US DEFENSE DEVELOPS SOCIAL MEDIA SCIENCE

By Adrienne Valdez

The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is soliciting research proposals in the area of “Social Media In Strategic Communication” (SMISC) to develop innovative approaches enabling revolutionary advances in science, devices, or systems.

Defense operations are rapidly changing with the spread of blogs, social networking sites, and media‐sharing technology, and further accelerated by the proliferation of mobile technology.

According to DARPA, the effective use of social media has the potential to help the Armed Forces better understand the environment in which it operates and to allow more agile use of information in support of operations.

The SMISC aims to develop a new science of social networks using automated and semi‐automated support tools and techniques for the systematic and methodical use of social media at data scale and in a timely fashion.

The system, when accomplished, should be able to- 1. Detect, classify, measure and track the (a) formation, development and spread of ideas and concepts, and (b) purposeful or deceptive messaging and misinformation. 2. Recognize persuasion campaign structures and influence operations across social media sites and communities.
3. Identify participants and intent, and measure effects of persuasion campaigns.
4. Counter messaging of detected adversary influence operations.

The development of a new science of social networks and the solutions to the problems posed by SMISC will require the confluence of several technologies including, but not limited to, information theory, massive‐scale graph analytics and natural language processing.

The SMISC research effort under this solicitation is estimated at $42M of funding over a period of three years.

Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber

J U N E  2 0 0 0

In the fall of 1958 Theodore Kaczynski, a brilliant but vulnerable boy of sixteen, entered Harvard College. There he encountered a prevailing intellectual atmosphere of anti-technological despair. There, also, he was deceived into subjecting himself to a series of purposely brutalizing psychological experiments — experiments that may have confirmed his still-forming belief in the evil of science. Was the Unabomber born at Harvard? A look inside the files

by Alston Chase

(The online version of this article appears in four parts. Click here to go to part two, part three, or part four.)
IKE many Harvard alumni, I sometimes wander the neighborhood when I return to Cambridge, reminiscing about the old days and musing on how different my life has been from what I hoped and expected then. On a trip there last fall I found myself a few blocks north of Harvard Yard, on Divinity Avenue. Near the end of this dead-end street sits the Peabody Museum — a giant Victorian structure attached to the Botanical Museum, where my mother had taken me as a young boy, in 1943, to view the spectacular exhibit of glass flowers. These left such a vivid impression that a decade later my recollection of them inspired me, then a senior in high school, to apply to Harvard.This time my return was prompted not by nostalgia but by curiosity. No. 7 Divinity Avenue is a modern multi-story academic building today, housing the university’s Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology. In 1959 a comfortable old house stood on the site. Known as the Annex, it served as a laboratory in which staff members of the Department of Social Relations conducted research on human subjects. There, from the fall of 1959 through the spring of 1962, Harvard psychologists, led by Henry A. Murray, conducted a disturbing and what would now be seen as ethically indefensible experiment on twenty-two undergraduates. To preserve the anonymity of these student guinea pigs, experimenters referred to individuals by code name only. One of these students, whom they dubbed “Lawful,” was Theodore John Kaczynski, who would one day be known as the Unabomber, and who would later mail or deliver sixteen package bombs to scientists, academicians, and others over seventeen years, killing three people and injuring twenty-three.HAD a special interest in Kaczynski. For many years he and I had lived parallel lives to some degree. Both of us had attended public high schools and had then gone on to Harvard, from which I graduated in 1957, he in 1962. At Harvard we took many of the same courses from the same professors. We were both graduate students and assistant professors in the 1960s. I studied at Oxford and received a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton before joining the faculty at Ohio State and later serving as chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Macalester College, in Minnesota. Kaczynski earned a Ph.D. in mathematics at the University of Michigan in 1967 and then joined the Berkeley Department of Mathematics as an instructor. In the early 1970s, at roughly the same time, we separately fled civilization to the Montana wilderness.

In 1971 Kaczynski moved to Great Falls, Montana; that summer he began building a cabin near the town of Lincoln, eighty miles southwest of Great Falls, on a lot he and his brother, David, had bought. In 1972 my wife and I bought an old homestead fifty-five miles south of Great Falls. Three years later we gave up our teaching jobs to live in Montana full-time. Our place had neither telephone nor electricity; it was ten miles from the nearest neighbor. In winter we were snowbound for months at a time.

In our desire to leave civilization Kaczynski and I were not alone. Many others sought a similar escape. What, I wondered, had driven Kaczynski into the wilderness, and to murder? To what degree were his motives simply a more extreme form of the alienation that prompted so many of us to seek solace in the backwoods?

Most of us may believe we already know Ted Kaczynski. According to the conventional wisdom, Kaczynski, a brilliant former professor of mathematics turned Montana hermit and mail bomber, is, simply, mentally ill. He is a paranoid schizophrenic, and there is nothing more about him to interest us. But the conventional wisdom is mistaken. I came to discover that Kaczynski is neither the extreme loner he has been made out to be nor in any clinical sense mentally ill. He is an intellectual and a convicted murderer, and to understand the connections between these two facts we must revisit his time at Harvard.

I first heard of the Murray experiment from Kaczynski himself. We had begun corresponding in July of 1998, a couple of months after a federal court in Sacramento sentenced him to life without possibility of parole. Kaczynski, I quickly discovered, was an indefatigable correspondent. Sometimes his letters to me came so fast that it was difficult to answer one before the next arrived. The letters were written with great humor, intelligence, and care. And, I found, he was in his own way a charming correspondent. He has apparently carried on a similarly voluminous correspondence with many others, often developing close friendships with them through the mail.Kaczynski told me that the Henry A. Murray Research Centerof the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, although it released some raw data about him to his attorneys, had refused to share information about the Murray team’s analysis of that data. Kaczynski hinted darkly that the Murray Center seemed to feel it had something to hide. One of his defense investigators, he said, reported that the center had told participating psychologists not to talk with his defense team.

After this intriguing start Kaczynski told me little more about the Murray experiment than what I could find in the published literature. Henry Murray’s widow, Nina, was friendly and cooperative, but could provide few answers to my questions. Several of the research assistants I interviewed couldn’t, or wouldn’t, talk much about the study. Nor could the Murray Center be entirely forthcoming. After considering my application, its research committee approved my request to view the records of this experiment, the so-called data set, which referred to subjects by code names only. But because Kaczynski’s alias was by then known to some journalists, I was not permitted to view his records.

Through research at the Murray Center and in the Harvard archives I found that, among its other purposes, Henry Murray’s experiment was intended to measure how people react under stress. Murray subjected his unwitting students, including Kaczynski, to intensive interrogation — what Murray himself called “vehement, sweeping, and personally abusive” attacks, assaulting his subjects’ egos and most-cherished ideals and beliefs.

My quest was specific — to determine what effects, if any, the experiment may have had on Kaczynski. This was a subset of a larger question: What effects had Harvard had on Kaczynski? In 1998, as he faced trial for murder, Kaczynski was examined by Sally Johnson, a forensic psychiatrist with the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, at the order of a court. In her evaluation Johnson wrote that Kaczynski “has intertwined his two belief systems, that society is bad and he should rebel against it, and his intense anger at his family for his perceived injustices.” The Unabomber was created when these two belief systems converged. And it was at Harvard, Johnson suggested, that they first surfaced and met. She wrote,

During his college years he had fantasies of living a primitive life and fantasized himself as “an agitator, rousing mobs to frenzies of revolutionary violence.” He claims that during that time he started to think about breaking away from normal society.

It was at Harvard that Kaczynski first encountered the ideas about the evils of society that would provide a justification for and a focus to an anger he had felt since junior high school. It was at Harvard that he began to develop these ideas into his anti-technology ideology of revolution. It was at Harvard that Kaczynski began to have fantasies of revenge, began to dream of escaping into wilderness. And it was at Harvard, as far as can be determined, that he fixed on dualistic ideas of good and evil, and on a mathematical cognitive style that led him to think he could find absolute truth through the application of his own reason. Was the Unabomber — “the most intellectual serial killer the nation has ever produced,” as one criminologist has called him — born at Harvard?

The ManifestoHE story of Kaczynski’s crimes began more than twenty-two years ago, but the chain of consequences they triggered has yet to run its course. Dubbed “the Unabomber” by the FBI because his early victims were associated with universities or airlines, Kaczynski conducted an increasingly lethal campaign of terrorism that began on May 26, 1978, when his first bomb slightly injured a Northwestern University public-safety officer, Terry Marker, and ended on April 24, 1995, when a bomb he had mailed killed the president of the California Forestry Association, Gilbert Murray. Yet until 1993 Kaczynski remained mute, and his intentions were entirely unknown.

By 1995 his explosives had taken a leap in sophistication; that year he suddenly became loquacious, writing letters to newspapers, magazines, targets, and a victim. Two years laterThe Washington Post, in conjunction with The New York Times, published copies of the 35,000-word essay that Kaczynski titled “Industrial Society and Its Future,” and which the press called “The Manifesto.”

Recognizing the manifesto as Kaczynski’s writing, his brother, David, turned Kaczynski in to the FBI, which arrested him at his Montana cabin on April 3, 1996. Later that year Kaczynski was removed to California to stand trial for, among other crimes, two Unabomber murders committed in that state. On January 8, 1998, having failed to dissuade his attorneys from their intention of presenting an insanity defense, and having failed to persuade the presiding judge, Garland E. Burrell Jr., to allow him to choose a new attorney, Kaczynski asked the court for permission to represent himself. In response Burrell ordered Sally Johnson to examine Kaczynski, to determine if he was competent to direct his own defense. Johnson offered a “provisional” diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, but she concluded that Kaczynski was nevertheless competent to represent himself. Burrell refused to allow it. Faced with the prospect of a humiliating trial in which his attorneys would portray him as insane and his philosophy as the ravings of a madman, Kaczynski capitulated: in exchange for the government’s agreement not to seek the death penalty, he pleaded guilty to thirteen federal bombing offenses that killed three men and seriously injured two others, and acknowledged responsibility for sixteen bombings from 1978 to 1995. On May 4, 1998, he was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

Driving these events from first bomb to plea bargain was Kaczynski’s strong desire to have his ideas — as described in the manifesto — taken seriously.

“The Industrial Revolution and its consequences,” Kaczynski’s manifesto begins, “have been a disaster for the human race.” They have led, it contends, to the growth of a technological system dependent on a social, economic, and political order that suppresses individual freedom and destroys nature. “The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system.”

By forcing people to conform to machines rather than vice versa, the manifesto states, technology creates a sick society hostile to human potential. Because technology demands constant change, it destroys local, human-scale communities. Because it requires a high degree of social and economic organization, it encourages the growth of crowded and unlivable cities and of mega-states indifferent to the needs of citizens.

This evolution toward a civilization increasingly dominated by technology and the power structure serving technology, the manifesto argues, cannot be reversed on its own, because “technology is a more powerful social force than the aspiration for freedom,” and because “while technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable.” Hence science and technology constitute “a mass power movement, and many scientists gratify their need for power through identification with this mass movement.” Therefore “the technophiles are taking us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown.”

Because human beings must conform to the machine,

our society tends to regard as a “sickness” any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible because when an individual doesn’t fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a “cure” for a “sickness” and therefore as good.

This requirement, the manifesto continues, has given rise to a social infrastructure dedicated to modifying behavior. This infrastructure includes an array of government agencies with ever-expanding police powers, an out-of-control regulatory system that encourages the limitless multiplication of laws, an education establishment that stresses conformism, ubiquitous television networks whose fare is essentially an electronic form of Valium, and a medical and psychological establishment that promotes the indiscriminate use of mind-altering drugs. Since the system threatens humanity’s survival and cannot be reformed, Kaczynski argued, it must be destroyed. Indeed, the system will probably collapse on its own, when the weight of human suffering it creates becomes unbearable. But the longer it persists, the more devastating will be the ultimate collapse. Hence “revolutionaries” like the Unabomber “by hastening the onset of the breakdown will be reducing the extent of the disaster.”

“We have no illusions about the feasibility of creating a new, ideal form of society,” Kaczynski wrote. “Our goal is only to destroy the existing form of society.” But this movement does have a further goal. It is to protect “wild nature,” which is the opposite of technology. Admittedly, “eliminating industrial society” may have some “negative consequences,” but “well, you can’t eat your cake and have it too.”

HE Unabomber’s manifesto was greeted in 1995 by many thoughtful people as a work of genius, or at least profundity, and as quite sane. In The New York Timesthe environmental writer Kirkpatrick Sale wrote that the Unabomber “is a rational man and his principal beliefs are, if hardly mainstream, entirely reasonable.” In The Nation Sale declared that the manifesto’s first sentence “is absolutely crucial for the American public to understand and ought to be on the forefront of the nation’s political agenda.” The science writer Robert Wright observed in Time magazine, “There’s a little bit of the unabomber in most of us.” An essay in The New Yorkerby Cynthia Ozick described the Unabomber as America’s “own Raskolnikov — the appealing, appalling, and disturbingly visionary murderer of ‘Crime and Punishment,’ Dostoyevsky’s masterwork of 1866.” Ozick called the Unabomber a “philosophical criminal of exceptional intelligence and humanitarian purpose, who is driven to commit murder out of an uncompromising idealism.” Sites devoted to the Unabomber multiplied on the Internet — the Church of Euthanasia Freedom Club; Unapack, the Unabomber Political Action Committee; alt.fan.unabomber; Chuck’s Unabomb Page; redacted.com; MetroActive; and Steve Hau’s Rest Stop. The University of Colorado hosted a panel titled “The Unabomber Had a Point.”

By 1997, however, when Kaczynski’s trial opened, the view had shifted. Although psychiatrists for the prosecution continued to cite the manifesto as proof of Kaczynski’s sanity, experts for the defense and many in the media now viewed it as a symptom and a product of severe mental illness. The document, they argued, revealed a paranoid mind. During the trial the press frequently quoted legal experts who attested to Kaczynski’s insanity. Gerald Lefcourt, then the president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said the defendant was “obviously disturbed.” Donald Heller, a former federal prosecutor, said, “This guy is not playing with a full deck.” The writer Maggie Scarf suggested in The New Republic that Kaczynski suffered from “Narcissistic Personality Disorder.”

Michael Mello, a professor at Vermont Law School, is the author of The United States of America vs. Theodore John Kaczynski. He and William Finnegan, a writer for The New Yorker, have suggested that Kaczynski’s brother, David, his mother, Wanda, and their lawyer, Tony Bisceglie, along with Kaczynski’s defense attorneys, persuaded many in the media to portray Kaczynski as a paranoid schizophrenic. To a degree this is true. Anxious to save Kaczynski from execution, David and Wanda gave a succession of interviews from 1996 onward to The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Sixty Minutes, among other outlets, in which they sought to portray Kaczynski as mentally disturbed and pathologically antisocial since childhood. Meanwhile — against his wishes and without his knowledge, Kaczynski insists — his attorneys launched a mental-health defense for their client.

One psychology expert for the defense, Karen Bronk Froming, concluded that Kaczynski exhibited a “predisposition to schizophrenia.” Another, David Vernon Foster, saw “a clear and consistent picture of schizophrenia, paranoid type.” Still another, Xavier F. Amador, described Kaczynski as “typical of the hundreds of patients with schizophrenia.” How did the experts reach their conclusions? Although objective tests alone suggested to Froming only that Kaczynski’s answers were “consistent with” schizophrenia, she told Finnegan it was Kaczynski’s writings — in particular his “anti-technology” views — that cemented this conclusion for her. Foster, who met with Kaczynski a few times but never formally examined him, cited his “delusional themes” as evidence of sickness. Amador, who never met Kaczynski at all, based his judgment on the “delusional beliefs” he detected in Kaczynski’s writing. And Sally Johnson’s provisional diagnosis — that Kaczynski suffered from “Paranoid Type” schizophrenia — was largely based on her conviction that he harbored “delusional beliefs” about the threats posed by technology. The experts also found evidence of Kaczynski’s insanity in his refusal to accept their diagnoses or to help them reach those diagnoses.

Most claims of mental illness rested on the diagnoses of experts whose judgments, therefore, derived largely from their opinions of Kaczynski’s philosophy and his personal habits — he was a recluse, a wild man in appearance, a slob of a housekeeper, a celibate — and from his refusal to admit he was ill. Thus Froming cited Kaczynski’s “unawareness of his disease” as an indication of illness. Foster complained of the defendant’s “symptom-based failure to cooperate fully with psychiatric evaluation.” Amador said that the defendant suffered “from severe deficits in awareness of illness.”

But Kaczynski was no more unkempt than many other people on our streets. His cabin was no messier than the offices of many college professors. The Montana wilds are filled with escapists like Kaczynski (and me). Celibacy and misanthropy are not diseases. Nor was Kaczynski really so much of a recluse. Any reporter could quickly discover, as I did through interviews with scores of people who have known Kaczynski (classmates, teachers, neighbors), that he was not the extreme loner he has been made out to be. And, surely, a refusal to admit to being insane or to cooperate with people who are paid to pronounce one insane cannot be taken seriously as proof of insanity.

Why were the media and the public so ready to dismiss Kaczynski as crazy? Kaczynski kept voluminous journals, and in one entry, apparently from before the bombing started, he anticipated this question.

I intend to start killing people. If I am successful at this, it is possible that, when I am caught (not alive, I fervently hope!) there will be some speculation in the news media as to my motives for killing…. If some speculation occurs, they are bound to make me out to be a sickie, and to ascribe to me motives of a sordid or “sick” type. Of course, the term “sick” in such a context represents a value judgment…. the news media may have something to say about me when I am killed or caught. And they are bound to try to analyse my psychology and depict me as “sick.” This powerful bias should be borne [in mind] in reading any attempts to analyse my psychology.

Michael Mello suggests that the public wished to see Kaczynski as insane because his ideas are too extreme for us to contemplate without discomfort. He challenges our most cherished beliefs. Mello writes,

The manifesto challenges the basic assumptions of virtually every interest group that was involved with the case: the lawyers, the mental health experts, the press and politics — both left and right…. Kaczynski’s defense team convinced the media and the public that Kaczynski was crazy, even in the absence of credible evidence … [because] we needed to believe it…. They decided that the Unabomber was mentally ill, and his ideas were mad. Then they forgot about the man and his ideas, and created a curative tale.

Mello is only half right. It is true that many believed Kaczynski was insane because they needed to believe it. But the truly disturbing aspect of Kaczynski and his ideas is not that they are so foreign but that they are so familiar. The manifesto is the work of neither a genius nor a maniac. Except for its call to violence, the ideas it expresses are perfectly ordinary and unoriginal, shared by many Americans. Its pessimism over the direction of civilization and its rejection of the modern world are shared especially with the country’s most highly educated. The manifesto is, in other words, an academic — and popular — cliché. And if concepts that many of us unreflectively accept can lead a person to commit serial murder, what does that say about us? We need to see Kaczynski as exceptional — madman or genius — because the alternative is so much more frightening.

“Exceedingly Stable”O. 8 Prescott Street in Cambridge is a well-preserved three-story Victorian frame house, standing just outside Harvard Yard. Today it houses Harvard’s expository-writing program. But in September of 1958, when Ted Kaczynski, just sixteen, arrived at Harvard, 8 Prescott Street was a more unusual place, a sort of incubator. Earlier that year F. Skiddy von Stade Jr., Harvard’s dean of freshmen, had decided to use the house as living accommodations for the brightest, youngest freshmen. Von Stade’s well-intentioned idea was to provide these boys with a nurturing, intimate environment, so that they wouldn’t feel lost, as they might in the larger, less personal dorms. But in so doing he isolated the overly studious and less-mature boys from their classmates. He inadvertently created a ghetto for grinds, making social adjustment for them more, rather than less, difficult.

“I lived at Prescott Street that year too,” Michael Stucki told me recently. “And like Kaczynski, I was majoring in mathematics. Yet I swear I never ever even saw the guy.” Stucki, who recently retired after a career in computers, lived alone on the top floor, far from Kaczynski’s ground-floor room. In the unsocial society of 8 Prescott, that was a big distance. “It was not unusual to spend all one’s time in one’s room and then rush out the door to library or class,” Stucki said.

Francis Murphy, the Prescott Street proctor, was a graduate student who had studied for the Catholic priesthood, and to Kaczynski it seemed the house was intended to be run more like a monastery than a dorm. Whereas other freshmen lived in suites with one or two roommates, six of the sixteen students of Prescott Street, including Kaczynski, lived in single rooms. All but seven intended to major in a mathematical science. All but three came from high schools outside New England, and therefore knew few people in Massachusetts. They were, in Murphy’s words, “a serious, quiet bunch.”

Much has been made of Kaczynski’s being a “loner” and of his having been further isolated by Harvard’s famed snobbism. Snobbism was indeed pervasive at Harvard back then. A single false sartorial step could brand one an outcast. And Kaczynski looked shabby. He owned just two pairs of slacks and only a few shirts. Although he washed these each week in the coin-operated machine in the basement of the house next door to 8 Prescott, they became increasingly ragtag.

But it is a mistake to exaggerate Kaczynski’s isolation. Most public high schoolers at Harvard in those days, including Kaczynski, viewed the tweedy in-crowd as so many buttoned-down buffoons who did not realize how ridiculous they looked. And the evidence is that Kaczynski was neither exceptionally a loner nor, at least in his early years at Harvard, alienated from the school or his peers.

Harvard was a “tremendous thing for me,” Kaczynski wrote in an unpublished autobiography that he completed in 1998 and showed to me. “I got something that I had been needing all along without knowing it, namely, hard work requiring self-discipline and strenuous exercise of my abilities. I threw myself into this…. I thrived on it…. Feeling the strength of my own will, I became enthusiastic about will power.”

Freshmen were required to participate in sports, so Kaczynski took up swimming and then wrestling. He played the trombone, as he had in high school, even joining the Harvard band (which he quit almost as soon as he learned that he would have to attend drill sessions). He played pickup basketball. He made a few friends. One of his housemates, Gerald Burns, remembers sitting with Kaczynski in an all-night cafeteria, arguing about the philosophy of Kant. After Kaczynski’s arrest Burns wrote to the anarchist journal Fifth Estate that Kaczynski “was as normal as I am now: it was [just] harder on him because he was much younger than his classmates.” And indeed, most reports of his teachers, his academic adviser, his housemaster, and the health-services staff suggest that Kaczynski was in his first year at Harvard entirely balanced, although tending to be a loner. The health-services doctor who interviewed Kaczynski as part of the medical examination Harvard required for all freshmen observed,

Good impression created. Attractive, mature for age, relaxed…. Talks easily, fluently and pleasantly…. likes people and gets on well with them. May have many acquaintances but makes his friends carefully. Prefers to be by himself part of the time at least. May be slightly shy…. Essentially a practical and realistic planner and an efficient worker…. Exceedingly stable, well integrated and feels secure within himself. Usually very adaptable. May have many achievements and satisfactions.

The doctor further described Kaczynski thus: “Pleasant young man who is below usual college entrance age. Apparently a good mathematician but seems to be gifted in this direction only. Plans not crystallized yet but this is to be expected at his age. Is slightly shy and retiring but not to any abnormal extent. Should be [a] steady worker.”

Continued…(The online version of this article appears in four parts. Click here to go to part two, part three, or part four.)

---

Alston Chase is the author of Playing God in Yellowstone(1986) and In a Dark Wood (1995). He is at work on a book about Theodore Kaczynski.

Another Round of Central Asian Children Sucked Into the Belly of the Beast

Central Asian youth leaders attend democracy workshop

P G

BISHKEK: The week-long Summer School of Democracy 2011 for 95 young Central Asian activists began June 13, according to a June 12 UN Development Program (UNDP) statement. During the week, 95 participants – ages 18 to 28 – will discuss critical regional issues and listen to politicians, business owners, civil society representatives and experts. The program is meant to promote civic education and strengthen community leadership.

Deconstructing President Obama’s Strange Stance On Israel

[Overlook the title of the following article (and a couple of paragraphs near the end) for a moment and read what this guy has to say about the Frankfort School of Germany and its merging with Fabian Marxism in the ongoing American social engineering experiment.  This is the "scientific dictatorship" behavioral control experiment that has us all by the throat.  These are the guys that sold our capitalist bosses the idea of sinking America as a means to controlling the entire world.  The corporate fascists and their foundations have been the instruments for America's controlled self-destruction for many decades, and now, the bill for this experiment has come due.  We are the victims, yet we are the ones who must pay for our own destruction and enslavement.

Long live the Revolution!]

Bill Flax

“Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left” – Herbert Marcuse, Father of the New Left

President Barack Obama’s recent suggestion that returning to 1967 boundaries is the starting point for negotiations between Israel and Palestinians raises questions. While a strong case can be made for minding our business internationally, betraying allies and naively appeasing enemies appear curious as strategic ploys.

His foreign policy revolves around coddling Third World dictators, snubbing traditional friends and overall subservience to the U.N. Obama seems more about reversing his predecessor than charting any coherent diplomatic course. One also wonders whether our President seeks America’s interests or considers our nation fundamentally good.

What gives?

 

The roots of Obama’s “reset” sprouted during the First World War. The lack of a general working class revolt befuddled socialists. According to Marxist eschatology, French workers and their German counterparts should have joined forces to annihilate the bourgeois. Instead, the proletariat shouldered arms for their respective countries to slaughter each other.

To the intelligentsia, smitten with Marxism and other progressive theories, some failing endemic to Western Civilization had prevented the working class from recognizing their class interests. Many Marxist intellectuals came to believe their focus should shift from the economic sphere to a general assault against Western culture.

An institute was established in Frankfurt, Germany to study Marxism’s cultural aspects. It absorbed Antonio Gramsci’s theories suggesting that “cultural hegemony” should surpass class struggle as the preferred pathway to proletariat power. This organization soon became known as the Frankfurt School to obscure its Marxist suppositions.

When Hitler assumed power, the Frankfurt School, which was overwhelmingly Jewish, fled, bringing their theories to America instead of Soviet Russia, which is telling. They were welcomed here by John Dewey, a Fabian socialist hailed as the “Father of Public Education,” and renowned journalist Edward R. Murrow.

After initially taking refuge at Columbia University they branched across America’s education and media establishments. Some, like Horkheimer and Adorno eventually migrated to Hollywood. Like their Fabian counterparts, the Frankfurt School sought not to overthrow capitalism via violent revolution as Marx wished, but to rot society’s foundations.

Leftist intellectuals became termites “boring from within” to undermine America’s free market heritage. They launched a “long march through the institutions” permeating the media, schools and entertainment industries. To unmoor the individual from tradition, morality and self-reliance, they belittled the family, the Church, and America’s constitutional underpinnings.

The Frankfurt School developed Critical Theory, which essentially contrasts the divergence of reality from its ideals. An impossible standard meant to ridicule traditional culture. Derision was their weapon, language and arts their hunting ground and Western Civilization their prey. They incessantly criticized American institutions while pervading spheres of influence and usurping the dissemination of thought.

Progressive theories diffuse through the intelligentsia faster than teeny boppers take to trendy clothes fashions. Few intellectuals willingly forgo the sophistic superiority derived by latching onto ideas not yet widely accessible, or chance squandering the moral preeminence derived from the latest guilt driven philosophical fad. Cultural Marxism spread across the academy like a virus.

This culminated in the rebelliousness of the Sixties. The SDS and other radicals were direct outgrowths of Fabianism. Herbert Marcuse’s Eros and Civilization married Marx with Freud giving credence to decadence and elevating fornication to great significance. His “make love not war” epitomized the Left’s moral compass.

Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” essentially prescribed that any view or behavior formerly considered anti-social or un-American must be tolerated – maybe even encouraged. However, anything reinforcing tradition, patriotism, biblical morality or capitalism should ultimately be denounced. “Transvaluation,” transformed virtue into sin and sin into virtue.

Authority was seen as untrustworthy. The police and military were blasted as “fascist pigs.” Sex, race and other distinguishing characteristics became but social constructs to be “deconstructed” to liberate “humankind” from western culture’s repressiveness. While most of this was fantastical nonsense, their greatest success was highlighting America’s racial hypocrisy.

Marxists co-opted the moral authority of the Civil Rights movement propelling what later became political correctness to prominence. After the Civil Rights Act passed, equality quickly succumbed to racial favoritism empowered by redistributions of wealth and power through affirmative action and expanding entitlements. Racial issues have provided the pretext for massive influxes of federal intervention.

Marxists picture life through the prism of class identification and believe man’s worldly station remains static. Cultural Marxism broadened the group identification that supposedly defines us beyond class distinctions to include race, sex, religion, sexual proclivities, etc. The class conflicts of orthodox Marxism were supplanted by these other antagonisms.

Groups are labeled victims or villains, oppressed or oppressors. In political correctness, victims include minorities, women, homosexuals, non-Christians, immigrants or anyone spouting grievances – even criminals. The oppressors are whites, men, heterosexuals, Christians and the “rich.” Rights ceased as protections for persons and property shifting instead into claims against others.

Political correctness can accommodate no shades of gray. Moms who stay home “let down the team.” Black conservatives are racially banished as “Uncle Toms.” Cubans, who track more conservative than other Hispanics, are rarely afforded the privileged stature of minority victimhood.

The Left’s obsession with race manifests itself in strange manners. Recent immigrants and wealthy blacks are thought more deserving of quota favoritism and set-asides than poor whites. Criticisms of Obama are dismissed as mere racism yet the Tea Party is smeared for being mostly white even as they powered numerous minority candidates to office.

The Sixties generation absorbed these theories and now controls most of America’s cultural institutions. President Obama exemplifies the academy’s biases and benefited immensely by popular culture’s inundation with political correctness. A self-styled intellectual, Obama claims his greatest education was agitating as an Alinskyite community organizer.

Saul Alinsky was an Antonio Gramsci disciple, the first significant Marxist thinker to explore culture as the pivotal battleground. Alinsky begat Wade Rathke, ACORN’s founder, informed Cloward-Pliven and spawned numerous affiliated radical groups closely associated with the president. Obama allies Jim Wallis and Bill Ayers both emerged from the Fabian SDS.

Obama’s hyper-partisanship extends far beyond historical party differences. He routinely demonizes businesses, castigates domestic “enemies” and takes sides in non-executive matters. Everything this Administration does reeks of “Us” against “Them” conducted through the prism of demographic considerations usually invoking redistributions of wealth or power.

Many think the president’s consistent siding with Islam reveals he is secretly Muslim. If true, this would explain Obama’s hostility to Israel, employing NASA for Muslim “outreach,” his refusal to acknowledge Islam’s role in terrorism and his incoherent response to the Ft. Hood massacre. But Muslims aren’t radically pro-abortion, pro-homosexual and pro-feminist.

Nor can being Muslim explain why the president would side with Mexico over Arizona and other bizarre foreign policies like extolling drilling off Brazil’s shores, but not ours. America, as a Western imperial nation has supposedly inordinately benefited by exploiting resources more deservedly belonging to Third World peoples.

Israel represents a bastion of western civilization in territory cultural Marxists find justly Arab. Israel will forever be the oppressor no matter how many murders terrorists commit. Palestinians will always be the oppressed even though they despise us. Yet Palestinians in Israel retain more rights and enjoy more material prosperity than most Muslims enjoy in their own lands.

The commonality infusing Obama’s policies, both foreign and domestic, isn’t Islam or anti-colonialism as Dinesh D’Souza surmises, but cultural Marxism. It explains his frequent apologies for America abroad, why unions were favored over bondholders and why determining which GM dealerships survived wasn’t predicated on profitability, but the owner’s race or sex.

To cultural Marxists, immigrants, even if illegal, hold moral sway over white citizens therefore amnesty and even handouts are justified. Only whites can be racist so the Black Panthers shouldn’t be prosecuted for voter intimidation. Obama’s nominations, such as Sonia Sotomayor, seem more about Affirmative Action for “wise Latinas” than appointing qualified candidates.

Often political correctness proves entertaining.

Obama reacted with a typical PC reflex in deeming that the policeman who arrested Henry Gates “acted stupidly.” In his static worldview conditioned by cultural Marxism, white policemen are the oppressors and blacks the oppressed. What Marxists miss is that groups are comprised of individuals. We aren’t monolithic blobs defined by society, nor are our stations static.

In America, upward mobility is not only possible, it’s probable. The Gates incident occurred in a town with a black mayor, in a state with a black governor and in a country with a black president. The black professor pulled political strings to dodge justice, not the hapless white police officer. The professor was no victim and the policeman wasn’t the racist.

Cultural Marxism might even be humorous if the stakes weren’t so dire.

Florida’s Spacey-Looking Governor Orders Mandatory Drug-Testing for Welfare Recipients

Florida governor defies fury of privacy advocates as he signs law forcing welfare recipients to have drugs tests

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER

Florida’s Republican governor has invoked the fury of privacy advocates after signing into law a bill requiring welfare recipients to undergo drugs tests.

Rick Scott is already facing a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida seeking to half a similar order mandating drug testing for state employees.

The ACLU has slammed the law as an ‘extreme overreach’ of his powers. Officials are considering a similar lawsuit over the welfare bill, which he signed into law yesterday.

Challenge: Florida Governor Rick Scott in Fort Lauderdale last month

But Mr Scott was defiant over the laws, proclaiming that taxpayers should not have to subsidize drug addiction.

‘While there are certainly legitimate needs for public assistance, it is unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction,’ he said.

‘This new law will encourage personal accountability and will help to prevent the misuse of tax dollars.’

Opponents have slammed the tests as a similar waste of taxpayers’ money, however.

Welfare applicants who test positive will not receive government help for a year, or until they undergo treatment.

Those who fail a second time will be banned from receiving public funds for three years.

Right to privacy? Florida governor Rick Scott has signed a law forcing welfare recipients to undergo drugs tests (file photo)

If they are found to be drug free they will be reimbursed for the tests, according to the law.

The law is set to come into force by July 1.

It immediately drew an outcry from the ACLU.

‘The wasteful program created by this law subjects Floridians who are impacted by the economic downturn, as well as their families, to a humiliating search of their urine and body fluids without cause or even suspicion of drug abuse,’ said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.

‘Searching the bodily fluids of those in need of assistance is a scientifically, fiscally, and constitutionally unsound policy. Today, that unsound policy is Florida law.’

The ACLU has already gone to court with Mr Scott over the drug testing of state employees.

Mr Scott ordered drug testing of new hires and spot checks of existing state employees under him in March and gave state agencies 60 days to decide how to implement the plan.

The state already has the power to test employees if they suspect drug abuse, but this order could apply to state employees regardless of suspicions.

‘This is a governor who is willing to use the power of government to intrude upon your rights in Florida,’ Mr Simon said.

‘The analysis of urine also tells a lot more about you that is nobody’s business,’ he said.

That includes whether an employee is pregnant, or taking heart, diabetes, depression or other medications.

The ACLU won a similar lawsuit on behalf of a Department of Juvenile Justice employee in 2004 after a federal judge said random testing without suspicion was unconstitutional.

‘If it makes good business sense for private sector companies to drug test their employees, why wouldn’t it make good business sense for the state?’

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle of Tallahassee determined the department was wrong to fire an office employee because he had no direct contact with children nor were there any safety reasons for the testing, such as carrying a gun or driving.

Judge Hinkle did not reinstate the employee but ordered mediation. The state settled with the former employee for $150,000.

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed blanket suspicion-less drug testing only if ‘the risk to public safety is substantial and real.’

The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of a union representing about 50,000 state employees and Richard Flamm, a 17-year state employee from St. Petersburg who works as a researcher for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

‘It’s kind of insulting that my boss, in essence the governor, is treating his staff like this,’ said Mr. Flamm. ‘It’s an egregious use of taxpayer money.’

Florida’s Constitution guarantees public employees the right to bargain, but it also prohibits them from striking, giving them little leverage.

An attorney for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, or AFSCME, said the governor’s office has not contacted them about the issue.

Critics say the tests could cost the state millions, creating unnecessary expenses while government budgets have been slashed.

‘We have a chief executive saying I want to put perhaps millions of dollars out of my state budget to pay for unnecessary, unconstitutional drug testing when he have an economic crisis, when we have budget slashes. It is disappointing,’ said Alma Gonzalez , an attorney for AFSCME.

The governor’s office could not provide an estimate on how much the testing may cost, saying they are still working out logistics.

‘If it makes good business sense for private sector companies to drug test their employees, why wouldn’t it make good business sense for the state,’ a spokesman said.

Agreements between private citizens and private companies are not protected under the same Constitutional rights as state employees, according to ACLU attorneys.

Homeland Security Testing “Pre-Crime” Detection System In Northeast

[SEE:  LAPD Creates “Pre-Crime” Database for “Predictive Policing”]

Homeland Security testing mind-reading terrorist ‘pre-crime’ detectors

Many times, technologies from popular science fiction movies have later blended with real science and technology to become reality. Deployment of just such surveillance technology, somewhere between mind-reading machines and a “pre-crime” program, is currently being tested against real life to remotely detect terrorists or assassins, to find people with malicious intentions.

So whether someone cut you off in traffic or you had a spat with your significant other, if you are having adrenaline-driven aggressive thoughtsand you are in northeastern USA, you might quickly take a chill pill because that’s where terrorist “pre-crime” detectors are being tested by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

According to Nature magazine, in an undisclosed location in the northeast, Homeland Security has been testing its Future Attribute Screening Technology(FAST) program which is designed to ‘sense’ and spot people who intend to commit a terrorist act. Critics of FAST have compared the system to the ‘pre-crime’ concept that was made famous in the film Minority Report. FAST technology uses remote sensors to detect when a person experiences irregular physiological properties like increased heart rate and darting eye movements that are supposedly associated with malicious intent.

FAST merges technology with behavioral science [PDF] and has been in development since 2008. According to the DHS privacy impact document, there are five remote sensors that can measure heart and respiration rates, and remote eye trackers that can measure pupils, position and gaze of eyes. There are also thermal cameras as well as audio to analyze pitch changes in human voices. High resolution video is used to analyze facial expressions and body movement. “Other sensor types such as pheromones detection are also under consideration.” Previous FAST testing involved people passing through the system while role-playing that they would carry out a “disruptive act.”

As TechEye noted, “DHS claimed the machine was accurate 70 percent of the time [and] the other 30 percent will probably get out of Guantanamo Bay in a couple of years.”

DHS has compared FAST to lie detector tests, except it does not involve active questioning of the subject. The non-contact sensors measure sweating and the steadiness of a person’s gaze to judge state of mind. Although there is no mention of ‘precog’ mutants like in Minority Report, it does bring to mind the pre-crime program from the movie. Aren’t terrorists trained to avoid detection and possibly beat lie detector tests?

Tom Ormerod, a psychologist in the Investigative Expertise Unit at Lancaster University, UK, told Nature, “Even having an iris scan or fingerprint read at immigration is enough to raise the heart rate of most legitimate travelers.” Other critics have been concerned about “false positives.” For example, some travelers might have some of the physical responses that are supposedly signs of mal-intent if they were about to be groped by TSA agents in airport security.

Yes, FAST is much more advanced than a “mood ring” or stress detector, but for people who feel like false positives can grind against the grain of liberty, then perhaps attempt to be very mellow in public? If you don’t travel much, then let’s hope that experienced security or customs agents can use their better judgment to determine that is why you are nervous.

“Antidepressant-Induced Suicide, Violence and Mania–Implications for the Military”

Peter R. Breggin, MD – Antidepressants & Suicid…, posted with vodpod

[SEE  What Is Different About Ft. Carson, Colorado Soldiers? ]

Dr. Peter Breggin’s Testimony at Veterans Affairs Committee On “Antidepressant-Induced Suicide, Violence and Mania: Implications for the Military”

Dr. Breggin’s Testimony Before The U.S. Congress
Read Dr. Breggin’s written testimony here. It was also published thereafter
in the peer-reviewed Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry.

On February 24, 2010, the Veterans Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives, Chaired by Rep. Bob Filner (D-San Diego) held hearings entitled “Exploring the Relationship Between Medication and Veteran Suicide.”

Chairman Filner asked Dr. Peter Breggin to lead off with testimony about “Anti-depressant-induced Suicide, Violence, and Mania: Implications for the Military.”

Moments before the hearings began, Chairman Filner visited with Dr. Breggin and explained that he had decided to hold the hearings after reading Dr. Breggin’s book, “Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatry Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime” (2008). He gave Dr. Breggin as much time as he needed in his testimony to set the stage for the hearings. Dr. Breggin provided a detailed analysis emphasizing the science that demonstrates a causal relationship between the newer antidepressants and the production of suicide, violence, mania and other behavioral abnormalities. He emhasized the considerable risk in giving these drugs to heavily armed young men and women.

The hearing video begins with Chairman Filner and another congressman, Dr. Roe, and then Dr. Breggin begins his presentation on the first panel. One other speaker was on the panel, Andrew Leon, PhD, a former FDA official who consults to drug companies. He followed Dr. Breggin briefly, and then the remaining time was spent with the panel questioning Dr. Breggin and Dr. Leon for a total of about 90 minutes.

A second panel featured members of both APAs, and attorney Don Farber of San Rafael, California, who spoke eloquently about the manner in which APA has avoided its responsibilities in regard to medication-induced suicide and the black box warning. A third panel consisted of representatives from the military and the VA.

Read Dr. Breggin’s written testimony here. It was also published thereafter
in the peer-reviewed Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry.

Note that the written testimony was for a five-minute presentation, but the Committee accorded Dr. Breggin more than half an hour of testimony

BAHRAIN–Activist describes electroshock, torture by government forces

[Electroshock is the last resort of fascist militarist minds, who cannot get the results they want by ordinary, reasonable means.  These bastards are the disgrace of the human race--nearly all of the practitioners of involuntary electroshock are either military or police--all done by governments.  The worst practitioner of this modern form of torture (called "medical science" by the people who use it) is the US GOVT.  They picked-up the idea from the Nazi mind-scientists and ran with it, turning it eventually, into an instrument for forcefully overcoming the human will, against the will of all of its subjects.  Don't listen to the liars who claim that it does no permanent harm.  Believe me, it does damage that lasts a lifetime.  My own father underwent forced electroshock by the US Army in 1951 (SEE:  Human Nature Is the Enemy of the State ), and he suffered psychological and nervous problems from it, his entire life.  He suffered from extensive memory loss of most childhood memories and many of his life's experiences.  The intention of the Army then is much the same for the torturers of the Bahraini, to forcibly remove unwanted political thoughts and ideas from their tortured heads, as well as the will to pursue them.]

After reports this week of security forces in Bahrain torturing detainees, particularly medical personnel, Babylon & Beyond spoke with Mohammed Maskati, president of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights who has been working to document human rights abuses in the capital, Manama, and throughout the Gulf nation with international partners such as Amnesty Internationaland Human Rights Watch.

Q: What is your focus now?

A: On Thursday the first nurse got sentenced in Bahrain, his name is Hassan Matooq. He is also a photographer, he took photos of all the injured people who came to the hospital. They charged him with four charges: torturing the injured, illegal gathering, participating in a rally and also broadcasting false news. He was sentenced to three years.

If he has only four charges and he is sentenced to four years, we are very afraid for the 47 medical staff (in custody), many of them have more than 10 charges against them.

Q: Why are medical personnel being detained?

A: They helped the injured and they are witnesses. If the government wants to destroy all the evidence, it’s one answer — you accuse medical staff because the main witness of what happened in Salmaniya Hospital, the number of figures of the injured and what kind of weapons were used at that time, was the medical staff. The medical staff know everything.

Q: Have you spoken with any of the medical personnel?

A: We did not speak with them but we spoke with some people who were with them. They said the police, they were tortured. We talked with the ones who were released.Q: How many people did you speak with?

A: More than 30. Six talked about the doctors.

Q: Were the doctors treated differently than other detainees?

A: Yes, they get more torture. Some doctors, a very famous doctor, we don’t want to announce his name, they forced him to dance to music and they filmed.

Q: Was that meant to shame him?

A: We don’t know. All of those who were released talk about the security forces forcing them to chant for the government. Some of them forced them to say bad words about another opposition leader. Some of them more than 10 days they were handcuffed with plastic ones, not the normal handcuffs, and blindfolded.

Q: There have been reports police used electroshock on the detainees — did anyone tell you about that? What did they say was done to them?

A: Yes. You know an electric shaver? It looks like that but it is for electroshock. What was explained to us, it is the same size, the same style, but it shocks.

Q: How would police use that in interrogations?

A: They say they put it for 10 seconds, then they take it. Some of them, they say, they say they put it on sensitive places.

Q: Where would they put it?

A: On the back, on the head. Some of them they put it down in their private parts. But they don’t put it more than 10 seconds.

Q: Did they use electroshock on women too?

A: I didn’t hear that for women, only from the men. They have different things for women. Some of the women said they showed them torturing a man in front of them. Some of the women, they only let them hear the shouting of a man in another room and they told them if you will not confess, you will face the same thing.

Q: Are you recording what detainees tell you and what do you plan to do with that information?

A: We are writing it down and sending it to the U.N. High Commission for Human Rights. We urgently need immediate investigations of all these allegations of torture. Four individuals have died in custody. This sends the message that you need urgent investigations.

Q: Who are the four that died?

A: They are not doctors. One is a businessman, the co-founder of Al Wafat newspaper. One of them is a blogger running a political website. Two of them are protesters.

Q: Were they tortured before they died?

A: Yes, all of them were tortured before they died. I am not saying that without evidence — we have pictures of their bodies before they were taken to the funeral. Their bodies showed how they were tortured — they had bruises everywhere and they were turning black.

Q: Are you afraid for your own safety?

A: Actually, on April 9 I was with Abdul Hadi, the human rights defender, at his daughter’s place when he was arrested. I got beaten there and Abdul Hadi was beaten in front of me. He was unconscious. They released me in only half an hour because they … recognized me. But I got afraid.

I get threatening calls that if I do not stop my human rights work they will kill me.

Q: What did you do?

A: I informed the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights. Abdul Hadi is among the 21 [opposition leaders] on trial. The second hearing will be Monday.

Q: Do you plan to go to the trial?

A: They don’t allow us to go to the trial. They don’t allow international organizations [to go]. We are actually trying to push the international community to take action about the human rights violations in Bahrain, to push the international organizations to investigate who is missing. Still we have people missing we don’t know about their situation, people arrested in Salmaniya Hospital who were injured and we know they need medical assistance.

Q: How many people are missing?

A: More than 26 are missing and who is detained is more than 900. We are trying to document every case. The problem is, we have a lot of cases and a few volunteers. Most of them are hidden because of the situation. We’re trying to work fast.

Q: How many volunteers do you have?

A: We are 10 in different villages.

RELATED:

Timeline: Repression in Bahrain

– Molly Hennessy-Fiske in Cairo

Photo: Ahmed Juma’a, 20, holds his 7-month-old niece, Marwa, as relatives welcome him home from jail Saturday in the western village of Malkiya, Bahrain. Juma’a was detained last week as part of the crackdown on anti-government protesters, which has netted several hundreds mostly from Shiite Muslim areas such as Malkiya. Credit: Hasan Jamali / Associated Press

Bottom photo: Mohammed Maskati, president of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights, has been documenting human rights abuses in Bahrain. Credit: Facebook

Iran Cracks Open the Central Lie, and the World Is Listening.

IRAN CLAIMS BIN LADEN DIED FROM AN ILLNESS LONG AGO

Agenzia Giornalistica Italia - ‎7 hours ago‎

(AGI) Tehran – The US raid against Bin Laden was a set-up because the Sheikh of Terror had “died from an illness some time ago”. The statement was made by Iran’s Minister for Intelligence Heydar Moslehi, who speciified that his Country has “accurate …

Report: Iranian minister says bin Laden died before US raid

Jerusalem Post - ‎8 hours ago‎

By JPOST.COM STAFF Osama bin Laden died long before the US raid on his Pakistan compound, the FARS news agency reported quoting Iranian Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi. “We have accurate information that bin Laden died of illness some time ago,” …

Iranian official: Bin Laden died long before US raid

Ynetnews - ‎8 hours ago‎

Iranian Intelligence Minister Heyder Moslehi said that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had died long before the US army raided his compound in Pakistan, the Fars news agency reported. “We have exact information that indicates that bin Laden had died …

‘Bin Laden claimed killed to overshadow Islamic awakening’

Tehran Times - ‎21 hours ago‎

TEHRAN – Iranian Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi has said claims that Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has been killed are meant to overshadow the Islamic awakening taking place in the region. “According to the accurate reports and information that …

Bin Laden dead before US raid – Iranian Intelligence Minister

RIA Novosti - ‎27 minutes ago‎

Iranian Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi said Tehran has evidence that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had died of disease long before the United States’ alleged raid on the terrorist, FARS Iranian news agency said. Bin Laden was killed on May 2 in …

Iranian Intelligence Minister: Bin Laden Died Long Before US Raid; By …

MEMRI (blog) - ‎38 minutes ago‎

Iranian Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi has said that Iran has reliable information that Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden died of disease some time ago, long before the US claimed to have killed him last week. We have accurate information that bin …

Bin Laden: Al-Qaeda head died ‘of an illness’ Iranian intelligence minister says

Adnkronos International English - ‎56 minutes ago‎

Tehran, 9 May (AKI) – An illness killed Osama bin Laden some time ago, not an American soldier’s bullet on 2 May, according to Iranian intelligence minister Heidar Moslehi. “We have reliable information that Bin Laden died a while ago from a sickness,” …

Iran: Bin Laden died long before US raid

Channel 6 News Online - ‎3 hours ago‎

TEHRAN (BNO NEWS) — Iranian Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi on Sunday evening claimed the Iranian government has evidence that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden died of illness and not during a US raid earlier this month. Bin Laden, who is believed …

Osama died of illness much before US attack: Iran

Daily Bhaskar - ‎5 hours ago‎

New Delhi: In a shocking revelation, Iran’s Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi has claimed they have reliable information that Osama bin Laden was not killed by the US forces in Abbottabad on May 2 but died of illness some time ago. …

Osama bin Laden died long before Abbattobad operation: Iran

International Business Times - ‎5 hours ago‎

By IB Times Staff Reporter | May 9, 2011 6:31 AM EDT Iran refuses to buy the US version of eliminating the world’s most wanted terrorist Osama bin-Laden. The country’s Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi said Iran has reliable information that Bin …

Iran kept Osama bin Laden’s relatives in secret compound

Newstime Africa - ‎6 hours ago‎

Osama bin Laden’s closest relatives are living in a secret compound in Iran, members of the family said last night. They include a wife and children who disappeared from his Afghan camp at the time of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. …

Iran Spy Chief Says Bin Laden Died Much Earlier From Health Complications

Eurasia Review - ‎8 hours ago‎

Iran’s Minister of Intelligence has accused the US of fabricating its account of Osama Bin Laden’s death, alleging that Bin Laden had died much earlier from health complications. Heydar Moslehi told the Iranian Student News Agency (ISNA) that Iran is …

Iran claims Osama died of illness long before US raid

The Express Tribune - ‎10 hours ago‎

Iranian intelligence minister says Iran has reliable information that Bin Laden died of an illness before the raid. PHOTO: AFP TEHRAN: Iranian media on Sunday reported that Iran refuted US claims that al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was killed by US …

Bin Laden died some time ago due to sickness: Iran minister

ISNA - ‎10 hours ago‎

TEHRAN (ISNA)-Iranian Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi said Bin Laden died some time ago due to sickness. “Why do the US military and security services refused to show Bin Laden’s body and dropped it to the sea if they had really arrested and …

Osama died of illness few years ago: Iran

Geo Television Network - Geo World - ‎13 hours ago‎

TEHRAN: Iran’s intelligence minister Heidar Moslehi has said that his country had solid evidence that al-Qaeda Chief Osama bin Laden died of disease some time ago. Iran had accurate information that bin Laden died of illness some time ago, Moslehi told …

‘Bin Laden dead long before US raid’

Press TV - ‎May 8, 2011‎

Iran’s intelligence minister says the country has reliable information that former head of the al-Qaeda terrorist group Osama bin Laden died of disease some time ago. “We have accurate information that bin Laden died of illness some time ago,” Heidar …

Saudis blamed for Syrian violence

[Obama turning Bush on his head.

In this astute analysis, Mr. Farah gets to the root of the goings on in Syria and the greater Mideast region.  In his analysis, Saudi Arabia is doing the groundwork that will enable the US and Israel to carry-out their plans to eliminate Hezbollah and perhaps Iran.  By destabilizing the Assad regime, it is presumed that the Shiite resistance forces can be cut-off from their benefactors and presumed protectors, and their resupply capabilities, increasing Imperial odds of controlling the outcome of total war upon Hezbollah--giving Lebanon the "Libyan treatment."

In 2006, when Bush failed to send in American air support for bogged-down IDF forces in South Lebanon, it became his "Bay of Pigs" moment.  It was an outright betrayal of Israeli President Olmert, comparable to JFK's veto of air support for the CIA invaders of Cuba.  If either Israel or "the Jews" really secretly controlled the world, then Bush would have been powerless to resist Israeli calls for air support.  If Bush had sent in the American air power required to bomb Hezbollah troops out of their fortified positions, as well as deterring Syria from intervening, then Bush's Greater Middle East would already be a reality.  In the grand Road Map to peace in the new Middle East, the next step would then have been the resolution of the Palestinian problem.  In my opinion, Obama has taken-up the challenge of completing Bush's Map, which means that he would be prepared, at some point to solve the Palestinian issue.   The Hamas/Fatah reconciliation, along with the greater "Arab spring" movement are Obama's first steps towards that resolution. 

 

Is it possible that Obama will coerce or force the Zionist state to sign a peace treaty that enforces the 1967 borders, enforced by the UN military arm, NATO?   Considering the recent report that the reconciled Palestinian government expressed support for international policing forces to guard the Rafah crossing with Egypt, seeing UN forces ringing the new/old West Bank border is no longer seen as a stretch of the imagination.  I understand that this reversal for Israel would put an end to its dreams of "Greater Israel," thereby putting to rest conspiracy theories claiming that "Jews control the world."

I could be dead wrong here, but judging from the actions of Obama's team elsewhere, double-crossing old allies on the gamble of controlling the new outcomes in the synthetic "Arab spring" revolutions, and the predicted double-cross of Pakistan (dumping Pakistan for India), I am seeing a pattern, a modus operandi, which suggests that it is time for the real Empire to jettison all unnecessary baggage--and that includes the "shitty little Zionist experiment" in the Middle East.  I think this is a case of the Rothschild conspiracy selling-out their Jewish kinfolk for the ultimate pay-off, total control of all power and wealth.]

Goal said to be to bust up alliance opposing Israel, U.S.

---

FROM JOSEPH FARAH’S G2 BULLETIN
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted fromJoseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin,the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND.Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.

As the Syrian government continues its crackdown on demonstrators amid international condemnation, there are increasing indications that Sunni-ruled Saudi Arabia may behelpingto covertlyfinance theopposition due to Syria’s close relations with the kingdom’s nemesis, Shi’a Iran, according to a report inJoseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Informed Middle East sources say that covert Saudi assistance to Syria’s protesters is linked to the kingdom concern over what is seen as Iranian backing of the pro-democracy protests in Shi’ite Bahrain, which is ruled by the Sunni al-Khalifa family. The Saudis have moved some 1,000 troops into Bahrain tosalvagethe al-Khalifa regime.

Bahrain is a small island in the Persian Gulf sandwiched between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Analysts say the turmoil in Bahrain by the Shi’a majority is posing an increasing threat of serious unrest in Saudi Arabia, especially in the kingdom’s nearby eastern province which similarly has a Shi’a majority. The eastern province also is the region where much of Saudi Arabia’s oil production occurs.

Given these potential threats, the Saudi regime wants to break up what is essentially a ‘Tehran-Damascus-Hezbollah alliance” as onesourcecalled it, in an effort to “progressively debilitate Hezbollah’s resistance to the U.S. and Israel.

“Thus, in Syria, we find the U.S., Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia once againsharingthe same agenda,” thesourcesaid. “The stakes are extremely high.”

Jordan had joined Saudi Arabia and Egypt long before the demonstrations last January to forge an alliance against Tehran which they view as attempting to spread Shi’a influence in the Sunni Arab world.

Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about criticaldevelopmentsaround the globe withJoseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin,the premium, online intelligence newssourceedited and published by the founder of WND.

For the complete report and full immediate access to Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, subscribe now.

Britain’s Long-Running Radicalization Efforts Coming To Light

[American and British programs, intended to create an "Islamist" enemy for the West to stage a fake war with, demonstrate the completely immoral thinking of Western leaders.  CIA, MI5 &6, Mossad and the rest are truly scum of the earth.]

WikiLeaks: Guantánamo Bay terrorists radicalised in London to attack Western targets

At least 35 terrorists incarcerated at Guantánamo Bay were sent to fight against the West after being indoctrinated by extremist preachers in Britain, secret files obtained by The Daily Telegraph disclose.

Abu Hamza speaks to his followers outside Finsbury Park Mosque. The preacher is named by US authorities as responsible for recruiting dozens of terrorists Photo: ROB BODMAN

By Robert Winnett, Christopher Hope, Steven Swinford and Holly Watt

Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza, two preachers who lived off state benefits after claiming asylum, are identified by the American authorities as the key recruiters responsible for sending dozens of extremists from throughout the world to Pakistan and Afghanistan via London mosques.

The leaked WikiLeaks documents, written by senior US military commanders at Guantánamo Bay, illustrate how, for two decades, Britain effectively became a crucible of terrorism, with dozens of extremists, home-grown and from abroad, radicalised here.

Finsbury Park mosque, in north London, is described as a “haven” for extremists. United States intelligence officials concluded the mosque served as “an attack planning and propaganda production base”.

The files will raise questions over why the Government and security services failed to take action sooner to tackle the capital’s reputation as a staging post for terrorism, which became so established that the city was termed “Londonistan”.

The documents show that at least 35 detainees at Guantánamo had passed through Britain before being sent to fight against Allied forces in Afghanistan. This is thought to be more than from any other Western nation.

Of those, 18 were originally from abroad. The other 17 were British nationals or citizens granted residency here after claiming asylum, who were indoctrinated before being sent to terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

The Government has paid millions of pounds in compensation and benefits to people regarded as highly dangerous by the US authorities.

Qatada, who was paid compensation under human rights laws for being “unfairly detained”, is described as “the most successful recruiter in Europe” and a “focal point for extremist fundraising [and] recruitment”. Hamza is accused of encouraging “his followers to murder non-Muslims”.

Four mosques in London and an Islamic centre are highlighted as places where young Muslim men were radicalised and turned into potential terrorists. Finsbury Park mosque “served to facilitate and training of recruits,” note the files, adding that it was “a haven for Islamic extremists from Morocco and Algeria.”

The Daily Telegraph, along with other international newspapers, is publishing details of more than 700 files on the Guantánamo Bay detainees obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Earlier, this newspaper disclosed that dozens of terrorists held at the prison had admitted plotting a wide array of attacks against targets in Britain and America. However, it also emerged that more than 150 innocent people had been sent to Guantánamo.

Now, the key role that Britain and British-based preachers played in the lives of many of the Guantánamo detainees can be disclosed.

British intelligence services also provided information, including lists of suspected extremists seized from raids on Islamic centres, to the US military as it interrogated detainees. The information was passed on despite the Government publicly condemning the use of torture at Guantánamo. The leaked documents also reveal that:

• Sixteen detainees sent back to Britain are regarded as “high risk” by the US authorities and are liable to plan attacks against the West. However, they have been paid a reported £1 million each in compensation by the Government. For the first time, details of their alleged extremist activities, including travelling to Afghanistan to fight against British troops, are disclosed;

• The US government suspected the BBC of being a “possible propaganda media network” for al-Qaeda after details of a phone number at the broadcaster was found in the possession of several suspected terrorists. The number, which now appears to be disconnected, was thought to be for an employee of the BBC World Service, which was then funded by the Foreign Office;

• Terrorist recruits from across Africa and the Middle East flocked to London to claim asylum, often after travelling through other European countries;

• British taxpayers’ money was used to bankroll an Afghan politician who was sent to Guantánamo Bay after being exposed as an al-Qaeda aide. Mullan Haji Rohullah received more than £300,000 to destroy his opium crop – but he sold the drugs and kept the money from the Department for International Development.

• Four of the Guantánamo detainees were “British intelligence sources” who betrayed their paymasters.

• The last remaining British national at the prison is an al-Qaeda commander who directed terrorist forces in Tora Bora during the Afghanistan conflict. His family, who were previously allegedly paid directly by Osama Bin Laden, is thought to have received compensation from the Government.

The files help to explain American anger towards the British authorities, who have been regularly accused of failing to tackle radicalisation in this country.

The top-secret documents show how Muslim men travelled to European countries such as France, from where they obtained fake EU passports. They then crossed the channel to take advantage of Britain’s generous asylum system.

Extremist preachers radicalised the men at London mosques, showing them videos of atrocities committed against Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.

According to one document, Finsbury Park mosque was “a key transit facility for the movement of North African and other extremists in London to and from al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan”.

They were flown to Pakistan and Afghanistan at the terrorist group’s expense, put up in special guesthouses and sent to the training camps. They were introduced to senior al-Qaeda figures including Bin Laden and taught to fight and make bombs. Wives were arranged for some terrorists and their families received generous payments.

The US government condemned the release of the Wikileaks documents. In a statement, the Pentagon said: “It is unfortunate that news organisations have made the decision to publish numerous documents obtained illegally by WikiLeaks concerning the Guantánamo detention facility. These documents contain classified information about current and former detainees, and we strongly condemn the leaking of this sensitive information.

“The WikiLeaks releases include Detainee Assessment Briefs (DABs) written by the Department of Defence between 2002 and early 2009. These DABs were written based on a range of information available then. Any given DAB illegally obtained and released by WikiLeaks may or may not represent the current view of a given detainee.

“The previous and current administrations have made every effort to act with the utmost care and diligence in transferring detainees from Guan­tánamo.”

Barack Obama, the US President, previously made a high-profile pledge to close the Guantánamo Bay facility and prosecute in the criminal courts those alleged to have broken the law.

However, the pledge has now been largely abandoned and the US authorities recently announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the most senior terrorist at the prison and the alleged mastermind behind the September 11 attacks, will be tried at a controversial military tribunal.

Mohammed, who was tortured more than 100 times, has admitted his involvement in dozens of plots, including plans to hijack aircraft and crash them into Heathrow airport, Big Ben and Canary Wharf, and assassination attempts against Pope John Paul II and former President Bill Clinton. He is among 15 so-called kingpins at the prison who are unlikely to ever be freed.

French Reach-Out To American/British “Islamists”

[News items such as this confirm that we are definitely in the beginning of the "end game," the period of turmoil when the "gloves (really) come off" and expediency becomes more important to the fascist Zionist global regimes than maintaining the image of benevolence.  The American war against the world began when Reagan's plan to seize control of the world got underway with the first fabricated "Islamists" in Afghanistan, calling his mujahedeen "Freedom Fighters," in the great tradition of American anti-colonialists.  The plan for global conquest then entered the next phase, after the fall of the Soviets, and expediency demanded that Western interests implement a state of "plausible deniability," where it appeared that Americans had separated themselves from their "Islamist" creation.  

Now the great mind-twisters have determined that the "Islamists" are to regain their status as "freedom fighters," as they come out of the shadows and openly serve Imperial plans.  If even the French feel safe enough to jump on the "Islamist" bandwagon, then it would appear the end is closer than we realize.  The great apparent contradiction seen in the new ploy of waging war against "al-Qaeda"-related groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while supporting other al-Qaeda related groups in Africa, is all the truth we need to expose the American state terrorism.  The problem arises in looking for allies against the great lying, mass-murdering tyranny.  As it is, we stand alone against the greatest, most subtle form of evil ever to plague mankind.  

The great question is--how do we use the American need to maintain the mask of benevolence to our greatest advantage, in the remaining time frame, before they bring the hammer down full-force?  After they are no longer restrained by the need to preserve the humanitarian image, there will be no other recourse but meting violence with violence.  Motivating the Mindless--is it even possible? ]

France in Major U-turn on Islamists

OnIslam & News Agencies

“Let us speak to everyone, let us speak to the Muslim Brotherhood,” Juppe said

PARIS – In a major shift on Islamists following popular uprisings in the Arab world, France has said that it is open for talks with all Islamic groups, including the powerful Muslim Brotherhood.

“We are willing to talk to everyone,” Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told a group of journalists in Paris, Reuters reported.

“Let us speak to everyone, let us speak to the Muslim Brotherhood,” he added, in reference to Egypt’s most powerful opposition group.

Established in 1928 in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is a group working to promote Islamic values among people. It has affiliates in several countries.

For years, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned and its leaders were repressed by governments in countries as Egypt and Tunisia.

But the group is now expected to play a major political role in those countries after popular uprisings that toppled Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak and Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia.

France, like most Western countries, has long held a suspicious view of popular Islamic movements like the Muslim Brotherhood.

Western countries often supported Western-friendly Arab leaders as a bulwark against extremism.

But after popular protests that swept the Middle East, many Western states have begun to change their positions on Islamic groups.

Explaining the policy shift, Juppe said France had been duped by leaders who made Muslim movements out as the devil.

“We believed them and now we can see the result,” he said, referring to the slowness of France’s reaction to budding popular revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.

Building Image

The U-turn is seen as a French bid to build early ties with political groups that could take power in some Middle East states once the dust settles from political upheaval.

“Alain Juppe is indeed trying to rebuild a positive image of France in the Arab world and in the hearts and minds of Arabs everywhere,” Pascal Boniface, a researcher at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations, told Reuters.

France, home to six million Muslims, has won the ire of many Arabs and Muslims around the world over laws restricting the Muslim code of dress.

In 2004, France banned hijab, an obligatory code of dress, in public places. Many European countries followed suit.

Earlier this month, France enforced a law banning the wearing of face-veil in public places.

Under late president Charles de Gaulle, France was long seen as a friend to Arab peoples due to criticism of Israeli policy and the sheltering of late Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat and opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But France has since dispensed with this image.

President Nicolas Sarkozy has been an open supporter of Israel and took a so-called “pragmatic” position with regard to autocratic Arab leaders like deposed Tunisian president Ben Ali, who was often described in France as a moderate reformer.

France’s new diplomatic tone suggests Sarkozy is favoring democratic aspirations — and the hope of forming ties with a new generation of Arab leaders — over stability.

“The fact we favored stability brought by authoritarian regimes proves turned out not to be a good option because in the end, the stability disappeared,” a French diplomat said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

A stronger accent on democratic aspirations is likely to please the United States, as long as it does not come at the expense of France’s support of Israel.

“It’s very much along the lines of what we’d like to hear,” a Western diplomat said.

CIA Coup-College

UPDATE: CANVAS has moved and renamed their Cooperation and Supporters web-page. It can now be found under “External Links.”

Recycled revolutionary “props.”
by Tony Cartalucci

First noted by geopolitical analyst and historian Dr. Webster Tarpley, some suspicious similarities could be seen between the Egyptian unrest and another, known US-backed uprising in Serbia. Serbia’s Otpor, or the “resistance,” was funded to the tune of millionsby the US National Endowment for Democracy. Its signature clenched fist logo adorned flags, signboards, and t-shirts carried by the US State Department-laid astro-turf until the ousting of Slobodan Milošević in 2000.

The exact same logo would turn up 11 years later across the Mediterranean Sea in the streets of Cairo, illustrating further the preposterous, foreign-backed nature of the Egyptian uprisings. Could it just be just a coincidence and Dr. Tarpley’s take mere speculative conjecture? Not even close.

After its success, Serbia’s Otpor would continue receiving funds from the West and become a “CIA-coup college” of sorts, under the name CANVAS, or “Center for Applied Non-Violent Action and Strategies.” It appears that after the Egyptian April 6 Youth Movement finished attending the US State Department funded confab in New York City in 2008, it would make a trip to visit CANVAS in 2009. From there, it took CANVAS’s “curriculum” and apparently their logo, and began assembling a US-funded mob in Egypt.

Amongst CANVAS’s current “partners” are the Albert Einstein Institution, Freedom House, and the International Republican Institute (IRI). The IRI includes amongst its board of directors John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Brent Scowcroft. When John McCain says “We should have seen this coming,” in regards to the unrest in Egypt, he obviously isn’t talking about himself since he helped make it happen.

See with your own eyes, the absolutely shameless hoax foisted upon you, the general public, by your corporate owned mainstream media, the US State Department, and all the disingenuous leaders who have feigned ignorance and surprise over the premeditated and meticulously planned unrest still unfolding throughout the Middle East today, and NEVER believe a word they say again.

Serbia’s US National Endowment for
Democracy funded ”Otpor”

Serbia’s “Otpor,” a model for future
US-backed color revolutions.

Serbia’s “Otpor.”

Serbia’s “Otpor,” US ready-made mob.

Serbia’s “Otpor” or “Resistance.”

Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement,” note the EXACT same
fist logo, most likely brought back from Serbia by April 6
members studying the CANVAS “curriculum.”

Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement” recycling
US-funded revolution “props.”

Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement” banner with painted in
Egyptian flag to give the “Otpor-fist” some local flavor.

Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement”
sporting yet another identical “Otpor-fist.”

Bahrain’s “Youth for Freedom” may have attended
the CIA-coup college as well. BBC’s canonizing of
Bahrain’s protesters as heroes surely indicates
establishment approval.

Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement” witlessly
displaying foreign funded propaganda as they
prepare to overthrow their country’s government
and make way for a Soros-funded constitution.

Egypt’s “April 6 Youth Movement”
banner with a slight variation.

A final note to consider is that CANVAS is on record in Foreign Policy magazine’s article “Revolution U,” assisting the “Rose Revolution” of Georgia, the “Orange Revolution” of the Ukraine, and is currently working with networks from Belarus, Myanmar (Burma) and 50 other countries. Taking a look at their activities and the overall globalist agenda, it is clear they are involved in regime change that will directly assist the globalists in theirencirclement of Russia and China.

John McCain went on to say of the unrest his IRI had helped fund in Egypt, “I would be a little less cocky in the Kremlin with my KGB cronies today if I were Vladimir Putin. I would be a little less secure in the seaside resort [of] President Hu and a few men who govern and decide the fate of 1.3 billion people.”

McCain’s careless comments, begotten of either senility or the utter contempt he holds the general public in, let slip the true nature of the game being played out via US-fueled color revolutions unfolding around the world. Indeed, this is about exacting concessions and forcing the integration of sovereign nations into the Anglo-American, unipolar world empire.

Obama’s UnConstitutional Self-Created U.N. “Authority” Is Most Dangerous Precedent

[This is clearly grounds for impeachment.  Is Congress going to honor the commitments made to defend and protect the American people and their Constitution, or will We the People have to do this ourselves?  This is some deadly serious shit people.  We are witnessing a war of lawyers, who frame the crimes that they are committing on a daily basis as "humanitarian" actions to stop genocide, when it is a fact that what is happening on the ground is criminal, papered-over with a thin veneer of legality.  Barack Obama has corrupted the United Nations, turning it into an instrument of aggression, to be used for his own hidden agenda, which is characterized by a an aura of lawlessness and messianic delusions of grandeur.  It will get no clearer than this.  It is only a matter of time before the US military is called into action in the American homeland itself in the service of this megalomaniac obsession with total control.]

Obama’s U.N. Authority?

Only the elected representatives of Congress, not the U.N., can authorize the United States to use military force against another nation.

Louis Fisher All Articles

The National Law Journal

Libyans stand on the wreckage of a US F15 fighter jet. 
Photo: AP / Anja Niedringhaus

President Obama has yet to explain to Congress and the American people how he received authority from the United Nations Security Council to initiate military operations against Libya. On March 21, he informed Congress that “at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.” An April 1 memo by the Office of Legal Counsel states that Security Council Resolution 1973 “imposed a no-fly zone and authorized the use of military force to protect civilians.” Because Libya did not comply with the resolution, the OLC concluded that President Obama was justified in using military force against Libya to maintain “the credibility of the United Nations Security Council and the effectiveness of its actions to promote international peace and security.”

May the U.N., rather than the elected representatives of Congress, authorize the United States to use military force against another nation? Is it possible to transfer the constitutional power of Congress to an international body? The answer to both questions: No. Authority under law and the Constitution must come from Congress. Statutory law, dating to 1945, speaks unambiguously about the use of American troops in a U.N. military operation: “The President is authorized to negotiate a special agreement or agreements with the Security Council which shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution.” 22 U.S.C. 287d.

What is the history of this law? Why was it ignored when President Harry Truman went to war against North Korea in 1950 without seeking or obtaining authority from Congress? The record plainly demonstrates that he violated the Constitution, the 1945 statute and his own public pledge to the Senate. The record also shows that members of Congress have failed to protect the Constitution, their own institutional powers and the rights of citizens who elected them to office.

During World War II, the United States and allied nations agreed to create an international body to act against military aggression. The result was the U.N. Charter of 1945. The drafters of that document appreciated the need to protect the war powers of Congress. They knew why the United States had failed to join the League of Nations. The Versailles Treaty was rejected by the Senate in 1919 and again in 1920 because President Woodrow Wilson refused to accept reservations offered by Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge. A key amendment stated that the United States assumed no obligation to engage in wars authorized by the League unless “Congress, which, under the Constitution, has the sole power to declare war or authorize the employment of the military or naval forces of the United States, shall by act or joint resolution so provide.”

Wilson opposed the Lodge reservations, claiming that they “cut out the heart of this Covenant” and represented “nullification” of the treaty. Personal spite and rigidity caused Wilson to dig in his heels. As newspapers reported, “The President has strangled his own child.” Wilson had no principled objection to Lodge’s language on the war power. On March 8, 1920, Wilson wrote to Sen. Gilbert Hitchcock, acknowledging that whatever obligations the U.S. government undertook in a League military action “would of course have to be fulfilled by its usual and established constitutional methods of action.” The Constitution, Wilson said, requires that “Congress alone can declare war or determine the causes or occasions for war, and that it alone can authorize the use of the armed forces of the United States on land or on the sea.”

Those who drafted the U.N. Charter did not want a repeat of the Versailles Treaty. The charter provides that whenever member states agree to participate in a U.N. military operation, nations must act in accordance with their “constitutional processes.” During Senate debate on the charter, Truman from Potsdam wired this note to Sen. Kenneth McKellar on July 27, 1945, pledging: “When any such agreement or agreements are negotiated it will be my purpose to ask the Congress for appropriate legislation to approve them.”

To implement the charter, it was necessary for Congress to pass legislation that satisfied U.S. constitutional processes. The language in § 6 of the U.N. Participation Act of 1945 did precisely that. Agreements “shall be subject to the approval of the Congress by appropriate Act or joint resolution.” Statutory language could not be written more clearly. The legislative history of this provision, including hearings, committee reports and floor debate, all point to the same result: The president must seek congressional approval in advance.

With these safeguards in place to protect the Constitution and congressional powers, Truman on June 26, 1950, announced that the U.N. Security Council had acted to order a withdrawal of North Korean forces to positions north of the 38th parallel, and that “in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council, the United States will vigorously support the effort of the Council to terminate this serious breach of the peace.” At that point he made no commitment of U.S. military forces.

On the following day, he informed the nation that the Security Council had called upon all U.N. members to provide assistance and that he had “ordered United States air and sea forces to give the [South] Korean Government troops cover and support.” The military commitment deepened. At no time did Truman seek authority from Congress. Secretary of State Dean Acheson claimed that Truman had done his “utmost to uphold the sanctity of the Charter of the United Nations and the rule of law.” In fact, Truman had violated the Constitution, the U.N. Participation Act and his own pledge to the Senate five years earlier.

Other presidents have built on Truman’s precedent. In November 1990, President George H.W. Bush obtained a U.N. resolution to act militarily against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, claiming that he did not need congressional authority. Nevertheless, Congress passed authorizing legislation in January 1991. President Bill Clinton used U.N. resolutions to act militarily against Haiti and Bosnia. At no time did he seek authority from Congress.

Presidents have some discretion to use military force without advance congressional authorization, including repelling sudden attacks and rescuing American citizens. None of those justifications apply to Libya. America was not threatened or attacked by Libya. Obama has called the military operation a humanitarian intervention that serves the national interest. Yet launching hundreds of Tomahawk missiles and ordering air strikes against Libyan ground forces, for the purpose of helping rebels overthrow Col. Moammar Gadhafi, constitutes war. Under the U.S. Constitution, there is only one source for authorizing war. It is not the Security Council or NATO. It is Congress.

Louis Fisher is scholar in residence with the Constitution Project. He worked for Congress as professional staff from 1970 to 2010 and is the author of Presidential War Power (2004). His articles and congressional testimony are available at www.loufisher.org.

The Planned Chaos of National Security Socialism

The Planned Chaos of National Security Socialism: Time to Give the Central Planners a Dishonorable Discharge

by Scott Lazarowitz

Recently by Scott Lazarowitz: The State vs. Christian Moral Values

With Peace Prize Laureate Barack Obama’s new war of Orwellian peaceful violence in Libya, this is yet another reminder of why socialism and central planning in security is a bad idea. The conservatives who are the most outspoken opponents of “socialism” are the true socialists: It is they who cherish national security socialism, the public or State ownership of the means of production in national security, a central-planning monopoly in territorial protection.

Americans and foreign peoples have suffered time and again because of the moral hazard of any form of socialism, from what Ludwig von Mises would call socialism’s “planned chaos,” in this case the planned chaos of socialized national security. The State’s inherently immoral and counter-productive scheme of usurping a people’s right of self-defense has allowed the State to be responsible for the most egregious crimes against humanity, especially in the American “Civil War,” in two World Wars, in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and other parts of the world.

And now Libya. Some are already predicting that Obama’s war in Libya will backfire, with a possible Gaddafirevenge attack similar to the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. Given that socialists and central planners tend to not learn from history, this Obama Libya war looks like another textbook study of planned chaos, similar to George W. Bush’s Iraq.

Former President Bush’s planned chaos in Iraq had effected in the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, widespread destruction of the country, and the establishment of a repressive, pro-Iranian Islamic Sharia Law in Iraq.

Even further than merely a Gaddafi revenge attack against the U.S., Obama may possibly be arming Libyan rebels including members of al Qaeda, a stated enemy of the United States especially since 9/11.

And Syria and Mexico may be next on the list for the inept security socialists.

One only needs to step back and view the history of America’s security blunders in a broad sense. For example, if America did not have a centralized national security monopoly in Washington, and instead allowed open competition in the field of security and required that all individuals follow the rule of law, would President Wilson have risked entering the U.S. into World War I, especially knowing that the War was already ending with treaties already in the works? Would President Lincoln have waged war against the Southern States, targeted thousands of innocent civilians and destroyed entire cities, had there been actual legal and market-based financial consequences applied to Lincoln for such aggressions?

Government bureaucrats, holding a monopoly in territorial protection and lacking incentives to improve performance, do not tend to pay attention to past mistakes and are not held accountable for their transgressions.

Some further questions to ask include these: Would the U.S. government’s agents of the Pentagon or CIA have deliberately radicalized Muslims in Afghanistan during Afghanistan’s 1980s war with Russia, had the U.S. government actually paid attention to the consequences of its CIA-led coup in Iran in 1953? Those consequences were the decades of Iranian anti-Americanism, the 1979 Iranian Islamic Revolution and the taking of American hostages in Iran.

Also, would the U.S. government have initiated wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early 2000s had its monopolists learned from the consequences, throughout the 1990s, of their first war in Iraq of 1991?

Why do the Washington security monopolists repeatedly make Americans less safe with schemes of intrusions and provocations abroad? One possible explanation is the inherently flawed nature of any central planning monopoly.

The comparison of government provision of national security to a hypothetical private security provision may sound absurd to some people. However, it is necessary to point out that, instead of being an economically sound system, the current government monopoly is a political system, in which congressmen and senators’ reelection campaigns (and campaign finances and contributions) are a part of the equation, along with the federal government’s uncoordinated defense bureaucracy and the politically-connected private-sector military contractors.

The current centralized national security monopoly is without competition and profit/loss motives to genuinely provide the most efficient, high quality service at the lowest cost to the consumers. Under the current socialism, the real motive turns into a “breaking windows” scheme to justify an ever-increasing bureaucracy combined with its corporatist colluders.

To illustrate those points, one can study economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s comparison of America’s democratic public ownership of a centralized government to the monarchies of the past. Unlike a monarchy in which the king owns the country’s territory and has a long-term interest in its capital value, in democracies the rulers are “temporary caretakers”:

(The) temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated, i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock.

Hoppe further notes:

…a private government owner (a monarch) will want to avoid exploiting his subjects so heavily, for instance, as to reduce his future earnings potential to such an extent that the present value of his estate actually falls. Instead, in order to preserve or possibly even enhance the value of his personal property, he will systematically restrain himself in his exploitation policies….. In distinct contrast…. public government ownership will result in continual capital consumption. Instead of maintaining or even enhancing the value of the government estate, as a private owner would tend to do, a government’s temporary caretaker will quickly use up as much of the government resources as possible….

The system of government monopolies, funded largely by coercive taxation and a central bank’s creation of money without genuine value, inherently encourages the irresponsibility of deficit-spending and public debt. The scheme also does not impose punishments for the temporary caretakers’ domestic or foreign aggressions with their misuse of governmental apparatus.

In economic terms, because of government bureaucrats’ lack of competitive incentives and profit/loss motive, government’s central planners cannot take individual market factors into account, making economic calculations impossible. Government monopolists engage in political calculations rather than economic ones. And government’s central planners seem as incapable of understanding the morals and ethics of civil liberties and property rights in foreign relations as they do in domestic policy. Hence, the “planned chaos” and blowback of each and every fiasco of the U.S. government’s national security socialism scheme.

Because of this socialist government monopoly in territorial security and armed force, the bureaucrats act more in their own political self-interests and have tended to act more aggressively, because there are no punishments of their aggressions and short-sightedness. In contrast, there would be punishments, economic and legal, applied to private industries who engage in acts of fraud or deceit (e.g. going to war based on lies, fabricated information and propaganda), trespass on the property of others (e.g. placing military bases and stationing troops on other countries’ territories despite the objections of those territories’ populations), or cause deaths of civilians and destruction of property.

Last year’s Washington Post series, Top Secret America (Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4) on this scheme informed Americans about how the current national security socialism has turned into a tax-redistributive racket. (And it did so by the turn of the 20^th Century, no less.) As more private industries became connected with the State, theirprofiting from other Americans’ labor and productivity via the redistributive apparatus of taxation has replaced the principles of private property rights, economic freedom and the rule of law. The U.S. government’s provocations abroad have become justifications for the continued expansion of the parasitic military-industrial-complex.

And in the past several decades especially, Washington’s “security experts” have repeatedly demonstrated that their schemes have more to do with the expansion of the State than with the protection of 300 million Americans. The central planners have turned to extremes – such as, in their TSA, their PATRIOT Act and other policies that have grossly damaged individuals’ rights to due process and presumption of innocence – rather than face the truth that it is the U.S. government’s intrusive and violentforeign policy that has provoked terrorism against the U.S.

The apparatus of the State’s socialization and monopoly of territorial protection has provided a structure of power over others. Unfortunately, that power seems to attract those with less moral character but with more desire for that power, and with a lack of inhibition to exercise that power. The system has encouraged the agents of the State to become increasingly aggressive in their use of governmental apparatus to wield that power, as they have zealously seized on opportunities to expand the size and power of the State especially through their demagogic manipulations of the public’s fears and anxieties. Private security firms could not do that, for they must act under the rule of law.

For example, in 1990, former President George H.W. Bush used the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait as a means to further expand the U.S. government’s military and other government apparatus in the Middle East. There were also questionable corporate special interests, such as Henry Kissinger’sKuwait connection, involved in Bush’s 1991 Persian Gulf War against Iraq, a country that was of no threat to the U.S. The propaganda campaign that was used to persuade the American people to support the war was extensive. 12 Years later, Bush’s son George W. Bush also employed a major propaganda campaign to convince the American people to start another war against Iraq.

Governments, with a monopoly over territorial security, have also employed false flag operations as a means of manipulating the fears and anxieties of their countries’ inhabitants, for the purpose of further expanding their State apparatus and power.

Even now, with President Obama’s continuation and expansion of the Bush wars overseas, the U.S. military bureaucrats have become even more zealous in their attempts to justify further expansions of the U.S. government abroad, despite their constant failures and ineptitude. Now, they have been illegally employing the use of psy-ops, or “psychological operations,” on U.S. senators to get congressional support to increase troops and funding for the failing wars.

Psy-ops are generally used on foreign government agents or diplomats to influence their emotions and decisions to become favorable to one’s own ends. Psy-ops are often used on the enemy during times of war; given that the senators being targeted in those operations represent the American people, it gives the appearance that the U.S. government perceives Americans as the enemy. This is usually what happens when a government – through its monopolistic power – grows in its size and power, and its existence becomes more self-serving.

The zeal of U.S. government officials has been exposed now in broad daylight, in their treatment of PFC Bradley Manning, the Army soldier accused of leaking thousands of classified documents exposing alleged U.S. war crimes and U.S. diplomatic incompetence and buffoonery. None of the leaks are said to have posed a threat to any U.S. soldier overseas or to Americans in the U.S. The military has been holding Manning for months in isolation, employing extreme psychological distress, as well as forced prolonged nudity. As I have mentioned, only sick degenerates would treat another human being that way. The officials are really using Manning as an example, a means of threatening others who may consider heroic whistleblowing acts.

Throughout the past century we have seen one example after another, one senseless war after another, millions of deaths and ruined lives, of how the socialist monopoly of national security and its planned chaos have gone against our security, as well as against our freedom and prosperity.

In 19^th Century economist Gustave de Molinari’s comparison of government-monopolized security and the private production of security, Molinari noted,

Under the rule of free competition, war between the producers of security entirely loses its justification. Why would they make war? To conquer consumers? But the consumers would not allow themselves to be conquered. They would be careful not to allow themselves to be protected by men who would unscrupulously attack the persons and property of their rivals.

If private security firms used their armaments, coercion against others and deceit for the purpose of acting aggressively against neighbors or foreigners (for reasons other than “defense” of their clients or fellow territorial inhabitants), that would land them in jail. In fact, because of the invasiveness, enslavements and trespasses inherent in all forms of socialism – not just national security socialism – there logically could not be actual rule of law. Can anyone seriously claim that the U.S. government has been acting under the rule of law?

In fact, we have seen, time and again, how the central planning monopolists of the State are continuously rewarded for their failures, and for their crimes as well.

There need to be legal and competitive incentives to ensure the efficiency and productivity of any service to others. Why? Because of human nature. There need to be market-oriented punishments for failure to achieve, such as bankruptcy and termination of employment or contracts. And there need to be legal punishments applied to those who criminally misuse armed forces. Otherwise, if failures and crimes are allowed to continue without punishments, that is ipso-facto rewarding those failures and crimes, a consequence inherent in a compulsory monopoly in which the citizenry are forced to patronize the one provider of a service – in this case, that of territorial protection, or national security.

For further information on the private alternative to national security socialism, please read No More Military Socialism by Murray Rothbard,Foreign Aggression by Morris and Linda Tannehill, The Private Production of Defense (pdf) by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Myth of National Defense (pdf) also by Hoppe, and The Myth of Efficient Government Service by Rothbard.

But for those who are still skeptical of the notion of privatization of security, and who are not as concerned as I am regarding the growing intrusiveness of the State and its hired guns into our lives and liberty, perhaps an acceptable alternative could be decentralization. Eliminate the U.S. federal government’s centralized monopoly in territorial security and allow each U.S. state to control its own self-protection. Doing so would reduce the possibility that any one state would aggress against others, or against foreigners, for such aggressions would be met with harsh punishments from surrounding states. Additionally, with renewed independence and sovereignty, each state’s inhabitants would be better able to “vote with their feet,” which, given the one monopolistic choice we currently have with Washington, most Americans are not able to do.

Finally, there are those who are concerned that without a centralized National Security monopoly in Washington, that it would be easier for foreign governments to invade the U.S. But those are unfounded fears. If, for example, China were to invade the U.S. with the goal of occupying and taking over America, a likely scenario given how indebted the U.S. is to China and increasingly less likely to pay what is owed, most Americans would readily take up arms to protect themselves, their families and their properties. This situation, however, can be easily avoided by ending the Federal Reserve’s compulsory monopoly in the production of money and allowing for competing currencies, and outlawing Congressional deficit-spending and public debts.

April 15, 2011

Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a commentator and cartoonist at Reasonandjest.com.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

The Globalist Web of Subversion

by Dr. K R Bolton

February 7, 2011

…It is this power structure which the Radical Right in the US has been attacking for years in the belief that they were attacking the Communists.[1]

When Professor Carroll Quigley, the eminent Harvard historian, wrote those words in 1966 he was referring to a “network” (sic) of plutocrats largely centered around the Council on Foreign Relations. Since then this “network” has increased exponentially into a vast, interlocking apparatus that has the ability to bring down regimes by manipulating those who believe themselves to be shaping a new and more humane future.

This international subversive apparatus would have turned the old Bolsheviks of the Comintern[2] red with envy. Indeed, when things turned sour for bolshevism with the advent of Stalin, many Marxists joined forces with America in the Cold War via such institutions as the Congress for Cultural Freedom, attracting sundry Bolsheviks, ex-Bolsheviks, Trots, pro-Marxists, crypto-Marxists and social democrats.[3]

From out of the Cold War emerged organizations committed to spreading the “American Dream” throughout the world in the formation of a “new world order.”[4] The eclipse of the Soviet bloc provided an opportunity for this “new world order” to be created, but there remained the Islamic world, the danger of the resurgence of nationalism and traditionalism in the former Soviet bloc states, and other regimes that are regarded as anachronistic roadblocks in creating a “new world order.” One of these was Serbia under Milosevic, who wished to retain state control over the mineral rich region of Kosovo.[5]

When eliminating Milosevic the use of “Muslim terrorists” was considered expedient by the USA, and the Kosovo Liberation Army went from being listed as a heroin-pushing “terrorist organization” by the US State Department, to being noble freedom fighters.[6] They were an example of “good Muslims,” just as bin Laden was a “good Muslim” when he was needed to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

“Neo-conservatism” also emerged out of the Cold War. The term is a misnomer, however. Neo-conservatism is neither “new” nor “conservative.” There is nothing conservative about the “neocons” (a more apt term). The version of “American tradition” advocated by the neocons is that of global Americanization, Sen. McCain stating the doctrine in 2007 as President of the International Republican Institute:

The promotion of freedom is the most authentic expression of our national character. To accept the abridgement of those rights for other societies should be no less false to the American heart than to accept their abridgment in our own society.[7]

The American tradition was to keep out of foreign entanglements,[8] which was reiterated by the “isolationists.”

Neocons are antithetical to “palaeoconservatives” such as Prof. Paul Gottfried,[9] the late Joe Sobran, Pat Buchanan, et al, who are opposed to American globalism and interference in the affairs of other states. They and politicians such as Ron Paul stand for the traditional American outlook. Neocons are the ideological heirs to Wilsonian internationalism, and his revolutionary manifesto of The Fourteen Points, which in the aftermath of World War I sought to create a new international order based on American hegemony, via the League of Nations, just as the same stunt was tried in the aftermath of World War II by the USA via the United Nations Organization, but was squashed by the intransigence of Stalin.[10]

Indeed the position of palaeoconservatism contra the neocons was cogently expressed by the recently deceased columnist Joe Sobran when he stated that:

Anti-Americanism is no longer a mere fad of Marxist university students; it’s a profound reaction of traditional societies against a corrupt and corrupting modernization that is being imposed on them, by both violence and seduction. The very word values implies a whole modern culture of moral whim, in which good and evil are matters of personal preference and sodomy and abortion can be treated as “rights.” Confronted with today’s America, then, the Christian Arab finds himself in unexpected sympathy with his Muslim enemy.[11]

It should not be too difficult to see – if one can think beyond the mass media hype – that the “color revolutions” and the “spontaneous revolts” that have taken place, and are now taking place in the Arab world, have not arisen from “traditional Christian and Muslim Arabs” in a revolt against Americanization and capitalist moral nihilism, as per the statement by Sobran, but rather arose among bourgeois secular youth under the long-term influence of American globalists. Whether the current revolts will be captured by Arab traditionalists and turned into a genuine liberation movement against Americanization remains to be seen.

Genuine stirrings against global Americanization referred to by Sobran constitute the major roadblock to the “new world order,” whether as regimes such as those of Iran or as grass roots phenomena such as the re-emergence of nationalism and traditionalist movements in the former Soviet bloc states, wishing to revive what American globalists consider to be anachronistic ideas, such as those of religion, ethnic identity and nationalism. Against these they postulate a counter-idealism, concentrating on the youth generation, in the same manner by which the American Establishment sought to co-opt and experiment with American youth via the “New Left” during the 1960s.[12]

The American Establishment, or – if you prefer – what Eisenhower in his presidential “farewell” speech called the “military-industrial complex,”[13] seeks to direct the emergence of revolutionary and reform movements throughout the world, albeit presented by media and political commentators as rebelling against America. Hence the present phenomena of “revolt” that has “spontaneously” (sic) swept North Africa, with the public being simplistically told that this is causing the fall of “pro-American dictators.” As I have previously pointed out, the “spontaneous revolts” in Egypt and Tunisia, for example, portrayed with such unrestrained enthusiasm by the Western news media, are the culmination of years of planning, training, networking, and funding “activists,” following exactly the same pattern as that seen in the “color revolutions” of the former Soviet bloc states.[14] A far-reaching network of interlocking organizations has emerged, funded in part by the US Government, and in part by corporate sources, to foment “world revolution.”

International Republican Institute (IRI)

The IRI is a neocon version of the Comintern. Its by-line is “Advancing Democracy Worldwide” (even if you don’t want their version of it, and then that’s when the bombs start landing). The creation of IRI was supposedly inspired by the words of President Ronald Reagan, who in 1982 called for a “crusade for freedom” throughout the world, stating before the British Parliament that America’s version of democracy, and one might add its concomitant versions of culture[15] and economics, is “the inalienable and universal right of all human beings.” Like Communism, it provides ideological justification for interference in the life sovereign nations, including ultimately the use of force as per Serbia and Iraq.

IRI states that Reagan provided the ideological impetus for the formation in 1983 of the National Endowment for Democracy (which helps fund IRI) to “support democrats worldwide.” This led to a network of fronts: National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, Center for International Private Enterprise, and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity.[16]

• Page 1 of 7
• « Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next »

• Page:1234567

K R Bolton is a Fellow of the Academy of Social and Political Research, and an assistant editor of the peer reviewed journal Ab Aeterno. Recent publications include ‘Trotskyism and the Anti-Family Agenda,’ CKR website, Sociology Dept., Moscow State University (October 2009); ‘Rivalry over water resources as a potential cause of conflict in Asia,’ Journal of Social Political and Economic Studies, and Russia and China: an approaching conflict?, Vol. 35, No. 1, Spring 2010; Vol. 34, no. 2, Summer 2009. Read more articles byDr. K R Bolton.

USAID in Bolivia and Venezuela: The Silent Subversion

[Government institutions tasked with overthrowing foreign governments, both friend and foe, for the sake of American domination and exploitation.  This is the war machine engaged in waging war against every member of the human race, for the sake of American corporate profit--capitalist fascism at its finest.  The American Reich shows no hint of ever slowing down, unless it just collapses from the weight of its own gluttony.]

USAID in Bolivia and Venezuela: The Silent Subversion

By EVA GOLINGER, September 12th 2007

The United States government has almost perfected a method of intervention that is able to penetrate and infiltrate all sectors of civil society in a country which it deems to be of economic and strategic interest. In the case of Venezuela, this strategy began to take form in 2002. Now it is also being applied to Bolivia.The United States government has almost perfected a method of intervention that is able to penetrate and infiltrate all sectors of civil society in a country which it deems to be of economic and strategic interest. In the case of Venezuela, this strategy began to take form in 2002, with the increase in financing of sectors of the opposition via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the opening of an Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) of USAID in Caracas.

These efforts were able to achieve the consolidation of an opposition movement during those moments, which, despite the failure of the coup d’etat, was able to cause severe damage to the oil industry and the national economy via economic sabotage and a “stoppage” by managers and business owners. Following the division in the opposition, the strategy reoriented its principal focus towards poor communities, the ‘Chavista’ sectors, media and the necessities in the interior of the country. The US embassy in Caracas opened up a series of “satellite consulates” (American Corners) in five states across the country – without the authorisation of the Ministry of Foreign Relations – it has an official presence in regions seen as important to the energy vision of Washington. These states, Anzoátegui, Bolívar, Lara, Monagas, and Nueva Esparta (Margarita) are rich in oil, minerals and other natural resources, which the US is seeking to control. These US headquarters found spaces inside lawyers associations and municipal councils controlled by the opposition, and continue to function as centres of propaganda, conspiring against the Bolivarian revolution.

The work of USAID and its OTI in Venezuela has led to a deepening of the counterrevolutionary subversion in the country. Up until June 2007, more than 360 “scholarships” have been granted to social organisations, political parties, communities and political projects in Venezuela through Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), a company contracted by USAID, which opened an office in the El Rosal sector of Caracas in June 2002. From the centre of Caracas, the DAI/USAID has given more than US$11,575,509 to these 360 groups and projects in Venezuela, under the program “Venezuela: Initiatives for the Construction of Trust” (VICC). The majority of the programs funded by DAI focus (according to their materials) on “political dialogue, public debate, citizen’s participation and the training and capacitation of democratic leaders”. Participating and funded organisations include Súmate, Primero Justicia (Justice First), Un Nuevo Tiempo (a New Time), la Alcaldía de Chacao (Mayoralty of Chacao), Liderazgo y Visión (Leadership and Vision), Los del Medio (Those from the Middle), Convive, Transparencia Internacional (International Transparency), Instituto Prensa y Sociedad (Media and Society Institute), Queremos Elegir (We Want to Chose), la Universidad Metropolitana (Metropolitan University), and other groups generally tied to the opposition sector.

USAID-OTI also funded opposition political parties, such as Primero Justicia (Justice First), Un Nuevo Tiempo (A New Time), Acción Democrática (Democratic Action), COPEI, MAS (Movement Towards Socialism), amongst others, through its international arms of US parties: the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI). Since 2002, more than seven million dollars have been invested as “technical assistance” to this opposition parties in Venezuela by USAID, together with IRI and NDI.

The so-called “defenders of human rights” in Venezuela, and NGOs (non-government organisations), receive a large part of their funding through Freedom House, another group contracted by USAID-OTI in Venezuela. Freedom House has sponsored events such as “The threats to freedom of expression in the 21st century” with the participation of Marcel Granier, president of the coup-plotting television station RCTV, together with Karen Hughes, the Sub secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (the propaganda office of the State Department that supervises Voice of America and other propagandistic media coming from Washington) and the US Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL, Republican- Florida)

Freedom House also funds US institutions, such as the International Centre for Non-violent Conflict (ICNVC) that gives courses in Gene Sharp’s techniques of “resistance”, and which has advised youth and students movements in Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia, Belorussia and Venezuela. Its president during 2003-2005 was James Woolsey, ex-Director of the CIA and its current president, Peter Ackerman, is a multimillionaire banker who has sponsored “regime changes” in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia through the Albert Einstein Institute and its ICNVC. The son of Ackerman participated in the massacre of the Iraqi people in Fallujah.

The last company to be contracted by USAID in Venezuela was the Foundation of Pan-American Development (PADF), whose mission is to “support civil society”. The PADF has granted $937,079 to fourteen Venezuelan NGOs since the end of 2006. For now, the names of these groups are unknown.

The last public reports of USAID point out that in August 2007, they organised a conference with 50 mayors from all the country to cover the issue of “decentralisation” and the “popular networks”. This issue seems very much like the project that Leopoldo Lopez, opposition mayor of Chacao, is currently promoting. The USAID program in Venezuela promises to continue in its efforts to “strengthen civil society and political parties”, “promote decentralisation and municipal councils” and “train human rights defenders”. The US Congress has already approved $3.6 million for this office in Venezuela for the year 2007-8, which indicated that this subversion will continue increasing and threatening the Bolivarian revolution.

Bolivia

But Venezuela is not the only target of US subversion and intervention via USAID and its millions of dollars poured into funding opposition movements. In March 2004, USAID opened up another Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Bolivia, to supposedly help “reduce tensions in zones of social conflict and help the country with preparations for electoral events”. In this case, USAID contracted the US company Casals & Associates, Inc. (C&A) to manage the more than $13.3 million that they had already granted to 379 organisations, political parties and projects in Bolivia. C&A plays the role in Bolivia which the DAI does in Venezuela, and just like the DAI, C&A is a company with large contracts with the Defence Department, the US Army, US Navy, the Energy Department, Broadcasting Board of Governance, the Voice of America, the Office for Transmissions (of propaganda) to Cuba, the Interior Security Department, the State Department and many more. Up until today, C&A has worked on executing interventionist programs for the different Washington agencies, in more than 40 countries across the world, including Albania, Armenia, Bolivia, Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Paraguay.

In Bolivia, USAID-OTI has focussed its efforts on combating and influencing the Constituent Assembly and the separatism of the regions rich in natural resources, such as Santa Cruz and Cochabamba. The majority of the $13.3 million has been given to organisations and programs working towards “reinforcing regional governments”, with the intention of weakening the national government of Evo Morales; “creating links between indigenous groups and democratic structures”, “offering economic opportunities and communitarian development”; “civic education for emergent leaders”; and “the spreading of information”. The noble themes of these programs indicate that Washington is seeking to suffocate the national power of Evo Morales in Bolivia, penetrate and infiltrate the indigenous communities, which constitute the majority of the country, promote the capitalist model, and have influence over the mass media, promoting pro-US, pro-capitalist and anti-socialist propaganda.

The USAID-OTI program in Bolivia is openly supporting the autonomy of certain regions, such as Santa Cruz, Beni, Pando and Tarija, and therefore promoting separatism and the destabilisation of the country and the government of Evo Morales. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), another one of Washington’s financial organs, which promotes subversion and intervention in more than 70 countries across the world, including Venezuela, is also funding groups in regions such as Santa Cruz, which fight for separatism. The current US ambassador in Bolivia, Philip Goldberg, is an expert in issues of separatism, having been the head of the US mission in ex-Yugoslavia that was divided into two countries: Bosnia and Serbia, with US “help”.

The Evo Morales government has already publicly denounced this subversion via USAID in Bolivia, giving notice to the US government that it must obey the laws of the country or chose to leave. “The door is open”, declared the Bolivian government spokesperson recently, making reference to US intervention in his country.

Nevertheless, Washington will not go so easily. This network of intervention and subversion will not be so easily eradicated. President Chavez has proposed in his constitutional reform, a change to article 67 which included the prohibition of funding of groups with political aims and political campaigns by public or private foreign entities. It is essential to define the concept of “political aims”, because in many cases, the NGOs and groups that work for human rights would attempt to evade being classified as organisations with “political” motives. But no one can deny that human rights is fundamentally a political issue, and it is the terrain, more than any other, where today Washington’s subversion hides, using NGOs as a cover.

What is clear is the urgent necessity of developing strategies to impede and shake this subversion in Venezuela, Bolivia and all our sister countries, today in the sights of the empire, and which are fighting to express their own will and sovereignty.

Translated by Federico Fuentes for Bolivia Rising

Qatar Safe from Obama’s Wrecking Crews, As Long As Al Jazeera Remains His “Pied Piper”

Obama: ‘No big move toward democracy in Qatar’

By David Jackson, USA TODAY

President Obama and the emir of Qatar at the White House on Thursday.

By Pool, Getty Images

During the day Thursday, President Obama met with the emir of Qatar, praising his help in Libya and his leadership “when it comes to democracy in the Middle East.”

That night, Obama provided political donors in Chicago with a somewhat different view of the emir and Qatar.

“Pretty influential guy,” Obama said of Emir Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, noting that he basically owns the Al Jazeera television network. “He is a big booster, big promoter of democracy all throughout the Middle East. Reform, reform, reform — you’re seeing it on Al Jazeera.”

But Obama: “Now, he himself is not reforming significantly. There’s no big move towards democracy in Qatar. But you know part of the reason is that the per capita income of Qatar is $145,000 a year. That will dampen a lot of conflict.”

Having banished the press pool from a q-and-a session with the donors, Obama did not realize he was still speaking on an open mike. Mark Knoller of CBS News recorded his comments.

Serbian Testimony of International Terrorism Pushed By West

“Serbian people have to say that it is enough of terror by the international community in this country. We no longer accept any blackmailing and threats and we especially do not accept to be deprived of authorities given to us by the Dayton Treaty’.”

[Here we have testimony of the true nature of NATO "Humanitarian Intervention," twenty years after the fact.  The Intervention in Serbia, under the pretense of "preventing the slaughter" of civilians in civil war, was a cynical, hypocritical geopolitical move by the West to capitalize on the suffering of the people of the former Yugoslavia.  The intensive high-altitude bombing of Yugoslavian facilities and the Yugoslav Army, intended to destroy the former Soviet ally, with very few NATO casualties gave Bill Clinton's war a sanitized feel, killing thousands, while keeping our hands apparently clean.  This fit the new formula devised to adapt the American military to US plans for global interventionism, as long as it is not Americans who are dying, anything goes.  In the end, in the name of international justice, American state terrorism is instituted in place of Constitutional law, so that each state which is saved from itself becomes just another satellite faux-republic---and the world calls the result "Democracy."]

Dodik: We shall stop terror by international community

Komentara: 0

Milorad Dodik, President of the Republic of Srpska is very satisfied with results of voting at the RS National Assembly the day before yesterday. The deputies adopted by vast majority of votes Decision on referendum in which voters are to reply to the referendum question: ‘Do you support laws enforced by the BiH High Representative, especially those concerning the Court and Prosecution of BiH and their unconstitutional verification at the BiH Parliament?’

‘I have no doubt that the citizens of the Republic of Srpska, too shall go to the
referendum in vast majority and vote’, Dodik said for the ‘Blic’.

What, according to your opinion, are effects of such decision by the RS National Assembly?
‘Above all this is the strongest message to the international community that elected representatives of the Serbian nation do not accept any longer anti-constitutional and anti-Dayton Treaty acting by the High Representative. Decisions made by those representatives were mainly ungrounded. Bosnia/Herzegovina is not exercising its power either since certain important issues could not be decided about because of interference by the OHR. We have been pointing out for years that such damaging policy must stop but found no understanding at the Office of the High Representative. I believe that the voting at the National Assembly of the Republic of Srpska is a strong message to them, too about unity of the Serbian nation but also about their unconstitutional acting until so far’.

If the citizens vote positively about the referendum question, what next steps are you going to take?
‘We are not interested what institutions of BiH are going to say about the referendum and its outcome as some experts claim. After the referendum we shall request that the National Assembly is in session again, that it adopts new laws which shall cancel all anti-Dayton and anti-constitutional laws enforced by high representatives. Serbian people have to say that it is enough of terror by the international community in this country. We no longer accept any blackmailing and threats and we especially do not accept to be deprived of authorities given to us by the Dayton Treaty’.

What if the High Representative places himself again above the RS institutions and for example, cancels result of voting in the referendum?
‘I do not expect the OHR to do so, although anything is possible in this country. The High Representative has already ‘broken teeth’ on unconstitutional decision in the Bosnia/Herzegovina Federation when he was tricked by provocations of one side, so I do not believe that he has the courage to make decisions again as per dictation of that side. Everything going on in Sarajevo is a part of identical scenario which should make the RS weaker so that it is an entity without authority and its institutions. We shall not allow that happen. By this referendum we do not set the question of the BiH status, we do not seek secession. We seek equality and a position guaranteed to us by the Dayton Treaty’.

Behavioral Modification and Coercive Mind Control Measures At Center of Medicare Debate

Healthful behavior is a key to health care system

By Kelly Kennedy, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON— As the House takes up Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal that caps Medicare spending and turns it over to private insurers, some health care industry experts say it won’t work without a key piece: encouraging healthy behavior.

• By J. Scott Applewhite, APRep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has proposed capping Medicare and turning Medicaid over to the states.

“Behavior is central to health care,” said Bob Nease, chief scientist at Express Scripts, which manages health benefits for more than 50 million people. “The health care system’s been barking up the wrong tree.”

Costs will continue to rise, he said, as one-fourth of the population contends with health problems related to behavior: Overeating, lack of exercise, smoking and not managing chronic diseases, such as diabetes or Alzheimer’s, leading to expensive hospital visits.

This week, the House plans to vote on Ryan’s budget proposal today. He also proposed turning Medicaid over to the states and cutting it by $750 billion over the next 10 years.

On Wednesday, the House voted to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund, part of the new health care law, which provides $750 million to prevent tobacco use, heart disease, stroke and cancer. Proponents of the repeal argued that the money could be used for any health initiative without congressional approval, and, according to a support letter from Americans for Tax Reform and the Center for Fiscal Accountability, amounts to “little more than a taxpayer-funded exercise in social engineering.”

But health experts gathered for the Atlantic Health Care Forum last week in Washington, D.C., reacted less than glowingly to Ryan’s plan, including Chet Burrell, president of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, who said the gap between the money provided for Medicaid and Medicare and actual health costs would continue to grow without a push for behavioral change. In the District of Columbia region, health care costs have average increases of between 8% and 12% a year, he said.

“This is not cheap stuff, doing this kind of intervention,” said Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health. “But we all know just how ineffective this is without support.”

As an example, he said his agency conducted a study of 3,234 people who were pre-diabetic, or those with a family history of diabetes, live a sedentary lifestyle or are overweight. About one-third, at a cost of $2,780 each for a three-year period, went through a behavior-modification program with exercise training and life coaches. About 58% of those patients avoided full-blown diabetes. One in 4 Americans older than 20 were considered pre-diabetic in 2007.

“In the long run, it will be cheaper,” Collins said. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it cost $299 billion to treat diabetes in 2010.

But in a second study that reduced complications in patients with diabetes by 90%, the behaviors encouraged by daily phone calls disappeared when the program ended, said Myrl Weinberg, president of the National Health Council, which represents people with chronic diseases and disabilities that lobbies for health care for all. “We believe that people absolutely want to change their behaviors,” she said. “They need that social support.”

It may be more important that employers provide wellness programs, such as gym memberships or smoking-cessation classes, than provide more money for health insurance, said Harvey Fineberg, president of theInstitute of Medicine. And that social support will be necessary for behaviors to change.

Nease said such campaigns have worked in the past, when health groups and the government encouraged seat-belt use for children, and created anti-smoking advertisements. At the same time, marketers began to “supersize” products.

“We made smoking socially unacceptable,” Nease said. “We have done the exact opposite with being overweight.”

Healthful behavior is a key to health care system

By Kelly Kennedy, USA TODAY

Updated 9h 31m ago |

 23 |  0

Share

Reprints & Permissions

WASHINGTON— As the House takes up Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal that caps Medicare spending and turns it over to private insurers, some health care industry experts say it won’t work without a key piece: encouraging healthy behavior.

• 

  By J. Scott Applewhite, AP

  Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has proposed capping Medicare and turning Medicaid over to the states.

Enlarge

By J. Scott Applewhite, AP

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has proposed capping Medicare and turning Medicaid over to the states.

Ads by Google

Peer Reviewed ResearchResearch by David Wennberg, MD
shows health coaching saves $www.HealthDialog.com/RCT

Health Insurance – $30/moCompare Affordable Health Insurance
Right Now _ Plans from $30 / Month!HealthInsuranceWeb.com

Healthcare InformaticsA Leading Medical Informatics and
Healthcare Solutions Provider.www.medassurant.com

“Behavior is central to health care,” said Bob Nease, chief scientist at Express Scripts, which manages health benefits for more than 50 million people. “The health care system’s been barking up the wrong tree.”

Costs will continue to rise, he said, as one-fourth of the population contends with health problems related to behavior: Overeating, lack of exercise, smoking and not managing chronic diseases, such as diabetes or Alzheimer’s, leading to expensive hospital visits.

• STORY: Congress passes 2011 spending plan

• THE OVAL: White House launches tax calculator

This week, the House plans to vote on Ryan’s budget proposal today. He also proposed turning Medicaid over to the states and cutting it by $750 billion over the next 10 years.

On Wednesday, the House voted to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund, part of the new health care law, which provides $750 million to prevent tobacco use, heart disease, stroke and cancer. Proponents of the repeal argued that the money could be used for any health initiative without congressional approval, and, according to a support letter from Americans for Tax Reform and the Center for Fiscal Accountability, amounts to “little more than a taxpayer-funded exercise in social engineering.”

But health experts gathered for the Atlantic Health Care Forum last week in Washington, D.C., reacted less than glowingly to Ryan’s plan, including Chet Burrell, president of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, who said the gap between the money provided for Medicaid and Medicare and actual health costs would continue to grow without a push for behavioral change. In the District of Columbia region, health care costs have average increases of between 8% and 12% a year, he said.

“This is not cheap stuff, doing this kind of intervention,” said Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health. “But we all know just how ineffective this is without support.”

As an example, he said his agency conducted a study of 3,234 people who were pre-diabetic, or those with a family history of diabetes, live a sedentary lifestyle or are overweight. About one-third, at a cost of $2,780 each for a three-year period, went through a behavior-modification program with exercise training and life coaches. About 58% of those patients avoided full-blown diabetes. One in 4 Americans older than 20 were considered pre-diabetic in 2007.

“In the long run, it will be cheaper,” Collins said. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it cost $299 billion to treat diabetes in 2010.

News from On Politics

Latest posts from USA TODAY On Politics blog

• 7:15 AM Senate Dems tout Arizona among gains for 2012
• 5:42 PM Congress sends landmark 2011 budget to Obama
• 4:06 PM GOP conservatives, Tea Party freshmen balk at budget
• 2:24 PM Ron Paul sells his Texas house through Facebook
• 12:33 PM Donald Trump: ‘Great relationship with the blacks’

Read all On Politics posts

But in a second study that reduced complications in patients with diabetes by 90%, the behaviors encouraged by daily phone calls disappeared when the program ended, said Myrl Weinberg, president of the National Health Council, which represents people with chronic diseases and disabilities that lobbies for health care for all. “We believe that people absolutely want to change their behaviors,” she said. “They need that social support.”

It may be more important that employers provide wellness programs, such as gym memberships or smoking-cessation classes, than provide more money for health insurance, said Harvey Fineberg, president of theInstitute of Medicine. And that social support will be necessary for behaviors to change.

Nease said such campaigns have worked in the past, when health groups and the government encouraged seat-belt use for children, and created anti-smoking advertisements. At the same time, marketers began to “supersize” products.

“We made smoking socially unacceptable,” Nease said. “We have done the exact opposite with being overweight.”

Obama, “YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PEOPLES CONSENT!”

STOP WAR NOW.

Individuals of

Abbott.J@parl.gc.ca, Ablonczy.D@parl.gc.ca, Aglukkaq.L@parl.gc.ca, Albrecht.H@parl.gc.ca, Allen.M@parl.gc.ca, Allen.Ma@parl.gc.ca, Allison.D@parl.gc.ca, Ambrose.R@parl.gc.ca, Anders.R@parl.gc.ca, Anderson.Da@parl.gc.ca, Andre.G@parl.gc.ca, Andrews.S@parl.gc.ca, Angus.C@parl.gc.ca, Armstrong.S@parl.gc.ca, Arthur.A@parl.gc.ca, Ashfield.K@parl.gc.ca, Ashton.N@parl.gc.ca, Asselin.G@parl.gc.ca, Atamanenko.A@parl.gc.ca, BachaC@parl.gc.ca, Bagnell.L@parl.gc.ca, Bains.N@parl.gc.ca, Baird.J@parl.gc.ca, Beaudin.J@parl.gc.ca, BelanM@parl.gc.ca, Bellavance.A@parl.gc.ca, Bennett.C@parl.gc.ca, Benoit.L@parl.gc.ca, BerniM@parl.gc.ca, Bevilacqua.M@parl.gc.ca, Bevington.D@parl.gc.ca, Bezan.J@parl.gc.ca, Bigras.B@parl.gc.ca, Blackburn.J@parl.gc.ca, Blais.R@parl.gc.ca, Blaney.S@parl.gc.ca, Block.K@parl.gc.ca, Bonsant.F@parl.gc.ca, Bouchard.R@parl.gc.ca, Boucher.S@parl.gc.ca, Boughen.R@parl.gc.ca, Bourgeois.D@parl.gc.ca, Braid.P@parl.gc.ca, Breitkreuz.G@parl.gc.ca, Brison.S@parl.gc.ca, Brown.G@parl.gc.ca, Brown.L@parl.gc.ca, BrownPa@parl.gc.ca, Bruinooge.R@parl.gc.ca, BruneP@parl.gc.ca, Byrne.G@parl.gc.ca, Cadman.D@parl.gc.ca, Calandra.P@parl.gc.ca, Calkins.B@parl.gc.ca, Cannan.R@parl.gc.ca, Cannis.J@parl.gc.ca, Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca, Cardin.S@parl.gc.ca, Carrie.C@parl.gc.ca, Carrier.R@parl.gc.ca, Casson.R@parl.gc.ca, Charlton.C@parl.gc.ca, Chong.M@parl.gc.ca, Chowo@parl.gc.ca, Christopherson.D@parl.gc.ca, Clarke.R@parl.gc.ca, Clement.T@parl.gc.ca, Coady.S@parl.gc.ca, Coderre.D@parl.gc.ca, comartin.j@parl.gc.ca, cotler.i@parl.gc.ca, Crombie.B@parl.gc.ca, CrowdJ@parl.gc.ca, Cullen.N@parl.gc.ca, Cummins.J@parl.gc.ca, Cuzner.R@parl.gc.ca, Damours.J@parl.gc.ca, Davidson.P@parl.gc.ca, Davies.D@parl.gc.ca, Davies.L@parl.gc.ca, Day.S@parl.gc.ca, DeBellefeuille.C@parl.gc.ca, Dechert.B@parl.gc.ca, DelMastro.D@parl.gc.ca, Demers.N@parl.gc.ca, Deschamps.J@parl.gc.ca, Desnoyers.L@parl.gc.ca, Devolin.B@parl.gc.ca, Dewar.P@parl.gc.ca, Dhaliwal.S@parl.gc.ca, DhallR@parl.gc.ca, DionS@parl.gc.ca, Donnelly.F@parl.gc.ca, Dorion.J@parl.gc.ca, Dosanjh.U@parl.gc.ca, Dreeshen.E@parl.gc.ca, Dryden.K@parl.gc.ca, Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca, Dufour.N@parl.gc.ca, Duncan.J@parl.gc.ca, Duncan.K@parl.gc.ca, Duncan.L@parl.gc.ca, Dykstra.R@parl.gc.ca, Easter.W@parl.gc.ca, Eyking.M@parl.gc.ca, Faille.M@parl.gc.ca, Fast.E@parl.gc.ca, Finley.D@parl.gc.ca, Flaherty.J@parl.gc.ca, Fletcher.S@parl.gc.ca, Folco.R@parl.gc.ca, Foote.J@parl.gc.ca, Freeman.C@parl.gc.ca, Fry.H@parl.gc.ca, Gagnon.C@parl.gc.ca, Galipeau.R@parl.gc.ca, Gallant.C@parl.gc.ca, Garneau.M@parl.gc.ca, Gaudet.Ro@parl.gc.ca, Genereux.B@parl.gc.ca, Glover.S@parl.gc.ca, Godin.Y@parl.gc.ca, Goldring.P@parl.gc.ca, Goodale.R@parl.gc.ca, Goodyear.G@parl.gc.ca, Gourde.J@parl.gc.ca, Gravelle.C@parl.gc.ca, Grewal.N@parl.gc.ca, Guarnieri.A@parl.gc.ca, Guay.M@parl.gc.ca, Guergis.H@parl.gc.ca, Guimond.C@parl.gc.ca, Guimond.M@parl.gc.ca, HallFindlay.M@parl.gc.ca, Harper.S@parl.gc.ca, Harris.J@parl.gc.ca, Harris.R@parl.gc.ca, Hawn.L@parl.gc.ca, Hiebert.R@parl.gc.ca, Hill.J@parl.gc.ca, Hoback.R@parl.gc.ca, Hoeppner.C@parl.gc.ca, Holder.E@parl.gc.ca, Holland.M@parl.gc.ca, Hughes.C@parl.gc.ca, Hyer.B@parl.gc.ca, Ignatieff.M@parl.gc.ca, Jean.B@parl.gc.ca, Jennings.M@parl.gc.ca, Julian.P@parl.gc.ca, Kamp.R@parl.gc.ca, Kania.A@parl.gc.ca, Karygiannis.J@parl.gc.ca, Keddy.G@parl.gc.ca, Kennedy.G@parl.gc.ca, Kenney.J@parl.gc.ca, Kent.P@parl.gc.ca, Kerr.G@parl.gc.ca, Komarnicki.E@parl.gc.ca, Kramp.D@parl.gc.ca, Laforest.J@parl.gc.ca, Laframboise.M@parl.gc.ca, Lake.M@parl.gc.ca, Lalonde.F@parl.gc.ca, Lauzon.G@parl.gc.ca, Lavallee.C@parl.gc.ca, Layton.J@parl.gc.ca, Lebel.D@parl.gc.ca, Leblanc.D@parl.gc.ca, Lee.D@parl.gc.ca, Lemay.M@parl.gc.ca, Lemieux.P@parl.gc.ca, Leslie.M@parl.gc.ca, LessaY@parl.gc.ca, Levesque.Y@parl.gc.ca, Lobb.B@parl.gc.ca, Lukiwski.T@parl.gc.ca, Lunn.G@parl.gc.ca, Lunney.J@parl.gc.ca, MacAulay.L@parl.gc.ca, MacKay.P@parl.gc.ca, MacKenzie.D@parl.gc.ca, Malhi.G@parl.gc.ca, Malo.L@parl.gc.ca, Maloway.J@parl.gc.ca, Marston.W@parl.gc.ca, Martin.K@parl.gc.ca, Martin.Pat@parl.gc.ca, Martin.T@parl.gc.ca, Masse.B@parl.gc.ca, Mathyssen.I@parl.gc.ca, Mayes.C@parl.gc.ca, McCallum.J@parl.gc.ca, McColeman.P@parl.gc.ca, McGuinty.D@parl.gc.ca, McKay.J@parl.gc.ca, McLeod.C@parl.gc.ca, McTeague.D@parl.gc.ca, MenarSe@parl.gc.ca, Mendes.A@parl.gc.ca, Menzies.T@parl.gc.ca, Merrifield.R@parl.gc.ca, Miller.L@parl.gc.ca, Milliken.P@parl.gc.ca, Minna.M@parl.gc.ca, Moore.J@parl.gc.ca, Moore.R@parl.gc.ca, Mourani.Ma@parl.gc.ca, Mulcair.T@parl.gc.ca, Murphy.B@parl.gc.ca, Murphy.S@parl.gc.ca, Murray.J@parl.gc.ca, Nadeau.R@parl.gc.ca, Neville.A@parl.gc.ca, Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca, Norlock.R@parl.gc.ca, Obhrai.D@parl.gc.ca, OConnor.G@parl.gc.ca, Oda.B@parl.gc.ca, Oliphant.R@parl.gc.ca, ONeill-Gordon.T@parl.gc.ca, Ouellet.C@parl.gc.ca, Pacetti.M@parl.gc.ca, Paille.D@parl.gc.ca, Paille.P@parl.gc.ca, Paquette.P@parl.gc.ca, Paradis.C@parl.gc.ca, Patry.B@parl.gc.ca, Payne.L@parl.gc.ca, Pearson.G@parl.gc.ca, Petit.D@parl.gc.ca, PlamoL@parl.gc.ca, PoiliP@parl.gc.ca, Pomerleau.R@parl.gc.ca, Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca, Preston.J@parl.gc.ca, Proulx.M@parl.gc.ca, Rae.B@parl.gc.ca, Rafferty.J@parl.gc.ca, Raitt.L@parl.gc.ca, Rajotte.J@parl.gc.ca, Ratansi.Y@parl.gc.ca, Rathgeber.B@parl.gc.ca, Regan.G@parl.gc.ca, Reid.S@parl.gc.ca, Richards.B@parl.gc.ca, Richardson.L@parl.gc.ca, Rickford.G@parl.gc.ca, Ritz.G@parl.gc.ca, Rodriguez.P@parl.gc.ca, Rota.A@parl.gc.ca, Russell.T@parl.gc.ca, Savage.M@parl.gc.ca, Savoie.D@parl.gc.ca, Saxton.A@parl.gc.ca, Scarpaleggia.F@parl.gc.ca, Scheer.A@parl.gc.ca, Schellenberger.G@parl.gc.ca, Sgro.J@parl.gc.ca, Shea.G@parl.gc.ca, Shipley.B@parl.gc.ca, Shory.D@parl.gc.ca, Siksay.B@parl.gc.ca, Silva.M@parl.gc.ca, Simms.S@parl.gc.ca, Simson.M@parl.gc.ca, Smith.J@parl.gc.ca, Sorenson.K@parl.gc.ca, St-Cyr.T@parl.gc.ca, Stanton.B@parl.gc.ca, Stoffer.P@parl.gc.ca, Storseth.B@parl.gc.ca, Strahl.C@parl.gc.ca, Sweet.D@parl.gc.ca, Szabo.P@parl.gc.ca, Thibeault.G@parl.gc.ca, ThiLac.E@parl.gc.ca, Thompson.G@parl.gc.ca, Tilson.D@parl.gc.ca, Toews.V@parl.gc.ca, Tonks.A@parl.gc.ca, Trost.B@parl.gc.ca, Trudeau.J@parl.gc.ca, Tweed.M@parl.gc.ca, Uppal.T@parl.gc.ca, Valeriote.F@parl.gc.ca, VanKesteren.D@parl.gc.ca, VanLoan.P@parl.gc.ca, Vellacott.M@parl.gc.ca, Verner.J@parl.gc.ca, Vincent.R@parl.gc.ca, Volpe.J@parl.gc.ca, Wallace.M@parl.gc.ca, Warawa.M@parl.gc.ca, Warkentin.C@parl.gc.ca, Wasylycia-Leis.J@parl.gc.ca, Watson.J@parl.gc.ca, Weston.J@parl.gc.ca, Weston.R@parl.gc.ca, Wilfert.B@parl.gc.ca, Wong.A@parl.gc.ca, Woodworth.S@parl.gc.ca, Wrzesnewskyj.B@parl.gc.ca, Yelich.L@parl.gc.ca, Young.T@parl.gc.ca, Zarac.L@parl.gc.ca

WE DISagree with war. STOP NOW.

Obama the Lawyer and His Libyan War of Legal Loopholes

Under the U.S. Supreme Court: The president makes war in Libya

By MICHAEL KIRKLAND

WASHINGTON, March 27 (UPI) — Members of Congress began rediscovering the War Powers Act, that battered relic from 1973, almost immediately after U.S. warplanes began introducing modern firepower to Moammar Gadhafi’s forces little more than a week ago.Gadhafi’s mercenaries and militia were slaughtering outgunned civilian rebels when the U.N. Security Council authorized a “no-fly zone” over Libya. The United States, Britain, France and others used the authorization largely to destroy Gadhafi’s antiaircraft defenses and some of his forces on the ground, giving the rebels breathing room.

But the question for many in Congress is whether President Barack Obama had the authority to order such military action.

Article 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war. However, the last time Congress declared war was after the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

Since then presidents have used the military as a regular extension of U.S. foreign policy, so much so that Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution, commonly referred to as the War Powers Act, in 1973. President Richard Nixon’s veto of the resolution was massively overridden: 284–135 in the House, and 75–18 in the Senate, more than the two-thirds needed, and the resolution became law.

The War Powers Resolution says the president, as commander in chief, can put U.S. forces in harm’s way only after a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its military.

The resolution also requires the president “in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific congressional authorization,” the Congressional Research Service says. “It also requires the president to report to Congress any introduction of forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities … or in numbers which substantially enlarge U.S. forces equipped for combat already in a foreign nation.”

The law says once the president submits a report, “Congress must authorize the use of forces within 60 to 90 days or the forces must be withdrawn.”

To say that presidents have viewed the War Powers Resolution with a jaundiced eye is an understatement.

Every president since 1973 has taken the position that the resolution is an unconstitutional infringement on presidential authority, the CRS says — though the U.S. Supreme Court and the other federal courts have never directly ruled on the issue. The one foray into legally trying to hold a president accountable to the War Powers Resolution did not turn out well for members of Congress.

Obama’s use of force in Libya has raised congressional hackles. Predictably, U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, brought up impeachment in an interview with The Raw Story weblog, as reported by clevelandleader.com.

Kucinich said the fact Obama acted on his own without congressional approval “would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense,” though he doubted Congress had the nerve to follow through.

Other congressional criticism was more muted. U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, supported the no-fly zone, but said, “Before any further military commitments are made, the administration must do a better job of communicating to the American people and to Congress about our mission,” The Huffington Post reported.

Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, also called for Obama to explain the Libyan operation to the U.S. public.

The Huffington Post interviewed other members of Congress with sharper views who questioned whether there was a threat to the United States as required by the War Powers Resolution.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said: “I think (Obama) has a duty and an obligation to come to Congress. I see no clear and present danger to the United States of America. I just don’t. We’re in a bit of the fog at the moment as to what the president is trying to ultimately do.”

“In the absence of a credible, direct threat to the United States and its allies or to our valuable national interests, what excuse is there for not seeking congressional approval of military action?” liberal Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., asked. “I think it is wrong and a usurpation of power and the fact that prior presidents have done it is not an excuse.”

Another liberal, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., was supportive but cautious, CBS News reported.

“I think it is important that we show that we’re a powerful country who is willing to step in and protect those who are not able to protect themselves,” he said. “I do believe though that the president should have and should still come to Congress for authorization.”

Obama has in fact “consulted” with Congress in a way, calling in representatives of congressional leaders to the White House before his South American trip, not to ask for permission but to explain to them what he was doing.

And last week, while the president was abroad, the White House released a letter from the president to Boehner and the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii. In the letter, dated March 21, Obama said he was informing Congress of the Libyan operation “consistent with the War Powers Resolution.”

Obama told the congressional leaders “at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations (on March 19) to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe … “

The president added: “U.S. military forces, under … U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. … These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.”

The resolution authorizes U.N. member states “to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a ‘no-fly zone’ in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.”

Obama said Gadhafi was sent “a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately,” but though Libya’s foreign ministry announced an immediate cease-fire Gadhafi’s forces continued to advance.

“Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States,” Obama contended.

“The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya,” the president said. “United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster.”

Obama said he ordered the Libyan actions, “which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as commander in chief and chief executive.

“I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.”

Significantly, Obama used the phrase “consistent” with the resolution, as have presidents before him, rather than “pursuant” to the resolution, which would indicate the resolution was accepted law that had to be obeyed.

Presidential use of military force without specifically meeting the provisions of the War Powers Resolution was challenged in court in March 1999 by 18 Republican members of Congress led by Rep. Tom Campbell of Texas.

President Bill Clinton had ordered U.S. forces to participate in the NATO bombing operation over Kosovo to stop the “ethnic cleansing” and massacres of ethnic Albanian Muslims.

A series of House and Senate votes supporting or opposing the war left the issue up in the air though Congress eventually passed emergency funding that underwrote the operation.

On April 30, 1999, Campbell and 17 other House members filed suit in federal court asking for a ruling that would require the president to get authorization from Congress for the Kosovo bombings or discontinue military operations.

On May 25, 1999, the 60th day of military operations passed. The congressional group at that time told the federal court that Clinton was in violation of the War Powers Resolution, which required hostilities to cease after 60 days in the absence of congressional approval or a presidential request for an extra 30 days to safely withdraw from combat.

However, Clinton did not ask for the extension, instead maintaining the War Powers Resolution was constitutionally defective.

All the congressional and presidential Sturm und Drang turned out to be moot. U.S. District Court Judge Paul Friedman dismissed the suit, saying Campbell and the others had no standing to bring it in the first place. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sometimes called the second-most powerful court in the country, agreed.

The appeals court panel said the U.S. Supreme Court — as recently as 1997 — had refused to recognize the right of members of Congress to sue the executive branch. Besides, the panel’s prevailing opinion said, the case essentially presented a political, not a legal, controversy.

Citing its own precedent, the appeals court said: “It is uncontested that the Congress could terminate the (contested program) were a sufficient number in (the U.S. House and Senate) so inclined. Because the parties’ dispute is therefore fully susceptible to political resolution, we would (under circuit precedent) dismiss the complaint to avoid ‘meddling’ in the internal affairs of the legislative branch.”

The congressional group then asked the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The high court declined without comment.

© 2011 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content is expressly prohibited without UPI’s prior written consent.

Pakistan to Seek Interpol Help to Arrest Musharraf

[Is the Zardari govt really uncovering all the perpetrators of the Benazir Bhutto assassination, no matter how high the plot might go?  Is Musharraf being prosecuted simply for not preventing the murder?  That is a slap on the hands, if his involvement goes deeper.  The apparent rush to wrap all of this up is likely to leave the former dictator, as well as the entire military staff blameless for the actual hit.]

Benazir’s killers arrested, will be made public soon

* Interior minister says probe into BB’s assassination has been completed, report will be presented before Central Executive Committee of PPP

Pakistan to Seek Interpol Help to Arrest Musharraf

Pakistan will ask Interpol to circulate a global arrest warrant for former president Pervez Musharraf over the murder of ex-premier Benazir Bhutto, a prosecutor said on Saturday.

A Pakistani court last week gave prosecutors until April 2 to serve a warrant granted in February on Musharraf, who was president when Bhutto was killed in December 2007 in a gun and suicide bomb attack in Rawalpindi.

Musharraf, who lives in self-imposed exile in London, is accused of failing to provide her with adequate security.

“We presented three letters in the court which have been sent to the British government for the execution of the warrants,” prosecutor Chaudhry Zulfiqar Ali told Agence France Presse.

“We have not yet received any report from the British home department and now we will write to Interpol to help execute the warrants,” Ali said.

Bhutto was killed after addressing an election campaign rally in Rawalpindi on December 27, 2007.

Musharraf is alleged to have been part of a “broad conspiracy” to have his political rival killed before elections, though the exact nature of the charges against him is not clear.

Bhutto, who served two terms as prime minister, returned from exile two months before she was assassinated. Her widower, Asif Ali Zardari, led her Pakistan People’s Party to election victory in 2008 and is now president.

At the time of Bhutto’s death, Musharraf’s government blamed the assassination on Pakistani Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud, who denied any involvement and was subsequently killed in a U.S. drone attack.(AFP)

Obama Explains How “Humanitarianism” Prevents a Qaddafi Bloodbath With One of Our Own

[In typical lawyerly fashion, Obama offers a "defense" of his mission that explains nothing, but merely deflects the blame to someone else.  He never once explains how training Egyptian, Libyan, Tunisian intellectuals and activists in the United States, to foment rebellion in their homelands and supporting terrorist groups who have killed American soldiers in both Iraq and in Afghanistan is "humanitarian."  Every lying word he utters to the press is intended to mislead the American people and to promote a global war of aggression.  The  intellectual/activist from Chicago is a dictator who has not yet taken off the gloves.]

Obama Defends Mission in Libya in Weekly Address

ABC News’ Sunlen Miller reports:

President Obama defends the decision to intervene in Libya in his weekly address and declares that they are succeeding in the mission thus far.

“I firmly believe that when innocent people are being brutalized; when someone like Qaddafi threatens a bloodbath that could destabilize an entire region; and when the international community is prepared to come together to save many thousands of lives—then it’s in our national interest to act,” President Obama says, “And it’s our responsibility.  This is one of those times.”

Hoping to assure Americans about the mission, the president says that the military mission in Libya is “clear and focused” and with allies and partners is already making progress, avoiding a “humanitarian catastrophe.”

“We’re succeeding in our mission.  We’ve taken out Libya’s air defenses.  Qaddafi’s forces are no longer advancing across Libya.  In places like Benghazi, a city of some 700,000 that Qaddafi threatened to show ‘no mercy,’ his forces have been pushed back.”

The president says that as he pledged before the “role of American forces has been limited,” referencing the agreement made this week for the operation to be transferred from the US to NATO.

“We are not putting any ground forces into Libya. Our military has provided unique capabilities at the beginning, but this is now a broad, international effort. Our allies and partners are enforcing the no fly zone over Libya and the arms embargo at sea.  Key Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have committed aircraft.”

The president explains that the military effort is part of a larger strategy to hold the Qadhafi regime accountable.

“Qaddafi’s attacks against civilians must stop.  His forces must pull back.  Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach those in need.  Those responsible for violence must be held accountable.  Moammar Qaddafi has lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to rule, and the aspirations of the Libyan people must be realized.”

The White House has announced that on Monday evening Mr. Obama will deliver a speech to the nation on Libya at National Defense University in Washington, DC.

-Sunlen Miller

Hezbollah Leader Embraces Libyan Rebel Alliance, Denies Involvement of USA or “Al-CIAda”

[Here we get a glimpse into the complexity of the multiple nefarious CIA plots now unfolding throughout the Middle East region.  No one could claim that Nasrallah is naive, or gullible, so it seems to confirm that the US is also playing the Iranian card in these revolutions, meaning that Iran is just another contracted "bit player," just like Pakistan, helping in the staging of scenarios directed by the Imperial planners.  Many, if not most, of the govts and various militant groups that are involved may not be consciously aware of aiding the Empire, even though elements of their leadership have been bought-off or compromised.  Nearly all states are on the Imperial side, to some extent, until the big double-cross (ask Mubarrak) comes and the trap is sprung.  Both Shiite and Sunni govts are involved in helping the US and the Brits start their wars, even though a full-blown holy war between the two Islamic sides is planned, which should be obvious after the debacle of Iraq.] Sayyed Nasrallah to Arabs: Your Spring Has Begun

Mohamad Shmaysani

Hezbollah Secretary Genetral Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah expressed support to the revolutions and the uprisings of the Arab people, particularly in Tunis, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, and Yemen. Sayyed Nasrallah was speaking Saturday evening during a festival organized by Hezbollah for the support of the Arab peoples’ revolutions, in the Sayed Shouhada compound in Beirut’s southern suburb. “This solidarity is of great moral value, because what is happening today reflects perseverance and resistance of these peoples backed by faith and high morals. We recall the cruel days of the July 2006 war; the war that embodied the scandals that are unfolding now through Wikileaks. Remember how anything that had been said in any place in the world had a good impact on the resistance and its supporters; this is the case with the revolutionary peoples today. We tell them that you have our support; we are happy when you are; we pray for you to triumph; we are ready to help you in every domain that serves your interest and ours,” Sayyed Nasrallah said. The main points of Sayyed Nasrallah’s discourse. 1- REVOLUTIONS ARE MADE BY THE PEOPLE NOT U.S. 2- AS LONG AS US BACKS ISRAEL, IT’LL BE REGARDED AS PLAYING THE HYPOCRITE 3- SATELLITES JAMMED DURING SAYYED NASRALLAH’S SPEECH 4- UNITY IN TUNIS AND EGYPT IS A MUST 5- RESISTANCE FIGHTERS IN LEBANON SALUTE LIBYAN FIGHTERS 6- WE PRAISE YEMEN’S PEACEFUL MOVEMENT 7- TO BAHRAINIS: YOUR BLOOD WILL DEFEAT TYRANTS 8- RESISTANCE ARMS POINTED AT ENEMY; JUST STAY AWAY FROM IT 9- WIKILEAKS REVELATIONS EXPOSE LEBANESE CONSPIRATORS 10- HEAVY PRESSURE ON MIKATI AS HE TRIES TO FORM A GOVERNMENT REVOLUTIONS ARE MADE BY THE PEOPLE NOT U.S. His eminence stressed that the ongoing revolutions are made by the people against pro-US regimes which do not pose any sort of threat to American policies and unequivocally Israel. “America does not trigger revolutions against such submissive regimes.” He added that it was irrational to say that these revolutions were cooked in the US kitchens, and that this would have been a probability if this or that regime was against Israel. “Not to mention that accusing AL-Qaeda and Iran (of being behind the revolutions) is absurd.”

Behind the 2011 Orgy of Destabilizations

[Tarpley really nailed it this time.  If only the people would catch-on, before the revolutions transpire and fizzle.  Mature govts like China and Russia understand exactly what Tarpley has said here, yet none of them had the balls to veto the Libyan aggression resolution.]

Pre-Emptive Coups by the CIA to Halt an Exodus of US Satraps and Viceroys Leading to a Multipolar World

Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.

TARPLEY.net
March 15, 2011

Washington DC, March 15, 2011 – In the late winter of 2011, governments were for a few weeks falling like bowling pins all across the Middle East and far beyond. We are witnessing a massive orgy of deliberate destabilizations of previous client regimes on the part of the CIA, the State Department, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the various NGOs and foundations which follow their lead. This has taken the form of a mad rampage of attempted color revolutions, people power coups, putsches by camarillas of generals, and incipient civil wars in such countries as Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others, with the tremors being felt as far away as Belarus and China. This tsunami of coups was signaled by three waves of document dumps by the “Wikileaks” limited hangout operation of the Anglo-American intelligence community, and has been supported and encouraged by the Obama regime up to the limits of what the traffic would bear in each case. During the most recent days, the time of the Libyan civil war, the old Suez 1956 coalition of aggressive and unreconstructed British and French neo-colonialists has also reemerged as a strange historical atavism.

The Anglo-American Empire is now undergoing a collapse phase, although not caused by debt as claimed by the reactionary academic and imperialist planner Niall Ferguson at the “Aspen Ideas Festival” last July – a gathering where calls were raised for an immediate attack on Iran.¹ The overthrow of existing governments and the breakup of existing national states, wherever possible, is intended to put the brakes on this collapse by preventing the national states from taking timely political action to save themselves from the imperialist shipwreck by defecting to other power centers, reversing existing alliances. The Anglo-American plan is for a super-national empire over the planet, with a neo-feudal war of all against all on the ground.

The Threatened Return of a Multi-Polar Middle East

The current goal of London and Washington is to stop a jailbreak by their former clients. Since the beginning of the end of the USSR in about 1980, the Middle East has been a unipolar Anglo-American show. The past 30 years of US-UK hegemony have been an historical oddity. Today, the Middle East is reverting to its more typical multi-polar complexion, with a revival of Chinese, Russian, Iranian, Turkish, and other interests – making a better deal for the Arabs more likely than under the recent Anglo-American-Israeli power monopoly. The current CIA destabilizations are supposed to abort this return of multipolarity to the Middle East.

In my books Obama the Postmodern Coup: the Making of a Manchurian Candidate (April 2008) andBarack H. Obama: the Unauthorized Biography (August 2008) I warned that the next phase of US imperialism under Obama would rely increasingly on subversion, destabilization, color revolutions, soft power, mass manipulation, CIA people power coups, and postmodern putsches. A color revolution was attempted by the CIA in Iran in the summer of 2009, and ended in failure. Similar color revolutions were attempted during 2010 in Italy (the purple revolution), Macedonia, Thailand, and Belarus, among others. Now, with much of the Mediterranean, Middle East, and parts of Eastern Europe under CIA attack, the thesis of my 2008 books is definitively confirmed. The CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileaks has just launched an attack against the president of Indonesia for bribery and corruption, signaling that a CIA attack will soon be under way against Jakarta as well.

The current destabilization spree is a singular historical event. The French Revolution of 1789 was thoroughly fomented by Great Britain through economic warfare against France combined with the subversive activities of British intelligence chief Jeremy Bentham and Samuel Romilly of the Jacobin propaganda mill located on the palatial Bowood estate of Lord Shelburne in England. The 1848 wave of revolutions across Europe was organized and detonated by the British using the radical nationalists of Giuseppe Mazzini and the followers of Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin against the authoritarian Holy Alliance governments of Prussia, Russia, and Metternich’s Austria. In 1989, Anglo-American intelligence worked hard to overthrow the Warsaw Pact Communist regimes in Eastern Europe. But in each of these cases, it was an imperial power which was seeking to destabilize one or more of its rival or enemy states. Today, the large majority of the Middle East and other nations which have been destabilized would have to be classed as clients, allies, or partners of the United States and the British. We can call figures like Ben Ali, Mubarak, and Saleh of Yemen the satraps of viceroys of the current empire. Qaddafi qualifies too, although he has been a more recalcitrant vassal. The shocker this time around is that Washington and London are attacking their own assets. So what is happening?

Viceroys, Proconsuls, Satraps, Khedives, Namestniks Run for the Exits

The satraps of the Anglo-American Empire, meaning the various viceroys, proconsuls, khedives and namestniks who have been set up to administer the various satellite countries, are now being massively purged to prevent them from defecting to rival power center like Russia, China, and Iran. This amounts to a preventive toppling of the US-UK satraps to head off a looming mass exit from the US-UK geopolitical plantation. Dictators and authoritarian rulers are being ousted by cliques of generals and mobs incited by the CIA to stop them from playing the Iran card, the Russian card, the China card, or some combination of these. Some of the more manic voices from the neocon faction even imagine that the US can ride the current wave all the way to the toppling of existing regimes and the creation of puppet governments in Beijing, Moscow, Teheran, and elsewhere, giving the US and the British uncontested dominion over the world for decades to come.

Libya’s Col. Qaddafi, once the destabilization of Libya had begun, was the most explicit, announcing that he would play several cards, ousting the west, and turning instead to China, Russia, India, and Brazil.²Qaddafi had also been cooperating with Belarus, whose leader President Lukashenko is vilified by the US as the last dictator in Europe. Belarus provides a good example of how dangerous this game can quickly become. It will be recalled that in November 2004, the US-backed mob rule of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine led to a situation where the eastern provinces of that country were threatening to secede in protest against the NATO-IMF coup of Yushchenko and Timoshenko, while Kiev threatened to impose its dictates by force. If that scenario had gone any further, a civil war might have resulted within Ukraine, with increasing danger that Russian troops might intervene from the East and that Polish NATO troops might invade from the West, leading to a clash between NATO and Russia. This example illustrates why Eastern Europe is dozens of times more explosive than anything in the Middle East, since in Eastern Europe collisions that might involve hydrogen bombs are never more than two or three steps away. Fortunately, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine has now collapsed, and the IMF and NATO kleptocrats ousted; it is unlikely that any new color revolutions can be mounted in Kiev for at least a generation after this terrible experience.

NATO’s Belarus Gambit

In Belarus, the most recent aborted attempt at a color revolution was frustrated in mid-December 2010, but NATO and the CIA are not giving up. On December 12, 2010, just before the CIA’s Middle East rampage got going, Belarus President Lukashenko was re-elected, officially receiving 80% of the votes against 9 rival candidates, who enjoyed ample access to state broadcast media. Anne Applebaum, of theWashington Post, the wife of revanchist Polish Foreign Minister Sikorsky, described Lukashenko’s fourth-term election victory as “the decline of the west.”

Belarus shares its western border with Poland and its eastern border with Russia, meaning that a color revolution in Minsk it turned into a civil war on the Libyan model could easily lead to the presence of Russian and Polish troops, and then to their collusion. This shows why color revolutions in Eastern Europe are so dangerous.

The standard US-UK reply to all this is that the revolts are spontaneous, and that London and Washington are not involved, but mere spectators. This leaves us wondering about the $50 to $100 million spent every year in the federal budget for the National Endowment for Democracy, to say nothing of the estimated $35 billion spent by the CIA, plus special appropriations to subvert Iran and other states.

The US “Perspective 2020″ Strategy

Sergei Shahskov of the Moscow Strategic Culture Foundation, which benefits from the findings of Russian intelligence, notes that the US has been making a sustained effort to develop ways to topple governments, including the creation of the US Cybercommand to exploit Twitter and Facebook, and that Obama has been heavily involved: “In line with the ‘Perspective-2020′ program for the US strategic military development, information superiority is one of key factors. The new command faced the task to carry out a full range of operations in the World Wide Web. Private companies were invited to join the program. In June, 2009 the US Special Operations Command and Gallup Polls signed an agreement to process the results of opinion polls in different parts of the world in order to use them later during implementing campaigns aimed at shaping public opinion…. At the end of 2010 the White House reported that President Obama knew about protests in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen in advance and in August, 2010, ordered his administration to prepare a secret report on the situation in the Arab world.”³

US Imperial Rule is Oppressive and Unbearable

From the point of view of the ruler of any developing country, the conditions imposed by continued submission to Anglo-American domination are simply unbearable. The current Anglo-American ruling elites offer virtually nothing in terms of industrial and agricultural development. Rather, they seek to impose the oppressive free-trade rules of the World Trade Organization, including de-regulation, privatization, the abolition of food and fuel subsidies, the destruction of the state sector and state services, union busting, and a race to the bottom. This means that the Third World states are permanently exposed to destructive dumping, speculative attacks on their currencies, and the general looting process whose beneficiaries are Wall Street and the city of London. The deadly conditionalities of the International Monetary Fund are omnipresent, guaranteeing that no economic development or social progress can ever occur.

In addition to economic strangulation, the Anglo-American ruling class insists on their prerogative of constantly meddling in the internal affairs of the country in question, applying hypocritical double standards about democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. These are the same Anglo-American aggressors whose hands are dripping with blood from their ongoing aggressive atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries.

China, by contrast, offers real economic development in industry, agriculture, and technology on terms which are closer to the classic 50-50 then to the exorbitant rates of return demanded by the derivatives mongers, hedge fund hyenas, and zombie bankers of New York and London. The Chinese have the added benefit of being largely indifferent to the internal political regime of the countries where they do business, leaving these questions to the locals.

Not surprisingly, one of the overriding goals of US foreign policy is now to sabotage and disrupt the kind of peaceful economic development and trade relations which the Chinese are seeking to establish in Africa and elsewhere. The Chinese obviously need oil and strategic minerals, and many of these can be found in Africa and the Middle East. Since the US and the British monetarist-Malthusian elites have given up on engaging the Chinese in a peace race of economic competition, the only alternative is to use terrorist surrogates and warfare to kick the Chinese out and disrupt their trade. This explains the Anglo-American obsession with the partitioning of Sudan, where the southern secessionists control Chinese oil investments which New York and London are interested in \denying to Beijing. The same goes for Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, whom the Anglo Americans are attacking not because of his human rights record, but rather because he supplies strategic raw materials to China.

For purposes of rough classification, we can list various countries striving to escape from the Anglo-American yoke according to their attempt to lean on Iran, China, and Russia — although there are numerous overlaps.

Iran Card

Some of the immediate targets of destabilization have been seeking to escape from total US domination and strangulation by seeking good or improved relations with Iran.

Egypt under the now-deposed Hosni Mubarak was one of the most important of the nations playing the Iran card. In October 2010, defying Hillary Clinton’s shrill calls for the total isolation of Iran, Mubarak announced the resumption of direct flights from Cairo to Tehran for the first time in 30 years. In 2009, Mubarak had rejected the US plan for a Sunni Arab bloc of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Cooperation Council Emirates, and Jordan closely allied with Israel under a US nuclear umbrella, which Washington was seeking to play against the Persian-Shiite dominated radical bloc centered on Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, and sundry rejection front forces. Mubarak rejected a military alliance with Israel, and had never fully normalized relations with that country, in spite of the Camp David Peace Treaty. Mubarak emphatically rejected US bases in Egypt, and no such bases were ever created. He refused US demands for Egyptian troops for the Afghanistan war starting in 2001, and for the Iraq war starting in 2003. Here was a very recalcitrant satrap indeed.⁴ Mubarak’s Ottoman Empire predecessor, the Khedive Mohammed Ali Pasha (1805-1848), became independent from the Turkish Sultan in all but name, and the US was determined not to allow a repeat performance by Mubarak.

Bahrain under the al-Khalifa family is the base of the US Fifth Fleet, but the current Emir has formally forbidden the US to use this base for combat operations against Iran. At the end of 2009, Iran and Bahrain reached a technical agreement concerning the demarcation of their maritime boundaries. This undercut the stridently anti-Iranian US policy of Obama and Mrs. Clinton. The following is an excerpt from a statement by the Bahrain Foreign Ministry dated 21 August 2011: ‘Bahrain’s Minister of foreign affairs, Shaikh Khalid Bin Ahmad bin Mohammed Al Khalifa, Shaikh has ruled out in an interview with the London-based Asharq Al Awsat allowing the US to use his country to launch attacks on any country, in an apparent reference to Iran. “The presence of a US naval base in Bahrain does not mean that Manama will allow its use to launch an attack on any country,” the minister said. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had earlier said on Monday that «brothers and friends of Iran of the Arab GCC states will not allow their territories to be used for striking Iran.», « The leaders of those countries are aware of the Israeli and American scenarios in the region, while we exclude the war, we are ready for all eventualities, » he added. Asked about potential use of U.S military bases in Bahrain for a military strike on Iran, Foreign Minister said that “The agreements signed by Manama with Washington are exclusively defense-based and we cannot allow the use of our lands to attack other territories.”In fact, there are no attack weapons on the base, ” he added.’⁵

Lebanon is currently governed by a coalition formed in February 2011 in which the pro-Iranian Hezbollah party has a dominant role. Despite loud protests, the US has so far been impotent to overthrow this government.

Iraq for its part remains under the rule of the Shiite, pro-Iranian Prime Minister Maliki, who enjoys support from the anti-US firebrand populist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr of the Mahdi Army, who has been demonized by Washington. The leading US puppet on the scene, the former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, has been unable to seize power, despite the continuing military occupation of the country by US forces. Recent reports indicate the existence of a US-backed coup plan by Allawi and his forces which includes the assassination of Maliki, but which is being held in check for the moment with the help of Sadr.⁶

Turkey, as part of the reassertion of its role as an important regional power, joined last year with Brazil to attempt a mediation of the dispute between the United States and Iran concerning the nature of the Iranian nuclear program. This constructive initiative by the Turks and Brazilians caused profound irritation among the permanent members of the UN Security Council, including especially the United States and Great Britain. Turkey was further goaded into more independent contact when its attempted humanitarian aid delivery to the besieged Gaza Strip was violently attacked by the Israelis and diverted away from its destination.

China Card

Another group of countries has been seeking to use China as a counterweight to US domination. As noted, one of the central principles of US policy in all of Africa is to sabotage and disrupt Chinese commercial and development cooperation, and this policy of kicking the Chinese out to prevent them from obtaining needed oil and strategic minerals extends to North Africa and the Middle East as well.

Pakistan, more and more antagonized by the Obama policy of exporting the Afghan civil war into Islamabad’s hinterlands, has been steadily gravitating towards China, including as the obvious response to the US-India nuclear cooperation deal which gives New Delhi privileged status with the Americans.⁷Pakistan, by contrast, gets bombings by Predator drones designed to goad the Pushtuns and also the Baluchis into a rebellion against the Punjabis and Sinds, who are viewed as responsible for the unbearable US presence. Pakistan has declared 2011 the a year of friendship with China, and the two countries are building the JF-17 fighter aircraft, among many other joint projects.⁸ The Pakistan energy corridor is China’s best bet for getting a secure oil supply overland from Iran by the most direct route. Ray Davis, the CIA operative originally billed as a US diplomat, whose real affiliation the Obama regime tried and failed to censor in the US media, is widely accused by the Pakistani media of being a terrorist controller directing the activities or “Taliban” units against the central government, and even of complicity in a plot to deliver to these terrorists nuclear materials suitable for the construction of a radiological dirty bomb. The detonation of such a dirty bomb would allow the US to argue that the Pakistani nuclear forces are not secure, and need to be seized by the US. A shooting war between the US and Pakistan could now be very close, but as long as Pakistan has nuclear weapons, they are able to exercise nuclear deterrence against US aggression.

Libya under Qaddafi had an estimated 35,000 Chinese personnel in-country and working on various oil and other development projects. These workers have now been hastily removed with the help of Greek ships, and the Chinese projects have been shut down.

Afghanistan under President Karzai intensified its overtures to China in March of last year when President Karzai visited Beijing for the fourth time to sign a number of important technical training and economic development deals, including some triangular China-Pakistan-Afghanistan efforts. A Chinese company paid $3 billion to develop one of the world’s largest untapped copper mines at Aynak, and is also the leading candidate to mine the iron deposits at Hajigak. The post-industrial US is not a contender. Washington was so alarmed over Karzai’s trip to Beijing that Obama made an unannounced lightning visit to Karzai right after he returned to warn him not to go too far off the US imperialist reservation. Afghanistan’s striving for self-assertion comes despite an ongoing war and NATO occupation. On March 12, 2011, Karzai formally demanded that the US and NATO get out of his country; his life is now in grave danger.

Russia Card

Saudi Arabia’s Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then head of the National Security Council, made numerous trips to meet Vladimir Putin of Russia, including in August 2007, July 2008, and September 2008, plus Putin’s trip to Riyad in February 2007, the first by a top Russian leader. A wide range of economic, political, and military cooperation was reportedly discussed during these meetings, although not made public. In early August 2009 it was reported by PressTV of Iran that Bandar had attempted a coup d’etat by attempting to take control of the process of succession in the Saudi royal family.⁹ Bandar was then reported to have been jailed or placed under house arrest, and he has not been seen in public since, although his role as head of the National Security Council was confirmed for four years in September 2009. Bandar was watergated in public by the CIA and its minions for his alleged role in the al-Yamamah/BAE Systems arms deal scandal, but the real issue was reported to be a strategic rapprochement between Riyadh and Moscow for the purpose of diminishing US control over Saudi Arabia and heading off a threatened color revolution stoked by the CIA, while getting Russia to minimize further arms sales to Iran. Any attempt by Saudi Arabia to balance between Washington and Moscow would be enough to make the CIA go berserk, and some of the immediate impulse for the current putsch wave in the Arab world must be sought in these Saudi impulses for greater independence and self-preservation.

Libya, during Putin’s April 2008 visit, signed a deal with Russian Railways to build a 554 km rail line between Benghazi and Sirta worth more than 2 billion euros.

Italy under Prime Minister Berlusconi has been attacked by the CIA in a recent Wikileaks document dump as the Western European country with the closest relations with the Russian Federation and with Prime Minister Putin personally. One concrete manifestation of this close relation with Moscow is the Southstream gas pipeline, which also involves cooperation with Turkey. Southstream will permit Russia to export natural gas towards the Mediterranean region without the need to traverse the rabidly anti-Russian Eastern European NATO states, who have deplorable track record of sabotaging gas deliveries in the course of their endless quarrels with Moscow. The Italian-Russian relationship has also given the Italian state oil company ENI and its subsidiaries a role in the construction of the Nord Stream Baltic gas pipeline between Russia and Germany; these pipeline deals have added several percentage points to the Italian GDP and to some extent cushioned the country against the current world economic depression. The destabilization of Italy for the purpose of ousting Berlusconi is being conducted through a group of runaway state prosecutors in Milan, among them the vindictive Ilda Bocassini, a relic of the defunct Lotta Continua, a Maoist-anarchist organization of the 1970s. Unable to oust Berlusconi through elections or votes of no confidence, the backers of these prosecutors have launched some three dozen prosecutions against him over recent decades, including by tapping his phone — despite the fact that he has been the duly elected prime minister of the country and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

Italy has been extremely skeptical about armed intervention against Libya in recent weeks, partly because it is the country with the most to lose if Libya is destroyed. The motivations of the Berlusconi government in these policies are not so different from the ones that were expressed by Enrico Mattei in the 1950s and by Aldo Moro in the 1970s. It is certain that an Italian government dominated by the post-communists and their neoliberal allies would subordinate Italy to the International Monetary Fund and NATO far more than is the case under Berlusconi and Tremonti. Italian leftists must therefore face the fact that they have been thoroughly duped by the same US-backed destabilization operations which are operative elsewhere in the Mediterranean region.

Germany has also defied the United States and played the Russian card through its decisive role in the building of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, the longest underwater pipeline in the world, which is scheduled to begin deliveries in late 2011. Once Nord Stream comes on line, It will no longer be possible for the demagogic anti-Russian politicians of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Ukraine to manufacture gas delivery crises in Western Europe at will, simply by cutting off gas transit and blaming it on the Russians. This is clearly an important step towards economic rationality and European-Russian cooperation. Behind the scenes, the tradition of German industrial banking seen in von Siemens, Ponto, Herrhausen, and Rohwedder is still alive, and much feared by London and New York.

Afghanistan’s President Karzai has also been playing the Russian card, most notably in his first official visit to Moscow in January 2011, just as the CIA putsch wave was getting under way. Karzai was interested in Russian helicopters, Russian training for his armed forces, and large-scale energy deals.

The Political-Military Mechanisms of Empire in Crisis

In recent years, the US empire has been held together by the threat of color revolutions backed up by the menace of direct military attack. The US fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused the US ruling elite to turn away from military adventurism as their method of choice, at least for the time being; this is the outlook which Defense Secretary Gates, a Brzezinski clone, has been articulating. The Israeli attack on southern Lebanon in the summer of 2006 was also a military failure, largely defeated by new and more effective antitank missiles in the hands of Hezbollah which crippled one armored division out of the five the Israelis possess.

Color revolutions have also not been working as well as expected. The Cedars Revolution in Lebanon in 2005 succeeded in driving out the Syrian forces, but was not enough to seriously damage the superior Hezbollah organization. The attempted Twitter revolution in Iran in June of 2009 also turned out to be a dud because of the effective response of the regime. The Ukrainian Orange Revolution has been completely rolled back and its leading demagogues ousted. The Roses revolution of Georgia has been totally discredited by worldwide awareness that its central figure, President Saakashvili, is an unhinged warmonger and a very oppressive dictator in his own right. The latest attempted color putsches in Belarus and Macedonia have fizzled.

Attempts to Shore Up the Sagging US Greenback

The current wave of destabilization is also designed to shore up the sagging US dollar. After pumping trillions of dollars into the infamous Wall Street bailouts of 2008-2009, the US regime is currently embarked on a policy known as QE II, which means that almost another trillion dollars will be used to prop up speculative financial markets. This glut of dollars sloshing around the markets of the world would normally determine a rapid decline of the dollar, raising the danger that key countries would begin transferring their central bank reserves out of the battered US greenback. One way to prevent this has been the coordinated US attack on the euro, using credit default swaps and other derivatives, and focusing on weak flanks like Greek government bonds, followed by similar assaults on Portugal, Spain, and Ireland. The idea here is that although it may be impossible to make the dollar look good, it is possible to make the euro look very bad, leading central banks and others to stay in the dollar.¹⁰ The strategy of attacking the euro produced an unexpected boomerang event in the form of the May 10 flash crash of the New York stock market, when a computer program for driving down the euro turned out to have the concomitant effect of sinking the Dow Jones average, meaning that it had to be abandoned. China also moved in to buy up European assets at distressed prices, spoiling the effect of the Anglo-American attack. Despite these attacks, the euro has proved surprisingly buoyant, frustrating this entire strategy so far.

Another way to shore up the dollar is by causing a war or at least increased tensions with Iran. The principle here is that every increase in the price of oil generates new artificial demand for dollars, thus counteracting the tendency of the greenback to fall into crisis. If Iran came under attack, it is widely thought that the Iranian response would be to attempt to interfere with the tanker traffic through the Persian Gulf/Arabian Gulf, thus raising the price of oil to $500 a barrel and guaranteeing abundant demand for dollars for many years to come.¹¹ The desired war or confrontation has not materialized so far, although the Anglo Americans have not stopped trying.

Destabilizations in the Middle East and North Africa have so far been reasonably effective in modestly raising the price of oil, which helps the dollar even though it is highly destructive of the US merchandise economy, such as it is. The waves of refugees, many of them in the form of boat people crossing the Mediterranean to flee from chaos in Tunisia, Libya, and possibly Egypt will cause severe social dislocations in countries like Italy, France, Greece, Spain, Malta, and elsewhere. The expense of dealing with these refugees is already increasing tensions inside the European Union, another development which the Anglo Americans are happy to promote.

US Prefers Chaos to Trade and Development

For the CIA, an ideal outcome is one in which the existing nation states are torn apart by regionalism, ethnic strife, warlords, and social breakdown. The State Department has played a leading role in the partition of Sudan. The same fate is obviously being prepared for Yemen. At this point, the US would be happy to divide Libya into Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. Iraq has already been fractured into three parts. According to the Bernard Lewis Plan, Iran could be carved into half a dozen petty states. Turkey and Syria are also slated to be carved and Balkanized. The same goes for Lebanon. The result would be a crazy quilt of squabbling impotent neo-feudal entities, none of which could stand up to J.P. Morgan Chase or Exxon Mobil. Economic life would be governed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, while NATO would provide military coercion.

Parallels to the Failed Revolutions of 1848

In the annals of imperialist destabilization, the current wave of coups and insurrections bears a number of important resemblances to the so-called political upheaval which quickly spread across much of Europe, from Copenhagen to Palermo and from Paris to Budapest, in 1848, touching all countries except Great Britain. As R. R. Palmer wrote in 1950, ” never before or since has Europe seen so truly universal and upheaval as in 1848.” (A History of the Modern World, second edition, pp. 469 ff.) At this time much of Europe was under the control of the reactionary Holy Alliance of the Russian Empire, the Austrian Empire, and the Kingdom of Prussia. The British scorned these empires as the “arbitrary powers,” and the British goal was to break them up for purposes of easier political-military domination, and especially to leave them open to the pernicious British doctrine of free trade and related economic-financial exploitation. The Holy Alliance system was personified by the Austrian Prince Klemens Metternich, who had been the dominant political personality of Central and Eastern Europe since the Congress of Vienna in 1815, where the post-Napoleonic order of Europe had been established.

Naturally, the Holy Alliance of Austria, Russia, and Prussia was a thoroughly oppressive system, with the Austrians maintaining a version of medieval serfdom in places like Galicia, Bohemia, and Hungary, and Prussia relying on serf labor east of the Elbe River. In Russia, serfdom was maintained until 1861. Russia and Prussia were very bad places to live for millions of Poles whose country had been partitioned, and the Austrian Empire contained large disenfranchised minorities of Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Ukrainians, and Italians. Secret police methods were in vogue everywhere.

Gershman: Specter of Jasmine Revolution Haunts Dictators

Carl Gershman, the neo-Trotskyite boss of the US National Endowment for Democracy, and thus one of the leading destabilization operatives of the Obama regime, wrote in the Washington Post of March 12, 2011: “A specter is haunting the world’s remaining dictators – the specter of the Jasmine Revolution.” This is Gershman’s attempted parody of Marx’s Communist Manifesto of January 1848. Gershman argues that the current destabilization’s represent a fourth wave of “democratic expansion,” meaning in practice the subversion of independent states. This terminology is drawn from the sinister Samuel Huntington’s 1991 book, The Third Wave. The title refers to a series of US-backed regime changes in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa between the time of the 1974 “Carnation revolution” in Portugal and the overthrow of the Eastern European communist regimes and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989-1991. For Huntington, the first wave of democracy occurred in the 19^th century, including 1848, and ran out of steam with the coming of fascism during the 1920s. A second wave of so-called democratization was identified by Huntington between 1945 and about 1970. As always with Huntington, this analysis is fraudulent in the extreme, starting with the fact that the vast majority of regimes he classifies as democratic are not democratic at all, but rather represent oligarchical or plutocratic forums of the domination of masses by the wealthy few. This is especially the case for the United States, where the role of Wall Street money in procuring public offices and legislation leaves no doubt as to the oligarchical-plutocratic nature of the regime.

1848 Started in Sicily in January

The stage for the 1848 upheaval was set – just like today — by a severe economic depression, which had broken out in 1847. Events of 1848 got going on January 12 with a rebellion in Sicily seeking independence for the island. Sicily is within sight of Tunisia, and this was the Tunisia of 1848. Naturally, the British Admiralty had long paid close attention to the Mediterranean islands, of which Sicily was one of the most important. But then the insurrection spread rapidly. Barricades went up in Paris on February 22, 1848, and within two days King Louis Philippe, who had been in power since July 1830, abdicated and fled to London. The Second French Republic came into existence. On March 13, 1848 workers and students started an insurrection in Vienna, the capital of the Austrian Empire, and soon invaded the Imperial Palace. The Austrian regime became hysterically disoriented, and Prince Metternich absconded in disguise, also to London. On March 15, rioting began in Berlin, where King Frederick William IV immediately promised a written constitution. The governments of most of the other 37 German states also quickly collapsed. Also on March 15, the Hungarian assembly declared its total separation from Austria, although the Habsburg Emperor was still kept as head of state. Bohemia demanded the same status a few days later. In Milan, Italy, the richest city of Austrian Empire, the revolt began on March 18 and by March 22 the Austrian garrison had been ejected. Venice declared its return to the status of an independent republic. The grand Duke of Tuscany was toppled by revolt. King Charles Albert of Sardinia, the only independent Italian state, declared war on Austria on March 23 with the intent of adding Milan and Venice to his realms, although this attempt to begin Italian unification would be defeated by military means.

This series of events was much more dramatic, more rapid, and more breathtakingly stunning for contemporary observers then the events in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and Libya we have seen since the beginning of 2011. The flight of Louis-Philippe and Metternich amounted to much more than the ouster of Ben Ali and Mubarak, since France and Austria were among the five great powers of Europe. The events of 1848 also exceeded in geographic scope the fall of the Communist regimes of Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Romania in the summer and autumn of 1989.

As Palmer summed it up: “In the brief span of these phenomenal March days, the whole structure based on Vienna went to pieces: the Austrian Empire had fallen into its main components, Prussia had yielded to revolutionaries, all Germany was preparing to unify itself, and war raged in Italy. Everywhere constitutions had been wildly promised by stupefied governments, constitutional assemblies were meeting, and independent or autonomous nations struggled into existence.” (Palmer, p. 480)

Egypt and Tunisia: Palace Coups Camouflaged by Street Demonstrations, Not Revolutions

The rapid march of rebellion across Europe shocked, stunned, and temporarily paralyzed existing governments, but did not definitively defeat them or break their power, since institutions and especially armies remained intact. This points to the superficiality of the alleged revolutions in 2011 in places like Tunisia and Egypt, which are really more like palace coups conducted behind the scenes by bureaucrats and generals, accompanied by some street demonstrations; in neither Tunis nor Cairo have the existing political institutions or governing system been altered. At most, some personalities at the top have been changed, but little more. Revolutions are different; they destroy old institutions (slavery, foreign protectorates, monarchies, feudalism, serfdom, the IMF, NATO) and create new ones.

1848: The Revolutions that Misfired

By June of 1848, the tide was beginning to turn. Social revolutionaries and republicans began to quarrel among themselves in Paris. The Second French Republic, with the help of the brutal General Cavaignac, crushed the National Workshops of the social republicans in the June Days of June 24-26, 1848. For a time it looked like France was headed for a military dictatorship under General Cavaignac, but Louis Napoleon, a descendent of the Emperor who had become a political adventurer and putschist in the service of Britain’s Lord Palmerston, soon emerged with the support of pro-British Freemasonic networks. Louis Napoleon was elected president of France by a wide margin in December 1848, and by December 2, 1851 he had abolished the parliament in a coup d’état. In London, Lord Palmerston rushed so quickly to grant full diplomatic recognition to Louis Napoleon’s new regime that he offended Queen Victoria, who was of course a monarchist. In a plebiscite on December 20, 1851, Louis Napoleon was made president for 10 years, but within a year he had proclaimed France again an empire and himself the Emperor Napoleon III.

Napoleon III functioned as a satrap of the British Empire in Continental Europe, providing troops for the British Crimean War against Russia, and later invading Mexico as part of the attempted British envelopment of the United States during the American Civil War. He also invaded Indo-China. His regime displayed a number of characteristics that would become associated with fascism in the 20^th century. Such were the bitter fruits of the vague slogans and enthusiasm of 1848.

Mopping Up: Cavaignac, Windischgrätz, and Radetzky

What General Cavaignac did in Paris was accomplished in the Austrian Empire by two key military figures. Prague was bombarded and subdued by General Windischgrätz, who dispersed a Pan-Slav Congress that was meeting there. Windischgrätz soon went on to Vienna and put an end to the new regime there on October 31, 1848.

South of the Alps, a similar role was played by Marshal Radtezky, who defeated the Sardinians in the battles of Custozza and Novara, and violently subdued Milan, bringing Lombardy and Venetia back into the Austrian Empire.

In Hungary, where the Magyar landlords were resented by the Slovaks, Romanians, Germans, Serbs, and Croats, these minorities found an effective leader in the person of the Ban (or viceroy) of Croatia, Jellachich, and was supported by Austrian Chancellor Schwarzenberg in the name of the Habsburg Emperor. Eventually, the Vienna government invited 100,000 Russian troops to crush the rebellion in Hungary according to the provisions of the Congress of Vienna, which was accomplished by August 1849. This offers parallels to the entry of Saudi and UAE forces into Bahrain on March 14, 2011, allegedly to restore order. This suggests that the Gulf Cooperation Council, made up of the Arab Gulf states, has become a kind of new Holy Alliance, eerily similar to the old one in that its purpose is the rigid defense of absolute monarchy against reforms of any kind.

Egypt’s Field Marshal Tantawi may end up as the Cavaignac of Cairo this time around, pushed aside by some more capable adventurer. Some of Qaddafi’s sons, or some of the Libyan army commanders, are already on their way to being the Windischgrätz or the Radetzky of the Libyan insurrection.

The last flareup of the 1848 revolutions started with November 1848 assassination of Pellegrino Rossi, who had been appointed prime minister of the papal states by the reformer Pope Pius IX. The assassin was the son of a certain Ciceruacchio of Trastevere, an agent of Britain’s Lord Minto and thus of Palmerston. (There may be some modern Ciceruacchios working for NATO and gunning for Karzai, Maliki, and various Pakistani leaders, to name just a few.) On November 24, 1848 Pius IX fled in disguise to Naples, and a Roman Republic was proclaimed by Mazzini and Garibaldi. Mazzini was driven out on July 3, 1849 by a French army sent by Louis Napoleon, which was destined to stay in Rome for the next 20 years.

In Germany, the Frankfurt Assembly was unable to agree on a workable plan for national unification. It finally urged the King of Prussia to become the constitutional sovereign of a united Germany. Frederick William IV rejected the offer, saying he could not “pick up a crown from the gutter.” Soon Prussian troops dispersed the Frankfurt Assembly, and a new era of authoritarianism was consolidated.

Formal Democracy and Civil Liberties Only, or Economic and Social Rights as Well

The typical demands of the 1848 revolutions were very similar to the so-called democracy slogans being raised across the Arab world today. Agitators demanded constitutional government, the independence and unification of national groups, representative assemblies, the right to vote, restrictions on the police and secret police, trial by jury, civil liberties, freedom of the press and other media, and the right to assemble and demonstrate. As the French 1848 story shows, there was a potentially violent contradiction between an exclusive commitment to these formal democratic demands on the one hand, and the additional demands of working people for economic rights on the other. Today, there is a potentially violent contradiction between the affluent golden youth who are concerned with Internet freedom but fundamentally believe in neoliberal-monetarist financial globalization with free trade and private central banks as the basis of their personal prosperity on the one hand, and working people who are interested in more robust food and fuel subsidies, higher minimum wages, labor legislation, a crackdown on foreign monopolies and cartels, trade union rights, the maintenance of a state sector, and other limitations of the mythical “free market,” on the other.

The Role of the Mazzini Networks in Detonating 1848

As Palmer noted about 1848, “contemporaries sometimes attributed the universality of the phenomenon to the machinations of secret societies….” (Palmer, p. 470) The secret societies in question are first of all those of the Italian pseudo-revolutionary provocateur Giuseppe Mazzini, an agent of the British Admiralty. Mazzini had created a network of ultranationalist or cut-throat nationalist clandestine and semi-clandestine subversive groups in many countries with names like Young Italy, Young Germany (where Karl Marx’s future sidekick Frederick Engels was a member), Young France, Young Poland, and Young America. Young America was favorable to slavery and southern secessionism, and future US President Franklin Pierce had been close to this group. Young England became supporters of Tory Prime Minister Disraeli. Revolutionary leaders like Louis Kossuth of Hungary and Ledru-Roland of France were part of the Mazzini orbit. The Austrian view of Mazzini was that he was used by the British to make Italy turbulent and rebellious, which would be bad for Vienna, without making Italy strong and unified, which would be a threat to London. This is a good summary of the destabilization method used by the Mazzini networks in numerous countries, and by the NED today.

In addition to Mazzini’s radical republicans, the British also fostered a smaller but growing tendency of social republicans, typified by at the beginning of 1848 by Louis Blanc and his National Workshops, which attempted an insurrection against the regime of more moderate Republicans in Paris in June of 1848 – an event which has been celebrated by true believers in the mythology of revolution as the dawn of proletarian violence, and which evoked a violent right-wing reaction across the rest of France. In the course of 1848 we also have the emergence of the German Communist League of Karl Marx and Young Germany alumnus Friedrich Engels, whose Communist Manifesto appeared at the beginning of the year. Communism was not the leading force of 1848, but it spread rapidly in the climate of destabilization. Marx later operated in London for several decades under British auspices, working closely with former UK Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire David Urquhart.

A third prong of the British ideological influence on the 1848 events was the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, whose radicalized followers would become hard-core terrorists in the service of British intelligence against progressive reformers, including Czar Alexander II, in the coming years.

From Mazzini to Gershman and Gene Sharp

Mazzini, Marx, and Bakunin can be compared to Wikileaks, the nihilists Julian Assange and Ghonim of Google, Gershman, color revolution theorist Gene Sharp of the Albert Einstein Institute, Joseph Nye of the US soft power group, and similar figures. Lord Palmerston of England corresponds to Samantha Power and Cass Sunstein of the Obama White House. The Mazzini networks represented the 19^thcentury equivalent of the CIA, MI-6, the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, and the many nongovernmental organizations and foundations financed by the privatized Anglo-American intelligence community.

The 1848 revolutions made little progress in bringing lasting parliamentary rule to continental Europe, with the main partial exceptions being the Sardinian statuto or constitution and the Prussian constitution of 1850, which had three classes of property qualifications but was still more broadly based than the British system at that time. They did succeed in ending serfdom everywhere but in Russia.

Post-1848: The End of Revolutionary Romantic Illusions and the Growth of Realism

The the post-2001 millennial youth bulge, including the naïve and well-meaning young people of in the Arab world and beyond, like the youth generation of 1848, are largely under the influence of a half-baked revolutionary romanticism which contains distant echoes of the snake oil purveyed by Lord Byron, Mazzini and their ilk. The rank and file youth activists of Tahrir Square typically offered generic slogans about freedom, democracy, human rights, civil liberties, and freedom of expression. They insisted on Egyptian national pride, the unity of army and people (a typical Bonapartist theme) and claimed that they were making a revolution on their own, oblivious to the hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the project by MI-6, CIA, NED, and the NGOs. For some, Assange was an ego ideal; for others, it might be the unlikely Ghonim. The pathos of these young people was that they were dupes, acting as the walk-ons, extras, and props required as television window-dressing for a CIA script starring Tantawi and a military junta, with IMF villains like el Baradei and Amr Moussa waiting offstage. Clearly, these young people are headed for a letdown of massive disillusionment, out of which a form of sadder but wiser enlightenment might emerge.

The Ideological Hangover after 1848: Cynicism, Tough Mindedness, Power Politics

The years after the failed 1848 revolutions are described in terms of a “new toughness of mind,” featuring cynicism, sober realism, and ruthless pragmatism. Since many of the defeated revolutionary romantics were incapable of discovering the higher historical morality of progressive human development, many opted for a reductionism in which morality was reduced to the rationalization of interests. The connotation of idealism changed from vaguely positive to decidedly negative. Sentimentalism also acquired negative overtones. The arid positivism of Auguste Comte took hold in France, with the brutal cynic Arthur Schopenhauer coming to the fore in Germany. People began to worship power. The so-called post-1848 Realpolitik or power politics was summed up by Prussian Chancellor Bismarck in 1862 with his famous speech asserting that “The great questions of the age will not be resolved by speeches and majority votes – therein lay the great mistake of 1848 and 1849 – but by blood and iron.”

Qaddafi’s Key Blocking Position vs. the Imperialists

In the current crisis, one rule of thumb is that any nation state should be regarded as an actual or potential positive force. The best policy is to work with existing governments rather than trying to smash them, no matter what their defects may be. A state is better than the chaos and anarchy of no state at all. Cliques of subversive generals and bureaucrats bribed by the CIA, backed up by crazed mobs of Facebook devotees thrown into a frenzy of Oedipal hatred against this or that leader, have little to recommend them.
Mubarak capitulated and fell from power, but the more ruthless Qaddafi shows every indication of successfully defending his regime. A defeat of the destabilization of Libya would represent a severe rebuff for the US-UK spooks. As Shashkov notes, “For years the US administrations dreamed of getting rid of Muammar Gaddafi, but each time this charismatic and independent leader somehow manages to outwit the Americans. And thus Gaddafi saved other Arab leaders, who were next in the line, so to speak.”¹²

Stalingrad of the CIA before Ras Lanouf

Lorenzo Cremonesi, reporting from Libya for the Milan Corriere della Sera, observed in a radio report that the defeat of the anti-Qaddafi rebels at Ras Lanouf on March 10, 2011 represented their Stalingrad. Diehl of the Washington Post sees Qaddafi’s successful defense as a turning point – a Thermidor like the Paris 1848 June Days, but already in mid-March. Diehl writes: ‘…Moammar Gaddafi — who has set Libya ablaze — has become so important…. Gaddafi’s scorched-earth campaign to save himself has not only stopped and partially reversed the advance of rebel forces on Tripoli during the past two weeks; it has done the same to the broader push for Arab democracy. If he survives, the virus of repressive bloodshed and unyielding autocracy could flow back through the region. Maybe it already has…. Pro-democracy forces outside of Egypt and Tunisia have stalled. Algeria and Morocco have gone quiet. In Saudi Arabia on Friday, a “day of anger” advertised for weeks on Facebook failed to produce a significant turnout. And there has been no sign of rebellion in the Arab country whose dictatorship rivals Gaddafi’s for ruthlessness: Syria.’¹³

Diehl even sees the potential for autocratic restorations, of which there were any number in 1848-49, from Paris to Rome to Berlin to Vienna: ‘The obvious follow-up question: In a Middle East where one dictator is slaughtering his way to at least temporary safety, what might the remains of Egypt’s autocracy be tempted to do if the country’s disorder grows? The country’s new reformist prime minister, Essam Sharaf, clearly has been thinking about this: Last week he warned that an “organized, methodical counter-revolution” was already underway.’¹⁴ Could Mubarak, Ben Ali, or their dynasties be restored? What a humiliation for Obama and Panetta if they were!

The arch-destabilizer Gershman complains that ‘Qaddafi’s survival would signal to autocrats that violent resistance is the wisest path. This would shift the momentum in the Middle East and greatly spur the new backlash.”¹⁵ If the wily Libyan desert fox survives, the entire CIA theory of mob rule will be discredited. For Qaddafi is a disciple not of Gene Sharp, but of the Porfirio Diaz doctrine of “Shoot ‘em red-handed.” A cynical post-1848-style conclusion drawn by some autocrats might be that it is better to disperse the mob when it gathers in the public square to start a color revolution, rather than being concerned about public opinion in Europe and the United States, since western public opinion will be hostile anyway, thanks to the Wall Street media.

Chaos in Egypt?

Egypt, where Moslem attacks on the Coptic Christian minority have already broken out, and where the police are growing more violent against the remaining demonstrators, appears headed either for military dictatorship, or for chaos. As Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post noted, ‘some Egyptians think the country is dangerously close to unraveling. “We may never get to the presidential election,” said one well-informed source…. The economy, he said, remains stopped; the government may soon run out of cash to pay salaries. Authority of all kinds is crumbling: Factory managers and union leaders are being challenged by their rank and file, and police have largely disappeared from the streets.’¹⁶ But in this case, Egypt might be too weak and chaotic to make deals with Iran.
One of the best outcomes for Egypt would be the emergence of a new generation of nationalist colonels who are disgusted by the treachery of US stooges like Field Marshal Tantawi and General Enan, and who would like to return to the traditions of President Nasser, who defied the imperialists by nationalizing the Suez Canal and by building the Aswan High Dam, without which modern Egypt could not exist.

Hopefully, the young rank and file veterans of these failed insurrections will also be able to learn some deeper truths out of their experience of having been duped. A friend of mine from the Philippines has explained at length his own process of growing political awareness after having supported the overthrow of the strong nationalist President Marcos through the 1986 US-backed oligarchical coup whose figurehead was the weak and vapid oligarch Cory Aquino. This was the so-called EDSA agitation in Manila, which set back the economic development of the Philippines, lowered the standard of living, increased political instability, and undermined national independence in favor of a gaggle of parasitic compradors. Such experiences are painful and deplorable, but can also contribute to the formation of capable political activists – real cadres and mass leaders.

Beyond Nihilism

If 2011 plays out according to the model of 1848, as now seems increasingly likely, an entire generation of well-meaning revolutionary romantics who had fallen momentarily under the spell of nihilists like Gershman, Assange and Ghonim may wake up to the fact that revolutionary class struggle is a serious business requiring above all two things — program and organization. Program is concerned in the modern age just as much with economics as with political or process reforms. Economic program must aim at freeing the developing countries from the deadly shackles of IMF financial globalization, opening the door instead to national independence, full employment, rising standards of living, improved longevity, and general upgrading of science, technology, industry, and agriculture. Organization is the indispensable vehicle for being able to intervene in mass political upsurges and prevent them from being hijacked by foreign agents and scoundrels like the Libyan rebel council, Field Marshal Tantawi, el Baradei, or Amr Moussa of Egypt.

In short, the aftermath of the 2011 putsch wave may include, if we are lucky, a younger generation which has understood that relying solely on vague slogans about freedom, democracy, and human rights – plus hatred of somebody like Ben Ali or Mubarak — leaves a popular movement adrift and defenseless against well-organized imperialist operatives who seek to use such a movement as a mere taxi to get where they want to go.

The British as the Winners of 1848

The British, who had been close to a revolution themselves in 1830, were the major beneficiaries of the 1848 events. France came under the control of a British asset. Austria lost its most prominent leader and was permanently weakened. Russia was set up to be attacked by Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire in 1853-56, and Russia’s repression of an incipient revolt in Poland in 1848 planted seeds of hatred and resentment which were to explode in the Polish insurrection of 1863. 1848 diminished the continental threat to Britain and allowed London to proceed to the bloody repression of the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 in India, followed by the Third Opium War against China in 1860. Most important, the British were able to obtain collaboration and support from France, Spain, and Austria for their attempted encirclement of the United States, timed to coincide with the British encouragement of the secessionist Confederate States of America. This is the sort of outcome the Gershmans of today are hoping for — all fall down, and the US is left standing. But it looks like they might be disappointed.

The years after 1848 thus represented the absolute high water mark of the worldwide power of the British Empire, a period of grave danger of universal colonial empire over the entire planet which receded only with Lincoln’s victory over the Confederate States of America at Appomattox in 1865, followed by Bismarck’s successful unification of Germany in 1871, with British puppet Napoleon III being toppled in the process.

Empire is Bad for the American People

The rebirth of labor ferment, popular agitation, and class defense struggles by working people in the United States, as typified by the resistance against reactionary Republican union-busting governors and their scurrilous “Tea Party” allies in such states as Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and others, holds out the possibility that the divestiture of an imperial role in the world can be accompanied by heavy-duty, anti-Wall Street modernizing reforms along the lines of a second New Deal which would leave the United States far stronger and more prosperous than it is today. The modernizing 1920s reforms of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk were able to create a strong and progressive Turkish state amid the general shipwreck of the old and untenable Ottoman Empire. General Charles de Gaulle was able to forge a more powerful, stable, and prosperous France in the aftermath of the French colonial empire in Indochina and Algeria. Americans need to learn that empire is bad for them, since it is empire that brings high unemployment, declining standards of living, reactionary domination, the merciless exploitation of working people, and the growing barbarism of social life – as well as endless wars and endless casualty lists.

The August Coup in Moscow in August 1991 marked the beginning of the end of the USSR as an empire. The current putsch wave may well mark the beginning of the end for the current Anglo-American imperial congeries.

A Distant Mirror: the Roman Military Anarchy of 235-284 AD

Today, the US and British ruling elites hope that the ongoing universal assault on the nation-state, including Russia, China, India, Turkey, Brazil, Indonesia, and Iran, can allow indefinite prolongation of Anglo-American world supremacy as a world system based on the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization, with NATO serving as the main military enforcement arm. Today’s crisis of the Anglo-American world empire is comparable in some ways to the Roman Empire’s Imperial Crisis or Military Anarchy of 235-284 AD. A reprieve for such an exhausted empire, similar to the late Roman revival from the Diocletian reforms after 284 AD to the final collapse in 476 AD, followed by the Dark Ages, would spell an end to meaningful scientific, technological, and economic development and social progress worldwide. It would mean a descent into the barbarism and neo-feudalism of warlords and petty states. This is why it is imperative that the existing nation-states, despite their many obvious flaws, be defended, and the waves of destabilization beaten back.

---

References:

¹ “Historian warns of sudden collapse of American ‘empire,’”
by Brent Gardner-Smith, Aspen Daily News,
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/141349

² http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/13/libya-oil-idUSLDE72C0OT20110313

³ Sergei Shaskov, The theory of ‘manageable chaos’ put into practice,” at http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/03/01/the-theory-of-manageable-chaos-put-into-practice.html⁴ See Webster G. Tarpley, “Mubarak Toppled by CIA Because He Opposed US Plans for War with Iran; US Eyes Seizure of Suez Canal; Was this the Threat that Forced Mubarak to Quit?”,
http://tarpley.net/2011/02/18/mubarak-toppled-by-cia-because-he-opposed-us-plans-for-war-with-iran/⁵ “Bahrain says it will not be used as launch pad to attack Iran,” athttp://www.mofa.gov.bh/Default.aspx?tabid=1037&language=en-US⁶http://currencynewshound.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/muqtada-al-sadr-frustrates-allawi-plot-to-topple-al-maliki/⁷ http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=66484⁸http://www.defence.pk/20110210/jf-17-program-continues-grow/⁹http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/102313.html¹⁰ Webster G. Tarpley, “Financial Warfare Exposed: Soros, Goldman Sachs, Hedge Funds Attack Greece to Smash Euro,” athttp://tarpley.net/2010/03/04/financial-warfare-exposed-soros-goldman-sachs-hedge-funds-attack-greece-to-smash-euro/¹¹ Webster G. Tarpley, “Obama is Preparing to Bomb Iran,” athttp://tarpley.net/2010/07/22/obama-preparing-to-bomb-iran/¹² http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/03/01/the-theory-of-manageable-chaos-put-into-practice.html¹³ Jackson Diehl, “Libya’s domino effect: If Gaddafi survives, will he crush the Arab Spring?”, Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, March 13, 2011.¹⁴ Jackson Diehl, “Libya’s domino effect: If Gaddafi survives, will he crush the Arab Spring?”, Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, March 13, 2011.¹⁵ Washington Post, March 12, 2011.¹⁶Jackson Diehl, “Libya’s domino effect: If Gaddafi survives, will he crush the Arab Spring?”, Jackson Diehl,Washington Post, March 13, 2011.

 

Ban: Libya a warning to All Mideast authoritarians (except for Saudi Arabia)

[The United Nations is a sick joke that has only grown more obscene over time.  The hidden agenda of the UN is more than apparent in the continuing double-standards concerning anyone in "Club USA," and the rest of the world.  If you are in the club than you can do anything to anybody you want and the world press will not utter a line in protest.  If you are not in the club, then anything that the good old USA does to you is nobody's concern.  UN Sec. Gen. Moon is a fucking hypocrite, issuing a warning to Mideast authoritarians, which doesn't apply to the worst "authoritarians" of them all, the House of Saud.   The United Nations is a stinking tool of global fascists hell-bent on bringing all of the world under the umbrella of the American dictatorship.  The UN's sole purpose is to underwrite American aggression on the rest of the world, under the guise of humanitarianism.

Bombing the hell out of all Libyans who oppose the American-created "rebel forces" is an extremely "humanitarian" gesture.  Humanity has been given a common cause--defeat the enemies of the new "American Reich."

The "Fourth Reich" is fully "MADE IN AMERICA."  Good luck, when the rest of you assholes supporting this latest aggression wake-up and hear the fists of the "New Order" banging upon your door.  As you are handcuffed, hooded and beaten senseless, before being dragged-off into the night, amid the muffled screams of your family, whom you will probably never see again, think of how you supported the parade to bomb Libya and to wipe-out most of the Muslim world.]

Libya a warning to Mideast authoritarians: Ban

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (L) holds a joint press conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Nabil al-Arabi (AFP PHOTO/KHALED DESOUKI)

CAIRO: The Libya war and revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia should be a warning to authoritarian leaders in the Middle East and North Africa still ordering forces to shoot demonstrators, UN chief Ban Ki-moon said.

Ban, who has castigated the king of Bahrain and strongly condemned the repression of demonstrations in Yemen and Syria in recent days, told AFP as he began a trip to Egypt and Tunisia on Monday that other nations have a duty to speak out.

“It is clear that a wind of change is sweeping this region,” he said in an interview.

“The international community, while we closely follow the situation, has a responsibility to help those people, so that leaders could hear clearly and sincerely the voices of the people, their aspirations.”

The UN secretary general said leaders in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria must have seen the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and now Libya where Muammer al-Gaddafi’s brutal crackdown led to UN-sanctioned military strikes.

“We are living in an era of globalisation and communications, so they must have been following and they must have been listening to what the international community expects them to do,” Ban said.

“I have been talking to all the leaders in the region, all the leaders without exception, every day, urging them to take bold reform measures that respect the will of their people and ensure freedom of speech.”

In Syria, security forces have shot and killed several demonstrators in the southern town of Deraa. Ban last week called for “genuine reforms, not repression.”

In the Yemeni capital Sanaa, more than 50 demonstrators have been killed.

The UN chief condemned the government and on Sunday said he doubted that President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s decision to sack the government would calm the population.

Ban spoke with the Bahrain’s monarch, King Hamad, last week to highlight his “deepest concern over reports of excessive and indiscriminate use of force by security forces and police in Bahrain.”

He warned that their actions could breach international humanitarian law.

The Arab League was instrumental in getting the UN Security Council to pass Resolution 1973 last week which approved military action against Gaddafi.

Ban has called the resolution “historic” because it “affirms unequivocally, the international community’s determination to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated upon them by their own government.”

Leaders have a duty to maintain order, Ban told AFP. “But in doing that they must exercise maximum restraint and caution, fully respecting human rights. I will continue to speak out.”

Ban is starting his tour with meetings with the Egyptian military and interim government on the dramatic changes since the fall in February of Hosni Mubarak.

He will hold similar meetings in Tunisia which set off the Arab revolution.

Egypt faced a new decisive moment with Saturday’s referendum on a new constitution.

“Leaders have a responsibility to sincerely and authentically listen to the voices and aspirations of the people and take broad-based measures” with the opposition, civic groups, youth leaders “and particularly women leaders,” Ban said.

“This is a quite historic moment, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to see the progress of democratisation, fuller democracy.”

Ban said he would discuss possible UN assistance in electoral processes, constitution drafting, and social and economic development, during his stay in Cairo and Tunis.

He said he would also meet opposition leaders and civic groups. “Then I will try to say what I have heard, what I have seen, what I believe the United Nations can do.”

- AFP/fa

WWIII: One Nation at a Time

The globalists are infiltrating, corrupting, and turning the entire planet, one nation at a time in a combined scientific-geopolitical dictatorship that will be effectively impossible to reverse once it is completed. The latest Western-fueled conflagration in the Arab world indicates an accelerated regional strategy of destabilizing and taking over target nations. Nations like Russia and China, whose interests are being directly threatened and stripped away in this malicious melee, appear powerless and unprepared. Some nations succumb in silence behind the scenes, others are invaded, mercilessly brutalized, and assimilated into the globalist combine. The civil society overlay the globalists use to establish what amounts to a subversive shadow government is always creeping forward no matter how hard a target nation may try to ward it off. Only in the most extreme cases, such as Qaddafi’s Libya has civil society been uprooted entirely – making military intervention an acceptable and inevitable alternative from a globalist perspective. Indeed there is a battle raging between the corporate-financier oligarchs of New York and London and their ever growing collection of globalist stooges and vassal states worldwide against the rest of free humanity. Each nation that falls to the globalists, however far from our own shores it may be, empowers and emboldens them and is one nation closer to their ultimate goal of one world government. They have created a perfect system, a strategy of tension, where we wrestle with one battle after another, work to head-off one war after another, expose meddling and subversion in one nation after another all while their agenda moves ever forward. We all to one degree or another help advance the globalists’ strategy of tension by playing into these contrived crises and by failing to focus on the source of our torment. The alternative media has made gains in exposing and delegitimizing the “international community” however, we must understand that the myriad of pet agendas we keep and nurture are in many ways dividing and distracting us – playing directly into the globalists’ theatrical productions. The tragedy playing out between the duped and misled people of Israel and the besieged Palestinians is an example of where the globalists have created the perfect, unsolvable conflict from which they can perpetually wring out leverage to advance their agenda. The very fake “War on Terror” is another example. We get caught up in the details, we pick sides, we expend energy fighting these battles and we lose sight within this puppet theater of the men pulling the strings above. We become blinded and cannot understand the necessity of leaving the puppets behind, climbing up above the stage and throttling the puppet masters themselves. We must recall how these corporate-financier oligarchs got so much unwarranted power in the first place – by controlling and regulating our lives from far above. They got it by us paying into their corrupt system for generations, as we’ve traded personal responsibilities in for corporate ready-made convenience. They will keep their power as long as we keep paying into their system, kidding ourselves that if we dance with their puppets long enough we will become the masters. While activism, protesting, and campaigning is noble indeed, it is entirely futile until you identify and target the very source of your torment. In every case, be it Israel’s conflict with the Palestinians, the unending “War on Terror,” starving children, or even the bungling response of the “international community” over the disaster emanating from Japan’s Fukushima prefecture, the source of torment is the same: the unwarranted power wielded by myopically obsessed megalomaniacs, leveraging and squandering that power to enrich themselves at the cost of the rest of humanity. We cannot depend on Russia, China, the other BRIC nations, or rouge nations like Iran to stand up against this expanding evil empire. In many ways they play directly into the strategy of tension themselves and run a similar risk of being folded in if their own people do not make this fundamental realization. The answer is to undermine this unwarranted power by no longer paying into their system through a full-spectrum boycott and the systematic replacement of the globalist corporate combines with local solutions. We need not pen lengthy manifestos or declare in lofty terms our independence, we simply must begin taking the reins of our own destiny back by identifying how horrifyingly dependent we are on the globalists and rectifying it day to day by how we spend our money, time, and energy. As a cloud of radioactive fallout blows seaward from Japan, as the Middle East convulses in engineered destabilization, as oil and food prices are manipulated by Wall Street speculators, the excuse of it being “too difficult” to boycott and replace the comfort and convenience offered to us by the corporate-financier oligarchs is beginning to ring rather hollow. Your life and the future of humanity depends on boycotting and replacing the globalists – World War III has already begun and is consuming the world one nation at a time. We literally have nothing to lose by boycotting and replacing the globalists besides our servile dependence on their system. We will find, no matter what our pet agenda is, usurping this unwarranted authority from the global elite will infinitely advance our cause. For our various agendas are addressing but puppets upon the globalists’ stage, and by boycotting their system and excising them from our daily lives, we climb up above the theater and throttle the puppet masters themselves.

U.N. Human Rights Council Slams US State Terrorism, Citing 228 Incidences of Human Rights Abuse

US blamed for poor human rights record at UN

Several nations demanded that the US carry out thorough investigations into alleged human rights abuses and publish the results

The United States was attacked for its human rights record on Friday at UN, as several nations slammed its failure to close Guantanamo Bay and its decision to maintain military trials for terror suspects.

The Obama administration, which two years ago joined the U.N. Human Rights Council shunned by the Bush White House, was in the dock at the Geneva forum, whose 47 member completed an examination of the U.S. record begun last November.

“The U.S. must close its secret prisons and Guantanamo Bay prison, stop human rights violations by its military forces abroad, bring to justice those responsible for war crimes and massacres against civilians as well as acts of torture carried out in U.S.-controlled prisons,” Iran’s envoy Seyed Mohammad Reza Sajjadi said.

Russia urged Washington to consider imposing a moratorium on the death penalty, while China called for it to investigate fully U.S. killings of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The U.S. delegation was scathing in its defence.

“Today’s session culminates a process that the United States has approached with great seriousness of purpose from the moment we joined the Council in 2009,” Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser at the U.S. State Department, told the forum.

“We seek to focus on substance, matters that have their basis in universal human rights. We do not allow political provocations of some to undermine the credibility of the process as a whole,” added Koh, who led the U.S. delegation.

The U.S. delegation was responding formally on Friday to the 228 recommendations made by other states, rejecting many, but saying it had made great strides in civil rights and criminal justice. It said it would not tolerate torture of detainees in its custody.

The U.S. administration had carefully evaluated recommendations and was obliged to followed democratic processes to address underlying issues, according to Koh. “We urge all states who are here, including some of those who have criticised us, to hold yourselves to the same standard,” he said.

There are still 172 detainees at Guantanamo. About three dozen were set for prosecution in either U.S. criminal courts or military commissions. There were 242 detainess when Obama took office, promising to close it down. Many have been held there for more than nine years.

But Obama’s promise has foundered on political opposition. Earlier this month he lifted a two-year freeze on new military trials at Guantanamo Bay earlier this month, drawing criticism from human rights groups.

“The message from the international community is clear, impunity for torture and abuse, indefinite detention and unfair military trials at Guantanamo are unacceptable,” Jamil Dakwar of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) told Reuters.

“The Obama administration should heed calls and ensure that the Department of Justice criminal investigation includes all senior civilian and military government officials who authorised and facilitated torture and abuse including former President Bush,” he said.

Reuters

Immoral, Murderous Drone Strike Motivates Tribal Non-Combatants to Join the Anti-US Jihad

[First we see the American drone murder of five Waziri tribal leaders near Wana, now we learn of the attack upon a tribal jirga in Miramshah.  In both cases, non-combatant tribal leaders were meeting, exercising tribal democracy, when Hellfire missiles blew the assemblies apart.  It is part of the pattern that has long been established in this war--Americans attack peaceful tribals because they are peaceful.  No deals with the Pak Army are acceptable to the NATO powers.  If the Army gains the cooperation of any major tribe in the region, American missiles soon follow.  When Pakistan surrendered Davis, it surrendered its sole opportunity to challenge the American-dictated status quo--that the Americans could tell the Pak Army and the Pak govt what to do and then back-up their words with air power or their network of subversives throughout Pakistan (some, or all of them called "Taliban").  The US wants every able-bodied male in Pakistan's tribal region (perhaps in the entire country) to take-up arms and fight back.  If this were to happen, it would justify any imaginable military action in "self-defense" against them.

The Army has long known all of this; it is just now becoming apparent to the rest of us.  If the Army does not let the US run all over them, then the US imperialists will simply use more force.  No matter what your leaders say to reassure you, Pakistan, the US Special Forces, with all of the air cover in the world, is coming to your neighborhood very soon.  Your greatest dilemma is, do we take up arms against this advance before, or after it becomes a "fait accompli"?  Taking-up arms in holy war now, will exhaust whatever remains of hope for finding common cause in pursuit of some kind of peace.

My point is this:  If you give-in to the impulse to react violently to American violence, then you only quicken the day when American forces will be free to use ALL of their violence.  The Pak Army had an ace-in-the-hole with Davis, which it threw away for a few more empty Saudi and American promises.  It might not be too late, yet, to democratically turn the tide in Pakistan's favor, but that will require hands that are holding signs, instead of guns.  There must be some honest leader left in Pakistan, who has not yet sold his sole to the devil.  Someone must stand-up for whatever remains of Jinnah's Pakistan.

All of you must stand-up together and demand of whatever passes for a govt, that it do the right thing, for once.  Doing the right thing requires leadership, standing out in the front, forming the words that must be spoken, if Pakistan is to remain as a country.]

North Waziristan drone strike: Tribesmen vow ‘jihad’ against US

Bureau Report | From the Newspaper

Pakistani tribal elder Malik Jalal, centre, flanked by newsmen addresses a news conference to condemn the recent US drone attack in North Waziristan which killed over 40 people, March 18, 2011 in Peshawar. — Photo by AP

PESHAWAR, March 18: Reacting to the deadly drone attack on a traditional jirga in North Waziristan Agency that killed 40 civilians, the tribal elders on Friday announced waging jihad (holy war) against the US and its allies.

Speaking during a hurriedly called press conference at the Peshawar Press Club, head of the North Waziristan Peace Committee Malik Jalal Sarhadi Wazir describedThursday’s drone attack as a barbaric and inhuman act against innocent people. He urged the tribesmen to stand up against the atrocities of US and its stooges, who had been indulging in the worst form of human rights violation.

“We have allowed our youth to carry out suicide attacks on Americans and we will show to the world how to take revenge for the atrocities on our tribesmen,” the tribal elder said and added that they were now compelled to wage jihad against the US and its agents sitting in the country.

Rejecting reports about the presence of al Qaeda and Taliban in Fata, Mr Wazir said that there was no safe haven for militants in the tribal areas of Pakistan. He said that the American administration itself had endorsed the presence of about 70 per cent al Qaeda top leadership in Afghanistan.

He said that several missiles were fired from drones on a peace jirga in Datta Khel, North Waziristan, on Thursday, killing 40 innocent civilians and injuring 50 others.

“We will take revenge from the US and its allies as our people are mourning everywhere in the entire Waziristan due to the attack,” the tribal elder said. He also criticised the coalition government and termed it equally responsible for the bloodshed in parts of the country.

Flanked by several tribesmen, including Malik Faridullah and Malik Niaz Daraz, Mr Wazir said that the tribesmen would not sit silent over the barbarism of the allied forces and that they would start a jihad for taking revenge from the Americans and the ‘corrupt rulers of Pakistan’. “We are patriotic Pakistanis, but we are being forced to take up arms under a well-planned conspiracy,” he said and claimed that Haqqani and Gul Bahadur groups had no presence in the tribal area. He regretted that the government did not bother to show any reaction to the continued US drone attacks and the killing of innocent tribesmen, including women and children.

The tribal elder urged the media to avoid negative propaganda against tribal people in an attempt to appease the US and its allies. Blackwater operatives are behind sabotage acts in the country, he said and claimed that the rulers were protecting them. “We want justice and we will not accept dollars as blood money for our dead,” he said. Mr Wazir stressed the need for expelling US operatives from the country and said the tribal people would no more remain silent on drone attacks.