elements of the Assad regime and the opposition. Iran should be part of any deal.

“America should be aware that Mr. Putin’s motivations are decidedly mixed and that he may not care nearly as much about joining the fight against the Islamic State as propping up his old ally. But with that in mind there is no reason not to test him.”

Kerry’s apparent willingness to work with the Russians – a position that I’m told Obama shares – is at least a sign that some sanity exists inside the State Department, which initially mounted an absurd and futile attempt to organize an aerial blockade to prevent Russia from flying in any assistance to Syria.

If successful, that scheme, emanating from Nuland’s European division, could have collapsed the Syrian regime and opened the gates of Damascus to the Islamic State and/or Al Qaeda. So obsessed are the neocons to achieve their long-held goal of “regime change” in Syria that they would run the risk of turning Syria over to the Islamic State head-choppers and Al Qaeda’s terrorism plotters.

However, after the requisite snorting and pawing of hooves, it appears that the cooler heads in the Obama administration may have finally asserted themselves – and perhaps at The New York Times as well.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

The Times’ description on Saturday 19th September: ‘universally unpopular’, having ‘strained relations’ with unions, ‘abrupt’ and dismissive’.

Not so, he has many friends, co-operative colleagues in all parties and admirers in this country and the United States.

And though his versatility is shown in his inspiring and wide-ranging book,‘Another World is Possible: a manifesto for 21st century socialism’, a challenge to New Labour, putting forward a set of attractive new ideas, principles and policies, his most sustained work has been directed towards peace-building – and without peace there can be no real prosperity for the 99%.

He will – of course – be anathema to party–funding arms manufacturers, arms traders and the politicians who need their cash and non-executive directorships, because of the following activities.

In 2003 he was inspired by Congressman Dennis Kucinich of Ohio who was calling for a Cabinet-level Department of Peace within the Executive Branch of the US Government. His bill to create a U.S. Department of Peace was repeatedly reintroduced in each session of Congress, attracting 72 cross-party co-sponsors. This work was later carried forward by the Peace Alliance.

This ‘unpopular man’ was heartily welcomed in the States where city councils across the country welcomed the practical impact a Department of Peace would have on reducing violence in their nation and abroad. 18 cities -representing a collective population of over 6.5 million people – had endorsed it at the time of writing. They included Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Minneapolis, Oakland, San Jose and more.

John McDonnell advocated a ministry for the promotion of peace in all areas of life from the “playground to the Government” to embrace education/conflict resolution within business, prisons, homes, the media and the whole of life. He pointed out that this would be in line with developments in the USA and Europe, adding that Gordon Brown had set aside £500m in a “united Govt approach to reduce conflict in society and specifically to promote conflict resolution”.

Ministry for Peace meetings often attracted 70 & 80 people from peace organisations, lawyers and individuals committed to the idea – despite his ‘abrupt’ and dismissive’ behaviour? Unlikely.

John McDonnell introduced a Ten Minute Bill, the Ministry for Peace (Interim Provisions) Bill, passed unopposed on Tuesday 14th October, 2003. A second reading is planned for 21 November. The Bill’s second reading was passed unopposed but it was unable to go through all its parliamentary stages before the end of the session in November.

The other cross-party sponsors joining the less than ‘universally unpopular’ John McDonnell were the much-missed Elfyn Llwyd – Plaid Cymru, Jeremy Corbyn – Lab, Alex Salmond – SNP, John Randall – Con, Rudi Vis – Lab and the excellent also-missed Alan Simpson – Lab, who has become a great asset to the environmental movement.

Simon Hughes MP (Liberal Democrat) and Gary Streeter MP(Conservative, current chair) were also moved to work with John McDonnell to set up All-Party Parliamentary Group on Conflict Issues in September 2006

This holds meetings such as a series of three with young Israelis and Palestinians who presented their visions and aspirations for changes they wished to see in the region during the next 20 years.

The APPG provides a forum for dialogue between Parliamentarians, Her Majesty’s Government and civil society on alternative methods of preventing and resolving violent conflict, on the basis of expert information and opinion from across the political spectrum, in dialogue with officials from the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, as well as various conflict NGOs, academics, members of the business community and the media. The Group currently consists of twentynamed members from both Houses of Parliament. Others in the new Parliament who express support or interest will be added to this list.

 

Hansard recorded words summarised John McDonnell’s message in a Commons debate: “The most civilised form of defence is actually securing peace and preventing conflict.”

The scandal at Volkswagen (VW) over the manipulation of emissions readings from its autos in the US has plunged the firm into a major crisis. The company, which along with Toyota is the world’s largest auto producer, faces the threat of up to $18 billion in fines, along with massive costs related to the recall of almost half a million vehicles and huge compensation claims. The US Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation and a congressional committee has announced plans for a hearing on the scandal.

VW has already acknowledged that accusations by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are valid. It has admitted that it deliberately deceived American customers and government authorities.

“Let’s be clear: our company was dishonest,” said VW’s American head Michael Horn at the unveiling of the new Passat model in New York. “We totally screwed up.”

In a calculated manner, VW broke the law in order to manipulate emissions readings. In diesel models sold in the US, the company installed specially developed software to enable the vehicles to determine when they were being tested and automatically switch to a mode that reduced the emission of pollutants. After the test, the cars automatically switched back to the normal mode, increasing their release of poisonous oxides between 10- and 40-fold.

VW used the low emissions test rates as a selling point for the US market, where diesel cars comprise just one percent of total sales, a far lower percentage than in Europe. Many US buyers decided to purchase a diesel car from VW or Audi because, in contrast to hybrid vehicles from Asian producers, which have low emission rates but are cumbersome, the German models were considered both environmentally friendly and sporty.

The ultimate scale of the scandal is not yet known. The suspicion is that VW manipulated emissions figures not only in the US, but also in other markets. Germany, Switzerland, France and South Korea have all announced investigations into diesel vehicle manipulation.

VW announced Tuesday that the software had been built into many more vehicles than had previously been believed. There are a total of 11 million vehicles around the world with the engine model EA189, whose emissions are significantly lower during tests than under normal use.

VW stock, which dropped Monday by 20 percent, fell a further 23 percent on Tuesday. This brings the company’s loss of share value since the beginning of the scandal to €27 billion.

Also raised is whether other firms are manipulating emissions readings. Along with VW, BMW, Mercedes and many other European and Asian companies sell the type of vehicle involved in the scandal. “The fear of widespread destruction in the German auto industry on this Monday is pervasive. Is VW the exception? Or are they only the first to be exposed?” wondered theSüddeutsche Zeitung.

Experts warn that the VW scandal could lead to major job losses in Germany. Within the country, one in seven jobs is directly or indirectly dependent on the auto industry. The relatively expensive German vehicles have been able to retain their position in the world market because of their reputation for technical quality and reliability. That reputation is now at risk.

It is unclear who was aware of the manipulation. Many commentators consider it improbable that it could have taken place without the knowledge of VW Chief Executive Martin Winterkorn, who has led the company since 2007. Winterkorn, like his two predecessors, Bernd Peschetsrieder and Porsche’s grandson Ferdinand Piëch, is a technical expert and not a financial manager. He reportedly has detailed knowledge of the technical aspects of VW vehicles.

Earlier this year, Winterkorn defeated Piëch, who had headed the VW Supervisory Board since 2002, in a power struggle triggered by Piëch’s attempt to sack him. Piëch subsequently resigned his position on the board.

Winterkorn’s contract was to have been extended for a further two years at a board meeting this Friday. This has now been called into doubt, and the company confronts another power struggle at the top.

Many commentators have described VW’s audacity in deceiving customers and regulators as not only criminal, but also stupid. They argue that it did not take a great deal to foresight to realize that the swindle would eventually be exposed, delivering a massive blow not only to the firm’s finances, but also to its image.

However, VW is not an aberration. Recent years have seen a series of scandals in which auto companies deceived the public and government regulators, covering up gross negligence or lawlessness. For almost a decade, General Motors concealed a problem with ignition switches that resulted in engine cut-offs, disabling steering mechanisms as well as the deployment of air bags. The company did not begin to recall 2.6 million vehicles with the defect until at least 124 people had been killed and 275 injured in accidents caused by the problem.

Last week, the Obama administration announced a settlement with GM effectively foregoing any criminal penalties and imposing a token $900 million fine. Not a single company official was cited by name in the deal.

Japanese supplier Takata was targeted by the US Justice Department for equipping tens of millions of vehicles around the world with defective air bags. At least eight people were killed by exploding air bags and more than 100 injured.

Toyota had to pay $1.2 billion in fines in the US and recall millions of vehicles that accelerated on their own. At least five people died as a result of the defect.

Major technical advances have recently been made in the auto sector. New technologies and digital steering have significantly improved the safety and environmental friendliness of cars. Automatically driven electric cars are no longer a utopia. But such technical progress is in permanent conflict with an irrational social system that subordinates every aspect of life to the profit drive of a financial aristocracy.

The unscrupulousness and criminality employed by VW and other automakers in the struggle for global market share reflect the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system, which make impossible the rational and socially progressive development of man’s productive forces. These basic contradictions, between socialized production and private ownership of the means of production, and between a globalized economy and the division of the world into rival nation states, find their political reflection in wars waged by the major powers to expand their spheres of influence and control of markets, devastating entire countries and turning tens of millions of people into desperate refugees.

The other side of corporate criminality is the relentless assault on the rights and living standards of workers. These are justified with the argument that they are necessary to remain internationally competitive. In the US, the real wages, adjusted for inflation, of many autoworkers have been reduced to the levels that prevailed under Henry Ford’s “five-dollar-a-day” regime in the first decade of the last century. In Germany, wage cutting is spearheaded by the outsourcing of production to low-wage Eastern European countries and the growth of part-time and contract employment.

The closest allies of the auto companies in attacking the workers are the trade unions, which, like management, see their main goal as the defence of the competitiveness of their company against international rivals.

VW has taken the lead in this. The company exemplifies the specific German form of “social partnership.” Nowhere is the symbiosis between shareholders, management and the trade unions so close. Winterkorn largely owes his position to the chairman of the VW works council, Bernd Osterloh, and to the IG Metall union, whose former chairman, Berthold Huber, headed up VW’s board until a few days ago.

In the US, autoworkers are beginning to rebel against the automakers’ attacks and coming into sharp conflict with the United Auto Workers union. VW workers should declare their solidarity with their American brothers and sisters. Only through a united international struggle for socialism, i.e., the reorganisation of society based on the satisfaction of social needs rather than the drive for private profit, can the criminal activities of the companies and the destruction of workers’ jobs and living standards be halted.

Europe is facing a backlash over its wrong policy in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and the Middle East, says Zivadin Jovanovic ,Yugoslav Foreign Minister from 1998-2000. The EU blindly joined the US strategy of global interventionism, he told RT.

RT: Just months ago, in the spring, the flow of migrants was relatively low, but now it’s in the hundreds of thousands.  What has changed?

Zivadin Jovanovic: I think that there has been growing inflow in the refugee centers and camps in Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and other countries surrounding countries the conflicts in the Middle East. As a consequence we have a tremendous pace now of incoming refugees and immigrants here through the Balkans…For example, Serbia has received [within] the last couple of months over 160,000 immigrants and refugees.

On [Sunday] night Serbia received a group of 5,000 new refugees. At the same time… borders to Hungary and Croatia have been almost closed. Now only passengers can pass border crossings, no trucks and no trade is flowing over the border crossings. Incidents occur close to the borders. And [yesterday] we heard the official representative of the EU commission say that all EU countries have a right to return refugees or immigrants to Serbia. Serbia is receiving a great many from the south – from Greece and Macedonia. And it [was] announced [yesterday] that Serbia is supposed to be receiving back those who are not accepted in EU countries. This makes the situation very difficult for Serbia and [leads to a] rise in tension in relations with neighboring countries.

RT: Germany has pointed the blaming finger at US foreign policy. But how much is Europe to blame? 

ZJ: I have just returned from an international conference in Zurich which was devoted to the problem of immigrants, and I heard the assessment of a German analyst, who said it is joint project of the US, Turkey and elements of extreme Islamists. I just cannot confirm this and accept totally, but I certainly think there is [some] truth in that. However, Europe is to be blamed and Europe, it seems to me, is receiving back the fruits of a wrong policy in the past – first of all of joining almost blindly the US strategy of global interventionism…beginning with Yugoslavia in 1999 and then Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Mali and many other countries. Now Europe is faced with the fruits of its own wrong policy. I just hope that Europe will have to think twice in the future on how [it] would define its own interest and own policy.

RT: There is growing concern that there could be terrorists hiding among the refugees.  How genuine is that risk?

ZJ: [It’s estimated] that around one million immigrants will come from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe before the end of this year. Only Germany has consented to accept 800,000. When you have such figures, such an enormous inflow, you can only suppose by theory of great numbers that there would be all kinds of people. Having regard that they are coming from war-torn areas… one can really suppose that terrorists may come too.

[On Monday] the Serbian government announced that they are discussing a new anti-terrorist strategy. I don’t attribute this exclusively to the inflow of immigrants, but it is certainly coincides with a growing number of immigrants…If they don’t handle this problem properly instead of 1.5 million this year Europe may have two or three million this year.

The myth of American Exceptionalism is widely, but perhaps insincerely, believed by most American thought-leaders and political and economic elites, whether they are radical Republican Party members/voters or are members/voters of the moderate “Republican” wing of the Democratic Party.

Members of the democratic wing of the Democratic Party and anybody that espouses Green Party values (whether they are registered members or not) are skeptical of the mass media’s constant reportage on American Exceptionalism.

Oh, America is certainly an exceptional nation, all right, but the reality is that most of the evidence of exceptionalism should be sources of sorrow, shame and embarrassment. All American patriots, including the pseudo-patriots who espouse the classical fascist/nationalist notion of “My nation, right or wrong”, should be on their knees repenting of what America has done on behalf of that misbegotten belief, starting with the “patriotic” genocidal massacres of the aboriginal Native Americans, the quasi-genocide of America’s African slaves, the Monroe Doctrine and Manifest Destiny.

Take the fact that America leads the world in the percentage – and total numbers – of its citizens that are incarcerated (and that includes the statistics from such previously totalitarian communist nations (and now newly capitalist) such as the USSR, Russia and China).

America is – embarrassingly so – exceptional in one major area. It leads the world in military expenditures, spending approximately the same amount that the rest of the world combined spends, despite the fact that there are no nations that have the naval, air or land combat capabilities that could repel or withstand even a single day of full-fledged American military assault (for which the Pentagon probably already has contingency plans). Every American Special Forces soldier knows in his heart of hearts that, compared to his highly lethal, highly trained killing unit, Nazi Germany’s Wehrmacht soldiers and Luftwaffe airmen were pussies.

Exceptional America, With 5% of the World’s Population, Spends more on Militarism Than the Rest of the World Combined

America’s political elites represent only 5% of the world’s population, and yet, because of the Myth of American Exceptionalism, they act like they deserve to rule the world. If the truth were to be told, American politicians are often the laughingstock of the rest of the developed world because of their obvious historical illiteracy and their moral imbecility. Showing no humility or self-understanding, most self-deluded, bullying political candidates (watch any GOP presidential debate for proof) still believe that, because of America’s military and economic power, Americans are somehow exceptional. (These over-privileged millionaire candidates were, as the old saying goes, “born on third base and think that they just hit a triple”.)

But whenever someone has the courage (or temerity) to say out loud that “those emperors of ours have no clothes”, it becomes apparent to everybody that they are largely lapdogs to the elites and therefore obedient to and dependent on the largesse of any number of secret, unelected, corporate bribers/paymasters/lobbyists and afraid of not complying with the wishes of the highly decorated, unelected brass in the Pentagon who are drawing $100,000+ annual military pension payments and don’t want to mess with the gravy train..

Are Corporate Campaign Contributions Bribes or What?

America’s political system is dominated by campaign “contributions” from major “donors” (better characterized as “investments” or “bribes”), with promised “paybacks” that come from the “donee” or “bribee”. As a result, our elected legislators (and whomever is the “current occupant” of the Oval Office) manage to spend/waste more taxpayer dollars complying with the desires of their paymasters and helping cover for the military destabilization of the rest of the exploitable world (under the guise of fostering peace in the world by killing alleged “bad guys with guns”).

A case in point is the ubiquitous multi-billion dollar propaganda campaign with which the Pentagon has been blanketing the TV, radio and print media for the past year or so. Some cunning entity has decided to spend billions of scarce dollars trying to glorify America’s past wars (even the illegal and criminal ones), making “exceptional” heroes of every honorable or dishonorable soldier and veteran, even the sadistic ones who were torturers and sexual abusers. They are even trying to honor and justify the atrocity-producing, inglorious Vietnam War.

The Pentagon is probably sensing an important congressional initiative to cut the excessive, wasteful military spending that has contributed so much to our nation’s $17,000,000,000,000 (17 trillion) national debt and impending national bankruptcy. If the past is prologue, the initiative is doomed to fail if the Pentagon and the war-profiteering corporations have anything to say about it.

The total price for “defending” us over-privileged 5% of the world from foreign enemies is approximately what the rest of the world (combined) spends on their militaries. That sobering reality includes the “defense” spending of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, our allegedly worst potential enemies, whose citizens don’t want war any more than do most Americans. With unaffordable spending like that, what could possibly go wrong?

Study the two charts below and re-evaluate your impression that America is exceptional.

US military spending vs spending on domestic programs of social uplift

A few statistics and a little re-education will prove the true nature of American exceptionalism, but the reality is other than what the propagandists want us to believe. The United States is exceptional only in ways that should embarrass all Americans.

For example, America leads the developed world in

1) the number and percentage of its children that live in poverty and have poor access to health care,

2) the number of its citizens that are overweight, obese or morbidly obese (see image further below),

3) the number of its drugged-up and traumatized military veterans and active duty soldiers that contemplate suicide or actually commit suicide,

4) the number of psychiatrically drugged white adolescent boys who are the perpetrators behind the uniquely American school shooting epidemic,

5) the number of fully vaccinated children who become chronically ill with autoimmune disorders (thanks to the aluminum immune-stimulating [indeed, over-stimulating] adjuvants that are in the inoculum),

6) the number of its citizens that are hopelessly – and sometimes suicidally – saddled with unpayable credit card debt,

7) the number of college students who are saddled with unpayable college loan debt,

8) the number of our increasingly unhealthy citizens who are saddled with unpayable health care costs,

9) the number of citizens who are saddled with unpayable mortgage debt and are faced with homelessness,

10) the widest divide (in the history of the world) between the wealthy economic elite (the upper 1%) and the lower 99% who are having their diminishing wealth extracted from their pockets in any number of ways, and

11) the number of (brain-altered and thus impoverished) people who qualify for total and permanent social security disability due to psychiatric prescription drug neurotoxicity and addiction..

Qui Bono (who benefits)? (The key forensic question to find out who has a motive for a crime)

And who benefits from the above examples of American Pseudo-exceptionalism?

It doesn’t take much critical thinking to discover that the main benefactors of the propagation of the Myth are the wealthy elites in the banks, Wall Street’s institutional investors (including the foxes in the US Treasury Department’s henhouse) and those corporate predatory lenders that profit from the interest payments from the above noted 1) credit card debtors, 2) college loan debtors, and 3) mortgage debtors. Those “investments” are the reason that these sociopaths are at the top of the income inequality gap.

The elites that have been eagerly snapping up US Treasury debt securities over the many decades of US “borrow and spend” economic stimulation. America’s military buildup was guiltlessly underwritten by those elites, including the gruesome destabilizing overseas wars that created so many economic opportunities. These war profiteers are now safely conspiring behind boardroom doors, counting their money behind gated community walls and probably vary happy to pay armed bodyguards to keep the angry “riffraff” away.

They are collecting their perpetual quarterly interest payments (over $100,000,000,000 (100 billion annually) thanks to the investments they made that paid for the Vietnam War and the other military misadventures (particularly Ronald Reagan’s massive nuclear arsenal buildup in the 1980s that resulted in the de-stabilizing and unaffordable arms race with the USSR). These guys are laughing all the way to the bank and, thanks to the continued propaganda that their bought and paid for media obediently spews out for them, their amoral activities remain unexposed and unpunished.

But that isn’t the whole story. Below is another image that needs to be shown, one that should be worth a thousand words.

Two Malnourished Victims of American Exceptionalism

Guess which child is a well-fed, proud-to-be-an-American boy, whose parents (and culture) may think that he has a God-given right to more food than he deserves or needs, and who may never have seen the reality – nor understood the sources – of human suffering and starvation. These otherwise good people are likely to be oblivious to the suffering of the millions of non-American, non-white, non-Christian, homeless, hungry and war-ravaged refugees, because those stories are never shown on the nightly news. Making the connections will not be good for the Myth.

Both hard-to-look-at images are of children who are doomed to die and suffer prematurely for America’s delusional Myth. The parents of either child are, or soon will be, suffering emotionally, right along with their child. And America’s wealthy elites are, not as indirectly as you might think, profiting from the sufferings of both children – not to mention the highly profitable domestic and military agendas that are behind both tragedies.

I end with a very short list of some of the boycott-worthy corporations (that probably have very happy shareholders). Included in the list are such corporate culprits as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, McDonalds, Burger King, WalMart, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, Syngenta, Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Grumman, Pfizer, Novartis, Merck, Lilly, Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Halliburton, Deepwater Horizons, Rio Tinto, Glencore and the thousands of other inhumane and non-human, exploitive and extractive companies of their ilk, all of which are knowingly polluting the planet and raking in the profits.

This sample list of corporations are representative of the paymasters of almost every known multi-millionaire Republican presidential candidate that I can think of (plus a few Democrats [but no Greens]). It shouldn’t be hard to imagine that every one of those corporations are eagerly supportive of the GOP’s pro-corporate, anti-environment, anti-worker, union-busting, pro-pollution political platform that keeps wages and expenses low and profits high.

The survival of the planet and of our democracy demands that their agendas be resisted.

Dr Kohls is a retired physician who practiced holistic, non-drug, mental health care for the last decade of his family practice career. He now writes a weekly column for the Reader Weekly, an alternative newsweekly published in Duluth, Minnesota, USA. Many of Dr Kohls’ columns are archived at http://duluthreader.com/articles/categories/200_Duty_to_Warn.

Predictions are that we will soon be seeing the “nuclear option” — central bank-created money injected directly into the real economy. All other options having failed, governments will be reduced to issuing money outright to cover budget deficits. So warns a September 18 article on ZeroHedge titled “It Begins: Australia’s Largest Investment Bank Just Said ‘Helicopter Money’ Is 12-18 Months Away.”

Money reformers will say it’s about time. Virtually all money today is created as bank debt, but people can no longer take on more debt. The money supply has shrunk along with people’s ability to borrow new money into existence. Quantitative easing (QE) attempts to re-inflate the money supply by giving money to banks to create more debt, but that policy has failed. It’s time to try dropping some debt-free money on Main Street.

The Zerohedge prediction is based on a release from Macqurie, Australia’s largest investment bank. It notes that GDP is contracting, deflationary pressures are accelerating, public and private sectors are not driving the velocity of money higher, and central bank injections of liquidity are losing their effectiveness. Current policies are not working. As a result:

There are several policies that could be and probably would be considered over the next 12-18 months. If private sector lacks confidence and visibility to raise velocity of money, then (arguably) public sector could. In other words, instead of acting via bond markets and banking sector, why shouldn’t public sector bypass markets altogether and inject stimulus directly into the ‘blood stream’? Whilst it might or might not be called QE, it would have a much stronger impact and unlike the last seven years, the recovery could actually mimic a conventional business cycle and investors would soon start discussing multiplier effects and positioning in areas of greatest investment. 

Willem Buiter, chief global economist at Citigroup, is also recommending “helicopter money drops” to avoid an imminent global recession, stating:

A global recession starting in 2016 led by China is now our Global Economics team’s main scenario. Uncertainty remains, but the likelihood of a timely and effective policy response seems to be diminishing. . . .

Helicopter money drops in China, the euro area, the UK, and the U.S. and debt restructuring . . . can mitigate and, if implemented immediately, prevent a recession during the next two years without raising the risk of a deeper and longer recession later.

Corbyn’s PQE

In the UK, something akin to a helicopter money drop was just put on the table by Jeremy Corbyn, the newly-elected Labor leader. He proposes to give the Bank of England a new mandate to upgrade the economy to invest in new large scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects. He calls it “quantitative easing for people instead of banks” (PQE). The investments would be made through a National Investment Bank set up to invest in new infrastructure and in the hi-tech innovative industries of the future.

Australian blogger Prof. Bill Mitchell agrees that PQE is economically sound. But he says it should not be called “quantitative easing.” QE is just an asset swap – cash for federal securities or mortgage-backed securities on bank balance sheets. What Corbyn is proposing is actually Overt Money Financing (OMF) – injecting money directly into the economy.

Mitchell acknowledges that OMF is a taboo concept in mainstream economics. Allegedly, this is because it would lead to hyperinflation. But the real reasons, he says, are that:

1. It cuts out the private sector bond traders from their dose of corporate welfare which unlike other forms of welfare like sickness and unemployment benefits etc. has made the recipients rich in the extreme. . . .
2. It takes away the ‘debt monkey’ that is used to clobber governments that seek to run larger fiscal deficits.

OMF as a Solution to the EU Crisis

Mitchell observes that OMF has actually been put on the table by the European Parliament. According to a Draft Report by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs on the European Central Bank Annual report for 2012, the European Parliament:

9. Considers that the monetary policy tools that the ECB has used since the beginning of the crisis, while providing a welcome relief in distressed financial markets, have revealed their limits as regards stimulating growth and improving the situation on the labour market; considers, therefore, that the ECB could investigate the possibilities of implementing new unconventional measures aimed at participating in a large, EU-wide pro-growth programme, including the use of the Emergency Liquidity Assistance facility to undertake an ‘overt money financing’ of government debt in order to finance tax cuts targeted on low-income households and/or new spending programmes focused on the Europe 2020 objectives;
10. Considers it necessary to review the Treaties and the ECB’s statutes in order to establish price stability together with full employment as the two objectives, on an equal footing, of monetary policy in the eurozone;

These provisions were amended out of the report, says Prof. Mitchell, largely due to German hyperinflation paranoia. But he maintains that Overt Money Financing is the most effective way to solve the Eurozone crisis without tearing down the monetary union:

1. It amounts to the ECB telling member states that they will provide the Euros to permit sufficient deficit spending aimed at increasing employment and production.
2. No public debt is issued.
3. No taxes are raised.
4. Interest rates would not rise.
5. A Job Guarantee could be introduced immediately.
6. The Troika can retire – no more bailouts.
7. As growth returns, structural changes – better public services, better schools, better health care etc. can be implemented. Growth allows structural changes to occur more quickly because people are happy to move between jobs if there are jobs to move between.

The Bogus Inflation Objection

Tim Worstall, writing in the UK Register, objects to Corbyn’s PQE (or OMF) on the ground that it cannot be “sterilized” the way QE can. When inflation hits, the process cannot be reversed. If the money is spent on infrastructure, it will be out there circulating in the economy and will not be retrievable. Worstall writes:

QE is designed to be temporary, . . . because once people’s spending rates recover we need a way of taking all that extra money out of the economy. So we do it by using printed money to buy bonds, which injects the money into the economy, and then sell those bonds back once we need to withdraw the money from the economy, and simply destroy the money we’ve raised. . . .

If we don’t have any bonds to sell, it’s not clear how we can reduce [the money supply] if large-scale inflation hits.

The problem today, however, is not inflation but deflation of the money supply. Some consumer prices may be up, but this can happen although the money supply is shrinking. Food prices, for example, are up; but it’s because of increased costs, including drought in California, climate change, and mergers and acquisitions by big corporations that eliminate competition.

Adding money to the economy will not drive up prices until demand is saturated and production has hit full capacity; and we’re a long way from full capacity now. Before that, increasing “demand” will increase “supply.” Producers will create more goods and services. Supply and demand will rise together and prices will remain stable. In the US, the output gap – the difference between actual output and potential output – isestimated at about $1 trillion annually. That means the money supply could be increased by at least $1 trillion annually without driving up prices.

Don’t Sterilize – Tax!

If PQE does go beyond full productive capacity, the government does not need to rely on the central bank to pull the money back. It can do this with taxes. Just as loans increase the money supply and repaying them shrinks it again, so taxes and other payments to the government will shrink a money supply augmented with money issued by the government.

Using 2012 figures (drawing from an earlier article by this author), the velocity of M1 (the coins, dollar bills and demand deposits spent by ordinary consumers) was then 7. That means M1 changed hands seven times during 2012 – from housewife to grocer to farmer, etc. Since each recipient owed taxes on this money, increasing M1 by one dollar increased the tax base by seven dollars.

Total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP in 2012 was 24.3%. Extrapolating from those figures, $1.00 changing hands seven times could increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 24.3% = $1.70. That means the government could, in theory, get more back in taxes than it paid out. Even with some leakage in those figures and deductions for costs, all or most of the new money spent into the economy might be taxed back to the government. New money could be pumped out every year and the money supply would increase little if at all.

Besides taxes, other ways to get money back into the Treasury include closing tax loopholes, taxing the $21 trillion or more hidden in offshore tax havens, and setting up a system of public banks that would return the interest on loans to the government. Net interest collected by U.S. banks in 2014 was $423 billion. At its high in 2007, it was $725 billion.

Thus there are many ways to recycle an issue of new money back to the government. The same money could be spent and collected back year after year, without creating price inflation or hyperinflating the money supply.

This not only could be done; it needs to be done. Conventional monetary policy has failed. Central banks have exhausted their existing toolboxes and need to explore some innovative alternatives.

 

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com. Listen to “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on PRN.FM.

The approval and planting of large-scale field trials of genetically modified (GM) mustard in India is currently taking place. According to environmentalist Aruna Rodrigues, this is completely unconscionable. It is occurring even as the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Report awaits adjudication in India’s Supreme Court, which expressly recommends a bar on herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops. As a result, Rodrigues is mounting a legal challenge as the lead petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation.

Large-scale field trials may only be conducted when a crop has comprehensively cleared all biosafety protocols in rigorous independent long-term testing and appraisal. However, this has not been the case with GM mustard. Rodrigues argues that official regulators have even hidden all data from the public and the independent scientific community, which is against constitutional provisions and the orders of the Supreme Court. She concludes this means one thing: mandatory rigorous biosafety protocols have not been carried out and the data pertaining to ‘mustard DMH 11’ therefore needs to be concealed.

Requests for data have been refused. Rodrigues asserts that the secrecy surrounding GM mustard exemplifies the appalling state of regulation and smacks of corruption. She thus concludes the Indian government is using underhand means to introduce GM crops into Indian agriculture. There appears to be no place for science or transparency in this process, which will inevitably contaminate India’s mustard diversity.

Mustard DMH 11 is an herbicide-tolerant crop that has been made resistant to Bayer’s glufosinate, which is even more toxic that glyphosate. Glufosinate is a broad spectrum herbicide thatcauses nerve damage and birth defects and is toxic to most organisms. It is also a neurotoxin of mammals that doesn’t easily break down in the environment.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the WHO confirmed glyphosate to be a “probable human carcinogenic.” It missed by a whisker being labelled ‘definitely’ carcinogenic.

Rodrigues says this implicates the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for complicity and fraud with regard to its oversight of glyphosate; and similarly implicates Monsanto, which has known since at least the 1980s that glyphosate causes cancer/is an endocrine disruptor.

In addition, a new peer-reviewed study by Heinemann et al states that herbicides can cause bacteria to change their response to clinically-relevant antibiotics. The effect occurs upon simultaneous exposure to antibiotics and is faster than the lethal effect of antibiotics. Simultaneous is clarified to mean that the bacteria do not need to have had a history of herbicide exposure to become resistant. The resistance can arise immediately. So it can happen if someone is exposed to spray drift or pets a cat that has walked through a treated lawn.

According to Rodrigues, these two studies epitomise the problem with GMOs: historical fraud on the one hand and the ‘latency lacuna’ or long-period hazards that become known or manifest only over time.

The fall-out of the IARC conclusion is that Sri Lanka has banned glyphosate/Ht crops and Scotland and Germany (among several other countries) will use the opt-out clause of the EU to ban GMOs in their agriculture.

Rodrigues says DMH 11 must be barred on a number of counts, which include the following.

1) HT crops comprise a failed technology. The incontrovertible evidence is based on USDA crop data from 20 years of commercialised HT crops, which have failed to positively affect performance yield and have spawned intractable super weeds as a direct consequence of the huge increase in herbicide use. The pesticide treadmill for farmers is like a drug addiction: different herbicides to counter resistance and more herbicides as super weeds emerge. This is leading to the use of more toxic herbicides, including glufosinate, which has led to triple herbicide weeds in Canada in the case of HT rape.

2) Under the PPVFRA (Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Authority, India), no national law allows toxins to be put in foods/food crops and seeds. The PPVFRA expressly refuses registration of such ‘injurious’ seeds. Thus, DMH 11 is doubly banned for seed registration under the PPVFRA for being “injurious to life” and for being a GURT – “For the purposes of this subsection, the expression “any technology” includes genetic use restriction technology and terminator technology.”

3) The TEC Report: Mustard DMH 11 is required to be doubly barred: it is an HT crop and second, a Crop of Origin and /or diversity in India like Bt brinjal. Both are recommended to be banned.

4) Contamination: The potential for contamination by HT mustard is particularly high and it should not be risked in small field trials (FT), let alone large-scale. Approval of DMH 11 in large-scale FT is also in Contempt of the SC Order of “no contamination.”

5) The claim is that DMH 11 will provide yield increases of 25-30%. However, higher yields are not the result of these particular transgenes but rather a direct result of hybridisation of normal crop genes. This is why in the case of corn that has natural male sterile genes, hybrid corn can be made that has nothing to do with genetic engineering. Neither Bt nor HT crops have traits for yield. Bt and HT are traits for pesticides. The use of hybrids is also a deliberate ploy to camouflage the yield attributable to the hybrid and assign it to the GM crop instead. This is precisely the story that ensued with Bt cotton and that thread wove its way through Bt brinjal and now, openly for mustard. The fraud is unprecedented.

Rodrigues goes on to list a number of serious toxicity issues with both GM mustard and glufosinate. For instance, she says that both the EPA and the European Food Safety Authority have confirmed that glufosinate poses a risk to mammals and that a number of studies have also indicated that glufosinate is toxic to beneficial insects that control crop pests and to pollinators.

She finishes by noting environmental dangers: the EPA has stated that glufosinate is “expected to adversely affect non-target organisms.” The EPA classifies glufosinate ammonium as ‘persistent’ and ‘mobile’. It is likely to leach into drinking water sources, could increase nitrate leaching and is toxic to beneficial soil micro-organisms and “terrestrial plant species.”

Aruna Rodrigues concludes by stating that the case surrounding GM mustard in India is evidence of unremitting regulatory delinquency.

It all raises the question: why the rush and by-passing of proper procedures and regulations to get GMOs into the Indian food chain? (See this.)

 

France says it may carry out airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria as an act of self-defense. Last week French aircraft started to undertake reconnaissance missions over Syria.

On Monday, French President Francois Hollande said French military sorties in Syria would soon expand to include airstrikes against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

“We are part of the coalition in Iraq [against ISIS],” Hollande said in a news conference with his Nigerian counterpart Muhammadu Buhari. “We started reconnaissance flights [in Syria] to enable us to consider air strikes if they were necessary and they will be necessary in Syria.”

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said the use of weapons on Syrian territory is justified due to a string of Islamist attacks in Europe.

“We received specific intelligence indicating that the resent terrorist attacks against France and other European nations were organized by Daesh [Arabic derogatory term for IS] in Syria. Due to this threat we decided to start reconnaissance flights to have the option for airstrikes, if that would be necessary. This is self-defense,” the minister told the Belgian media.

Paris previously announced its readiness to bomb targets in Syria in 2013, when the United States threatened military intervention against the government of President Bashar Assad. Damascus never formally requested the US-led coalition, which was formed in response to IS taking over large parts of Iraq last year, to expand its airstrikes into Syria. This technically makes such attacks illegal under international law. However, the Syrian government is so far turning a blind eye to the violations of its sovereignty. Damascus is facing a war with IS as well as with other terrorist groups like Al-Nusra Front and US-backed rebel forces, who Washington consider to be moderates.

The US and its allies insist that President Assad should be ousted and has no place in the future of Syria. France now says his departure must not be a condition for political dialogue to start.

“If we require, even before negotiations start, that Assad step down, we won’t get far,” Fabius told Le Figaro.

Russia, which is supporting Syria in its fight against IS jihadists and is providing Damascus with military supplies, has repeatedly called on a broader coalition to fight the terrorist organization.

Europe has endured several attacks by Islamist militants since the turn of the year, including the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in Paris and a failed to attempt to kill passengers aboard a high speed Thalys train travelling near the French-Belgian border.

While Europe is erecting fences, deploying armies and expressing its “concern” about how to deal with the annual influx of some 300,000 asylum seekers, vast areas of the world – namely the Middle East and Africa – are essentially ceasing to exist.

For years, I have been witnessing the desperate movements of millions of refugees and migrants all over the world.

The West has been redrawing the borders everywhere, performing direct invasions, or using proxy wars, in order to destabilize or directly destroy all “hostile” governments (read: those that have been determined to feed, educate, house and cure their own people).

Wherever a socially oriented government gets into power, the West immediately begins to manufacture and sponsor so-called “opposition movements.” Civil wars are triggered, sometimes followed by direct invasions.

The result is easy to predict: when progressive governments are forced to leave and the extreme, pro-business and pro-Western regimes are installed, the social fabric quickly collapses, brutality begins to reign and millions of desperate people are forced to flee. The same goes for when some horrific civil war is triggered from outside and divides the country.

Internally displaced, people begin to move all around their countries, aimlessly and in deep confusion. In the past it happened in such places as Cambodia, during and after the savage US carpet-bombing of the countryside, and it is now happening in Syria.

Those whose cities, village and livelihood were destroyed have to search for basic safety, food and shelter. After all, parents must feed their children. Natural survival instincts kick in. Borders become irrelevant. The Empire knows all that; it employs thousands of psychologists to analyze and manipulate the world. To claim that the “refugee crisis” comes as a surprise to the West’s governments is absolute hypocrisy.

In just a few years, I have seen masses of Syrian refugees, 2 million of them, scattered all over tiny Lebanon. I have also witnessed Syrians and Iraqis escaping to Turkey, Jordan and Iraq, Syrians fleeing to Turkey, South Asians escaping to Turkey via Iran, North Africans and Central Africans escaping directly to Europe. Sometimes it feels that all of humanity is on the move.

I made a documentary film about the Somali refugees and incorporated stories of Congolese refugees into my film about Rwanda.

The great majority of Westerners has no idea how many human lives of what George Orwell used to call “un-people” have been sacrificed in Africa, Asia and elsewhere, in order for them to be able to maintain their routine and unrealistically high standards of living.

A long time ago, Congo had one of the greatest leaders on earth – Patrice Lumumba. He was a true patriot, and an anti-imperialist fighter. A joint British, US and Belgian operation murdered him (the same thing occurred in Iran in 1953, in Indonesia in 1965 and in Chile in 1973, to name just three places). Much later, in 1995, two of the West’s client states, Rwanda and Uganda, were designated to exploit the DRC, potentially one of the richest countries on earth. They overthrew governments and murdered millions.

The plight of the refugees pouring from the Congo is too far from Europe. The faces of these people will never be seen. Their suffering will not be witnessed on television screens in Paris, London or Berlin. For Europe, these are “perfect refugees”and “perfect victims.” They are dying, getting raped, getting robbed, “silently,” without any scandal, without bothering or annoying citizens of Western countries, without demanding anything, without receiving any compensation for the horrors they are being put through.

Nobody knows exactly how many Congolese lives have been lost or shattered (estimated number is 6 to 10 million deaths, between 1995 and now), so cheap coltan can be inserted into the smart phones and tablets sold like hot cakes in the rich world, or for uranium to be supplied to the West military industrial complex… or how many Somali fishermen had to flee their own coast, so the European Union could continue dumping its toxic waste in the sea (all that is said is that “Somalis suddenly became pirates”).

I saw places that most Westerners know nothing about, cannot even imagine: horrendous refugee camps based in Uganda and Rwanda, housing absolutely ruined families or what is left of them, pouring from the Democratic Republic of Congo. I also saw the refugee camps inside the DRC itself, in East Kivu, camps where, as I was told, all women are victims of rape and torture. And, some time ago, I filmed the biggest camp on earth, Dadaab, built in Kenya and designated for refugees fleeing completely decimated Somalia.

All this is not happening “because those countries cannot govern themselves.” On the contrary!

Western companies and governments are benefiting.

And in the West, there will never be any acknowledgement of the suffering of the Congolese or Somali people.

Somali peace agreements were torpedoed. Kenyan forces on behalf of the West invaded it and millions fled.

When filming in Dabaab camp, I heard stories about women entering Kenya from Somalia, being strip-searched, raped in front of their children, robbed by Kenyan border guards, and then forced to walk dozens of miles to the camp through the desert. Many were eaten alive by wild animals. Others died from dehydration. In Dadaab and other Kenyan camps for Somali refugees, people lived in a dry desert for one entire generation, without ever seeing the sea, the mountains, rivers and greenery. Children were born in those repulsive camps; they grew up there, reaching adulthood basically locked in a prison.

The victims of Western geopolitical games in the DRC, Somalia, Papua, and so many other places on earth… Who will ever at least acknowledge those shattered lives?

Some of the people escaping from Libya, Syria, Mali, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, are now at least able to make it in front of the cameras, to tell their stories, to force their way (at least a few of them are succeeding) into those countries that have destroyed theirs. Not that too many people in the West are really willing to listen and to understand, but still, at least there is some chance.

However, in so many other places that are destroyed by the commercial and political interests of the Empire, people are trapped by dire circumstances; they are killed, or starve to death, silently conveniently far from the West’s cold gaze.

“What are we going to do with them?” I listened to the repeated laments in a the French city of Calais, where hundreds of refugees are staying in a horrific makeshift camp nicknamed the Jungle, jumping on international lorries and running into the Eurotunnel, trying to make it by any desperate means to the UK. I heard the same questions in Greece and Germany. As if the refugees were coming from thin air, not from horrific wars and conflicts triggered by the West.

In its recent editorial, a major Argentinian daily newspaper El Clarin argued that many refugees and migrants are not actually fleeing misery, but Western geopolitical ambitions in the Middle East.

It is correct. Refugees are not always poor, but they are, almost without exception, forced to act through desperation.

Many refugees come from formerly rich countries that were attacked, destabilized and in some cases destroyed by the West: Iraq, Libya and Syria.

There are also countries that are “exporting refugees” because of the collapse of their economic and social fabric, mainly due to inhuman sanctions imposed on them by the West, such as Eritrea and Iran.Others come from destitute or relatively poor countries that were also destabilized or just destroyed by North American and European geopolitical and economic interests: Afghanistan, Pakistan, several states in central Africa, Yemen and Somalia, to name just a few.

Recently I wrote:

 When one looted country after another begins to sink, when there is nothing left there, when children begin dying from hunger and when men commence fighting each other over tiny boulders and dirty pieces of turf, pathetic boats, or dinghies, begin crossing the waterways, bringing half starved, half-mad refugees to the European sea-fronts decorated with marble. What a horrifying sight! As if a woman, her hair waving in disarray, her lips broken, comes begging a man who raped her after killing her husband – begging for shelter and at least some work and a piece of bread. She decided to abandon all her pride, because her children are sick and starving, because it is either this, or death. That is what you reduced the world to, Europe – you, and your huge, insatiable offspring – North America!

I saw the camps on the Turkish-Syrian border, near the city of Hatai, being used by NATO as training and recruitment facilities for Islamic State (IS, formerly known as ISIS/ISIL/DAESH). But I also saw real refugee camps on Turkish turf. They were well managed and clean. “We want to act as a mini-empire in the Middle East,” I was told by a Turkish intellectual in Istanbul, “Well… then we have to pay for it.”

But Europe does not want to pay. As in the colonial days, it wants booty, in exchange for… nothing.

I talked to several refugees from South Asia, at the bus terminal in the city of Bodrum. Most of them admitted that Turkey has been treating them much better than Greece or the rest of the EU. But their mind was set on Germany and the UK: they were conditioned. It was all totally irrational, but that’s how it was.

In Kos, a horrific provisory camp was not helping the refugees and migrants at all – just a couple of volunteers and one part-time doctor to take care of hundreds. Local activists told me about extreme right-wing groups like Golden Dawn, and about the pogroms against the refugees, periodically. To make things worse, the island now has a right-wing mayor. The Greek economy and the social system have almost collapsed, but European holidaymakers kept coming. While the refugees from several desperate nations were sleeping all over the streets and in the parks, German and Scandinavian tourists were stuffing themselves on fresh seafood, downing liters of wine, just a few steps away.

The Greek coast guard was periodically beating up refugees, sometimes extorting money. Many died, trying to cross from Turkey to Greece. Others died crossing from Africa to Italy or Malta. Those who made it were humiliated, mistreated, and even cheated.

However, refugees keep coming. It is because for many, there is no home, anymore. In their own countries, they are left with nothing. What they used to have was grabbed and transferred to Europe.

In Prague, a Czech philosopher and renowned political performer and a friend of mine, Milan Kohout, has organized several actions in support of asylum seekers: “It is immoral. Europe took everything from so many countries, and now it wants to wash its hands of any responsibility!”

As a result of such statements, Mr Kohout is facing constant death treats, and physical attacks, in an increasingly xenophobic Europe.

In Latin America, before the revolutions, people used to say: “We are poor because they are rich!” Some refugees and migrants coming to Europe are beginning to see it this way, too.

In Calais, a 25-years-old Syrian man, Hassan, half jokingly, half seriously shouted at me: “Many of us are not really emigrating. We are just chasing a thief! We want to go where they took our possessions!”

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. His latest books are: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire” and “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. Discussion with N. Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Andre is making films for teleSUR and Press TV. Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and the Middle East.

Bernie Sanders is wrong — Hugo Chávez was no dictator.

Dear Bernie,

Like millions of Americans, I’ve been watching your campaign with growing excitement. You’re spot on about the pernicious effects of rising inequality and absolutely correct that the United States now resembles an oligarchy more than a democracy. I applaud your willingness to directly and repeatedly denounce the billionaire class that runs this country. And I wholeheartedly support your call for universal health care.

It’s been a joy to watch you make Hillary Clinton squirm as your poll numbers rise. I smile every time I imagine the possibility of a self-described socialist calling for a political revolution winning the Democratic nomination. I’m encouraged that you have made fighting racism a priority in your campaign, alongside the rest of your progressive agenda.

So I was surprised and dismayed to see you label the late Hugo Chávez a “dead communist dictator” last week. I would expect this from candidates like Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, or Hillary Clinton — not from someone who supported the Sandinistas in the 1980s and accepted discounted heating oil from Chávez for low-income Vermont residents.

I know you’re busy these days, Bernie, so I’ve compiled a list of ten reasons why you might want to think twice before calling Chávez a dictator.

1. Hugo Chávez was democratically elected. Not once. Not twice. Butfive times over the course of fourteen years.

2. Chávez won these elections by massive margins. He prevailed in the 1998 presidential election with 56% of the vote. He was reelected in 2000, netting 60% of votes cast. In 2004, Chávez won a recall referendum with 59%. In 2006 he was again victorious, receiving a whopping 63% of the vote. And in the 2012, while dying of cancer, he still triumphed, this time garnering 55%.

3. On the rare occasions when Chávez suffered a political defeat (e.g., the December 2007 referendum on constitutional changes), he accepted the loss immediately. It’s true that Chávez engaged in certain practices that are open to criticism, such as gerrymandering and using executive decrees to get around congressional opposition. But these practices are common in many actually-existing democracies, including the US, and hardly constitute evidence that Chávez was a dictator.

4. Chávez’s electoral success was not due to electoral fraud. The Venezuelan opposition (which supported a military coup against Chávez in 2002) and US mainstream media frequently level this charge, but there is no credible evidence to support it. Jimmy Carter has said, “Of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored [at the Carter Center], I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”

5. The reason Chávez was so successful politically is because he implemented some of the same sorts of policies you support. After Chávez took office, the Venezuelan state more than doubled spending on health and education. (Sure this was made possible by the high price of oil from 2003 to 2008, but it was also possible because of Chávez’s success in reasserting state control over the oil sector, which was quasi-privatized in the 1990s.)

6. The policies implemented under Chávez led to vast improvements in access to health care, education, housing, and pensions. Poverty in Venezuela was cut in half between 2003 and 2008, with extreme poverty falling by 72%.

7. Chávez also made progress on the issue you care the most about: inequality. By 2012 Venezuela was the most equitable country in Latin America.

8. While you haven’t declared that you want to build “twenty-first century socialism,” Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution bears at least some resemblance to the type of “political revolution” you claim to favor. In 1998, when Chávez was first elected, turnout was just 63%, one of the lowest percentages in Venezuela’s democratic history. In Chávez’s last election, it was 81% — the highest percentage since 1988, when voting in Venezuela was still mandatory. In December 2013, 59% of registered voters went to the ballot box for local elections — a higher turnout than every US presidential election since 1968.

There was also a significant increase in Venezuelans’ interest in politics during Chávez’s time in office. In the three years before Chávez took office, Venezuelans’ interest in politics was consistently below the Latin American average (by 7–8% each year). Since 2003, Venezuelans’ interest in politics has been consistently above the Latin American average. In 2013, the year Chávez died, the percentage of Venezuelans who expressed interest in politics (47%) was the highest in Latin America and far higher than the Latin American average (28%).

9. Under Chávez, Venezuela made significant, if contradictory, progress towards the goal of becoming a “participatory and protagonistic democracy.” This was done through the establishment of numerous types of participatory institutions: communal councils, health and water committees, communes, participatory budgeting, and more. These institutions are not perfect, but they have undoubtedly fostered greater decision-making power for ordinary Venezuelans.

I learned this firsthand through a year of research in various cities in Venezuela, including Torres, a municipality in central-western Venezuela where ordinary citizens decide how to spend 100% of the city’s investment budget. Miriam Gimenez, a grassroots activist from Torres, told me about the improvements she saw when Chávez was in office: “Life has changed substantially for our people because this process has given society a place to speak, to study, to work, to struggle. Now we know that we’re living, that we’re worth something, and that we can have hope of a dignified life and country.”

10. Portraying Chávez as a dictator is a profound insult to the millions of Venezuelans who supported him. Chavistas were not mindless drones who offered their unconditional support to a “great leader.” They were and are active participants in a messy and imperfect but inspiring and profoundly important attempt to forge a radical transformation.

I hope you’ll take some time to consider these points. Not only because bad things tend to happen to Latin American countries when US presidents call their democratically elected leaders dictators, but because Chávez engaged millions of people in a democratic process of far-reaching reform. And even if you’re setting your sights a bit lower than Chávez, you more than anyone else should recognize that redbaiting will just end up hampering your own reform efforts.

Sincerely,

Gabriel

“ This documentary is dedicated to everyone who wants to fight for truth and life on planet Earth.

Let’s stand up and defend our rights ! ” Antonio and Rosario Marciano (tanker-enemy.eu)

Those Condemning Syria Have Themselves Recently Used Chemical Weapons

We condemn all use of chemical weapons.

But the U.S. used chemical weapons against civilians in Iraq in 2004. Evidence here, here, here, here,here, here.

Israeli also used white phosphorous in 2009 during “Operation Cast Lead” (and perhaps subsequently).  Israel ratified Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (“Protocol III”) – which outlaws the use of incendiary devices in war – in 2007. So this was a war crime.

Moreover, the 1925 Geneva Protocol (which is different from Protocol III) prohibits “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases”.

The use of White phosphorus (“WP”) may also be a war crime under other international treaties and domestic U.S. laws. For example, the Battle Book, published by the U.S. Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, contains the following sentence: “It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets.”

The U.S. National Safety Council states that “White phosphorus is a poison . . . If its combustion occurs in a confined space, white phosphorus will remove the oxygen from the air and render the air unfit to support life . . . It is considered a dangerous disaster hazard because it emits highly toxic fumes. The EPA has listed white phosphorus as a Hazardous Air Pollutant.

Indeed, it is interesting to note that the U.S. previously called white phosphorous a chemical weapon when Saddam used it against the Kurds.  Interestingly, it has just come out that the U.S. encouragedSaddam’s use of chemical weapons.

Moreover, the U.S. and Britain have been dropping depleted uranium in virtually every country they fight, which causes severe health problems. See this, this, this and this.

And Israel has been accused of using depleted uranium in Syria.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.  But it is hypocritical for the U.S., Britain and Israel to say that we should bomb Syria because the government allegedly used chemical weapons.

The decision by the US Federal Reserve not to raise interest rates at its meeting last week has added to the growing uncertainty and volatility in global financial markets and contributed to the sense that the world’s major central bank has no real plan or perspective, but is deciding policy on the run.

The fallout from the Fed’s decision has exposed divisions among the financial elites. On the one hand there is the view that the Fed decision was necessary amid concerns that the downdraft from lower growth in China and other so-called emerging markets could tip the global economy into recession. On the other, there is criticism that Fed decisions are being made in response to stock market turbulence, creating the conditions for major problems in the future.

Richmond Federal Reserve president Jeffrey Lacker, the lone dissenter among the twelve Fed officials who made the decision, said exceptionally low interest rates for an economy with increasing consumption was “unlikely to be appropriate.” It deviated from the way the Fed had made decisions in the past and was dangerous because such departures were “risky and raise the likelihood of adverse outcomes.”

His views were echoed by St Louis Fed president James Bullard, who does not have a vote on the Fed policy-making body, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which made the decision. He said it was time to increase rates and policy should not be made in reaction to market turmoil.

Bullard said that had he been a voting member of the FOMC, he would have dissented from the decision not to raise the benchmark federal funds interest rate. There was a “powerful case to be made that it’s time to normalise interest rates,” he declared.

The Fed could not permanently boost stock prices, he argued, adding that the strategy should be to increase rates gradually, which would provide flexibility. The alternative was not to move until absolutely necessary, and that was “very much a volatility-inducing kind of scenario.”

The counter argument was advanced by Atlanta Fed president Dennis Lockhart, who voted in favour of the decision. He cited recent market volatility, while indicating that he would be the “first” to vote for an interest rate rise as “things settle down.”

Far from settling down, financial markets and the global economy more broadly are being wracked by increased turbulence under the impact of falling growth in China and the fears of capital flight from emerging markets.

In her press conference following the decision, Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen referred to the uncertain international outlook produced by concerns over growth in China and “volatility in financial markets,” leading to an increase in risks.

The market initially responded to the decision with a spike, but then fell into negative territory once the implications of Yellen’s remarks were considered. It rose again on Monday—the Dow was up by 125 points—evidence of continuing turbulence.

A report published last week in the Financial Times made clear that many of the conditions that led to the financial crisis of 2008 have returned. According to the article, the volume of “mega deal” mergers so far this year has reached an all-time high, exceeding the levels reached in the dotcom bubble and in the years leading to the crash. The total value of attempted $10 billion-plus transactions has now reached $1.19 trillion, beating the previous record set in 1999 on the eve of the dotcom collapse.

Lack of investment in the real economy means that companies seek to maintain and increase shareholder value through essentially parasitic operations—takeovers, mergers and share buybacks—in areas such as pharmaceuticals, consumer products, and telecommunications, financed through the low-interest rate regime of the Fed.

The degree to which market valuations have soared was underlined by an analysis of the expansion of the French telecom group Altice, which has taken over the US firm Cablevision. According to one analyst cited in the report, the stand-alone value of Cablevision was about $8 per share, but Altice paid $34.90.

The fact that such deals depend on an unending supply of ultra-cheap cash from the Fed and other central banks is the source of the tremendous pressure generated to continue the low-interest rate regime, whatever might be the longer-term consequences.

However, those consequences are looming larger in the considerations of those calling for a shift in interest rate policy.

Writing in the Financial Times, Andrew Sentance, a former member of the Bank of England policy committee, said that seven years into a “recovery,” central bankers needed to explain “why the interest rate playing field is still so heavily tilted to borrowers.” If interest rates could not rise now, when could they? There was always a reason for not raising rates, but monetary policymakers were timid, lions that had lost their roar.

“Central bankers,” he continued, “appear to lack a clear strategy for monetary policy.” A realistic policy would be to gradually lift rates, so that the debate would be over the pace and extent of any increase, not whether it should take place at all.

Other critics say the non-action by the Fed, instead of lessening volatility in financial markets, has actually increased it. According to Kevin Adams at Henderson, a British asset manager, the Fed decision was “frustrating” because it means “more uncertainty, more complexity and potentially more confusion.”

While the low interest rate regime significantly benefits parasitical financial activities, it has an adverse impact on pension and other insurance funds, which invest heavily in government bonds and other secure assets. But with the return on these assets being kept down to extraordinarily low levels, the viability of these financial institutions, which have formed a pillar of the financial system over decades, is being called into question. Their liabilities are rising, while the returns they receive on their investments are under increasing downward pressure.

Hence the calls for a return to a more “rational” policy. But the reality is that neither the Fed nor any of the other central banks have such a policy at hand. This is because the crisis of 2008 was not primarily the result of a policy failure, but represented a breakdown in the mode of capitalist profit accumulation. With returns in the real economy in decline, the chief source of profit accumulation has become the growth of parasitism in financial markets.

While the value of American shares has increased by $17 trillion since the bottom of the market in 2009, investment remains at historically low levels, as corporations sit on record amounts of cash, estimated to be as much as $2 trillion for non-financial companies.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the central problem in the global economy is that investment levels are still some 25 percent below where they were before the financial crisis, with no sign of any upturn. The deepening malaise of the global economy caused by this breakdown is revealed in global trade figures, a key indicator.

In the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis, global trade plummeted—at one point falling at a rate comparable to the contraction in the early 1930s. But then it recovered. However, the recovery petered out in 2010, and since then it has been rising at an annual rate of just 2 percent, well below the level of 6.5 percent in the years before the crisis.

A recent study by the Reserve Bank of Australia has pointed to one of the central reasons. It noted that business investment is usually the most trade-intensive component of demand. However, “the continuing weakness in business investment … is likely to have slowed growth in global trade in the post-crisis period.”

Writing on the Business Spectator web site, columnist Callam Pickering noted that global trade growth would remain subdued unless business investment returned to pre-crisis levels and global uncertainty was lower. “Neither scenario is likely in the near term, particularly with regard to business investment,” he noted.

This points to the fact that the inability of the Fed and other central banks to devise a coherent policy and their obvious fear that even a small rise in interest rates could set off a financial storm are rooted in fundamental shifts in the very foundations of the global capitalist system.

«Storica» visita del segretario generale della Nato Stoltenberg, il 21/22 settembre, in Ucraina, dove partecipa (per la prima volta nella storia delle relazioni bilaterali) al Consiglio di sicurezza nazionale, firma un accordo per l’apertura di un’ambasciata della Nato a Kiev, tiene due conferenze stampa col presidente Poroshenko.

Un decisivo passo avanti nell’integrazione dell’Ucraina nell’Alleanza. Iniziata nel 1991 quando, appena divenuta Stato indipendente in seguito alla disgregazione dell’Urss, l’Ucraina entra nel «Consiglio di cooperazione nordatlantica» e, nel 1994, nella «Partnership per la pace». Nel 1999, mentre la Nato demolisce con la guerra la Jugoslavia e ingloba i primi paesi dell’ex Patto di Varsavia  (Polonia, Repubblica Ceca e Ungheria), viene aperto a Kiev l’«Ufficio di collegamento Nato» e formato un battaglione polacco-ucraino per l’operazione Nato di «peacekeeping» in Kosovo. Nel 2002, il presidente Kuchma dichiara la disponibilità a entrare nella Nato. Nel 2005, sulla scia della «rivoluzione arancione» (organizzata e finanziata da Washington attraverso «Ong» specializzate e sostenuta dall’oligarca Poroshenko), il presidente Yushchenko viene invitato al summit Nato a Bruxelles.

Ma, nel 2010, il neoeletto presidente Yanukovych annuncia che l’adesione alla Nato non è nella sua agenda. Nel frattempo la Nato tesse una rete all’interno delle forze armate ucraine e addestra gruppi neonazisti (come prova una documentazione fotografica di militanti di Uno-Unso addestrati nel 2006 in Estonia da istruttori Nato). I neonazisti vengono usati come forza d’assalto nel putsch di Piazza Maidan che rovescia Yanukovych nel febbraio 2014, mentre il segretario generale della Nato intima alle forze armate ucraine di «restare neutrali». Subito dopo va alla presidenza Poroshenko, sotto la cui guida – dichiara la Nato – l’Ucraina sta divenendo «uno Stato sovrano e indipendente, fermamente impegnato per la democrazia e il diritto».

Quanto sovrana e indipendente sia l’Ucraina lo dimostra l’assegnazione di incarichi ministeriali a cittadini stranieri scelti da Washington e Bruxelles: il ministero delle finanze è affidato a Natalie Jaresko, cittadina statunitense che ha lavorato al Dipartimento di Stato; quello del commercio e dello sviluppo economico al lituano Abromavicius, che ha lavorato per gruppi bancari europei; quello della sanità all’ex ministro georgiano Kvitashvili. L’ex presidente  georgiano Saakashvili, uomo di fiducia di Washington, viene nominato governatore della regione ucraina di Odessa. E, per completare il quadro, Kiev affida le proprie dogane a una compagnia privata britannica.

Quanto l’Ucraina sia impegnata per la democrazia e il diritto, lo dimostra il fatto che i battaglioni neonazisti, rei di atrocità contro i civili di nazionalità russa nell’Ucraina orientale, sono stati inquadrati nella Guardia nazionale, addestrata da istruttori statunitensi e britannici. Lo dimostra la messa al bando del Partito comunista ucraino e della stessa ideologia comunista, in un clima persecutorio simile a quello dell’avvento del fascismo in Italia negli anni Venti.

Per evitare testimoni scomodi, Kiev ha deciso il 17 settembre di impedire l’ingresso nel paese a decine di giornalisti stranieri, tra cui tre della Bbc, definiti «una minaccia alla sicurezza nazionale».

L’Ucraina di Poroshenko – l’oligarca arricchitosi col saccheggio delle proprietà statali, del quale il premier Renzi loda la «saggia leadership» – contribuirà anche alla nostra «sicurezza nazionale» partecipando come partner all’esercitazione Nato Trident Juncture 2015 che si svolge in Italia.

Manlio Dinucci

 

‘The dangers posed by Israel are far too great for the international community to continue to ignore!’

An EU poll named Israel as the country that possess the biggest threat to world peace. With an arsenal of undeclared nuclear weapons, a reputation for assassinating political enemies and rising tension with Iran, how dangerous is Israel?

Despite a federal court order to end the 43-year confinement of Albert Woodfox, the last remaining prisoner of the “Angola 3” will have to stand trial for a third time after a District judge on Monday denied a motion to dismiss the case.

Woodfox, who has maintained his innocence in the 1972 killing of Angola prison guard Brent Miller, spent 43 years in solitary confinement in a case that has garnered international condemnation.

Though the charges against him were dropped twice—once in 1992 and again last year—and despite U.S. District Judge James Brady granting him “unconditional release” last June, the state of Louisiana has doggedly pursued Woodfox’s prosecution.

Jasmine Heiss, senior campaigner for Amnesty International USA’s Individuals at Risk program, attended the hearing and issued the following statement on the court decision:

Albert Woodfox has endured over four decades in a cell the size of a parking space. His conviction has been thrown out three occasions. But each time his freedom has seemed within reach, the state of Louisiana has done everything in its power to keep him incarcerated.

Woodfox was moved to solitary confinement before ever being convicted of murder. He has stayed there for four decades, through three overturned convictions, fighting to prove his innocence. Albert Woodfox’s case serves as a harsh condemnation of the U.S. justice system; he remains trapped in both a cell the size of a parking space and in a legal process tainted by racial discrimination, among other glaring flaws. Through all of this, the warden of Angola prison has continued to justify his ongoing isolation based on Woodfox’s association with the Black Panther Party.

Judge Brady’s writ of unconditional release should have ended Albert’s ordeal, yet Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell continues to pursue a campaign of vengeance against him. It’s time for Albert Woodfox to walk free.

Now, pending federal intervention, Woodfox will again be forced to stand trial in West Feliciana Parish where he was twice convicted, despite the defense’s request to change the venue. State District Judge William Carmichael on Monday also denied the defense’s motion to exclude testimony from deceased witnesses on the basis that they could not be cross examined.

Carmichael did rule, however, that Woodfox’s attorneys would for the first time be able to perform DNA testing and compare Woodfox’s fingerprints to those found at the crime scene.

Meanwhile, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is still weighing the state’s appeal of Brady’s ruling.

Supporters maintain that Woodfox, along with fellow inmates, Herman Wallace and Robert King, were wrongfully implicated and punished. King, who was held solitary confinement for 29 years until his release in 2001, continues to advocate for Woodfox’s release. After 40 years of solitary confinement, Wallace was released from prison on October 1, 2013, at age 71. He died the next day.

Russia has just announced a game-changing move in the fight against Monsanto’s GMOs, completely banning the use of genetically modified ingredients in any and all food production.

In other words, Russia just blazed way past the issue of GMO labeling and shut down the use of any and all GMOs that would have otherwise entered the food supply through the creation of packaged foods (and the cultivation of GMO crops).

“As far as genetically-modified organisms are concerned, we have made decision not to use any GMO in food productions,” Deputy PM Arkady Dvorkovich revealed during an international conference on biotechnology.

This is a bold move by the Russian government, and it sits in unison with the newly-ignited global debate on GMOs and the presence of Monsanto in the food supply. It also follows the highly-debated ruling by the World Health Organization that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup is a ‘probable carcinogen.’

But I also want to put it into perspective for you. If this announcement were to be made in the United States, for example, it would mean a total transformation of the food manufacturing industry. But in Russia, the integration of GMOs is not close to the same level as in the U.S.

We know that, in the United States, 90 plus percent of staple crops like corn are genetically modified, along with 94 percent of soybeans and 94 percent of cotton. A ban on GMOs in food production would radically change the entire food supply. In Russia, however, the country is much more poised for a GMO food revolution. [1]

As RT reports:

“According to official statistics the share of GMO in the Russian food industry has declined from 12 percent to just 0.01 percent over the past 10 years, and currently there are just 57 registered food products containing GMO in the country. The law ordering obligatory state registration of GMO products that might contact with the environment will come into force in mid-2017.”

President Vladimir Putin believes that he can keep GMOs out of the country, even while staying in compliance with the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) commandments. In a past meeting addressing the members of the Board of the Russian Federation Council he stated:

“We need to properly construct our work so that it is not contrary to our obligations under the WTO. But even with this in mind, we nevertheless have legitimate methods and instruments to protect our own market, and above all citizens.”

This text by Vladimir Putin dated February 27 2012 outlines the Russian’s president’s foreign policy objectives

Content-analysis of a great number of tweets that triggered the ongoing wave of migration from Turkey to Germany since August this year suggests that these human streams were inspired and channeled from outside of continental Europe.

According to Vladimir Shalak from the Russian Academy of Science who developed the Internet  Content-Analysis System for Twitter ( Scai4Twi), his study of over 19000 refugees-related original tweets (retweets discounted) demonstrates that the vast majority of them mention Germany and Austria as the most refugee-welcoming countries in Europe:

Importantly, 93% of all tweets dedicated to Germany contained positive references to German hospitality and  its refugee policy:

• Germany Yes! Leftists spray a graffiti on a train sayin “Welcome, refugees” in Arabic

• Lovely people – video of Germans welcoming Syrian refugees to their community

• Respect! Football fans saying “Welcome Refugees” across stadiums in Germany.

• This Arabic Graffiti train is running in Dresden welcoming refugees: (ahlan wa sahlan – a warm welcome).

• ‘We love Germany!,’ cry relieved refugees at Munich railway station

• Thousands welcome refugees to Germany – Sky News Australia

• Wherever this German town is that welcomed a coach of Syrian refugees with welcome signs and flowers -thank you.

Analysis of 5704 original tweets containing #RefugeesWelcome” hashtag and a country name lead to even larger gap between Germany and the rest of Europe:

The next step is to study the source twitter accounts where the hashtag #RefugeesWelcome + Germany originate. Next diagram shows the countries of origin of the relevant twitter accounts (where they could be idenfitied):

As you see, only 6,4% of all tweets with “#RefugeesWelcome”+Germany came from Germany itself.Almost half of them were originated from UK, USA and Australia! Looks like your remote planetmates are blushlessly inviting guests to visit your home without inquiring your opinion beforehand!

A couple of popular samples:

Lotte Leicht, director of Human Rights Watch’s Brussels Office, August 30 (source).

Washington Post, September 1 (source).

Further analysis shows that it was only a beginning. A whole army of netbots has galvanized ‘hit-the-fan’ effect to the topic.

On Aug 27 forty automatic netbots @changing_news, @changing_news1,…, @changing_news39 from the United States simultaneously issued the following tweet at 8:00:33AM:

A new welcome: Activists launch home placement service for refugees in Germany and Austria #News #Change #Help

On Sept 1 the same group of netbots releases same tweets with caps on at 22:30:37:

A New Welcome: Activists Launch Home Placement Service For Refugees In Germany And Austria #News #Change #Help

On August 29 at 11.02PMa group of 80 netbots posts the following:

Thousands Welcome Refugees to Germany at Dresden Rally: Thousands of people took to the streets of the German city of Dresden on Satu…

Another group of fifty netbots from Australia (all created on Feb 14, 2014 between 06:02:00 до 06:24:00AM) publish a post on Aug 31 at 17:26:08:

#hot Football Fans in Germany Unite with ‘Refugees Welcome’ Message #prebreak #best

On Sept 1 at 07:29AM 95 netbots owned by Media for Social and Cultural Impact, Dallas, Texas, USA publish the following tweets:

German Soccer Fans Welcome Refugees Amid Ongoing Crisis: As Europe faces the challenge of a wave of migration…

Needless to say that every original tweet was multiplied in dozens of copies and spread Twitter-wide.

Evidently, the logic behind this campaign is to deteriorate social situation in Germany and undermine its economic development. Another target is the social structure of German society. 1 million of refugees coming annually there and supplementing existing 31% of local families having at least one migrant parent, would definitely disbalance the voting structure and secure a loyal leadership in Germany for the decades to come. On the other hand that would instigate ultra-right sentiments within the indigenous population and cause furious clashes between migrants and German radicals. Both processes would result in weakened Germany and diminished EU.

That is the real agenda behind innocent tweeting…

On September 18th, the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights headlined “Statement of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns Ukraine: Lives lost in an accountability vacuum,” and condemned there the current Ukrainian Government in strong language, regarding not only the coup which had brought them to power in February 2014, but regarding also the massacre of the people who on 2 May 2014 had been peacefully demonstrating in Odessa against the coup. Specifically, the ongoing cover-ups by the Ukrainian Government concerning both of these matters were condemned by him.

The High Commissioner, Christof Heyns, said:

By allowing almost immediate access of the scene to ‘pro-unity’ protesters, members of the public or to municipal authorities, investigators lost a large proportion of potentially valuable forensic evidence. Meanwhile I am worried by indications that the Government has significantly reduced the size of the team investigating these events in the past year, before it has had an opportunity to report. The slow progress of the investigation and the lack of transparency with which it is being conducted have contributed to a great deal of public dissatisfaction and provided a fertile environment for rumour and misinformation. It is disconcerting that the Special Unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs that investigates the 2 Mayevents cancelled our appointment in Odessa at short notice, without any explanation.

I am further concerned that administrative and personal impediments seem to have been imposed to prevent or at least discourage the families of those who died from obtaining the status of suffering or affected persons before the Courts. Meanwhile I am greatly alarmed by reports of the extent to which authorities are tolerating both verbal and physical intimidation both of families attending court proceedings and of the judges of those cases, not only outside the court building, but also inside it and in the court room itself.

Here is an excellent video of the coup.

Here is a brief video on the massacre, on 2 May 2014, in Odessa’s Trade Unions Building.

Also of interest might be the following articles:

“Ukraine’s President Poroshenko Admits Overthrow of Yanukovych Was a Coup”

“The Key Man Behind the May 2nd Odessa Ukraine Trade Unions Building Massacre: His Many Connections to the White House”

The Obama Administration has a strong record of installing anti-Russian governments — not only in Ukraine. Obama enabled the 28 June 2009 coup that overthrew Honduras’s progressive democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya to succeed, and enabled the coup’s junta to stay in power though no other head-of-state supported it; and the great investigative journalist Wayne Madsen reports on 21 September 2015 that there is strong reason to believe that the Obama Administration was actually behind the recent coup in Burkino Faso.

Furthermore, the Obama Administration has been involved in unsuccessful coup-plots in Venezuela and Ecuador, according to a 12 March 2015 study by the Council On Hemispheric Affairs. In addition, the Obama Administration bombed Libya and removed Muammar Gaddafi from power there, and is bombing Syria in order to remove Bashar al-Assad from power there. The Obama Administration also has continued the Bush Administration’s policy of “unsigning” to the legal authority of the International Criminal Court, but doesn’t use the same rabid rhetoric against the Court that Obama’s predecessor did. The Obama Administration has also taken a strong anti-Russian position on virtually everything at the United Nations, such as by voting against a Russian-supported resolution condemning fascism in all its forms (including Holocaust-denial), which resolution passed overwhelmingly and was opposed by only three governments: U.S., Ukraine, and Canada.

Obama is highly critical of Russia, and of its leader, Vladimir Putin. The U.S. White House in February issued its National Security Strategy 2015, and it used the pejorative term “aggression” 18 times, 17 of which referred to Russia.

So, the U.N. High Commissioner’s statement condemning the Ukrainian Government’s cover-ups might be viewed in Washington as simply the UN’s taking the pro-Russian side. Psychopaths could view it that way. But other people will (like the UN) oppose cover-ups — and oppose Obama’s international policies (such as those described). Indeed, the only U.S. President who has been as hostile toward the UN as Obama is, was his immediate predecessor, whose policies Obama publicly opposed when running for the U.S. Presidency in 2008. And, then, in his 2012 re-election campaign, Obama vocally criticizedhis opponent Mitt Romney’s statement that Russia “is without question our number one geopolitical foe.” But, now, Obama cites Russia 17 out of 18 times for “aggression.”

Geir Lundestad, who was the Director of the Nobel Institute, and Secretary of the Peace Prize Committee, at the time when Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, recently said that “giving Obama a helping hand” was the reason why the Committee awarded Obama the Prize, but that doing this “did not achieve what the committee had hoped for.” However, he denied “that it was a mistake to give Obama the Peace Prize.” Even all of those coups and massacres don’t mean it was a mistake. Maybe it wasn’t much different from “what the committee had hoped for.” After all: Norway, and its Nobel Institute, is a U.S. ally. Unlike the United Nations, it onlypretends to represent the interests of all people everywhere.

 

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

 

Successive meetings fail to reach an agreement on how to deal with refugees from oppressed nations

Tens of thousands of migrants are living under precarious conditions in Hungary and Croatia as well as other states in the European Union (EU).

Police used water cannon and teargas to beat down migrants in Hungary. Thousands have been forced into detention centers where they are treated in a manner which has sent shockwaves throughout Europe and the international community.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said that the migration of people from the Middle East, Africa and Asia threatened the borders of Europe. He called for concerted efforts to block any imposition of quotas for the intake of migrants instead taking militarized and criminal justice approaches to the crisis which the European and North American imperialist states are largely responsible.

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported on September 21 that “Viktor Orban said migrants were ‘breaking the doors’ and that a united stance was required. Ministers from Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia met to discuss an EU proposal for quotas, which they oppose.”

This article noted most importantly “Some EU countries want migrants shared out more evenly across the EU. Germany and France are among those who back plans to share the burden of relocating 120,000 migrants from Greece, Italy and Hungary.”

Illustrating the hostility of the Hungarian government, Budapest placed ads in media outlets where many migrants originate. Lebanon’s newspaper An Nahar on September 21 published a full-page announcement warning people not to come to Hungary.

This ad read in part that “Hungarians are hospitable, but the strongest possible action is taken against those who attempt to enter Hungary illegally. The illegal crossing of the country’s border is a crime punishable by imprisonment. Do not listen to the people-smugglers. Hungary will not allow illegal immigrants to cross its territory.” (Reuters)

A Hungarian legislative measure against migrants was passed recently with the support the Jobbik party, an organization that appears to be even further to the right of Orban’s center-right Fidesz party which it blocked with in the vote, passing the new measures counting 151 in favor to 12 against and 27 abstentions in the 199-member national assembly.

Orban’s government also announced it would send the military to the borders authorizing it through legislation to utilize rubber bullets, pyrotechnical devices, tear gas grenades or net guns. These weapons are being adding to an already deadly arsenal which the police have not hesitated to use against migrants including batons, teargas and water hoses.

The right-wing Hungarian leader stressed “Europe is rich but weak. That is the most dangerous combination possible. The result … is catastrophic. Because Europe cannot defend its external borders, internal borders are shut again. We need to rethink many European inventions, institutions and treaties. But until we do we cannot sit idle. Until the EU states act as one, member states will be forced to go out of their way to fend off this brutal threat.” (Reuters)

In Croatia a similar situation is developing. Migrants have been trapped inside the country unable to travel freely into Hungary or other neighboring states.

Over 17,000 people have crossed over into Croatia during the period of September 16-21, after being forced out from Serbia and being incapable of moving into Slovenia. Croatian Interior Minister Ranko Ostojic said “The situation is impossible for us.”

Ostojoic talked with the international press while standing at a camp for migrants in Opatovac on the border with Serbia saying that Croatia is the victim of Europe’s failed response to the crisis.” (NBC News, September 21)

In addition, Ostojic was scheduled to participate in a series of talks set to convene on the crisis during the week of September 21. He called upon European heads-of-state to “come here and see the situation for themselves.”

War of regime-change and the world economic crisis has created a mass migration from the Middle East, Africa and Asia, the largest of such a dislocation since the conclusion of World War II. European and North American imperialist powers act today as if they have nothing to do with the current situation involving the scattering of millions from Syria, Libya, Nigeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, South Asia and other regions.

Nonetheless, the EU leaders such as Angela Merkel of Germany and Francois Hollande of France speak as if they are concerned with the plight of those who flooding into Southern and Eastern Europe. The United States administration of President Barack Obama announced that it would take in anywhere between 10,000-100,000 people from Syria.

These empty proclamations are not improving the conditions under which the migrants are living and being treated or any reassurances to the governments in the EU who are being hit first hand with the impact of the failed policies of the Pentagon and NATO.

Reports of political talks between the State Department and the Russian Foreign Ministry on reaching a political settlement in Syria may be an effort to stem the tide of migration. The continuation of this crisis will undoubtedly place greater strains on relations among the NATO member-states in Europe and North America.

The Global Context of the Migration Crisis

These pronouncements from EU and U.S. leaders come within the context of the continued bombing and destabilization of states throughout the region where the migrants are fleeing.

Since the conclusion of World War II the U.S. has fought to maintain its position as the dominant imperialist nation. Wars in Korea, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa have brought massive deaths, injuries, economic hardships and dislocation.

Rather than allow the peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America to determine their own destiny, Washington, Wall Street and their European allies have sought to prevent the genuine national independence and sovereignty of the former colonial and semi-colonial territories. Periodic economic crises have also added to the uncertainty of the viability of the post-colonial states.

Despite the ostensibly more “humane and liberal” statements coming from Germany and other governments, the Europeans appears to be totally incapable of receiving and integrating up to several million people from the Middle East, Africa and Asia. In even the most advanced states in Europe such as France, Britain and Germany unemployment remains high and poverty is rising.

Rebellions resulting from racism and national oppression have occurred just over the last decade in France, Britain and Sweden. Right-wing and fascist parties have gained official positions in municipalities and within parliaments in several EU countries pushing more center-right regimes to enact draconian measures specifically directed against oppressed peoples and migrants.

120,000 people being allowed to “legally settle” in the EU states will not by any means solve the problems of migration. There are over 4 million Syrians who have been forced to leave their country and are residing in Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and other states.

In addition, millions more are seeking to enter Europe through the North African and Mediterranean networks established by human traffickers. The failure of the imperialist project in Libya in the aftermath of the massive bombing and ground operations of 2011 provides fertile ground for the transfer of millions.

This crisis was precipitated by the imperialist wars of regime-change and the continuing capitalist downturn which have impacted billions internationally. Consequently, if the EU and the U.S. has not been able to create a non-racial environment for those already in these states, then the prospects for those pouring in during 2015 remains dire.

Has David Cameron instructed DECC to omit his Witney constituency from the areas currently under offer in the 14th round of onshore licensing? Below is a map of his constituency shown in blue, with adjacent constituencies outlined in black.

The red boundaries with the hatched areas mark the 14th round offer acreage on offer. The acreage is made up of 10 km x 10 km blocks, based on the Ordnance Survey grid. The ‘island’ square to the east of Witney comprises nine such blocks. Existing onshore oil and gas exploration wells are shown by the red dots. DECC will be announcing the licence awards within the next couple of months.

As you probably know, DECC’s 14th onshore round of licensing is designed to open up for exploration all the areas which have even the slightest potential for shale gas or oil. Basically this means the whole of the UK, except for the mountainous and upland areas where there is crystalline rock at the surface, and no prospect whatsoever for shale fracking. So the Highlands and Southern Uplands of Scotland are omitted, together with the Lake District, most of Wales, and Cornwall. The regional map below shows the geology of Wales and southern England in a variety of colours, with the 14th round offer areas and existing wells on top. Witney is in solid blue.

Inexplicably, DECC has omitted from the offer a big swathe of eastern England, extending from David Cameron’s Witney constituency eastwards to the coast of East Anglia. I say ‘inexplicably’, because there is nothing about the geology of this region that particularly warrants its exclusion. DECC normally takes a pragmatic approach to licensing, and one of the guides to licensing new areas is to take into account whether there has been past interest by the oil industry. Evidence for this is best shown by the drilling history. For example, around Witney there are a score or more of old oil exploration wells within a distance of 10-20 km. Within the east of England ‘exclusion zone’ there are two islands of blocks on offer, and although the historical well density is fairly low there has clearly been past oil industry interest in the region. The Witney constituency itself is densely covered by seismic profiles – another indicator of exploration interest – and the area was licensed for oil exploration in awards made in 1971 and 1981. In addition, one of the seven UK regional seismic profiles compiled on behalf of DECC by the UK Onshore Geophysical Library runs right through Witney town.

The surface geology is shown in colour on the map above, and although this picture is not necessarily a reliable guide to the geology at depths of more than a kilometre or so, we do know that the upper layers of rocks in the south-east are of Mesozoic and Tertiary age, and that these contain several important shale and clay layers, possibly suitable for fracking. The Witney constituency is no exception.

An FOI enquiry to DECC about the reason for the east of England exclusion zone elicited the following response:

… the areas included for offer in the 14th Onshore Round were primarily determined by the underlying geology indicating to DECC that hydrocarbons could be present in those regions.

However, where an active interest has been expressed by third parties that they would like to explore additional areas for hydrocarbon prospectivity, such areas may be included in the acreage on offer. This includes the 30km x 30km region encompassing Brackley, Buckingham and Bicester.

Although this explanation might possibly account for the inclusion of the more westerly of the two island blocks within the exclusion zone, it fails to explain adequately why the Witney area (a 30 km by 40 km set of twelve blocks) has been excluded. If the island of blocks referred to by DECC and included in the offer really is the subject of “active interest” then a more rational 14th round offer map, based on exploration potential, together with expressions of interest, would have been to place the western boundary of the exclusion zone to the east of this block, in the Bletchley-Aylesbury area.

So non-geological reasons must have played a part in the specific exclusion of Witney from the 14th round offer. DECC should be required to explain its choice of blocks in this area. Was there an expression of disinterest, and if so, from whom? The constituents of north Yorkshire and north Nottinghamshire, currently under threat of planning applications to frack, must be wishing that they had such an influential MP as David Cameron.

I thank Christopher Tedd and Sandie Moore for drawing my attention to the Witney mystery.

Big Lies continue circulating, claiming a Russian military buildup in Syria, reminiscent of fabricated accusations of “Russian aggression” in Ukraine, long ago discredited.

Russia is Europe’s leading force for peace, stability, nation-state sovereign independence, the inviolability of international law, and against countries interfering in the internal affairs of others.

Putin, Sergey Lavrov and other Russian officials have gone all-out to resolve conflicts in Ukraine and Syria diplomatically – the only effective solution. Anti-Russian propaganda claiming otherwise stems from Washington’s longtime regime change objective – Western media in lockstep with its destructive imperial agenda.

New York Times editors  bash Russia, inventing reasons when none exist, substituting managed news misinformation and Big Lies for hard truths, betraying their readers deserving better.

On September 21, they headlined “Mr. Putin’s Mixed Messages on Syria,” claiming he’s “dangerously building up Russia’s military presence there, while positioning himself as the world’s savior against Islamic extremists and holding high-level military-to-military talks with the United States.”

Fact: Not a shred of evidence indicates Russian combat forces in Syria or intention to deploy them.

Fact: Putin promotes peace, stability and mutual cooperation among all nations. Obama wants endless wars for unchallenged world dominance. Millions of corpses attest to his barbarity.

Times editors:

“Mr. Putin is expected to use his speech to the United Nations General Assembly to make the case for an international coalition against the Islamic State, apparently ignoring the one already being led by the United States.”

“But his buildup also serves his effort to save his imperiled client, President Bashar al-Assad, and may also be intended to establish a Russian military outpost in the Middle East.”

Fact: America’s so-called “coalition” is an alliance of rogue states against peace and stability, involved in naked aggression against a nation threatening no others.

Fact: Putin has every right to aid a longtime ally in need. He’s doing it responsibly.

Fact: His so-called regional “military outpost” or “foothold” consists of a small Soviet era Tartus, Syria naval supply and maintenance facility established under a 1971 agreement.

Fact: Washington has dozens of regional military bases, well over 1,000 worldwide, plus unknown numbers of secret ones – compared to Russia’s military based largely within its borders, only a handful abroad in neighboring countries.

Times editors:

“No one should be fooled about Russia’s culpability in Syria’s agony. Mr. Putin could have helped prevent the fighting that has killed more than 250,000 Syrians and displaced millions more, had he worked with other major powers in 2011 to keep Mr. Assad from waging war on his people following peaceful anti-government protests.”

Fact: No responsible editors would touch this type rubbish. Times editors feature it – polar opposite cold, hard truths.

Fact: Putin is an antidote to regional violence. Obama bears full responsibility for “Syria’s agony.” Times propaganda conceals it – complicit with US mass murder, supporting what demands denunciation.

Fact: In March 2011, Obama launched proxy war on Syria, using imported terrorists to do his dirty work.

Fact: Throughout endless conflict, Assad continues defending his nation and people responsibly – battling imported US enlisted Islamic State and other takfiri terrorists, largely non-Syrians, recruited abroad.

Times editors: “The main impediment” to resolving Syria’s conflict “has been Mr. Putin’s insistence that Mr. Assad remain in power.”

Fact: Putin “insist(s)” Syrians alone may decide who’ll lead them, no one else, as international law stipulates, what Washington consistently violates, what Times editors ignore – disgracefully supporting US officials saying “Assad must go.”

Only if Syrians say so, never outsiders for any reason – especially to create another US controlled regional puppet state assured of endless violence, chaos and human misery like all nations Washington attacks.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PMCentral time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

Germany’s ZDF public television network headlines on Tuesday September 22nd, “New U.S. Atomic Weapons to Be Stationed in Germany,” and reports that the U.S. will bring into Germany 20 new nuclear bombs, each being four times the destructive power of the one that was used on Hiroshima. Hans Kristensen, the Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, says, “With the new bombs the boundaries blur between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.” 

A former Parliamentary State Secretary in Germany’s Defense Ministry, Willy Wimmer, of Chancellor Merkel’s own conservative party, the Christian Democratic Union, warns that these “new attack options against Russia” constitute “a conscious provocation of our Russian neighbors.”

German Economic News also reports on Chancellor Merkel’s decision to allow these terror-weapons against Russia: “The Bundestag decided in 2009, expressing the will of most Germans, that the US should withdraw its nuclear weapons from Germany. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel did nothing.” And now she okays the U.S. to increase America’s German-based nuclear arsenal against Russia.

Maria Zakharova, of the Russian Foreign Ministry, says: “This is an infringement of Articles 1 and 2 of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” which is the treaty that provides non-nuclear states the assurance that the existing nuclear powers will not try to use their nuclear status so as to take over the world.

German Economic News says:

“The federal government had demanded the exact opposite: The Bundestag decided in March 2010 by a large majority, that the federal government should ‘press for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany.’ Even the coalition agreement between the CDU and FDP, the German government in 2009 had promised the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Büchel. But instead there will be these new bombs.”

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The US’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission just cancelled its study into cancer near nuclear plants citing the ‘excessive cost’ of $8 million, writes Chris Busby. Of course that’s rubbish – similar studies in the UK have been carried out for as little as £600 per site, and in any case $8 million is small change for the NRC. The real reason is to suppress the unavoidable conclusion: nuclear power kills.

After spending some $1.5 million and more than five years on developing strategies to answer the question of increases of cancer near nuclear facilities, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) last week reported that they would not continue with the process. They would knock it on the head [1].

This poisoned chalice has been passed between the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the NRC since 2009 when public and political pressure was brought to bear on the USNRC to update a 1990 study of the issue, a study which was widely seen by the public to be a whitewash.

The NCR quickly passed the unwelcome task up to the NAS. It requested that the NAS provide an assessment of cancer risks in populations living ‘near’ the NRC-licenced nuclear facilities that utilize and process Uranium. This included 104 operating nuclear reactors in 31 States and 13 fuel cycle facilities in operation in 10 States.

The NRC request was to be carried out by NAS in two phases. Phase 1 was a scoping study to inform design of the study to be begun in Phase 2 and to recommend the best organisation to carry out the work.

The Phase 1 report was finished in May 2012. The best ‘state of the art’ methods were listed and the job of carrying out the actual study, a pilot study, was sent to: Guess who? The NRC. The poisoned chalice was back home. The NRC was now in a corner: what could they do?

If you don’t like the truth … suppress it

The committee sat for three years thinking about this during which time more and more evidence emerged that if it actually carried out the pilot study, it would find something bad. It had to escape. It did. It cancelled it. The reason given was that it would cost $8 million just to do the pilot study of cancer near the seven sites NAS had selected in its 600 page Phase 1 report. [2]

So despite the truly enormous amount of information that has emerged about the adverse health effects of releases of radioactivity since 1990, no official investigation will be carried out. The nuclear industry is now in a corner.

Its only way forward is to continue with what is now clearly definable as a psychosis: a failure to compare belief with reality. It has to stick its fingers in its ears put on the blindfold and soldier on.

But this recent move of the NRC was unexpected. The closure of the study is hard for it to explain to Congress, the Senate and the public. Because even if it does cost $8 million, what is that compared with saving the lives of the thousands – or millions, if we take the whole radiation risk model?

On the European Child Health Committee PINCHE [3] there was a French statistician who told me that the sum they put on a single child leukemia was $1.7M. I bet you didn’t know they have costed it. NRCs best option (and I suspect their original plan) would have been to carry out some more dodgy epidemiology, like the 1990 study.

There are many ways to lose your statistical significance

It is not difficult to carry out an epidemiological study of cancer near any point source of radioactive contamination. But it is fairly easy to design the study in such a way that you find no effect.

They could have asked the UK’s COMARE [4] and their friends the leukemia cluster busters SAHSU [5] at Imperial College London, or better the Wales Cancer Intelligence Unit [6] in Cardiff.

When the NAS began their Phase 1 discussion on best methodology, what they called ‘State of the Art’, we followed developments with some interest. Indeed, in a bogus request for inputs NAS invited comments and suggestions. This is the modern democratic fig-leaf for all these decision-making processes where the outcome has already been decided.

We sent in our suggestions (which have been published recently [7]) and others did also, for example Ernest Sternglass’s outfit, the Radiation and Public Health Project RPH in New York, which had published several studies of cancer near US nuclear sites [8] and a book by Dr Jay Gould, The Enemy Within. None of the suggestions were acknowledged by the NAS or incorporated in any way.

What you need is the sex and age breakdown of the populations living close to the site (less than 10km) or near where the releases from the site end up (e.g. downwinders as in Trawsfynydd, or those near contaminated coasts as in Hinkley Point and Bradwell).

What NAS proposed you needed (like COMARE) was population data of those living inside 50 km from the nuclear source. 50 kilometres? How much radioactivity is going to travel 50 kilometres? The German KiKK study of child leukemia [9] found the effects inside 5km (about 3 miles). We found our breast cancer effects within 5 miles of the contamination. A 50km study would dilute any effect out of existence.

Of course also it is good to have some data about where the contamination goes. So you would look at downwind populations or those near where the liquid releases end up. But ‘State of the Art’ for the NAS was the usual absurdity of drawing circles around the point source.

This also dilutes any contaminated sector with those unexposed living in the (larger) uncontaminated sector. What NAS majored on was the need to quantify releases and calculate the doses from that data. The reason was obvious. They wanted to say that the doses were so small (below background) that they would not find anything.

All proceeding to plan, but then a nasty snag

Indeed, in the final 2012 Phase 1 report, the NAS committee stated exactly that. One of their main findings was low expected statistical power:

Doses resulting from monitored and reported radioactive effluent releases from nuclear facilities are expected to be low. As a consequence, epidemiologic studies of cancer risk in populations near nuclear facilities may not have adequate statistical power to detect the presumed small increases in cancer risks arising from these monitored and reported releases.

That is: we won’t be able to find anything because we already know that we can’t find anything. They include their expected result in the initial protocols.

And just to underline this, they present the first of their three preferred study designs. Risk-projection models, they write,

estimate cancer risks by combining population radiation dose and/or dose surrogate (e.g., distance and direction from a nuclear facility) estimates with risk coefficients derived from epidemiologic studies of other exposed populations, for example, Japanese atomic bombing survivors. Risk-projection models can be used to estimate population-based cancer risks for any facility type, population size, and time period.

But since the doses from the Japanese study necessary to give a 50% increase in cancer risk are more than 1000mSv, and the doses calculated by the current risk model for releases from nuclear sites are less than 0.1mSv, the increase in cancer expected from the Japanese based ICRP model would not be measurable.

The NAS could not reasonably exclude the one epidemiological method which would have turned up a result. Thus ecologic studies

estimate cancer risks by comparing observed cancer incidence and/or mortality rates in populations, considered as a group rather than as individuals, as a function of average radiation doses and/or dose surrogates for those populations.

That is the obvious one, the one we use. It is to choose a group close to the plant and see if the cancer rates are high. Rather than predicting that they cannot be detected. And this is the reason they could not continue: because they would have found significant effect.

How much should it cost?

The NRC state it will cost $8 million to study the seven NAS proposed pilot sites. These are the six nuclear power stations at Dresden, Millstone, Oyster Creek, Haddam Neck, Big Rock Point, San Onofre and the nuclear fuel site at Erwin Tennessee.

This is a pilot study: that means it is looking to see if there is a problem, if there is a high rate of cancer near the plants, and that reliance upon the Japanese A-Bomb comparison is unsafe.

So all they really need is the predicted or measured places where the accumulated radioactive contamination has ended up (e.g. downwind and close to the site or the local coast) and cancer and demographic data for the people who live there; then either a nearby control group or a State average rate for comparison, perhaps both.

We carried out the Bradwell study for £600 [10]. Essex Health authority commissioned the Small Area Health Statistics Unit SAHSU (the government’s leukemia cluster busters) and paid for £35,000 to check our results. Take the Millstone site in Connecticut, a power station I am familiar with and have visited in connection with a court case [11].

Millstone is a dirty power station: its radioactive discharges end up in tidal Long Island Sound and the estuary of the Thames River. The tidal range in this area is 1.5m so there is plenty of mud uncovered at low water, like Bradwell and Hinkley Point.

I looked at breast cancer in Connecticut. Guess what? The coastal Long Island Sound Counties have the high rates of breast cancer [12]. This is at county level its true but it is a pointer to what they would find. And probably they have already checked this out. They know what they will find.

But who are these people? The usual suspects

When the NRC were selecting the committees, I suggested myself. I had a track record of examining cancer rates near nuclear sites in the UK (I wrote).

Surprisingly, they didn’t take up my offer, but peopled the committee with mathematical physicists and individuals with no knowledge of epidemiology and no history of studying those exposed to radioactive contamination.

Many of the people on the committee were connected with the nuclear industry, or depended on the nuclear industry for their funding. Of course, 90% of the funding of the NRC itself is from the nuclear industry and its allies but surely we expect better from the National Academy?

On the NAS website the members of the Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board NRSB are listed. Normally there is linked a biography page. When you look for the NRSB biography page you get Missing Content: bios page is not available for board: nrsb [13]

Here is why. There is one epidemiologist Martha Linet, but she is a member of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Epidemiology committee and also the NCRP full committee. Seven board members are mathematical statisticians and physicists, two are waste management engineers, there is a woman professor of cancer care, and two mineralogists.

Four work directly for the nuclear industry. One of the mathematical physicists is Fred Mettler Jr, also on the ICRP and the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA. He also makes a living as an expert witness in radiation cases as I know having been up against him in New Orleans. No conflict of interest there then.

The only good guy on this committee is David Brenner of Columbia, an Englishman from Liverpool, but again a physicist and radiobiologist.

The plain fact is that this is an issue in epidemiology. The committee should have comprised medical and environmental epidemiologists. What possible need is there for mathematical physicists and engineers?

The UK’s Hinkley Point nuclear complex kills babies

Let’s bring this back home to get some perspective. Let’s be clear about what is going on.

This NRC decision is a continuation of the cover up of the effects of low dose internal radiation exposure, the biggest public health scandal in human history where millions have been sacrificed on the altar of the Uranium economy and nuclear weapons.

In the last few months I have started to put all my 20 years of research into the peer-review literature. I have reported the increased levels of breast cancer deaths near Bradwell and Trawsfynydd.

Last week we published the Hinkley Point study [14] where we shifted our focus from cancer to infant deaths and stillbirths, also indicators of genetic damage, and showed that the nuclear plant releases kill children as well as adults. Naturally we also found excess adult cancer there, and Bowie and Ewings previously (1988) reported the usual local excess childhood leukemia.

Our Hinkley Point study was a forensic investigation of causation. We began by looking at a large area of Somerset, some 115 wards between 1993 and 2005 and compared those near the sea or the muddy estuary of the tidal River Parratt (cf. Bradwell) with inland wards.

We carried out some fancy statistical regressions of distance from the contaminated Steart Flats (the historic repository of the releases from Hinkley Point) and infant and perinatal mortality over the period. It is well accepted that infant mortality is caused by deprivation so we included the ward index of deprivation in the regression.

Astonishingly the results showed that it was not deprivation that killed infants in Somerset. It was Hinkley Point. Deprivation was not statistically significant, not in Somerset. When we slowly statistically crept up on the cause of the infant deaths it turned out to partly relate to an accidental release of radioactivity in 1996 for which the plant was fined £20,000 by the regulators.

The downwind town of Burnham-on-Sea, located adjacent to the contaminated mud flats, and which had the breast cancer cluster also naturally had the highest levels of infant mortality.

In Burnham North there was a significant 70% excess mortality risk for breast cancer between 1997-2005 RR = 1.7 p = 0.001 (41 deaths observed and 24 expected). Between 1993 and 1998 excess risk for infant mortality in the town was 330% (RR = 4.3; p = 0.01) and for neonatal mortality RR = 6.7; p = 0.003 based on 4 deaths.

Sex-ratio at birth (an indicator of genetic damage) was anomalous in Burnham-on-Sea over the whole study period with 1175 (boys to 1000 girls) expected rate 1055.

The same cover up in the UK

I like to think that I had something to do with the NRC cancellation, which has come just after this, our third nuclear site cancer paper, hit the streets. The NRC and the NAS have their equivalent cover-up artists in the UK.

The Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters COMARE, the National Radiological Protection Board NRPB, SAHSU, the Royal Society. Much the same thing happened to the original version of the Bradwell breast cancer study, part of the Committee Examining Radiation Risks from Internal Emitters CERRIE in 2001-2004.

There was a joint epidemiological study. Three groups looked at the wards near Bradwell to see who was correct about the breast cancers. Busby, Wakeford (for the nuclear industry) and Muirhead of NRPB (also for the nuclear industry). But in the several meetings of the ‘CERRIE Epidemiological Sub Committee’ it emerged that there was indeed a statistically significant effect.

At this point the Minister Michael Meacher was sacked and replaced by Tony Blair (war criminal) [15] with Elliot Morley MP (later an actual jailed criminal [16] and like the NRC/ NAS circus, the Bradwell / CERRIE study was shut down.

For me, dishonest scientists in this area, responsible for supporting an industry which they know is killing people – like some of those on the NAS and NRC boards – should also be prosecuted in a court of scientific fraud [17].

I have a little list.

Chris Busby is an expert on the health effects of ionizing radiation. He qualified in Chemical Physics at the Universities of London and Kent, and worked on the molecular physical chemistry of living cells for the Wellcome Foundation. Professor Busby is the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk based in Brussels and has edited many of its publications since its founding in 1998. He has held a number of honorary University positions, including Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Health of the University of Ulster. Busby currently lives in Riga, Latvia. See also:chrisbusbyexposed.org, greenaudit.org and llrc.org.

References

1. http://safeenergy.org/2015/09/14/nrc-drops-cancer-study/

2. http://dels.nas.edu/global/nrsb/CancerRisk

3. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/08035320600886653/abstract

4. https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/committee-on-medical-aspects-of-radiation-in-the-environment-comare

5. http://www.sahsu.org/

6. http://www.wcisu.wales.nhs.uk/home

7. http://jacobspublishers.com/index.php/journal-of-epidemiology-current-edition

8. http://radiation.org/about/index.html

9.http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2525488/nuclear_power_stations_cause_childhood_leukemia_and_heres_the_proof.html

10. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3116620/Nuclear-power-station-cancer-warning-Breast-cancer-rates-FIVE-TIMES-higher-Welsh-plant-twice-high-Essex-Somerset-sites-experts-reveal.html

11. http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/routinereleases/busbyonmillstone32001.htm

12. http://www.cancer-rates.info/ct/index.php

13. http://dels.nas.edu/global/nrsb/BoardBios

14. http://epidemiology.jacobspublishers.com/index.php/articles-epidemology/article-in-press-epidemology

15. http://www.brusselstribunal.org/KLWarCrimes2011.htm

16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliot_Morley

17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOI-wpMlq28

18. http://dels.nas.edu/global/nrsb/CancerRisk

Greeks are the victim[s] of anti-democratic and criminal policies that carry with them the threat of a humanitarian crisis. Zoi Konstantopoulou, The Daily Beast, Sep 20, 2015

Alexis Tsipras of Syriza has clearly decided that the election is one of the best ways of sanctifying controversial programs. (Greece has had five in six years.) Earlier this year, having promised an anti-austerity stance, Tsipras gradually, then dramatically, changed his tune. Syriza, it seemed, was shedding its skin in government. They were becoming the very managing technocrats they had despised.

The Troika, breathing heavily down Tsipras’ neck, and the economic fundamentalists insisting that belt tightening, slashing budgets and imposed taxes were the way to go, got what they wanted: Greek capitulation. The stormy narrative of blackmail, giving Greek citizens the impression that a vote against any austerity measure directed by the EU and facilitated by the banking system would be a vote against Europe, had worked.

This message certainly got through to Tsipras, who started to veer erratically despite claiming to be a shining hope against the Troika’s financial vultures. While he did have the mandate to fall back on in July, loans were maturing and payments due. His justification for then accepting yet another bailout package, this time over three years totalling $97 billion, seemed like a total surrender. As he prevaricated, the economic situation worsened further, and banking restrictions were introduced to prevent a run.

The move by Tsipras was justified using the EU’s rhetoric: not accepting the very bailout he had campaigned against meant an effective withdrawal from the union. Tsipras was placing country above party, a curious term of reference given that his country was effectively being bargained away. This all seemed a cruel act of bandaging, a temporary suspension of chaos.

The anti-austerity advocates who insisted that a program without actual incentives for economic growth was no program at all, were shunted aside. The finance minister Yanis Varoufakis received what effectively were marching orders to pacify the stormy waters of negotiation and was left battling the bailout measures as a backbencher.

As Tariq Ali suggested, the date of “12 July 2015, when Tsipras agreed to the EU’s terms, will become as infamous as 21 April 1967.” One coup, effectively, entailed finance and the banksters; the other, tanks and the military junta.

This election, precipitated by Tsipras’ loss of a parliamentary majority, was effectively an attempt to quell the influence of the anti-austerity camp within Syriza itself. Some had left to form the Popular Unity party (LEA), though it fell short of the parliamentary threshold of 3 percent. “We lost the battle, but not the war,” claimed the new party’s head, Panagiotis Lafazanis, Tspiras’ disgruntled former energy minister.

Effectively, the anti-bailout grouping has been reduced to those among the extreme nationalist Gold Dawn and Communist Party within parliament, and Popular Unity from without. This is a far cry from January, when the austerity campers were given the fright of their lives with Syriza’s victory.

Opponents this time around were hoping that the coalition had been sufficiently weakened by the loss of its majority in July for New Democracy to take over, but there is, in substance, very little difference between the main parties. This was Tsipras in the realm of cosmetics and appearances, retaining some modified slogans, and still giving the impression that Syzira was the barnstorming party of old. It seemed an exhausted vote over terms people already knew would be implemented, irrespective of who won.Syriza got 35.5 percent to New Democracy’s 28.2, and Tsipras is now in a situation he was in before, negotiating with Panos Kammenos of the Independent Greeks Party, who should seriously consider renaming his party with the “Independent” tag dropped.

The language from EU ministers to this election result was certainly less hostile than it had been in earlier July, when Greek electors voted to repudiate the terms of the third EU bailout in the July 5 referendum. Tsipras was doing what was expected: shoring up support in parliament to keep the creditors happy.

EU Commission spokesman Margaritis Schinas represented the mood in purely financial terms. The EU, he claimed, was pleased at the “ample representation of pro-European political parties in the Greek parliament, defending the need for a strong Europe within the euro area.”[1] Never mind a weaker, unequal Greece – all was being done for the euro.

For all that, the leopards of EU administration have not changed their spots. Martin Schulz, the European parliament’s president, could not resist that habitual anti-democratic tendency from Brussels, calling Tsipras “a second time to ask him why he was continuing a coalition with this strange, far-right party.”

What this election result simply does is prolong the anti-democratic program of suffering, with an electoral gloss that gives the impression that Greece’s sovereignty has somehow been spared. Subjugation, in other words, will continue. The financial occupation of Greece must, after all, be managed.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Note

 [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11879167/Tsipras-Syriza-win-Greek-elections-live-reaction.html

A highly fluid political situation has been developing in the West African state of Burkina Faso after an elite military unit seized power on September 17, just weeks ahead of a scheduled national election on October 11.

Prior to the declaration of a military coup, the interim President Michel Kafando and Prime Minister Isaac Zida were placed under house arrest. The interim president was released after several days while protests erupted over the attempt to halt the upcoming poll.

The former head of the intelligence division of the Presidential Security Regiment, Gen. Gilbert Diendere, was placed at the command of the coup regime which called itself the National Council for Democracy.

Diendere was a close collaborator of the former leader Blaise Compaore who overthrew and assassinated Pan-Africanist and Socialist head-of-state Capt. Thomas Sankara, after he ruled the underdeveloped former French colony during 1983-87.

In late October 2014, hundreds of thousands of workers and youth stormed the parliament in the capital of Ouagadougou ousting former military dictator turned politician, Blaise Compaore, a staunch ally of France and the United States. Compaore fled to neighboring Ivory Coast while a compromised interim government was established to prepare for internationally-supervised elections in October 2015.

A team of mediators deployed to Burkina Faso by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) announced on September 20 that a compromise had been worked out to resolve the crisis. Senegalese President Macky Sall said that Diendere would step down in exchange for the participation of Compaore in the October elections.

Also the regiment was demanding a declaration of amnesty preventing any future attempts to prosecute them for crimes against the Burkinabe people. Over the course of the most recent coup, 10 people have been killed and over 100 injured.

However, Diendere was not present at the press conference where the ECOWAS meditation team’s negotiated agreement was presented to the media. Speculation mounted that the regiment leaders would seek to cling on to power prompting plans for a march on the capital by the broader military forces backed up by political organizations opposing the coup.

Later on September 20, Diendere said that he would remain in power until after the elections were held. This statement set off the opposition forces who expressed their determination to drive the coup leaders from the capital.

Cadres from mass organizations erected barricades around Ouagadougou following the proclamation by Diendere. Serge “Smockey” Bambara, the leader of the Citizen’s Broom organization, wrote on his facebook page that “Our country calls us comrades! We must paralyze Ouagadougou by any means.”

Reports said that pro-coup elements led by the regiment attempted to storm the hotel where the talks to resolve the crisis were being held. Other military elements within the broader army became restless recognizing the potential for further unrest.

Members of Balai Citoyen involved in the mediation were among those attacked by masked presidential guard soldiers who burst into the Leico Hotel earlier in the day on September 20, as they waved assault rifles, pistols and shotguns.

Nonetheless, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reported on September 21 that Diendere had said that he would relinquish power after all. Rumors circulated that the coup leader had gone into hiding.

The BBC World Service posted on its website that “The coup leader in Burkina Faso has said he is ready to hand over power to transitional civilian authorities, as the army is marching on the capital. Gen. Gilbert Diendere, who led last Thursday’s coup (September 17) by the presidential guard, also apologized to the nation. The military earlier said troops were moving on to Ouagadougou, adding that the plotters must disarm.”

Background to the Present Crisis

This military seizure of power led by the Presidential Guard Regiment in Ouagadougou was clearly carried out to halt the national elections scheduled for October 11. In recent weeks the interim authorities agreed to disband the regiment after the seating of a new government which would emerge from the electoral process.

The conditions for the elections and the interim government would never have been implemented without the mass rebellion in October 2014 that toppled the former military regime in civilian clothes headed by Compaore. During the course of the unrest that created the conditions for the expulsion of Compaore, thousands of youth wore shirts and carried banners with the image of Sankara, evoking the revolutionary anti-imperialist period of the mid-1980s.

Much concern has been voiced over the effectiveness of the regional mediation team after several days passed and the ECOWAS delegation had failed to end the crisis.

The African Union (AU) subsequently imposed sanctions on the coup leaders. In theory, the AU rejects all undemocratic seizures of power throughout the region and is mandated to work towards the restoration of civilian rule.

In response to the domestic and international outcry there was an announcement on Sept. 18 that the interim president had been released from detention.

Burkina Faso, a former French colony, has been a base for intelligence and military operations coordinated by Paris and Washington. A gold producing state, it has remained one of the poorest countries in Africa and the world.

Diendere worked closely with the U.S. Pentagon in recent defense maneuvers known as Operation Flintlock. Burkina Faso has served as a hub for the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) so-called “anti-terrorism” operations in West Africa.

Rinaldo Depagne, the West Africa Project Director for the International Crisis Group, described Deindere as the “J. Edgar Hoover” of Burkina Faso. Saying the coup leader was a master of intelligence, information, organization and control.

According to Reuters press agency, “Over the past decade, Diendere’s extensive regional connections helped Compaore transform himself from international pariah into regional peacemaker and a key ally in the West’s battle against Islamist militants. ‘Army officers, both French and American, liked him (Diendere),’ said Depagne. ‘He was someone very easy to work with and very well informed, not only in Burkina but all over West Africa and especially in the Sahel region.’” (September 17)

This same article goes on noting that “French troops trained with Compaore’s Presidential Security Regiment (RSP), the 1,200-troop strong elite unit that was a key pillar of his rule and over which Diendere exerts de facto command. The general was involved in delicate negotiations with al Qaeda-linked groups, appearing in front of television cameras with freed European hostages.”

Despite Compaore’s overthrow in October 2014 and the difficult relationships with the transitional government that took over after the ousted leader, Diendere continued to participate in “counter-terrorism” operations in Chad.

France and the U.S. have maintained an official position of being in opposition to the coup although they have worked closely with its leader over the last several years. AFRICOM under the Obama administration seeks to establish partnerships with African states and their military forces in efforts to minimize the size of the number of U.S. troops on the ground in the region.

Nevertheless, the administration has pledged to deploy over 3,500 troops throughout Africa. An example of such collaboration between AFRICOM and imperialist-dominated regimes on the continent is the current project which is building a fence on the borders between Nigeria and Niger.

 

Seventy years after the defeat of Nazi Germany, fascism has reemerged with a vengeance. This resurgence can be seen all over Europe and the former Soviet bloc, perhaps most notably in Ukraine where Nazism masquerading as nationalist patriotism has effectively embedded itself in the political and military institutions of the country, all with the backing of the United States and European Union. From racist rhetoric and xenophobia in Western Europe, to torch-lit parades with fascist iconography in Greece and Ukraine, this virulent disease is once again infecting the body politic of the European continent.

However, just to the East, and with very little fanfare from sociologists, political scientists, and the international Left, Turkey has quietly been transformed into an aggressive, and deeply reactionary, country where civil and human rights are trampled under the weight of so-called “nationalism.” Under the leadership of first Prime Minister, and now President, Erdogan, Turkey has eschewed its once deeply held desire to be accepted as a liberal democracy in the community of European nations, and instead chosen the trajectory of regional hegemony abroad and fascist thuggery at home.

Now, it should be said at the outset, that the term fascism can take on many meanings, particularly in light of its historical development and context. One must also be careful not to use the term haphazardly at the risk of robbing it of its true meaning. Indeed, it would not be fair to say that Turkey in 2015 is as fascist as Ukraine or Germany under Hitler; such a description would be grossly irresponsible and not at all accurate.

However, a close analysis of Turkey in the ‘Age of Erdogan’ does reveal a country that has given over to violence as a political tool, repression and censorship as standard government practice, and sponsorship of terrorism as foreign policy. If it hasn’t already earned its fascist moniker, it may well be on its way.

War on Civil Liberties and Human Rights

Although it is mostly ignored by the western corporate media, owing in no small part to Turkey’s position as a key NATO member state, Erdogan’s government has increasingly clamped down on civil liberties, most especially freedoms of speech and the press. Though the US and Europe browbeat Russia and the non-western world endlessly about alleged infringements on precisely these civil liberties, their Turkish partners have made such repression into standard policy.

A case in point is the persecution, intimidation, and potential prosecution, of journalists who have the audacity to report stories considered embarrassing or damaging to Erdogan and his government. Take, for instance, the public calls for the prosecution and imprisonment for life of Can Dündar, Editor-in-Chief of the Turkish daily Cumhuriyet after the publication released video footage and transcripts of wiretaps confirming the widespread allegations that Turkish trucks, ostensibly loaded with humanitarian supplies, were actually filled with arms bound for terror groups fighting the Syrian government, and that those trucks were operated by Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MİT). Despite calls from Human Rights Watch (an organization deeply hostile to the Assad government) and other organizations demanding that Erdogan’s government drop the investigation, Ankara seems to be pushing forward with the intimidation and repression of journalists.

Indeed, the internationally respected Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported that in 2012 and 2013, Turkey was the world’s leading jailer of journalists. Although the number of journalists imprisoned decreased in 2014 with the release of some with pro-Kurdish sympathies, the repression has taken on new forms and new targets, many of whom the Erdogan government broadly accuses of being “agents of the Gülen movement,” – the international network of schools and business ventures run by former Erdogan ally, and now rival, Fethullah Gülen. This accusation has become the boilerplate pretext for the repression of a variety of media figures and outlets in Turkey, essentially anyone who challenges Erdogan policies vis-à-vis Syria, corruption, censorship, and a host of other issues.

In fact, in December 2014, the Turkish police raided the offices of the Zaman newspaper, one of the most popular in the country, alleging that Zaman was responsible for “launching an armed terror organization.” The authorities detained the Zaman Editor-in-Chief Ekrem Dumanlı , as well as the head of the Samanyolu Media Group, Hidayet Karaca, along with a producer, scriptwriter and director.

The Turkish Journalists Association (TGC) and the Turkey Journalists’ Labor Union (TGS) released a joint statement in condemnation of the raids and the ongoing repression of journalists by the Erdogan government, noting that

 “Almost 200 journalists were previously held in prison on charges of being a member of a terror organization, violating their right to a fair trial. Journalists are now being detained once again. These developments mean that freedom of the press and opinion are punished in Turkey, which takes its place in the class of countries where the press is not free.”

International organizations too expressed their outrage at this blatant violation of freedom of the press. The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), and its regional group the European Federation of Journalists (EFL), stated that, “We are appalled by this brazen assault on press freedom and Turkish democracy…One year after the exposure of corruption at the heart of government, the authorities appear to be exacting their revenge by targeting those who express opposing views…This latest act demonstrates that the authorities’ contempt for journalism has not diminished.”

Of course, Ankara’s war on freedom of speech, and the media generally, is not relegated to established media outlets such as Zaman and Cumhuriyet, but also to citizen media and social media as well. In response to the leaking of recordings on Twitter documenting corruption among Erdogan cronies and political elites within his Justice and Development Party (AKP), Erdogan attacked the social media platform, and his government immediately moved to restrict access to Twitter. Far from a national security threat, Erdogan was upset that social media provided a window into the naked corruption and criminality of his regime which has armed terrorists abroad while lining its pockets and suppressing dissent at home.

Responding to the leaks, Erdogan even went so far as to suggest a total ban on all social media sites, including Facebook and YouTube, saying that “The international community can say this, can say that. I don’t care at all. Everyone will see how powerful the Republic of Turkey is.” This sort of megalomaniacal rhetoric has become the norm for Erdogan, who sees himself as less a president and more a sultan or absolute monarch.

In fact, earlier this year Erdogan’s government shut down social media in the run-up to an important election for the second time. As usual, the government, speaking through the courts, argued that the social media platforms spread “propaganda for an armed terrorist organization” after images of a prosecutor taken hostage, and later killed, were spread online. But of course, that act provided a convenient pretext for shutting down social media networks hostile to AKP and used for mobilizing young people against the ruling party.

It should be noted that restrictions on social media sites are not, in and of themselves, necessarily all negative. In fact, countries do have the right to control their own cyberspace as a means of defending against manufactured, color revolution-style destabilizations which utilize social media as a very potent weapon. But unlike China for instance, which has a systematic and consistent control over its cyberspace, Turkey has used such control sporadically, only employing it at the convenience of the government. Rather than a coherent policy rooted in law, it seems to be at the whim of the president-cum-dictator.

Nationalist Protesters or Fascist Thugs?

Aside from the repression of journalists and ordinary citizens, Turkey has also witnessed the rise of ultra-nationalist, fascist groups that have inflicted ethnic-based violence on a number of occasions. Earlier this month, members of various fascist groups attacked a number of Kurdish political sites and Kurdish-owned businesses in cities around the country. In the capital of Ankara, a gang of young men attacked the headquarters of the People’s Democratic Party (HDP), a pro-Kurdish political party in Turkey. The fascist thugs threw rocks at the building before entering it and setting it ablaze.

Such an attack is very much in the tradition of the Blackshirts and Brownshirts of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany respectively, and is eerily reminiscent of the attack on anti-fascist protesters in Odessa, Ukraine on May 2nd, 2014 in which scores of innocent men and women were killed by Ukrainian Nazis. Indeed, the torching of the building provides a ghastly parallel between the attacks, and suggests a complicity of law enforcement which seems to have done next to nothing to either prevent the attack or intervene once it had begun.

Similarly, in the province of Kirsehir members and supporters of the Nationalist Movement Party (also known as the Grey Wolves), a fascist political formation that espouses a virulently Turkish supremacist position, attacked an HDP office. In the city of Kirsehir, their violent thugs torched at least 20 Kurdish-owned businesses in what can only be described as ethnically motivated hate crimes and terrorism. So, while decrying the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) as a terrorist organization, and waging war against it and its supporters, both militant and peaceful, Erdogan’s government is perfectly willing to look the other way at violence committed by its own fascist rank and file.

Turkey: State Sponsor of Terrorism

It is no secret that Turkey has been one of the most vocal advocates of regime change in Syria, with President Erdogan repeatedly calling for Syrian President Assad’s ouster. In leading the charge for the overthrow of the Syrian government, Turkey has hosted a number of terrorist groups that have been at the forefront of the war against Damascus. In this way, Turkey has been the crucible of jihadi mobilization. And without getting into a semantic argument about the differentiation between Wahhabi extremism and fascism, suffice it to say that both ideologies espouse similarly supremacist and violent outlooks in their quest for dominance and power.

In 2012, the New York Times confirmed that the CIA was arming and financing anti-Assad forces from the Turkish side of the Turkey-Syria border, using long-standing connections with the Muslim Brotherhood to do so. However, thanks to the information that came out in Turkish courtrooms and on the front pages of the same papers being targeted by the Erdogan government, it has also come to light that Turkish intelligence has been arming and resupplying the terror groups such as Nusra and others.

But far from solely a covert destabilization war, Turkey has been directly involved on the ground in Syria both in active military and support roles. In fact, transcripts of wiretaps obtained by Cumhuriyet, and presented in Turkish courts, along with shocking video footage, have confirmed what numerous eyewitnesses have stated: Turkish security forces have been directly involved in shelling and support operations for Nusra front and other jihadi groups in Syria. This confirms the eyewitness accounts from Kassab and other cities that Turkish helicopters and heavy artillery were used in support of Nusra and the other terror groups during both 2014 and the current campaign.

Does the sponsorship of terrorism make Turkey fascist? No. Of course not. Were that to be the sole criteria, then every western country would be categorized as “fascist,” thereby leaving the term utterly devoid of meaning, let alone its historical cachet. However, terrorism is the means by which Erdogan seeks to remake the region in his own image, rebranding the Middle East as a neo-Ottoman sphere of influence and hegemony. Such monomania is fairly typical of megalomaniacal leaders like Erdogan, be they of the Bonapartist or fascist stripe.

However, the political repression at home, coupled with foreign policy belligerence and a complete disregard for the rights and welfare of all but his own followers, places Erdogan squarely in the fascist camp. One could make the argument that this is overstating the point, and that Erdogan should not be mentioned in the same breath as Hitler or Mussolini, or even the political leaders and oligarchs of Ukraine today – that would be a fair point as there are clear differences.

However, if you’re a journalist sitting in a Turkish prison cell, or looking over your shoulder every day on your commute home, the difference is negligible. If you’re a Syrian child who has watched your father and brother be killed by terrorists using arms provided by the Turkish government which continues to call for the destruction of your country, the distinction is irrelevant.

Put simply, whether Turkey is already fascist, on the road to fascism, or simply shifting to the right, the grim reality is that the Republic of Turkey of previous decades – the Muslim nation and NATO member that was to be the beacon of democratic liberalism and pragmatism in a volatile region – is now but a distant memory.

Eric Draitser is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City, he is the founder of StopImperialism.org and OP-ed columnist for RT, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Immediately prior to Narendra Modi being elected India’s PM last year, there were calls from some quarters for him to usher in a Thatcherite-style revolution. The hope was that he would accelerate the trend of privatisation, sops and tax breaks to business, deregulation, land and labour reforms, etc., and would also eradicate ‘blockages’ to various projects (i.e. remove dissent and relax or do away with existing procedures).

What Margaret Thatcher did in the eighties was to make Britain friendly to global capital. Global financial institutions became the mainstay of the economy and much local manufacturing industry was offshored. Under Thatcher, anti-trade union legislation, welfare reforms and pro-business policies became the order of the day. Three decades on and Britain has one of Western Europe’s most ‘flexible’ workforces in terms of a lack of protection and rights.

Thatcher’s policies helped to deindustrialise Britain and financialise the nation with a deregulated and corrupt City of London finance sector being a key driver of the economy. The result is record corporate profits, an unofficial unemployment rate of 30 percent, high personal debt, bank bail outs, stagnant demand, increasing national debt and ‘austerity’ for the masses. Any semblance of democratic rights that did exist have become gradually eroded as global capital increasingly dictates.

What happened in Britain is part of a global trend whereby sovereign states have become hollowed out and made supine in the face of transnational corporate power. Various ‘free trade’ agreements have by-passed (NAFTA) or are about to (TTIP, TPA) by-pass the last vestiges of national sovereignty as ‘regulatory barriers’ and ‘investor trade rights’ will essentially mean that major political decisions that affect every aspect of people’s lives could be moved to the technocratic sphere and taken by unaccountable tribunals and committees behind closed doors in Brussels, Washington and elsewhere.

The Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture and the proposed EU-India trade agreement will have a similar impact in India. These secretive, non-transparent deals will effectively hand over major policy areas to committees whose members comprise major financial-industrial enterprises or bureaucrat-politicians acting on their behalf. Such initiatives represent an extension and acceleration of trends that have been happening in India since the early 1990s and the introduction of neo-liberal economic policies.

India has been under pressure from US-dominated international bodies to restructure its agriculture and retail sectors to benefit the likes of Monsanto, Cargill and Walmart for some time. The requirement is that India reduces subsidies and tariffs and introduces a market-driven approach to agriculture and bring it under corporate control. This will effectively mean that faced with unfair trade rules and heavily subsidised Western agriculture, farming in India will continue to be increasingly financially non-viable and farmers will continue to leave the industry.

The system of agriculture envisaged to replace the indigenous model will consist of large-scale industrial farms based on genetically modified seeds and the heavy use of petrochemical inputs. Mechanisation in agriculture and food processing, courtesy of Western companies, will destroy tens of millions of jobs.

Factor in those displaced from farming itself and one is led to wonder what these people will do to earn a living once having migrated to the cities. India cannot create sufficient jobs as it is to soak up entrants to the workforce and given the increasing automation of employment, the situation seems likely to get worse. As in Britain, any ‘Thatcherite-style revolution’ is destined to throw large sections of the population onto the scrapheap as society is recast in a pro-corporate image.

It all raises the question why is this being done? India already produces enough to feed itself, and even where it does import foodstuffs, this is often because of the impact of political decisions and trade policy which means the country no longer grows certain items. Hundreds of millions are employed in agriculture, food processing or related sectors, and if they are currently in poverty, this again is partly a direct result of policies that have opted to put resources elsewhere, for instance to help industry which has failed to deliver in terms of jobs or exports.

Given the numbers employed in farming, food processing and small-scale retail, these sectors form the backbone of Indian society. The Modi administration should bear in mind that once farmers have been sacrificed on the altar of corporate profit and Monsanto has been allowed to genetically modify the food system, there will be no going back.GM agriculture is a scam. Steven Druker has shown in his book ‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth‘ that it was placed onto the commercial market in the US due to fraudulent activities. It is a danger to health and the environment and as currently employed there is no advantage to be gained from it. The only benefits go to the agribusiness cartel who can patent seeds that they ‘invented’, or pirate seeds and ‘reinvent’ them, and sell their associated cancer-causing chemical inputs. Where is the sense in India selling out the nation’s farmers and food sovereignty to Monsanto?

Writing in The Hindu last year, Aruna Rodrigues noted that the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report (FR) is the fourth official report exposing the lack of integrity, independence and scientific expertise in assessing GMO risk (see here). The four reports are: The ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal, overturning the apex Regulator’s approval to commercialise it; the Sopory Committee Report (August 2012); the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) Report on GM crops (August 2012) and the TEC Final Report (June-July 2013).And yet, open field trials have been given the green light, dissent is being trodden on and Modi has proclaimed that GM represents a good business-investment opportunity.

Does anyone smell a rat? They should.Vandana Shiva highlights the arm twisting that has gone on in an attempt to force through GMOs into India, with various politicians having been pushed aside until the dotted line for GMO open field testing approval was signed on. Of course, Modi is only accelerating what former PM Manmohan Singh had set in motion – a politician whose pro-GMO policies are regarded by Arun Shrivastava as total treachery. However, much of urban India seems oblivious to it all.

Duplicitous politicians are clever at using poor management, bad administration and overblown or inept bureaucracies as a proxy for privatising and deregulated everything. Thatcher was an expert at this: if something does not work correctly because of bad management, privatise it; underinvest in something, make it seem like a basket case and privatise it; pump up a sector with public investment to turn it into a profitable, efficient enterprise (then describe it as a massive drain on the taxpayer) then sell it off to the private sector. The tactics and ideology of and the justification for neoliberal economic policies take many forms.

Similarly, due to neglect and under-investment, rural India is too often depicted as a failure and a drain on the economy and thus ripe for a corporate takeover. It was the British who introduced mono-cropping and began to devastate local systems of food self-sufficiency and the dynamism of the village economy. Post-independence, successive administrations have done little to reverse this trend. However, despite the sector being deliberately run down, agriculture still manages to deliver bumper harvests, as food and trade policy analyst Devinder Sharma describes here.

Some 300, 000 farmers have committed suicide since 1997 as a result of spiralling debt, a shift to (GM) cash crops and the introduction of neoliberal economics, yet as long as food remains relatively cheap, thanks to the neglected, impoverished farmer, and people have enough disposable income to buy a 100 rupees coffee in a fancy long-neck glass at the latest swish shopping mall, who cares? Out of sight, out of mind. (Hundreds of millions in rural India live on less than 100 rupees a day.) Government priorities lie elsewhere.

Many leading politicians at the helm in India are (wittingly or unwittingly) serving US interests. Those who are ultimately setting the agenda in the US have designed a type of global capitalism that, from Syria and Ukraine to the US and India, increasingly incorporates barbarity and militarism and displays tendencies towards corporate feudalism and political fascism.The goal to secure control over global food and agriculture is very much part of the designs of an interlocking directorate of state-corporate interests in the West who through trade agreements or militarism, or a combination of both, seek to colonise and control all facets of life, not least food and agriculture. Look no further than Monsanto’s gains in Ukraine on the back of a US-led coup and its position in Iraq and Afghanistan on the back of illegal invasions. Or read Steven MacMillan’s piece about Monsanto’s connections to the US military-industrial complex and the globalists.

Writing in 2014, MacMillan said:

On Monsanto’s Board of Directors sits the former Chairman of the Board and CEO of the giant war contractor Lockheed Martin, Robert J. Stevens, who was also appointed in 2012 by Barack Obama to the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations. As well as epitomising the revolving door that exists between the US Government and private trans-national corporations, Stevens is a member of the parallel government in the US, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). A second board member at Monsanto is Gwendolyn S. King, who also sits on the board of Lockheed Martin where she chairs the Orwellian ‘Ethics and Sustainability Committee”. Individuals who are veterans of the corporate war industry should not be allowed control over any populations food supply! Additionally, Monsanto board member Dr. George H. Poste is a former member of the Defense Science Board and the Health Board of the U.S. Department of Defense, as well as a Fellow of the Royal Society and a member of the CFR.

By having US companies dominate supply lines and control food and seeds through patenting – and by controlling commodity markets – Washington is in a position to use food as a weapon. And it is clear from the above quotation that Monsanto is a key component of a highly weaponised US global geopolitical strategy.With this in mind, let us cast our minds back to 2006 when Hugo Chavez addressed the UN General Assembly. In recommending Noam Chomsky’s book ‘Hegemony and Survival’, he stated:

It’s an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what’s happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet… the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

As a nation, when you rely on foreign corporations for your food and seeds, you rely on them to determine its price, its supply and what is in it (for instance, ‘terminator’ trait technology or the Epicyte ‘sterility’ gene.)In the style of the late Hugo Chavez, perhaps it’s time for someone to publicly recommend William F Engdahl’s book ‘Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation’ to Narendra Modi. Like Chomsky’s book, it too discusses threats and domination. It locates the GM issue and the ‘green revolution’ firmly within the context of empire via the destruction of indigenous agriculture and its replacement with a model dominated by US agribusiness. Engdahl also locates the Rockefeller-Gates hand behind the great GMO project to a sinister eugenicist strategy of depopulation.

However, it must be assumed that reading this book would have little impact. You kind of get the impression that Modi, like Singh, before him is already on board with ‘the project’.

Cinco centenas de não europeus estão neste momento atravessando a Europa : não são refugiados, mas soldados estadunidenses do 2º Regimento de cavalaria que, com 110 veículos blindados, avançam desde a sua base na Alemanha para a Hungria através da República Tcheca e da Eslováquia, para “assegurar aos aliados da Otan que o exército dos Estados Unidos está a postos, se necessário”.

Para garantir que as forças da Aliança possam “deslocar-se na região oriental de maneira rápida e se preparar para operações sucessivas” – anuncia o secretário geral da Otan Stoltenberg – foram ativados seis novos quartéis generais na Lituânia, Estônia, Letônia, Polônia, Romênia e Bulgária. E desde que termine na Alemanha, Itália, Bulgária e Romênia a manobra militar denominada Swift Response, o maior exercício da Otan de forças aerotransportadas desde o fim da guerra fria, começa na República Tcheca a Ample Strike, na qual os controladores aéreos e pilotos da Otan treinarão ataques aéreos. Da base de Geilenkirchen na Alemanha decolam a cada dia aviões radares Awacs para controlar não somente o espaço aéreo ao longo das fronteiras orientais da Aliança, mas também da russa, pois podem “ver” a mais de 400 quilômetros de distância. O Readiness Action Plan prevê uma série de atividades terrestres, navais e aéreas no flanco oriental da Otan, incluindo a “missão de patrulha aérea dos Estados bálticos”, na qual a Itália participa com caças-bombardeiros Eurofighter Typhoon.

Esse deslocamento de forças será testado e reforçado pelo exercício Trident Juncture 2015 (de 3 de outubro a 6 de novembro). Participarão, ao mesmo tempo que unidades terrestres e navais, mais de 180 aviões de 16 países da Otan e de três países parceiros, incluindo aviões Awacs que operarão desde Trapani Birgi, na Itália. Dirigidos pela JFAC (Joint Force Air Component) italiana, cuja sede é em Poggio Renatico (Ferrara, Itália), dotada também de “capacidades de deslocamento” para operações aéreas fora do espaço da Otan. Um papel central no exercício será desempenhado pela JFC de Nápoles, comandada pela Otan (com um staff de 800 militares no quartel general de Lago Patria, Nápoles), que dirige, entre outras, operações navais no Mar Negro, numa função anti-Rússia. Dirigida pelo almirante estadunidense Ferguson – que é também comandante das forças navais estadunidenses na Europa, das forças navais estadunidenses do Comando África e das forças da Otan no Kosovo – a JFC de Nápoles, em alternância anual com Brunssum (Holanda), joga o papel de comando operacional da “Força de Resposta” da Otan.

Todas essas forças e operações da Otan dependem do comandante supremo aliado na Europa, que é sempre um general estadunidense nomeado pelo presidente (atualmente o general Breedlove). Sob o comando e impulsão estadunidenses, a Otan – que já englobou todos os países do ex-Pacto de Varsóvia, três países da ex-URSS e dois da ex-Iugoslávia (destruída por uma guerra da Otan) – avança para englobar outros. Com essa finalidade estabeleceu relações militares crescentes com Montenegro, onde navios de guerra da Otan fazem frequentemente escala no porto de Bari (Itália), e com a Geórgia, onde foi aberto um centro de treinamento da Otan.

A Ucrânia, onde a Otan treina e arma há anos forças neonazistas (utilizadas para o golpe da Praça Maidan e em seguida integradas na Guarda Nacional) e no presente, também nas forças armadas, participará como parceira na Trident Juncture 2015. E em breve receberá a visita do secretário Stoltenberg, à qual Kíev atribui “um grande valor simbólico”.

Assim, outros países do Leste, atrelados à Otan, se encontram ligados sobretudo aos Estados Unidos que, com sua política de “dividir para reinar”, estão transformando de novo a Europa na primeira linha de uma confrontação militar não menos perigosa do que a da Guerra Fria.

Manlio Dinucci

Fonte: ll Manifesto 

Tradução do Blog da Resistência

Cin­que­cento extra­co­mu­ni­tari stanno attra­ver­sando l’Europa: non sono pro­fu­ghi ma sol­dati sta­tu­ni­tensi del 2° Reg­gi­mento di caval­le­ria che, con 110 mezzi coraz­zati, si stanno muo­vendo dalla loro base in Ger­ma­nia all’Ungheria attra­verso Repub­blica Ceca e Slo­vac­chia, per «assi­cu­rare gli alleati Nato che l’esercito degli Stati uniti è pronto, se necessario».

Per assi­cu­rare che le forze dell’Alleanza pos­sano «dispie­garsi nella regione orien­tale in modo rapido e pre­pa­rarsi a suc­ces­sive ope­ra­zioni» – annun­cia il segre­ta­rio gene­rale della Nato Stol­ten­berg – sono stati atti­vati sei nuovi quar­tieri gene­rali in Litua­nia, Esto­nia, Let­to­nia, Polo­nia, Roma­nia e Bul­ga­ria. E men­tre si con­clude in Ger­ma­nia, Ita­lia, Bul­ga­ria e Roma­nia la Swift Response, la più grande eser­ci­ta­zione Nato di forze avio­tra­spor­tate dalla fine della guerra fredda, ini­zia nella Repub­blica Ceca la Ample Strike in cui con­trol­lori di volo e piloti Nato si adde­strano all’attacco aereo. Dalla base di Gei­len­kir­chen in Ger­ma­nia decol­lano ogni giorno aerei radar Awacs per con­trol­lare non solo lo spa­zio aereo lungo i con­fini orien­tali dell’Alleanza, ma quello russo dato che pos­sono «vedere» a oltre 400 km di distanza.

Il Rea­di­ness Action Plan pre­vede una serie di atti­vità ter­re­stri, navali ed aeree sul fianco orien­tale della Nato, tra cui la «mis­sione di pat­tu­glia­mento aereo sugli Stati bal­tici» alla quale par­te­cipa l’Italia con cac­cia­bom­bar­dieri Euro­fighter Typhoon. Que­sto dispie­ga­mento di forze sarà testato e raf­for­zato dall’esercitazione Tri­dent Junc­ture 2015 (3 otto­bre – 6 novem­bre). Vi par­te­ci­pe­ranno, insieme a unità ter­re­stri e navali, oltre 180 aerei di 16 paesi Nato e 3 part­ner, tra cui aerei Awacs che ope­re­ranno da Tra­pani Birgi. Diretti dal Jfac (Joint Force Air Com­po­nent) ita­liano, la cui sede è a Pog­gio Rena­tico (Fer­rara), dotato anche di «capa­cità dispie­ga­bili» per ope­ra­zioni aeree fuori dall’area Nato. Svol­gerà un ruolo cen­trale nell’esercitazione il Jfc Naples, comando Nato (con uno staff di 800 mili­tari al quar­tier gene­rale di Lago Patria), che dirige tra le altre le ope­ra­zioni navali nel Mar Nero in fun­zione anti-Russia. Diretto dall’ammiraglio Usa Fer­gu­son – che è anche coman­dante delle Forze navali Usa in Europa, delle Forze navali Usa del Comando Africa e delle Forze Nato in Kosovo – il Jfc Naples, alter­nan­dosi annual­mente con Bruns­sum (Olanda), svolge il ruolo di comando ope­ra­tivo della «Forza di rispo­sta» Nato.

Tutte que­ste forze e ope­ra­zioni Nato dipen­dono dal Coman­dante supremo alleato in Europa, che è sem­pre un gene­rale Usa nomi­nato dal Pre­si­dente (attual­mente il gene­rale Breed­love). Sotto comando e impulso Usa, la Nato – che ha già inglo­bato tutti i paesi dell’ex Patto di Var­sa­via, tre dell’ex Urss e due della ex Jugo­sla­via (demo­lita dalla Nato con la guerra ) – si muove per inglo­barne altri. A tal fine stringe cre­scenti rap­porti mili­tari col Mon­te­ne­gro, dove navi da guerra Nato fanno spesso scalo nel porto di Bar, e con la Geor­gia, dove è stato aperto un cen­tro di adde­stra­mento Nato. L’Ucraina, dove la Nato adde­stra e arma da anni forze neo­na­zi­ste (usate per il putsch di piazza Mai­dan e poi inqua­drate nella Guar­dia nazio­nale) e ora anche le forze armate, par­te­ci­perà come part­ner alla Tri­dent Junc­ture 2015. E tra breve rice­verà la visita del segre­ta­rio Stol­ten­berg, alla quale Kiev attri­bui­sce «grande valore sim­bo­lico». Così altri paesi dell’Est, aggan­ciati alla Nato, ven­gono legati soprat­tutto agli Stati uniti che, con la loro poli­tica del «divide et impera», stanno tra­sfor­mando di nuovo l’Europa in prima linea di un con­fronto mili­tare non meno peri­co­loso di quello della Guerra fredda.

Manlio Dinucci

This is an update of Paul Craig Robert’s article entitled: All Republican Presidential Candidates Stand For War

“Having met Vladimir Putin, I wouldn’t talk to him at all. We’ve talked way too much to him. What I would do, immediately, is begin rebuilding the Sixth Fleet, I would begin rebuilding the missile defense program in Poland, I would conduct regular, aggressive military exercises in the Baltic states. I’d probably send a few thousand more troops into Germany. Vladimir Putin would get the message. . . .  Russia is a bad actor, but Vladimir Putin is someone we should not talk to, because the only way he will stop is to sense strength and resolve on the other side, and we have all of that within our control.

We could rebuild the Sixth Fleet. I will. We haven’t. We could rebuild the missile defense program. We haven’t. I will.”

There is not a peaceful person among the Republican candidates.  Even the female is heartless.  Carly Fiorina positioned herself along side the macho men as a warmonger.  She let the military/security complex know that she, too, was for sale.  Send in the campaign donations, and she will see that the money flows back to the military/security complex in the buildup of fleets and armaments that will send the Russians a message.

Alas, the only message US politicians want to send to the Russians is a war message. The Pentagon has upgraded the newly orchestrated “Russian threat” to “potentially aggressive” and is updating its plans for war with Russia.

What has Russia done to cause Washington to plan war with Russia?  Don’t you know?  Russia invaded Ukraine, just like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda connections.

If Russia invaded Ukraine, how come Ukraine is still there? If weak insignificant Ukraine fought off a Russian invasion, then how is it possible that Russia is a threat?

To deal with the “Russian threat” Washington has sent armed German jet fighters to patrol the skies over the Baltic oligarchies.

Washington tells Russia that the fighters are not directed at Russia.  So why the fighters?  Perhaps they are there to protect the Baltics from Iran like that anti-ballistic missile system Washington placed in Poland to protect Europe from nonexistent Iranian nuclear ICBMs.

It is reckless for Washington to take provocative actions against Russia and to tell Russia that the actions are directed elsewhere.  Russia knows full well that the actions are directed against Russia.  What Washington is teaching Russia is that Washington can never be believed.

As everything Washington says is a lie, Russia cannot risk making an agreement with Washington to end the orchestrated conflict, because Washington’s word is meaningless.  A liar simply cannot be trusted.

Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has often remarked that Washington’s provocations and propaganda are destroying trust between nuclear powers, thus raising the risk of nuclear war.

But Washington is too full of arrogance and hubris to hear. Washington only hears itself.

In February 2012 President Putin made it clear that Russia rejects Washington’s policy known as “airstrike democracy” that overrides international law with military force. Putin said that Washington’s pursuit of hegemony makes every other country unsafe.  Washington’s policy of violence, Putin said, might have extremely serious consequences for Washington.

Three and one-half years later the morons competing for the Republican presidential nomination are making it even more clear that they have not heard what Russia has been telling them.

If any of the Republicans are elected, or for that matter any of the Democrats, war will be the result. There is no point worrying that both parties intend to take away your Social Security, Medicare, and private pensions, because you won’t be here to collect them.

Abstract

In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired analytic programs investigating the official account. 

Increasingly, the issue is treated as a scientific controversy worthy of debate, rather than as a “conspiracy theory” ignoring science and common sense.

This essay presents these media analyses in the form of 18 case studies.

Eight countries – Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Russia – have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.

This more open approach taken in the international media – I could also have included the Japanese media – might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks – a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

The evidence now being explored in the international media may pave the way for the US media to take an in-depth look at the implications of what is now known about 9/11, and to re-examine the country’s foreign and domestic policies in the light of this knowledge.

I.  Introduction

Until 2009, doubts about the official 9/11 story were briefly entertained by the mainstream media on each anniversary of the event, allowing the independent research community only a fleeting moment once a year to publicly voice its findings.

But after crucial scientific evidence emerged in April 2009 to challenge the official story of how the towers fell, a spate of European media reports followed.  The news coverage of this evidence seems to have opened the door to more serious reflection on all aspects of the 9/11 issue in the major media.

The first paper in my series, “The Media Response to 9/11,” dealt with the New Statesman’s grudging recognition of Dr. David Ray Griffin, the world’s “top truther” (as it dubbed him), placing him number 41 among “The 50 People Who Matter Today.”1  Since this admission in September 2009, the issue has gathered increasing momentum.

The collective content issuing from this new momentum is presented here in the hope that it will embolden other major media to take up the pivotal controversy concerning 9/11, and pursuing the truth wherever it may lead.

Observations on the Analysis

While carrying out my analysis, I observed five new features in the media treatment of the 9/11 issue that developed as 2009 progressed.  They are listed here, so that readers might look for them in the case studies that follow below:

1. The 9/11 issue is increasingly framed not as conspiracy theories versus hard science, but as a legitimate controversy resting on unanswered questions and a search for truth.

2. News reports and television programs examining these controversies have become longer and more balanced.

3. Major media outlets have begun to present the claims of the truth movement first, followed by counter-arguments from defenders of the official story.

4. Major media outlets have begun to include, and even to introduce, extensive evidence to support the claims of the 9/11 truth community.

5. The media treatments increasingly suggest the possibility of a re-investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.

The first part of this essay deals with the crucial scientific evidence that emerged in early 2009, the significance of this evidence in relation to the official story of 9/11, and the immediate news coverage it received.

II.  Scientific Paper Finds Nano-thermite Explosives in World Trade Center Dust, April 3, 2009

A peer-reviewed paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009,2 reported that a little known high-tech explosive called nano-thermite was found throughout the World Trade Center dust.

These physicists and chemists involved in this study discovered “distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers”3 in four samples of dust collected from the area.  The presence of aluminum and iron oxide in the red material provided one of the signs that it might be nano-thermite, which is a high explosive (whereas ordinary thermite is an incendiary.)

Another clue was provided when putting a flame to the chips produced an explosive reaction.

On the basis of these and other observations, the team concluded that “the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”4

The article’s first-named author, Dr. Niels Harrit – a University of Copenhagen chemistry professor who specializes in nano-chemistry5 –explained on Danish TV2 News:

“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron.

“So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive.  It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.

“You cannot fudge this kind of science. We have found it: unreacted thermite.”6

What was the significance of this sophisticated material?

Reported Evidence that Nano-thermite is a Military Substance

In a German interview in May 2009, Dr. Harrit said: “There are no experts on nano-thermite without connections to the military…. This stuff has only been prepared under military contracts in the USA and probably in bigger allied countries. This is secret military research…It was not prepared in a cave in Afghanistan.”7

Chemist Kevin Ryan, another co-author, had reported in an earlier article that explosive nano-thermite, which may be painted onto surfaces, was developed by US government scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories.8

A United States Department of Defense special publication confirms that work on these “energetic materials” has long been “performed in laboratories within all military services.”9

According to a June 2009 statement by Britain’s prestigious Institute of Nanotechnology,10 the Harrit study “provides indisputable evidence that a highly engineered explosive called nano-thermite was found in the dust of all three buildings that came down on 9/11 2001 in New York city. [sic] This advanced explosive incorporating nanotechnology is only available to sophisticated military labs.”11

It thus became known by mid-2009 that explosives of military origin, probably in the United States, had been involved in the World Trade Center collapses.

Early Coverage of the Nano-thermite Finding in the European Mainstream Press

Although the new scientific evidence against the official story of 9/11 was not reported in the mainstream British or North American media, it did receive attention in continental Europe.

The day the article was published, a thorough essay in the Danish journal Videnskab (Science) examined both sides of the controversy about controlled demolition.12

The same issue of Videnskab also carried an interview with Professor Harrit, who answered pointed questions about the peer-review history of the article, and the military nature of nano-thermite.13

The following day, Denmark’s politiken.dk reported the scientific nano-thermite paper in an article called (in Danish) “Conspiracy theories about 9/11 get new life.”14

Then, the day after Professor Harrit’s April 6 interview Danish TV2 News, he was featured on the popular talk show, “Good Morning Denmark”, on which he said:

“The material we found is super hi-tech frontline military research.  It’s not a mixture of random chemicals.  It’s an advanced material which is difficult to get information on.  But some conference papers and internal reports have been published…There has to be a normal forensic investigation of this attempt.  Our research is high-level forensic work.  We have provided technical evidence that can be used in the future investigation.”15

On April 13, an online Croatian political newspaper posted the Danish TV2 video interview with Harrit along with an article titled “VIDEO: 9/11 No Longer Taboo Topic in Denmark”.16

Russia also took notice. On July 9, Laura Emmett, the London correspondent for RT, interviewed Dr. Niels Harrit for over 10 minutes. (RT, previously known as Russia Today, is a globally broadcast English-language channel sponsored by the state-owned news agency RIA Novosti.  It reaches 1.5 million people monthly, including half a million Americans.)  Stating that “the evidence for controlled demolition is overwhelming”, Harrit reported that the nano-thermite reaction produced pools of molten iron beneath the rubble and inextinguishable fires that lasted for months.17

I turn now to ways that the mainstream news coverage of the case against the official story has changed since the appearance of the nano-thermite paper.

III.  The Changing Mainstream Media Treatment of 9/11 Evidence from early 2009 to early 2010:  18 Case Studies

Two February 2009 news items illustrate the wary mainstream attitude towards conspiracy theorists early in the year.  A New York Times article said about actor Daniel Sunjata:

The second episode of “Rescue Me’s” fifth season, starting in April, may represent the first fictional presentation of 9/11 conspiracy theories by a mainstream media company…Mr. Sunjata’s character delivers a two-minute monologue…describing a “neoconservative government effort” to control the world’s oil, drastically increase military spending and “change the definition of pre-emptive attack.”

Mr. Sunjata surprised some of the TV reporters when he said that he “absolutely, 100 percent” supports the assertion that “9/11 was an inside job.”18

Fox News was somewhat less constrained, saying:

An upcoming episode of the drama “Rescue Me” is about 9/11 being an inside job. The actor who spews the theories on camera, Daniel Sunjata, actually believes in it too.

Look, the fact is, actors who barf this crap are doing it for their own egos. It makes them feel smart, because for once they’re spouting something provocative instead of puerile. Never mind that it’s an insidious insult to the victims of 9/11 – as it is to the rest of us, who may or may not be guilty, according to Sunjata’s theory.19

However, things started to change after the appearance of the nano-thermite paper on April 3, as may be seen from the following case studies of media reports, each of which is identified as having corporate, public, or independent ownership.

The case studies reveal the evidence which has been introduced into public consciousness during the past year.

Case Study 1:  The Dutch TV Mock Trial of Osama bin Laden, April 25, 2009

On April 8, 2009, a popular TV program called “Devil’s Advocate” held a mock trial of Osama bin Laden with lawyers arguing before a politically balanced civil jury of five people.

The case against bin Laden was argued by two real-world opponents:  former American correspondent Charles Groenhuijsen, and Dutch-American Glenn Schoen of a US security firm.  Real-world lawyer Gerald Spong acted as bin Laden’s defense attorney.20

Spong presented new evidence from a videotape of Professor Emeritus of Islamic Studies Gernot Rotter, saying that the American translators who transcribed the bin Laden tapes of the November 9, 2001 “confession video” have “clearly added things in many places – things that are not there even when listening multiple times.”21

Spong won.  Although the jury found bin Laden to be a terrorist, it said there was no proof that he had ordered the 9/11 attacks.

Through this method, this program on AVRO – the Dutch public broadcasting organization – presented evidence, not previously seen in the major media, against the likelihood that bin Laden ordered the attacks.

On April 15, Fox News reported the Dutch jury findings in a long and unusually balanced article, in which former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani was quoted six times, saying that bin Laden’s exoneration sent a “disturbing message” to the world and fueled conspiracy theories.  Giuliani variously called this message “bizarre,” “dangerous,” “aberrational,” “irrational,” and “unfortunate.”22

However, referring to Spong as a “well-known yet controversial attorney,” Fox mentioned him 10 times, and more substantively, reporting his evidence that the bin Laden videos seemed inauthentic, as well as his point that the FBI has not indicted bin Laden for the attacks.

Concluding Comment:  (AVRO is publicly owned, but Fox News is corporate.) Neither of these two mainstream treatments of doubts about the official story was broadcast on the customary anniversary date, and both reached millions of people.

Case Study 2:  Architect Richard Gage in Canada’s “Financial Post”,  April 25, 2009

One of Canada’s top four English-language newspapers, the conservative National Post, publishes its business section as the Financial Post.

Three weeks after the nano-thermite story broke, Jonathan Kay, a National Post columnist and editor with degrees in both engineering and law, wrote an article about Richard Gage, the “lucid” San Francisco architect who heads up the 1,000-strong “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.”23

Kay, who himself endorses the official story of 9/11, described Gage as a “respectable-looking middle-aged” architect, “complete with suit and tie, and receding hairline,” and reported that Gage’s organization “scored a booth at the upcoming American Institute of Architects conference from April 30 to May 2.”

In the midst of references to thermite reactions and iron-oxide-based explosives, Kay wrote of controlled demolitions:

“As radical as Gage’s theory may sound to readers, it’s surprisingly popular. The ‘9/11 Truth Movement’…has millions of adherents across the world. Many believe that the World Trade Center was destroyed on Sept. 11 through controlled demolition set in motion by officials within America’s own government and military.”

Gage’s presentation was also described as “effective”:

“In one particularly effective segment, he puts up shots of the localized fires that broke out in the lower floors of WTC Building 7 hours before it collapsed. Seconds later, he shows footage of Beijing’s Mandarin Oriental hotel – which suffered an epic top-to-bottom conflagration in 2009…and remained standing.”

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate). Besides reporting Gage’s evidence without any attempted refutation, this corporate-press writer remarked that “no major media outlet has done a truly comprehensive profile or investigation of the Truther movement.” He thereby seemed to be suggesting that it is now time to take the 9/11 truth movement seriously.

Case Study 3:  Norwegian State Radio’s Public Debate on 9/11 Truth, May 21, 2009

Professor Harrit, who was lecturing in Norway in late May 2009, was interviewed by public radio program “Here and Now”,24 on NRK (the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation).

Harrit presented the findings of the nano-thermite paper, which were then discussed by three Norwegian scientists who did not support his conclusions.

Following the radio program, an extended email debate continued between Dr. Ola Nilsen, who teaches chemistry at the University of Oslo, and Dr. Steven Jones, a co-author of the nano-thermite paper who formerly taught physics at Brigham Young University.  This debate, during which Nilsen somewhat modified his original view, was posted to a Norwegian blogsite in English.25

Concluding Comment:  (Public). Although NRK in this April program challenged the findings of the Harrit paper, this was to change by late summer, as we shall see below.

Case Study 4:  Architect Richard Gage on Fox News, May 28, 2009

The hosts of Fox News on KMPH in Fresno, California, began their 7-minute interview by saying, “He’s an architect experienced in steel structures.  Now Richard Gage is…here to show us why he’s calling for a more thorough investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.”26

These two anchors actively encouraged Gage’s discussion of the ten key features of controlled demolition.  He was allowed to explain the free-fall acceleration of WTC 7 (shown on his two video frames as dropping at the same rate as a second building felled by controlled demolition) and the “uncanny” failure of 40,000 tons of structural steel columns that were designed to resist its collapse.

Although normal office fires were said to have caused the collapses, he explained, various firefighters had reported large pools of molten iron at ground level.

“What produced all that molten iron?” he asked.

The answer, he said, was found in the inches of dust covering lower Manhattan.  “The by-product of thermite is molten iron and it’s dispersed throughout all this dust…and there are small chips of unignited thermite as well.  This is very high-tech thermite – nano-thermite.  It’s not found in a cave in Afghanistan; it’s produced in very sophisticated defense department contracting laboratories…[its] particles are one-thousand times smaller than a human hair.”

Asked whether bin Laden might have had access to the buildings, Gage said probably not – that someone else who had access to nano-thermite, and to the buildings’ security systems, would need to be investigated.  Someone who had access to the elevator modernization, which was going on nine months earlier and was “immediately adjacent to the core columns and beams in the building.”

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate). This Fox News show began by asking Gage about his credentials, saying “We ask that for clarification so that as we get into this, we want people to make sure that you’re not just someone with a wacky idea…you come with some science to you.” The program ended with a sincere thank-you to Gage for “opening up a lot to think about,” and an announcement that there is “a great deal of information” on the KMPH.com website.  In short, Gage was treated with the respect due to any serious participant in an important and controversial issue.

The next major mainstream event was the Russia Today program of July 9, 2009, which was covered above, so we will move directly to the anniversary period of September 2009, when further evidence of the impact of the nano-thermite discovery became apparent.

Case Study 5:  The National Geographic Documentary, “9/11: Science and Conspiracy”, August 31, 2009

In late August, 2009, the National Geographic Channel (NGC) aired a two-hour documentary, “9/11: Science and Conspiracy,” which sought to answer several questions, “What caused the collapse of the Twin Towers? Was it from the fires, or were explosives placed inside the buildings, causing them to implode? Did a missile, rather than a commercial airline jet, strike the Pentagon?”27

This “NatGeo” program purported to explore evidence about controlled demolition presented by the 9/11 truth movment.  It interviewed Dylan Avery (the maker of the “Loose Change” films), Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, and Steven Jones. But in reality this NatGeo program was entirely devoted to debunking their claims by using pseudo-scientific demonstrations to refute claims that none of these men have made.

For example, in order to refute the claim that nano-thermite could have brought down the buildings, NatGeo used ordinary thermite (with the narrator explaining that they had no access to nano-thermite). Moreover, instead of using the thermite to make shaped charges, which can cut through steel, the NatGeo experimenter simply placed a bag of thermite next to a steel column and lit it. When the burning thermite (entirely predictably) did not melt the column, the narrator concluded, triumphantly, that science had disproved the claim of the conspiracy theorists.

A review in Media Life Magazine, while not fully exposing the phoniness of the program’s claim to represent “science,” did point out some shortcomings, saying:

Some of the issues raised by the truthers, however, aren’t addressed, or are addressed in brief asides. This leaves this documentary open to charges of picking and choosing which points to cover.  “9/11: Science and Conspiracy” spends too much time discussing the psychology behind conspiracy theories – which isn’t really a hard science.28

A review in the New York Post quoted Sander Hicks, a journalist who is openly a member of the 9/11 truth community, as saying that its representatives on the program “come off as careful and professional, unemotional, but compassionate about the truth,” and that the program, in spite of its faults, shows “that the topic is still relevant and that the case isn’t closed.”29

Concluding Comment: (Corporate). This program by National Geographic provides a good reminder of how the 9/11 truth issue has generally been handled by the corporately-controlled media. But it also demonstrates the fact that the controversy is very much alive in the major media.

Case Study 6:  Germany’s Weekly TV Guide, “TV Hören und Sehen,” August 31, 2009

“TV Hören und Sehen”, with a paid circulation of nearly a million copies, is owned by the Bauer Media Group, which publishes 308 magazines in 14 countries.  The TV magazine features interviews and articles by prominent German authors.30

It is therefore significant that on August 31, 2009, this magazine published “Die Geheimakten von 9/11” (“The Secret Files of 9/11”) as a full double-page spread, continuing with photos on two subsequent pages.  It opened by saying: “9/11 is officially the largest criminal case in history – but classified documents and witness accounts are surfacing, that speak against the official versions of the CIA and Pentagon.”31

It then asks what force could pulverize 200,000 tons of steel in 11.4 seconds, quoting US engineer Neel Ginson:  “In order to bring down this kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been artificially exploded outwards.” Ginson added that, looking closely, one can see small explosions in the Twin Towers always occurring before the floors are reached by the collapse line.  The fact that the towers were the first steel-frame buildings in the world to collapse because of fire, he added, was even admitted by NIST (the National Institute of Science and Technology, the government agency that produced the official reports).

Among many other questions, the article raises the issue of adjacent World Trade Center 7, the 47-storey steel-frame building with a base the size of a football field that collapsed at 5:20 PM the same day:  “But the official 9/11 investigation never mentions the building once.”

With reference to the Pentagon, this article asks:  How were the victims identified by their fingerprints, when even the airplane steel had melted?

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate).  Although this article does not specifically mention nano-thermite, it clearly suggests that artificial explosions brought down the buildings.  By not defending the official story at all, this large-chain corporate media outlet was among the first to give an open hearing to the independent 9/11 research community.

Case Study 7: Two California Newspapers Review the Role of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, September 2009

In September 2009, Metroactive (Silicon Valley’s number-one weekly magazine) and the Santa Barbara Independent, each published slightly different versions of a long article on the controversy surrounding the WTC building collapses.32

The Independent article – entitled “Twin Towers, Twin Myths?” – begins:

“One of the crucial technical disputes in American history, perhaps second only to global warming, is underway. It pits hundreds of government technicians who say the World Trade Center buildings were brought down by airplane impact against hundreds of professional architects and building engineers who insist that the Twin Towers could never have collapsed solely due to the planes and are calling for a new independent investigation. It is a fight that is not going away and is likely to get louder as more building trade professionals sign on to one side or the other.”33

The version in MetroActive – called “Explosive Theory” – says “[E]ight years after 9/11, a growing organization of building trades professionals suspect that there was more to the event than the government will admit.”  It then gives a short history of Gage’s now 1,000-strong organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE).34

Deputy Director Michael J. Heimbach of the FBI’s counter-terrorism division, this article adds, had recently acknowledged in a letter to the organization that Gage’s presentation is “backed by thorough research and analysis.”

One local AE member was quoted as saying “it takes too much energy” – energy that was not there – to collapse the buildings at free-fall speed, given the resistance that steel offers.  This was borne out, this member continued, by a team of scientists “working at technical laboratories in the United States and Denmark [who] reported in April that analysis of dust …gathered at the World Trade Center found evidence of the potent incendiary/explosive ‘super thermite,’ used by the military.”

Almost half of this article deals with the controversy over whether nano-thermite was used, with most of the space allotted to evidence supplied by the 9/11 Truth Movement.  Near the end, however, spokesman Michael Newman is brought in to defend NIST’s research, saying there was “no need” to test the dust for thermite.

But the last word was given to engineer Ed Munyak of AE, who said:

“The fact is that the collapses don’t resemble any fire-induced behavior of structures, but it exactly mimics a controlled demolition, so why not investigate that? It’s all very suspicious and that’s why an independent investigation is needed so we can all learn from this.”

“Explosive Theory” also focuses pointedly on the growing number of professional organizations and retired officials calling for a new investigation, including:

…two dozen retired U.S. military brass and eight former U.S. State Department officials, along with a number of Republicans who have served in high federal positions since President Reagan, including former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts and former Reagan administration Assistant Defense Secretary (and retired Marine Corps colonel) Ronald D. Ray.

The version in the Santa Barbara Independent concludes with an unusually candid observation:

And how would America deal with such an investigation against the backdrop of suppositions that some officials in government were complicit? This idea is virtually unthinkable to most of the public, much less something the American political system can handle…The forces of denial, in the system and in most of our minds, are innately powerful and probably sufficient to mitigate against a reopened investigation. Despite this, [Richard] Gage [of AE] sees his role as provoking a better investigation.

Concluding Comment:  (Independent). The authors of this article, rather than referring to “conspiracy theorists,” present the 9/11 issue as a “technical dispute” of historic importance. Both versions of the article represent a 180-degree turnaround in American newspaper reporting, providing a useful introduction to the long-ignored research by independent professionals. The Santa Barbara Independent, curious about public opinion rather than seeking to hide it, published a local poll asking if conspiracy was behind the collapses: 75% of respondents answered “yes”.35

Case Study 8: Dr. Niels Harrit on NRK1’s “Schrödinger’s Cat,” September 10, 2009

NRK1 is the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation’s  main TV channel. It’s program “Schrödinger’s Cat”, which is about scientific research and technology, comes on every Thursday following the evening news.  It has won several awards, and averages 487,000 viewers.

For the September 10 program, Dr. Harrit was interviewed for about ten minutes in his office and laboratory at the University of Copenhagen Nano-Science Center, where he demonstrated the magnetic quality of a WTC dust sample.  He also showed videotape of molten iron flowing from the upper South Tower, which was iron, not aluminum (which melts at a much lower temperature than steel or iron).  Emphasizing that an office fire, even if fed by jet fuel, could not possibly get hot enough to melt steel, thereby producing iron, he concluded that the flowing iron had to have been caused by something such as nano-thermite, which produces “an enormous amount of heat”, and molten iron is created in the process, with a temperature of  4530 F.36

Although Harrit did not know who placed the explosives, he said, he had no doubt that a crime had occurred.

In the final third of the program, three other people were asked for comments.  Two of the people tried to cast doubt on Harrit’s conclusions, but their comments were weak, even absurd.  An architect argued that the energy from the airliners brought the Twin Towers down and then Building 7 came down because the collapse of the towers acted like an earthquake to weaken the ground.  American buildings are weak, he explained, because they don’t use reinforced concrete.

Finally, Dr. David Ray Griffin has stated that “for scientists and people who study the facts, the official story about the Twin Towers is completely ludicrous, but for the general public it has seemed plausible.  Jet fuel fires – they seem so hot.  Jet fuel’s just kerosene.”

Concluding Comment:  (Public). This prime-time coverage by Norway’s largest TV channel was quite a turnaround from the earlier NRK radio coverage in May.  Most of the time was given to Drs. Harrit and Griffin; the content was groundbreaking; and the opposing views were obviously insubstantial. Considering Norway’s NATO membership and military participation in the US-led operations in Afghanistan, the program could prove to be significant.

Case Study 9 : London’s “Daily Mail” asks  whether Osama bin Laden is Dead, September 11, 2009

This long and detailed article opens with the menacing bin Laden audiotape of June 3, 2009, timed to coincide with Barack Obama’s arrival on his Middle East tour, and then moves to the new Anglo-American offensive to “hunt and kill” the al Qaeda leader.

But, the Daily Mail asks, what if bin Laden isn’t alive?

What if everything we have seen or heard of him on video and audio tapes since the early days after 9/11 is a fake – and that he is being kept ‘alive’ by the Western allies to stir up support for the war on terror?

Incredibly, this is the breathtaking theory that is gaining credence among political commentators, respected academics and even terror experts.37

Professors Angelo Codevilla of Boston University and Bruce Lawrence of Duke University point out that the early, verifiable videotapes of bin Laden do not match the tapes that have emerged since 2002 – and even one in late 2001.

Telltale distinguishing features include a changed facial structure and increasing secularism in the content of the messages.

The article then presents the findings of Dr. Griffin’s book on the topic –  Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? – as “provoking shock waves”.

This book presents evidence that bin Laden died, probably due to kidney failure, in mid-December 2001, which would mean that his taped messages since then have been faked to “stoke up waning support for the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Perhaps the most controversial of all the tapes was released by the Pentagon on December 13, 2001, claiming that it had been found in a home in Jalalabad. Prior to this tape, bin Laden had, while praising the 9/11 attacks, consistently denied responsibility for them. But the bin Laden of this tape boasts about having planned them.

President Bush, the Blair Government, and the mainstream media all hailed this message as offering conclusive proof of bin Laden’s guilt.

The Daily Mail, however, points to various reasons provided in Griffin’s book to believe that the man in this video was an imposter. It refers to the existence of a “highly sophisticated, special effects film technology to morph together images and vocal recordings.”

And it quotes Griffin as saying: “The confession tape came exactly when Bush and Blair had failed to prove Bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11 and both men were trying to win international public support, particularly in the Islamic world, for the anti-terrorist campaign.”

Far from seeking to ridicule Griffin’s book, the Daily Mail concluded thus: “[T]he Bin Laden tapes have emerged with clockwork regularity as billions have been spent and much blood spilt on the hunt for him.  Bin Laden has been the central plank of the West’s ‘war on terror’. Could it be that, for years, he’s just been smoke and mirrors?”

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate). This 2400-word article is the first serious mainstream coverage the evidence that Osama bin Laden is dead – and has been for many years.

Case Study 10.  The New Statesman announces Dr. David Ray Griffin as No. 41 in “The Fifty People who Matter Today,” September 24, 2009

Two weeks after the Daily Mail article, a second corporate British publication put Griffin in 41st place in a list of people who “matter today.”38

Because this article was discussed in my earlier paper, Part I of this series, it is mentioned here only as a significant milepost, one that gave (grudging) recognition to the fact that the movement challenging the official account of 9/11 can no longer be ignored.

Its impact on the media is shown by the fact that the New Statesman placed Dr. Griffin (who scores 200,000 results when googled) above Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chavez, (who scores over 11 million results) on its list of influential people.

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate). Although the New Statesman called the movement represented by Dr. Griffin “pernicious”, its evaluation of his importance represents a point of no return in the media coverage of 9/11 – as we shall see.

Case Study 11:  Jean-Marie Bigard on France 2 Public Television, October 28, 2009

Back in September 2008, Jean-Marie Bigard, France’s most popular stand-up comedian, was led to apologize for claiming 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government.39  But by July 2009, Bigard had started to post  humorous videos on his website ridiculing the official account of the September 11 attacks.

In October 2009, Bigard and award-winning French filmmaker Mathieu Kassovitz appeared for an hour in a debate on France 2, the publicly owned French national television channel.40

The hosts, who had refused to include the scientist who was originally supposed to be on the show (Dr. Niels Harrit) attempted to center the debate on “straw man” theories that neither Bigard nor Kassovitz held. This led to arguments, which then allowed Le Figaro, France’s second largest newspaper, to dismiss the debate as “noisy sophistry”.41

Concluding Comment:  (Public). Although this program was aimed at debunking the 9/11 movement, as shown by its refusal to include a scientist, the fact that it was aired on this state-owned network was a breakthrough, ending the era in which 9/11 questioning was ignored in France.

Case Study 12: “The Unofficial Story”,  by CBC’s The Fifth Estate, November 27, 2009

On November 26, 2009, Canada’s largest newspaper, The Globe and Mail, noting in an objective review42 that the 9/11 truth movement is “gathering steam,” reported that a documentary airing that evening “follows up on some fairly startling public-opinion polls of late.”

It was referring to “The Unofficial Story”,43 a program in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s weekly award-winning investigative series, The Fifth Estate.44

Host Bob McKeown, himself a recipient of multiple awards45, opened by saying that eight years after the “most scrutinized day in history”, there may be “more questions than ever”, and that an increasing number of people now believe the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks. “Incredibly”, he adds, “public opinion polls now show that a majority of Americans believe the Bush Administration had advance knowledge of those attacks, and one way or another allowed them to happen, and polls show that one Canadian in three believes that, too.”

“The Unofficial Story” then allows leading members of the 9/11 truth community to present a spectrum of evidence on various issues:

Architect Richard Gage on how the towers were brought down by controlled demolition

Canadian scientist A.K. Dewdney on the impossibility of cell phone calls at high altitude

David Ray Griffin on the FBI’s 2006 admission that, although US  Solicitor General Ted Olson had reported receiving two calls from his wife, CNN commentator Barbara Olson on Flight 77, the evidence indicates that she attempted only one call and that it was “unconnected” and hence lasted “zero seconds”

Dr. Griffin and Canadian media commentator Barrie Zwicker on the military’s explanation of why it did not intercept the airliners

9/11 documentary filmmaker Craig Ranke on the fact that footage of the Pentagon attack is virtually unavailable to the public in spite of many cameras trained on the building

Dewdney on evidence that Flight 93 was shot down by the US military

Richard Gage on the presence of nano-thermite in the World Trade Center dust

In response, defenders of the official account, such as Johnathan Kay (of Canada’s National Post) and 9/11 Commission counsel John Farmer, focus more on why the American public is susceptible to conspiracy theories, than on the disputed evidence itself 46 – although Kay does credit Richard Gage for being involved in a serious quest for truth.

Jim Meigs, Editor-in-Chief of Popular Mechanics, also directs comments against the skeptics themselves rather than their evidence.  Conspiracy theorists, he says, are deluded by “the myth of hyper-competence” in relation to the failure of the US Air Force to intercept the planes.

However, Brent Blanchard, presented as a demolition expert, argues against the controlled demolition theory by producing seismographs showing the absence of spikes that, he says, would have been produced by explosions.

He also expressed concern that people around the world, by reporting US government complicity in 9/11 “as fact”, are affecting how people view America.

But actor Daniel Sunjata (of “Rescue Me”) ponders the price of not asking the hard questions:  “Sometimes boils need to be lanced. Sometimes poison needs to be brought to the surface in order for real healing to take place.”

McKeown concludes: “We did it not to promote one side or the other, but to shine some light on some of those unresolved issues and unanswered questions.”

And indeed, the program website published links to both sides of the issue.47

Concluding Comment:  (Public). This hour-long documentary was the first truly fair opportunity in North America for advocates of the “unofficial story” of 9/11 to present some of their case on mainstream television.  Representatives of the “official story” were also given time to speak, but their case was patently weaker. This imbalance was allowed by the producers, and indeed by the Canadian government, to stand.  Aired several times across Canada, this program drew unusually high viewer commentary.

Case Study 13:  New Zealand TV’s “Close Up” hosts Architect Richard Gage, November 27, 2009

The same day “The Unofficial Story” was broadcast by the CBC, Richard Gage appeared on New Zealand TV’s popular public affairs program, Close-Up, for a six-minute interview.48

“WTC 7 was never hit by a plane but it still came down,” the host begins, “and that’s what troubles internationally respected architect Richard Gage.”

Gage is then allowed to explain that the building fell straight down in 6.5 seconds, and that NIST, the agency tasked with explaining the collapse, admitted that it had come down in absolute free-fall for the first hundred feet or so.  “That means the structure had to have been removed,” says Gage. “There is evidence of very high-tech explosives in all the dust throughout lower Manhattan – nanothermite.”

Normal office fires, Gage added, would start “a large, gradual deformation – the building would tip over – it wouldn’t go straight down through the path of greatest resistance.”

This is why 1,000 engineers and architects around the world are demanding a real investigation that includes all of the evidence at the crime scene, not just the planes and the fires, says Gage.

“In the nine months prior to 9/11, we had the largest elevator modernization in history going on inside the towers…We’re looking for an investigation that includes elevator companies, security companies, etcetera.”

Concluding Comment:  (Public). New Zealand’s national television station allowed open and unopposed discussion, by the founder of the world’s largest professional organization calling for a new 9/11 investigation, of the claim that nano-thermite was used in a controlled demolition of the World Trade Center.  The coincidence that this program and the CBC’s “The Unofficial Story” both aired on the same day may prove to be a turning point in media coverage of the 9/11 issue.

Case Study 14 :  “9/11 Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura,” TruTV, Premiere December 9, 2009

TruTV is an American cable television network owned by Time Warner through its subsidiary, Turner Broadcasting. Historically, its has given live homicide trial coverage and other criminal justice programming, though it has recently expanded into more caught-on-video reality, which it calls “actuality” television.

“Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura” premiered December 2, 2009, to an audience of 1.6 million television viewers.

The former Governor of Minnesota has good cause to look into conspiracies, as seen in his December 29 episode, which shows personal experience that the “secret state” holds more power than the senior elected representatives of the people:

“About a month after I was elected governor, I was requested into the basement of the capitol to be interviewed by 23 members of the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA…And I said to them, “look before I answer any of your questions, I want to know what you’re doing here.”  Because in the CIA mission statement it says that they’re not to be operational inside the United States of America. Well, they wouldn’t really give me an answer on that. And then I said, “I want to go around the room, and I want each one of you to tell me your name and what you do.” Half of them wouldn’t. Now isn’t that bizarre? I’m the governor, and these guys won’t even answer questions from me.”49

Ventura made the 9/11 documentary after being approached by Donna March O’Connor, whose daughter died in the World Trade Center and wanted “every American exposed to the questions” about 9/11.50

Ventura’s documentary contained interviews with the following people:

Janitor William Rodriguez, the last man out of the North Tower and who was decorated for heroism by President Bush, who reported enormous explosions in the basements just before the plane hit up above, and whose testimony to the 9/11 Commission was ignored

Physicist Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who isolated super-thermite from the enormous dust clouds of the Twin Towers and Building 7, after which he was contacted by a consultant engineer from the Department of Homeland Security, who warned Jones that, if he published his findings “the pain would be great.”

Explosives expert Van Romero, of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, demonstrating how super-thermite can be painted onto a steel beam, causing it to burn through

Ground Zero rescue worker Mike Mallone, who reported seeing one of the four black boxes removed from the site, and was told of two others – and who was told by the FBI that if he talked about it, “there would be a problem.”

Investigative journalist Dave Lindorff, who was told “off the record” by a contact in the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the boxes, that all four had been recovered by the FBI and taken away, though officially, the contact said, this would be denied

Air crash investigator Dale Leppard, who said that the bright orange heat-resistant boxes are never lost

Yet the 9/11 Commission Report claimed that the boxes from American 11 and United 175 were never found.

Ventura concluded by asking:  “If everything they told us was true, then why would they need to stonewall us?”

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate).  By calling his series “Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura”, he openly declares that conspiracies do exist, and that they are a legitimate subject to investigate. According to TruTV, the first episode drew 1.6 million viewers, a record for a new series on this network.

Case Study 15: German Federal Judge Dieter Deiseroth Questions the Official 9/11 Investigation, December 15, 2009

Heinz Heise is a German publishing house, which publishes Europe’s most popular computer and technology journals. It also owns Heise Online (heise.de), which is a top-50 site in Germany, and a top-1000 website in the world as a whole.

On December 15 2008, Heise Online carried an interview with German Federal Judge Dieter Deiseroth on the legality of the Afghanistan war and the question of whether the attacks were adequately investigated in the US.51

In his response, Deiseroth made the following points:

The 9/11 Commission consisted of Bush Administration officials who were very close to the military industrial complex.

Now, over eight years after 9/11, no independent court has applied legal procedures to review the available evidence on who was responsible for the attacks.

It is not acceptable for a constitutional state to dispense with the necessary steps in identifying suspects and instead to declare war, bomb a foreign country where suspects reside, and place it under military occupation.

Having made the claim that bin Laden was responsible for the terrorism of 9/11, the United States was under burden of proof, and yet America’s own FBI admits that it has no evidence presented in court of Osama bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate).  This “top-50” online journal exposed many German people to the illegal and unconstitutional responses to the 9/11 attacks – which were the underpinning for the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq – and even to questions about the truth of the official account of 9/11 itself.

Case Study 16:  Germany’s “Focus Money” says: “We Do Not Believe You!” January 8, 2010

With 450,000 to 720,000 readers, Focus Money is the second most popular German weekly business magazine.  In January 2010, it published a 5-page, highly detailed, and comprehensively researched glossy feature, “We do not believe you!”52

The article first looks at the many professional 9/11 groups, as well as a 2,000-strong list of prominent and qualified people who question the 9/11 Commission Report at the Patriots Question 9/11 website.

It quotes Richard Gage saying:  “The towers accelerated without interruption in free fall…as if the lower 90 floors of the building did not exist. The only way to bring them down like that is controlled demolition.”

The article weighs Gage’s list of ten features of a controlled demolition, which were exemplified in the World Trade Center collapses, against the three features of a fire-caused destruction, which were absent.

Focus Money also explores the case of Barry Jennings, a former Deputy Director of Emergency Services in New York’s Housing Authority, who reported being trapped in WTC 7 after massive explosions in this building occurred in the morning – before the Twin Towers fell.  Focus Money also reported that Jennings, aged 53, died mysteriously just days before NIST’s report on WTC-7 was to be released in August 2008.

The article recommends films that challenge the official report, including “Loose Change”, which has been seen 125 million times on Google video alone, “9/11 Mysteries,” and “Zero” –  all available online.

Regarding the Pentagon, experienced commercial pilots are cited as maintaining that no one, let alone a Cessna pilot, could fly the route that Flight 77 allegedly took to hit the building.

The article pointed out the lack of debris to support the official story:  “There was no tail, there were no wings, no confirmation of the crash of a Boeing 757.” And there were no titanium engines, which would have survived the crash.

Also cited was Sergeant Lauro Chavez of the US Central Command in Florida, who was involved in exercises the morning of 9/11 to hijack planes and fly them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the White House. He asks why, when it became clear that the attacks were real, were the rogue planes not intercepted?

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission, in which he reported a conversation between Dick Cheney and a young officer prior to the strike on the Pentagon, supports Chavez’ conviction that there had been a stand-down order.

Concluding Comment:  (Corporate).  This 5,400-word article presented strong evidence against the official 9/11 account to Germany’s economic and political decision-makers.

Case Study 17:  Televised documentary, “The BBC’s Conspiracy Files:  Osama bin Laden – Dead or Alive?”  January 10, 2010

In January 2010, a BBC News article53 summarized evidence supporting both sides of the question stated in the title of its upcoming documentary, “Osama bin Laden – Dead or Alive?” – a title taken from the David Ray Griffin book that was previously discussed in a Daily Mail article.54

The documentary, which was part of the BBC Conspiracy Files series, opened by presenting evidence that bin Laden has long been dead, including the following points:

Bruce Riedel, chair of President Obama’s policy review on Afghanistan and Pakistan, says the bin Laden trail is cold, “frozen over,” meaning that there has been no intelligence on bin Laden since Tora Bora, either by sightings or intercepted communications.

Various lines of evidence suggest that bin Laden was suffering from advanced kidney disease: CBS News reported, for example, that he was being treated in the kidney ward of a hospital in Pakistan the night before the 9/11 attacks, and the last of the undoubtedly authentic videotapes showed him frail and gaunt, with a whitish beard.

There were reports of his funeral in mid-December 2001 in Pakistani and Egyptian newspapers.

Former CIA agent Robert Baer, who believes bin Laden to be dead, reported that none of his friends in the CIA could state for certain that bin Laden was still alive.

Colonel Iman, Pakistan’s former troop trainer, also believes him to be dead.

The only proof of bin Laden’s continuing existence is the audio and videotapes, and Dr. Griffin has presented evidence (about the structure of bin Laden’s face and hands, and the secular content of his messages)that some of them are clearly faked, leading to the suspicion that they all are.

Pakistan’s former Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, who knew bin Laden, supports this conclusion with regard to the alleged confession video.

Professor Bruce Lawrence of Duke University, a student of the bin Laden tapes, also declared it a fake, especially because bin Laden always loved the spotlight. He asks why bin Laden has been seen so infrequently on video and why his contemporary, Ayman al-Zawahiri is seen so often.55

The BBC narrator says that only six of bin Laden’s 40 messages were videotapes, and only two have appeared since Tora Bora in 2001.

Dr Griffin says the first video appeared conveniently just before the 2004 US election, which helped Bush to win; and the second appeared in 2007, showing a very black beard, which had formerly been almost white.56

CIA agent Robert Baer confirmed that the alleged bin Laden audio and video tapes could have been faked through digital manipulation.

The BBC program also presented evidence that is believed by some to show that the US may not have been intent on capturing or killing bin Laden:

Dalton Fury, commander of the secret Delta Force, says it was “odd” that Washington denied him nearby troops and artillery when he had bin Laden trapped at Tora Bora in December 2001.

Mike Scheuer, formerly of the CIA bin Laden Unit, said the US had ten chances to easily kill bin Laden between May 1998 and May 1999. Each time the CIA briefed the White House of the opportunity, the decision was made not to shoot.

In the final third of the program, the BBC provided rather weak evidence against “the theory that Osama bin Laden died 8 years ago and the US government is keeping him alive, faking videos, and sending troops to battle and allowing them to die in pursuit of an imaginary foe.” However, a reviewer for the TV and Radio section of the The Independent, one of London’s leading newspapers, complained that this rebuttal was too little, too late, saying:

“The Conspiracy Files film about Osama Bin Laden was a dubious affair, which gave regrettable amounts of air time to an obsessive 9/11 “truther” called David Ray Griffin. . . . Griffin only got the airtime, as it turned out, so that Conspiracy Files could systematically work their way through his claims and dismiss them. But I think they grievously overestimated the capacity of common sense to mop up the pollution of paranoid fantasy that they actively helped to spread around in the first 45 minutes of the film.”57

This seemed to be the commentator’s way of saying that the BBC’s show probably increased the number of people who believe that bin Laden is probably dead.

Concluding Comment:  (Public). This program attempts to neutralize the evidence that bin Laden has been dead for 8 years, which if true would mean that fabricated tapes are helping to justify a continuing Western offensive in the Middle East.  That the program was made at all shows how seriously the BBC is taking the growing challenge to the official story of 9/11.

Case Study 18 :  An American Union Paper Calls for a New Probe, February 1, 2010

The New Hampshire Union Leader is a daily union newspaper seen by 143,000 people per month in the United States.

Beth Lamontagne Hall of the Union Leader wrote in February 2010 that “Keene resident Gerhard Bedding doesn’t buy the government’s version of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, so he’s working on a statewide campaign calling for another investigation into the terrorist attacks.58

Bedding and others, she reported, are petitioning New Hampshire’s congressional delegates to push for an independent investigation into “all the evidence and unanswered questions” pertaining to the 9/11 attacks.

Quoting Bedding’s statement that a new investigation is needed “in light of new evidence that has appeared in the last two years,” she pointed out that he mentioned, in particular, the report that scientists had found traces of explosives at the World Trade Center.

Concluding Comment:  (Independent). This article in a daily union newspaper is a significant indicator, more than eight years after the attacks, of the broadening concern over the truth about 9/11, and is another example of the widespread influence of the nano-thermite paper published by Dr. Harrit and his co-authors.

IV. Summary and Concluding Observations 

1. In the past year, in response to emerging independent science on the 9/11 attacks, nine corporate, seven public, and two independent media outlets aired examinations of the issue, which were all – with the exception of the National Geographic special – reasonably objective, examining the issue as a legitimate scientific controversy worthy of debate (not as “conspiracy theorists” vs. science and common sense).

2. Eight countries – Britain, Canada, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, and Russia – have allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.

3. These developments may reflect a relaxation in the international media following the change in the US and British leaderships.

4. These developments definitely reflect, in any case, the fact that scientists in the 9/11 Truth Movement have recently succeeded in getting papers, such as the nano-thermite paper, published in peer-reviewed journals.

5. These developments surely also reflect the general professionalism of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as exemplified by the emergence of not only Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth but also Firefighters, Intelligence Officers, Lawyers, Medical Professionals, Pilots, Political Leaders, Religious Leaders, Scholars, and Veterans for 9/11 Truth.

6. These developments seem to reflect, moreover, an increased recognition of the importance of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which is demonstrated by two honors given to its most influential member, Dr. David Ray Griffin, that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago:  the choice by Publishers Weekly of one of his books as a “Pick of the Week,” and his inclusion in the New Statesman’s list of the most important people in the world today.

This more open approach taken in the international media – I could also have included the Japanese media –  might be a sign that worldwide public and corporate media organizations are positioning themselves, and preparing their audiences, for a possible revelation of the truth of the claim that forces within the US government were complicit in the attacks – a revelation that would call into question the publicly given rationale for the military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

The evidence now being explored in the international media may pave the way for the US media to take an in-depth look at the implications of what is now known about 9/11, and to re-examine the country’s foreign and domestic policies in the light of this knowledge.

Elizabeth Woodworth is a retired professional health sciences librarian, and a freelance writer.  She is the author of two published books and many articles on political and social justice issues.

 

Erratum:

RIA Novosti, the Russian state-owned news agency, has advised in an a formal statement of February 4, 2010, that:

 

“RIA Novosti, Russia’s leading multimedia news agency is neither a “sponsor” nor a “backer” of Russia Today, an English language satellite TV channel, contrary to recent claims in media reports.”  Ref:  “RIA Novosti neither ‘sponsor’ nor ‘backer’ of Russia Today – Statement” (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100204/157770469.html )

This means that seven — not eight — countries have  “allowed their publicly-owned broadcasting stations to air the full spectrum of evidence challenging the truth of the official account of 9/11.” 

Notes
1 “The 50 People Who Matter Today,” New Statesman, September 24, 2009 (http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2009/09/world-fashion-gay-india-church ). Note that Part I of this series, entitled “The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9 /11 Truth Movement: Reflections on a Recent Evaluation of Dr. David Ray Griffin,” was published by Global Research, December 12, 2009  (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16505)

2 Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Open Chemical Physics Journal, Vol. 2 (April 3, 2009): 7-31 (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm)

3 Ibid., p. 29.

4 Ibid., p. 29.

5 Dr. Harrit is Associate Professor of the Department of Chemistry, and has been a faculty member at the Nano-Science Center at the University of Copenhagen since this Center started in 2001.  (http://nano.ku.dk/english/ )

6 “Danish Scientist Niels Harrit on Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust (English subtitles),” TV2 News, Denmark, April 6, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o).

7 By Lars Sobiraj, May 24, 2009,”Germany’s gulli.com (link obsolete now) Interviews Dr. Niels Harrit on Nanothermite at the WTC,” Sunday May 24th, 2009 1:28 PM, http://911truth.org/article_for_printing.php?story=20090525150347423

8 Kevin R. Ryan, “The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermite,” July 2, 2008, (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf )

9 Dr. Andrzej W. Miziolek, “Nanoenergetics:  An Emerging Technology Area of National Importance,” In:  US Department of Defense.  “Special Issue:  DOD Researchers Provide a Look Inside Nanotechnology,” Amptiac Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1, Spring 2002, p. 44 (http://www.p2pays.org/ref/34/33115.pdf )  The article reports that, “Very simply, nanoenergetics can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and one can use them in unprecedented ways to tailor the release of this energy so as to maximize the lethality of the weapons.”  p. 43.

10 See the IoN Advisory Group at http://www.nano.org.uk/aboutus/ukboard.htm

11 My italics.  [News]: “Active Thermitic Material Confirmed in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” June 15, 2009 (http://www.nano.org.uk/news/jun2009/latest1881.htm)

12 Thomas Hoffmann, “Danish scientist: an explosive nano material found in dust from the World Trade Center”, Videnskab.dk, April 3, 2009  (http://www.videnskab.dk/composite-1945.htm )

13 Thomas Hoffmann, “Niels Harrit:  Scientific evidence of long-time knowledge of 9/11,” Videnskab.dk, April 3, 2009 (http://www.videnskab.dk/composite-2019.htm )

14 Milla Mølgaard, April 4, 2009, (http://politiken.dk/indland/article684567.ece )

15 “Niels Harrit presents evidence for nano-thermite in WTC, on GoodMorning Denmark,” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAUUKPfdeQA )

16 Posted at: http://www.javno.com/en-world/video–911-no-longer-taboo-topic-in-denmark_250703

17 “Did nano-thermite take down the WTC?” (http://rt.com/Best_Videos/2009-07-09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_WTC.html , and

http://rt.com/Politics/2009-07-09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_WTC.html?fullstory ) .  Also available on youtube as “Dr. Niels Harrit on Russia Today – We need a real 9/11 investigation,” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVbF1ndquZI&feature=PlayList&p=4B3A9D67894B7184&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=20 )

18 Brian Stelter, “The Political Suspicions of 9/11,” New York Times, February 1, 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/business/media/02fx.html?_r=2&ref=business )

19 Fox News, “‘Rescue Me’ From 9/11 Conspiracy Theories,” February 4, 2009, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487906,00.html )

20 The mock trial is available on youtube in 4 parts:  “911 Devil’s Advocate – English subs – Part 1 of 4”, starts at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOdlA_eu-Lw

21 This is said at the beginning of “911 Devil’s Advocate – English subs – Part 2 of 4”, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJX-rIaAbA4&feature=related.  See also, Craig Morris, “Mistranslated Osama bin Laden Video – the German Press Investigates,” December 23, 2001 (http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801 )

22 Joshua Rhett Miller, “Dutch TV Show Feeds Conspiracy Theories on Bin Laden’s Role in 9/11,” Fox News, April 25, 2009 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,516195,00.html )

23 Johanthan Kay, “Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire,” Financial Post, Saturday, April 25, 2009 (http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=f54cf9ee-4637-44de-8819-19d918b3241b&k=21893 )

24 The radio program may be heard at this link, in Norwegian, without subtitles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHZHGUd82wc )

25 Norwegian State Radio initiates public debate on 9/11 Truth (update), (http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/norwegian-state-radio-initiates-public-debate-on-911-truth/ )

26 Richard Gage interviewed by Kim Stephens and Kopi Sotiropulos on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, CA, May 28, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM&feature=related )

27  “9/11:  Science and Conspiracy”, (http://www.shallownation.com/2009/08/31/national-geographic-9-11-science-and-conspiracy-video-photos/).  National Geographic Channel is a joint venture of National Geographic Television & Film and Fox Cable Networks.

28 Tom Conroy.  “‘9/11:  Science and Conspiracy’ not quite,” Media Life Magazine, August 31, 2009 (http://www.medialifemagazine.com/artman2/publish/TV_Reviews_21/9_11_Science_and_Conspiracy_not_quite.asp )

29 Maxine Shen, “The Story Behind 9/11:  Hit or Myth?  Taking on the Truthers,” New York Post, September 2, 2009 (http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/item_tPXUgMFRZVQywHJg28ON7J;jsessionid=5113BAC6DC385827B1486E60DAA759A8#ixzz0eY7F97Dx)

30 The website for this publication is http://www.tvhus.de/home/home.html

31 Hannes Wellmann, “Die Geheimakten von 9/11,” TV Hören und Sehen, August 31, 2009.  The article and its English translation have been downloaded to http://www.911video.de/news/020909/

32 Whereas the article focuses primarily on Bay-Area resident Richard Gage, Santa Barbara is the home of David Ray Griffin, so the Independent version gave more space to him, even including his photo.

33 Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie, “Twin Towers, Twin Myths?” Santa Barbara Independent, September 17, 2009 (http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/17/twin-towers-twin-myths/ )

34 Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie, “Explosive Theory,” MetroActive, September 9, 2009, (http://www.metroactive.com/metro/09.09.09/cover-0936.html)

35 “Is conspiracy behind the World Trade Center’s collapse?”  (http://www.independent.com/polls/2009/sep/wtc09/results/ )

36 “Norwegian TV examines 911 part 1,” September 10, 2009, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlHuYt_u-kI )  The TV program was followed by a written account of it:  Lars Ole Skjønberg, “World Trade Center ble sprengt” (“World Trade Center was Blown Up,”) September 10, 2009, http://www.nrk.no/programmer/tv/schrodingers_katt/1.6769275 ).  Further information and partial transcripts are available at “Norwegian State Television presents 9/11 Truth (en subs), (update)

(http://zelikow.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/norwegian-state-television-presents-911-truth/ )

37 Sue Reid, “Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years – and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror?” Daily Mail, September 11, 2009 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years–U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html )

38 New Statesman, “The 50 People who Matter Today.”

39 “French comedian apolgises for claiming 9/11 was orchestrated by the US government,” Belfast Telegraph, September 10, 2008 (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/french-comedian-apologises-for-claiming-911-was-orchestrated-by-the-us-government-13968453.html )

40 “L’objet du scandale, 11 septembre, Bigard, Kassovitz,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uc4Mb9rF0c   The program is also available with English subtitles, at http://world911truth.org/911-debate-with-kassovitz-and-bigard/ .  The debate was originally intended to include journalist Éric Laurent and Prof. Niels Harrit, but apparently France 2 could not find anyone to debate them.  See “France 2 backs away from real debate, censors Niels Harrit and Éric Laurent,” October 24, 2009, http://world911truth.org/france-2-backs-away-from-real-debate-censors-niels-harrit-and-eric-laurent/ .

41 Hervé de Saint Hilaire,  «L’objet du scandale» : sophismes bruyants, Le Figaro, 30 octobre 2009 (http://www.lefigaro.fr/programmes-tele/2009/10/30/03012-20091030ARTFIG00348-l-objet-du-scandale-sophismes-bruyants-.php )

42 Andrew Ryan, “Was 9/11 a conspiracy? ‘Truthers’ make their case: CBC’s fifth estate airs The Unofficial Story,” The Globe and Mail, November 26, 2009

(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/was-911-a-conspiracy-truthers-make-their-case/article1378976/ )

43 CBC. The Fifth Estate.  “The Unofficial Story”, November 27, 2009 (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/ )

44 The Fifth Estate has won 243 awards, including an Oscar for best documentary, three international Emmy Awards, and 31 Geminis.

45 McKeown’s awards include two Emmys, two Geminis, two Edward R. Murrow awards, two Gracies, two National Headliner awards and a National Press Club award. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McKeown )

46 It is worth noting that attempts to derail critics of the official story have often framed the issue as “conspiracy theorists” vs. “the science” or  vs. “the facts.”  But as the current essay illustrates, the debate is now increasingly being framed in the media as science on one side of the issue vs. science on the other side.

47 The Fifth Estate, at http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/links.html

48  “Richard Gage AIA on New Zealand National Television,” November 27, 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2INIOXe_WI )

49 “Conspiracy Theory Episode 4 Big Brother with Jesse Ventura,” December 29, 2009 (http://conspiracytheoryjesseventura.com/forums/index.php?board=2.0 )

50 “9/11 Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura,” TruTV, Premiere Wed, December 9 at 10PM (http://www.conspiracytheoryjesseventura.com/2009/12/watch-episode-2-911-conspiracy-theory-jesse-ventura/ ) Also at “Conspiracy theory with Jesse Ventura – 9/11 part 1,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Uw5Bz-oL3w )

51 Marcus Klöckner, “Das schreit geradezu nach Aufklärung,” December 15, 2009 (http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/31/31729/1.html ). The English Google translation is at http://translate.google.ca/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Ftp%2Fr4%2Fartikel%2F31%2F31729%2F1.html&sl=de&tl=en )

52 Oliver Janich, Focus Money, No. 2/2010, January 8, 2010 (http://www.focus.de/finanzen/news/terroranschlaege-vom-11-september-2001-wir-glauben-euch-nicht_aid_467894.html ).  For English Google translation, see http://translate.google.ca/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.focus.de%2Ffinanzen%2Fnews%2Fterroranschlaege-vom-11-september-2001-wir-glauben-euch-nicht_aid_467894.html&sl=de&tl=en .  For English introduction and commentary, see http://www.911video.de/news/080110/en.html .

53 Mike Rudin, “The Conspiracy Files,” BBC News, January 9, 2009 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8444069.stm )

54 David Ray Griffin, “Osama bin Laden:  Dead or Alive?” Interlink Books, 2009. The documentary, “The BBC’s Conspiracy Files:  Osama bin Laden – Dead or Alive?” January 10, 2010, is now periodically available on BBC stations throughout the world, and presently available on youtube:

“BBC: Osama Bin Laden; Dead or Alive (1/6),” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpqg9SF2x50&feature=related ).

55 A Wikipedia article lists 34 videos of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri that have been released since May 2003.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videos_of_Ayman_al-Zawahiri)

56 Frames from the 2004 and 2007 videos may be seen side by side in the online article:  David Ray Griffin, “Osama bin Laden:  Dead or Alive?”  Global Research, October 9, 2009 (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15601 )

57 Tom Sutcliffe, “Last Night’s Television: By The People: The Election of Barack Obama, Sat, BBC2; Conspiracy Files: Osama Bin Laden – Dead or Alive?, Sun, BBC2,” The Independent, January 11, 2010 (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/reviews/last-nights-television-by-the-people-the-election-of-barack-obama-sat-bbc2brconspiracy-files-osama-bin-laden-ndash-dead-or-alive-sun-bbc2-1863741.html )

58 Beth Lamontagne Hall, “NH group cites need for new 9/11 probe,” New Hampshire Union Leader, February 1, 2010 (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=c2822a9b-f0c3-4f03-b8c3-09c3e0765b2f&headline=NH+group+cites+need+for+new+9%2f11+probe )

First published in July 2015

By Truth and Satire

Every single mainstream media has the following narrative for the economic crisis in Greece: the government spent too much money and went broke; the generous banks gave them money, but Greece still can’t pay the bills because it mismanaged the money that was given. It sounds quite reasonable, right?

Except that it is a big fat lie … not only about Greece, but about other European countries such as Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland who are all experiencing various degrees of austerity. It was also the same big, fat lie that was used by banks and corporations to exploit many Latin American, Asian and African countries for many decades.

Greece did not fail on its own. It was made to fail.

In summary, the banks wrecked the Greek government, and then deliberately pushed it into unsustainable debt … while revenue-generating public assets were sold off to oligarchs and international corporations. The rest of the article is about how and why.

If you are a fan of mafia movies, you know how the mafia would take over a popular restaurant. First, they would do something to disrupt the business – stage a murder at the restaurant or start a fire. When the business starts to suffer, the Godfather would generously offer some money as a token of friendship. In return, Greasy Thumb takes over the restaurant’s accounting, Big Joey is put in charge of procurement, and so on. Needless to say, it’s a journey down a spiral of misery for the owner who will soon be broke and, if lucky, alive.

Now, let’s map the mafia story to international finance in four stages.

Stage 1: The first and foremost reason that Greece got into trouble was the “Great Financial Crisis” of 2008 that was the brainchild of Wall Street and international bankers. If you remember, banks came up with an awesome idea of giving subprime mortgages to anyone who can fog a mirror. They then packaged up all these ticking financial bombs and sold them as “mortgage-backed securities” for a huge profit to various financial entities in countries around the world.

A big enabler of this criminal activity was another branch of the banking system, the group of rating agencies – S&P, Fitch and Moody’s – who gave stellar ratings to these destined-to-fail financial products. Unscrupulous politicians such as Tony Blair joined Goldman Sachs and peddled these dangerous securities to pension funds and municipalities and countries around Europe. Banks and Wall Street gurus made hundreds of billions of dollars in this scheme.

But this was just Stage 1 of their enormous scam. There was much more profit to be made in the next three stages!

Stage 2 is when the financial time bombs exploded. Commercial and investment banks around the world started collapsing in a matter of weeks. Governments at local and regional level saw their investments and assets evaporate. Chaos everywhere!

Vultures like Goldman Sachs and other big banks profited enormously in three ways: one, they could buy other banks such as Lehman brothers and Washington Mutual for pennies on the dollar. Second, more heinously, Goldman Sachs and insiders such as John Paulson (who recently donated $400 million to Harvard) had made bets that these securities would blow up. Paulson made billions, and the media celebrated his acumen. (For an analogy, imagine the terrorists betting on 9/11 and profiting from it.) Third, to scrub salt in the wound, the big banks demanded a bailout from the very citizens whose lives the bankers had ruined! Bankers have chutzpah. In the U.S., they got hundreds of billions of dollars from the taxpayers and trillions from the Federal Reserve Bank which is nothing but a front group for the bankers.

In Greece, the domestic banks got more than $30 billion of bailout from the Greek people. Let that sink in for a moment – the supposedly irresponsible Greek government had to bail out the hardcore capitalist bankers.

Stage 3 is when the banks force the government to accept massive debts. For a biology metaphor, consider a virus or a bacteria. All of them have unique strategies to weaken the immune system of the host. One of the proven techniques used by the parasitic international bankers is to downgrade the bonds of a country. And that’s exactly what the bankers did, starting at the end of 2009. This immediately makes the interest rates (“yields”) on the bonds go up, making it more and more expensive for the country to borrow money or even just roll over the existing bonds.

From 2009 to mid 2010, the yields on 10-year Greek bonds almost tripled! This cruel financial assault brought the Greek government to its knees, and the banksters won their first debt deal of a whopping 110 billion Euros.

The banks also control the politics of nations. In 2011, when the Greek prime minister refused to accept a second massive bailout, the banks forced him out of the office and immediately replaced him with the Vice President of ECB (European Central Bank)! No elections needed. Screw democracy. And what would this new guy do? Sign on the dotted line of every paperwork that the bankers bring in.

(By the way, the very next day, the exact same thing happened in Italy where the Prime Minister resigned, only to be replaced by a banker/economist puppet. Ten days later, Spain had a premature election where a “technocrat” banker puppet won the election).

The puppet masters had the best month ever in November 2011.

Few months later, in 2012, the exact bond market manipulation was used when the banksters turned up the Greek bonds’ yields to 50%!!! This financial terrorism immediately had the desired effect: The Greek parliament agreed to a second massive bailout, even larger than the first one.

Now, here is another fact that most people don’t understand. The loans are not just simple loans like you would get from a credit card or a bank. These loans come with very special strings attached that demand privatization of a country’s assets. If you have seen Godfather III, you would remember Hyman Roth, the investor who was carving up Cuba among his friends. Replace Hyman Roth with Goldman Sachs or IMF (International Monetary Fund) or ECB, and you get the picture.

Stage 4: Now, the rape and humiliation of a nation begin. For the debt that was forced upon them, Greece had to sell many of its profitable assets to oligarchs and international corporations. And privatizations are ruthless, involving everything and anything that is profitable. In Greece, privatization included water, electricity, post offices, airport services, national banks, telecommunication, port authorities (which is huge in a country that is a world leader in shipping) etc.

In addition to that, the banker tyrants also get to dictate every single line item in the government’s budget. Want to cut military spending? NO! Want to raise tax on the oligarchs or big corporations? NO! Such micro-management is non-existent in any other creditor-debtor relationship.

So what happens after privatization and despotism under bankers? Of course, the government’s revenue goes down and the debt increases further. How do you “fix” that? Of course, cut spending! Lay off public workers, cut minimum wage, cut pensions (same as our social security), cut public services, and raise taxes on things that would affect the 99% but not the 1%. For example, pension has been cut in half and sales tax increase to more than 20%. All these measures have resulted in Greece going through a financial calamity that is worse than the Great Depression of the U.S. in the 1930s.

Of course, the ever-manipulative bankers demand immediate privatization of all media which means that the country now gets photogenic TV anchors who spew propaganda every day and tell the people that crooked and greedy banksters are saviors; and slavery under austerity is so much better than the alternative.

If every Greek person had known the truth about austerity, they wouldn’t have fallen for this. Same goes for Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and other countries going through austerity.The sad aspect of all this is that these are not unique strategies. Since World War II, these predatory practices have been used countless times by the IMF and the World Bank in Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

This is the essence of the New World Order — a world owned by a handful of corporations and banks.

So, it’s time for the wonderful people of Greece to rise up like Zeus and say NO (“OXI” in Greece) to the greedy puppet masters, unpatriotic oligarchs, parasitic bankers and corrupt politicians.

Dear Greece, know that the world is praying for you. Vote NO to austerity. Say YES to freedom, independence, self-government, and democracy. Yes, democracy, the word that was invented by YOU!

P.S. (You can also watch this video where John Perkins – author of “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” – talks about exploitation of Latin American and Asian countries using the same tools of debt-austerity-privatization. He used to do this for a living!  

Copyright Truth and Satire, 2015

El pasado 10 de septiembre, la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas adoptó una resolución mediante la cual la bandera palestina (así como la bandera de la Santa Sede) pueden ser izadas en la sede de la organización en Nueva York. Se trata de una iniciativa que se inscribe dentro de una ofensiva diplomática palestina tendiente a su pleno reconocimiento como Estado Miembro de Naciones Unidas, una calidad que a la fecha no ostenta, pese a significativos logros diplomáticos obtenidos en años recientes.

Algunas indicaciones con relación al voto registrado

La resolución votada el pasado 10 de septiembre del 2015 fue aprobada en la Asamblea General por 119 votos a favor, 8 en contra (Australia, Canadá, Estados Unidos, Islas Marshall, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau y Tuvalu) y 45 abstenciones: entre estas últimas, figuran, por parte de América Latina, Colombia, Guatemala y Panamá. Entre los 21 “No Show” (Estados cuyos delegados por alguna razón no se hicieron presentes en el momento de la votación), se contabilizan a Haití y a Paraguay. Es de notar que entre los que votaron a favor,  figuran 10 miembros de la Unión Europea: se trata de Bélgica, Eslovenia, España, Francia, Irlanda, Italia, Luxemburgo, Malta, Polonia y Suecia.  En la explicación de su voto, el delegado de Francia concluyó que: “L’inaction n’est pas une option, elle est porteuse de risques de déstabilisation majeurs. La France veut privilégier l’action et la convergence des efforts de la communauté des nations au service d’un objectif partagé, la solution à 2 États, pour la paix et la justice. C’est le sens de notre vote aujourd’hui. Et c’est le sens de l’engagement continu de la France » (Nota 1).

Se leyó en la prensa (ver  nota  de La Nación) que para las autoridades palestinas: “Es un paso en el camino que lleva a Palestina al estatuto de miembro de pleno derecho de Naciones Unidas”, dijo el primer ministro palestino, Rami Hamdallah, en una rueda de prensa conjunta en París con su homólogo francés, Manuel Vall“.  Personalmente presente durante la votación acaecida en Nueva York, el jefe de la diplomacia de Argentina expresó (ver  nota  oficial de la cancillería de Argentina) en su alocución ante los delegados de la Asamblea General que: “Palestina todavía no es miembro pleno de esta organización porque una minoría del Consejo de Seguridad bloquea su incorporación“.

Un reconocimiento de hecho del Estado de Palestina

En la actualidad, Palestina es reconocida oficialmente en el plano bilateral como Estado por 137 Estados: Guatemala (9/04/2013), Haití (27/09/2013), Suecia(30/10/2014), El Vaticano (13/05/2015) – ver  nota  de prensa – y Santa Lucía (14/09/2015) – ver  nota  de prensa – son los últimos Estados en haber procedido a dicho reconocimiento formal del Estado palestino. El reconocimiento por parte del Vaticano en mayo del 2015 llevó a representantes de Palestina a vaticinar que en este año 2015, algunos de los Estados de América Latina que a la fecha no reconocen como tal al Estado palestino se podrían eventualmente sumar: se trata de Colombia, México y Panamá (ver nota de prensa).

En Panamá, en agosto del 2014, se leyó que sus autoridades estaban considerando esta posibilidad (ver  nota  de La Estrella): en julio del 2015, las autoridades de Panamá externaron que el proceso se mantenía en consulta internas (ver  nota  de La Prensa). En Colombia, una misiva enviada por los Presidentes de ambas cámaras del Poder Legislativo al Poder Ejecutivo en diciembre del 2014 pareciera no haber dado lugar a reacción alguna por parte del este último (ver  nota  de Nuevo Siglo).

En el caso de América Latina, cabe recordar que el planteamiento hecho por Costa Rica al establecer relaciones oficiales de Estado a Estado con Palestina en febrero del 2008 fue tal, que procedieron a similar gesto hacia Palestina los siguientes Estados: Venezuela (abril del 2009), República Dominicana (julio del 2009), Bolivia, Brasil, Ecuador y Paraguay (diciembre del 2010), Perú y Chile (enero del 2011), Argentina (febrero del 2011), Uruguay (marzo del 2011), El Salvador y Honduras (agosto del 2011), Guatemala (abril del 2013) y Haití (septiembre del 2013).

Por su parte, el reconocimiento de Suecia en octubre del 2014 reactivó el debate en el seno de la UE (Nota 2), el cual se extendió al Congreso de España a finales de noviembre del 2014: recordemos que el 18 de noviembre, el pleno del Congreso español adoptó una resolución mediante la cual “insta” al Poder Ejecutivo a reconocer a Palestina como Estado, con una votación que deja poco margen al Ejecutivo español: 319 votos a favor, una abstención y dos votos en contra (ver nuestra breve  nota  publicada en el sitio DIPúblico).

Días después, fue el Parlamento de Francia, el que también se pronunció sobre el reconocimiento de Palestina (Nota 3). La misma preocupación se trasladó unas semanas después al Parlamento Europeo, con una resolución votada el 17 de diciembre del 2014 (ver  nota  de prensa de Elmundo.es). En Israel, más de 800 firmas de renombrados intelectuales israelíes, incluyendo a científicos, artistas y a varios premios Nobel, solicitaron dicho reconocimiento a la UE en diciembre del 2014 (ver  nota  de Haaretz).

Pese a la labor de diversos círculos parlamentarios a finales del 2014, ningún otro Estado de la UE ha optado a la fecha por segundar a Suecia. Cabe señalar que, en el seno de la UE como tal, al reconocimiento de Palestina oficializado por parte de Suecia el 30 de octubre del 2014, hay que añadir el de varios Estados: Malta y a Chipre, que reconocieron a Palestina como Estado en 1988, así como los siguientes Estados del extinto bloque socialista ahora integrados a la UE, y que reconocieron al Estado palestino (también en 1988): Bulgaria, Hungría, Polonia, República Checa y Rumanía.

Un trámite pendiente ante un Consejo de Seguridad indeciso

El 23 de septiembre del 2011, el Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas fue formalmente solicitado por Palestina para ser considerada como Estado Miembro de Naciones Unidas. En su solicitud, Palestina precisaba que: “In this connection, the State of Palestine affirms its commitment to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict based on the vision of two-States living side by side in peace and security, as endorsed by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly and the international community as a whole and based on international law and all relevant United Nations resolutions” (ver el  texto completo  – en inglés- de la solicitud palestina del 23/09/2011). El Consejo de Seguridad optó por no tomar decisión alguna y remitió esta solicitud al Comité para la Admisión de Nuevos Miembros, el cual entregó su informe en noviembre del 2011 (ver  texto completo). En su parte conclusiva, el Comité de Admisión admitía que la falta de unanimidad entre sus integrantes no le permitía hacer una recomendación específica al Consejo de Seguridad: “In summing up the debate at the 110th meeting of the Committee, the Chair stated that the Committee was unable to make a unanimous recommendation to the Security Council“.

Ante la poca acción del máximo órgano de Naciones Unidas con relación a la petición palestina, y siguiendo una de las recomendaciones hechas por el mismo Comité de Admisión, el año siguiente, la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas aprobó el 29 de noviembre del 2012 una resolución reconociendo a Palestina el estatuto de “Estado No Miembro Observador”. El voto registrado fue contundente y considerado por muchos observadores internacionales como una histórica victoria diplomática de Palestina: 138 votos a favor, 9 en contra y 41 abstenciones.

En aquella oportunidad, con relación al voto de América Latina, Panamá (y en el caso de la UE, República Checa) se unieron a los 7 Estados restantes que votaron en contra (Canadá, Estados Unidos, Islas Marshall, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru y Palau). Si bien se puede considerar que la posición de Panamá fue consistente desde el punto de vista jurídico, la de República Checa constituyó un extraño ejercicio en el sentido opuesto, que posiblemente no cuente con antecedente alguno en la historia del derecho internacional. Entre las 41 abstenciones, encontramos, por parte de América Latina, a Colombia, Guatemala, Haití y Paraguay.

Una hábil estrategia diplomática

Ante la obtención del estatuto de “Estado observador no miembro” en noviembre del 2012, Israel contestó ordenando, 24 horas después del voto, la construcción de 3000 nuevos asentamientos ilegales en los territorios palestinos ocupados (ver  nota  de prensa). Pese a estas gesticulaciones (ya habituales) de Israel – que se mantienen en la más total ilegalidad gracias al veto (también habitual) de Estados Unidos en el seno del Consejo de Seguridad – las autoridades palestinas prosiguieron su tarea de afianzar un poco más a Palestina con las herramientas que ofrece a cualquier Estado el derecho internacional público: el estatuto logrado en noviembre del 2012 les permitió suscribir una gran cantidad de tratados internacionales auspiciados por las Naciones Unidas, incluyendo, en el mes de enero del 2015, el Estatuto de Roma que establece la Corte Penal Internacional (CPI): se trata de un instrumento del derecho penal internacional, un capítulo del derecho internacional especialmente temido por Israel y por su incondicional aliado norteamericano, que tuvimos la oportunidad de analizar en su momento (Nota 4).  En abril del 2014, Palestina suscribió unos 20 tratados como Estado relativos a derechos humanos, al derecho internacional humanitario y a capítulos más clásicos del derecho internacional como la Convención sobre relaciones diplomáticas de 1961, sobre relaciones consulares de 1963 o la misma Convención de Viena sobre derecho de los tratados de 1969, entre otros. En respuesta, el mismo día 1 de abril del 2014 en que Palestina suscribía estos instrumentos, Israel ordenaba la construcción de 708 nuevos asentamientos ilegales y la destrucción de 32 casas habitadas por palestinos (ver  nota  de Human Rights Watch  del 2 de abril del 2014).

Posibles perspectivas

Con relación a la resolución adoptada por Naciones Unidas el pasado 10 de septiembre del 2015 (ver texto completo al final de esta nota), se prevé que en un plazo de 20 días, la bandera de Palestina deberá ser izada por los servicios técnicos de la Secretaría General de la organización. Tratándose de un momento cargado de simbolismo para la causa palestina, es muy posible que una gran cantidad de personalidades políticas de todo el mundo acudan a Nueva York: hacerse presente al momento de ondear por vez primera en la historia la bandera palestina en la sede de las Naciones Unidas constituirá sin lugar a dudas un momento anhelado por muchos, y desde muchos años.

La señal enviada por esta bandera izada a pocos metros de la sala de sesiones del Consejo de Seguridad tal vez recuerde a algunos de sus integrantes que el máximo órgano de la organización mundial mantiene desde el 2011 una deuda pendiente con Palestina y con la comunidad internacional como tal.

Nicolas Boeglin

Texto de la resolución adoptada por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas:

Sexagésimo noveno período de sesiones

Tema 120 del programa

Fortalecimiento del sistema de las Naciones Unidas
Proyecto de resolución A/69/L.87/Rev.1

Izado de las banderas de los Estados observadores no miembros en las Naciones Unidas

La Asamblea General,

Guiada por los propósitos y principios de la Carta,

Teniendo presente el preámbulo de la Carta y la reafirmación de la fe en la igualdad de derechos de hombres y mujeres y de las naciones grandes y pequeñas,

Observando la participación de Estados observadores no miembros que mantienen misiones permanentes de observación en la Sede en los períodos de sesiones y la labor de la Asamblea General,

Recordando que el Estado de Palestina se convirtió en Estado observador no miembro en las Naciones Unidas el 29 de noviembre de 2012, y recordando además a este respecto su resolución 67/19, de 29 de noviembre de 2012, y las resoluciones anteriores pertinentes,

1. Decide que las banderas de los Estados observadores no miembros en las Naciones Unidas que mantengan misiones permanentes de observación en la Sede serán izadas en la Sede y las oficinas de las Naciones Unidas tras las banderas de los Estados Miembros de las Naciones Unidas;

2. Solicita al Secretario General que tome las medidas necesarias para la aplicación de esta decisión en el septuagésimo período de sesiones de la Asamblea General y en un plazo de 20 días desde la aprobación de la presente resolución.

 

Notas

Nota 1: El texto completo del representante de Francia pronunciado el 10 de septiembre del 2015 en Nueva York está disponible en este  enlace  de la Misión de Francia ante Naciones Unidas. A notar la ausencia de toda referencia a la excitativa hecha por el Parlamente francés al Poder Ejecutivo de noviembre del 2014 así como a la resolución del Parlamento Europeo del 17 de diciembre del 2014 sobre la necesidad de reconocer al Estado palestino.

Nota 2: Referimos al lector a nuestro artículo publicado en el sitio de Global Research: BOEGLIN N.  “El reconocimiento de Palestina por parte de Suecia: balance y perspectivas”, Global Research,  25/11/2014, disponible  aquí .

Nota 3: La acción del Parlamente francés fue analizada en su momento en el siguiente artículo publicado en Derechoaldia. Véase BOEGLIN N., ”Francia: parlamento “invita” a reconocer a Palestina como Estado”, Derechoaldía, 5/12/2014, disponible  aquí.

Nota 4: Remitimos al lector a nuestro breve artículo: BOEGLIN N., “La accesión de Palestina al Estatuto de Roma y a otros instrumentos internacionales: breve puesta en perspectiva”, Derechoaldia, 16/1/2015, disponible  aquí.

 

Nicolas Boeglin : Profesor de Derecho Internacional Público, Facultad de Derecho, Universidad de Costa Rica (UCR)

It’s all over but the postmortems. Western bankers, large investors and other corporate interests triumphed on Sunday as expected – over fairness, equity and justice.

Greece remains Troika occupied territory, its sovereignty and soul lost, its people assured of greater suffering than already, its economy strip-mined for profit, its deplorable status the future of Europe and America, headed toward becoming thirdworldized ruler-serf societies unfit to live in.

SRYIZA retained power by a larger than expected margin – with nearly all votes counted, achieving a 7.4% margin over New Democracy (35.5% to 28.1%).

It’ll hold 145 seats in the 300 member parliament, majority control easily within reach with a coalition partner, likely Independent Greeks like before, expected to be announced on Monday or early in the week.

The Wall Street Journal said SRYIZA’s victory “confounded opinion polls (suggesting) a much closer race, and possibly even a defeat for Mr. Tsipras’ party.”

A record low turnout at less than 55% showed popular disgust with business as usual. SRYIZA effectively got 20% support from the electorate, far from a mandate, a stinging disapproval, showing popular opposition to its policies.

Alexis Tsipras lied claiming otherwise, saying “(t)he Greek people have given us a clear mandate to discard whatever kept us stuck in the past. It’s a crystal clear mandate to escape from the old, corrupt establishment that governed this country for so many years.”

He’s part of the same ugly system – pro-business, anti-populist, pretending to be otherwise, committed to harsher austerity than his predecessors, dismissive of millions of suffering Greeks, their needs and rights ignored so bankers and other corporate predators can profit from their misery.

Eurogroup president/Dutch finance minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem congratulated Tsipras, saying:

I now look forward to the swift formation of a new government with a strong mandate to continue the reform process in Greece. I stand ready to work closely with the Greek authorities and to continue accompanying Greece in its ambitious reform efforts.

The Financial Times explained, saying “(h)is first task as re-elected prime minister will be to implement more tough austerity measures demanded by creditors in return for a new €86bn rescue package.”

Breakaway SYRIZA Popular Unity party won a scant 2.8% support – below the required 3% threshold for seats in parliament. Its representation is as follows:

SRYIZA – 145 seats (five short of a majority)

New Democracy – 75 seats

Neo-Nazi Golden Dawn – 18 seats

Pasok – 17

KKE (the Greek communist party) – 15

Potami – 11

Independent Greeks (Anel) – 10

Union of Centrists – 9

On Monday, Greek media said SRYIZA and Independent Greeks will form a new government “as early as Mondayafternoon or Tuesday morning” – giving him a slim, potentially unstable, 155 seat majority.

Former SRYIZA finance minister Yanis Varoufakis calledSunday’s electoral results “the ‘legalization’ of the capitulation that followed the signing of the dead end, humiliating and irrational” bailout deal – unconditional surrender to Troika demands, spurning strong anti-austerity sentiment.

Dystopian harshness in Greece is a window on the future. We’re all Greeks now!

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PMCentral time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

 

At least 82 bags filled with contaminated material from the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant have been swept away by flood water as typhoon Etau hit Japan, officials said. TEPCO said rainwater from the nuclear plant has been leaking into the Pacific.

A number of important initiatives linked largely to the economy made public in the last few years may have a huge impact upon the future of humankind. ASEAN and China have played a pioneering role in some of them.

The ASEAN initiated Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), negotiations for which started in early 2013, seeks to forge a pact among the 10 ASEAN members and its six free trade partners, namely, Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea on trade in goods and services, investment, economic and technical cooperation, intellectual property, competition, dispute settlement and other issues. RCEP is, in a sense, a diluted version of the East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC) proposed by former Malaysian Prime Minister,

Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, in the early nineties. EAEC, confined to ASEAN and the three East Asian states, China, Japan and South Korea, had a more coherent economic, cultural, geographical and historical basis but the idea was vehemently opposed by the United States of America and to a lesser extent, by Japan.  In spite of its geographical dispersion, RCEP is still a viable proposition. At its third ministerial meeting in Kuala Lumpur in August 2015, there was a determined effort to give RCEP a push. Some consensus was reached about eliminating tariffs in the goods sector. There are issues pertaining to agriculture, investments, intellectual property and dispute settlement which have yet to be resolved. A momentum of sorts has been created in Kuala Lumpur largely through the hard work of officials at the Malaysian Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) which one hopes will be sustained through future meetings.

A more significant initiative emanating from China is of course the much publicized Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Formed in October 2014, it is a multilateral development bank that aims to provide finance to infrastructure projects in Asia. It has been estimated that Asia requires 8 trillion US dollars’ worth of infrastructure investment from 2010 to 2020 to be able to sustain its economic development. Neither the Japan led Asian Development Bank (ADB) nor the US helmed World Bank has the capacity or the inclination to fund such a mammoth transformation. China’s willingness to respond to the challenge has been warmly welcomed by a number of countries. Besides, the Chinese leadership is also frustrated by the lack of sincerity on the part of the US and Japanese governments in reforming the World Bank and the ADB respectively to reflect the new demands and the emerging realities of the global economy.

While the AIIB is an important development in itself, it is the response of a number of close allies of the US to the bank which is revealing of current and future patterns of global economic power. Sensing the shift in global economic power, Britain withstood intense pressure from the US Administration and joined the AIIB in March 2015. Three other European allies of the US — Germany, France and Italy — followed suit. US allies from West Asia, Eastern Europe and the Pacific have all signed up. The bank’s membership is rapidly approaching 70. The two major economies that have decided to stay out are the US and Japan.

It is not just the AIIB that is reflective of the emerging pattern of global economic power. China has also been at the forefront of BRICS which brings together Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Collectively, this grouping, which held its first summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia in June 2009, represents 3 billion people. Its nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) stands at 16.039 trillion US dollars.  BRICS emphasizes cooperation in economic and financial matters. It created a bank called the New Development Bank with a 100 billion dollar base in July 2015.

There is a third Chinese initiative that has the potential for transforming a whole range of economies in both the Global South and the Global North. The One Belt One Road (OBOR) project built upon the ancient Silk Road focuses on both land and maritime routes. The aim is to invest in infrastructure development and other economic activities in Southeast Asia, parts of South Asia, Central Asia, East Africa and West Asia right up to Europe.

The question that is often asked nowadays is whether China, given its slowing economy, would be able to finance all these massive projects in the coming years?  The slowdown is to a great extent due to a deliberate policy decision to shift from export-led growth to domestic consumption. This in turn would help to reduce income and social disparities within China which would in the medium and long-term strengthen the economy and society.

Disparities are undoubtedly one of the formidable challenges facing China. Corruption, enhancing the rule of law, legitimizing dissent, and improving the quality of the environment would be some of the other major challenges which are all being addressed by the leadership with varying degrees of effectiveness. But China’s ability to transform the global economy would also be determined by the solidarity of its ties with its neighbors and friends and whether it succeeds in overcoming certain longstanding territorial disputes with some of them. There is yet another decisive factor that will impact upon China’s global role: how would the antagonism of those who resent China’s rise as a global power express itself in the coming years?

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

A number of important initiatives linked largely to the economy made public in the last few years may have a huge impact upon the future of humankind. ASEAN and China have played a pioneering role in some of them.

The ASEAN initiated Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), negotiations for which started in early 2013, seeks to forge a pact among the 10 ASEAN members and its six free trade partners, namely, Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea on trade in goods and services, investment, economic and technical cooperation, intellectual property, competition, dispute settlement and other issues. RCEP is, in a sense, a diluted version of the East Asia Economic Caucus (EAEC) proposed by former Malaysian Prime Minister,

Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, in the early nineties. EAEC, confined to ASEAN and the three East Asian states, China, Japan and South Korea, had a more coherent economic, cultural, geographical and historical basis but the idea was vehemently opposed by the United States of America and to a lesser extent, by Japan.  In spite of its geographical dispersion, RCEP is still a viable proposition. At its third ministerial meeting in Kuala Lumpur in August 2015, there was a determined effort to give RCEP a push. Some consensus was reached about eliminating tariffs in the goods sector. There are issues pertaining to agriculture, investments, intellectual property and dispute settlement which have yet to be resolved. A momentum of sorts has been created in Kuala Lumpur largely through the hard work of officials at the Malaysian Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) which one hopes will be sustained through future meetings.

A more significant initiative emanating from China is of course the much publicized Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Formed in October 2014, it is a multilateral development bank that aims to provide finance to infrastructure projects in Asia. It has been estimated that Asia requires 8 trillion US dollars’ worth of infrastructure investment from 2010 to 2020 to be able to sustain its economic development. Neither the Japan led Asian Development Bank (ADB) nor the US helmed World Bank has the capacity or the inclination to fund such a mammoth transformation. China’s willingness to respond to the challenge has been warmly welcomed by a number of countries. Besides, the Chinese leadership is also frustrated by the lack of sincerity on the part of the US and Japanese governments in reforming the World Bank and the ADB respectively to reflect the new demands and the emerging realities of the global economy.

While the AIIB is an important development in itself, it is the response of a number of close allies of the US to the bank which is revealing of current and future patterns of global economic power. Sensing the shift in global economic power, Britain withstood intense pressure from the US Administration and joined the AIIB in March 2015. Three other European allies of the US — Germany, France and Italy — followed suit. US allies from West Asia, Eastern Europe and the Pacific have all signed up. The bank’s membership is rapidly approaching 70. The two major economies that have decided to stay out are the US and Japan.

It is not just the AIIB that is reflective of the emerging pattern of global economic power. China has also been at the forefront of BRICS which brings together Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Collectively, this grouping, which held its first summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia in June 2009, represents 3 billion people. Its nominal Gross Domestic Product (GDP) stands at 16.039 trillion US dollars.  BRICS emphasizes cooperation in economic and financial matters. It created a bank called the New Development Bank with a 100 billion dollar base in July 2015.

There is a third Chinese initiative that has the potential for transforming a whole range of economies in both the Global South and the Global North. The One Belt One Road (OBOR) project built upon the ancient Silk Road focuses on both land and maritime routes. The aim is to invest in infrastructure development and other economic activities in Southeast Asia, parts of South Asia, Central Asia, East Africa and West Asia right up to Europe.

The question that is often asked nowadays is whether China, given its slowing economy, would be able to finance all these massive projects in the coming years?  The slowdown is to a great extent due to a deliberate policy decision to shift from export-led growth to domestic consumption. This in turn would help to reduce income and social disparities within China which would in the medium and long-term strengthen the economy and society.

Disparities are undoubtedly one of the formidable challenges facing China. Corruption, enhancing the rule of law, legitimizing dissent, and improving the quality of the environment would be some of the other major challenges which are all being addressed by the leadership with varying degrees of effectiveness. But China’s ability to transform the global economy would also be determined by the solidarity of its ties with its neighbors and friends and whether it succeeds in overcoming certain longstanding territorial disputes with some of them. There is yet another decisive factor that will impact upon China’s global role: how would the antagonism of those who resent China’s rise as a global power express itself in the coming years?

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST).

The aim of Washington’s program to train the forces that are going against ISIL is to deliver arms to the Syrian opposition forces trying to topple President Assad, according to Scott Bennett, a former US Army officer and counterterrorism analyst.

He also slammed Washington’s Middle East policy and touted Russia’s role in defeating Islamic State militants, a task that he said the White House has failed to implement.

“I really hope that Vladimir Putin’ Russian influence in attacking ISIL will help create a coalition of unified countries with the honest desire and ambition to defeat the fanatics,” Bennett said.

Additionally, he urged the United States to stop funding mercenaries, which he said Washington “amazingly fails to do.”

Last year, the Obama administration announced a program on training Syrian rebel fighters to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Earlier this week, General Lloyd Austin, head of the US military’s Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Washington’s training program is behind schedule, and that the military’s target of training 15,000 rebels in three years will not be met on time. It has only trained several so far.

The parliament of Montenegro has adopted symbolic resolution supporting country’s integration into NATO. While the alliance will consider extending an invitation from December onward, the opposition is insisting on bringing the matter to referendum.

The attacks launched by the United States against Nicolas Maduro, Rafael Correa, Evo Morales, Dilma Rousseff and Christina Fernandez are becoming increasingly intensive. Washington believes that the fall of one of them will spur a domino effect across Latin America and clear the continent from “populists”.

Surprisingly, the US embassy in Guatemala has conducted a special operation to dismiss President Otto Perez Molina. He was believed to be a creation of the Pentagon and the State Department. In the 1980s Washington encouraged repressions to quell the guerilla movement in Guatemala and Central America. General Perez Molina was in charge of punitive actions conducted by the Guatemalan special–forces unit known as the Kaibiles. Then the Central Intelligence Agency helped him to become Director of Military Intelligence. Washington had no doubt that as President he would obediently follow the instructions to counter the activities of regional “populists”.

But Perez strived for independence. He ignored direct instructions coming from the embassy and demonstrated in every possible way that he was the one to call the shots in Guatemala. He even told his inner circle that was going to declare the US ambassador Todd Robinson persona non grata. The embassy got a tip on the President’s plans and stole a march on him. It used the fight against corruption to topple Perez. Officially International Commission against impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) leads the fight under the United Nations auspices. In reality, the Commission is controlled by the US State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency that do their best to clear the way for a “new generation” of the US henchmen into Guatemalan politics.

Perez knew well that the US embassy gave discrediting information to CIGIC in order to smear him and his team. Spying equipment was installed in the US embassy building. He did not openly show his discontent with the Commission. The President tried to close the CICIG mission by the end of the year saying its mission had been accomplished. But he failed to resist the pressure exerted by the United States. Perez gave in. He extended the CICIG’s mandate for two more years.

In February 2014, Ivan Velasquez of Colombia was appointed to head the CICIG. Before that he had served as a Supreme Court judge in his country. Back then he did the same thing he is doing now in Guatemala. Velasquez lent a helping hand to compromised CIA and US military intelligence agents. That’s how the US normally treats people: Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go. Pro-US media outlets in Guatemala paint Velasquez as a hero. The headlines call him the Colombian who toppled Pérez Molina. He keeps quiet about the participation of the US embassy in the investigation or his contacts with the CIA.

Growing rumors, framed-up accusations, and deliberate dissemination of disinformation convinced the people of Guatemala that two mafia military groups ruled the country. Allegedly, Perez headed one of them – El Sindicato. The other – Cofradía – was led by Guatemalan vice–president Roxana Baldetti. Poorly concocted accusations often fail to stand up to scrutiny. But it usually they give a big enough time margin for the US special services to discredit and dismiss unwanted politicians.

Perez had to cede under the pressure of “spontaneous” street protests staged under the slogans of fight against the corruption. First, Guatemalan Vice President Roxana Baldetti had to resign followed by dozens of high standing officials. Many of them were accused of being involved into the activities of La Linea corrupt network, which penetrated the national tax office and customs. Media outlets described Perez Molina as the key figure of this criminal group. According to them, his hostility towards CICIG was explained by the desire to protect his immense wealth amassed from shady sources.

Gradually the Guatemalan President started to lose grip on the situation. He tried all kinds of different things to reverse the trend. For instance, Perez assured the US ambassador Todd Robinson that he was ready to take resolute steps aimed at implementation of legal and political reforms. It was too late. Street manifestations and other actions of protest were on the rise. On June 5, the activists of little-known group called the Peasant–Worker Alliance blocked the roads to the Guatemalan capital.

The action was staged according to the pattern of action normally use by the CIA. In late August, the country was hit by a national strike that involved at least a hundred thousand people. The parliament reacted. It stripped Perez of immunity.

On September 2, the President had to resign. The next day he was arrested on corruption charges, according to a court order. Taking into account the seriousness of the case, he was put into a military prison.

In an interview with CNN, Otto Perez Molina said Washington was behind the events. He emphasized that the United Nations International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala was under the US control. Perez said they had told him at least three times about it. For instance, Vice President Biden said so when Perez was on a visit to Washington. He asked him to prolong the CICIG mandate. According to Perez, he hesitated for a long time because the military leadership believed that the Commission was a repressive body created to persecute the people of Guatemala. The United States allocated funds to establish it. Supposedly, the CICIG was after those who were allegedly involved in corruption, but not only. It also oppressed the people who “defended the country” during the civil war.

In accordance with the constitution, former Vice President Alejandro Maldonado, a 79 year old man, filled the vacancy. He is an “unsinkable” politician who has the reputation of being pro-American. He’ll stay in office till January 14, 2016 when a newly elected President will take an oath. On September 3, the US embassy website posted the following statement, “We note the resignation of Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina. We will work with newly sworn in President Alejandro Maldonado Aguirre on his reform agenda, as we continue the fight against corruption and impunity in Guatemala. We commend the people of Guatemala and their institutions, for the peaceful manner in which they have dealt with this crisis. We underscore our support for Guatemala’s democratic process, including general elections scheduled for September 6.”

Snap election took place in time. None of candidates got enough votes. That means they will face off in a run-off election.

According to the media, Jimmie Morales, 46, has a chance. He is a comic actor, a TV anchor and a filmmaker. Morales runs on the ticket of the National Front of Convergence (FCN) supported by national conservative military and reactionary bourgeois circles. In 2013 the party chose him as its secretary-general. He can use stage experience to address mass audience and knows how to say exactly what people want to hear. His campaign theme is “Neither corrupt nor a thief.” It’s still not clear who will run against him in the run-off election. It could be Sandra Julieta Torres Casanova, the secretary general of the National Unity of Hope (Unidad Nacional de la Esperanza or UNE), which defines itself as a social-democratic and social-Christian party. Manuel Antonio Baldizón is another possible presidential candidate. He is the leader of the Renewed Democratic Party or LIDER (Libertad Democrática Renovada). The two ran neck and neck in the first round. The name of another run-off candidate will be known after a thorough recount of the votes. From the point of view of the US State Department, none of these candidates gives a cause for concern.

Media analysts wonder what made Americans get rid of Perez. Corruption is widely spread among the countries of the continent. The situation is much more serious in Mexico, the US neighbor, with its high-profile corruption scandals raging. Are there any geopolitical plans for the Alliance for Prosperity of the Northern Triangle (Guatemala, Honduras, and Salvador)? Or, perhaps, Perez refused to head the regional opposition to oppose the building of the Nicaragua transoceanic canal? Did he oppose the Pentagon plans to construct large military installations in Guatemala to be used as springboards for future operations?

Or maybe the United States does it just to show the people of the Central America who calls the shots in the region (as they say beat the dog before the lion)? I believe the latter supposition is right. The United States has been implementing a kind of “all brawn and no brains” foreign policy in the last quarter–century. Could have Otto Perez Molina, the President of independent and sovereign Guatemala, imagined himself getting into trouble with the United States over the International Commission against impunity in Guatemala?

A rogue’s gallery of the world’s despots and war criminals descended on London last week, at the invitation of the British government. They were attending the Defence and Security Equipment International Exhibition (DSEI).

The biannual arms fair, held over four days at the ExCeL Exhibition centre in London’s Docklands, showcases cutting-edge weapons technology as well as military hardware aimed at suppressing working class rebellion. More than 1,000 arms manufacturers flaunt their wares, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and Bae Systems, and Israel’s Elbit systems.

Financed by the taxpayer, via the UK Trade & Investment’s Defence & Security Organisation (UKTI DSO), a government department, this year’s event was the biggest ever. Over 30,000 people are estimated to have attended from 61 countries, including 2,800 VIPs ranging from senior generals to defence ministers.

The primary objective of UKTI DSO is to work on behalf of private manufacturers to promote the sale of weapons to other countries. In 2014, the UK secured export deals for weaponry worth £8.5 billion and security equipment worth £3.4 billion. The UK’s is now the world’s second largest exporter of defence equipment, behind the United States.

Despots, murderers and human rights violators from Saudi Arabia, Israel, Ukraine, Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Angola, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Pakistan and Kazakhstan, were invited to the DSEI in an official capacity, and accommodated throughout.

Given the nature of the regimes attending, it is hardly surprising that investigations of past DSEI arms fairs uncovered the illegal trade of torture implements such as electric shock stun guns and batons, leg irons, and belly, body and gang chains. All of these are illegal under British law.

One may be forgiven for thinking that those peddling such torture devices had somehow slipped through the net of a rigorous checks procedure. Yet it was found that implements for the use of torture were on sale at DSEI in 2005, 2007, 2011 and 2013.

In 2005, cluster bombs were being promoted and offered for sale, despite reassurances by organisers that such weapons would not be traded. Cluster munitions are designed to release hundreds of explosive bomblets or landmines onto their targets. In 2011, two unnamed arms companies were found to be promoting the sale of cluster munitions at DSEI. This was in clear violation of the 2010 Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions, which legally prohibits their use and stockpiling.

UK Foreign Office minister Tobias Elwood argued earlier this year that the UK “operates one of the most rigorous and transparent arms export control regimes in the world.” Clearly none of this prevents it from supplying deadly weaponry to filthy blood-soaked regimes.

Israel’s brutal invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in July 2014 led to the death of over 2,200 Palestinians, with a further estimated 11,000 wounded. During the 50-day onslaught, some 20,000 homes were destroyed with up to 500,000 Palestinians displaced. Most of those killed were civilians, including 490 children. The British government granted 68 arms export licences to Israel worth £7 million between January and June of 2014. A further £4 million was approved after Israel had concluded its slaughter of thousands of Palestinians.

Since 2010, Britain has authorised arms licences to 19 countries blacklisted by the United Nations for grave violations against children, including the use of children as soldiers. Total arms sales to such counties stands at £735 million. Of the 23 countries blacklisted by the UN for appalling human rights abuses, including the use of children as soldiers, Britain has permitted arms sales to all but four of them.

The recruitment of children into armed groups within the Democratic Republic of Congo has been well documented. Yet the country has received £2.4 million worth of military hardware from the UK since 2010. Despite United Nations (UN) proof that the Somali National Army, as well as al-Shabaab, have engaged in the recruitment of children as soldiers, Somalia has likewise received some £6.7 million in arms from the UK, including assault rifles, ammunition and vehicles.

Saudi Arabia received £1.6 billion in approved weapons exports in 2014, including “components for military equipment for initiating explosives”, “equipment for the production of machine guns”, “CS hand grenades”, “components for water cannons” and “tear gas/ irritant ammunition”. With an increase of 54 percent in the last year, Saudi Arabia has become the world’s biggest importer of weapons.

Figures released by Amnesty International last month showed that 175 people had been publicly beheaded already this year in Saudi Arabia. Those executed included people with mental disabilities as well as children under 18.

As well as horrific human rights abuses, Saudi Arabia continues to spearhead the bombardment of Yemen in an attempt to oust Houthi armed groups. In May the Daily Telegraph reported,

“Saudi military sources say they have an estimated 100 combat warplanes taking part in bombing operations against Houthi positions on an almost daily basis. Of these about 50 percent are British-made Tornados and Eurofighters that have been sold to the Saudis over the past 30 years…”

During the first month of the bombing campaign, Saudi Arabia conducted 2,200 missions in Yemen. Since then hospitals, schools, factories and refugee camps have been bombed and shelled. At least 5,000 people have been killed. According to UN figures, a staggering 80 percent of Yemen’s 25 million population are now said to be on the brink of famine.

As a result of British arms sales, Saudi Arabia possesses twice the amount of British-made warplanes than those of the Royal Air Force, all of which are now being used to perpetrate war crimes against civilians. Just this summer, Britain delivered to Saudi Arabia a consignment of 500lb Paveway IV bombs originally earmarked for the RAF.

War crimes such as the indiscriminate targeting of populated areas by Saudi Arabia are now routine, leading the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Peter Maurer, to publicly declare, “The humanitarian situation is nothing short of catastrophic.” In the days ahead, it is expected that Saudi Arabia will purchase additional weapons from Britain to continue its campaign of horror and bloodshed.

On September 14, the day before DSEI opened its doors, Britain’s Foreign Office Minister Hugo Swire addressed the Human Rights Council in Geneva to discuss the UK’s human rights priorities. Swire said,

“Few other international meetings come with such responsibility: to hold to account those responsible for the worst violations and abuses; to speak out for victims; and to support those states determined to make the transition towards a better tomorrow—where rights, values and the rule of law are upheld.”

Swire concluded his address by stating, “Ultimately we will be judged by our actions not our words.”

But behind the fine words, there is the brutal reality.

Azerbaijan and Egypt were not invited to the DSEI’s 2013 event. Significantly, both were welcomed to this year’s gathering.

In July 2013, Egyptian dictator General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi took power in a bloody Western-backed military coup, overthrowing the government of Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Mursi. Since then the al-Sisi regime has killed at least 3,000 people, including the massacre of over 1,000 members of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2014, Egypt’s courts condemned a total of 1,397 political detainees to death in three mass show trials. In January this year, al-Sisi boasted that his regime had imprisoned nearly 10,000 people in the previous year.

Desde hace varios meses la Reserva Federal viene insistiendo con que la recuperación de la economía norteamericana va viento en popa. Sin embargo, los estímulos monetarios multimillonarios (‘Quantitative Easing’) y mantener la tasa de interés de los fondos federales (‘federal funds rate’) cercana a cero no ha sido suficiente para disipar por completo las tendencias recesivas. A 7 años de la quiebra de Lehman Brothers, la actual presidenta del banco central estadounidense, Janet Yellen, enfrenta un serio dilema: detener el auge bursátil bajo el riesgo de convertir en realidad la peor pesadilla de Estados Unidos, la deflación.

La economía de Estados Unidos muestra aparentemente señales de recuperación. Durante el segundo trimestre de 2015 el Producto Interno Bruto (PIB) registró un aumento de 3.7% –en términos anuales–, muy por encima de la primera estimación de 2.3% que se publicó hace 2 meses.

Esta nueva revisión del crecimiento del PIB colmó de optimismo a los dirigentes de Washington, ya que, según ellos, logró disolver la desconfianza que surgió durante el último trimestre de 2014, cuando la actividad económica se desplomó 0.7 puntos porcentuales[1].

Washington se vanagloria de que el mercado laboral se repone a paso veloz. El sector privado generó más de 13 millones de empleos a lo largo de los últimos 5 años y medio[2]. En agosto, la nómina no agrícola sumó 173,000 plazas, que si bien representa un monto menor comparado con el promedio de 247,000 de los últimos 12 meses, por lo menos resultó suficiente para disminuir la tasa de desempleo de 5.3 a 5.1%, la más baja desde abril de 2008[3].

Estados Unidos prácticamente se encuentra en un nivel de «pleno empleo», asevera Loreta J. Mestter, la presidenta del Banco de la Reserva Federal de Cleveland. No obstante, esa presunción contrasta con la precariedad que padece la mayoría. El «modo de vida americano» (‘American way of life’) es una ficción que únicamente aparece en el cine y la televisión. Los estadounidenses que viven en los suburbios más pobres se han convertido en las principales víctimas de una política económica que favorece a menos de 1% de la población.

La Reserva Federal de Estados Unidos tiene un doble mandato, por un lado, promover la creación de empleo y, por otro lado, garantizar la estabilidad de precios, según se lee en los estatutos del banco central. Sin embargo, esos objetivos no se cumplen, son ‘letra muerta’.

En primer lugar, el nivel rentabilidad empresarial no es tan alto como para producir un ciclo expansivo de largo plazo. En consecuencia, la inflación se mantiene demasiado baja, incluso corre el peligro de convertirse en deflación (caída de precios). En segundo lugar, el «dinamismo» del mercado laboral estadounidense está muy sobredimensionado por la Casa Blanca. La tasa de desempleo cercana a 5% oculta que el subempleo todavía se mantiene muy elevado[4].

De acuerdo con una definición mucho más amplia de desempleo (metodología U-6), que incluye a los trabajadores a tiempo parcial (6.5 millones de estadounidenses) –pero que estarían dispuestos a ocupar plazas de tiempo completo–, así como a las personas que abandonaron la búsqueda de empleo durante el último año (1.8 millones de estadounidenses) –pero que eventualmente regresarían a sumarse a la fuerza laboral–, la tasa de desempleo se ubica en 10.3%.

El ‘estancamiento secular’

Si bien la Reserva Federal mantiene desde diciembre de 2008 la tasa de interés de los fondos federales (‘federal funds rate’) entre 0 y 0.25%, ello no ha logrado detonar inversiones masivas para, en esa misma proporción, impulsar la creación de empleo en todo el país. Lo mismo sucede en el caso de los programas de flexibilización cuantitativa (‘Quantitative Easing’), son medidas que en poco o nada han contribuido a aliviar el deterioro económico del estadounidense ordinario.

Ben S. Bernanke, el anterior presidente de la Reserva Federal, anunció en diciembre de 2008 la compra de activos sustentados en hipotecas (‘asset-backed securities’), y en noviembre de 2010 la adquisición de bonos del Tesoro (‘U.S. Treasury bonds’), acciones que, según su propia lógica, ayudarían a incrementar el otorgamiento de crédito de parte de los bancos, y mantener las tasas de interés de largo plazo en niveles mínimos.

Nunca en la historia del capitalismo se había llevado a cabo un plan de estímulo monetario de tal magnitud: inyecciones mensuales de liquidez por un monto de 85,000 millones de dólares. Como consecuencia de esa política, las compras multimillonarias de activos multiplicaron por 5 el tamaño de la hoja de balance (‘balance sheet’) de la Reserva Federal, que pasó de 870,000 millones de dólares a más de 4.5 billones de dólares entre agosto de 2007 y noviembre de 2014.

Los mayores beneficiarios resultaron ser los grandes bancos de inversiones: Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, etcétera. En lugar de apoyar el desarrollo de la actividad productiva y la generación de empleos de calidad, la política monetaria «no convencional» implementada por la Reserva Federal promovió la «exuberancia irracional» de los inversionistas que operan en Wall Street. En cambio, en el grueso de la economía el «proceso de recuperación» continuó siendo débil y desigual.

Larry Summers, quien estuvo a cargo del Departamento del Tesoro de 1999 a 2001 bajo la presidencia de Bill Clinton, tomó prestado a finales de 2013 el concepto de ‘estancamiento secular’ para analizar las condiciones de la economía norteamericana, el mismo que el economista Alvin Hansen (1887-1975) hilvanó en la década de 1930, en plena ‘Gran Depresión’[5].

Según Summers, si bien es cierto que las bolsas de valores alcanzaron ya los niveles de capitalización observados antes del estallido de la crisis hipotecaria (‘subprime’) –gracias a la política de estímulos de los bancos centrales–, los países que integran el G-7 (Alemania, Canadá, Estados Unidos, Francia, Italia, Japón y Reino Unido) continúan registrando tasas de crecimiento decepcionantes.

En el caso específico de Estados Unidos, no hay duda de que desde hace varios años se viene consolidando una «nueva normalidad» económica, caracterizada por altos niveles de endeudamiento tanto público como privado, muy poca inversión de capital y creación de empleo marginal. El problema es que el arsenal del Estado norteamericano se ha mostrado cada vez más incapaz de combatir las tendencias recesivas que acechan de cerca a la economía[6].

La Reserva Federal está dividida

Aún no hay consenso entre los integrantes de la Reserva Federal sobre si aumentar o no la tasa de interés de los fondos federales (‘federal funds rate’). Antes de deliberar se reúnen hoy y mañana[7]. La mayor preocupación de las autoridades monetarias de Estados Unidos es el surgimiento de la caída de precios. Y es que la deflación es mucho más dañina para la economía que la inflación elevada.

Como las empresas disminuyen los precios de sus mercancías, los consumidores comienzan a postergar sus compras, con la esperanza puesta en que los precios continuarán cayendo. Los capitalistas se encuentran con un nivel de demanda en caída libre, y en consecuencia, disminuyen sus niveles de producción y realizan despidos masivos.

Los ingresos de los consumidores se desploman, contrayendo aún más el nivel de demanda. Entonces, los empresarios eliminan todavía más producción y empleos, hundidos en una espiral depresiva que combina deflación y caída del PIB. Asimismo, las deudas de las empresas se vuelven onerosas, los impagos aumentan y la solvencia de los bancos se pone en un serio predicamento.

El gran enigma para el Departamento del Tesoro y la Reserva Federal es que a pesar de los estímulos fiscales y monetarios, el nivel de precios se mantiene por debajo de 2% desde hace 3 años –a excepción de un ligero repunte a mediados de 2014. Durante julio el Índice de Precios al Consumidor (CPI, por sus siglas en inglés) apenas aumentó 0.2% en la comparación interanual. Si se excluyen los precios de los alimentos y la energía, la inflación se ubicó en 1.2%.

Para varios miembros del Comité Federal de Mercado Abierto (FOMC, por sus siglas en inglés), aunque la inflación se ha visto presionada hacia abajo, no se trata sino de un fenómeno transitorio, que se propicia por el alza del dólar y la deflación de las materias primas (‘commodities’). «Dada la aparente estabilidad en las expectativas de inflación, hay buenas razones para creer que la inflación se acelerará al tiempo que las fuerzas que la mantienen a la baja se disipen aún más», sostuvo a finales de agosto Stanley Fischer, el vicepresidente de la Reserva Federal.

Su actual presidenta, Janet Yellen, considera que elevar los tipos de interés es decisivo para evitar distorsiones en la economía. Si se mantienen los tipos de interés cercanos a cero durante un largo período, argumenta Yellen, se corre el peligro de fomentar la formación de burbujas financieras, pues el crédito barato alimenta la apuestas especulativas de los bancos de inversión.

Sin embargo, si se eleva el costo de crédito, aumentarían también las probabilidades de sumergirse en la recesión. Toda vez que los salarios permanecen estancados desde la década de 1970, su impulso sobre la inflación es marginal. Los nuevos empleos han resultado insuficientes para incrementar el nivel general de precios. El mes pasado las remuneraciones salariales por hora únicamente crecieron 2.2% en comparación con 2014, mientras que antes de la crisis aumentaban por encima de 4%.

¿Y ahora qué sigue?

La Reserva Federal está atrapada. Es imposible que detenga el auge bursátil sin aumentar al mismo tiempo los riesgos deflacionarios sobre la economía. Si la tasa de interés de los fondos federales (‘federal funds rate’) permanece intacta, será entonces evidente que Estados Unidos es mucho más vulnerable de lo que todo el mundo cree.

La burbuja financiera se sigue hinchando y más temprano que tarde terminará por estallar[8]. Durante el mes de agosto se registraron mayores turbulencias en la economía global: desplome del índice Dow Jones en más de 1,000 puntos, caídas sucesivas en la bolsa de valores de Shanghái, nueva recesión en Japón, estancamiento en Francia y Reino Unido, aumento de la deflación en Grecia, drástica desaceleración en los países de América Latina y el Caribe, etcétera.

Ahora bien, si la Reserva Federal apuesta por aumentar los tipos de interés, los elementos «transitorios» que supuestamente socavan la inflación –según la opinión de Stanley Fischer–, tomarían mayor fuerza. Esto es, el alza del dólar sería más pronunciada ante las salidas masivas de capitales de los mercados emergentes. Lo mismo sucedería con la caída de los precios de las materias primas (‘commodities’), los inversionistas se desprenderían de inmediato de los títulos financieros relacionados con la energía, con lo cual, Estados Unidos pasaría de registrar una tasa de inflación muy baja a de plano ahogarse en la deflación.

La fragilidad de la economía mundial ha saboteado hasta ahora las pretensiones de los bancos centrales de apretar (‘tightening’) la política monetaria en los años recientes[9]. El Banco Central Europeo (BCE), el Banco de Japón y el Riksbank (el banco central de Suecia), dieron marcha atrás poco después de aumentar las tasas de interés de referencia. Como la inflación volvió a caer, la economía entró de nuevo en recesión, y el nivel de endeudamiento creció, los bancos centrales de los países industrializados no tuvieron otra alternativa que volver a establecer las tasas de interés cerca de cero.

La Reserva Federal por su parte, ha puesto en claro que el aumento de los tipos de interés será muy lento. Esto decir, después del primer incremento –que si no se concreta en septiembre, puede tener lugar en octubre y diciembre de este año, o bien como lo sugieren el Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI)[10] y el Banco Mundial[11], hasta 2016– pasará bastante tiempo antes de otra subida.

No obstante, si la medida precipita el desplome del PIB y consolida la deflación, la Reserva Federal no únicamente quedaría enterrada en el descrédito absoluto, sino que luego de regresar a disminuir las tasas de interés, incluso se vería obligada a poner en marcha una cuarta etapa de su programa de flexibilización cuantitativa (‘Quantitative Easing’)[12], mismo que concluyó en noviembre de 2014.

En suma, a 7 años de la quiebra de Lehman Brothers la economía estadounidense se encuentra en vilo. Los miles de millones de dólares gastados para salvar a los banqueros de Nueva York colocaron a las finanzas públicas en la bancarrota y hundieron a centenares de familias en la miseria. La maldición de una nueva crisis aún no desaparece. Si la Reserva Federal se equivoca, la pesadilla de la deflación se puede convertir en una dolorosa realidad para Estados Unidos.

Ariel Noyola Rodríguez

 

Fuente: Russia Today.

Ariel Noyola Rodríguez : Economista egresado de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

 

 

With over 93 percent of the vote counted early Monday, Greece’s Syriza had returned to power in Sunday’s snap election called last month by the party’s leader, former Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras.

Tsipras returns to office based on a political program that is, at least on the surface, diametrically opposed to the platform upon which Syriza first swept into office in January of this year. Then, the party won the election based on promises to overturn the austerity measures imposed by the European Union and international finance capital as the condition for two previous bailout agreements. Now, Tsipras returns to office to implement the even more onerous austerity measures dictated in the “memorandum of understanding” he accepted as the condition for a third bailout deal.

The election was the third time Greeks have been called to the polls this year. Last January, they elected Tsipras and Syriza based on the widespread belief that they would battle against austerity. Last July, they went to the polls a second time, voting overwhelmingly against austerity in a referendum called by the Syriza government, only to have Tsipras turn around within barely a week and accept the austerity terms dictated by the so-called “troika”—the European Union, International Monetary Fund and European Central Bank.

The repudiation of the popular will expressed in the referendum was only a further step in Syriza’s renunciation of its anti-austerity electoral platform, which began almost the moment it won the election last January. Within less than a month after taking office, it had signed an agreement with the EU pledging not only not to roll back any of the previously imposed austerity measures, but to craft new ones based on the hated memorandum of understanding it previously vowed to defeat.

This betrayal constitutes a strategic experience of the working class in Greece and internationally, revealing the viciously anti-working class nature of the pseudo left in power. Behind its populist rhetoric, Syriza, a bourgeois party staffed by and representing the interests of privileged layers of the upper middle class, quickly proved itself an enemy of the workers.

In Sunday’s election, a clear plurality, 45.2 percent of the Greek electorate voted with their feet, staying away from the polls in record numbers. This figure, a 9 percent increase in abstentions over last January, is all the more significant in a country where voting is compulsory.

The record low turnout Sunday was a clear expression of the mounting alienation of the masses of working people from the entire political setup in Greece, from the old, discredited and diminished parties that dominated Greece over the previous four decades—New Democracy (ND) and PASOK—to the new and supposedly “left” Syriza.

What emerges most clearly from Sunday’s vote is that none of the political parties can present themselves as a credible opponent of austerity. Not one of them can give political expression to the popular will of Greek working people, clearly expressed in the July referendum, to conduct a fight against the capitalist system that is responsible for the mass unemployment and mass impoverishment that have been imposed over the past five years.

Millions of Greeks knew that the election would decide nothing. All of the fundamental decisions about their future conditions had already been taken behind their backs in the deal struck in July between Syriza and Greece’s international creditors. Syriza, which won 35 percent of the vote, and its principal challenger, the right-wing ND, which won 28 percent, were equally committed to implementing the drastic austerity measures dictated by this deal.

ND’s electoral campaign consisted largely of denouncing Syriza for its “false promises” and for being “amateurish” in implementing economic policies. The prospect of a more “professional” assault on their already decimated living standards proved to be far from a pole of attraction for Greek voters.

With a projected 145 seats in the Greek parliament, Syriza fell short of a majority in its own right. It is reprising the coalition it formed after last January’s election with the Independent Greeks, a right-wing party that employs anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic demagogy. In his last government, Tsipras handed this reactionary political tendency effective control over the country’s security forces.

Tsipras appeared onstage at Syriza election headquarters Sunday night clasping hands with Independent Greeks leader Panos Kammenos before a cheering crowd of Syriza supporters. With the right-wing party’s expected 10 parliamentary seats, the alliance will hold a narrow majority.

The reelection of Tsipras and Syriza as the custodians of the austerity program dictated by the troika was hailed by European capitalist leaders as a step forward for “stability” and “continuity.” French President Francois Hollande praised the election result, saying it was “an important outcome for Greece, which will now live through a stabilization period with a solid majority.”

Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch finance minister and Eurogroup president, congratulated Tsipras and said he was “ready to work closely with the Greek authorities and to continue accompanying Greece in its ambitious reform efforts.”

Similarly, the president of the European parliament, Germany’s Martin Schulz, stated, “Now a solid government ready to deliver is needed quickly.” And the EU’s economic chief Pierre Moscovici expressed confidence that Tsipras would deliver on deepening austerity. “From Monday, we are ready to collaborate to implement the program to reform the Greek economy,” he said.

The British daily Telegraph summed up the sentiments of international finance capital with an article entitled, “Jittery creditors breathe short-lived sigh of relief after Tsipras triumphs again.” The article stated in part: “Greece’s international lenders welcomed the resounding re-election for former prime minister Alexis Tsipras on Sunday night amid fears that the Leftist premier would fail to stick by his promises to stay in the euro… The continued presence of the popular prime minister will cheer investors who had been braced for a period of prolonged political uncertainty and fractious coalition talks after polls predicted a dead heat.”

In response, Syriza’s spokeswoman Olga Gerovassili vowed to meet all of their expectations: “This will be a four-year term government with a strong parliamentary majority, which will implement the program it promised. It will continue the tough negotiations with the lenders, realizing that this is the beginning of a battle.”

This “battle” will be against the working class, and it will inevitably entail the increasing utilization of state repression to enforce policies that are bitterly opposed by masses of Greek workers.

An undeniable element in the timing of the snap election was Tsipras’ desire to get it over with before a range of new austerity measures are to be put into effect. Between now and next month, when Greece faces a review by its creditors, the government is tasked with a further gutting of the Greek pension and social security systems, a series of tax hikes, a new round of privatizations and the drafting of a 2016 budget that will entail further sweeping cutbacks.

Significantly, the party with the third largest share of the ballots cast Sunday was the fascist Golden Dawn, which postures as an opponent of austerity and has sought to capitalize on popular anger over Syriza’s capitulation to EU austerity demands. With a number of its leaders in jail for murderous acts of violence, the party gained around 7.2 percent of the vote, a moderate increase that will give it 19 parliamentary seats, two more than after January’s election.

Failing to top the 3 percent threshold needed to win a single seat in parliament was Popular Unity, the newly formed party made up of former members of Syriza’s Left Platform faction, an amalgam of various nationalist and pseudo-left elements, which split from the party last month.

Led by Panagiotis Lafazanis, who served in the Syriza government as the minister responsible for industrial, environmental and energy policy, Popular Unity failed dismally—and justifiably—in its campaign to portray itself as the champion of Syriza’s original anti-austerity agenda.

Lafazanis and his cohorts were themselves totally complicit in forcing through the austerity package accepted by Tsipras, refusing to call it to a vote on the party’s central committee and breaking with Syriza only when it became clear that Tsipras would bar them from running for re-election on the party’s line.

Similarly, the Stalinist Greek Communist Party (KKE) failed to register any gains based on its reactionary nationalist opposition to Syriza’s policies, seeing its actual percentage of the vote fall slightly compared to last January.

In a statement tweeted Sunday after his victory became clear, Tsipras said, “A road of hard work and struggle has opened up ahead of us.” Indeed, the policies to which he is committed will inevitably open up a period of intensified class struggle in Greece in which the decisive question will be the independent political mobilization of the working class against the Syriza government.

I ended my last piece with this:

But assuming JC [Jeremy Corbyn] makes all the right calls, could it, a reborn Labour Party lead to a new call for an end to the madness of capitalism and exactly 130 years after Morris made his plea?

Think about it. Transform the Labour Party into a vehicle to promote a new socialist vision? Who is kidding who here?

Of course I welcome his victory but it may well be a pyrrhic one, already the corporate media is predicting JC’s end with a survey showing, allegedly, that only one fifth of something or other will vote for him in the next election. For more on this, see Our feral, lying, good for nothing media by Richard Seymour who deals very effectively with today’s front page story in the Independent which alleges that “Corbyn ‘loses fifth of Labour voters’”. So what else is new? Clearly those who voted for Corbyn could care less what the corporate/state media say about him. In fact I suspect many voted for him justbecause the corporate/state media did such an evil hatchet-job on him, especially so given how blatant the ad hominem attacks have been and continue to be.

In this sense, it just reveals what an uphill struggle we’ve got and frankly, Jeremy Corbyn is not the solution, if anything he’s a symptom of the malaise that is our degenerate, late capitalism. Sitting in Parliament for thirty years and aside from attending the odd demo and signing petitions, he has grandstanded the rise of the corporate-security state (Fascism) in a political party that long ago gave up any pretense at being socialist, or even dreaming about the idea. JC is fully paid member of the professional political class.

I hope you see my dilemma? For on the one hand JC does speak the truth to power but on the other he does it within the straight-jacket of corporate, party politics precisely where the power he challenges, resides. How are these two mutually exclusive positions to coexist? The truth is, they can’t. One will have to go. All it takes is for JC to make just one, ‘ill-considered remark’ and it’ll be another ‘Night of the Long Knives’ for JC. In a media-saturated environment people are made and broken overnight. Taking care of this throwback to the past, wont be a problem.

Let’s face it, Corbyn is an ‘aberration’ in the scheme of things. Agreed, he is a spanner in the works of faux democracy, but any loyal (to the Party) Labour MP would not have run for the office in the first place (we saw one rumour, again in the Independent, alleging a close advisor to JC advocating that he pull out of the race, no doubt ‘in the interests of Party unity’). But what does JC have to lose? He’s 71 and coming to the end of his political life, so hopefully even if he crashes and burns, his corpse will light a fire elsewhere.

Whatever. What’s important about Corbyn is the fact that for the first time in public, issues are being raised that the corporate/state media will not go near, hence the vicious attacks on JC which are all designed not only to discredit him but perhaps even more important, divert our attention away from these issues.

So as far as I’m concerned it’s not really about the Labour Party at all, although it may play a role in Corbyn’s thinking, one which is echoed in other lefty writing on the subject that somehow sees Corbyn as a catalyst for a resurgence of the Labour Party as it once was, namely a reformist party working hand-in-glove with capitalism in return for some kind of welfare state for its voters. Dream on…

The question is; can the support for Corbyn be transformed from a flash-in-the-pan into something more deep-rooted and sustainable? Is the current left capable of taking on this task? Jeremy Corbyn is secretary of Stop the War Coalition, itself effectively an extension of the Socialist Workers Party, the largest party on the left. I’ll be blunt, I have no time for Stop the War or the SWP, they have both played opportunistic games and worse, they have failed miserably to utilise the support they gained in the initial opposition to Blair’s invasion of Iraq. And elsewhere on the left, well frankly there’s nothing aside from a denuded and fragmented Communist Party and other odds and sods. In actuality, the bulk of the British left is little more than a figment of the imaginations of a few lefty academics, who have made a living out of writing about each other, or am I being too cruel?

No, I don’t think so. For the most part, opposition is fragmented into possibly hundreds of single issue campaigns of one kind or another, some of which are anti-capitalist, most of which are not. But mention the word socialism though and you’re dead in the water which makes it very difficult to connect issues to their source: capitalism. The left even has a problem in identifying on whose behalf it’s allegedly conducting class war. Thus endless battles are fought over what constitutes the ‘real’ working class we should (or shouldn’t) be fighting for?

Our left, in all its various forms, exists in a world it was never made for. Born in the 19th century out of the struggles of the industrial working class, it now lives on in a world that no longer has an industrial working class to speak of, advanced or otherwise.

And don’t forget we are still citizens of Empire which ‘bestows’ certain favours upon us. Not all of us to be sure but enough of us to make it matter when it comes to supporting or at the very least acquiescing to our murderous ways with the world.

When my previous essay was republished on Dandelion Salad the other day, one response asked, “an impressively honest piece. The question is what the political strategic solution is[?]”

I wish I knew. Why did Syriza cave in to the international capitalist mafia? Did it not trust the folks who elected them to support them in their struggle with the money men? Or perhaps those at the top of Syriza are just too damn comfortable to really care about the people that elected them? Maybe they needed a few nights of sleeping on the street?

As to a ‘solution’, well clearly it has to be extra-parliamentary which means not only organising but developing a coherent alternative to offer. Not an especially difficult objective I would have thought. In the meantime, we could do well to start to reestablish our relationship with the world, not as Masters of the Universe but as part of a common humanity that capitalism has degraded and commodified, alienating us from Nature, from the world and could possibly end up exterminating our species through its greed. Is this too vague? Well maybe…

 

There has been some debate about the significance of a warning issued this weekend through Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times by a British general that the army would “mutiny” and use “whatever means possible, fair or foul” should the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn ever get near 10 Downing Street.

Here is what the general says:

Owen Jones has wondered whether this is tantamount to a threat of a coup by the military. I think it would be foolhardy indeed to read it as anything else.

None of us should be surprised either. We have been here before. In the late 1960s and early 1970s serving British generals, former generals, members of the royal family and the British security services regularly spoke in such terms to each other – and even occasionally on prime-time television.

More than that, when they believed their privileges were under serious threat, as they did during Harold Wilson’s various governments of that period, they actively plotted for “regime change”, or a military takeover.

In what became a self-serving vicious spiral, the establishment’s fears were further stoked by the stream of black propaganda being fed to the British media by MI5, Britain’s version of the FBI. It painted Wilson’s government and the trade union movement as overrun with Communists trying to bring down the UK. One can imagine a Corbyn government will receive no better treatment from the UK media than Wilson’s did.

Like Corbyn today, Wilson was seen in the 60s and 70s as a major threat to the entrenched privileges of British elites.

There is a wealth of evidence for all this, though perhaps unsurprisingly many sources, including Wikipedia, casually dismiss these accounts as “conspiracy theories” – the ultimate way to shut down scrutiny.

But the evidence was so compelling even the BBC, hardly a risk-taking broadcaster at the best of times, girded its loins back in 2006 to make a documentary called “The Plot Against Harold Wilson”. In fact, as the 90-minute film makes clear by interviewing many of those directly involved, there was not one plot but many against Wilson. You can watch it below.

It probably all seemed like old, slightly quaint history to the BBC nine years ago. Now it sounds frighteningly relevant again.

Here is a fascinating line from one plotter, Sir General Walter Walker, at about 1hr 2 mins in. Speaking in the early 1970s, he says on film:

If you plot to destroy this present system, what are you doing? You are committing a form of treason. I have taken an oath of allegiance to my Queen and I am not prepared to see that oath interfered with.

For me at least, that puts the ludicrous current confected debate about Corbyn refusing to sing the national anthem in an even more sinister light.

Lord Mountbatten, the Queen’s cousin, a mentor to Prince Charles, and the chief of the defence staff at the time, became a figurehead for this group (45.30) and even approached the Queen Mother to seek her blessing for a military takeover. Walker says Mountbatten told him: “If you want help from me, will you let me know?”

David Stirling, the founder of Britain’s most elite military unit, the SAS, also confirmed to journalists that a coup against Wilson was seriously being considered (1.03). He contemplated bumping off trade union leaders to foment so much anger among workers that the military would be forced to move in to restore order.

Soon, the army, members of the royal family and the intelligence services were all considering how they might launch a military coup to stop a Communist takeover (the one that had been created in MI5’s lurid imagination). Brian Crozier, a former intelligence officer who supported a coup, says there was a “widespread attitude” in favour of it among the military (1.05)

It culminated in a show of force by the armed forces, which briefly took over Heathrow airport (1.06) without warning or coordination with Wilson’s government. Marcia Williams, Wilson’s secretary, called it a “dress rehearsal”. Wilson resigned unexpectedly soon afterwards, apparently as the pressures started to get to him.

As the BBC concludes:

The actions of Lord Mountbatten and senior military and intelligence officers undermined democracy and brought this country to the brink of a coup. Yet no one has been held accountable, there has been no proper inquiry.

Such an inquiry might have served at least as a small deterrent for those, like the general who approached the Sunday Times, who are thinking once again in terms of a coup.

 

Russian Ambassador in Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin stated that Russian President Vladimir Putin will announce his initiative for resolving the crisis in Syria and combating terrorism during the UN General Assembly session on September 28th.

In a televised interview on Friday, Zasypkin said that this initiative consists of three stages, and that it comes as a result of talks held between Moscow and countries with influence on the situation in Syria.

He explained that the first stage focuses on uniting all sides to take out ISIS in Syria, while the second involves having influential regional and international forces pressure armed groups to embrace a political solution, and finally the third involves uniting efforts to stop the funding of terrorists and prevent them from entering Syria from neighboring countries.

On a relevant note, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokesperson Maria Zakharova asserted that Moscow is prepared to hold dialogue with Washington regarding all issues, including the Syrian issue, asserting that Russia has never refused to hold such dialogue with the United States.

Meanwhile, Russian Defense Ministry spokesperson Igor Konashenkov said Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu discussed with U.S. counterpart Ashton Carter in a two-hour phone call the need to coordinate efforts to fight terrorism, in addition to discussing the situation in the Middle East with emphasis on Syria and Iraq.

Konashenkov said that the two sides’ viewpoints regarding most of the issues they discussed were either close or identical, and that they agreed to continue discussions in the future.

Meanwhile in Moscow, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and the Russian President’s Special Representative for Middle East and Africa Affairs Mikhail Bogdanov held a meeting with the U.S. Ambassador in Russia John Tefft, with the two sides discussing the situation in the Middle East and North Africa.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Bogdanov and Tefft focused on resolving the crisis in Syria on the basis of the Geneva communiqué issued in June 30th 2012, in addition to discussing unifying efforts to confront the threat of ISIS.

Longstanding US policy calls for regime change in all sovereign independent countries – by color revolutions or wars, notably targeting Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela, to eliminate major rivals and control world resources, especially oil.

The Pentagon maintains war plans against all targeted countries, updating them as needed, ready to act if ordered – risking potential global war.

On September 18, Washington Post-owned Foreign Policy magazine featured longtime anti-Russian writer Julia Ioffe’s article headlined “Exclusive: The Pentagon Is Preparing New War Plans for a Baltic Battle Against Russia,” saying:

For the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US Department of Defense is reviewing and updating its contingency plans for armed conflict with Russia.

Putin is “no longer a potential partner, but a potential threat.” An unnamed senior defense official ludicrously warned of “potential (Russian) aggression against” NATO allies.

Updated plans “have two tracks,” said Ioffe: responding along with other NATO nations to an attack on one of its members or acting unilaterally.

Both versions focus on hypothetical “Russian aggression” in the Balkans, including so-called hybrid tactics, non-traditional warfare – similar to accusations of nonexistent “little green men” in Ukraine, as well as cyberwar and other destabilizing acts.

Claims about potential Russian aggression or other hostile acts are fabricated rubbish. Fear-mongering is a longstanding US tactic – a pretext to rev up military spending, enlist more allies in its war machine, and divert public attention from what matters most domestically: ending austerity, creating good full-time jobs and governance serving everyone equitably.

In June, Putin denounced Western “scaremongering.” Its military footprint is polar opposite America’s global empire of bases. Russia has “virtually no bases abroad,” he explained.

The few remaining are Soviet era relics. “I think that only an insane person and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO,” he stressed.

I think some countries are simply taking advantage of people’s fears with regard to Russia. They just want to play the role of front-line countries that should receive some supplementary military, economic, financial or some other aid.

Ioffe’s article is thinly veiled propaganda for greater US-led NATO military presence in Eastern Europe provocatively close to Russia’s borders – based entirely on a nonexistent threat, the kind Washington invents ahead of all its aggressive wars.

Current Rand Corp. strategist/former US Defense Department official David Ochmanek contributed to the hyped threat saying Russia “outnumber(s) (all) US and NATO troops (combined) 2 – 1 in terms of manpower. (W)e are unable to defend the Baltics.”

Russophobic writers like Ioffe ignore the real threat – US-led NATO’s Eastern European expansion along with frequent provocative military actions close to Russia’s borders, forcing its military to react defensively.

Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said NATO is provoking Moscow into an “arms race.” Reports of “American missiles put in a certain location (and) ammunition depots in Eastern European countries and the Baltics” force Russia to act.

Belligerent remarks, including Obama calling Ebola, Russia and ISIS America’s greatest threats, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter saying Russia is a “very, very significant threat,” and incoming Joint Chiefs Chairman General “fighting Joe” Dunford calling Russia’s “behavior…alarming…an existential threat” heads things dangerously closer to direct confrontation.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

FAIR has noted before how America’s well-documented clandestine activities in Syria have been routinely ignored when the corporate media discuss the Obama administration’s “hands-off” approach to the four-and-a-half-year-long conflict. This past week, two pieces—one in the New York Times detailing the “finger pointing” over Obama’s “failed” Syria policy, and a Vox “explainer” of the Syrian civil war—did one better: They didn’t just omit the fact that the CIA has been arming, training and funding rebels since 2012, they heavily implied they had never done so.

First, let’s establish what we do know. Based on multiple reports over the past three-and-a-half years, we know that the Central Intelligence Agency set up a secret program of arming, funding and training anti-Assad forces. This has been reported by major outlets, including the New York Times, The Guardian,Der Spiegel and, most recently, the Washington Post, which—partly thanks to the Snowden revelations—detailed a program that trained approximately 10,000 rebel fighters at a cost of $1 billion a year, or roughly 1/15th of the CIA’s official annual budget.

In addition to the CIA’s efforts, there is a much more scrutinized and far more publicized program by the Department of Defense to train “moderate rebels,” of which only a few dozen actually saw battle. The Pentagon program, which began earlier this year and is charged with fighting ISIS (rather than Syrian government forces), is separate from the covert CIA operation. It has, by all accounts, been an abysmal failure.

One thing the DoD’s rebel training program hasn’t been a failure at, however, is helping credulous reporters rewrite history by treating the Pentagon program as the only US effort to train Syrian rebels–now or in the past. As the US’s strategy in Syria is publicly debated, the CIA’s years-long program has vanished from many popular accounts, giving the average reader the impression the US has sat idly by while foreign actors, Iranian and Russian, have interfered in the internal matters of Syria. While the White House, Congress and the Pentagon can’t legally acknowledge the CIA training program, because it’s still technically classified, there’s little reason why our media need to entertain a similar charade.

Let’s start with Peter Baker’s New York Times piece from September 17 and some of its improbable claims:

Finger-Pointing, but Few Answers, After a Syria Solution Fails

By any measure, President Obama’s effort to train a Syrian opposition army to fight the Islamic State on the ground has been an abysmal failure. The military acknowledged this week that just four or five American-trained fighters are actually fighting.

Notice the sleight-of-hand. There may only be “four or five American-trained fighters…fighting” expressly against ISIS, but there is no doubt thousands more American-trained fighters are fighting in Syria. The DoD’s statement is manifestly false, but because the New York Times is simply quoting “the military”—which, again, cannot not legally acknowledge the CIA program—it is left entirely unchallenged. This is the worst type of “officials say” journalism. The premise, while ostensibly critical of US foreign policy, is actually helping advance its larger goal of rewriting US involvement in the Syrian civil war. A four-year-long deliberate strategy of backing anti-Assad forces–which has helped fuel the bloody civil war and paved the way for the rise of ISIS–is reduced to a cheesy “bumbling bureaucrat” narrative.

Baker went on:

But the White House says it is not to blame. The finger, it says, should be pointed not at Mr. Obama but at those who pressed him to attempt training Syrian rebels in the first place — a group that, in addition to congressional Republicans, happened to include former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

At briefings this week after the disclosure of the paltry results, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, repeatedly noted that Mr. Obama always had been a skeptic of training Syrian rebels. The military was correct in concluding that “this was a more difficult endeavor than we assumed and that we need to make some changes to that program,” Mr. Earnest said. “But I think it’s also time for our critics to ‘fess up in this regard as well. They were wrong.”

In effect, Mr. Obama is arguing that he reluctantly went along with those who said it was the way to combat the Islamic State, but that he never wanted to do it and has now has been vindicated in his original judgment. The I-told-you-so argument, of course, assumes that the idea of training rebels itselfwas flawed and not that it was started too late and executed ineffectively, as critics maintain.

The sleight-of-hand continues: The article presents the training of rebels as a “way to combat the Islamic State,” but repeatedly speaks in general of training Syrian rebels as something “Obama always had been a skeptic of”–which flies in the face of the fact that he did so, to the tune of $1 billion a year over four years, with 10,000 rebels trained.

But the piece goes on to make clear that when it’s talking about “training Syrian rebels,” it’s referring not only to the anti-ISIS program but to efforts to overthrow Syria’s government as well:

The idea of bolstering Syrian rebels was debated from the early days of the civil war, which started in 2011. Mrs. Clinton, along with David H. Petraeus, then the CIA director, and Leon E. Panetta, then the Defense secretary, supported arming opposition forces, but the president worried about deep entanglement in someone else’s war after the bloody experience in Iraq.

In 2014, however, after the Islamic State had swept through parts of Syria and Iraq, Mr. Obama reversed course and initiated a $500 million program to train and arm rebels who had been vetted and were told to fight the Islamic State, not Mr. Assad’s government.

This is outright false. These two paragraphs, while cleverly parsed, give the reader the impression Obama parted with the CIA and Mrs. Clinton on arming opposition forces, only to “reverse course” in 2014. But the president never “reversed course,” because he did exactly what the Panetta, Petraeus and Clinton urged him to do: He armed the opposition. Once again, the Pentagon’s Keystone Kop plan is being passed off by journalists who who should know better as the beginning and end of American involvement in the Syrian rebellion. Nowhere in this report is the CIA’s plan mentioned at all.

The whitewashing would get even worse:

Some Syrian rebels who asked for American arms in 2011 and 2012 eventually gave up and allied themselves with more radical groups, analysts said, leaving fewer fighters who were friendly to the United States.

But the US did get arms to Syrian rebels in 2012. In fact, Baker’s own publication reported this fact in 2012 (6/21/12):

CIA Said to Aid in Steering Arms to Syrian Opposition

Indeed, according to a rather detailed New York Times infographic from 2013 (3/23/13), shipments began, at the latest, in January 2012:

Note that this map accompanied an article headlined “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With Aid From CIA.”

The CIA’s program, when discussing a fraught foreign policy issue like Syria, is simply thrown down the memory hole. How can the public have an honest conversation about what the US should or shouldn’t do in Syria next when the most respected newspaper in the US can’t honestly acknowledge what we have done thus far?

The New York Timeswouldn’t be alone. Comcast-funded Vox would also ignore the CIA rebel training program in its almost 4,000-word overview of the Syrian civil war. Again, the Pentagon’s program would be the sole focus in regards to funding rebels, along with reports of Gulf states doing so as well. But the CIA funding, training and arming thousands of rebels since at least 2012? Nowhere to be found. Not mentioned or alluded to once.

Reuters and the Washington Post’s reports on the US’s Syrian strategy revamp, while they didn’t fudge history as bad as the Times and Vox, also ignored any attempts by the CIA to back Syrian opposition rebels. This crucial piece of history is routinely omitted from mainstream public discourse.

As the military build-up and posturing in Syria between Russia and the United States escalates, policy makers and influencers on this side of the Atlantic are urgently trying to portray the West’s involvement in Syria as either nonexistent or marked by good-faith incompetence. By whitewashing the West’s clandestine involvement in Syria, the media not only portrays Russia as the sole contributor to hostilities, it absolves Europe and the United States of their own guilt in helping create a refugee crisis and fuel a civil war that has devastated so many for so long.

Adam Johnson is an associate editor at AlterNet and writes frequently for FAIR.org. You can follow him on Twitter at @adamjohnsonnyc.

In Autumn 2002 the Observer newspaper’s correspondent Ed Vulliamy found confirmation of a terrible truth many of us already suspected. In a world-exclusive, he persuaded Mel Goodman, a former senior CIA official who still had security clearance at the Agency, to go on record that the CIA knew there were no WMD in Iraq. Everything the US and British governments were telling us to justify the coming attack on Iraq were lies.

Then something even more extraordinary happened. The Observer failed to print the story. In his book Flat Earth News, Nick Davies recounts that Vulliamy, one of the Observer’s most trusted reporters, submitted the piece another six times in different guises over the next half year. Each time the Observer spiked the story.

Vulliamy never went public with this monumental crime against real journalism (should there not be a media trials section at the Hague?). And the supposedly liberal-left Observer was never held accountable for its grave betrayal of its readership and the world community.

But at the weekend maybe the tables turned a little. The Observer gave Vulliamy a platform in its comment pages to take issue with its editorial the previous week savaging Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour Party leader.

In understandably cautious mode, Vulliamy called the paper’s stance towards Corbyn “churlish”, warning that it had lost the chance to stand apart from the rest of the British media, including the Guardian. All had taken vehemently against the new Labour leader from the very beginning of his candidacy.

We conjoined the chorus with our own – admittedly more progressive – version of this obsession with electoral strategy with little regard to what Corbyn says about the principles of justice, peace and equality (or less inequality).

What do these two confrontations between Vulliamy and the Observer –13 years apart; one public, one not – indicate about the changing status of the liberal-left media?

To understand what’s going on, we also need to consider the coverage of Corbyn in the Guardian, the better-known daily sister paper of the Sunday Observer.

All the Guardian’s inner circle of commentators, from Jonathan Freedland to Polly Toynbee, made public that they were dead against Corbyn from the moment he looked like he might win. When he served simply to justify claims that the Labour Party was a broad and tolerant church, these commentators were in favour of his standing. But as soon as he began to surge ahead, these same liberal-left pundits poured more scorn on him than they had reserved for any other party leader in living memory. In a few months Corbyn has endured more contempt from these fearless watchdogs of the left than the current Conservative prime minister, David Cameron, has suffered over many years.

The Guardian’s news coverage, meanwhile, followed exactly the same antagonistic formula as that of the rightwing press: ignore the policy issues raised by Corbyn, concentrate on trivial or perceived personality flaws, and frame the stories in establishment-friendly ways. We have had to endure in the Guardian the same patently ridiculous, manufactured reports about Corbyn, portraying him as sexist, anti-semitic, unpatriotic, and much more.

We could expect the rightwing media to exploit every opportunity to try to discredit Corbyn, but looking at the talkbacks it was clear Guardian readers expected much more from their paper than simple-minded character assassination.

Red neoliberals

The reality is that Corbyn poses a very serious challenge to supposedly liberal-left media like the Guardian and the Observer, which is why they hoped to ensure his candidacy was still-born and why, now he is leader, they are caught in a terrible dilemma.

While the Guardian and Observer market themselves as caring about justice and equality, but do nothing to bring them about apart from promoting tinkering with the present, hugely unjust, global neoliberal order, Corbyn’s rhetoric suggests that the apple cart needs upending.

If it achieves nothing else, Corbyn’s campaign has highlighted a truth about the existing British political system: that, at least since the time of Tony Blair, the country’s two major parliamentary parties have been equally committed to upholding neoliberalism. The Blue Neoliberal Party (the Conservatives) and the Red Neoliberal Party (Labour) mark the short horizon of current British politics. You can have either hardcore neoliberalism or slightly more softcore neoliberalism.

Corbyn shows that there should be more to politics than this false choice, which is why hundreds of thousands of leftists flocked back to Labour in the hope of getting him elected. In doing so, they overwhelmed the parliamentary Labour party (PLP), which vigorously opposed him becoming leader.

But where does this leave the Guardian and Observer, both of which have consistently backed “moderate” elements in the PLP? If Corbyn is exposing the PLP as the Red Neoliberal Party, what does that mean for the Guardian, the parliamentary party’s house paper?

Corbyn is not just threatening to expose the sham of the PLP as an alternative to the Conservatives, but the sham of Britain’s liberal-left media as a real alternative to the press barons. Which is why the Freedlands and Toynbees, who are the keepers of the Guardian flame, of its undeserved reputation as the left’s moral compass, demonstrated such instant antipathy to his sudden rise to prominence.

They and the paper followed the rightwing media in keeping the focus resolutely on Corbyn rather than recognising the obvious truth: this was about much more than one individual. The sudden outpouring of support for Corbyn reflected both an embrace of his authenticity and principles and a much more general anger at the injustices, inequalities and debasement of public life brought about by neoliberalism. Corbyn captured a mood, one that demands real, not illusory change. He is riding a wave, and to discredit Corbyn is to discredit the wave.

Character assassination

The Guardian and the Observer, complicit for so long with the Red Neoliberals led by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband, thought they could kill off Corbyn’s campaign by joining in the general media bullying. They thought they could continue to police the boundaries of the political left – of what counts as credible on the left – and place Corbyn firmly outside those borders.

But he won even so – and with an enormous lead over his rivals. In truth, the Guardian’s character assassination of Corbyn, rather than discrediting him, served only to discredit the paper with its own readers.

Corbyn’s victory represented a huge failure not just for the political class in all its narrow neoliberal variations, but also for the media class in all its narrow neoliberal variations. It was a sign that the Guardian’s credibility with its own readers is steadily waning.

The talkback columns show the Guardian’s kneejerk belittling of Corbyn has inserted a dangerous seed of doubt in the minds of a proportion of its formerly loyal readers. Many of those hundreds of thousands of leftists who joined the Labour party either to get Corbyn elected or to demonstrate their support afterwards are Guardian readers or potential readers. And the Guardian and Observer ridiculed them and their choice.

Belatedly the two papers are starting to sense their core readership feels betrayed. Vulliamy’s commentary should be seen in that light. It is not a magnanimous gesture by the Observer, or even an indication of its commitment to pluralism. It is one of the early indications of a desperate damage limitation operation. We are likely to see more such “reappraisals” in the coming weeks, as the liberal-left media tries to salvage its image with its core readers.

This may not prove a fatal blow to the Guardian or the Observer but it is a sign of an accelerating trend for the old media generally and the liberal-left media more specifically. Papers like the Guardian and the Observer no longer understand their readerships both because they no longer have exclusive control of their readers’ perceptions of what is true and because the reality – not least, polarising inequality and climate degradation – is becoming too difficult to soft-soap.

Media like the Guardian are tied by a commercial and ideological umbilical cord to a neoliberal order a large swath of their readers are growing restless with or feel downright appalled by.

In 2003 the Observer knowingly suppressed the truth about Iraq and WMD to advance the case for an illegal, “preventive” war, one defined in international law as the supreme war crime. At that time – digitally the equivalent of the Dark Ages compared to now – the paper just about managed to get away with its complicity in a crime against humanity. The Observer never felt the need to make real amends with Vulliamy or the readers it betrayed.

But in the age of a burgeoning new media the Observer and Guardian are discovering that the rules are shifting dangerously under their feet. Corbyn is a loud messenger of that change.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/20/ed-vulliamy-jeremy-corbyn-observer-editorial

 

There is not a peaceful person among the Republican candidates. Even the female is heartless. Carly Fiorina positioned herself along side the macho men as a warmonger. She let the military/security complex know that she, too, was for sale. Send in the campaign donations, and she will see that the money flows back to the military/security complex in the buildup of fleets and armaments that will send the Russians a message.

Alas, the only message US politicians want to send to the Russians is a war message. The Pentagon has upgraded the newly orchestrated “Russian threat” to “potentially aggressive” and is updating its plans for war with Russia.

What has Russia done to cause Washington to plan war with Russia? Don’t you know? Russia invaded Ukraine, just like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaeda connections.

If Russia invaded Ukraine, how come Ukraine is still there? If weak insignificant Ukraine fought off a Russian invasion, then how is it possible that Russia is a threat?

To deal with the “Russian threat” Washington has sent armed German jet fighters to patrol the skies over the Baltic oligarchies. Washington tells Russia that the fighters are not directed at Russia. So why the fighters? Perhaps they are there to protect the Baltics from Iran like that anti-ballistic missile system Washington placed in Poland to protect Europe from nonexistent Iranian nuclear ICBMs.

It is reckless for Washington to take provocative actions against Russia and to tell Russia that the actions are directed elsewhere. Russia knows full well that the actions are directed against Russia. What Washington is teaching Russia is that Washington can never be believed. As everything Washington says is a lie, Russia cannot risk making an agreement with Washington to end the orchestrated conflict, because Washington’s word is meaningless. A liar simply cannot be trusted.

Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has often remarked that Washington’s provocations and propaganda are destroying trust between nuclear powers, thus raising the risk of nuclear war. But Washington is too full of arrogance and hubris to hear. Washington only hears itself.

In February 2012 President Putin made it clear that Russia rejects Washington’s policy known as “airstrike democracy” that overrides international law with military force. Putin said that Washington’s pursuit of hegemony makes every other country unsafe. Washington’s policy of violence, Putin said, might have extremely serious consequences for Washington.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42890.htm

Three and one-half years later the morons competing for the Republican presidential nomination are making it even more clear that they have not heard what Russia has been telling them.

If any of the Republicans are elected, or for that matter any of the Democrats, war will be the result. There is no point worrying that both parties intend to take away your Social Security, Medicare, and private pensions, because you won’t be here to collect them.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books areThe Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West and How America Was Lost.

 

Extensive and destructive floods across eastern Japan have swept more than 700 bags containing Fukushima-contaminated soil and grass into Japan’s rivers, with many still unaccounted for and some spilling their radioactive content into the water system.

Who’s Really Pulling the Strings?

The Times of Israel reported Wednesday:

A Free Syrian Army commander, arrested last month by the Islamist militia Al-Nusra Front, told his captors he collaborated with Israel in return for medical and military support, in a video released this week.Read more: Syrian rebel commander says he collaborated with Israel.

In a video uploaded to YouTube Monday … Sharif As-Safouri, the commander of the Free Syrian Army’s Al-Haramein Battalion, admitted to having entered Israel five times to meet with Israeli officers who later provided him with Soviet anti-tank weapons and light arms. Safouri was abducted by the al-Qaeda-affiliated Al-Nusra Front in the Quneitra area, near the Israeli border, on July 22.

“The [opposition] factions would receive support and send the injured in [to Israel] on condition that the Israeli fence area is secured. No person was allowed to come near the fence without prior coordination with Israel authorities,” Safouri said in the video.

***

In the edited confession video, in which Safouri seems physically unharmed, he says that at first he met with an Israeli officer named Ashraf at the border and was given an Israeli cellular phone. He later met with another officer named Younis and with the two men’s commander, Abu Daoud. In total, Safouri said he entered Israel five times for meetings that took place in Tiberias.

Following the meetings, Israel began providing Safouri and his men with “basic medical support and clothes” as well as weapons, which included 30 Russian [rifles], 10 RPG launchers with 47 rockets, and 48,000 5.56 millimeter bullets.

Also on Wednesday, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency – a 97-year old Jewish wire service – reported:

A senior employee of the Dutch Justice Ministry said the jihadist group ISIS was created by Zionists seeking to give Islam a bad reputation.

Yasmina Haifi, a project leader at the ministry’s National Cyber Security Center, made the assertion Wednesday on Twitter, the De Telegraaf daily reported.

“ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. It’s part of a plan by Zionists who are deliberately trying to blacken Islam’s name,” wrote Haifi ….

In March, Haaretz reported:

The Syrian opposition is willing to give up claims to the Golan Heights in return for cash and Israeli military aid against President Bashar Assad, a top opposition official told Al Arab newspaper, according to a report in Al Alam.

***

The Western-backed militant groups want Israel to enforce a no-fly zone over parts of southern Syria to protect rebel bases from air strikes by Assad’s forces, according to the report.

World Net Daily reports that the U.S. trained Islamic jihadis – who would later join ISIS – in Jordan.

The Jerusalem Post reports that an ISIS fighter says that Turkey funds the terrorist group. Turkey is a member of NATO and – at least until very recently – a close U.S. ally.

Wealthy donors in U.S. allies Kuwait and Qatar back ISIS, and Western intelligence officials say that those governments must be approving the support.

A former high-level Al Qaeda commander has repeatedly alleged that ISIS works for the CIA.

In June, investment adviser Jim Willie alleged:

The [Isis] troops that are working there [in Syria and Iraq] are Langley [i.e. CIA] troops. They’re trained, funded, and armed by Langley.

What I’m hearing… the U.S. military (Pentagon regulars), and you have to be careful when you refer to U.S. military anymore. What kind of U.S. military? Is it the Pentagon U.S. Army, or is it the Langley military, which has unmarked uniforms and 10′s of thousands of mercenaries?

They’re about to encounter each other in Iraq. The U.S. military Pentagon regulars evacuated Iraq, and what filled the vacuum was the Langley mercenaries, trained for Syria, that migrated South and announced their new agenda.

If and when the Pentagon regulars encounter the Langley mercenaries in Iraq, Obama’s going to get a house call, because U.S. military will be fighting U.S. military. Pentagon vs. Langley.

While we don’t know which of the above-described allegations are true, two things are certain:

• The U.S. armed Islamic jihadis in Syria, and their weapons ended up in the hands of ISIS; and

• Close allies of the U.S. have supported and trained the ISIS terrorists

Why would the U.S. and its allies back ISIS, when they are barbarian Islamic terrorists?  Well – assuming it’s true – oil and gas could be the explanation.

After all, there is evidence that the U.S. and her allies have wanted to break up the nations of Iraq and Syria for decades.  And ISIS has done so.

In any event – whether or not it’s true of ISIS – it’s well-documented that the U.S., Saudis and Israelis have been backing the world’s most dangerous and radical Muslim terrorists for decades. And see this.

And anyone who looks at the battle against ISIS as a religious war is being played.

“I think there’s instances at this university where some faculty should no longer be working at this university [sic].” – FAU Provost Gary Perry

“If you can take tenure away, and this document says that you can, essentially this faculty does not have tenure anymore. There is not another university that has anything close to [this].” – FAU professor

A policy promoted by Florida Atlantic University administrators is proving controversial among faculty at the South Florida college. The proposed set of rules, “Post-Tenure/Sustained-Performance Evaluation,” was recently authored by a subcommittee of senior professors, administrators and former administrators under the auspices of the University’s Faculty Senate.

Shortly thereafter, however, the document went through a process of heavy revision overseen by FAU Provost Gary Perry and college deans who want to grant themselves the ability to potentially terminate any tenured faculty member.

Read the rest of this entry »

Greece sold its soul to the Troika  abandoning what its people want most – an end to punishing austerity, government representing them, not Western bankers, a chance for a better future.

No matter what ruling coalition emerges from Sunday’s snap election, anti-populist business as usual will triumph, serving monied interests exclusively, imposing greater austerity than already.

The race is too close to call. Most polls show Alexis Tsipras’ SYRIZA party and Evangelos Meimarakis’ right-wing New Democracy in a virtual dead-heat – at around 32% support, a statistically insignificant 1% differential between them.

Seven other parties are competing: right-wing PASOK, Potami, and Independent Greeks, neo-Nazi Golden Dawn, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), Union of Centrists, and Popular Unity headed by former SRYIZA energy minister/vocal Tsipras critic Panagiotis Lafanzanis.

None have more than single-digit support – once powerful Pasok a meager 5%, Popular Unity lower at 3%. Either SYRIZA or New Democracy will form a new government with coalition partners – maybe each other.

Not a dime’s worth of difference separates them ideologically, each solely beholden to Western banker interests and their own.

SYRIZA’s stated program going forward is polar opposite its policies – duplicitously claiming it intends to “implement with different terms” than ones agreed on, “disengage from neoliberalism and austerity, to achieve a radical, democratic transformation of the state, while at the same time seeking solutions to limit the repercussions of the agreement.”

After forming a coalition government in January on an anti-austerity platform, Tsipras surrendered unconditionally to Troika demands – imposing harsher austerity than right-wing governance preceding him.

Expect nothing different ahead under coalition governance led by SYRIZA or New Democracy. Greece is a banker occupied colony. Social genocide is official policy. Democracy died in its birthplace.

Protracted Depression conditions persist. Nothing in prospect looks hopeful. Early Sunday, Reuters reported “weary voters” headed to the polls for the third time this year.

Early turnout was low. The New York Times said polls show many voters undecided or “might abstain altogether.” The Washington Post suggested Tsipras’ snap election strategy “may bounce him from office.”

The Wall Street Journal said “(w)hoever wins will find their policies heavily constrained by Greece’s latest bailout plan, which (SYRIZA and New Democracy) promise to uphold.” The Financial Times highlighted “fragile coalition governance” emerging from Sunday’selection.

After voting early, Tsipras lied to supporters, saying he’s “very optimistic that tomorrow a new day will begin and soon the hardship will be over. The difficulties will be overcome with firm steps.”

Everything is possible…We are fighting for a great victory of the left in Greece and to maintain hope across Europe.

Former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis told RT International SYRIZA “surrendered to an illogical logic. They surrendered to going along with and extending the crisis – something I have fought against for five years.”

He blasted Tsipras, saying he admitted agreeing to “a terrible package,” claiming he’d “implement it a little better than the others…” It’s “not the path I am prepared to walk,” he explained.

If God and his angels came down to produce a reform package for Greece, the Troika would have turned it down it down, because they were interested in humiliating us and demonstrating to the people of Spain and Ireland that if they vote in the way that the Troika doesn’t like, they will be crushed.

The only uncertainty about Greece’s future is how much worse things will get than already.

It’s hard imagining anything in prospect able to end its long nightmare.

The only solution would be a popular grassroots revolution.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PMCentral time plus two prerecorded archived programs.