ThereAreNoSunglasses

American Resistance To Empire

Destroying the Syrian Nation For the Sake of Gas

Don’t let anyone fool you: Sectarian strife in Syria has been engineered to provide cover for a war for access to oil and gas, and the power and money that come along with it.

Refugees and migrants wait to cross the border from the northern Greek village of Idomeni to southern Macedonia, Monday, Sept. 7, 2015. Greece has borne the brunt of a massive refugee and migration flow of people heading into the European Union. (AP Photo/Giannis Papanikos)

Refugees and migrants wait to cross the border from the northern Greek village of Idomeni to southern Macedonia, Monday, Sept. 7, 2015. Greece has borne the brunt of a massive refugee and migration flow of people heading into the European Union. (AP Photo/Giannis Papanikos)


 

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to reflect recent Wikileaks revelations of US State Department leaks that show plans to destabilize Syria and overthrow the Syrian government as early as 2006.  The leaks reveal that these plans were given to the US directly from the Israeli government and would be formalized through instigating civil strife and sectarianism through partnership with nations like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and even Egypt to break down the power structue in Syria to essentially to weaken Iran and Hezbolla. The leaks also reveal Israeli plans to use this crisis to expand it’s occupation of the Golan Heights for additional oil exploration and military expansion. 


 

MINNEAPOLIS — Images of Aylan Kurdi, the three-year-old Syrian boy who washed up dead on Mediterranean shores in his family’s attempt to flee war-torn Syria, have grabbed the attention of people around the world, sparking outrage about the true costs of war.

The heart-wrenching refugee crisis unfolding across the Middle East and at European borders has ignited a much needed conversation on the ongoing strife and instability that’s driving people from their homes in countries like Syria, Libya and Iraq. It’s brought international attention to the inhumane treatment these refugees are receiving if — and it is a major “if” — they arrive at Europe’s door.

In Syria, for example, foreign powers have sunk the nation into a nightmare combination of civil war, foreign invasion and terrorism. Syrians are in the impossible position of having to choose between living in a warzone, being targeted by groups like ISIS and the Syrian government’s brutal crackdown, or faring dangerous waters with minimal safety equipment only to be denied food, water and safety by European governments if they reach shore.

Other Syrians fleeing the chaos at home have turned to neighboring Arab Muslim countries. Jordan alone has absorbed over half a million Syrian refugees; Lebanon has accepted nearly 1.5 million; and Iraq and Egypt have taken in several hundred thousand.

Although it’s not an Arab nation or even part of the Middle East, Iran sent 150 tons of humanitarian goods, including 3,000 tents and 10,000 blankets, to the Red Crescents of Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon via land routes to be distributed among the Syrian refugees residing in the three countries last year.

Turkey has taken in nearly 2 million refugees to date. Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan made international headlines for opening his nation’s arms to migrants, positioning himself as a kind of savior in the process.

A paramilitary police officer carries the lifeless body of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi after he drowned when the boat he and his family members were in capsized near the Turkish resort of Bodrum early Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2015. (Photo: Nilüfer Demir/DHA)

Meanwhile, Gulf Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have provided refuge to zero Syrian refugees.

While there’s certainly a conversation taking place about refugees — who they are, where they’re going, who’s helping them, and who isn’t — what’s absent is a discussion on how to prevent these wars from starting in the first place. Media outlets and political talking heads have found many opportunities to point fingers in the blame game, but not one media organization has accurately broken down what’s driving the chaos: control over gas, oil and resources.

Indeed, it’s worth asking: How did demonstrations held by “hundreds” of protesters demanding economic change in Syria four years ago devolve into a deadly sectarian civil war, fanning the flames of extremism haunting the world today and creating the world’s second largest refugee crisis?

While the media points its finger to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s barrel bombs and political analysts call for more airstrikes against ISIS and harsher sanctions against Syria, we’re four years into the crisis and most people have no idea how this war even got started.

This “civil war” is not about religion

Citing a lack of access on the ground, the United Nations stopped regularly updating its numbers of casualties in the Syrian civil war in January 2014. Estimates put the death toll between 140,200 and 330,380, with as many as 6 million Syrians displaced, according to the U.N.

While there is no question that the Syrian government is responsible for many of the casualties resulting from its brutal crackdown, this is not just a Syrian problem.

Foreign meddling in Syria began several years before the Syrian revolt erupted.  Wikieaks released leaked US State Department cables from 2006 revealing US plans to overthrow the Syrian government through instigating civil strife, and receiving these very orders straight from Tel Aviv.  The leaks reveal the United State’s partnership with nations like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and even Egypt to use sectarianism to divide Syria through the Sunni and Shiite divide to destabilize the nation to weaken Iran and Hezbolla.  Israel is also revealed to attempt to use this crisis to expand it’s occupation of the Golan Heights for additional oil exploration.

According to major media outlets like the BBC and the Associated Press, the demonstrations that supposedly swept Syria were comprised of only hundreds of people, but additional Wikileaks cables reveal CIA involvement on the ground in Syria to instigate these very demonstrations as early as March 2011.

FILE - In this Monday, Dec. 19, 2011 file photo, Syrians hold a large poster depicting Syria's President Bashar Assad during a rally in Damascus, Syria. Some activists expressed regret that one year later their "revolution" against President Bashar Assad's rule had become mired in violence. (AP Photo/Muzaffar Salman, File)

 

Just a few months into the demonstrations which now consisted of hundreds of armed protesters with CIA ties, demonstrations grew larger, armed non-Syrian rebel groups swarmed into Syria, and a severe government crackdown swept through the country to deter this foreign meddling. It became evident that the United States, United Kingdom, France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey would be jumping on the opportunity to organize, arm and finance rebels to form the Free Syrian Army as outlined in the State Department plans to destabilize Syria. (Just a few months ago, WikiLeaks confirmed this when it released Saudi intelligence that revealed Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia had been working hand in hand to arm and finance rebels to overthrow the Syrian government since 2012.)

These foreign nations created a pact in 2012 called “The Group of Friends of the Syrian People,” a name that couldn’t be further from the truth. Their agenda was to divide and conquer in order to wreak havoc across Syria in view of overthrowing Syrian President Bashar Assad.

A Free Syrian Army soldier carries his weapon at the northern town of Sarmada, in Idlib province, Syria, Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2012. (AP Photo)

The true agenda to hijack Syria’s revolt quickly became evident, with talking heads inserting Syria’s alliance with Iran as a threat to the security and interests of the United States and its allies in the region. It’s no secret that Syria’s government is a major arms, oil and gas, and weapons ally of Iran and Lebanon’s resistance political group Hezbollah.

But it’s important to note the timing: This coalition and meddling in Syria came about immediately on the heels of discussions of an Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline that was to be built between 2014 and 2016 from Iran’s giant South Pars field through Iraq and Syria. With a possible extension to Lebanon, it would eventually reach Europe, the target export market.

Perhaps the most accurate description of the current crisis over gas, oil and pipelines that is raging in Syria has been described by Dmitry Minin, writing for the Strategic Cultural Foundation in May 2013:

“A battle is raging over whether pipelines will go toward Europe from east to west, from Iran and Iraq to the Mediterranean coast of Syria, or take a more northbound route from Qatar and Saudi Arabia via Syria and Turkey. Having realized that the stalled Nabucco pipeline, and indeed the entire Southern Corridor, are backed up only by Azerbaijan’s reserves and can never equal Russian supplies to Europe or thwart the construction of the South Stream, the West is in a hurry to replace them with resources from the Persian Gulf. Syria ends up being a key link in this chain, and it leans in favor of Iran and Russia; thus it was decided in the Western capitals that its regime needs to change.

It’s the oil, gas and pipelines, stupid!

Indeed, tensions were building between Russia, the U.S. and the European Union amid concerns that the European gas market would be held hostage to Russian gas giant Gazprom. The proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline would be essential to diversifying Europe’s energy supplies away from Russia.

Turkey is Gazprom’s second-largest customer. The entire Turkish energy security structure relies on gas from Russia and Iran. Plus, Turkey was harboring Ottoman-like ambitions of becoming a strategic crossroads for the export of Russian, Caspian-Central Asian, Iraqi and Iranian oil and even gas to Europe.

The Guardian reported in August 2013:

“Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar and Turkey that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was ‘to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.’”

Note the purple line which traces the proposed Qatar-Turkey natural gas pipeline and note that all of the countries highlighted in red are part of a new coalition hastily put together after Turkey finally (in exchange for NATO’s acquiescence on Erdogan’s politically-motivated war with the PKK) agreed to allow the US to fly combat missions against ISIS targets from Incirlik. Now note which country along the purple line is not highlighted in red. That’s because Bashar al-Assad didn’t support the pipeline and now we’re seeing what happens when you’re a Mid-East strongman and you decide not to support something the US and Saudi Arabia want to get done.

Knowing Syria was a critical piece in its energy strategy, Turkey attempted to persuade Syrian President Bashar Assad to reform this Iranian pipeline and to work with the proposed Qatar-Turkey pipeline, which would ultimately satisfy Turkey and the Gulf Arab nations’ quest for dominance over gas supplies. But after Assad refused Turkey’s proposal, Turkey and its allies became the major architects of Syria’s “civil war.”

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/G1p_tFnKqMA?rel=0&showinfo=0

Much of the strategy currently at play was described back in a 2008 U.S. Army-funded RAND report, “Unfolding the Future of the Long War”:

“The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized. … For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources. … The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war.”

In this context, the report identifies the divide and conquer strategy while exploiting the Sunni-Shiite divide to protect Gulf oil and gas supplies while maintaining a Gulf Arab state dominance over oil markets.

“Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces. … the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace. … U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the ‘Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict’ trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world…. possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran.”

The report notes that another option would be “to take sides in the conflict, possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran.”

This framework crafted an interesting axis: Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, U.S., Britain and France vs. Syria, Iran and Russia.

Divide and conquer: A path to regime change

With the U.S., France, Britain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey — aka, the new “Friends of Syria” coalition — publicly calling for the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar Assad between  2011 and 2012 after Assad’s refusal to sign onto the gas pipeline, the funds and arms flowing into Syria to feed the so-called “moderate” rebels were pushing Syria into a humanitarian crisis. Rebel groups were being organized left and right, many of which featured foreign fighters and many of which had allied with al-Qaida.

Saudi Arabia's permanent representative to the League of Arab States Ahmad al-Qattan, center, attends the Arab League summit in Baghdad, Iraq, Thursday, March, 29, 2012. The annual Arab summit meeting opened in the Iraqi capital Baghdad on Thursday with only 10 of the leaders of the 22-member Arab League in attendance and amid a growing rift between Arab countries over how far they should go to end the one-year conflict in Syria. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)

The Syrian government responded with a heavy hand, targeting rebel held areas and killing civilians in the process.

Since Syria is religiously diverse, the so-called “Friends of Syria” pushed sectarianism as their official “divide and conquer” strategy to oust Assad. Claiming that Alawites ruled over a majority Sunni nation, the call by the “moderate” U.S.-backed rebels became one about Sunni liberation.

Although the war is being sold to the public as a Sunni-Shiite conflict, so-called Sunni groups like ISIS,  the Syrian al-Qaida affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra (the Nusra Front) and even the “moderate” Free Syrian Army have indiscriminately targeted Syria’s Sunnis, Shiites, Christians and Jews. At the same time, these same foreign nations supported and even armed the Bahraini government, which claims to be Sunni, in its violent crackdown on the majority Shiite pro-democracy demonstrations that swept the nation.

The Syrian government army itself is over 80 percent Sunni, which indicates that the true agenda has been politically — not religiously — motivated.

In addition to this, the Assad family is Alawite, an Islamic sect that the media has clumped in with Shiites, though most Shiites would agree that the two are unrelated. Further, the Assad family is described as secular and running a secular nation. Counting Alawites as Shiites was simply another way to push a sectarian framework for the conflict: It allowed for the premise that the Syria-Iran alliance was based on religion, when, in fact, it was an economic relationship.

This framework carefully crafted the Syrian conflict as a Sunni revolution to liberate itself from Shiite influence that Iran was supposedly spreading to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

But the truth is, Syria’s Sunni community is divided, and many defected to join groups like the Free Syrian Army, ISIS and al-Qaida. And as mentioned earlier, over 80 percent of Assad’s military is Sunni.

As early as 2012, additional rebels armed and financed by Arab Gulf nations and Turkey like al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood, declared all-out war against Shiites. They even threatened to attack Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iraq’s government after they had overthrown the Assad government.

Soon after, the majority of the Muslim Brotherhood rebels became part of al-Qaida-affiliated groups. Together, they announced that they would destroy all shrines — not just those ones which hold particular importance to Shiites.

Hezbollah entered the scene in 2012 and allied itself with the Syrian government to fight al-Nusra and ISIS, which were officially being armed and financed by Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. And all the arms were actively being sold to these nations by the United States. Thus, US arms were falling into the hands of the same terror group the US claims to be fighting in its broader War on Terror.

Hezbollah fighters carry the coffin of Hezbollah member Mohammad Issa who was killed in an airstrike that killed six members of the Lebanese militant group and an Iranian general in Syria, during his funeral procession, in the southern village of Arab Salim, Lebanon, Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2015. Hezbollah has accused Israel of carrying out Sunday's airstrike, which occurred on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights. Issa was the highest-ranking among the group, and was among the senior cadres who headed the group's operations in Syria against the Sunni-led rebellion. (AP Photo/Mohammed Zaatari)

According to reports, Hezbollah was and has been been active in preventing rebel penetration from Syria to Lebanon, being one of the most active forces in the Syrian civil war spillover in Lebanon. Despite this, the U.S. sanctioned both the Syrian government and Hezbollah in 2012.

Also that year, Russia and Iran sent military advisers to assist the Syrian government in quelling the terror groups, but Iranian troops were not on the ground fighting during this time.

What was once a secular, diverse and peaceful nation, was looking more like it was on its way to becoming the next Afghanistan; its people living under Taliban-style rule as jihadists took over more land and conquered more cities.

Effects of foreign meddling outweigh self-determination

If you think that was hard to follow, you’re certainly not alone.

Most sectarian civil wars are purposely crafted to pit sides against one another to allow for a “divide and conquer” approach that breaks larger concentrations of power into smaller factions that have more difficulty linking up. It’s a colonial doctrine that the British Empire famously used, and what we see taking place in Syria is no different.

So, let’s get one thing straight: This is not about religion. It might be convenient to say that Arabs or Muslims kill each other, and it’s easy to frame these conflicts as sectarian to paint the region and its people as barbaric. But this Orientalist, overly simplistic view of conflict in the Middle East dehumanizes the victims of these wars to justify direct and indirect military action.

If the truth was presented to the public from the perspective that these wars are about economic interests, most people would not support any covert funding and arming of rebels or direct intervention. In fact, the majority of the public would protest against war. But when something is presented to the public as a matter of good versus evil, we are naturally inclined to side with the “good” and justify war to fight off the supposed “evil.”

The political rhetoric has been carefully crafted to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable. Ultimately, no matter the agendas, the alliances or instability brought on by foreign meddling, the calls for freedom, democracy and equality that erupted in 2011 were real then and they’re real today. And let’s not forget that the lack of freedom, democracy and equality have been brought on more by foreign meddling to prop up brutal dictators and arm terror groups than by self-determination.

Migrant men help a fellow migrant man holding a boy as they are stuck between Macedonian riot police officers and migrants during a clash near the border train station of Idomeni, northern Greece, as they wait to be allowed by the Macedonian police to cross the border from Greece to Macedonia, Friday, Aug. 21, 2015. Macedonian special police forces have fired stun grenades to disperse thousands of migrants stuck on a no-man's land with Greece, a day after Macedonia declared a state of emergency on its borders to deal with a massive influx of migrants heading north to Europe. (AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic)

The people in the Middle East once stood united and strong together against foreign meddling, exploitation and colonialism no matter their religious or cultural background. But today, the Middle East is being torn to shreds by manipulative plans to gain oil and gas access by pitting people against one another based on religion. The ensuing chaos provides ample cover to install a new regime that’s more amenable to opening up oil pipelines and ensuring favorable routes for the highest bidders.

And in this push for energy, it’s the people who suffer most. In Syria, they are fleeing en masse. They’re waking up, putting sneakers on their little boys and girls, and hopping on boats without life jackets, hoping just to make it to another shore. They’re risking their lives, knowing full well that they may never reach that other shore, because the hope of somewhere else is better than the reality at home.

Syrians Unwelcome In Arab Lands, Just As Were the Palestinians Before Them

“It is no surprise that refugees fleeing Syria have no ambitions to settle in any Arab country. They know that their fate in the Arab world will be no better than that of Palestinians living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries.”

  • “Improve the living conditions of the Palestinian refugees. Allow them to settle down. Give them citizenship so that they can live as human beings.” — Dr. Ahmad Abu Matar, an Oslo-based Palestinian academic, blasting Arab the world for its continued mistreatment of Palestinians.
  • The Arabs do not care about the Palestinians and want them to remain Israel’s problem. Countries such as Lebanon and Syria would rather see Palestinians living as “animals in the jungle” than grant them basic rights such as employment, education and citizenship.

A recent decision by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) to cut back its services has left Jordan and other Arab countries extremely worried about the possibility that they may be forced to grant citizenship rights to millions of Palestinians.

During the last few weeks, many Jordanians have expressed deep concern that the UNRWA measures may be part of a “conspiracy” to force the kingdom to resettle Palestinian refugees.

According to UNRWA figures, more than two million registered Palestinian refugees live in Jordan. Most of the refugees, but not all, have full (Jordanian) citizenship, the figures show. The refugees live in 10 UNRWA-recognized camps in Jordan.

The “Cyber City” refugee camp in Jordan, where a number of Palestinians are being housed. (Image source: ICRC)

Jordan is the only Arab country that has granted citizenship to Palestinians. Still, many Jordanians see their presence in the kingdom as temporary.

Although there is no official census data for how many inhabitants are Palestinian, they are estimated to constitute half of Jordan’s population, which is estimated at seven million. Some claim that the Palestinians actually make up two-thirds of the kingdom’s population.

Over the past few decades, the Jordanians’ biggest nightmare has been the talk about resettling the Palestinians in the kingdom by turning them into permanent citizens. The talk about turning Jordan into a Palestinian state has also created panic and anger among Jordanians.

Jordan’s “demographic problem” resurfaced last week when a senior Jordanian politician warned against plans to resettle Palestinian refugees in the kingdom.

Taher al-Masri, a former Jordanian prime minister who is closely associated with the ruling Hashemite monarchy, sounded the alarm in an interview with a Turkish news agency.

Commenting on UNRWA’s severe financial crisis, which has resulted in cutting back services to Palestinian refugees living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, al-Masri said: “I believe this is part of a plan to turn the issue of the Palestinian refugees into an internal problem of Jordan. UNRWA is paving the way for liquidating the Palestinian cause.”

Al-Masri, whose views often reflect those of the monarchy, expressed fear that the UNRWA cutbacks would prompt the world to consider the idea of turning the Palestinians in Jordan into permanent citizens, especially as most of them already carry Jordanian passports.

Al-Masri and other Jordanian officials maintain that Jordan is entitled to protect its “national identity” by refusing to absorb non-Jordanians.

Earlier this week, Jordanian Prime Minister Abdullah Ensour raised many eyebrows when he announced that there were more than two million Palestinians living in Jordan who are not permanent citizens. Ensour was apparently referring to those Palestinians who carry temporary Jordanian passports.

Jordanian and Palestinian political analysts described Ensour’s comments about the Palestinians in Jordan as “fuzzy” and “controversial.” They noted that Ensour mentioned the Palestinians together with Iraqi and Syrian refugees who have found shelter in the kingdom in recent years, and that therefore the Jordanians consider the Palestinians’ presence in their country only temporary.

“The remarks of the prime minister are ambiguous, controversial and very worrying,” commented Bassam al-Badareen, a widely respected journalist in Amman. “He referred to the Palestinians as being part of the foreigners and Iraqi refugees in Jordan.”

Ensour’s remarks, like those of al-Masri, are further proof that Jordan and the rest of the Arab world are not interested in helping solve the problem of the Palestinian refugees. Jordan, Lebanon and Syria — the three Arab countries where most of the refugees are living — are strongly opposed to any solution that would see Palestinians resettled within their borders.

That is why these countries and most of the Arab world continue to discriminate against the Palestinians and subject them to Apartheid laws and regulations. Although Jordan has granted citizenship to many Palestinians, it nevertheless continues to treat them as second-class citizens.

In the past few years, the Jordanian authorities have been revoking the citizenship of Palestinians in a move that has been denounced as “unjust” and “unconstitutional.”

The Arab countries have consistently justified their discriminatory policies against the Palestinians by arguing that this is the only way to ensure that the refugees will one day return to their former homes inside Israel. According to this logic, the Arab countries do not want to give the Palestinians citizenship or even basic rights, to avoid a situation where Israel and the international community would use this as an excuse to deny them the “right of return.”

But some Palestinians reject this argument and accuse the Arab countries of turning their backs on their Palestinian brothers.

Dr. Ahmad Abu Matar, a Palestinian academic based in Oslo, blasted the Arab world for its continued mistreatment of Palestinians.

“All the Arab countries are opposed to resettlement and naturalization of Palestinians not because they care about the Palestinian cause, but due to internal and regional considerations,” Abu Matar wrote. “We need to have the courage to say that improving the living conditions of Palestinian refugees in the Arab countries, including granting them citizenship, does not scrap the right of return.”

Noting that Palestinians have long been deprived of their civil rights in the Arab world, particularly in Lebanon, where they are banned from working in many professions and live in camps that do not even suit “animals in the jungle,” Abu Matar pointed out that the U.S .and Europe have opened their borders to Palestinians and even given them citizenship.

Addressing the Arab countries, the academic wrote: “Improve the living conditions of the Palestinian refugees. Allow them to settle down. Give them citizenship so that they can live as human beings.”

But Abu Matar’s appeal is likely to fall on deaf ears in the Arab world. The Arabs do not care about the Palestinians and want them to remain Israel’s problem. Countries such as Lebanon and Syria would rather see Palestinians living as “animals in the jungle” than grant them basic rights such as employment, education and citizenship.

It is no surprise that refugees fleeing Syria have no ambitions to settle in any Arab country. They know that their fate in the Arab world will be no better than that of the Palestinians living in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries.

The USA and NATO have destroyed Iraq and Libya with their military intervention, bombs and missiles

Leader of Austria’s Far-right Blames Migrant Crisis on U.S., NATO

haaretz logo

Heinz-Christian Strache says intervention in Iraq and Syria created infrastructure for ISIS.

Michael Shields and Shadia Nasralla

Austrian Freedom party leader Heinz-Christian Strache
Austrian Freedom party leader Heinz-Christian Strache delivers a speech during a protest against an Islamic mosque in Vienna May 14, 2009.Reuters

REUTERS – The leader of Austria’s far-right Freedom Party (FPO) has blamed the United States and the NATO Western military alliance for triggering the refugee crisis that has overwhelmed Europe.

“The USA and NATO have destroyed Iraq and Libya with their military intervention, bombs and missiles; provided financial, logistical and military support to the opposition against President Assad in Syria, and thus made possible the destruction, chaos, suffering and radical Islamism (IS) in the region,” Heinz-Christian Strache said on his Facebook page.

Strache’s opposition FPO party, which leads opinion polls ahead of the centrist Social Democrats and People’s Party coalition partners, typically espouses anti-Muslim and isolationist approaches to dealing with foreign policy.
Refugees at Westbahnhof station in Vienna, Austria. September 5, 2015.
Strache, who is running for mayor in Vienna elections next month, scoffed at what he called U.S. President Barack Obama’s suggestions that Europe is primarily responsible for handling the wave of migrants flooding the continent from crisis spots in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

“The USA for decades has started fires in the Middle East and then has then the chutzpah to claim that responsibility for the flood of refugees unleashed lies with Europe. That’s geostrategic destabilization at its finest,” he wrote.

In a separate interview with Austrian broadcaster ORF, he called for erecting an army-patrolled fence along neutral Austria’s eastern border with Hungary and for letting in Christian and Jewish refugees rather than Muslims.

“We don’t want an Islamisation of Europe. We don’t want our Christian-Western culture to perish,” he said.

Destroy Countries, Create Refugees—NOW DEAL WITH THEM

The Western Powers have created a global war refugee crisis through their Imperial adventures and now have to deal with the consequences of their actions.  Even though the United States is the primary creator of refugees in most of those wars, we are largely unaffected by this human tidal wave.  America’s European partners in crime in starting these criminal wars have no choice but to confront the immorality of the situation set in motion by Western governments. 

Since the EU is incapable of finding a consensus opinion on the proper course for getting these Syrian, Libyan, Yemeni, Somali refugees to safety, the matter must be resolved by the individual countries of Europe.  Where the EU and NATO have failed to establish a common border, the states are erecting individual barriers to the human flow.  Claiming that the walls steer the refugees to established safe zones (Schengen areas), everybody “passes the buck” on individual responsibility to help our fellow man, whenever collective responsibility would solve Europe’s refugee problem.

Fix settlement quotas in Europe, establish common control at the Mediterranean, systematically create safe corridors, safe sheltering and safe conduct to their designated settlement areas.  Anything less than that is immoral and inhumane.  

BETTER YET—END THE WAR….STOP CREATING NEW REFUGEES.

A Spanish tourist watches Pakistani migrants arriving at a beach in the Greek island of Kos after paddling an engineless dinghy from the Turkish coast August 15, 2015. United Nations refugee agency (UNHCR) called on Greece to take control of the "total chaos" on Mediterranean islands, where thousands of migrants have landed. About 124,000 have arrived this year by sea, many via Turkey, according to Vincent Cochetel, UNHCR director for Europe. REUTERS/Yannis Behrakis

Africa: Calais Migrants – a Microcosm of a Misunderstood Crisis

all africa

analysis

If tabloid headlines are anything to go by, the United Kingdom is fighting off the greatest invasion force threatening the island since the Blitz. The invaders this time are migrants and asylum seekers sneaking a ride on lorries, trains and ferries to get across – or underneath – the English Channel.

News footage of groups of young men climbing fences and breaking into trucks at Calais look dramatic, but the ‘swarm’ of migrants at Calais, as depicted by British Prime Minister David Cameron, is in fact 3,000 to 5000 people, many of whom are not actually trying to get into the UK at all. A sizeable minority have applied for asylum in France and are staying in the informal settlement near Calais known as the Jungle while waiting for the outcome of their application.

All over Europe, fences are going up, physically and metaphorically. Hungary expects to complete its new border fence by the end of August. Macedonia announced a state of emergency and deployed riot police at the border last week. Until then it had dealt with the influx by giving migrants 72-hour transit papers, enough time for them to buy a ticket, cram onto a train and cross further into Europe to become somebody else’s problem. First among those ‘somebody else’ is Germany, which expects to receive more than 750,000 new asylum applications in 2015.

A Europe unable to cope?

The challenge is certainly great for Germany, where new arrivals are sleeping on floors in makeshift accommodation. But it is in southern Europe that a real humanitarian crisis is unfolding. The EU border agency, Frontex, have recorded 340,000 ‘migrants detected’ from January to July this year, almost three times as many as the same period last year. Of those, around 160,000 have taken the relatively new route from the Middle East and Turkey to the easternmost islands of Greece. More than 50,000 have arrived in Greece in the month of July alone. Wracked by economic and political crisis, Greece is rife with xenophobic attitudes towards migrants.

But the people arriving on Greek holiday islands in leaky dinghies are not migrants. While those taking the route from Libya to Italy have tended to be a mix of refugees, especially from Syria and Eritrea, and economic migrants, particularly from West Africa, the composition of the boat people arriving in Greece this August has been, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, over 80% Syrians, 15% Afghans and the rest mostly Iraqis. The vast majority will qualify for refugee status.

The crisis Europe is not facing

The United Kingdom is not facing an invasion of illegal immigrants launched from Calais. Nor is the rest of Europe facing a migration crisis. Certainly, there are well-established economic migration routes from the poorer parts of the world to the richer. Since there are no longer any legal ways for low-skilled migrants to enter Europe, many choose to travel irregularly.

The journey they make has been made both easier and more dangerous for the migrants by the political collapse of Libya and turmoil in Egypt. Human smuggling networks can work with near impunity in both countries, mistreating migrants en route, before packing them onto unseaworthy vessels and steering them towards European waters in hope of rescue. An estimated 2,500 people have perished in the attempt so far this year.

A humanitarian crisis

Southern and South-Eastern European countries, particularly Greece, are facing a humanitarian crisis, where saving lives and providing food and shelter must take precedence over immigration control, regardless of whether those arriving are ‘illegal’ economic migrants or refugees. Despite the rush to build fences, secure borders and pass the buck, there is a growing appreciation across European capitals that ‘illegal migration’ is not a crime punishable by a watery death sentence. Prompted by one of the largest Mediterranean disasters in history, where 800 people drowned, the EU relaunched a large-scale search-and-rescue operation in April.

A global displacement crisis needs global solutions

The reason for the enormous rise in the number of people making the perilous journey across the Mediterranean is not economic migration, but war, persecution and violence. In short, Europe is experiencing its share of a global displacement crisis driven by an upsurge in conflict across the world, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East. The world has not seen so many people uprooted by conflict and persecution since the end of World War Two.

More than 80% of all refugees remain in their near region, many in refugee camps, others self-settled in nearby urban centres. But life in camps is getting increasingly destitute and devoid of hope for many refugees, particularly those fleeing never-ending conflicts, like those in Somalia, Syria and Iraq. Syria’s neighbours are coping with around four million refugees – in Lebanon refugees make up one in four of the country’s population. Humanitarian aid, while at record levels, does not cover the basic needs of refugees.

If European governments want to see a sustainable and ethically viable end to the chaotic and deadly passage across the Mediterranean, a first step would be to provide more financial support to refugee hosting countries, not only to support refugees, but to bolster domestic stability in host-countries. Beyond that, a global burden-sharing mechanism for resettling refugees would both alleviate the pressure on countries of first asylum and make refugee arrivals in Europe more orderly and manageable.

For this to happen, European governments must first acknowledge that the situation at Calais, Lampedusa and Kos are not a European migration crisis, but a global refugee crisis.

Dr Anne Hammerstad is a research associate of the South African Institute of International Affairs, and an Honorary Senior Research Fellow in the School of Politics and IR, University of Kent, Canterbury. She is the author of The Rise and Decline of a Global Security Actor: UNHCR, Refugee Protection and Security.

Saudi War In Middle East Aims To Forcefully Convert Or Kill All Shia Muslims and Christians

[Anyone who can’t see by now that the real “Sunni Caliphate” will be “Greater Saudi Arabia” has not been paying attention to Saudi aggression in the region.  This has been Obama’s goal from the beginning, to hand control over the problematic Middle East to his Saudi patrons. 

(This seems to confirm the normally scoffed-at conspiracy theory, that it has been the Saudis, NOT THE JEWS, who have controlled this so-called “war on terror” from the beginning.)

  War-mongering king Salman has been arrogantly open about his intentions to cleanse the Middle East of Shiites and other religious apostates (this would include Christians, obviously), even whike he pretends to be fighting against the Caliphate of ISIS.  The Saudi royals and their Gulf subordinates have been creating their own Sunni Caliphate, right before our eyes.  The fact that the world’s only hope for humanitarianism, the United Nations, would allow a tribal Arab king to murder thousands of Shia Houthis while conducting its religious ethnic-cleansing operation on the rest of them is proof that human compassion is just another commodity that can be bought and sold like anything else.]

 We will destroy the Houthis if they do not come to reason [i.e., convert to Sunni Islam–ed.].”–Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir

[Such is the human condition, when laid bare before us. 
Where is God in this equation?]

[SEE:UN Capitulation To Saudi Demands Equals Partnership In Ethnic-Cleansing of Middle East]

Religious eugenics

Russia-Today

How Saudi Arabia is sponsoring a frightening new movement in the ME

Catherine Shakdam

© Khaled Abdullah
Blanketed by its wealth and protected by political alliances, Saudi Arabia has covertly run and promoted a new movement in the Middle East: religious eugenics, under the false pretense of opposing the rise of Iran. From Syria to Bahrain and Yemen the evidence is overwhelming.

Earlier this August, the Red Cross added its voice to those of other humanitarian and rights groups in its condemnation of Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, lifting the lid on Riyadh’s little house of horrors in southern Arabia.

In no uncertain terms Peter Maurer, the head of the international Red Cross told reporters he had seldom witnessed such degree of devastation. He said: “Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years … The images I have from Sanaa and Aden remind of what I have seen in Syria.”

He stressed “the firepower with which this war is fought on the ground and in the air is causing more suffering than in other societies, which are stronger and where infrastructures are better off and people are wealthier and have reserves and can escape.”

A country in ruins, Yemen is also a nation in permanent mourning, as every day its people are relentlessly slain – casualties of a violent and murderous colonial war – the latest victims of Riyadh’s expansionist military campaign in the Middle East.

According to official UNICEF tallies, “close to 2,800 people have been killed and almost 13,000 people injured (including 279 children killed and 402 injured, respectively). An estimated 1 million people have been internally displaced (an increase of 122 percent since the crisis began), and some 400,000 people have sought protection in neighboring countries.”

While such figures are horrifying, they fall short of the truth. Agencies on the ground have already said that well over 500 children have been killed in Saudi-led air raids, most specifically in northern Yemen, where the war has been most devastating and aggressive. On average, children account for a quarter of all deaths and casualties.

For those who have managed to find shelter, living conditions are catastrophic. With no water, no electricity, little food and no access to health facilities ten million children are at risk of disease and starvation – again, North Yemen has suffered the brunt of this crisis.

Never in its history has Yemen experienced such a degree of pain and utter despair. But while wars are generally ugly affairs since they require their fill of blood before the canons finally fall silent, Saudi Arabia’s campaign in Yemen is far from ordinary.

But not only that, Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy in the Middle East is betraying a disturbing and rather ominous covert agenda, one which resonates with ethnic engineering and religious eugenics.

And if so far few have connected the dots, their hands tied by Riyadh’s overbearing and overarching control on media outlets and the grand political narrative, it is high time we learn to recognize Al Saud’s campaign for what it really is: a concerted effort to cleanse the region of all religious minorities, beginning with Shia Islam, its self-appointed nemesis.

To put it in simple terms – under Saudi Arabia’ suffocating grip, religious minorities are dying a slow and painful death.

From Syria to Bahrain, the kingdom’s eugenics campaign threatens the region’s religious and ethnic patrimonies, in a fashion reminiscent of Nazi Germany, when Jews and Gypsies were labeled undesirables.

Saudi Arabia is now building 600 mile wall to keep dangerous people out. What a concept! #tcot#pjnet#FoxNewspic.twitter.com/u056SB7HxW

In an interview this April, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir lifted the veil on Riyadh’s determination to carry through its agenda, no matter the price, no matter the impact. He asserted: “This campaign is having a huge impact in Yemen and it is not over yet. For us failure is not an option. We will destroy the Houthis if they do not come to reason.”

If subtitles were running they would read – the Houthis will be destroyed because they represent a religious challenge to Wahhabism’s hegemony in the region. The Houthis, and the majority of all northerners in Yemen are Zaidis, a branch of Shia Islam.

Is it then a surprise that while South Yemen has benefited from humanitarian aid, North Yemen has witnessed a spike in violence, its seaports targeted to prevent food and medicine to be ferried in? Riyadh is quite simply profiling aid to carry out its religious cleansing, punishing millions for their rejection of Riyadh’s religion.

Saudi Arabia is an absolute theocracy, and as such its very raison d’ être is rooted within its violent and reactionary interpretation of Islam: Wahhabism, the ideology which inspired the likes of Al Qaeda and Islamic State. One of the main tenets of Wahhabism actually calls for the destruction of all religious sects, Islamic or otherwise. For Wahhabis there can be no greater glory than to massacre “apostates.”

And while Riyadh’s neo-eugenics movement has taken on different forms, operating under various denominations depending on the countries it has targeted, the underlying current has been the destruction of religious pluralism.

Let me ask you this: Is there a real difference between Manama’s campaign to strip Shia Bahrainis from their nationality because the House of Al Khalifa seeks to eliminate all political and religious competition, and Islamic State’s murderous rampage against religious minorities in Iraq and Syria? And though Bahrain’s campaign might appear more “elegant” in that it is more covert and pernicious, the intent remains the same.

From the language used to the policies it has carried out in the Middle East, Riyadh has pushed the sectarian card, christening the resistance movement against its eugenics movement, the so-called Shia crescent threat.

The real threat here lies with Riyadh’s twisted crusade and sickening sectarian agenda.

Catherine Shakdam
Catherine Shakdam is a political analyst, writer and commentator for the Middle East with a special focus on radical movements and Yemen. Her writings have been published in world-renowned publications such as Foreign Policy Journal, Mintpress News, the Guardian, Your Middle East, Middle East Monitor, Middle East Eye, Open Democracy, Eurasia Review and many more. A regular pundit on RT, she has also contributed her analyses to Etejah TV, IRIB radio, Press TV and NewsMax TV. Director of Programs at the Shafaqna Institute for Middle Eastern Studies and consultant for Anderson Consulting, her research and work on Yemen were used by the UN Security Council in relation to Yemen looted funds in 2015.

Obama’s Human Flotsam Washes Ashore In Macedonia—Repelled By Tear Gas

Macedonian police teargas thousands of refugees crossing from Greece – reports

Russia-Today

Migrants camp near the village of Idomeni at the Greek-Macedonian border, August 20, 2015. © Alexandros Avramidis / Reuters
Macedonian police fired tear gas at crowds of thousands of migrants and refugees trying to cross the border from Greece, Reuters reported. The country declared a state of emergency on Thursday over the migrant crisis.

Police fired tear gas from behind barbed wire as an angry crowd demanded passage through Macedonia.

READ MORE: Macedonia declares state of emergency over surge in migrants & refugees, ready to deploy army

Thousands of migrants were stranded near the Macedonian town of Gevgelija trying to get in from Greece, where they entered Europe. They aim to travel on to prosperous northern European countries.

Macedonian government sent riot police and army troops to restore order and deal with the inflow of people choking rail hubs.

Greece and other Southern European countries are being deluged by tens of thousands of refugees from troubled regions of the Middle East and North Africa. The EU is struggling to deal with the arrivals, with members bickering over quotas to accept them.

State Terrorism Is State Terrorism, Even When It Is Made By America

[This is a blast from the past, one of the first articles posted on No Sunglasses, 8-19-2008.  The message remains the same,

war criminals
even though Barack Obama has since replaced the Bush dictatorship and multiplied US state terrorism exponentially. 

When read in tandem with the following piece, the message seems highly relevant today (SEE: Escaping The Age Of Mass Delusion—Humanity’s Only Hope).]

If We Could Speak to the People, What Would We Say?

Peter Chamberlin

If we could reach beyond the news filter that keeps real news from the
American people, what would we say? If we figured-out how to get one message
out to the people, what could we say that would actually motivate them to
take a stand for themselves, for their families, for their country and their
world?

The same studies that power the social planners claim that barely 10% of any
group of people follow reason, meaning they cannot be reasoned with. The
same studies also predict that a clear majority of any targeted population
will respond to fear in a shock scenario. We might try reasoning with the
sleeping sheeple, but we would have better odds if we tried to scare them
awake. If we can convey a true image of the evil being done with our
consent, then we might shock the people into the harsh light of reality.

Our leaders are about to allow the economic collapse of the United States,
without telling you beforehand, or helping American citizens to make
emergency preparations.

Their solution to the problem is to seize control of the post-collapse world
militarily, eliminating everyone who gets in the way. This military solution
accepts a very large loss of human lives as necessary “collateral damage” to
the brave plan to take control of the world. When the American people are
overwhelmed by the economic catastrophe, they will hardly notice large
planned population reductions.

All of this is an acceptable solution to our government. For those who try
to protest after the “hammer goes down,” there are hundreds of detention
camps, capable of holding thousands of dissidents, waiting to accept your
silent screams.

But until we get to that point of no return, steps are being taken to reduce
and eventually eliminate all protests to governmental violence.
The Constitution is being reduced piecemeal to a powerless piece of paper.
The courts are bowing down to executive decrees.

Mankind is being kept in check by his own fear. In the face of fear we react
like herd animals, bunching together in search of elusive safety, making us
easily manipulated by those who have mastered the psychology of fear.

Terror is a key element of American politics. Votes are obtained by
frightening the people into your corner, or away from your “unsafe”
opponent. Candidacies are won and lost by negative campaigns of lies and
half-truths that paint your opponent as an unreasonable madmen and yourself
as a heroic messianic figure. US leaders depend upon political terrorism to
get their way in the world, from the local level of “Homeland Insecurity,”
to the international arena, where acts of bloody terrorism are routinely
committed to frighten the locals into political compliance.

“Terrorism–n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a
person or an organized group against people or property with the intention
of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological
or political reasons.”

State terrorism has been an integral part of American government for many
decades. Beginning with the terror campaign of carpet-bombing and
fire-bombing of civilian centers in Germany at the end of World War II (and
the a-bombs), American and British scientists have studied the psychology of
mass fear. This wholesale terror campaign was a new type of warfare,
targeting civilians, instead of concentrating on government centers. The aim
was political terrorism, to turn the citizens of Germany into political
tools to be used to force the German government into submission. By studying
the socio-economic repercussions of the fire-bombing, the American and
British psychologists and sociologists learned how to herd entire
populations through the tactics of fear.

Acts of violent terrorism for political and economic gains have continued
since “the Great War,” against both friend and foe.
Historically, American terror operations like “Operation Gladio” have been
aimed at our allies in Europe even more than against our enemies.
In “Gladio,” (as in all American terror campaigns committed under the banner
of “democracy”), public figures and officials are assassinated, attacks are
carried-out upon police and military forces of sympathetic governments,
trains are bombed with great loss of life, and “madmen”
go on public shooting sprees, all for the sake of scaring European national
opinion into America’s corner.

As always, American terror is hidden by the use of proxies and mercenary
forces, who are blamed for attacks committed covertly by our military and
intelligence agencies. The “war on terror” itself is probably the world’s
longest-running terrorist operation, intended to create the impression that
American-sponsored terror attacks are really the work of a new non-existent,
highly-organized global terrorist adversary. In simpler terms, the United
States government
is the center of world terrorism. Our own government, our
“defender”
against terrorism, is responsible for most terrorist attacks upon innocent
people in the world, that thousands of American troops are defending
against. American-trained forces are killing American soldiers who then
retaliate further against innocent civilian populations where the terrorists
choose to hide.

“Our government” is not really ours at all, having long ago surrendered our
national sovereignty to a consortium of global financiers through the
Federal Reserve System that controls the US.

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws.”
Mayer Amschel Rothschild

In the process of bringing the US under the control of the international
financiers, represented by the Rothschild interests centered in Europe,
American industry has been destroyed (except for the military-industrial
complex
, needed to pound the recalcitrant world into submission), while the
sham called “democracy” was constructed to create the impression amongst the
unruly people that they actually have power. When the self-appointed
American aristocracy allowed the common man the “right” to vote, it was done
to stave-off more violent opposition and to deceive with the impression of
shared power. Today, decent folk, believing in the illusion of “fair
elections,” remain a real obstacle to saving American freedom from the
hidden dictatorship, which owns all the candidates produced in the
“two-party” system. As long as the majority believes in the system and
continues to empower its candidates, the dictatorship can remain hidden. In
order to expose the hidden machinations of the secret dictators we have to
burst the bubble of illusory democratic power.

At the same time, the fact that the dictatorship wishes to remain hidden,
playing the game of democracy, pretending to seek the counsel of the people,
then they are vulnerable. If they choose to continue the charade of
democratic government, then they have to limit their actions to those which
appear to be “freely” granted by the people through their “representatives.”
As long as those representatives hold the seats of power given them by the
overlords, they will answer only to them. But if enough people call the
representatives to task for failing American democracy they can at least be
forced to publicly answer the charges of failure. If the masses put the fear
of democracy and righteous retribution into the minds of the Congressional
slaves of the money-powers, then they too will begin to retreat from their
open support for measures calling for more war and less freedom. If the
people fully use the First Amendment powers to make democracy work then we
can turn the tide against the center.

They cannot openly carry-out the violent measures required for creating a
world dictatorship and a permanent state of war, taking the brazen violent
steps that have been planned, such as launching nuclear first strikes, or
using biologic attacks to “cull the herd.” As long as the real terrorists
are pretending to be democrats they must act accordingly. Until the world
rises-up against the American imperialist forces in sufficient numbers to
frighten the American people into becoming willing participants in the
genocide of half the earth, other lesser, though equally as threatening,
provocations will continue to be found to frighten us into authorizing the
slaughter.

By placing the will of the people into their formula, they have created a
time lag between cause and effect, where the planned actions must be
preceded by a provocation that motivates the people into consenting to their
own destruction. By incorporating a basically moral people into a completely
immoral plan for world domination, the master controllers have constructed a
flawed plan that depends upon a scientific effort to change good people into
bad. In a country as religious-natured as this one, the great leaders may
have falsely calculated that they can make a nation fear so much for its
life that it would sell its soul for a little peace of mind.

American state terrorism has also been directed against the citizens of the
United States themselves, through more subtle “silent weapons.”
For the entire duration of American terrorist operations against the world,
our government has waged war upon the minds of its loyal citizens through an
arsenal of psychological, economic, and legislative weaponry. The purpose of
these attacks has always been to destroy the American economy and the minds
of the people, while using the economic destruction to justify the full use
of the American military power against the rest of the world.

American leaders consistently work against American interests, while
enriching themselves and their wealthy sponsors who reap opportunity from
our Nation’s demise. In order for these anti-American power-brokers to force
the world into a global dictatorship with them at the helm, they have to
play the “democracy” card, while simultaneously undermining it. Our leaders
have to persuade us into allowing them to destroy democracy in the name of
preserving it. We the People have to be persuaded to peacefully allow the
planned destruction to take place before it can take place. We have to
accept our bleak fates, before it can become our fates.

But the scary truth about the American state terrorist acts that have been
committed so far is that they have provided the needed practice for the
despicable acts that are yet to come. The American war upon the human race
will utilize every weapon in our arsenal, once the way for their use has
been cleared. Weapons of mass destruction come in many forms. In a war for
control of the earth’s resources it would seem more logical to use the
weapons that kill, such as biological weapons, as opposed to those which
merely destroy everything. Instant Death is about to enter the world through
American hands.

The tragedy of our time, perhaps the ultimate tragedy of all time, is
roaring down the highway of life right at us, or is the greater tragedy the
weakness of the mind of man which is allowing this to happen? If we have the
power of change within us and we do nothing, inaction is an act of suicide.

We have to overcome this innate human weakness to prepare our fellow man for
the things that are about to befall this battered planet. So many things are
avoidable in this existence through the use of foresight; if only it was a
common human trait. Any sane person who sees oncoming danger will
automatically step out of its way. As a rule, we humans rarely choose to
step out of the way. Mankind has never been called “sane,” by anyone’s
definition. We must secretly harbor a deep desire to become “road kill” on
the cruel highway of life.

peter.chamberlin@hotmail.com

Bringing Barack Obama To Justice For War Crimes Committed and Crimes In Progress

war criminals

Where is the hope for humanity when “the leader of the free world” actually leads a global war of aggression?

What else could you call the war on terror but a war of aggression, when it is clearly a war of the wealthiest nations against the poorest, a class-war of nations?

aleppo-abandoned-ghost-town-3What do you call it when the richest nations use their modern militaries to devastate poor, backward (Third World) nations, pounding them into dust in order to subjugate them?

Palestinian women sit on the rubble of their home in Beit Hanoun, Gaza Strip, Friday, Aug. 1, 2014. A three-day Gaza cease-fire that began Friday quickly unraveled, with Israel and Hamas accusing each other of violating the truce. (AP Photo/Hatem Moussa)

When there is no power on earth capable of stopping, or reversing this global process of dehumanization, then what hope do our children and grandchildren really have in this world?

wolves-eatingIn this brave new world, all of them will either be one of the wolves, or one of the sacrificial lambs.  Is it humane or moral to will such a legacy to our own children, or to the children of other fellow human beings?

Is it time to pray for divine intervention, or time “MAN UP” and do the right thing for a change?

SANLIURFA, TURKEY - JANUARY 30 : Syrian kids fled from the civil war, living in Suruc refugee camp are seen in Sanliurfa, Turkey on January 30, 2015. Syrian kids will be able to continue their education with the Foreign Students Education Operation System in Turkey. (Photo by Orhan Cicek/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)

therearenosunglasses@hotmail.com

Obama’s “Shock and Awe”—Skeletonized Human Beings Line the Beach Near Tripoli, Libya

EXCLUSIVE: The Mediterranean’s grim tide – shocking never before seen pictures of migrants’ bodies washed up on beach in Libya

daily mail

  • WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT
  • Bodies of hundreds of migrants who drowned trying to reach Europe by sea are washing up on Libyan beaches
  • Volunteers from the Libyan Red Crescent Society collect the remains every day along a 100-mile coastline stretch 
  • Remains, some just piles of bones, handed to authorities who record the deaths and bury them in unmarked graves

The dead bodies of desperate migrants who were bundled onto overcrowded boats destined for Europe, which capsized killing those on board, are washing up on Libya’s beaches.

Their bones, half submerged in the sand, will be buried in unmarked graves, their relatives unaware their loved ones have perished.

 

Volunteers from Libyan Red Crescent Society collect the bodies which were swallowed and spat out by the Mediterranean Sea as they risked their lives on the perilous journey from Libya bound for the island of Lampedusa off the Italian coast.

Meanwhile, more than 1,000 men, women and children who were able to survive treacherous journeys to Europe continued to be rescued off the coasts of Italy and Greece each day.

Remains: Some of the bodies have been reduced to just piles of bones after they were swallowed and spat out by the Mediterranean sea

Bodies: Migrants desperate to reach Europe take on the treacherous journey across the Mediterranean but hundreds of their bodies have washed up on the beaches of Libya

Heartbreaking: Many migrants are forced to board dilapidated boats with their children, knowing that they may not reach their destination

Buried: The migrants’ bones poke out from under the sand after they drowned while desperately trying to flee their war-torn homelands

Shocking new photographs taken in Zuwara, on the west coast of Libya close to the Tunisian border, show the true extent of the migrant crisis.

Bodies, some of which are barely more than a pile of bones, are being picked up on a 100-mile stretch of the war-torn country from Garaboli to Zuwara.

One heartbreaking picture is of a skeleton, which has been washed up on the beach with the still wearing the pair of yellow trousers and black leather belt they set off in.

Taha Sultan, head of health at Libyan Red Crescent Society, an organisation working on the ground to help the country’s vulnerable population, said hundreds of bodies had been washing up over the past year.

Speaking to MailOnline from Benghazi in the east of the country, he said: ‘We have been dealing with this for more than a year along the west coast.

‘It happens every day. These kind of things happen all the time in Libya.’

Desperate: More than 1,000 people are rescued off the coasts of Italy and Greece every day, but many don’t manage to finish their journeys

Unidentified: Bodies of the migrants are collected by volunteers along the Libyan coastline and are buried by authorities in the country

Record highs: The number of migrants who have successfully arrived in Europe by sea so far this year is already approaching 250,000

Explaining the mindset of the people who board the boats, sometimes with their young families, Mr Sultan said: ‘People are desperate to leave because it’s dangerous, or they fear for their lives.

‘We have war – people get killed and there is no help coming. We also have ISIS here now. It’s very dangerous to live here.’

Libya is split between two governments backed by armed factions fighting each other but which control limited territory.

Islamic State and other armed groups have exploited a growing security vacuum on the ground to expand.

Libya Dawn, an alliance of armed groups, drove the internationally recognised government out of the capital, Tripoli, and declared its own government a year ago, leaving the oil-rich country on the verge of anarchy.

Libya: Bodies are washing up on a 100-mile stretch of the west of the war-torn country from Garaboli to Zuwara, near the Tunisian border

Volunteers: Workers from the Libyan Red Crescent Society, an organisation working on the ground, are collecting more bodies every day

Tragedy: Many of the migrants attempting to gain access to Europe are fleeing violence, natural disasters and poverty in their homelands

Mr Sultan said that those who try to leave the country by legal means are unable to get visas, so opt for dangerous trips across the sea on rickety ships.

Migrants who have arrived in Italy say human traffickers based in lawless Libya charge them between £770 and £1,150 for a place on the deck of boats. Those crammed in the hold pay about half as much as those above.

On Saturday, more than 40 migrants died in the Mediterranean off the Libyan coast after suffocating below the deck of an overcrowded boat.

The vessel was carrying around 400 people when it was intercepted south of the Italian island of Lampedusa.

Footage of the rescue showed two navy vessels helping men, women and children off the dangerously overcrowded ship.

The boat was ‘starting to sink’ when it was spotted by an Italian navy helicopter, around 21 miles off the Libyan coast.

Rescuers discovered the dead migrants when the boarded the boat.

Collected: The bodies are removed from the beaches and are handed over to the authorities in the country to be buried in unmarked graves

Deaths: On Saturday, 40 migrants died off the Libyan coast after suffocating below the deck of an overcrowded boat, carrying 400 people

Frequent loss: Hundreds of bodies of migrants have washed up on the beaches of the western coast of Libya over the past year

Survivors of such hazardous journeys have told of how traffickers lock migrants who paid less for the journey in the hold underneath.

These people endure extreme heat in the ship’s hold and there is a high risk of death if it capsizes.

And around 200 migrants were presumed killed earlier this month off the coast of Libya when their boat capsized.

According to the International Organization for Migration, the number of migrants and asylum seekers who have arrived in Europe by sea so far this year is approaching 250,000.

The death toll has risen to at least 2,300, but the figure is likely to be higher because some of the dead are never recovered.

Mr Sultan explained that the bodies are handed over to authorities, which photograph them and document the deaths before burying them.

More than 100,000 migrants have crossed the Channel of Sicily from Libya to reach safety in Italy so far this year.

Death toll: At least 2,300 migrants are known to have died this year while trying to reach Europe by sea, but the real figure will be higher

Frequent fatalities: About 200 migrants were presumed killed earlier this month off the Libyan coastline when their boat capsized

Route: An estimated 102,000 migrants have successfully crossed the Channel of Sicily from Libya to reach safety in Italy this year

NATO’s Never-Ending War Games On Russian Border Since 2014

THIS IS NOT RUSSIAN FORCES STAGING PROVOCATIVE WAR GAMES ON THE MEXICAN OR CANADIAN BORDER, IT IS AMERICANS TRYING TO PUSH-IN RUSSIA’S FRONT DOOR.

AMERICANS WANT MORE WAR, MORE KILLERS TO BE PROUD OF AND TO MOURN.

..WE CANNOT LIVE WITH OURSELVES WITHOUT IT.

NATO PROVOCATIONSSOURCE

Obama’s Wars Have Created More Refugees Than Hitler and Tojo Combined

[Why bother pointing-out the fact that there are now more refugees lost on the road, looking to escape the wars which uprooted them, than there were in World War II, if no one cares to delegate blame for this human travesty?  America’s “humanitarian wars” and alleged “wars on terror,” as well as the State Dept’s “colored revolutions”/”Arab Spring” are the root of all this violence in the world, which drives huge herds of displaced humans, looking for a safe place to land.  When Hitler drove the dispossessed from the heart of Europe, it was called a ‘war of aggression.’  What do we call America’s deadly interventions and multiple wars with no end?]

turkish-soldiers-stand-guard-syrian-refugees-wait-behind-border-fencesThere Have Never Been More Displaced People Across the World Than Now

time

If the number of displaced persons formed a nation, it would be the 24th largest country in the world

The total number of people forcibly displaced by war, conflict and persecution rose to a record 59.5 million at the end of 2014, the U.N. refugee agency (UNHCR) has said.

The agency’s annual Global Trends Report: World at War, released Thursday, found forced displacement worldwide has reached unprecedented levels, with a record annual rise of 8.3 million more displaced people since 2013. Some 38.2 million of the total were internally displaced in their own countries.

If the number of displaced persons formed a nation, the report said, it would be the 24th largest country in the world.

Speaking in Turkey on Thursday, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees António Guterres confirmed worldwide displacement was at the highest ever recorded.

“When you see the news in any global network, we clearly get the impression that the world is at war,” he said. “Indeed many areas of the world are today in a completely chaotic situation and the result is this staggering escalation of displacement, the staggering escalation of suffering, because each displaced person is a tragic story,” he said.

Syria overtook Afghanistan to become the biggest source of refugees last year, with 1.77 million Syrians having fled the nation’s ongoing civil war.

Just over half of all refugees under UNHCR’s responsibility worldwide came from just three countries: Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia. The report also pointed to new and continuing conflicts in South Sudan, Ukraine and Iraq, among others, which have caused suffering and widespread displacement.

Guterres warned that humanitarian organizations were “no longer able to clean up the mess.”

“U.N. agencies, NGOs, the Red Cross — we no longer have the capacities and the resources to respond to such a dramatic increase in humanitarian needs,” he said.

Turkey overtook Pakistan to become the nation hosting the most refugees in the world with 1.59 million people currently displaced within its borders. Guterres praised Turkey’s willingness to keep its frontiers open and called on richer countries to do more.

“That has a special meaning in a world where so many borders are closed or restricted,” he said. “And where new walls are being built or announced.”

Terrorism and American Foreign Policy–Published September 25, 2001

Terrorism and American Foreign Policy

tanbou

—by Robert Elias September 25, 2001
Professor of politics at University of San Francisco, California

T

he US has suffered terrible crimes from the terrorist attacks two weeks ago. They have taken a horrible toll in lost lives, and have shaken the nation to its foundations. We’ve felt a rush of emotions, including horror, fear, grief, sorrow, anger and even calls for revenge. As a person from New York, I take the terrorism very personally. I have family, friends and acquaintances there, and I’m still not sure about all of them. I’m very angry about the senseless deaths.

These terrorists and their acts are despicable, and the perpetrators must be brought to justice.

In response to these acts, our emotions are understandable, and we should do nothing to belittle these feelings. It almost seems blasphemous to suggest that we add to these emotions a part of us that also thinks about what happened and why. And yet there’s a need, beyond our feelings, also to understand. Why did this happen to us? Our leaders in Washington have rushed in with their response, and there’s the danger that we, the people, will be left behind or left completely susceptible to Washington’s lead rather than making up our own minds about why this happened, and what to do.

Unfortunately, in trying to understand why this terrorism has occurred, we’ve been given little help by those upon which we rely for information. Our educational system has provided us neither the history nor the critical perspective to understand. Our officials refuse to ask the question “why,” except in terms of stereotypes that divert us from the causes and focus us instead on the symptoms. And most crucially, our mainstream media has almost exclusively parroted official analyses and solutions, acting not like watchdogs but rather like lapdogs. Officials and our media operate essentially under the assumption that there can be no question of “why,” since there’s nothing we could have conceivably done that has anything to do with provoking terrorism.

To the extent that “why” is considered at all, it’s almost completely superficial. Our officials tell us that: “The terrorists hate us, they are different from us, they are evil, they want to hurt or destroy us for no good reason, and we—the strongest and most armed nation in the world—have nevertheless been too weak in defending ourselves, and must respond with war to root out the perpetrators and make sure this never happens again. We deplore this and all acts of violence, officials tell us, and we will violently retaliate against this outrage.” And our media repeat this level of non-analysis and contradiction almost verbatim. As media critic I.F. Stone once said, “The Washington press corps is like a group of stenographers with amnesia,” dutifully printing official handouts and reporting events with little or no historical or critical perspective.

So we need to think for ourselves. And to do this will require a great deal of courage. If, as President Bush has suggested, America is a strong and great nation, then we can afford to have the courage to ask difficult questions and to consider new ways of thinking about and acting in the world. A part of doing so will require that we examine American foreign policy.

In subsequent meetings, America’s economic and other policies abroad will be considered. Today we’d like to focus on some of our foreign, military and human rights policies. We’d like to consider the possibility that there’s a relationship between some of our policies abroad and acts of terrorism committed against us. It’s true that many peoples around the world hate us but the reasons are far more complicated than the simplistic explanations that officials and the media have been giving us. So we must ask why.

But by asking why, and by trying to truly understand, we must remember that acts of terrorism like the ones we’ve just experienced can never be justified. I repeat: nothing we’ve ever done, none of our policies, no matter how questionable, can ever justify terrorism. But if terrorism can never be justified, that does not mean that it cannot be explained or understood. No matter how apparently extreme we might find the views of terrorists, we’re not talking about people who act for no reason. What are the reasons, and why do many people outside the US hate us?

Another caveat for our discussion today. If we shed a critical light on American policies, shall we be viewed as unpatriotic, or even as traitors? If we view patriotism as blindly waving the flag, as supporting the nation right or wrong, and as America, love it or leave it, then the answer is “yes.” But I’d like to suggest a more enlightened view of patriotism, as stated by the Nobel Prize writer Albert Camus, who said that “The true patriot is one who gives his highest loyalty not to his country as it is, regardless of what it does, but rather to what it can and ought to be.” In other words, the real patriot insists that his or her nation live up to its ideals.

Americans are a great people. But what are we great for? For the amount of violence we’re capable of delivering? For the wars we’ve decided to fight? For the level of revenge we’ve sought and accomplished? Is this what makes us great? We keep hearing how Americans are “strong” but strength is inconsequential compared to a people who are decent, generous, caring, heroic, courageous and compassionate. And those things we are! Those are things we should be proud of.

But can we say the same for our foreign policies? Are these policies compassionate and courageous, or something quite different? Most Americans would be shocked if they really knew or if they really comprehended and felt the violence that has been done abroad by US foreign policy in their name.

Most officials, however, are well aware of our past and present policies. In the rare instance when they are reminded of the shady aspects and negative consequences of those policies, there’s almost never any debate about the facts. Most of our underhanded policies were revealed by the US Congressional Hearings chaired by Senator Frank Church, and have been corroborated by many other official and non-official sources. Actually, there’s a widespread agreement among both the proponents and the opponents of US foreign policy about the kinds of actions we’ll be describing for you today.

The disagreement instead stems from the rationale for our policies, and whether those policies—no matter how distasteful—are nevertheless justified. Defenders of US foreign policy argue that our actions are warranted. Generally speaking, they subscribe to what has been called, in international relations, the “realist” school of thinking. That perspective argues that of course the US has done unsavory things abroad but it’s a dog-eat-dog world out there, and everyone is doing unsavory things. We’ve done, they argue, what we’ve done not only to survive but also to make sure we’re the top dog in the world—and it’s a good thing that peace and freedom-loving people like us are the ones directing the show. For example, in 1992, George Bush Sr. observed that: “A world once divided into two armed camps now recognizes one sole and preeminent power, the USA. And they regard this with no dread. For the world trusts us with power, and the world is right. They trust us to be fair, and restrained. They trust us to be on the side of decency. They trust us to do what’s right.”

The realist school further argues that anything other than an “ends justify the means” approach to world politics makes the false presumption that peoples and nations will be more good than evil. That, according to the realists, is a mistakenly positive view of human nature. Anyone, they argue, who believes that human nature is basically good, or that humans can be induced to act good, and that peoples and nations can peacefully and freely coexist is hopelessly idealistic.

Of course, the critics of US foreign policy, or the idealists, see things differently. They believe we can and should take peace and human rights seriously. For this, they are labeled as unrealistic and even utopian. But the idealists argue that those who are truly the utopians, in the sense of believing something that cannot come true, are actually the realists, since the realists harbor pie-in-the-sky notions that we can keep pursuing violent and underhanded policies without our having to pay some consequences or without the world eventually blowing itself to bits. The idealists argue that the realists make unnecessarily negative assumptions about people and the world, and then adopt cutthroat policies that turn those assumptions into self-fulfilling prophecies.

And the debate between the two sides rages. But while the debate continues, the policy battles have always been won by the realists, who justify our often-violent policies. So, if you’re happy about the world you see, then thank the realists. If, however, you have some concerns about our policies and about the state of our nation and the world, then you might want to consider some alternatives.

This may be painful for us to hear but let’s begin examining the history of our foreign policy by stating the bottom line: more than any other tool, the US has used violence as the main vehicle of its policies toward peoples and nations abroad. For example, in its little more than 200 years of history, the US has intervened militarily in other nations about 200 times; about once a year. The interventions have varied from minor to outright war but most of them have been serious. Now if this sounds like someone’s wild-eyed ravings, keep in mind that in the early 1980s, President Reagan admitted to 125 US military interventions, and his government added several more during his time in office. Reagan not only acknowledged this number of interventions, he bragged about them. One of the major studies of US military intervention was conducted again not by some wild radical but rather by Republican Senator Jacob Javits in the 1970s, and by his count we were already up to 150 military interventions by then. It would be interesting to examine each of these interventions but that would take far too much time. Instead, we’ll focus on the period since 1945.

Unfortunately, the shorter time period won’t improve the picture. From 1945 to 2000, for example, the US attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, usually successfully, and crushed more than 30 populist movements struggling against dictatorships, killing several million people in the process, and condemning millions more to a life of misery. Those are shocking numbers but keep in mind that defenders of US foreign policy rarely quarrel with these numbers but rather only try to show why they were necessary. Beyond these actions abroad, it’s also instructive to examine US policies that have created terrorists, carried out torture and assassinations, developed death squads, provided training manuals for repression, granted safe haven for terrorists and war criminals, used weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations, promoted and used chemical and biological weapons, perverted foreign elections and otherwise intervened in foreign political systems, and undermined hundreds of UN resolutions and treaties (with the US often the only dissenting vote among the world’s nations).

Woodrow Wilson, who was elected President based on a platform that promised to keep the US out of World War I, nevertheless pushed the US into the War after his election, and justified our participation, arguing that the goal of US foreign policy was to “make the world safe for democracy.” Perhaps if we try hard we can find instances where our policy has produced democracy but it’s far easier to find endless examples where our policy has undermined it. This may be because the real objective of our foreign policy has instead been “making the world safe for capitalism,” and for the US to control as much of the world as possible, shaping it into the American image. In that, our policies have been very successful. In 1997, Der Spiegel, Germany’s leading newsmagazine, editorialized that: “Never before in history has a country dominated the earth so totally as the United States does today… America is the Schwarzenegger of international politics: showing off muscles, intrusive, intimidating… The Americans, in the absence of limits put to them by anybody or anything, act as if they own a kind of blank check in their very own “McWorld.”

In 1996, the Annual Report of the world’s leading human rights organization, Amnesty International, concluded that: “It is a paradox that a nation that did so much to articulate and codify human rights in its foundation documents has so consistently resisted and undermined the effective functioning of an international framework to protect these principles and values.” “…repression, torture and terror has occurred disproportionately among countries in the American sphere of influence.” “Throughout the world, on any given day, a man, a woman, or child is likely to be displaced, tortured, killed, or “disappeared” at the hands of governments or armed political groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame.” How can Amnesty International say these things about us?

Many years ago, the Chinese writer Moh-Tze said: “To kill one person is murder. To kill thousands is foreign policy.” This seems to be reflected in American policies abroad. So let’s quickly review the list of offenses.

US Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction

The indiscriminate use of bombs by the US, usually outside a declared war situation, for wanton destruction, for no military objectives, whose targets and victims are civilian populations, or what we now call “collateral damage.”

Japan (1945) China (1945–46) Korea & China (1950–53)
Guatemala (1954, 1960, 1967–69) Indonesia (1958) Cuba (1959–61)
Congo (1964) Peru (1965) Laos (1964–70)
Vietnam (1961–1973) Cambodia (1969–70) Grenada (1983)
Lebanon (1983–84) Libya (1986) El Salvador (1980s)
Nicaragua (1980s) Iran (1987) Panama (1989)
Iraq (1991–2000) Kuwait (1991) Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994–95) Sudan (1998) Afghanistan (1998)
Pakistan (1998) Yugoslavia (1999)
Macedonia (1999)

US Use of Chemical & Biological Weapons

The US has refused to sign Conventions against the development and use of chemical and biological weapons, and has either used or tested (without informing the civilian populations) these weapons in the following locations abroad:

Bahamas (late 1940s–mid-1950s)
Canada (1953)
China and Korea (1950–53)
Korea (1967–69)
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (1961–1970)
Panama (1940s–1990s)
Cuba (1962, 69, 70, 71, 81, 96)

And the US has tested such weapons on US civilian populations, without their knowledge, in the following locations:

Watertown, NY and US Virgin Islands (1950)
SF Bay Area (1950, 1957–67)
Minneapolis (1953)
St. Louis (1953)
Washington, DC Area (1953, 1967)
Florida (1955)
Savannah GA/Avon Park, FL (1956–58)
New York City (1956, 1966)
Chicago (1960)

And the US has encouraged the use of such weapons, and provided the technology to develop such weapons in various nations abroad, including:

Egypt
South Africa
Iraq

US Political and Military Interventions since 1945

The US has launched a series of military and political interventions since 1945, often to install puppet regimes, or alternatively to engage in political actions such as smear campaigns, sponsoring or targeting opposition political groups (depending on how they served US interests), undermining political parties, sabotage and terror campaigns, and so forth. It has done so in nations such as

China (1945–51) South Africa (1960s–1980s)
France (1947) Bolivia (1964–75)
Marshall Islands (1946–58) Australia (1972–75)
Italy (1947–1975) Iraq (1972–75)
Greece (1947–49) Portugal (1974–76)
Philippines (1945–53) East Timor (1975–99)
Korea (1945–53) Ecuador (1975)
Albania (1949–53) Argentina (1976)
Eastern Europe (1948–56) Pakistan (1977)
Germany (1950s) Angola (1975–1980s)
Iran (1953) Jamaica (1976)
Guatemala (1953–1990s) Honduras (1980s)
Costa Rica (mid-1950s, 1970–71) Nicaragua (1980s)
Middle East (1956–58) Philippines (1970s–90s)
Indonesia (1957–58) Seychelles (1979–81)
Haiti (1959) South Yemen (1979–84)
Western Europe (1950s–1960s) South Korea (1980)
Guyana (1953–64) Chad (1981–82)
Iraq (1958–63) Grenada (1979–83)
Vietnam (1945–53) Suriname (1982–84)
Cambodia (1955–73) Libya (1981–89)
Laos (1957–73) Fiji (1987)
Thailand (1965–73) Panama (1989)
Ecuador (1960–63) Afghanistan (1979–92)
Congo (1960–65, 1977–78) El Salvador (1980–92)
Algeria (1960s) Haiti (1987–94)
Brazil (1961–64)
Peru (1965) Albania (1991–92)
Dominican Republic (1963–65) Somalia (1993)
Cuba (1959–present) Iraq (1990s)
Indonesia (1965) Peru (1990–present)
Ghana (1966) Mexico (1990–present)
Uruguay (1969–72) Colombia (1990–present)
Chile (1964–73) Yugoslavia (1995–99)
Greece (1967–74)

US Perversions of Foreign Elections

The US has specifically intervened to rig or distort the outcome of foreign elections, and sometimes engineered sham “demonstration” elections to ward off accusations of government repression in allied nations in the US sphere of influence. These sham elections have often installed or maintained in power repressive dictators who have victimized their populations. Such practices have occurred in nations such as:

Philippines (1950s)
Italy (1948–1970s)
Lebanon (1950s)
Indonesia (1955)
Vietnam (1955)
Guyana (1953–64)
Japan (1958–1970s)
Nepal (1959)
Laos (1960)
Brazil (1962)
Dominican Republic (1962)
Guatemala (1963)
Bolivia (1966)
Chile (1964–70)
Portugal (1974–75)
Australia (1974–75)
Jamaica (1976)
El Salvador (1984)
Panama (1984, 89)
Nicaragua (1984, 90)
Haiti (1987, 88)
Albania (1991–92)
Russia (1996)
Mongolia (1996)
Bosnia (1998)

US Versus World at the United Nations

The US has repeatedly acted to undermine peace and human rights initiatives at the United Nations, routinely voting against hundreds of UN resolutions and treaties. The US easily has the worst record of any nation on not supporting UN treaties. In almost all of its hundreds of “no” votes, the US was the “sole” nation to vote no (among the 100–130 nations that usually vote), and among only 1 or 2 other nations voting no the rest of the time. Here’s a representative sample of US votes from 1978–1987:

US Is the Sole “No” Vote on Resolutions or Treaties

For aid to underdeveloped nations
For the promotion of developing nation exports
For UN promotion of human rights
For protecting developing nations in trade agreements
For New International Economic Order for underdeveloped nations
For development as a human right
Versus multinational corporate operations in South Africa
For cooperative models in developing nations
For right of nations to economic system of their choice
Versus chemical and biological weapons (at least 3 times)
Versus Namibian apartheid
For economic/standard of living rights as human rights
Versus apartheid South African aggression vs. neighboring states (2 times)
Versus foreign investments in apartheid South Africa
For world charter to protect ecology
For anti-apartheid convention
For anti-apartheid convention in international sports
For nuclear test ban treaty (at least 2 times)
For prevention of arms race in outer space
For UNESCO-sponsored new world information order (at least 2 times)
For international law to protect economic rights
For Transport & Communications Decade in Africa
Versus manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction
Versus naval arms race
For Independent Commission on Disarmament & Security Issues
For UN response mechanism for natural disasters
For the Right to Food
For Report of Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination
For UN study on military development
For Commemoration of 25th anniversary of Independence for Colonial Countries
For Industrial Development Decade in Africa
For interdependence of economic and political rights
For improved UN response to human rights abuses
For protection of rights of migrant workers
For protection against products harmful to health and the environment
For a Convention on the Rights of the Child
For training journalists in the developing world
For international cooperation on third world debt
For a UN Conference on Trade & Development

US Is 1 of Only 2 “No” Votes on Resolutions or Treaties

For Palestinian living conditions/rights (at least 8 times)
Versus foreign intervention into other nations
For a UN Conference on Women
Versus nuclear test explosions (at least 2 times)
For the non-use of nuclear weapons vs. non-nuclear states
For a Middle East nuclear free zone
Versus Israeli nuclear weapons (at least 2 times)
For a new world international economic order
For a trade union conference on sanctions vs. South Africa
For the Law of the Sea Treaty
For economic assistance to Palestinians
For UN measures against fascist activities and groups
For international cooperation on money/finance/debt/trade/development
For a Zone of Peace in the South Atlantic
For compliance with Intl Court of Justice decision for Nicaragua vs. US.
**For a conference and measures to prevent international terrorism (including its underlying causes)
For ending the trade embargo vs. Nicaragua

US Is 1 of Only 3 “No” Votes on Resolutions and Treaties

Versus Israeli human rights abuses (at least 6 times)
Versus South African apartheid (at least 4 times)
Versus return of refugees to Israel
For ending nuclear arms race (at least 2 times)
For an embargo on apartheid South Africa
For South African liberation from apartheid (at least 3 times)
For the independence of colonial nations
For the UN Decade for Women
Versus harmful foreign economic practices in colonial territories
For a Middle East Peace Conference
For ending the embargo of Cuba (at least 10 times)

In addition, the US has:

Repeatedly withheld its dues from the UN
Twice left UNESCO because of its human rights initiatives
Twice left the International Labor Organization for its workers rights initiatives
Refused to renew the Antiballistic Missile Treaty
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty on global warming
Refused to back the World Health Organization’s ban on infant formula abuses
Refused to sign the Anti-Biological Weapons Convention
Refused to sign the Convention against the use of land mines
Refused to participate in the UN Conference Against Racism in Durban
Been one of the last nations in the world to sign the UN Covenant on Political &
Civil Rights (30 years after its creation)
Refused to sign the UN Covenant on Economic & Social Rights
Opposed the emerging new UN Covenant on the Rights to Peace, Development & Environmental Protection

Sampling of Deaths From US Military Interventions & Propping Up Corrupt Dictators (using the most conservative estimates)

Nicaragua 30,000 dead
Brazil 100,000 dead
Korea 4 million dead
Guatemala 200,000 dead
Honduras 20,000 dead
El Salvador 63,000 dead
Argentina 40,000 dead
Bolivia 10,000 dead
Uruguay 10,000 dead
Ecuador 10,000 dead
Peru 10,000 dead
Iraq 1.3 million dead
Iran 30,000 dead
Sudan 8–10,000 dead
Colombia 50,000 dead
Panama 5,000 dead
Japan 140,000 dead
Afghanistan 10,000 dead
Somalia 5000 dead
Philippines 150,000 dead
Haiti 100,000 dead
Dominican Republic 10,000 dead
Libya 500 dead
Macedonia 1000 dead
South Africa 10,000 dead
Pakistan 10,000 dead
Palestine 40,000 dead
Indonesia 1 million dead
East Timor 1/3–1/2 of total population
Greece 10,000 dead
Laos 600,000 dead
Cambodia 1 million dead
Angola 300,000 dead
Grenada 500 dead
Congo 2 million dead
Egypt 10,000 dead
Vietnam 1.5 million dead
Chile 50,000 dead

Other Lethal US Interventions

CIA Terror Training Manuals

Development and distribution of training manuals for foreign military personnel or foreign nationals, including instructions on assassination, subversion, sabotage, population control, torture, repression, psychological torture, death squads, etc.

Specific Torture Campaigns

Creation and launching of direct US campaigns to support torture as an instrument of terror and social control for governments in Greece, Iran, Vietnam, Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Panama

Supporting and Harboring Terrorists

  • The promotion, protection, arming or equiping of terrorists such as:
  • Klaus Barbie and other German Nazis, and Italian and Japanese fascists, after WW II
  • Manual Noriega (Panama), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic), Osama bin Laden (Afghanistan), and others whose terrorism has come back to haunt us
  • Running the Higher War College (Brazil) and first School of the Americas (Panama), which gave US training to repressors, death squad members, and torturers (the second School of the Americas is still running at Ft. Benning GA)
  • Providing asylum for Cuban, Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Haitian, Chilean, Argentinian, Iranian, South Vietnamese and other terrorists, dictators, and torturers

Assassinating World Leaders

Using assassination as a tool of foreign policy, wherein the CIA has initiated assassination attempts against at least 40 foreign heads of state (some several times) in the last 50 years, a number of which have been successful, such as: Patrice Lumumba (Congo), Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic), Ngo Dihn Diem (Vietnam) Salvador Allende (Chile)

Arms Trade & US Military Presence

  • The US is the world’s largest seller of weapons abroad, arming dictators, militaries, and terrorists that repress or victimize their populations, and fueling scores of violent conflicts around the globe
  • The US is the world’s largest provider of live land mines which, even in peacetime, kill or injure at least several people around the world each day
  • The US has military bases in at least 50 nations around the world, which have led to frequent victimization of local populations.
  • The US military has been bombing one Middle Eastern or Muslim nation or another almost continuously since 1983, including Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iran, the Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq (almost daily bombings since 1991)

This, then, is a sampling of American foreign policies over the last 50 years. The FBI uses the following definition for Terrorism: “The unlawful use of force or violence committed by a group or individual, who has some connection to a foreign power or whose activities transcend national boundaries, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” This sounds like the terrorism we just experienced. It also sounds a lot like the US policies and actions since 1945 that I’ve just described.

In response to these policies, it wouldn’t be surprising if eventually the US suffered some backlash. In fact, US officials have a word for the repercussions: “blowback,” which describes the way questionable and often deplorable policies often come back to haunt us. Even former US Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger admitted, a few years ago, that: “We’ve presented to the rest of the world a vision of the bully on the block who pushes a button, people out there die, and we don’t pay anything except the cost of a missile… that’s going to haunt us in trying to deal with the rest of the world in the years ahead.”

In one of its recent, official reports, the US State Department concludes that if the people of a rogue nation experience enough suffering, they will overthrow their rulers, or compel them to adopt more sensible behavior. This view has been used by the US to promote suffering and subversive policies from Nicaragua to Iraq. But now the policy has apparently been turned against us: Islamic fundamentalists have concluded that Americans need to begin suffering in order to change US policies towards the Muslim world.

If the recent terrorism was carried out by Osama bin Laden, then why has he struck? Describing bin Laden is a long story that will be told, in detail, in a subsequent session of this forum. Briefly, we know that bin Laden is a fanatical Islamic fundamentalist who was not created by the US but who, along with a legion of terrorist followers, was nevertheless trained, equipped, and financed by the CIA to oppose the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. These followers, the mujahedeen (mujahidin), numbered between 15,000 and 50,000 people, and they went on to play a terrorist role in Chechnya, Bosnia, China, France, the Philippines, the Middle East, and elsewhere. They are a good example of blowback from US policy.

While President, Ronald Reagan welcomed members of the Mujahadin to the White House in 1985, and about them he said: “These are the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers.” (Earlier, he had said the same thing about the contra terrorists the US created to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.) In effect, then, we are about to go to war, in Afghanistan, against the moral equivalent of America’s founding fathers!

Bin Laden and his followers are fascists. But they also oppose corrupt and repressive Middle East regimes (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt) supported by US, the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, the genocide against Bosnian Muslims, the Indian occupation of Kashmir, the US military bases in Saudi Arabia, the US war against Iraq, and the daily humiliation suffered by Palestinians and other Arabs, who have seen their resources stolen, their lands taken, and their lives jeopardized by war and other violence.

Interestingly enough, a very recent Wall Street Journal interview of prominent Muslims and other Middle Easterners, including bankers, businessmen, professionals, and many with close ties to the US, shows that the grievances of these “non-terrorists” were almost identical to those of bin Laden and his followers. Apparently, it doesn’t take a crazy terrorist to recognize these injustices.

President Bush claims that America is the “brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world,” but to the contrary, the US is seen by tens of millions of people abroad as the main enemy of their human and democratic rights, and the main source of their oppression. Right now, many Americans want revenge for the deaths we’ve suffered from the recent terrorism; so, too, do some of the people who have been the victims of our violence also want revenge.

President Bush claims that terrorists attack us because they oppose freedom, but others believe, to the contrary, that we’re targets because our policies deprive other peoples of the freedom they so desperately want. In his speech the other night, Bush actually said that terrorists were envious of our democratically elected government! I’m sure Al Gore would wholeheartedly agree! Bush claims the terrorism was an attack on “civilization” but what kind of civilization commits its own terrorism, and designs its response to the terrorism committed by others in terms of “blood revenge?” Our policy is riddled with double standards, and only perpetuates the cycle of violence. When they attack, they’re terrorists. When we attack, we’re only retaliating. When they respond to our retaliation with further attacks, they’re terrorizing us again. When we respond with further attacks, we’re only retaliating again. And on and on.

Former US Senator J. William Fulbright warned us, during the Vietnam period, against the “arrogance of power” in US foreign policy. Now, at the start of the 21st century, the US is the most heavily armed nation on earth, and yet our arms and our persistent, violent use of them has not prevented us from now feeling more vulnerable than ever to outside attack. What went wrong? The explanation has to be more complicated than merely our failure to fight outside violence with enough violence of our own.

Despite the abuses of American foreign policy, we could take the realist view, and conclude that it was all somehow necessary. Even so, shouldn’t we expect some consequences? Is this really the best we can do? It’s time to repeat what I said earlier: Nothing can ever justify terrorism. But can’t we learn something from this incident, not only about how best, strategically, to respond to the recent terrorism but also how to respond intelligently to the problem, generally?

Some have argued that for some strange reason the historic violence of US foreign policy had nothing to do with the particular motives bin Laden had for the terrorism we just experienced. We’ll hear more about bin Laden and US Middle East policy in one of our subsequent forums, but does this sound plausible to you? Even if true, isn’t it likely that some other acts of terrorism will be forthcoming against us for policies such as the ones we’ve pursued?

One of the best ways of adding to the US policy of violence would be, of course, to pursue the war that US officials have begun to launch. It’s the wrong thing to do, and will likely make the situation much worse. The hardline, conservative Institute for Strategic Studies in Great Britain, for example, has argued that: “Going after the Taliban regime in Afghanistan will likely destabilize its friendly neighbor Pakistan and throw a nuclear-armed country into the hands of the militants.” Former Soviet military leaders have warned us against an invasion of Afghanistan; guerilla and terrorist forces defeated Russia’s best soldiers. We risk another Vietnam-style quagmire against an elusive target that can never be defeated militarily. And we risk the possible re-establishment of the military draft in the US, and the sacrifice of another generation of Americans to a fruitless war. Even if we care nothing for other peoples, we should be concerned about the senseless deaths of our own soldiers, which are likely to come.

Going to war, such as by bombing or invading Arab and Muslim states, and thereby potentially killing thousands of innocent people, will only convince more people that bin Laden is right about the US, and create thousands of new volunteers for anti-American terrorism. Collateral damage doesn’t just kill innocent people; it also creates martyrs and fanatical avengers. Besides, military strikes can never be effective in successfully targeting mobile terrorist headquarters.

We already had a war on terrorism in the 1980s, and back then we worried about Latin American terrorists as much as Middle Eastern. That war failed because terrorism is a political not a military problem, and because the US refused to honestly examine the sources of the violence. During our war on terrorism, the US was itself creating and arming terrorists in Nicaragua, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Critics have argued that we lost the last war on terrorism because the CIA was handcuffed; but to the contrary, the CIA remains one of the main sponsors of terrorism around the world.

It’s curious that when Timothy McVeigh bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, we didn’t declare war on all right-wing fascist groups in the US, and chalk up to collateral damage any others who might have gotten killed or injured in the process of conducting that war. Yet that’s what we’re prepared to do in Afghanistan and other nations. Is that because American fascists are not as evil as Islamic fundamentalist fascists? (One doesn’t have to endorse fascist views—any more than fundamentalist views—to recognize that McVeigh’s actions had causes: the government’s assaults at Waco and Ruby Ridge and its contamination of its own soldiers in the Gulf War—in which McVeigh served.)

President Bush is right in using the word, “justice,” but war and militarism can never accomplish justice. This terrorism is a crime against humanity, and that’s how it should be pursued: as a crime against which we and the international community must bring all the forces of law enforcement and criminal prosecution to bear. This is a job for international police work not the military.

Let’s get tough on terrorism. The only way to do this is by examining the sources and not merely the symptoms of terrorism, even if means admitting our own role in the violence. For all the warmongering and saber-rattling, Washington’s proposed actions provide only a weak and superficial response that will never get to the roots of the problem and will instead only multiply the symptoms. That takes no courage whatsoever.

I love America for many things, but I don’t love it for its foreign policies; I don’t love it for the way we’ve treated other peoples and nations. I would love America more if we were to fundamentally change those policies. Albert Einstein once said that: “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we used when we created them.” Those words hold two insights: first, that we must change the way we think about and act in the world, and second, that we must look at ourselves and not merely at others. If we’re a great nation, then we should be strong enough for self-examination. If we value life and freedom so much, then we need to act like it. We need real courage, which is not a matter of knee-jerk revenge but rather of having the guts to reexamine what we’ve been doing in the world while we also take seriously the symptoms and the perpetrators of the horrible terrorism that has struck us.

The True Cost of War On Terror Can Be Measured By the Number of Refugees

amnesty intl boat people

World leaders’ neglect of refugees condemns millions to death and despair

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Worst refugee crisis since World War II.

· One million refugees desperately in need of resettlement.
· Four million Syrian refugees struggling to survive in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt.
· More than three million refugees in sub-Saharan Africa, and only a small fraction offered resettlement since 2013.
· 3,500 people drowned while trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea in 2014 — 1,865 so far in 2015.
· 300 people died in the Andaman Sea in the first three months of 2015 due to starvation, dehydration and abuse by boat crews.

World leaders are condemning millions of refugees to an unbearable existence and thousands to death by failing to provide essential humanitarian protection, said Amnesty International as it published a new briefing in Beirut today, ahead of World Refugee Day on 20 June.

The Global Refugee Crisis: A conspiracy of neglect explores the startling suffering of millions of refugees, from Lebanon to Kenya, the Andaman Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, and calls for a radical change in the way the world deals with refugees.

“We are witnessing the worst refugee crisis of our era, with millions of women, men and children struggling to survive amidst brutal wars, networks of people traffickers and governments who pursue selfish political interests instead of showing basic human compassion,” said Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.

We are witnessing the worst refugee crisis of our era, with millions of women, men and children struggling to survive amidst brutal wars, networks of people traffickers and governments who pursue selfish political interests instead of showing basic human compassion.
Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary General.

“The refugee crisis is one of the defining challenges of the 21st century, but the response of the international community has been a shameful failure. We need a radical overhaul of policy and practice to create a coherent and comprehensive global strategy.”

Amnesty International is setting out a proposal to reinvigorate the system for refugee protection and urging states to make firm commitments to live up to their individual legal obligations and renew their commitment to international responsibility-sharing. Amongst the actions Amnesty International is urging governments to take are:

· A commitment to collectively resettle the one million refugees who currently need resettlement over the next four years.

· To establish a global refugee fund that will fulfil all UN humanitarian appeals for refugee crises and provide financial support to countries hosting large numbers of refugees.
· The global ratification of the UN Refugee Convention.

· To develop fair domestic systems to assess refugee claims and guarantee that refugees have access to basic services such as education and healthcare.

“The world can no longer sit and watch while countries like Lebanon and Turkey take on such huge burdens. No country should be left to deal with a massive humanitarian emergency with so little help from others, just because it happens to share a border with a country in conflict,” said Salil Shetty.

The world can no longer sit and watch while countries like Lebanon and Turkey take on such huge burdens. No country should be left to deal with a massive humanitarian emergency with so little help from others, just because it happens to share a border with a country in conflict.
Salil Shetty.

“Governments across the world have the duty to ensure people do not die while trying to reach safety. It is essential that they offer a safe haven for desperate refugees, establish a global refugee fund and take effective action to prosecute trafficking gangs. Now is the time to step up protection for refugees, anything less will make world leaders accomplices in this preventable tragedy.”

Syria: World’s largest refugee crisis
More than four million refugees have fled Syria, 95% of them are in just five main host countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt.

These countries are now struggling to cope. The international community has failed to provide them, or the humanitarian agencies supporting refugees with sufficient resources. Despite calls from the UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, far too few resettlement places have been offered to Syrian refugees.

The situation is so desperate that some of Syria’s neighbours have resorted to deeply troubling measures, including denying desperate people entry to their territory and pushing people back into the conflict.

Since the beginning of 2015, Lebanon has severely restricted entry to people fleeing Syria. The Lebanese authorities issued new guidelines whereby Syrian nationals are required to fulfil specific criteria in order to enter. Since these criteria were imposed, there has been a significant drop in registration of Syrian refugees – in the first three months of 2015 UNHCR registered 80% fewer Syrian refugees than in the same period in 2014.

Mediterranean: The most dangerous sea route
The Mediterranean is the most dangerous sea route for refugees and migrants. In 2014, 219,000 people made the crossing under extremely dangerous conditions and 3,500 died attempting it.

In 2014, the Italian authorities rescued over 170,000 people. However in October 2014, Italy, under pressure from other EU member states, cancelled the rescue operation, Mare Nostrum, which was replaced by the much more limited Operation Triton (by the EU border agency, Frontex).

Operation Triton did not have a sufficiently broad search and rescue mandate, had fewer vessels and a significantly smaller area of operation. This contributed to a dramatic increase in the number of lives lost in the Mediterranean. As of 31 May 2015, 1,865 people had died attempting the Mediterranean crossing, compared to 425 during the same period in 2014 (according to the IOM).

Follow several horrific cases of loss of life in the Mediterranean, at the end of April, European leaders finally increased resources for search and rescue. Triton’s resources and area of operation were increased to match Mare Nostrum’s. In addition European states such as Germany, Ireland and the UK have deployed ships and aircrafts, additional to Operation Triton resources to further boost capacity for assisting people at sea. These measures, which had long been advocated for by Amnesty International, are a welcome step towards increasing safety at sea for refugees and migrants.

The European Commission also proposed that EU states offer 20,000 additional resettlement places to refugees from outside the EU. While this proposal is a step forward, 20,000 is too small a number to adequately contribute to international responsibility-sharing.

For example, Syrian refugees faced with reduced humanitarian assistance in the main host countries and with no prospect of returning home in the near future, are likely to continue to attempt to cross the Mediterranean to reach Europe. Without sufficient safe and legal alternative routes for refugees – but also for migrants – people will continue to risk their lives.

Africa: Forgotten crises
There are more than three million refugees in sub-Saharan Africa. Outbreaks of fighting in countries including South Sudan and the Central African Republic (CAR), have led to an increasing number of people on the move – fleeing conflict and persecution. Of the top 10 countries globally from which people are fleeing as refugees, five are in are in sub-Saharan Africa. Four of the top ten refugee-hosting countries are in sub-Saharan Africa

The conflicts and crises in the region have led to an influx of refugees to neighbouring countries, many of which already host tens of thousands of long-standing refugee populations from countries such as Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia, among others.

In some of these situations, as in the case of South Sudan and Sudan, refugees are hosted by countries that are themselves beset by conflict.

The refugee crises in Africa receive little or no attention in regional or global political forums. In 2013 fewer than 15,000 refugees from African countries were resettled and UN humanitarian appeals have been severely underfunded. For example, as a result of the conflict which broke out in South Sudan in December 2013, more than 550,000 people became refugees, the majority of whom are now in Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya and Uganda. Only 11% of the UN’s South Sudan regional refugee response plan was funded as of 3 June 2015.

South East Asia: Turning away the desperate

In the first quarter of 2015, UNHCR reported that some 25,000 people attempted to cross the Bay of Bengal. This is approximately double the figure for the same period in 2014. This Bay of Bengal sea route is predominantly used by Muslim Rohingya from Myanmar and Bangladeshi nationals.

On 11 May, the International Organization for Migration estimated that there were 8,000 people stranded on boats close to Thailand. Many of those aboard were believed to be Rohingya fleeing state-sponsored persecution in Myanmar.

During May, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand turned back boats carrying hundreds of refugees and migrants desperate for help, despite the dangers they faced. UNHCR estimates that 300 people died at sea in the first three months of 2015 due to “starvation, dehydration and abuse by boat crews”.

On 20 May Indonesia and Malaysia changed course, announcing that they would provide “temporary shelter” for up to 7,000 people still at sea. However, this temporary protection would only last for up to a year, and on condition that the international community would help with repatriation or resettlement of the people. Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have not ratified the UN Refugee Convention.

Elsewhere, a terrible precedent has been set in the region by the Australian government whose hard-line approach to asylum-seekers attempting to arrive by boat has, under the guise of saving lives, violated its responsibilities under refugee and human rights law.

“From the Andaman to the Mediterranean people are losing their lives as they desperately seek safe haven. The current refugee crisis will not be solved unless the international community recognizes that it is a global problem that requires states to significantly step up international cooperation. Later this week UNHCR will release their annual statistics on refugees and we will likely find that the crisis is getting worse. It is time for action,” said Salil Shetty.

Read more: 

Global Refugee Crisis in Numbers (Feature, 15 June 2015)

The Global Refugee Crisis: A conspiracy of neglect (Report, 15 June 2015)

Pushed to the edge: Syrian refugees face increased restrictions in Lebanon (Briefing, 15 June 2015)

THE WHOLE WORLD HAS ITS HEAD BURIED IN THE SAND–Truth About Isis

[THE WHOLE WORLD HAS ITS HEAD BURIED IN THE SAND, when it comes to ISIS.  No authority has protested in the past, nor do they protest today, the fact that ISIS is wholly a US/SAUDI-owned entity.  They nurtured it together in the prison camps of Iraq and Saudi, until it was ready to stand on its own two legs in Syria.  There is no surprise here, except for the great astonishment everyone experiences when learning the truth about this state-sponsored terrorism, and the fact that no government (‘cept Russia) dares to mention this dire truth.]

[THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT IS FROM PGS. 287-293, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY REPORT]

isis documents

isis documents2

isis documents3

isis head collection

‘No one can bury heads in sand:’ Hezbollah leader calls for help fighting ISIS in Syria

Russia-Today
Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.(Reuters / Sharif Karim)

 

Calling it a global existential threat, Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has urged supporters to join the fight against the Islamic State, confirming that his Shiite militant group has been fighting the Sunni extremists all across Syria.

READ MORE: ‘No will’ to fight ISIS? US Defense Sec blasts Iraqi troops

“Today we are facing a kind of danger that is unprecedented in history, which targets humanity itself,” Nasrallah said Sunday during a televised broadcast referring to Islamic State (IS, previously ISIS/ISIL).

“This is not just a threat to the resistance in Lebanon or to the regime in Syria or the government in Iraq or a group in Yemen,” the Shiite movement’s head continued. “This is a danger to everyone. No one should bury their heads in the sand.”

He called on volunteers to stand up against IS extremist fighters: “We invite everyone in Lebanon and the region to take responsibility and confront this danger and end their silence and hesitation and neutrality.”

Read more
First confession: Pentagon admits 2 Syrian children killed in US airstrikes

Nasrallah’s comments were made ahead of Monday’s anniversary of the retreat of Israeli troops from Lebanon in 2000.

The leader has confirmed for the very first time that Hezbollah members are fighting Islamic State together with Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces in various parts of Syria and not just around the border regions.

“We are fighting alongside our Syrian brothers, alongside the army and the people and the popular resistance in Damascus and Aleppo and Deir Ezzor and Qusayr and Hasakeh and Idlib,” he said. “We are present today in many places and we will be present in all the places in Syria that this battle requires.”

READ MORE: Mortar attack on Russian embassy in Damascus an ‘act of terror’ – Moscow

Nasrallah also expressed disappointment with the US-led coalition against Islamic State, saying it was not effective and had not stopped jihadists from moving around freely.

Read more
​ISIS taking advantage of Syrian conflict, opposition & govt should cease fire – UN envoy tells RT

At the same time, he addressed the opposition, stressing that any support for the anti-Assad movement within Syria would only lead to more power in the hands of jihadists.

Sunni forces in Lebanon have been critical of Hezbollah’s role in Syria, as the group has not supported uprisings against Assad.

Lebanon is heavily affected by the Syrian conflict, as the majority of the refugees seeking shelter there are from the bordering war-torn state, with their number currently estimated at over 1.2 million.

The civil war in Syria started four years ago, when the Western-backed opposition began an armed rebellion against Assad’s government. By 2013, large portions of eastern Syria and western Iraq had fallen under control of militants from the Islamic State, which emerged amid the turmoil of the conflict, along with other extremist groups fighting against both Assad and the opposition. The conflict in Syria has claimed over 200,000 lives so far.

Roger Waters to Dionne Warwick–“Israeli…society lacks basic belief in equal human value”

Roger Waters to Dionne Warwick:

“You Are Showing Yourself to be Profoundly Ignorant of What Has Happened in Palestine Since 1947”
zombieland ZOMBIELAND

Roger Waters, what a stand up guy! Or really I should say this is a good man!

Dionne Warwick called me out by name in asserting she’d play Tel Aviv. Here’s what she misunderstands

inger and U.N. global ambassador Dionne Warwick recently released an interesting if puzzling statement asserting that she would, and I quote, “never fall victim to the hard pressures of Roger Waters, from Pink Floyd, or other political people who have their views on politics in Israel.”

“Waters’ political views are of no concern,” I assume she means to her, the statement read. “Art,” she added, “has no boundaries.”
Until today, I have not publicly commented on Ms. Warwick’s Tel Aviv concert or reached out to her privately. But given her implicit invitation, I will comment now.
First, in my view, Dionne Warwick is a truly great singer. Secondly, I doubt not that she is deeply committed to her family and her fans.
But, ultimately, this whole conversation is not about her, her gig in Tel Aviv, or even her conception of boundaries and art, though I will touch on that conception later. This is about human rights and, more specifically, this is about the dystopia that can develop, as it has in Israel, when society lacks basic belief in equal human value, when it strays from the ability to feel empathy for our brothers and sisters of different faiths, nationalities, creeds or colors.
It strikes me as deeply disingenuous of Ms. Warwick to try to cast herself as a potential victim here. The victims are the occupied people of Palestine with no right to vote and the unequal Palestinian citizens of Israel, including Bedouin Israeli citizens of the village of al-Araqib, which has now been bulldozed 83 times by order of the Israeli government.
I believe you mean well, Ms. Warwick, but you are showing yourself to be profoundly ignorant of what has happened in Palestine since 1947, and I am sorry but you are wrong, art does know boundaries. In fact, it is an absolute responsibility of artists to stand up for human rights – social, political and religious – on behalf of all our brothers and sisters who are being oppressed, whoever and wherever they may be on the surface of this small planet.
Forgive me, Ms. Warwick, but I have done a little research, and know that you crossed the picket line to play Sun City at the height of the anti-apartheid movement. In those days, Little Steven, Bruce Springsteen and 50 or so other musicians protested against the vicious, racist oppression of the indigenous peoples of South Africa. Those artists allowed their art to cross boundaries, but for the purpose of political action. They released a record that struck a chord across the world. That record, “I Ain’t Gonna play Sun City,” showed the tremendous support of musicians all over the world for the anti-apartheid effort.
Those artists helped win that battle, and we, in the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, will win this one against the similarly racist and colonialist policies of the Israeli government of occupation. We will continue to press forward in favor of equal rights for all the peoples of the Holy Land. Just as musicians weren’t going to play Sun City, increasingly we’re not going to play Tel Aviv. There is no place today in this world for another racist, apartheid regime.
As I’m sure you know, Lauryn Hill canceled her gig in Tel Aviv last week. She did not explicitly cite Israeli oppression of Palestinians as her reason for canceling, but the subtext of her actions is clear and we thank her for her principled stand.
Dionne, I am of your generation. I remember the road to Montgomery, I remember Selma, I remember the struggles against the Jim Crow laws here. Sadly, we are still fighting those battles, whether here in the USA in Ferguson or Baltimore, or in Gaza or the Negev, wherever the oppressed need us to raise our voices unafraid. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with them, our brothers and sisters, until true equality and justice are won.
Remember, “Operation Protective Edge,” the Israeli bombing of Gaza last summer, resulted in the deaths of over 2,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, including more than 500 Palestinian children. It is hard for us over here to imagine what it is like to be exiled, disenfranchised, imprisoned, rendered homeless and then slaughtered, with no place to flee. Hopefully, in the end, love will triumph. But love will not triumph unless we stand up to such injustice and fight it tooth and nail, together.
Dionne, your words indicate that part of you is set on going through with your concert. I am appealing to another part of you, to implore that other part to join us. We will welcome you. It is more than likely that you harbor reservations in your heart about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, that when you see a mother’s child in ruins you wonder what if that child were mine? It is not too late to hear those reservations, to listen to that other voice, to value freedom and equality for all over the value you place on your concert in Tel Aviv.
When global pressure finally forces Israel to end its occupation, when the apartheid wall comes down, when justice is served to Palestinian refugees and all people there are free and equal, I will gladly join you in concert in the Holy Land, cross all the boundaries and share our music with all the people.

“Pushing Back” the Boat People In Asia and In Europe, Symptom of Universal Insanity

By Amy Sawitta Lefevre and Fransiska Nangoy

BANGKOK/JAKARTA (Reuters) – Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia gave no response on Wednesday to a United Nations appeal for them to rescue thousands of migrants, many of them hungry and sick, adrift in boats in Southeast Asian seas.

There were conflicting statements on whether regional governments would continue to push back migrant boats in the face of the UN warning that they risked a “massive humanitarian crisis”.

“Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have decided not to receive boat people, as far as I am aware,” Major General Werachon Sukhondhapatipak, spokesman for Thailand’s ruling junta, told Reuters.

He declined to comment on the UN refugee agency UNHCR’s appeal on Tuesday for an international search and rescue operation for the many stranded on the seas between Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.

The UN has said several thousand migrants were abandoned at sea by smugglers following a Thai government crackdown on human trafficking.

Malaysia’s Home Ministry also declined to comment on the U.N. rescue appeal.

The issue would be discussed at a meeting of 15 countries, to be held in Bangkok on May 29, Thai junta spokesman Werachon said.

But the Royal Thai Navy said on Wednesday that its policy was not to send the boats back to sea.

“If they come to Thai waters we must help them and provide food and water,” Rear Admiral Kan Deeubol told Reuters. “For human rights reasons, we will not send them back to sea.”

Earlier this week, a junta spokesman said that a surge in migrants to Indonesia and Malaysia from Bangladesh and Myanmar had been caused by the crackdown and by Thai authorities blocking boats from landing.

Thailand ordered a clean-up of suspected traffickers’ camps last week after 33 bodies, believed to be of migrants from Myanmar and Bangladesh, were found in shallow graves near the Malaysian border.

That has made traffickers wary of landing in Thailand, the preferred destination for the region’s people smuggling networks, leading to many migrants being left out at sea.

‘IT’S A POLICY MATTER’

A senior Malaysian maritime official said on Tuesday, after more than 1,000 people arrived on the Malaysian island of Langkawi at the weekend, that any more boats trying to land would be turned back

“We don’t allow them in,” said First Admiral Tan Kok Kwee, northern region head of the Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency. “It’s a policy matter.”

Indonesia provided food, water and medical supplies to around 500 passengers on a boat off the coast of the northwestern province of Aceh on Monday, before sending the vessel towards Malaysia.

The Indonesian Navy said the passengers of the boat they sent onwards wanted to go to Malaysia, not Indonesia.

A day earlier and also in Aceh, Indonesia rescued nearly 600 migrants from overcrowded wooden boats. Those migrants were brought ashore and remain on Aceh.

The Indonesian policy was to offer food and shelter to refugees and coordinate with international migrant and refugee bodies, Foreign Ministry spokesman Armanatha Nasir told reporters on Wednesday. This it had done with the nearly 600 migrants it rescued on Sunday, he added.

“What we do not do is load them on to the ship and push it to the ocean,” he said.

But advocacy group ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights criticised the Indonesian government for sending the boat back to sea on Monday.

“Towing migrants out to sea and declaring that they aren’t your problem any more is not a solution to the wider regional crisis,” ABHR Chairperson and Malaysian lawmaker Charles Santiago said in a statement.

Many of the arrivals are Rohingya, a stateless Muslim minority from Myanmar described by the United Nations as one of the most persecuted minorities in the world.

‘BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS’

An estimated 25,000 Bangladeshis and Rohingya boarded rickety smugglers’ boats in the first three months of this year, twice as many in the same period of 2014, the UNHCR has said.

“When countries such as Thailand implement a push back policy, we find Rohingya bodies washing ashore,” said Sunai Phasuk at Human Rights Watch in Thailand.

“If these three countries move forward with push backs, blood will be on their hands.”

Malaysia’s police chief said that joint work with the Thai police force had helped Malaysian police smash seven syndicates involved in smuggling and trafficking in March and April.

The syndicates operated in northern Malaysia and southern Thailand, Khalid Abu Bakar told reporters on the Thai island of Phuket, where members of the two police forces met this week for annual talks on international crime.

Among 38 people arrested were two Malaysian policemen, he said.

As well as trafficking, Malaysian police believe the syndicates were involved in forging UNHCR documents, he said.

(Additional reporting by Fransiska Nangoy in JAKARTA and Apichai Thornoi in PHUKET, Thailand; Writing by Simon Webb; Editing by Nick Macfie and Alex Richardson)

reuters_tickers

TSIPRAS TO FIRE BANK OF GREECE BOSS FOR ‘UNDERMINING SYRIZA POSITION’

GREECE EXCLUSIVE: TSIPRAS TO FIRE BANK OF GREECE BOSS FOR ‘UNDERMINING SYRIZA POSITION’

the slog

gunptnet

Syriza aims smoking gun at Central Bank Governor

Former Nia Demokrita Finance Minister Yannis Stournaras asked to leave BoG

Sources within Athens media and finance told The Slog last night that Bank of Greece Governor Yannis Stournaras will be quitting his post today (Sunday). Alexis Tsipras will ask for his resignation in the light of documentary proof that the former New Democracy Finance Minister personally gave specific briefs to a top journalist about “putting the most negative spin possible on the news” about Greek finances.

Influential Greeks have long suspected that Troika sympathisers in the banking system were working in close-knit coordination with the creditors to destabilise the Syriza government led by Alexis Tsipras and Yanis Varoufakis. But the smoking gun apparently emerged last week in the shape of briefing documents from the central bank’s Governor to “a leading influential Greek journalist”.

The Slog has posted before about coordinated withdrawals from Athenian banks, and high net worth customers being encouraged to withdraw funds soon after the Syriza election victory. This case, however, is infinitely more insidious because it potentially opens up a trail of deliberate destabilisation and dirty tricks all the way back to Brussels, Berlin….and Washington.

1. YannisStournaris was the Greek Minister of Finance from 5 July 2012 until he moved to the BoG last year. It is unlikely bordering on unthinkable that senior New Democracy colleagues didn’t have any idea this briefing was going on.

2. As a senior consultant to the BoG, he was personally involved in the entry of Greece into the euro. This is now widely known to have involved corruption on a grand scale. So Stournaras has every motive for urgently destabilising the government now investigating all aspects of EMU and Greek debt.

3. Stouranaras is a senior Governor who sits on the Board of the IMF. This gives him a serious conflict of interest….but also ready access to Christine Lagarde should he need it.

4. His media ‘order-taker’ (who is known to the Athenian cognoscenti) regularly passes these briefings on to a number of neoliberal global publications…notably Reuters.

Meanwhile, the forensic investigation into debt overstatement in 2010 and how much Greek debt can be objectively defined as ‘odious’ continues.

Hat-tip to Archie X for giving me the lead on this exclusive.

The Slog would like to thank all senior members of the Eurobnoxious tendency in the British Labour Party for its unstinting support of the Greeks, and virile attacks on the bullying control freaks of Brussels-am-Berlin. It will stand forever as a beacon of apathy among progressives in the UK, and got the reward it so richly deserved in last Thursday’s British General Election.

Ukrainian Ambassador To US Fired (Scapegoated) Over Porky’s Push For Peace In Donbass

[Why would Porky fire his own ambassador for following the orders that he had given him?   Answer…He wouldn’t.  Therefore Porky was following the boss’ orders (Obama).  Ukraine is slated to become the 51st US State, no doubt.]

“Ukrainian President Poroshenko has once again called on the United Nations to deploy peacekeepers to eastern Ukraine – a repeated appeal that has previously been slammed as meaningless by analysts and seen as hopeless by the West.

But this time around, Poroshenko hinted, there is more support for the move – and it could be decisive in resolving the country’s ongoing conflict with pro-Russian separatists in the east.

A statement posted on the president’s website on April 4 suggested that progress had already been made on the matter, with foreign ministers of the so-called “Normandy 4″ said to have reacted positively to the idea after previously being skeptical in light of Russia’s reluctance and veto power in the UN Security Council.”–Kyiv Post

Motsyk_OlexanderOlexander Motsyk   

Ukrainian President Recalls Ambassador to US After Peacekeepers Request

Sputnik

Petro Poroshenko recalled Ukraine’s Ambassador to the United States after he called on Russia to support a resolution on peacekeepers in Donbass.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko recalled the country’s Ambassador to the United States Olexander Motsyk, according to the Ukrainian Presidency’s website.

Motsyk previously called on Russia to support a resolution which would deploy peacekeepers to the Donbass region.

US Policy Is Driving Force Behind the Call To Jihad

[A very strong case is made that it is US foreign policy which fuels Islamist anger and drives the call to “jihad.”  American policy has been humiliating to every Muslim since 2001, in particular, the policies of torture, secret renditions and drone assassinations, all of which have been designed to destroy the collective psyche of all Muslim males.  

Murder by drone and rendition have demonstrated to every Muslim family that none of them are safe in their beds, or in their homes anymore.  What more reason would a sensible young man need than this, to drive him to take-up arms against the American aggressors?   Yemen hosted a US drone/counter-insurgency base, allegedly used to “hunt al-Qaeda,” which was probably the driving force in Yemen’s destabilization.  The more the US and the Saudis bombed Yemen, the greater grew the unrest of all sectarian derivations. 

The ease of recruitment for ISIS (and the Middle Eastern radicals in general) is a pretty direct measure of the effectiveness of US psychological warfare.  The more we humiliate Muslims, the more jihadis answer the call to battle. 

But, I would argue that that has been the objective of the entire war on terror since its inception…find those who would be jihadis and kill them all.  It doesn’t matter to the Pentagon/CIA that they are feeding the cycle that they have been fighting to stop?  Instead of trying to kill the Muslim world to get all the survivors to “LIKE” us, we should try to disengage long enough for the Arabs to fight among themselves and settle their tribal/religious feuds which we had no right to interfere with, at all.]

Smith College religion professor, historian says US should stay out of Middle East battles

MASS live

sum.JPG

By Diane Lederman | dlederman@repub.com

 

Smith College religion professor Suleiman A. Mourad believes the United States should not be involved in the Middle East. (Diane Lederman/The Republican)

 

NORTHAMPTON – This week, Saudi Arabia took on rebels in Yemen, the latest action in the escalating conflict in the Middle East. It’s a confusing muddle of alliances.

As the New York Times reports the United States is supporting the Saudi campaign to dislodge Iranian-backed Houthi rebels but in Iraq and Syria, the United States is on the same side as Iran in the fight against the Islamic State.

And while some Congress debate whether to send in ground troops, Smith College religion professor Suleiman A. Mourad believes the United States should not be involved.

In fact anger against the United States is fueling the antagonism and serves as a recruiting tool for Isis and other extremists.

Mourad, who also studies jihad, explained some of the roots of the conflict and the reasons he believes that it needs to play out there without United States intervention.

He doesn’t think the warring parties are ready or able to talk to each other nor does he see any diplomat in the United States able to bring the parties to the table.

In fact, he said the United States is hated abroad. A native of Lebanon he returned recently and said the level of animosity between Sunnis and Shia towards the United States was extreme.

Middle Eastern leaders don’t trust or respect the United States.

The wars between Sunnis and the Shia – different sects within the Muslim community with different customs – have both modern and historical roots.
According to the BBC, most of the Muslims are Sunnis – estimates suggest the figure is somewhere between 85 to 90 percent.

Historically, Sunnis consider themselves as the orthodox or traditional form of Islam where the Shia the political faction, according to the BBC.

“There are historical grievances historical reasons that speak to the current grievances,” Mourad said, much in the way slavery here is linked to issue of race in America.

He said at the same time, some Shia are aligned with some Sunnis and vice versa. Also he said Shias in Yemen are different than the Shias of Iran. “They don’t have a common history. There’s much animosity.”

Each political leader has his own agenda and uses the rebel groups to support that just as long they don’t topple their own regime. “Every dictator has interests.”

While the Middle East was under the control of such leaders as Saddam Hussein, the militant factions were squelched but as those leaders were toppled the militant groups were able to emerge.
And what makes the modern conflict unprecedented is how widespread the uprisings are. The battle “across the Muslim world is unprecedented.”

He said the modern day Sunni militant movements began in the 1960s-1970s with the ideas of Sayyid Qutb of Egypt and Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi of Pakistan being put into practice.

They believed that Muslims rulers “were in the pockets of the West.:” And he said those militant ideologues were in “pursuit of a great Islam” and urged Muslims to jihad and unity.

Later there was a split where one group wanted a less militant approach and instead advocated for activism. The idea was “to just do activism to take control of the Sunnis. Teach ideas to ultimately unify Islam.”

But with such things as the overthrow of the Shah in Iran and Ayatollah Khomeini becoming the supreme leader and the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, these militants groups realized they had power and could demonstrate that militarism could achieve their goals.

Isis too feels like it has power with the attention it garners with the beheadings of Americans or its connection to attacks in France at Charlie Hebdo, the satirical magazine in January.

“(In their minds) It puts them on equal footing with the west,” Mourad said. And if “we are equal to the West, we can defeat the West.”

Each regime, meanwhile, in the Middle East has its own agenda but leaders are not able or willing right now to talk about what that is and how to meet their needs. Some take advantage of groups like Isis to push for their respective interests and agendas.

So the wars have to play out until they are willing to talk. Meanwhile he said, “We have no business being (there.)”

He said the Iranians during the overthrow of the Shah said, “America is Satan” and wanted to destroy the country. That hatred has only worsened as the United States has gotten more involved in the battles of the countries in the Middle East.

UN Calling Humanitarian Disaster In Syria A “Situation”

 

UN: Humanitarian situation in Syria dramatically worsened

daily sabah
Istanbul
UN: Humanitarian situation in Syria dramatically worsened

The United Nations has more than doubled its estimate of Syrians who are living in besieged areas, who risk death by starvation, dehydration and a lack of medical care, to roughly 440,000. The U.N.’s top humanitarian official said that the life expectancy of a Syrian is expected to be 20 years lower than when the conflict started. The U.N. also said that the war, which has recently entered its fifth year, has killed more than 220,000 people. It was also claimed that at least $8.5 billion is needed this year to meet the needs of Syrians.

The Arab uprisings, which euphorically swept across the Middle East and North Africa, attracted Syrians who had lived under the dictatorship of the Assad family since 1970, when Bashar’s father Hafiz Assad seized power. Since then the majority Sunnis were forced to live in a police state that tried to control every movement, organization or business through the use a wide-ranging intelligence service. In March of 2011, Syrians were emboldened enough to raise their voices against the dictatorship. However, the regime’s response was not as peaceful as the protests. And the country was subsequently dragged into a deadly civil war after opposition groups took up arms against the government. The opposition groups have also been divided internally. While moderate opposition groups like the Western-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) were struggling for a democratic Syria where all religious and political groups would be free to exist, radical elements like al-Qaida’s Syrian branch Nusra Front or the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) aimed to establish a new Syria, ruled by an extremist religious jurisprudence.

The fate of the country was changed since the war started. United Nations’ top humanitarian official said that the inability of the international community to stop the war means millions of Syrians will continue to suffer. Valerie Amos said the situation has “dramatically worsened.” In just the past month, she noted that the number of Syrians living in what are considered “besieged” areas has doubled, from 212,000 to 440,000. Nearly 5 million Syrians live in hard-to-reach areas. “The inability of this Council, and countries with influence over the different parties at war in Syria, to agree on the elements for a political solution in the country means that the humanitarian consequences will continue to be dire for millions of Syrians,” said Amos. As the world has taken stock this month of Syria on the anniversary of the conflict, Amos pointed out some of the more grim findings: “Today, a Syrian’s life expectancy is estimated to be 20 years less than when the conflict started,” she said. “Unemployment is around 58 percent, up from around 10 percent in 2010; nearly two-thirds of all Syrians are now estimated to be living in extreme poverty.” Amos later told reporters that $8.5 billion is needed this year to address the crisis both in and outside Syria, whose neighbors say they are overwhelmed by millions of refugees. Many aid groups and others in the international community say the divided council has failed the Syrian people on this and other issues. Russia, Syria’s ally, has blocked actions such as an attempted referral of the country’s situation to the International Criminal Court, though some diplomats say they’d like to try again for a referral.

(UPDATED)Brits Now On the Ground Preparing Ukrainians To Kill Russians, Pentagon Troops To Follow

[A funny thing happened on the way to this article’s posting yesterday…NOT REALLY…I was cyber-attacked while on the Russia Today site obtaining this post.  My new computer (courtesy of my computer guru) seized-up and became inoperable.  After the second try at a “hard boot,” I managed to get things working well enough to post the post.  The rest of the day, was marked by several more seizures, before retiring.  Today, the computer will not boot-up, period.  My daughter guru managed to get it functioning somewhat after a complete restart and wipe of the computer.  It is trying to recompile itself now, standing at 15%, after an hour at it.  Whoever planted the virus or trojan, wanted to disable my computer completely and they did that…but this is not the first time that this has happened, nor is it the same computer…computer #3 for this scenario.  Two older XPs could not be recovered.  This latest one is Vista 8.1.

Considering the article subject, UK TROOPS, then I can only assume that this latest breech of my right to occupy Internet space was by the British Government, or by their CIA masters.

FUCK THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.]

UK troops start training Ukraine’s army, US confirms own mission

Russia-Today
British Prime Minister David Cameron poses with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko (R).(Reuters / Eric Vidal)

British Prime Minister David Cameron poses with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko (R).(Reuters / Eric Vidal)

UK military personnel have arrived in Ukraine and are beginning their training mission there, Britain’s Ministry of Defence has announced. Meanwhile the US will send nearly 300 paratroopers to start training the country’s national guard next month.

The deployment of foreign troops has started amid a barely holding cease-fire in the country’s east.

With the aim of helping Kiev’s army to fight anti-government forces, according to the UK MoD, its training mission is now operating in Ukraine, with the numbers of involved personnel “depending on the schedule.”

“The first elements of the training package began in March…we have got troops out there training,” a ministry spokeswoman told AP. According to the BBC, 35 personnel are now in the country’s south, deployed as part of a two-month mission.

Last month, British ministers announced that up to 75 troops at a time would be involved in a six-month-long mission, training Kiev’s military “to strengthen the defensive capability of the Ukrainian armed forces and build the resilience that they need.”

The UK also announced plans to send a “gift” of non-lethal equipment to support president Poroshenko’s forces, but has ruled out any lethal aid supplies to the country.

Russia has expressed its concerns over the military training missions, saying such actions do not support the conflict settlement in eastern Ukraine.

“[The move] certainly does not contribute neither to strengthening of trust, nor to de-escalation of tensions in the conflict,” Dmitry Peskov, the spokesman for the Russian president, said, as quoted by RIA Novosti.

US training mission to begin ‘late April’

The US also plans to launch military training mission in Ukraine soon. American vice-president Joe Biden has spoken to Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko over the phone and informed him about the start of such a mission in the near future, the Ukrainian presidential press service announced. According to the statement, Biden informed Poroshenko of President Obama’s decision to train 780 Ukrainian military by US specialists.

Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez confirmed on Thursday that US soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade, based in Vincenza, Italy, will travel to western Ukraine sometime in late April.

“This assistance is part of our ongoing efforts to help sustain Ukraine’s defense and internal security operations,” Lainez said as quoted by the Hill. An exact date for the US training mission initially announced last year has not yet been finalized.

After a final review of the mission, it now includes 290 American military trainers, according to Lainez. The training will take place in the western town of Yavoriv, near the Polish border.

The training will include six Ukrainian national guard units, “with a focus on internal security and territorial defense,” Lainez added, according to AFP.

Last week Washington announced an additional $75 million worth of non-lethal military aid which includes armored and unarmored Humvees, Raven drones, anti-mortar radars and night vision goggles.

Western Financial System Is Driving It to War

Western Financial System Is Driving It to War

russia insider

Leading Russian intellectual Starikov believes the unsustainable nature of amoral finance capitalism is driving western countries to a catastrophic war, which he sees as an existential threat to peace for Russia and the rest of the world

To Russian eyes the west is on a war footing
In the course of life today, we’ve grown accustomed to using terms whose meaning we might not fully understand. We throw them around casually, not realizing that they lose their meaning and sometimes even come around to stand for their exact opposite. This is precisely why the sense has arisen today in society that there is a need to determine in a clear and understandable manner exactly what is happening on the global chessboard in front of all of our eyes – the Big Story, written online.

Even those people the very furthest from politics are feeling the need for understanding and explaining to themselves the reasons for the things they encounter even just moving through their own lives. Why have prices in stores started to go up? What’s the reason for the fact that, quietly and nearly unnoticed, belief in a brighter tomorrow is slipping? When and why did talk about a possible war stop being speculative and distant? These and dozens of other questions have driven millions of yesterday-apolitical citizens to seek answers. They feel the need to find those answers and to construct a new worldview in which what-comes-tomorrow is not simply a lottery ticket, but a predictable and logical continuation of today. Predictable and, hopefully, not frightening.

This atmosphere, unfortunately, is a breeding grounds for attempts to brainwash our citizens and to stuff their heads with ideas which will be devastating to them personally. But this devastation will come hidden within banal attempts stubbornly do good. So let’s try to dissect the methods and means of manipulating the people’s conscience which we have already started to encounter. And, which will grow in direct proportion to the problems being encountered by our geopolitical opponents.

1. THE ROOTS AND SOURCE OF TODAY’S ECONOMIC AND GEOPOLITICAL CRISIS.

Today, the world is in a situation that can be characterized as a dead end that the liberal financial-oriented world economy drove itself into after remaining the dominant economic system following the collapse of the USSR. Not going into much more detail on that theme, since doing so would require a whole other in-depth discussion, I will simply point out that, as historical experience and logical consideration confirm, this economic system cannot work without theft. On its own, without infusions from outside, it is not able to sustain itself, therefore a long period in which no one goes to war and no one is robbed, for countries sitting at the top of the liberal “food chain”, will always mean a crisis of the economic system itself. The need for war or theft is a matter of life and death for many (if not for all) countries of the West. The danger for the West today is that “potential victims” are nowhere to be found. In the world of today, the approximate parity of strength is like it was before two world wars, which itself increases many times over the risk of a new world conflict. A classical conflict, as during the previous two world wars, or as a hybrid, hidden beneath a large number of local conflicts (the main goal of which will be not to allow the nuclear weapons deterrent to be used!) together with informational and economic aggression.

What goals are the wars’ organizers aiming for? 

First and foremost is a breaking of established economic ties, a deepening everywhere of the economic slide, except for in agreed-upon “economic growth spots”. In the First and Second World Wars this zone was the USA and once again they are trying to repeat this scenario. In addition, a goal of starting wars is the nullification or depreciation of “pre-war” debts and a restart of the world economy. An analysis of the upcoming conflict’s probable zones of destruction and (or) thievery which will permit the world economy to be restarted while preserving the existing economic model and the currently-constituted “economic food chain” for the existing financial elites shows that the level of accumulated contradictions can only be resolved at the expense of Russia and her demolition. The situation in the disparate and ailing enclaves of Europe and Asia, surrounded by the raging chaos that will come from the destruction of our country, will allow the United States to retain for itself the role of regulator of the world’s economy, island of stability, and the source point for new growth. Growth for itself, for Europe, and for Asia under the USAs security guarantees, paid for by the robbery of our country and our people.

How do the interests balance in the quadrilateral: USA, Europe, Russia, and China? 

The USA and Russia in this are antagonists. Why? Because retaining the privileged role of the USA is only possible at the expense of Russia, and under the circumstances of a weakened China and Europe. That being the case, such aspirations make it very unlikely that there will be an “amicable” consensus between Russia and the USA without a change (or a solidifying via Russia’s defeat) in the established order of things. That means that in the absence of a “Neo-Gorbachevism” we will inevitably be forced to stand against the States — just to be able to survive and retain ourselves. This is unavoidable. Europe in this case is the sole ally of the United States. Today’s “European submissiveness” to the will of the USA is the result of deeper causes, and unlikely solely due to “bought and blackmailed” leadership. Europe, lacking its own combat-capable armed forces and its own independent financial system capable of providing a sufficient level of financial sovereignty, is forced to follow in America’s wake. Which, for better or worse, is providing her both the first and the second.

Is this situation final and irrevocable? It seems to me that it isn’t. Europe will cry, but will eat the cactuses like the mice in the joke, for just as long as the USA is able to guarantee her safety and economic stability (though maybe in lesser amounts). The threat of losing all of this can flip Europe from the USA’s side in search of new guarantors of its separate and privileged position. In the event of a “fall of Russia”, Europe will become “frontline” territory at whose borders there will be aggressive instability. Europe will be most satisfied with Russia in a “USSR variant”, where the state, in “Gorbachev’s manner”, withdraws and enthusiastically permits itself to be robbed like a masochist. But the variant where Russia resists, and from this the country springs up as, not a “zone of robbery”, but a “zone exporting aggressive instability” (like today in the former Ukraine) will not please Europe. In sum, we will have a situation where Europe supported the USA in its attempted “blitzkrieg” against Russia as the better of its available courses. However, continuing Russian resistance changes the situation and in the future will inevitably lead to Europe, though with numerous reservations and attempts to negotiate preferential treatment, having to distance itself from the American policies directed towards the destruction of Russia. China in this quadrilateral (USA-Europe-Russia-China) is our natural and situational ally in its own opposition to the collective West. After all, today it is becoming a competitor to China in the economic as well as the political sphere. Any kind of strengthening of Russia will automatically result in a weakening of the West as a competitor to China. Therefore, so long as China can trust that it will no longer have to run up against Khrushchev-Gorbachev-Yeltsin-type “wiggly” unpredictable policies from Moscow, we can count on the economic and political support of China. Let’s sum it up. We are dealing with opposition between the USA and Russia, in which Europe and China play the part of tactical (within certain bounds) allies of the battling sides as they pursue their own goals in the confrontation. Therefore, neither Europe nor China is interested – unlike the USA – in the total destruction of Russia. After all, in that event both Europe and China would be weakened and would stand alone against a strengthened USA, as well as surrounded territorially by Eurasian chaos.

The USA needs Russia to die quickly. Europe was ready for a blitzkrieg under the management of the USA, but Europe is not ready for a drawn-out, long, and “expensive” conflict. China is prepared for a “game of debts” and is prepared to weaken both the USA and Europe in economical and political support of Russia, but is not prepared in this conflict to “take the bit between their teeth”, since it is still not ready to throw its entire weight into opposition, burdened as it is with its own problems and a worries due to the “Gorbachev effect”.

Given the shortage of time, the only path to survival for the USA is to demolish Russia from within and have her collapse. Either that, or a radical change of power in Russia which would abruptly turn the country’s ship of state around and permit the subsequent chaos and war. This would, in turn, give the States the necessary conditions for breaking the financial and economic channels of interaction in Eurasia and the weakening of both Europe and China, but at the “fault” of the new Russian government. We have a situation where the organization of an internal explosion in Russia displacing the legal government is for the USA a question of its own survival.

2. INFORMATION WARFARE IN RUSSIA – A QUESTION OF SURVIVAL FOR THE USA.

In the beginning of the article I mentioned that the current situation is forcing Russian citizens to actively seek answers to many questions. This pursuit of information, this struggle between various points of view, opinions and ideas opens a “window of opportunity” for those attempting to influence foreign policies of the country by influencing internal political situation. Chaos and war are once again becoming the one and only weapon of choice for the dollar. Russia, despite being subject to Western economic and information aggression, still:

  • continues to strengthen its economy;
  • continues its shift towards East;
  • retains the role of an economic and political bridge between Europe and Asia;
  • preserves its leading military and political position on the continent;
  • possesses decisive energy, scientific and manufacturing potential;
  • continues to adapt to hostile economic and political relations with a certain part of the world;

Such Russia is not in the interests of the USA. Stronger Russia will play a stronger stabilizing role in the world. Not only it is not going to become the source of chaos and war in Eurasia, it also has a high potential to distance Europe from the “leading and directing” role of the USA, which is totally unacceptable for America. Hence the question – what can US do in this situation?

First, US needs to instill chaos and war in the minds of Russian citizens, to have this chaos reach the “critical mass” needed to enable them to either influence the actions of the government on international stage or, which would be even “better”, tear down the government altogether, similar to how it was done in February of 1917 or August of 1991. Today, citizens of Russia have many questions, which is a great opportunity to provide answers which will lead them to actions that would ultimately be in US interests.

And such “answers” have already been prepared by the all-knowing well-wishers…

3. CAUTION: MANIPULATION!

Let’s reiterate that this is very important. In order to survive and preserve its leading role on international stage, US desperately needs to plunge Eurasia into chaos, to cut economic ties between Europe and APR (Asia-Pacific Region). The States need to turn the territory that lies between them (Russia, Central Asia, Middle East) into a zone with local armed conflicts, falling economies, deficient governments and general instability. Middle East is already very close to a state of total chaos, US-created ISIL is working to further complicate the situation in that region. Central Asia is a potentially very unstable region and it has been “farmed out” to the revived Taliban, but so far it has kept the appearance of stability. Russia is the only territory within this potential zone of instability that is capable of resistance. It is the only state that is ready to confront the Americans. Undermining Russia’s political will for resistance, shifting its foreign policy – is a vitally important task for America.

How can this be achieved given that the will of the President of Russia can be clearly defined as anti-American and the ability to realize this will is as strong as ever, thanks to the stability of the ruling establishment? The only way to achieve this is to drag the leadership of the country into a long and debilitating stand-off with its own people.

Liberal scenario (ineffective) 

In the long term, the unity of Russian people and their leadership can be broken by providing liberal answers to questions that are important for the apolitical majority. To achieve this, long forgotten “weathered soldiers” of ideological battles, who were not part of the events of 2011-12, have been brought out of nonexistence (Stankevich, Nadezhin and others). They are working to convince the Russian society that today’s Russia is “in over its head”. In other words, Russia, by protecting its geopolitical interests and by breaking every imaginable international rule, is behaving in a way that is unacceptable for a “gas station” country. Therefore, not having the required economic potential and sufficient international weight, Russia is bound to end up in international economic and political isolation. This will impact the lives of average citizens by significantly lowering their standard of living, the government will lose control over the state affairs and, ultimately, the state itself will be torn apart. Of course the proposed remedy for all these ailments is this: “fold” to US, recognize the leading role of US in the world and generally follow in the footsteps of American policies. This means that Russia must give up its national geopolitical interests, return Crimea, take on the burden of supporting Ukraine and then, just like in the 90’s, follow directions of Western advisors who will determine the path of political and economic development of the country.

Today, the level of “immunity” of Russian society against this liberal scenario is quite high. The nineties and the “liberal shift” attempt in 2011-12 served well to create a stable “anti-liberal” sentiment within Russian society. That’s why realization of this scenario is not possible in the short term, but our Anglo-Saxon enemies always plan well ahead. This liberal point of view will be kept alive and will be cultivated among a certain type of urban intellectuals who are traditionally aligned with Western values. And, in case society becomes fed up with patriotism, these intellectuals will be the ones to present Russian society with a point of view that will be in line with Western interests.

Patriotic scenario (main) 

The States don’t really care what particular scenario will sink the territory of Eurasia (Russia – Customs Union) into chaos or what will cut the strong economic ties along the EU-Russia-Customs Union-China line. Whether Russia follows the liberal scenario described above, dissolves the way USSR did or willingly plunges into chaos and localized armed conflicts – makes no difference to US. If Russia starts throwing its weight around and using force to assert its own views and interpretations of international rules of co-existence, the US will just as well reach its intended goals. The important expression here is “using force”. That will result in chaos and war in Eurasia, which is all US needs.

Russian society has overcome the virus of liberalism and is not ready to become infected with it again, and that is exactly why instead of the “liberal scenario of voluntary dissolution” they are being offered the “patriotic scenario” that instills in their minds an arrogant faith in success. In practice, this translates into certain public figures, who are consistently viewed as being patriotic, persistently offering… scenarios which require use of force in future developments in Eurasia. They are also interpreting past events using assumptions that every event was dealt with from the position of force, position of power. These interpretations are exactly what US needs. As a matter of fact, these interpretations, and the part of Russian society that is behind them, are so closely aligned with US interests that Western political and public figures have been focusing solely on this particular part of Russian society, using them in propaganda and diplomatic efforts directed against the current leadership of the President in the Russian Federation. It is possible to assert that a certain part of those who consider themselves to be patriots of Russia willingly or unwillingly are working in the interests of Western aggressors. Interpreting the events of 2014 as “Russia using force to apply pressure on Ukraine”, calling for a wider and more profound use of force in Ukraine in the future and accusing Russian leadership of not providing sufficient military and technical support for Donbass militia, they are allowing Western diplomats to interpret all their statements as “proof of Russian aggression”. And a very valuable proof at that, because, according to Western views and practice of legal precedents, a witness account of Russian use of force in Ukraine, coming from those who took part in the events (Strelkov-Girkin), is an indisputable and necessary proof that the USA and the collective West are acting appropriately against “aggressor Russia”. This is a case of remedy being more dangerous than the ailment. This “proof of Russian aggression” is allowing Washington to justify sanctions and cutting relations with Moscow. The logic of confrontation with Russia includes mechanisms designed to rupture Eurasian economic ties, which will inevitably lead to chaos across the entire Eurasian continent. And that is exactly what the US is trying to achieve.

Russian “patriots”, who are, in reality, defending US interests (regardless of what they themselves think), in fact… are probing the Russian society to figure out just how possible it is to organize mass protests in the country. With today’s strong leadership that is stirring Russia towards absolute sovereignty, this task seems nearly impossible. But if their point of view starts affecting the mindset of the majority of Russian citizens, an attempt to use “street democracy” to push Russia towards “use of force” scenario in Ukraine can be made. And that will be a 100% American victory over Europe and China. Therefore, we can safely conclude that “street democracy” using popular “patriotic” slogans instead of the unpopular liberal ones is the most desired development within Russia for the USA. So desirable that the States will nurture and support (financially, using media and PR) those “patriotic” Russian figures who, willingly or unwillingly, are acting in line with American interests. Impartial analysis of information and media shows that this is exactly how events are unfolding in Russia.

How can this be fought and how can the ill-fated path of 1914-style “destructive patriotism” be averted? The victory over the minds and hearts of Russian citizens can only be achieved by spreading the truth and disclosing the methods of manipulation used by Russian “patriots” who are currently helping our eternal enemies in their information war against Russia.

Some Examples of Manipulation. 

The mass manipulation of consciousness, in the first-order is the implicit substitution of desires from genuine goals to manufactured goals. Any conscious ‘exposure’ of this process, even though it identifies these first-order manufactured goals, is itself manufactured (‘second order’) on the very basis of this ‘exposure’. The methodolical manufacture of this second order phenomenon logically enables a pure inversion of genuine desires and thus by direct implication, reality.

For example, those ‘ultra-patriotic’ chaps working, doubtlessly part-time, for the U.S. State Department will state that ‘We should militarily intervene in the Ukraine. Working on an emotional level (the most commonly applied method of ‘softening up’ for manipulation) they will tell us of the unspeakable ordeals endured by the people of the Donbass. It is surely the healthy reaction of any human being to wish to give assistance and support. An example would be the incursion of Russian troops into the Ukraine with the aim of averting a humanitarian catastrophe and putting a halt to the genocide of the Russian population. Moreover, we can confirm that this incursion cannot be dangerous for Russia insofar as Russia is already under the most onerous sanction regime imaginable which the Russian people bear unjustly. Simultaneously the public is ‘calmed’ by the belief that NATO will under no circumstances allow itself to be drawn into armed conflict with Russia, in possession of nuclear weapons which can be used as a ‘trump card’ in any negotiations. Strelkov-Girkin has developed the knack of projecting a statesmanly wisdom. He endlessly affirms that those speaking of peace are in denial about the ongoing war scares Russians with the spectre of NATO forces. These self-same NATO forces, in turn, simply swallow any half-baked statements and perceive any movement of Russian forces as having the goal of overthrowing the regime in Kiev. Why? Because it allegedly can’t directly oppose Russia because of her well supplied army and her nuclear forces.

So how do we apply, to the current situation, the concept of the implicit substitution of desires to manufactured goals? Well the point is that instead of the actual escalating Hybrid war, being fought with the aim of exhausting the enemy, using the full spectrum of potential threats with the exception of Nuclear weapons, we see that the public is presented with the traditional threat of a second world war confrontation (replete with Nazis and Swastikas).

Such wars can be characterized by opponents openly trying to destroy each other mainly by military confrontation. In such conflicts, the aim is simply to destroy or take control of the opposition center of political decision making by military means. This was sufficient as it destroyed the ‘brain’ of the enemy. In modern hybrid war the political decisions will be taken in the Western Centers remote from the military conflict (Brussels, Washington). The military conflicts will be delegated to peripheral centers (the Kievan ‘Junta’; the Donbass ‘Novorossiya’; ISIS (Islamic State) active in the North Caucasus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, perpetrating terrorist activities in the Volga region; the Taliban active in Central Asia, the Urals and the far east of Russia). Correspondingly, economic aggression will be applied from the financial bloc controlled by the West. Engaging militarily in the Donbass, Russia in the short term will be on the receiving end of a series of strikes in the above regions and in its urban centers. Countering these blows (dependent on the scale of the territory destabilized) will demand the dramatic strengthening of the Russian military including the special services and the transformation of the economy as well as everyday life onto a war footing, which of course is neglected in the patriotic narrative projected by the ‘manipulators’. Such ‘surprises’ for the Russian society, who are simply geared up for a “small victorious war in the Donbas” under the current patriotic narrative will incline public opinion towards direction the liberal activists, those supporters of the “peaceful dissolution” of Russia. Such appeals will sound repeatedly to “rest under the wing” under the American world order and the popularity of such ideas will dramatically grow. In summary, we witness the re-emergence of the provocateurs of the sort we had in 1914, these ‘Hurray Patriots’ who paved the way for the provocateurs of February 1917.

These same liberal capitalists are ready for the widest possible cooperation with the West on its terms in the ordering of Russian life. However, even if against the odds, Russia will pull off another “Russian miracle” and be able resolve, through military means, the numerous military conflicts both along its borders and within its territory, even this great victory will not destroy the Western center of decision-making. Washington and Brussels will remain out of reach of the Russian army, as they are not directly participating in any of these conflicts.

While Russia will face outside the military and terrorist aggression forming an existential threat to the state, Europe without an efficient army, dogged by controversy and lack of a single center of decision-making will be in no better straites. Europe will be forced, against the background of a Russia “which is on fire,” to simply forget about their own geopolitical interests and stand in line with the Americans. At the same time, Europeans will be forced to acquiesce to a significant decline in their living standards, and be subordinated to all the other American adventures. As a direct consequence, economic cooperation through Europe – Russia – Trans-Siberian will decline to an absolute minimum, if it survives at all.

China, similarly faced with instability in its own underbelly in Central Asia and facing growing aggression from NATO allies in Taiwan and Japan, will be forced to limit its military, political and economic support to Russia, awaiting the outcome of the confrontation and eventually breaking its ties with the United States. As a result, we see the realization of the US plan: economic cooperation between Europe – Russia – TC – China, minimized or neutralized, and the existence between China and Europe of zone of global instability and local wars. Russia will have to exert all its strength to survive, which will eliminate its opportunities for political maneuver and peace-building and economic development.

4. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?

Firstly, we need to look objectively, without emotions at the root cause of the issue. Collectively, the West enslaved by its ineffective liberal, finance oriented economic model, will inevitably be forced to engage in local or planetary plunder to fulfil its own dynamic requirements for existence. A suitable metaphor would be a car running out of fuel with the engine running. Any delay will dramatically increase the chances of the engine ‘seizing up’ which will render further motion impossible. The driver of the car facing such threats is prone to panic and make mistaken decisions when trying to refuel. Assuming that one is not inclined to help the driver the natural course of action would be to let the driver make all these mistakes and for the engine to be allowed to seize up.

Russia’s actions in the contemporary situation should be based on several principles: 

First, we must understand that every day we delay the onset of full scale hybrid war strengthens us and weaken our enemies. Each day of delay – allows us to establish economic ties to the Eurasian space, making Russia less vulnerable. Each day of delay – it is an additional burden on the “western car” and its fuel consumption.

Today, the West and the United States are incurring significant costs maintaining its hybrid “War Infrastructure” (the junta in Kiev, Islamic State, the Taliban, 5th Columns inside China and Russia), but it is still investing without accruing dividends. Each day of delay signifies a new weapon for the Russian army, new production in Russia and an increase in readiness for difficult times.

Secondly, using the tactics of “viscous defense” when every new step on the occupied territory carries obvious loss for the occupier, Russia increases the chance of a split in the “Euro-Atlantic Coalition” The weak point of the West is that it is not monolithic. I.e. the “slaves” are always ready to betray the “masters” if the cost / risk associated with coalition leads to an unjustified increase in the level of risk. Today, the West is stuck in Ukraine. “Blitzkrieg” failed. The original plan to separate the Ukraine from Russia, reorientation its markets to Europe, while maintaining the previous level of Russian economic support for Ukraine, is now firmly in the past. For the US the Ukraine forms and outstanding catalyst for Eurasian Chaos. However for Europe, Ukraine is a “White Elephant” with severe and infectious behavioral issues which has kindly donated by the Americans to them. For the sake of countering “Russian Aggression” Europe is ready to consolidate and bear hardships, but to preserver Poroshenko and Co., still less, for the sake of geopolitical dispute between Russia and the United States, the willingness to bear hardships becomes a lot less.

Thirdly, we must remember that the advantage in war is to those who choose their time and terrain. This is critical. Start a war when we see the result will not be to win these peripheral conflicts i.e. the Kievan ‘Junta’, the Islamic state or the Taliban, but rather to achieve victory over the “center of real political decision making” in Washington. A war should be fought for this goal and none other.

On the basis of the above, we can see that every victory of Assad in Syria, and every victory of the militia of the Donbass and Lugansk Republics saves lives of Russian soldiers and Russian territory from ruin. We see a unique situation, the first time in Russian history, when the forces of aggression against Russia are based on the distant outskirts of our country. Russia is obliged, according to her own interests, to furnish every assistance and support, to weaken the Western Coalition, thus expanding the cracks of various interests in the allegedly monolithic Euro-American unity.

5. CONCERNING “PATRIOTIC” MANIPULATORS.

On January 28, 2015 in St. Petersburg, the Russian party “Great Society” organized a cultural gathering with the writer, essayist and translator Dmitry Y. Puchkov as keynote speaker. Dmitry Y. was predictably humble, consumed by his own thoughts and interests, which were genuinely, without excessive sophistication, quite profound. I was unfortunately unable to attend this meeting, as due to a business trip in Nizhny Novgorod.

However, when I watched recordings of the proceedings, I was immediately struck by the savage accuracy of the metaphor of the Russian intelligentsia, worshiping the West, with the liberal intelligencia playing the role of “Evil Shepherds”, leading their flock of sheep to the slaughter. The allegory is devastatingly accurate. The West have maintained their dominance by the means of murder and robbery on a planetary scale. They “manufacture their image” in the eyes of future victims, using these “evil shepherds” from the intelligentsia. Without these “Evil Shepherds”, any potential victim from the Soviet Union to Ukraine today, could be saved from plunder and mobilize their own self-preservation instinct. It is only the conscious and pro-active manipulation that these, “intellectuals” practice, performing the role of administrators of “spiritual chloroform”, which has allowed public opinion to be so manipulated.

Events of the last year and especially the last few months have unfortunately led me to be convinced that that the existence of the “Evil Shepherds” may not only be among those enthralled by the west, but also among those administrating “patriotic” rhetoric to the public.

However, I am deeply convinced that our Russian society, representatives of all the peoples of our country have a sufficient high level of consciousness to counter this pseudo-patriotic manipulation which works for the benefit of the United States. After all, our people were able to emerge from the liberal manipulation of a few years earlier. The memory “of Greeks bearing gifts” battered us in the 90s, battered us until our pores wept sweat and blood.  As for me, I will, to the best of my ability, resist these new attempts to deceive our society under the renewed and pseudo-patriotic slogans.

 

Nikolai Starikov is Russian writer, political activist and influential public intellectual. For a wider introduction see here.

Right or wrong, he is an indicator of what thousands or millions of Russians believe.

This article originally appeared at the author’s blog. It was translated by: DzhMM, Mikhael and Gideon at The Vineyard of the Saker 

Bemoaning the Human Tragedy of Syria, Without Blaming Obama For It

[The US military has created so many new wars throughout the region that it should have fully absorbed the lessons of those wars by now, in particular, the grieveous human cost of ill-advised, or outright foolish military adventurism. Unleashing tnunamis of war refugees is a bi-product of all war, contingencies should have been prepared years ago (before starting new wars) to humanely deal with the refugees in surrounding countries. Blaming any of this upon ISIS should be unacceptable since it was the US/Saudi sponsorship of Islamists within Syria that created the monster in the first place. The ISIS/refugee problems which arose offer proof that the Pentagon either suffers from a total lack of foresight or the slightest degree human compassion. It is no wonder that so many returning war vets suffer from PTSD. Any legislation passed to deal with the refugee crisis now, should have already been enacted after the first regime-change disaster in Iraq, or before the consecutive disasters in Libya, Syria, Yeman, and Ukraine (?).]

npr
Syrian girls, carrying school bags provided by UNICEF, walk past the rubble of destroyed buildings on their way home from school on March 7 in the rebel-held al-Shaar neighborhood of Aleppo, Syria. So many people have fled the city and so much of its infrastructure has been destroyed that nighttime satellite images show 97 percent less light compared to four years ago.

Syrian girls, carrying school bags provided by UNICEF, walk past the rubble of destroyed buildings on their way home from school on March 7 in the rebel-held al-Shaar neighborhood of Aleppo, Syria. So many people have fled the city and so much of its infrastructure has been destroyed that nighttime satellite images show 97 percent less light compared to four years ago.  Zein al-Rifai/AFP/Getty Images

 

The conflict in Syria is entering its fifth year, and two new reports suggest it just keeps getting worse for civilians there.

One United Nations agency says life expectancy has plummeted by 20 years in the once-developed nation, while another new study based on nighttime satellite imagery finds that, in the past four years, 83 percent of the country’s lights have gone off.

And that’s just the average, says Michael Klosson, vice president for policy at aid group Save the Children. In areas like Aleppo, where much of the populace has fled and infrastructure has been pulverized, researchers found that light has been reduced as much as 97 percent.

Klosson says he thinks the satellite images illustrate that the hopes for Syria’s children — his aid group’s focus — are darkening.

“You’ve got 5.5 million kids who need humanitarian assistance — that’s equivalent to the population of the entire state of Maryland,” he says. “That’s a lot of kids in need.”

Meanwhile the U.N. report says life expectancy has fallen from nearly 76 years to under 56 in Syria, that the nation’s education system has collapsed and that the country is descending into poverty.All that despite a UN Security Council resolution passed last year to open up aid routes. Activists say it’s had little impact.

“The U.N. and the world have failed, and things have gotten worse for civilians,” says Gawain Kripke, director of policy and research at Oxfam America. “Our ability to provide assistance has been limited, and there are more people in places that are hard to reach now, than there were before the U.N. took action.”

Aid groups can’t get to about 4.8 million people in Syria, Kripke says, 2.5 percent higher than in 2013. The rise of the self-proclaimed Islamic State certainly plays a role, but Kripke says Washington has been too focused on that.

“We’re spending a lot of time, money and resources focusing on parts of the problem — like ISIS — but it’s not a comprehensive solution to the conflict,” he says. “And it’s ignoring the suffering that’s going on.”

The problem is so enormous — former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Wednesday said, “What is happening on the ground in Syria is a humanitarian and human rights catastrophe of the first order” — that some worry people may decide it’s a lost cause.

“It has the danger of people switching off, because it’s hard to imagine what can be done,” says Nigel Pont, who is stationed in Beirut for Mercy Corps. “While we are not able to put an end to this war, and while we can’t alleviate everyone’s suffering, we are able to help millions of people a year.”

Save the Children’s Klosson also worries that the world’s attention is shifting away, and is urging the U.S. and other world powers to step up humanitarian assistance and work harder to find a solution the conflict.

“That’s how you get the lights back on,” he says.

Dumb-Ass Republican Leadership Frothing At the Mouth For MORE WAR!

[SEE:  Half of the US Senate Publicly Undermines and Embarasses the President of the United States (Cotton and 46 Fellow Senators to Send Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran)]

GOP’s New Foreign Policy Hero Is a Surveillance-Loving Interventionist Nightmare

reason

In soviet America, Cotton picks you! |||
Freshman Sen. Tom Cotton wants to invade Iran and Syria, jail journalists and whistleblowers, eavesdrop on Americans, and keep the ‘savages’ locked up in Gitmo.

Matt Welch

He’s “the star of the 2014 Senate class,” proclaims The Washington Post. A “conservative superstar,” deems The Atlantic. The “leading GOP national security hawk,” says The Washington Post again. Even a “dark horse” 2016 candidate for president, says The New Republic. So just who exactly is the new letter-writing chairman of the Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee, and what does his prominence say about the contemporary GOP?

Beyond being a Harvard-educated Army veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol’s biggest new political protégé, and also a target of sustained affection from National Review, Cotton is a politician who has already taken plenty of policy positions. Among them:

* That the U.S. should pre-emptively invade Iran, topple the mullahs, and ensure “replacement with [a] pro-western regime.”

* That “we should be proud for the way we treated these savages at Guantanamo Bay,” and that “the only problem with Guantanamo Bay is that there are too many empty beds.”

* That we should keep at least 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for the forseeable future to finally get the job done there.

* That the U.S. should deploy ground troops against ISIS.

* That President Barack Obama should have taken “decisive, effective military action” against Syria after the regime crossed the administration’s “red line” in 2013.

* That the National Security Agency needs to be able to collect bulk metadata on unsuspecting Americans, because “Folks, we are at war. You may not like that truth … Do not take this tool away from our warriors on the front lines.”

* That Edward Snowden is a “traitor.”

* That defense spending needs to be jacked up: “We need to restore money not only cut by the sequester but the $1 trillion [reduced before that].”

* That, “Far from restraining the use of drones […] through unwise and unconstitutional mechanisms, we should continue and probably expand their use in our war against radical Islam.”

* That Iraq was a “just and noble war.”

* That, concerning pre-emptive military intervention, “George Bush largely did have it right, that we can’t wait for dangers to gather on the horizon, that we can’t let the world’s most dangerous people get the world’s most dangerous weapons, and that we have to be willing to defend our interests and the safety of our citizens abroad even if we don’t get the approval of the United Nations.”

* That ending President Barack Obama’s negotiations with Iran “is very much an intended consequence” of Cotton’s efforts in the Senate; “a feature, not a bug.”

* That, concerning the Obama administration’s November 2013 agreement with Iran in Geneva, “I fear that future generations may view what happened in Geneva as we have viewed Munich for 75 years. What makes this moment worse is that the West appeased Hitler at Munich out of fear and weakness. President Obama capitulated at Geneva even though we were in a position of strength given the sanctions regime. One can only imagine the thinking behind this grievous, historic mistake.”

Cotton first came to prominence as an Army lieutenant in Iraq in 2006, when he wrote a soon-to-be-viral open letter to then-New York Times executive editor Bill Keller and reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau criticizing the paper’s investigative piece about administration efforts to disrupt terrorist financing. The letter closes with a desire to see the journalists deprived of their freedom:

And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others — laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

It is no wonder that neoconservatives such as Washington Free Beacon founder Michael Goldfarb wish “there were 20 Tom Cottons.” The open question, as it pertains to the new GOP majority, is whether Goldfarb is correct in his assessment that “At the end of the day, the Republican base is for bombing bad people.”

 

Is Human Compassion Weakness In A World Ruled By Psychopathy?

Beyond Insanity

seren6

By Amos M. Gunsberg

We used to call them psychopaths — these creatures that appear on our planet physically in human form, but are not human beings.

We noted they are amoral. That should have given us a clue.

We noted they do not FEEL feelings. That should have instructed us.

We noted they are heartless. That should have set off the alarm.

These creatures lack elements which distinguish the human being. They exhibit no connection with, no understanding of what we call “morality,” “honesty,” “decency,” “fair play,” etc. They lack the faculty we call empathy. They lack the faculty we call introspection.

Mankind has spent centuries trying to make sense of these creatures as some form of human being. All in vain. Not only in vain, but at enormous on-going cost to our civilization. These creatures are not human beings gone wrong. They are a different species … dedicated to the murder of human values … as a prelude to the murder of human beings … e.g., the tactics used by Nazis, past and present.

They laugh at us. They say: “No one understands us. People can’t put themselves in the minds of men who act without a conscience. They try to understand, but they can’t.”

These creatures do not THINK human. They do not SPEAK human. They do not know what it is to BE human.

We classify them as “humanoid.”

Yes, they have human form. If we manage to resist their onslaught long enough, we will eventually develop technical scanning equipment which will measure how different they are from human beings, despite their similarity of form.

In the meantime, the quality of our lives … and often our very lives … depends on our recognizing these creatures for what they are, and taking steps to neutralize their attempts to destroy us.

EVIDENCE OF HUMANOID BEHAVIOR

They make pronouncements without substantiation. To them, these pronouncements represent what reality is … pronouncement by pronouncement. The present pronouncement may contradict what they said a moment ago. This means nothing to them. They make no attempt to deal with the contradiction.

They demonstrate a total lack of understanding what we mean by a “fact.” In their writings and in their speech, they do not use that word.

We humans find this hard to believe. The use of facts is such a basic part of our lives. We base our conclusions and our actions on them. We go on from there to test things and establish more facts. When we debate, we present facts, and show how we derive our observations and our positions from them.

Without facts, all we have is what we call “fantasy.”

Since these creatures have a human appearance, we assume they must think like us … be aware of what we are aware. We think they MUST know what facts are. When they don’t address the facts, we say they are playing a game. We think they do know what the facts are, but don’t want to admit it.

Not so! They DON’T know what a fact is. When we speak of facts and ask them to address the facts, they look at us with vacant eyes. They don’t know what we’re talking about.

They study us because their strategy is to pass as human. They hear us use the words — facts, evidence, substantiation. They lack the human capacity to understand what we mean. What they do is ignore our reference to facts, ignore our requests for them to supply facts, and hope we won’t notice it’s due to their lack of comprehension.

Let’s look at examples of what THEY use for what WE mean by “facts.”

The Association for the Advancement of Gestalt Therapy (AAGT) held an open conference at which three “master” therapists worked with three volunteers. Dr. Jeffrey A. Schaler published a critique entitled “BAD THERAPY” in which he cited examples not only of bad therapy, but also of systematic abuse of a volunteer by the “master” therapist. (The Interpsych Newsletter, Vol 2, Issue 9, Nov 95.) On their official Internet mail list (aagt@netride.com), members of the Association launched an attack on Dr. Schaler, culminating in their adoption of the slogan: “Saving Gestalt Therapy from Jeff Schaler,” used as the subject line in a discussion thread. Under this heading they “SAVED” Gestalt therapy by sending in e-mails labeling Jeff Schaler as “arrogant, snide, hair-splitting, nit-picking, disturbed, meanspirited, ranting, self-serving,” etc.

When asked how this labeling “SAVED” Gestalt therapy, they ignored the question. When asked in what way Gestalt therapy was endangered by Jeff Schaler, they ignored the question.

It became clear they thoroughly believed their pronouncements erased not only the evidence presented but also erased Jeff Schaler himself. They “pronounced” him to be no longer in existence. For them, whatever they “declare” is what’s real. What WE call reality is not real to them. THEY “pronounce” what is to be considered real.

Here’s another example. I asked a psychotherapy client to look at a chair which was situated about six feet away near a wall. I then asked her to describe the chair. She did, in rather complete detail, except for the legs. THE CHAIR SHE DESCRIBED HAD NO LEGS!

I pointed this out, and asked how the chair could be suspended in air, with no legs to support it. She said: “I put it there.” I asked: “If you look away, will it fall to the floor?” She said: “No. If I look away, the chair is no longer there.” I asked: “If you look away … and it turns out the chair is still there?” She ignored the question.

Here’s another example. During a discussion on CD@maelstrom.stjohns.edu earlier this year, the statement was made: “If enough people believe something to be true, then what they believe is what reality IS.”

A question was then asked: “There was a time when everyone, as far as we know, believed the sun revolved around the earth. Are you saying at that time the sun did, in fact, revolve around the earth … and it was only in obedience to a change in what people believed that the earth came to revolve around the sun?”

The question was ignored.

You might think their refusals to answer constitute an admission … an admission what they are saying is totally outlandish and indefensible. Experience has shown you would be wrong. Experience has shown they go right on making the same statements, even after evidence is produced to the contrary.

You see how different these creatures are? You see how far off their thinking and behavior are from human thinking and behavior?

Nothing of what WE call reality is real to THEM.

I repeat.

Nothing of what we call reality is REAL to them.

When a human being mentions a chair, the reference is to a chair that sits there on its own legs. It’s there whether anyone sees it or not, whether anyone mentions it or not, whether anyone “declares” it to be there or not. It’s there ON ITS OWN.

A basic element in the profile of humanoids is their lack of comprehension that anything exists on its own, separate from their say-so. They don’t SEE it. The only objects humanoids see are the ones they “declare” … the ones they imagine.

We use the phrase “my perception” to mean an appraisal, a measurement of something separate from ourselves. We don’t announce it as “fact.” We are open to consider other views if given facts to consider.

Humanoids use the phrase “my perception” as a buzz word. They imagine what they choose, and tell us it is their “perception” … which, in their minds, ESTABLISHES reality. What we call “facts” do not exist for them. That’s why they whine and claim they are being attacked whenever substantiation is requested.

Humanoids claim their statements are valid simply because they make them!!! They elaborate on this: “I honor integrity in this regard. As an egoist, I make statements which are valid to me. Validity to my ‘self’ comes first. I grant other people this same respect assuming they say things valid to themselves.”

Among human beings, for something to be deemed valid it has to be substantiated with facts. Nothing is valid simply because someone says it.

When humanoids are asked how they determine what someone says is valid to that person, and not something made up or imagined, they ignore the question.

Note the strange use of the word “integrity.” Humans define integrity as uprightness of character; probity; honesty. We refer to sticking to the facts, sticking to the truth, not selling out. Humanoids use “integrity” to mean insisting what they imagine is what’s real. No measurement. No evaluation.

When the demand is made for their pronouncements to be evaluated, they claim the confronter is the one who has no integrity … meaning the confronter is not upholding THEIR position: what THEY imagine is what’s real.

On what basis do they claim this? Humanoids treat the world as if it were their own private holodeck. They “declare” things into being. Everything is a hologram. They program the holograms. They interact with them in any way they choose. They have them under total control. When they decide to cancel a hologram, it vanishes.

A hologram is a hologram is a hologram. A hologram is not supposed to have the ability to think for itself. A hologram is not supposed to have the ability to measure, evaluate, appraise, etc. Most importantly, a hologram is not supposed to be able to break out of its holographic state and critique its master.

When this does happen, they first chastise it to bring it back into line. If that doesn’t work, they “vanish” it. When that fails, they run for cover by abandoning the program and calling up another one.

Experience has shown no matter what we say, no matter what we point out, no matter how much evidence is given, it has no meaning for these creatures. They have one goal: to fool us into classifying them as human so they can concentrate on murdering our human values. Without human values, the next step is murdering human beings.

In the film “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” aliens are shown to be taking over by occupying the bodies of human beings. The aliens take over not only the physical body but also the mind, memories, abilities, etc. In every way the people seem to be the same as always, except for one thing. They mention events, but with no feeling of them or about them. THEY DO NOT FEEL FEELINGS.

We see a child struggling to get away from what appears to be its mother. The next day they walk hand-in-hand. The child has been taken over.

The lovers in the film try to stay awake so they won’t be taken over. She succumbs … and “she,” now a creature, tries to fool him. When she doesn’t fool him, she tries to betray him.

These creatures do not FEEL alive. They do not FEEL feelings. In order to pass as humans, they know they have to give the appearance of knowing they are alive. Their only recourse is to DECLARE they are alive.

The declaration does not produce the quality of FEELING alive. They still don’t FEEL feelings. The only thing they have to go on, to refer to, is their own declaration. If “declaring” is shown to be insufficient … if they are called upon to discuss feelings, give evidence of feelings, distinguish between feelings, etc., they are lost. Their inner emptiness is apparent. Their un-human status is exposed.

Here’s a final example. In the course of a discussion on psych-ci@maelstrom.stjohns.edu some time ago, a humanoid said: “You hurt my feelings.” The humanoid was asked to identify the exact statements, and explain in what way these statements caused hurt to what particular feelings. Answer: (Whining) “I’ve said you hurt my feelings. I don’t know what else to say. … You are attacking.”

Question: “In what way do you a consider a request for substantiation and clarification to be an attack?”

No answer.

AN OVERVIEW

Humanoids:

  1. Make pronouncements without substantiation. These pronouncements are to be accepted as defining what reality is . . moment by moment.
  2. Ignore requests to provide the basis for their pronouncements.
  3. Sneer at the human valuing of facts, honesty, decency, fair play.
  4. Applaud the use of lies, deceit, etc.
  5. Whine they are being “attacked” whenever they are questioned. Give no explanation of what the “attack” is or of what is being attacked.
  6. Do not FEEL feelings.
  7. View the world as their private holodeck.
  8. Apply themselves to keeping humans in their place — namely, insignificance.

FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Humanoids do not understand the distinction we humans make between good and evil. When they harm us, they do not understand why we call them evil. They do not understand why we have laws against murder. Their approach is to boast, even moralize over their victims.

Since they do not understand the reason for such laws, they argue they cannot be held accountable for their actions.

Not so. While they take the position the law does not apply to them, they do know the law was enacted to apply to everyone. Furthermore, if they try to claim they didn’t know there was such a law, we respond with a firmly established principle: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

When they use those arguments, they make it clear they will continue to operate in accordance with their structure. We may look for remorse (a human capacity). We find none. They do not think of themselves as promulgating evil. They are simply doing what it is in their structure to do. The rattlesnake does not think of itself as evil when it injects poison. It is simply doing what it is in its structure to do.

Experience has shown humanoids continue to behave in the ways of their species . . murdering human values as a prelude to murdering human beings. Nazis demonstrate this graphically.

The issue as to whether to hold them “accountable,” in our human sense of the word, has to be divided into two parts. We do not hold them accountable for BEING what they are. We do hold them accountable for the damage they DO.

When a dog gets rabies, we don’t hold the dog accountable for becoming rabid. What we do, as a matter of self-protection, is put the dog down BEFORE it bites us, BEFORE it infects us.

We do not hold the rattlesnake accountable for HAVING poison fangs. What we do, as a matter of self-protection, is kill the rattlesnake BEFORE it kills us.

So with the humanoid. We need to be on our guard at the first sign of a murder of human values.


Amos M. Gunsberg is a psychotherapist and trainer
of psychotherapists in New York City since 1950.
He is a founder of the School for Quality Being.

This article originally appeared in Volume 2, Issue 5, of PSYCHNEWS INTERNATIONAL.


Comment by Peter Meyer, 2006-07-24:

Here is a short list of the most obvious humanoids:

George W. Bush Donald Rumsfeld
Richard Cheney Tony Blair
Condoleezza Rice John Bolton
Ehud Olmert Tzipi Livni

Next time you hear them speaking note how they make pronouncements about how things are which are totally inconsistent with the way normal humans see things, and note how they state these things as if it were self-evident, as it is — to them, since they do not distiguish between reality and their ideas about reality. These individuals are insane.

Consider John (‘Mad Dog’) Bolton. On 2006-07-23 he was interviewed on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer” and was asked to reply to the statement by Louise Arbour (U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights) that the leaders of the Israeli government, by bombing and destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon and thereby killing hundreds of civilians (many of them children) and creating half a million civilian refugees, were possibly committing war crimes and crimes against humanity and might later face criminal prosecution. In his reply Bolton totally ignored both the fact of Israel’s devastation of Lebanon’s infrastructure and the suggestion that the Israelis were committing crimes of any kind (according to his perverse logic they could not be doing this because the U.S. supports Israel and the U.S. does not — in his “reality” — condone crimes against humanity) and instead huffed about whether Arbour was acting improperly by (as he said) “threatening criminal charges based on press accounts.” Bolton is insane, appointed (despite congressional objections) as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. by a U.S. President who is also insane. Psychopaths, not merely among us, but in positions of power where they exercise huge influence and by their actions can cause the deaths of millions of people.

But that appears to be exactly their intention: to exterminate (or enslave) all humans — their “final solution”. The question is: Will the humans, like the European Jews in the 1940s, put up little resistance, and allow themselves to be slaughtered? There is now a major difference: We now know what they intend for us, so if they succeed we have only ourselves to blame. We would do well to heed the words of Pastor Martin Niemöller.

 

2009 German Analysis Documenting US Plan To Unleash Civil War In Ukraine

Imperial Geopolitics: Ukraine, Georgia and the New Cold War between NATO and Russia

IMI german

von: Martin Hantke | Veröffentlicht am:

1. Januar 2009

Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives is essential reading for anyone wishing to understand current and future U.S., EU and NATO policy. Over ten years ago the former National Security Advisor gave a graphic description of the imperatives of imperial geopolitics. He argued that the U.S.A.’s position of supremacy should be preserved under all circumstances. To this end NATO, acting as a “bridgehead” of the U.S.A., should expand into Eurasia and take control of geostrategically important regions so as to prevent Russia’s resurgence as a powerful political force.

Brzezinski had in mind two countries or regions in particular: “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire. Russia without Ukraine can still strive for imperial status, but it would then become a predominantly Asian imperial state, more likely to be drawn into debilitating conflicts with aroused Central Asians, who would then be supported by their fellow Islamic states to the south.” […] “However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”1 Brzezinski argued further that there was an imperative need to gain control of the southern Caucasus, i.e. Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, on Russia’s southern flank. The past master of U.S. geopolitics set out the aim and purpose of NATO policy with impressive clarity: “The United States and the NATO countries – while sparing Russia’s self-esteem to the extent possible, but nevertheless firmly and consistently – are destroying the geopolitical foundations which could, at least in theory, allow Russia to hope to acquire the status as the number two power in world politics that belonged to the Soviet Union.”2

In the years that followed, these words were systematically put into political practice with NATO taking its eastward expansion right up to Moscow’s borders. Furthermore, active Western support for the “colourful revolutions” in Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004) led to the sitting pro-Russian or neutral governments and presidents being ousted by pro-Western candidates.3 Russia regarded NATO’s policy as crossing the “red line”. As the war between Russia and Georgia in the summer of 2008 showed, Russia is no longer prepared to stand idly by in the face of further attempts at expansion. Nevertheless, the Western military alliance is doggedly pursuing its escalation policy, in which Ukraine and Georgia are now being offered NATO membership as a means of safeguarding the “successes” that have been scored. U.S. President Barack Obama is also in favour of these two countries joining NATO.4 The announcement that Michael McFaul, a hardliner on policy towards Moscow, is to be appointed senior director for Russian affairs at the National Security Council gives little cause for hope that Washington under its new president will abandon its aggressive, anti-Russian policy. This amounts to tacit acceptance that the New Cold War between NATO and Russia, invoked so frequently of late, will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Ukraine: “On someone else’s arse”

Even now, the approach to Ukraine is evidently still determined by Brzezinski’s recipes from the devil’s workshop of geopolitics. NATO accession and Europe’s energy supply are issues that are closely intertwined. Writing in Handelsblatt, Peter Zeihan from Strategic Forecast, the think-tank often referred to as the “shadow CIA”, described the complex geopolitical situation as follows: “On the one hand, the ‘orange’ revolution of 2004 led to the installation of a Ukrainian government hostile to Russia’s objectives. President Viktor Yushchenko would like to integrate his country into the European Union and NATO. For Russia that would be the kiss of death. Most of the infrastructure linking Russia with Europe – from pipelines to railway lines and high-voltage cables – is located in Ukraine. Industry and agriculture in both countries are closely interlinked. There are more Russians living in eastern Ukraine than anywhere else in the world outside Russia. The Russian Black Sea fleet is stationed in the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol because there are no reasonable alternatives. Ukraine stretches so far into southern Russia that a hostile power in the country could pose a threat to Moscow. Moreover, the country stretches so far eastwards that an antagonistic government there could even threaten Russia’s connections with the Caucasus. In a nutshell, if Ukraine slips out of Russia’s sphere of influence Russia will be forced completely onto the defensive in strategic terms. Vice versa, if Russia regains control in Kiev, the country could set itself up as a regional – and perhaps even a global – power.”5 It was to obviate such a scenario that Washington engaged in a further round of frenzied activity shortly before the end of U.S. President George W. Bush’s period in office. This activity was aimed at advancing Ukraine’s future membership of NATO. Martin Luther’s words to the effect that “Riding through a fire is easy on someone else’s arse” might perhaps have flashed through the mind of the then U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, as she walked up with Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Volodymyr Ohryzko, to sign the United States-Ukraine Charta on Strategic Partnership on 19 December 2008. Rice said: “The United States supports Ukraine’s integration into the Euro-Atlantic structures. And in that regard, I want to assure you that the declaration at Bucharest which foresees that Ukraine will be a member of NATO when it can meet those standards is very much at the center of our policy.” The Ukrainian Foreign Minister set great store by a strengthening of the presence of the United States in Ukraine, in particular through a diplomatic mission on the Crimean peninsula in the Black Sea.6

In addition to a programme of enhanced security cooperation intended to strengthen Ukraine’s candidacy for NATO membership, agreement was reached on close collaboration on energy issues. It was resolved inter alia that “In recognition of the importance of a well functioning energy sector, the parties intend to work closely together on rehabilitating and modernizing the capacity of Ukraine’s gas transit infrastructure.”7 This Charter on Strategic Partnership was signed against the backdrop of the gas dispute between Ukraine and Russia. Given Ukraine’s failure to pay its debts and the lack of any new agreement on deliveries of gas to Ukraine, supplies of Russian gas to Ukraine were stopped as of 1 January 2009. Within a few days the dispute began to have an effect on energy supplies throughout Europe. On 6 January 2009, Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece and Macedonia reported that deliveries through the Ukrainian transit pipelines had come to a halt. Supplies to Austria fell by 90%. There are a number of indications that Ukraine’s actions can only be explained by reference to the support it received from the U.S.A. That was the Russian view too: “The Russian gas company Gazprom has pinned responsibility for the gas dispute with Ukraine on the U.S.A. Gazprom declared on Tuesday that Ukraine’s actions are being directed by the U.S. government. Despite the deployment of EU observers the Ukraine is again removing gas from the transit pipelines. Russia is therefore unable to deliver supplies to the EU countries. Alexander Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Executive Directors of the Russian energy giant, has accused the U.S.A. of fuelling the conflict.”8

In the case of both Georgia and Ukraine there is a close link between the gas dispute and support for their admission to NATO. In April 2008 the Bertelsmann Foundation concluded that Ukraine and Georgia were already closely integrated into “NATO’s working processes”. “Ever since it was founded in 1994, both countries have been part of the Partnership for Peace programme of the North Atlantic Alliance which is intended to promote individual cooperation between NATO and non-NATO countries. Cooperation has subsequently been extended. […] In their bilateral cooperation agreements with NATO both countries see far-reaching domestic reforms as a means of moving closer to the defence alliance. Such reforms principally concern the consolidation of internal democratic structures, but priority is also given to the fight against global terrorism and support for the operations and missions of the North Atlantic Alliance. The latter was one reason why U.S. President George W. Bush emphasized his efforts to have Ukraine and Georgia included in the Membership Action Plan. The progress made in integration into NATO’s defence structures puts into perspective the question that arose at the Bucharest summit about the steps Ukraine and Georgia will take after the provisional ‘no’ to their admission to the Membership Action Plan. Their path will inevitably take them into NATO.”9

Germany is playing a double role here. On the one hand it has joined France in rejecting an accelerated accession procedure for Ukraine, which the U.S.A. favoured; on the other hand it is playing a risky game by not placing any obstacles in the path of fundamental approval of Ukraine’s accession to NATO. The German Foreign Office has itself provided an apt description of this double role: “At the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008 Ukraine was in principle given the prospect of membership (‘We agreed today that these countries (i.e. Ukraine and Georgia) will become members of NATO’). Ukraine was not granted a Membership Action Plan (MAP); instead, a comprehensive review process was initiated.”10 This granting of prospective membership to Ukraine for the first time, combined with Georgia’s aggression shortly afterwards against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, proved the last straw for Moscow.

Georgia: a geopolitical prize

A look at the map quickly makes it clear why the Southern Caucasus is so important. Georgia provides the only opportunity of supplying Europe with gas and oil from the resource-rich countries of Central Asia and of transporting goods and products to Europe by land from China and Kazakhstan. The Nabucco pipeline project is intended to help reduce Europe’s “dependence” on Russian gas imports, which currently account for 40% of its supplies and are expected to climb to even higher levels. According to the European press service EurActiv, “The US has long been pushing for the construction of oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian basin that would bypass Russia, especially via Georgia.”11 The project is a top priority for the European Union, too. During his period as representative of the EU Council President in 2006 the Austrian Minister of Economics Martin Bartenstein said: “[The] Nabucco pipeline is Europe’s most important energy project.”12

For both the EU Member States and the NATO countries Georgia provides the geographical terrain that is essential to cutting Russia off from the purchasers of its energy exports. Russia’s countermeasures include three pipeline projects – Nord Stream (Baltic Sea pipeline), South Stream (Russian-Italian gas pipeline through the Black Sea via Varna in Bulgaria) and Blue Stream (from Russia through the Black Sea into Turkey) – as well as the building of direct energy lines to western and southern Europe to ensure the unobstructed export of energy free from any checks or controls by former Eastern Bloc states very favourably disposed to the U.S.A. This was why the U.S.A., in particular, played the Georgian card in the hope of containing Russia’s political influence in Europe and preventing its rise to the status of an industrial power.

Western support for the war

Germany continues to play a significant part in the arming of Georgia. The Federal Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) mostly train Georgian officers as part of the general staff training course which includes participants from other countries. Over the past few years the Bundeswehr has been host to a steady stream of high-ranking military delegations from Georgia. In addition, G 36 rifles manufactured by Heckler & Koch have been delivered to Georgia. The bulk of the training has been carried out by the U.S.A., however. The U.S. Army has trained Georgian soldiers “to bring the armed forces of Georgia, a loyal ally of Washington, up to NATO standards as an outpost in the Caucasus.”13 In 2006 alone, says the German news magazine Der Spiegel, the U.S.A. supported Georgia to the tune of 80 million U.S. dollars, 13 million of which went on the payment of “military supplies and services” as well as the training of soldiers. In addition the U.S.A. has helped Georgia by regularly modernising its fleet and delivering helicopters free of charge.14 The considerable extent of U.S. military assistance, which has “enabled the Pentagon to overhaul Georgia’s forces from bottom to top”, is described by the New York Times as follows: “At senior levels, the United States helped rewrite Georgian military doctrine and train its commanders and staff officers. At the squad level, American marines and soldiers trained Georgian soldiers in the fundamentals of battle.”15
All told, therefore, the Georgian armed forces have over five infantry brigades each numbering 2,000 men. In addition there are the reservist units whose level of training is far inferior. The Georgian government talks officially of 37,000 soldiers and 100,000 reservists. Since Mikhail Saakashvili took office, Georgia’s military spending has increased significantly: “In 2003 it amounted to 52 million lari (24 million U.S. dollars), whereas in 2006 that figure had tripled to 139 million lari (78 million U.S. dollars). Real expenditure is much higher, however. Anyone liable to be called up for military service, for example, can buy themselves out of the army – four-fifths of the money goes straight to the ministry.”16

There is also brisk cooperation between Georgia and NATO. In July 2008, a joint manoeuvre was held as part of the Partnership for Peace Programme in which a total of 1,630 military personnel, including 1,000 Americans and 600 Georgians, took part.17 In addition, the Georgian army has been – and still is – prominently involved in the war in Iraq, which is in contravention of international law, as well as in Afghanistan and Kosovo. In 2008, Georgia had 2,000 solders in Iraq, the third-largest contingent of the “Coalition of the Willing”. However, after the Georgian army had been repulsed in South Ossetia in August 2008, the U.S. Air Force flew the Georgian units stationed in Iraq back to the home front to provide help while the fighting was still in progress. Given the massive campaign undertaken by the U.S.A. and its allies to build up the country’s military, it is barely credible that, while the U.S.A. might not actually have given the green light, it was not fully informed of the pending attack and subsequently kept silent about it.

At any rate, the Russians are certain that the attack took place with support from Washington. The Russian ambassador to NATO, Dimitri Rogozin, made a statement to the effect that Saakashvili agreed the attack with his “backers”. It is clear to whom he was referring.18 Vladimir Vasilyev, Chairman of the Duma Security Committee, summed up the Russian point of view as follows: “The longer the matter goes on, the better the world will come to understand that Georgia would never have been capable of it [the attack on South Ossetia] without the United States”.19 In an interview for the German TV station ARD the Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin made his views of the U.S.A.’s behaviour perfectly clear: “One cannot help thinking that the American leadership knew of the planned action and, indeed, participated in it […] in order to organise a small-scale but successful war. And, if things went wrong, to force Russia into the role of the enemy.”20

Russia’s counter-attack

It is, indeed, hard to believe that the Georgian attack took place without any prior consultation with the U.S.A. Yet it must have been clear to the U.S. government that the Georgian army would be crushed in battle, which was precisely what happened. The question arises, therefore, as to Washington’s motives. Did it simply miscalculate in assuming that Russia would quietly accept the Georgian advance? It is hard to imagine but conceivable nonetheless. The other explanation is that the primary objective was to stir up a conflict with Russia so as to make the European Union toe an even more anti-Russian line and that Saakashvili came in handy here in the role of useful idiot, albeit at the expense of the people in the region. The matter cannot be clarified with any degree of certainty, although the latter explanation would appear more plausible.

At all events, the calculation backfired, because Russia seized the opportunity provided by the Georgian attack to improve its own position in the Caucasus. It is also very hard to imagine that Moscow was not informed of Georgia’s invasion plans. It was evidently well prepared for such an eventuality. In July, 8,000 Russian soldiers carried out an exercise simulating the repulsion of a Georgian attack. That might also explain why the Georgian troops were halted within 24 hours and the Russian troops gained the upper hand relatively quickly. Hence to describe Georgia’s war of aggression as the result of President Saakashvili stumbling into a Russian trap is not very convincing. Whether the Russians were well prepared or not, the fact of the matter is that Georgia engaged in a war of aggression.

In the course of the conflict Russia succeeded in shattering confidence in Georgia’s reliability as a transit country for future Caspian energy supplies. Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili himself said that “one of the main reasons for the Russian attack was that Georgia already has the Baku-Tblissi-Ceyhan pipeline (BTC), which has been laid one metre underground from end to end. This is intended to circumvent Russia.”21 That suspicion is not as mistaken as it might seem. After all, the opening of the BTC pipeline in May 2006, over which Washington and Moscow had wrangled bitterly for almost a decade, was one of the biggest geopolitical successes in the U.S.A.’s plans to roll back Russian influence in the region. “The Georgian security adviser, Alexander Lomaia, says that the Russians dropped six bombs but failed to hit the pipeline. If that is true, it would indicate that Russia’s military action was conducted in pursuit of other, more far-reaching strategic goals than merely preventing a humanitarian crisis in South Ossetia.”22

The Nabucco project was also dealt a heavy blow. According to Ed Chow from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Russia has raised serious doubts in the minds of Western lenders and investors […] as to whether a pipeline through Georgia is safe from attacks or beyond the control of the Kremlin.”23 Nevertheless, EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs attempted to give an assurance that the EU was sticking to its plan to build the Nabucco pipeline through Georgia despite the Caucasus conflict: “This infrastructure is needed”, Piebalgs said.24

For the first time since the end of the (old) Cold War Russia has thus ended a Western attempt at expansion by military means. That alone is sufficient to underline the dimensions of the Russian-Georgian war. At the same time the invasion of Georgia is a clear signal to the West that in future Russia will once again have to be taken into account in international power politics. A Strategic Forecast analysis says: “Russia has demonstrated three things with its operation in South Ossetia. Firstly, its army can carry out successful operations, which foreign observers have doubted. Secondly, the Russians can defeat forces trained by U.S. military instructors. Thirdly, Russia has shown that the U.S.A. and NATO are not in a position that would enable them to intervene militarily in this conflict.”25

Astonishing one-sidedness

It is hardly surprising that the Russian response to the Georgian invasion was fiercely criticised by the U.S., which almost unreservedly took Georgia’s side. Zbigniew Brzezinski was vociferous in his response, comparing Putin’s actions with those of Hitler. He went on to say that Moscow’s behaviour “can lead to exclusion and economic and financial sanctions. If Russia continues down this road it must ultimately be isolated within the community of states.”26
The European Union adopted an equally one-sided stance: “The European Council is gravely concerned by the open conflict which has broken out in Georgia, by the resulting violence and by the disproportionate reaction of Russia.”27 These were the words used by the European heads of state and government on 1 September in commenting on the events in the Caucasus. They failed to mention, let alone criticise, the fact that Georgia’s aggression was clearly what had unleashed the war. The statement continues by severely criticising Russia alone. Thus the heads of state and government “strongly condemn Russia’s unilateral decision to recognise the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” In stark contrast to the policy of recognizing Kosovo that was pursued by the vast majority of EU Member States, the European Council “recalls that a peaceful and lasting solution to the conflict in Georgia must be based on full respect for the principles of independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity recognised by international law, the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and United Nations Security Council resolutions.”27

There were occasional vehement demands for even more drastic action against Russia. The Chairman of the European Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (EPP), advocated an EU position that is “tougher than that of NATO.”28 The fact that the hardliners were not able to have their way entirely has to do with the specific constellation of interests that have made this appear inopportune, particularly from a German perspective. On the one hand there is a desire to show Moscow who is in charge in Europe but, on the other, there is a wish not to spoil things completely with Russia, because business there is simply too profitable.29 Nevertheless, Germany is in almost full accord with NATO’s escalation policy.

(Energy) NATO is put into position

In November 2006 U.S. Senator Richard Lugar, a leading NATO strategist, literally went on the offensive. On the fringes of the NATO summit in Riga he criticised Moscow for its attempts to use oil as a “weapon” against the West and proposed the setting up of an “Energy NATO”. The underlying idea is that in future NATO should treat any interruption of oil and gas supplies as it would a military attack (see article by Tobias Pflüger).

In January 2008, five high-ranking NATO generals published a position paper that was specifically introduced into the debate in the form of a catalogue of requirements for the forthcoming updating of NATO’s strategic concept, the idea being that it could serve as a blueprint for the NATO summit on 3/4 April 2009: “ There will be an increase in global competition for scarce resources, and this will certainly be the case for fossil fuel, which will swell the possibility of suppliers abusing their position and their leverage.. […]Dependency on oil and gas is a vulnerability that some governments will seek to exploit – the Gazprom crisis demonstrated how easily demand can be manipulated. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is – and is likely to remain – a mechanism for keeping the price of oil artificially high, and recently Russia and the United Arab Emirates have been exploring the idea of setting up a ‘Gas OPEC’. […] For this reason, it might well be worth considering using NATO as an instrument of energy security.”30

Shortly afterwards, in June 2008, Richard Lugar, who for a time was under discussion as Barack Obama’s Secretary of State for Defense, repeated his threats against Russia at a hearing of the Senate and vigorously advocated the building of the Nabucco pipeline.31 At the same hearing the new U.S. Vice-President Joseph Biden expressly praised Lugar’s work on energy policy and emphasised the importance of the conflicts in the Caspian region: “The stakes involve hundreds of billions of dollars in oil and infrastructure, the resurgence of Russia, and the energy security of Europe.. […] Russians love chess. Our strategic response on the chess board of Central Asia must be to establish a presence on parts of the board they do not yet control. That means laying down new pipelines that add alternatives […] to the monopoly Russia has enjoyed.”32

Biden is therefore likely to have welcomed one of the last major security policy initiatives launched by the Bush administration which aimed at drawing Georgia further into the Western orbit by means of a joint declaration on partnership: “The United States and Georgia officially became “strategic partners” under a charter signed by the two governments on January 9 [2009]. […] Few details have been publicized about the charter, which was signed four months after Georgia’s disastrous war with Russia. It has been widely reported, however, that the Georgian pact resembles a strategic partnership charter signed by the United States and Ukraine in December.”33 Like the United States-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership the agreement with Georgia is likely to comprise intensified military cooperation and measures to expedite Ukraine’s membership of NATO. On 15 September 2008 NATO resolved to set up a commission to deepen relations with Georgia. This is intended “to coordinate Alliance efforts to assist Georgia in recovering from the recent conflict”.34

Cold War as a self-fulfilling prophecy

The aim of the policy pursued by the U.S.A. in Ukraine and Georgia is to wage a new Cold War against Russia. Russia is to be challenged by a policy of pinpricks involving “colourful revolutions”, energy blockades, NATO expansion and the stationing of missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. By disrupting economic relations with Western Europe Washington aims to contain Russia’s global political influence and thwart its advance as a new industrial power. Should this scenario turn out to be a success, it would simultaneously ensure that the NATO allies in Western Europe are tied into a joint strategy of escalation and have to become even more heavily involved in projects designed to secure energy supplies.
Since this strategy has thus far proved successful and it cannot, unfortunately, be assumed that there will be a move away from a policy of U.S. confrontation under President Obama, there is a renewed threat of bloc confrontation. At the height of the Georgian war Russian President Dmitri Medvedev sent out a clear message to the West: “We are not afraid of anything, not even the prospect of a Cold War.”35 The anti-war movement will have to adjust to the realities of the New Cold War. The strategy of imperialism pursued by NATO and the EU must be opposed here and now in a calm and collected fashion.

Endnotes

1 Brzezinski, Zbigniew: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, New York 1997, p. 24 (Seitenangabe in der englischen Fassung unsicher)
2 ibid., p.27 (s.o.)
3 On Western support for the “colourful revolutions” cf. Chauvier, Jean-Marc: Westlich werden und östlich bleiben, Le Monde diplomatique, 14 January 2005
4 Carpenter, Ted: Worse than Bush? National Interest Online, 11 July 2008
5 Zeihan, Peter: Moskau wird Kiew nie dem Westen überlassen [Moscow will never leave Kiev to the West], Handelsblatt, 20 January 2009
6 United States, Ukraine Sign Security Charter, America.gov, 19 December 2008
7 United States-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership, 22 December 2008, URL: http://tinyurl.com/agqc4k
8 Befeuern die USA den Gasstreit? [Is the U.S. fuelling the gas dispute?], heute.de, 13 January 2009
9 Isic, Mirela: Ein „Vielleicht” für die Ukraine und Georgien [A “maybe” for Ukraine and Georgia], Center for Applied Policy Research, CAP News, 10 April 2008
10 Auswärtiges Amt [German Foreign Office]: Ukraine, Stand: Oktober 2008 [Ukraine, status as of October 2008], URL: http://tinyurl.com/b3gvbg
11 Nabucco: ‘Pie in the sky’ after Georgia crisis?, EurActiv, 25 August 2008
12 ibid.
13 Friedmann, Matti: Sie waren nicht bereit für den Krieg mit Russland [They weren’t prepared for war with Russia], AP, 19 August 2008
14 Schröder gibt Saakaschwili die Schuld [Schröder puts the blame on Saakashvili], Der Spiegel 16 August 2008
15 Grey, Barry: Bush escalates confrontation with Russia over Georgia, World Socialist Web Site, 13 August 2008
16 Der Spiegel 16 August 2008
17 Georgien stockt Armee mit Blick auf NATO-Beitritt deutlich auf [Georgia boosts its army with a view to NATO membership], russland.ru, 16 July 2008
18 Nuclear Nightmares: The Return of M.A.D., Huffington Post, 19 August 2008
19 Chin, Larry: South Ossetia: superpower oil war, Online Journal, 13 August 2008
20 This and many other critical remarks made by Putin were cut out of the ARD broadcast. A full transcript of the interview can be found at http://www.spiegelfechter.com/wordpress/392/das-interview
21 EurActiv, 25 August 2008
22 Rosenbaum, Kaspar: Südossetien: Der Westen in der Propagandaschlacht [South Ossetia: The West in a propaganda battle], ef-online, 11 August 2008
23 EurActiv, 25 August 2008
24 Energie-Agentur sagt wachsende EU-Abhängigkeit von Importen voraus [Energy agency predicts growing EU dependence on imports], Yahoo News Finanzen, 4 September 2008
25 Stratfor: Russland hat Stärke gezeigt und wird nur auf Stärke hören [Russia has shown its strength and will only respond to strength], RIA Novosti, 11 August 2008
26 “Russlands Vorgehen ähnelt dem von Hitler” [Russia’s actions resemble those of Hitler], Die Welt, 11 August 2008
27 Extraordinary European Council, Brussels, 1 September 2008, 12594/08
28 Pflüger, Tobias: EU eskaliert den Konflikt mit Russland weiter [EU escalates the conflict with Russia], IMI-Standpunkt 2008/052
29 On Germany’s role cf. Hantke, Martin: The Georgian War and Imperial Geopolitics, in: AUSDRUCK (October 2008).
30 Naumann, Klaus et al.: Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership, URL: http://tinyurl. com/5buj19, p. 47 et seq.
31 U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Senator Richard G. Lugar Opening Statement for Hearing on Oil, Oligarchs and Opportunity: Energy from Central Asia to Europe, 12 June 2008, URL: http://tinyurl.com/df7tg8
32 BIDEN: We Need to Confront Russia’s Oil Dominance with Aggressive, High Level Diplomacy, 12 June 2008, URL: http://tinyurl.com/crjhol
33 Corso, Molly: Georgia: Washington and Tbilisi sign Strategic Pact sure to irk the Kremlin, Eurasia Insight, 9 January 2009
34 Framework document on the establishment of the NATO-Georgia Commission, Tbilisi, 15 September 2008
35 Dimitri Medvedev raises spectre of new Cold War, The Times Online, 26 August 2008

Western Elites Scramble To Shore-Up EU House of Cards

German retreat gives a chance for Greeks to prepare for Grexit

failed revolution

by system failure
The details of the new agreement between Greece and the lenders are rather of little importance. It seems that the four-month period will function mostly as a truce period rather than a period of substantial progress for the two sides to build a bridge between them.
The generalities in the new agreement are very convenient mostly for the Greek side because they will give the flexibility to the Greek government to take some measures during this period against austerity, in order to fight the humanitarian disaster in Greece, as promised.
However, the financial lobbyists, represented by the Troika, insist in the final sadistic fiscal targets, exactly because they know that a devastated economy is impossible to meet them. They will use this four-month period only as an excuse to say later that they treated Greece with enough clemency against the other eurozone members and they will play this card to turn all the eurozone countries against Greece, in order to isolate fully the Greek government.
On the other hand, Tsipras took what he wanted in order to prepare better for a Grexit. The Greek Leftists in power know very well who are dealing with, so they will use this time to prepare for the next battle of this big war. The four-month period is currently a tactical win for the Greeks as it is close to a recent proposal which was not accepted initially by the eurogroup: http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2015/02/breaking-four-month-moratorium-proposal.html
Furthermore, the Greek side will exploit this period to build stronger alliance with the Sino-Russian bloc. Tsipras will certainly exploit his visit to Moscow in May (http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2015/02/confirmed-putin-calls-tsipras.html), while he will search all the possibilities for a financial aid from BRICS which are building fast an autonomous financial system to decouple their economies from the neoliberal monetary monopoly. In the middle of the negotiations, Tsipras already took the chance to send another message to the Western allies with the help of the Chinese fleet.(http://en.enikos.gr/politics/24368,Tsipras_welcomes_Chinese_fleet_in_Piraeu.html)
This will bring further pressure to the American factor as the nightmare may become true. Losing part of Europe and especially a geopolitically important country like Greece would be absolute disaster for the Western dominance, which is widely disputed already.
If Greece play this card smartly, the Americans will be forced to impose further pressure especially to the Germans to retreat further towards the Greek demands at the end of the four-month period. The relations between the two countries are not in the best shape already. (http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2014/07/who-is-considered-ostensible-ally-by-us.html)
However, this will give further extension to the hopes of the European people as the Spanish elections and Podemos win will come even closer. After that, everything is possible. It is the first time that the Western elites are in such a difficult position after many decades of complete dominance. Grexit or not, it seems that they are losing control. What will they do then? Actions as usual in order of magnitude: propaganda – soft assassinations – economic hitmen – hard assassinations – color revolutions – military coups.
That’s why it is important the rapid rise of the Leftist powers in other European countries. It would be extremely difficult to apply all these in many European countries simultaneously.

IMF Puts the Screws To Ukraine for Latest Bailout–280% Increase In Gas Prices Mandated

[Let the Food Riots in Ukraine Begin!  How will Obama and Bitch Nuland manage to blame Putin for the coming anti-austerity protests?]

IMF aid package pushes Ukraine gas prices up 280%

Russia-Today
Reuters / Regis Duvignau

Reuters / Regis Duvignau

Ukraine has agreed to increase the cost of gas to consumer by 280 percent, and 66 percent for heating, as part of the IMF terms for getting extra financial aid, says Valery Gontareva the head of the National Bank of Ukraine.

“From now on, in accordance with our joint program with the IMF, the tariffs will see rather a sharp increase of 280 percent for gas and about 66 percent for heat,” said Gontareva Wednesday during the 11th Dragon Capital investment conference in Kiev. She added that as a result inflation will be 25-26 percent by the end of 2015.

The tariff rises are part of the amendments to the 2015 budget the government has had to introduce in order to receive an $8.5 billion loan from the IMF by the end of the year.

The changes will also see Ukraine’s budget deficit growing to 4.1 percent of GDP and forecasts a 5.5 percent decline in the Ukrainian economy.

Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk had warned of future price rises for gas and heating, and stressed the IMF saved Ukraine from default, and now it’s time to make moves which should eventually result in Ukraine’s complete independence from Russian gas.

The tariff increase was among the subjects Ukraine and the IMF touched upon during negotiations in January. Deputy Chairman of the Ukraine parliament’s budget committee Viktor Krivenko said the IMF had requested a sevenfold increase in prices.

The head of IMF Christine Lagarde said on February 12 that the preliminary agreement reached between Kiev and Western creditors envisages increasing the aid package to $40 billion over the next four years.

The program will help Ukraine receive an additional $25 billion in financial aid, of which $17.5 billion will be provided to stabilize the financial situation in the country.

The latest IMF program will replace the $17 billion package agreed in April 2014. Ukraine has already received $4.5 billion under that agreement, thus the total IMF loans to Ukraine since the beginning of the crisis amount to $22 billion.

Greece Breeches the Ramparts of European Oligarchy

ramparts
source

Plutocrats and their puppets expose themselves in every level

failed revolution
by system failure
The phrase of the new Greek Minister for Health, Panagiotis Kouroumplis, during the ceremony of taking duties from the former minister Makis Voridis, was impressively characteristic: “Α patrician leaves and a plebeian comes.”
The magnitude of the unprecedented political change in Greece and Europe, can be more easily understood from various pictures and actions during the last week.
Right after his election, Alexis Tsipras chosen to visit the memorial in Kaisariani, the spot where 200 political activists – mostly communists – were executed by Nazi forces on May Day 1944. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/26/alexis-tsipras-greece-syriza-kaisariani-nazi-german)
A blind man was chosen for the position of the Minister for Health. Panagiotis Kouroumplis has a good knowledge and shows sensitivity on public health issues but he was also blinded at the age of 10, from the explosion of a German hand-grenade, a remnant of World War II.
The most powerful symbolism, however, was when the former PM, Antonis Samaras, chosen not to be present to deliver to Tsipras. This is probably the best proof so far of what the previous regime represented: an oligarchy which considers itself as a permanent owner of the power. Local plutocrats have been exposed by their puppet Antonis.
In the European level, the picture of plutocrats’ representative, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, is also characteristic. Dijsselbloem appeared extremely nervous, especially when Varoufakis clarified that Greece will no longer tolerate austerity. This was actually a reaction of an establishment which considers itself as the only legal and rational holder of the power. An establishment in which no one is allowed to propose an alternative, outside the “official” line.
This establishment is in panic. It behaves with extreme arrogance and nervousness. And, the reason for this behaviour is that for the first time the unthinkable may happen: the power will truly go to the people. Plutocrats will fight fiercely against such a perspective, but at least show that inside panic they can easily expose themselves.
Read also:

The Perversely Bestial, Inhuman Nature of CIA Guantanamo Torturers

130423112902-exp-hunger-stirke-amanpour-00015930-horizontal-gallery

Gitmo inmate: My treatment shames American flag

cnn

Samir Naji is a Yemeni accused of serving in Osama bin Laden’s security detail and has been imprisoned for nearly 13 years without charge in Guantanamo Bay. He was cleared for release in 2009, but remains in detention. The following first-person testimony, recorded during his most recent meeting with lawyers from the international human rights organization Reprieve, has just been released by prison censors. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely his.


Also see
: Closing Guantanamo: Who’s left and what’s in the way

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (CNN)I’ve heard that the Senate report on CIA torture is 6,000 pages long. My story, though, takes place elsewhere: in Guantanamo, away from the CIA program that the report covers. The 6,000 pages of the Senate report are just the start of what Americans have to accept happened in their name.

It starts and ends in the silence of a tiny, freezing cold cell, alone. That’s when you hold yourself in a ball, and fight to ignore the confusion of what has just happened to you, and the fear of what might be coming next. Or the fear that comes when you realize that no one is coming to help; that the life, family and friends you knew are all far, far away.

The cell door opens. The next session, seemingly the 100th in a row. I think my first period of interrogation lasted three full months. Two teams of interrogators running shifts, day and night.

Each session begins with shouting, to wake me up. Then they hit me on the face and the back. I am so desperate for sleep, my head is swimming. There are photographs of faces stuck all around the walls of this room. They demand that I identify the individuals, but I can barely focus to see if I might know them. The shouting and the insults get louder, and then they nod to a man in the corner. He injects me twice in the arm with some unknown substance. It’s the last thing I know.

The freezing cold cell. The cell door opens. This time the guards enter, making awful honking noises, like wild animals.

I tried to refuse to eat the little food they bring me, in protest at all this. The interrogator laughs at me, but then turns angry; he swears loudly, and pours an army meal pack over my head. They tell the man in the corner to start feeding me intravenously. He inserts the tube in two different places on my arm and makes it bleed.

Closing Guantanamo: Who’s left and what’s in the way

The freezing cold cell. The cell door opens. This time the guards push me on the floor and take turns trampling over my back.

I tell the interrogators that I can’t face not eating any more. They throw food on the floor of the room and tell me to eat like a pig. They won’t let me go to the restroom. They watch as it gets more painful, and laugh as they get the translator to describe how they will rape me if I pee in my pants.

The freezing cold cell. The cell door opens. They make me stand and salute the American flag.

I’m in a sort of cinema room, where I have to watch videos of other prisoners being abused. Then they tell me that I have to dance for them, and run in circles whilst they pull on my chains. Every time I try and refuse, they touch me in my most private areas.

The freezing cold cell. The cell door opens. It has rained, and there are muddy puddles everywhere. I’m shackled, so I can’t really walk; they deliberately drag me through the muddy puddles.

Now it’s the pornography room. Awful pictures everywhere. There is one with a man and a donkey. I’m stripped naked and have my beard shaved, in a gratuitous insult to my religion. I’m shown pornographic pictures of women. I’m told to make the noises of different animals, and when I refuse, they just hit me. It ends with them pouring cold water all over me.

Hours later in my cell, I am discovered, nearly frozen. The doctor tells them to bring me urgently to the clinic, where I am given a blanket and treatment. Over the next hours, they observe me as I warm up. They are just waiting for the moment that they can sign off on my return to interrogation.

Four years ago, six U.S. government security agencies sat together and reviewed my case. Their conclusion? That I was innocent of any crime and should be released. The dirty and sadistic methods I endured — which were then taken directly to Abu Ghraib — achieved nothing, except to shame that American flag hanging in the prison corridor, which I was made to salute.

One hundred and thirty-six prisoners are still being held at Guantanamo, whilst the politicians squabble over how to black out the Senate report. America cannot keep hiding from its past, and its present, like this. Our stories, and our continued detention, cannot be made to disappear.

READ: CIA misled public on torture, Senate report says

The Invasion of America

[FOR MY GREAT-GRANDMOTHERS]

The invasion of America

aeon

The story of Native American dispossession is too easily swept aside, but new visualisations should make it unforgettable

Sioux RushmoreUSA. Mount Rushmore, South Dakota. August 1, 2012. US Presidents plus nine Sioux leaders (l to r): Sitting Bull, One Bull, Rain-in-the-Face, Crow King, Gall, Red Horse, Fool Bull, Low Dog, Spotted Eagle and Red Cloud. Photo by Larry Towell/Magnum Photos

Between 1776 and the present, the United States seized some 1.5 billion acres from North America’s native peoples, an area 25 times the size of the United Kingdom. Many Americans are only vaguely familiar with the story of how this happened. They perhaps recognise Wounded Knee and the Trail of Tears, but few can recall the details and even fewer think that those events are central to US history.

Their tenuous grasp of the subject is regrettable if unsurprising, given that the conquest of the continent is both essential to understanding the rise of the United States and deplorable. Acre by acre, the dispossession of native peoples made the United States a transcontinental power. To visualise this story, I created ‘The Invasion of America’, an interactive time-lapse map of the nearly 500 cessions that the United States carved out of native lands on its westward march to the shores of the Pacific.

By the time the Civil War came to an end in 1865, it had consumed the lives of 800,000 Americans, or 2.5 per cent of the population, according to recent estimates. If slavery was a moral failing, said Lincoln in his second inaugural address, then the war was ‘the woe due to those by whom the offense came’. The rupture between North and South forced white Americans to confront the nation’s deep investment in slavery and to emancipate and incorporate four million individuals. They did not do so willingly, and the reconstruction of the nation is in many ways still unfolding. By contrast, there has been no similar reckoning with the conquest of the continent, no serious reflection on its centrality to the rise of the United States, and no sustained engagement with the people who lost their homelands.

Demography in part explains why slavery and its legacy are part of America’s national conversation (even if whites sometimes participate in bad faith), while the dispossession of indigenous peoples is not. Since 1776, black Americans have made up between 12 and 19 per cent of the total US population. By contrast, in 1800, though Native Americans accounted for about 15 per cent of the inhabitants in the territory that would later become the United States, they constituted a much smaller fraction of the residents in the 16 states that then made up the union. A century later, in 1900, they represented only approximately half of one per cent of the US population, making them a small and politically insignificant minority in their own lands.

Today, over one per cent (3.8 million) of Americans identify as native, an increase that reflects not a substantive demographic shift but a newfound willingness and desire to identify as indigenous. Of this self-identified population, only a fraction are visible minorities, subject to the discrimination that shapes identity and forges political movements. Small in number with limited power at the polls, they have not led the national news since 1972-73, when the American Indian Movement took over the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the FBI laid siege to Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Reservation.

Yet native peoples are central to the nation’s history. As late as 1750 – some 150 years after Britain established Jamestown and fully 250 years after Europeans first set foot in the continent – they constituted a majority of the population in North America, a fact not adequately reflected in textbooks. Even a century later, in 1850, they still retained formal possession of much of the western half of the continent.

Native peoples may be a small minority, but their history poses a fatal challenge to triumphalist narratives of the US

The final assault on indigenous land tenure, lasting roughly from the mid-19th century to 1890, was rapid and murderous. (In the 20th century, the fight moved from the battlefield to the courts, where it continues to this day.) After John Sutter discovered gold in California’s Central Valley in 1848, colonists launched slaving expeditions against native peoples in the region. ‘That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between races, until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected,’ the state’s first governor instructed the legislature in 1851.

In the Great Plains, the US Army conducted a war of attrition, with success measured in the quantity of tipis burned, food supplies destroyed, and horse herds slaughtered. The result was a series of massacres: the Bear River Massacre in southern Idaho (1863), the Sand Creek Massacre in eastern Colorado (1864), the Washita Massacre in western Oklahoma (1868), and a host of others. In Florida in the 1850s, US troops waded through the Everglades in pursuit of the last holdouts among the Seminole peoples, who had once controlled much of the Florida peninsula. In short, in the mid-19th century, Americans were still fighting to reduce if not to eliminate the continent’s original residents.

Native peoples may be a small minority, but their history poses a fatal challenge to triumphalist narratives of the United States. The most jingoistic of Americans strive to put a positive spin on the nation’s century-long investment in slavery and equally long commitment to white supremacy. After the police shooting of an unarmed black man in Ferguson, Missouri, in August this year, one white woman took the opportunity to chide a group of African American protesters. She yelled, ‘We’re the ones who f***in’ gave all y’all the freedom that you got!’ Imagine a corresponding affront shouted at an assembly of indigenous people: ‘We’re the ones who took all of your land but introduced you to Christianity.’ Many Americans share a deeply held conviction that the United States embarked in 1776 on an as-yet unfinished journey to attain the universal ideals of freedom and equality. The history of US-native relations simply does not fit into this national narrative.

Europe’s 20th century atrocities are easier for most people to envision than the dispossession of Native Americans. Stalin’s gulags destroyed millions of people in the 1930s and ’40s; Germany systematically murdered two-thirds of the continent’s Jews during the Second World War; Yugoslavia devolved into a bloodbath of so-called ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the early 1990s. Accounts of those episodes describe the victims as men, women and children. By contrast, the language used to chronicle the dispossession of native peoples – ‘Indian’, ‘chief’, ‘warrior’, ‘tribe’, ‘squaw’ (as native women used to be called) – conjures up crude stereotypes and clouds the mind, making it difficult to see the wars of extermination, forced marches and expulsions for what they were. The story, which used to be celebratory, is now more often tragic and sentimental, rooted in the belief that the dispossession of native peoples was unjust but inevitable.

Some of the cessions cover as much territory as France, others no more than a hundred acres

The most familiar and celebrated Indian images that circulate today reinforce this conviction. They come first and foremost from Edward Curtis’s monumental 20-volume collection of photographs, entitled The North American Indian. Plate 1 in volume 1 pictures Navajos mounted on ponies, heading off into the distance towards the bleak horizon. It is entitled ‘The Vanishing Race’.

The Vanishing Race by Edward Curtis The Vanishing Race by Edward Curtis

‘The Invasion of America’ captures not the vanishing Indian but the expansionist United States, from its origins in 1776 as a slender band of states pressed along the Atlantic to its coast-to-coast incarnation as the fourth-largest nation in the world. The site allows users to move through the land cessions chronologically or to search by Indian nation (eg. ‘Cherokee’), and to click on any tract to pull up details of the land transfer. Some of the cessions cover as much territory as France, others no more than a hundred acres.

US title to the land depends on legal fiction, crafted by the colonists to benefit themselves. Under the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’, which had its origins in the Crusades and underpinned the pioneering navigators of the 15th century, ultimate sovereignty over any pagan land belonged, courtesy of the Vatican, to the first Christian monarch who discovered it. Embraced by imperial powers around the world, the doctrine was adopted by the US Supreme Court in 1823. The US did not rely on Papal Bulls alone, however. It also extinguished the land title of the continent’s first peoples by treaty, executive order, and federal statute.

As pictured in ‘The Invasion of America’, native land cessions seamlessly blanket the continent, but this tidy arrangement is a fantasy devised in 1899 by the government-chartered Bureau of American Ethnology. In that year, with the assistance of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, it produced 67 maps that plotted every cession since the founding of the nation. In truth, cession boundaries were neither well-defined nor contiguous. On paper, they traced watersheds that no 19th century surveyor could determine with any precision; they extended to foothills (exactly where they were located was anyone’s guess); and they took direct paths to mountain tops that could not be accurately identified. Sometimes it was easier for federal officials to describe not the cession itself but the reduced tract reserved for the indigenous nation. In 1823, for example, the Seminoles relinquished ‘all claim or title which they may have to the whole territory of Florida’ in exchange for a much smaller, clearly delineated area where they were to be ‘concentrated and confined’.

Negotiated under duress or facilitated with bribes, treaties were often violated soon after ratification, despite the language of perpetuity

It is appealing to imagine, as the Bureau of American Ethnology did, that the entire country came into the possession of the United States through consistent and well-defined legal mechanisms. But in fact, sometimes it was not clear even to the federal government by what right it owned the land. In 1851, for example, three federal commissioners headed off to California (acquired from Mexico only three years earlier) with vague instructions ‘to conciliate the good feelings of the Indians, and to get them to ratify those feelings by entering into written treaties, binding on them, towards the government and each other’.

Congress remained uncertain whether native Californians constituted a formidable opposition of 300,000, as some said, or a pitiful remnant of 40,000, as others asserted. Nor could it decide whether the United States came into full possession of the land by the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed with Mexico, or whether indigenous peoples still had title. The commissioners entered into a series of treaties with small groups and even single families, satisfying neither the advocates of California natives nor the speculators who desired their land. Congress refused to ratify the agreements and instead simply concluded that title no longer rested with native peoples.

Elsewhere, the United States employed three legal instruments to dispossess residents. Treaties predominated until 1871, when Congress voted to end the practice. Negotiated under duress or facilitated with bribes, they were often violated soon after ratification, despite the language of perpetuity. Nonetheless, they presume a nation-to-nation relationship, which still informs US Indian policy today. Less well-known are the two other tools of dispossession: federal legislation and executive order.

Both Congress and the president can create reservations and take them away, and the president used this power extensively in the 19th century. In July 1864, for example, President Abraham Lincoln created a reservation within present-day Washington state for the Chehalis people, reducing their once extensive homeland of 5,000,000 acres (by the measure of the Bureau of American Ethnology) to ‘about six sections, with which they are satisfied’ (according to a letter from the Office of Indian Affairs; the measure of ‘satisfaction’ must be judged by the alternative, which was removal and joint occupation of another reservation). As a section is 640 acres, ‘about six’ would have come to about 4,000 acres. Twenty-two years later, President Grover Cleveland with the stroke of a pen further reduced the reservation to three fractional sections – a piddling 471 acres.

There was some irony to this land seizure. When the Federal government created the Chehalis reservation in 1864, it paid a squatter named D Mounts $3,500 – a sum which he considered ‘not unreasonable’ – for title to his overlapping land claim, though of course the true owners were the Chehalis themselves. When President Cleveland further reduced the reservation in 1886, the Chehalis received nothing. (Since the 1990s, the Chehalis have been buying up adjacent land and in 2010 the ‘reservation’ was 4,215 acres, according to the chehalistribe.org website.)

It is high time for non-Native Americans to come to terms with the fact that the United States is built on someone else’s land. Their 19th century counterparts wrestled more deeply with the dispossession that underlay the nation than most people do today. Native peoples were ‘benighted’ and in a ‘degraded state’, wrote one Kentucky resident to the editor of the Western Recorder in 1825, expressing the widespread condescension that whites felt towards native peoples at the time. But, he continued, ‘This continent is their home. It is the land of their fathers. We are foreign intruders.’ The writer, informed by Christian universalism, was no modern-day multi-culturalist. Nonetheless, the presence of native peoples in Kentucky forced him to reconcile their dominion over the land – ‘from time immemorial’, as colonists often said – with the imperious claims of the United States.

Five years later, in 1830, President Andrew Jackson signed into law ‘an Act to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories, and for their removal west of the river Mississippi’. Popularly known as Indian removal, the act authorised the federal government to deport 100,000 men, women and children from their homelands, an operation that took most of the decade and cost the lives of thousands of native people. This massive state-sponsored forced migration, which passed by a mere five out of 199 votes in the House of Representatives, marked a turning point, when white Americans abdicated their moral responsibility towards the continent’s indigenous peoples. The deportation, according to many whites and even some native activists, was in the best interests of those who were rounded up and driven out. If that was the case, it was because white Americans made it so by defrauding or killing those who wanted to stay. After removal, most indigenous Americans were situated a thousand miles distant from the centre of US population and power on the Atlantic coast. Out of sight and out of mind, Native Americans became relics of the past for most whites.

What would American history look like if native peoples had been kept in sight and in mind? ‘The Invasion of America’ visualises one possibility. Compare it with a map of ‘Territorial Acquisitions’ produced by the US Geological Survey in 2014:

MAP

The large single-hued areas of land on the USGS map represent exchanges between imperial powers, with no reference to the longtime residents who also claimed title.

There are many reasons to favour a more inclusive history of the United States that places the dispossession of native peoples at its centre. Such a history erases the artificial distinctions that earlier generations drew to discount the presence of native peoples, does not privilege the rise of the nation-state, and better reflects the makeup of today’s US population, which will soon be majority non-white. Its themes also resonate with 21st century concerns, including state-sponsored social engineering, large-scale population displacement, environmental degradation, and global capitalism.

But perhaps the best reason is that it is more faithful to the past. I teach in the state of Georgia, where the legislature mandates that graduates of its public universities fulfill a US history requirement, a law born of the belief that an informed populace is essential to democracy. Good history makes for good citizens. A history that glosses over the conquest of the continent is partial, in both senses of the word. It misleads people about the past and misinforms their debates about the present. In charting a course for the future, Americans would do well to put the dispossession of native peoples back on the map.

The Generational American Covert War Against the European Left

Basic reasons for which the US deep state will try to prevent the rise of the Left in Europe

failed revolution

by system failure
It is certain that various US think tanks will be monitoring right now the rise of the Left in Greece with the radical-Left party SYRIZA, as well as Podemos in Spain and other countries in Europe (http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2014/11/signs-of-resistance-against-neoliberal.html).
It’s quite remarkable that the US political system, especially after Clinton administration, has been adopted by Europe, with the transformation of the Social-democrats. A characteristic example is Greece, as the Socialist party PASOK under Kostas Simitis, implemented the neoliberal perception of the free market and the financialization of nearly every aspect of economic activity.
However, as in the US the Left was demonized for decades and totally vanished from the political scene, Europe was meant to be the field of the new Leftist political powers, after the latest global financial crisis. Inevitably, any possible change will start from Europe and follow a reverse direction of that of neoliberalism in the early 90s.
Therefore, a first potential consequence would be that such a possibility could become a good example of an alternative political solution against the bipolar plutocratic political establishment in the US, which was enhanced rapidly after Clinton administration in the early 90s, secured big capital’s interests and left no choice to the majority of the American people to vote for their interests.
A second consequence for the US deep state would be the loss of Europe in the new Cold War. Except from Britons, who have traditional deep ties and common interests with the US, the rest of Europe could slip to the Sino-Russian bloc which grows rapidly in the military and economic field and increasingly gaining independence from the Western economic system, attracting other countries too. (http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2014/08/a-perfect-timing-for-argentina-to.html)
A third consequence would be the abrupt termination of the Greek experiment and its deployment in Europe and the US. This could trigger a reverse situation against the accelerated expansion of the neoliberal doctrine* in its most extreme version as a forerunner for the new global Feudalism.
Plutocrats will do whatever necessary to buy more time. The war already started in Europe. The systemic establishment in Greece try to present SYRIZA as a non-serious political power and downgrade the rapid change of the Greek and the European political scene especially after the latest euro-elections. At the same time, current government is ready to collapse and therefore already tries to force the Left to compromise and agree on the catastrophic measures imposed by Troika. SYRIZA, of course, refused to do this and asks for immediate elections.
Post-WWII history shows that the United States tried to prevent the rise of the Left in Europe during the whole period of the Cold War, because of the fear of the Soviet further expansion. This was done through provocative operations against Leftist organizations (Gladio in Italy) (http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2014/10/an-example-of-provocative-operations-in.html), or, by supporting dictatorial regimes (junta in Greece) (http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2014/04/black-anniversary.html), etc. Surely, the US deep state will try to prevent a domino of rise of the Left in Europe, for one more time, as this will probably bring serious trouble to the economic elites both in the US and Europe. The propaganda by the mainstream media already started.
All these scenarios, however, could also make neocons even more anxious to impose their lunatic plans to provoke a general conflict with Russia as the only alternative against the dramatic shift of the global geopolitical balance, unless we see a fast creation of a corresponding political power in the US inspired by the European Left. It would be even better if such a power could rise from the movements in the streets (Occupy movement, etc.), like Podemos in Spain.
A unified Left could trigger rapid changes globally against the neoliberal expansion, destroying plutocracy’s plans for total domination. Of course this would require to remain ideologically pure, not to be transformed and absorbed by the neoliberal perception like Social-democrats. Οtherwise, the new political gap could trigger unprecedented and uncontrolled, chaotic situations, in the absence of any other political alternative that could fill it.
* According to these plans, the ultimate goal would be probably to dissolve the vast Russian territory in future and bring in power Western-friendly puppet regimes, in order not only to conquer the valuable resources, but also to impose permanently the neoliberal doctrine on “unexplored” regions and populations.

New Strategy For Smugglers of Libyan War Refugees–Abandon Ship In Sight Of Italy

EU vows to fight migrant 'ghost ship' tactic
The EU has vowed to fight people smugglers’ new tactic of abandoning “ghost ships” full of migrants off European coasts. Nunzio Giove/AFP

EU vows to fight migrant ‘ghost ship’ tactic

THE LOCAL ITalian

Published: 02 Jan 2015

The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, said it was “following closely the events surrounding” the crewless Ezadeen merchant ship which had drifted toward Italy’s southern shores with 450 migrants aboard before Italian sailors took control of it on Friday.

It was the second incident in two days after the Blue Sky M ship was abandoned Wednesday by smugglers who set it on autopilot toward Italy’s rocky shores with nearly 800 migrants aboard.

“The rescues of the Blue Sky M two days ago and of the Ezadeen show that smugglers are finding new ways to enter EU territory,” a commission spokesperson told AFP.

“To prevent such events and to protect the lives of migrants, fighting smuggling will continue to be a priority under the commission’s agenda for comprehensive migration in 2015,” the spokesperson said.

Responsibility for patrolling Europe’s southern shores in theory lies with Triton, a multinational operation run by the European borders agency Frontex.

But in practice the Italian navy has continued to carry out most of the rescues despite officially scaling back its own Mare Nostrum operation at the end of October, after failing to persuade other EU governments to help fund it.

The migrant boat dramas come after a record year for people fleeing conflict and poverty in the Middle East, Africa and Asia attempting to reach Europe by sea.

More than 170,000 people have been rescued by Italy in the last 14 months and hundreds, possibly thousands, have perished trying to make the crossing.

They are almost invariably under the control of ruthless traffickers who earn thousands of dollars for every person they put to sea, mainly from lawless Libya and other departure points in North Africa.

EU Leadership Still Self-Blind To US Evil Intentions for Europe and Russia

[SEE:  West wants to end confrontation with Russia over Ukraine – EU foreign policy chief ]
European Union Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini…rejected the idea that the EU’s position on the crisis differs from that of the US.
“It is not true that there is a soft Europe stance, which opposes the US hardline position.”
Mogherini said that Washington’s views on Russia match those of Europe…“everyone wants to get out of the logic of confrontation.”

‘F**k the EU’

Victoria Nuland: US-Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Geoffrey R. Pyatt: United States Ambassador to Ukraine

Biden says US ’embarrassed’ EU into sanctioning Russia over Ukraine

Russia-Today
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden (Reuters / Jonathan Ernst)

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden (Reuters / Jonathan Ernst)

America’s leadership had to embarrass Europe to impose economic hits on Russia over the crisis in Ukraine – even though the EU was opposed to such a motion, US Vice President Joe Biden revealed during a speech at Harvard.

“We’ve given Putin a simple choice: Respect Ukraine’s sovereignty or face increasing consequences,” Biden told a gathering at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum at Harvard University’s Institute of Politics on Thursday.

The consequences were the sanctions which the EU imposed on Russia, first targeting individual politicians and businessmen deemed responsible for the crisis in Ukraine, then switching to the energy, defense, and economic sectors.

“It is true they did not want to do that,” Biden admitted.

“It was America’s leadership and the president of the United States insisting, oft times almost having to embarrass Europe to stand up and take economic hits to impose costs,” the US vice president declared.

AFP Photo / Patrick Hertzog

AFP Photo / Patrick Hertzog

Those costs deemed behind the ruble’s historic plunge not only forced America’s ExxonMobil to retreat from Russia’s Arctic shelf, but also provoked counter-measures from Moscow, which suspended certain food imports from the EU.

Russia’s counter-sanctions have hit many of the EU’s agricultural states. EU members, particularly those close to Russia, were the most affected by the loss of the Russian market.

For instance, the Netherlands – the world’s second-largest exporter of agricultural products – is set to lose 300 million euro annually from canceled business with Russia, as it accounts for roughly 10 percent of Dutch exports of vegetables, fruit, and meat.

At the same time, Poland was hit hard by the Kremlin’s sanctions, as its food exports to Russia totaled $1.5 billion in 2013.

Spain, a large exporter of oranges to Russia, is estimated to miss out on 337 million euro ($421 million) in food and agriculture sales, while Italy has estimated its losses at nearly 1 billion euro ($1.2 billion).

Following pressure from local farmers, a 125 million euro EU Commission Common Agricultural Policy fund was established, from which the growers are expected to get some cash, while Amsterdam is willing to cover the cost of transporting excess produce to eight food banks across Holland.

Overall, Moscow’s one-year food embargo against the EU, the US, Norway, Australia, and Canada will block an estimated $9 billion worth of agricultural exports to Russia.

With European countries now at a loss with apple and dairy surplus, it is not exactly clear whether EU producers will be able to return to the Russian markets after the one-year ban expires.

However, this is no secret to the US, as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland remarked on Thursday.

“Implementing sanctions isn’t easy and many countries are paying a steep price. We know that. But history shows that the cost of inaction and disunity in the face of a determined aggressor will be higher,” Nuland said.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland (R) and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt (2nd R) distribute bread to riot police near Independence square in Kiev December 11, 2013. (Reuters / Andrew Kravchenko)

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland (R) and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt (2nd R) distribute bread to riot police near Independence square in Kiev December 11, 2013. (Reuters / Andrew Kravchenko)

Nuland’s reference to necessary action against the “aggressor” might be taken with a grain of salt by the Europeans, as the “F**k the EU” leak is still fresh in their memory.

The four-minute video – titled ‘Maidan puppets,’ referring to Independence Square in Ukraine’s capital – was uploaded by an anonymous user to YouTube.

Nuland was recorded as saying the notoriously known phrase during a phone call with US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, as the two were seemingly discussing a US-preferred line-up of the Ukrainian government. It apparently referred to Washington’s policy differences with those of the EU on ways of handling the Ukrainian political crisis, with Nuland suggesting to “glue this thing” with the help of the UN and ignore Brussels.

The US State Department did not deny the authenticity of the video and stressed that Nuland had apologized for the “reported comments.”

Obama Is Starting A Bigger War That Every Living Human Will Come To Regret

A Cyber War with North Korea and an Economic War with Russia

war is crime

AMERICAN HOLOCAUST–We Inspired Hitler and S. Africa

The powerful and hard-hitting documentary, American Holocaust, is quite possibly the only film that reveals the link between the Nazi holocaust, which claimed at least 6 million Jews, and the American Holocaust which claimed, according to conservative estimates, 19 million Indigenous People.

It is seldom noted anywhere in fact, be it in textbooks or on the internet, that Hitler studied America’s “Indian policy”, and used it as a model for what he termed “the final solution.”

He wasn’t the only one either. It’s not explicitly mentioned in the film, but it’s well known that members of the National Party government in South Africa studied “the American approach” before they introduced the system of racial apartheid, which lasted from 1948 to 1994. Other fascist regimes, for instance, in South and Central America, studied the same policy.

Noted even less frequently, Canada’s “Aboriginal policy” was also closely examined for its psychological properties. America always took the more ‘wide-open’ approach, for example, by decimating the Buffalo to get rid of a primary food source, by introducing pox blankets, and by giving $1 rewards to settlers in return for scalps of Indigenous Men, women, and children, among many, many other horrendous acts. Canada, on the other hand, was more bureaucratic about it. They used what I like to call “the gentleman’s touch”, because instead of extinguishment, Canada sought to “remove the Indian from the Man” and the Women and the Child, through a long-term, and very specific program of internal breakdown and replacement – call it “assimilation“. America had it’s own assimilation program, but Canada was far more technical about it.

Perhaps these points would have been more closely examined in American Holocaust if the film had been completed. The film’s director, Joanelle Romero, says she’s been turned down from all sources of funding since she began putting it together in 1995.

Perhaps it’s just not “good business” to invest in something that tells so much truth? In any event, Romero produced a shortened, 29-minute version of the film in 2001, with the hope of encouraging new funders so she could complete American Holocaust. Eight years on, Romero is still looking for funds.

American Holocaust may never become the 90-minute documentary Romero hoped to create, to help expose the most substantial act of genocide that the world has ever seen… one that continues even as you read these words.

On December 3 1984, Union Carbide Gas Sent 3,800 Souls Home To God

BHOPAL SOURCE

The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review

NCBI

On December 3 1984, more than 40 tons of methyl isocyanate gas leaked from a pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, immediately killing at least 3,800 people and causing significant morbidity and premature death for many thousands more. The company involved in what became the worst industrial accident in history immediately tried to dissociate itself from legal responsibility. Eventually it reached a settlement with the Indian Government through mediation of that country’s Supreme Court and accepted moral responsibility. It paid $470 million in compensation, a relatively small amount of based on significant underestimations of the long-term health consequences of exposure and the number of people exposed. The disaster indicated a need for enforceable international standards for environmental safety, preventative strategies to avoid similar accidents and industrial disaster preparedness.

Since the disaster, India has experienced rapid industrialization. While some positive changes in government policy and behavior of a few industries have taken place, major threats to the environment from rapid and poorly regulated industrial growth remain. Widespread environmental degradation with significant adverse human health consequences continues to occur throughout India.

December 2004 marked the twentieth anniversary of the massive toxic gas leak from Union Carbide Corporation’s chemical plant in Bhopal in the state of Madhya Pradesh, India that killed more than 3,800 people. This review examines the health effects of exposure to the disaster, the legal response, the lessons learned and whether or not these are put into practice in India in terms of industrial development, environmental management and public health.

History

In the 1970s, the Indian government initiated policies to encourage foreign companies to invest in local industry. Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) was asked to build a plant for the manufacture of Sevin, a pesticide commonly used throughout Asia. As part of the deal, India’s government insisted that a significant percentage of the investment come from local shareholders. The government itself had a 22% stake in the company’s subsidiary, Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) [1]. The company built the plant in Bhopal because of its central location and access to transport infrastructure. The specific site within the city was zoned for light industrial and commercial use, not for hazardous industry. The plant was initially approved only for formulation of pesticides from component chemicals, such as MIC imported from the parent company, in relatively small quantities. However, pressure from competition in the chemical industry led UCIL to implement “backward integration” – the manufacture of raw materials and intermediate products for formulation of the final product within one facility. This was inherently a more sophisticated and hazardous process [2].

In 1984, the plant was manufacturing Sevin at one quarter of its production capacity due to decreased demand for pesticides. Widespread crop failures and famine on the subcontinent in the 1980s led to increased indebtedness and decreased capital for farmers to invest in pesticides. Local managers were directed to close the plant and prepare it for sale in July 1984 due to decreased profitability [3]. When no ready buyer was found, UCIL made plans to dismantle key production units of the facility for shipment to another developing country. In the meantime, the facility continued to operate with safety equipment and procedures far below the standards found in its sister plant in Institute, West Virginia. The local government was aware of safety problems but was reticent to place heavy industrial safety and pollution control burdens on the struggling industry because it feared the economic effects of the loss of such a large employer [3].

At 11.00 PM on December 2 1984, while most of the one million residents of Bhopal slept, an operator at the plant noticed a small leak of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas and increasing pressure inside a storage tank. The vent-gas scrubber, a safety device designer to neutralize toxic discharge from the MIC system, had been turned off three weeks prior [3]. Apparently a faulty valve had allowed one ton of water for cleaning internal pipes to mix with forty tons of MIC [1]. A 30 ton refrigeration unit that normally served as a safety component to cool the MIC storage tank had been drained of its coolant for use in another part of the plant [3]. Pressure and heat from the vigorous exothermic reaction in the tank continued to build. The gas flare safety system was out of action and had been for three months. At around 1.00 AM, December 3, loud rumbling reverberated around the plant as a safety valve gave way sending a plume of MIC gas into the early morning air [4]. Within hours, the streets of Bhopal were littered with human corpses and the carcasses of buffaloes, cows, dogs and birds. An estimated 3,800 people died immediately, mostly in the poor slum colony adjacent to the UCC plant [1,5]. Local hospitals were soon overwhelmed with the injured, a crisis further compounded by a lack of knowledge of exactly what gas was involved and what its effects were [1]. It became one of the worst chemical disasters in history and the name Bhopal became synonymous with industrial catastrophe [5].

Estimates of the number of people killed in the first few days by the plume from the UCC plant run as high as 10,000, with 15,000 to 20,000 premature deaths reportedly occurring in the subsequent two decades [6]. The Indian government reported that more than half a million people were exposed to the gas [7]. Several epidemiological studies conducted soon after the accident showed significant morbidity and increased mortality in the exposed population. Table Table1.1. summarizes early and late effects on health. These data are likely to under-represent the true extent of adverse health effects because many exposed individuals left Bhopal immediately following the disaster never to return and were therefore lost to follow-up [8].

Table 1

Health effects of the Bhopal methyl isocyanate gas leak exposure [8, 30-32].

Aftermath

Immediately after the disaster, UCC began attempts to dissociate itself from responsibility for the gas leak. Its principal tactic was to shift culpability to UCIL, stating the plant was wholly built and operated by the Indian subsidiary. It also fabricated scenarios involving sabotage by previously unknown Sikh extremist groups and disgruntled employees but this theory was impugned by numerous independent sources [1].

The toxic plume had barely cleared when, on December 7, the first multi-billion dollar lawsuit was filed by an American attorney in a U.S. court. This was the beginning of years of legal machinations in which the ethical implications of the tragedy and its affect on Bhopal’s people were largely ignored. In March 1985, the Indian government enacted the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act as a way of ensuring that claims arising from the accident would be dealt with speedily and equitably. The Act made the government the sole representative of the victims in legal proceedings both within and outside India. Eventually all cases were taken out of the U.S. legal system under the ruling of the presiding American judge and placed entirely under Indian jurisdiction much to the detriment of the injured parties.

In a settlement mediated by the Indian Supreme Court, UCC accepted moral responsibility and agreed to pay $470 million to the Indian government to be distributed to claimants as a full and final settlement. The figure was partly based on the disputed claim that only 3000 people died and 102,000 suffered permanent disabilities [9]. Upon announcing this settlement, shares of UCC rose $2 per share or 7% in value [1]. Had compensation in Bhopal been paid at the same rate that asbestosis victims where being awarded in US courts by defendant including UCC – which mined asbestos from 1963 to 1985 – the liability would have been greater than the $10 billion the company was worth and insured for in 1984 [10]. By the end of October 2003, according to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief and Rehabilitation Department, compensation had been awarded to 554,895 people for injuries received and 15,310 survivors of those killed. The average amount to families of the dead was $2,200 [9].

At every turn, UCC has attempted to manipulate, obfuscate and withhold scientific data to the detriment of victims. Even to this date, the company has not stated exactly what was in the toxic cloud that enveloped the city on that December night [8]. When MIC is exposed to 200° heat, it forms degraded MIC that contains the more deadly hydrogen cyanide (HCN). There was clear evidence that the storage tank temperature did reach this level in the disaster. The cherry-red color of blood and viscera of some victims were characteristic of acute cyanide poisoning [11]. Moreover, many responded well to administration of sodium thiosulfate, an effective therapy for cyanide poisoning but not MIC exposure [11]. UCC initially recommended use of sodium thiosulfate but withdrew the statement later prompting suggestions that it attempted to cover up evidence of HCN in the gas leak. The presence of HCN was vigorously denied by UCC and was a point of conjecture among researchers [8,1113].

As further insult, UCC discontinued operation at its Bhopal plant following the disaster but failed to clean up the industrial site completely. The plant continues to leak several toxic chemicals and heavy metals that have found their way into local aquifers. Dangerously contaminated water has now been added to the legacy left by the company for the people of Bhopal [1,14].

Lessons learned

The events in Bhopal revealed that expanding industrialization in developing countries without concurrent evolution in safety regulations could have catastrophic consequences [4]. The disaster demonstrated that seemingly local problems of industrial hazards and toxic contamination are often tied to global market dynamics. UCC’s Sevin production plant was built in Madhya Pradesh not to avoid environmental regulations in the U.S. but to exploit the large and growing Indian pesticide market. However the manner in which the project was executed suggests the existence of a double standard for multinational corporations operating in developing countries [1]. Enforceable uniform international operating regulations for hazardous industries would have provided a mechanism for significantly improved in safety in Bhopal. Even without enforcement, international standards could provide norms for measuring performance of individual companies engaged in hazardous activities such as the manufacture of pesticides and other toxic chemicals in India [15]. National governments and international agencies should focus on widely applicable techniques for corporate responsibility and accident prevention as much in the developing world context as in advanced industrial nations [16]. Specifically, prevention should include risk reduction in plant location and design and safety legislation [17].

Local governments clearly cannot allow industrial facilities to be situated within urban areas, regardless of the evolution of land use over time. Industry and government need to bring proper financial support to local communities so they can provide medical and other necessary services to reduce morbidity, mortality and material loss in the case of industrial accidents.

Public health infrastructure was very weak in Bhopal in 1984. Tap water was available for only a few hours a day and was of very poor quality. With no functioning sewage system, untreated human waste was dumped into two nearby lakes, one a source of drinking water. The city had four major hospitals but there was a shortage of physicians and hospital beds. There was also no mass casualty emergency response system in place in the city [3]. Existing public health infrastructure needs to be taken into account when hazardous industries choose sites for manufacturing plants. Future management of industrial development requires that appropriate resources be devoted to advance planning before any disaster occurs [18]. Communities that do not possess infrastructure and technical expertise to respond adequately to such industrial accidents should not be chosen as sites for hazardous industry.

Since 1984

Following the events of December 3 1984 environmental awareness and activism in India increased significantly. The Environment Protection Act was passed in 1986, creating the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and strengthening India’s commitment to the environment. Under the new act, the MoEF was given overall responsibility for administering and enforcing environmental laws and policies. It established the importance of integrating environmental strategies into all industrial development plans for the country. However, despite greater government commitment to protect public health, forests, and wildlife, policies geared to developing the country’s economy have taken precedence in the last 20 years [19].

India has undergone tremendous economic growth in the two decades since the Bhopal disaster. Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita has increased from $1,000 in 1984 to $2,900 in 2004 and it continues to grow at a rate of over 8% per year [20]. Rapid industrial development has contributed greatly to economic growth but there has been significant cost in environmental degradation and increased public health risks. Since abatement efforts consume a large portion of India’s GDP, MoEF faces an uphill battle as it tries to fulfill its mandate of reducing industrial pollution [19]. Heavy reliance on coal-fired power plants and poor enforcement of vehicle emission laws have result from economic concerns taking precedence over environmental protection [19].

With the industrial growth since 1984, there has been an increase in small scale industries (SSIs) that are clustered about major urban areas in India. There are generally less stringent rules for the treatment of waste produced by SSIs due to less waste generation within each individual industry. This has allowed SSIs to dispose of untreated wastewater into drainage systems that flow directly into rivers. New Delhi’s Yamuna River is illustrative. Dangerously high levels of heavy metals such as lead, cobalt, cadmium, chrome, nickel and zinc have been detected in this river which is a major supply of potable water to India’s capital thus posing a potential health risk to the people living there and areas downstream [21].

Land pollution due to uncontrolled disposal of industrial solid and hazardous waste is also a problem throughout India. With rapid industrialization, the generation of industrial solid and hazardous waste has increased appreciably and the environmental impact is significant [22].

India relaxed its controls on foreign investment in order to accede to WTO rules and thereby attract an increasing flow of capital. In the process, a number of environmental regulations are being rolled back as growing foreign investments continue to roll in. The Indian experience is comparable to that of a number of developing countries that are experiencing the environmental impacts of structural adjustment. Exploitation and export of natural resources has accelerated on the subcontinent. Prohibitions against locating industrial facilities in ecologically sensitive zones have been eliminated while conservation zones are being stripped of their status so that pesticide, cement and bauxite mines can be built [23]. Heavy reliance on coal-fired power plants and poor enforcement of vehicle emission laws are other consequences of economic concerns taking precedence over environmental protection [19].

In March 2001, residents of Kodaikanal in southern India caught the Anglo-Dutch company, Unilever, red-handed when they discovered a dumpsite with toxic mercury laced waste from a thermometer factory run by the company’s Indian subsidiary, Hindustan Lever. The 7.4 ton stockpile of mercury-laden glass was found in torn stacks spilling onto the ground in a scrap metal yard located near a school. In the fall of 2001, steel from the ruins of the World Trade Center was exported to India apparently without first being tested for contamination from asbestos and heavy metals present in the twin tower debris. Other examples of poor environmental stewardship and economic considerations taking precedence over public health concerns abound [24].

The Bhopal disaster could have changed the nature of the chemical industry and caused a reexamination of the necessity to produce such potentially harmful products in the first place. However the lessons of acute and chronic effects of exposure to pesticides and their precursors in Bhopal has not changed agricultural practice patterns. An estimated 3 million people per year suffer the consequences of pesticide poisoning with most exposure occurring in the agricultural developing world. It is reported to be the cause of at least 22,000 deaths in India each year. In the state of Kerala, significant mortality and morbidity have been reported following exposure to Endosulfan, a toxic pesticide whose use continued for 15 years after the events of Bhopal [25].

Aggressive marketing of asbestos continues in developing countries as a result of restrictions being placed on its use in developed nations due to the well-established link between asbestos products and respiratory diseases. India has become a major consumer, using around 100,000 tons of asbestos per year, 80% of which is imported with Canada being the largest overseas supplier. Mining, production and use of asbestos in India is very loosely regulated despite the health hazards. Reports have shown morbidity and mortality from asbestos related disease will continue in India without enforcement of a ban or significantly tighter controls [26,27].

UCC has shrunk to one sixth of its size since the Bhopal disaster in an effort to restructure and divest itself. By doing so, the company avoided a hostile takeover, placed a significant portion of UCC’s assets out of legal reach of the victims and gave its shareholder and top executives bountiful profits [1]. The company still operates under the ownership of Dow Chemicals and still states on its website that the Bhopal disaster was “cause by deliberate sabotage”. [28].

Some positive changes were seen following the Bhopal disaster. The British chemical company, ICI, whose Indian subsidiary manufactured pesticides, increased attention to health, safety and environmental issues following the events of December 1984. The subsidiary now spends 30–40% of their capital expenditures on environmental-related projects. However, they still do not adhere to standards as strict as their parent company in the UK. [24].

The US chemical giant DuPont learned its lesson of Bhopal in a different way. The company attempted for a decade to export a nylon plant from Richmond, VA to Goa, India. In its early negotiations with the Indian government, DuPont had sought and won a remarkable clause in its investment agreement that absolved it from all liabilities in case of an accident. But the people of Goa were not willing to acquiesce while an important ecological site was cleared for a heavy polluting industry. After nearly a decade of protesting by Goa’s residents, DuPont was forced to scuttle plans there. Chennai was the next proposed site for the plastics plant. The state government there made significantly greater demand on DuPont for concessions on public health and environmental protection. Eventually, these plans were also aborted due to what the company called “financial concerns”. [29].

Conclusion

The tragedy of Bhopal continues to be a warning sign at once ignored and heeded. Bhopal and its aftermath were a warning that the path to industrialization, for developing countries in general and India in particular, is fraught with human, environmental and economic perils. Some moves by the Indian government, including the formation of the MoEF, have served to offer some protection of the public’s health from the harmful practices of local and multinational heavy industry and grassroots organizations that have also played a part in opposing rampant development. The Indian economy is growing at a tremendous rate but at significant cost in environmental health and public safety as large and small companies throughout the subcontinent continue to pollute. Far more remains to be done for public health in the context of industrialization to show that the lessons of the countless thousands dead in Bhopal have truly been heeded.

Competing interests

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

J. Barab, B. Castleman, R Dhara and U Misra reviewed the manuscript and provided useful suggestions.

References

  • Fortun K. Advocacy after Bhopal. Chicago , University of Chicago Press; 2001. p. 259.
  • Shrivastava P. Managing Industrial Crisis. New Delhi , Vision Books; 1987. p. 196.
  • Shrivastava P. Bhopal: Anatomy of a Crisis. Cambridge, MA , Ballinger Publishing; 1987. p. 184.
  • Hazardous Installations Directorate. Health and Safety Executive; 2004. Accident Summary, Union Carbide India Ltd., Bhopal, India: December 3, 1984.
  • MacKenzie D. Fresh evidence on Bhopal disaster. New Scientist. 2002;19
  • Sharma DC. Bhopal: 20 Years On. Lancet. 2005;365:111–112. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17722-8. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Cassells J. Sovereign immunity: Law in an unequal world. Social and legal studies. 1996;5:431–436.
  • Dhara VR, Dhara R. The Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal: a review of health effects. Arch Environ Health. 2002;57:391–404. [PubMed]
  • Kumar S. Victims of gas leak in Bhopal seek redress on compensation. Bmj. 2004;329:366. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7462.366-b. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Castleman B PP. Appendix: the Bhopal disaster as a case study in double standards. In: Ives J, editor. The export of hazards: trans-national corporations and environmental control issues. London , Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1985. pp. 213–222.
  • Mangla B. Long-term effects of methyl isocyanate. Lancet. 1989;2:103. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(89)90340-1. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Varma DR. Hydrogen cyanide and Bhopal. Lancet. 1989;2:567–568. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(89)90695-8. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Anderson N. Long-term effects of mthyl isocyanate. Lancet. 1989;2:1259. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(89)92347-7. [Cross Ref]
  • Chander J. Water contamination: a legacy of the union carbide disaster in Bhopal, India. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2001;7:72–73. [PubMed]
  • Tyagi YK, Rosencranz A. Some international law aspects of the Bhopal disaster. Soc Sci Med. 1988;27:1105–1112. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90305-X. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Carlsten C. The Bhopal disaster: prevention should have priority now. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2003;9:93–94. [PubMed]
  • Bertazzi PA. Future prevention and handling of environmental accidents. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1999;25:580–588. [PubMed]
  • Dhara VR. What ails the Bhopal disaster investigations? (And is there a cure?) Int J Occup Environ Health. 2002;8:371–379. [PubMed]
  • EIA . In: India: environmental issues. energy D, editor. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
  • CIA The world factbook: India http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in.html#Econ
  • Rawat M, Moturi MC, Subramanian V. Inventory compilation and distribution of heavy metals in wastewater from small-scale industrial areas of Delhi, India. J Environ Monit. 2003;5:906–912. doi: 10.1039/b306628b. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Vijay R, Sihorwala TA. Identification and leaching characteristics of sludge generated from metal pickling and electroplating industries by Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Environ Monit Assess. 2003;84:193–202. doi: 10.1023/A:1023363423345. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
  • Karliner J. The corporate planet. San Francisco , Sierra Club Books; 1997. p. 247.
  • Bruno KKJ. Earthsummit,biz:The corporate takeover of sustainable development. Oakland, Ca , First Food Books; 2002. p. 237.
  • Power M. The poison stream: letter from Kerala. Harper’s. 2004;August, 2004:51–61.
  • Joshi TK, Gupta RK. Asbestos in developing countries: magnitude of risk and its practical implications. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2004;17:179–185. [PubMed]
  • Joshi TK, Gupta RK. Asbestos-related morbidity in India. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2003;9:249–253. [PubMed]
  • Union Carbide Bhopal Information Center. wwwbhopalcom/ucshtm. 2005.
  • Corporate Watch UK. DuPont: A corporate profile. http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/dupont/dupont4.htm
  • Beckett WS. Persistent respiratory effects in survivors of the Bhopal disaster. Thorax. 1998;53 Suppl 2:S43–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Misra UK, Kalita J. A study of cognitive functions in methyl-iso-cyanate victims one year after bhopal accident. Neurotoxicology. 1997;18:381–386. [PubMed]
  • Irani SF, Mahashur AA. A survey of Bhopal children affected by methyl isocyanate gas. J Postgrad Med. 1986;32:195–198. [PubMed]

Articles from Environmental Health are provided here courtesy of BioMed Central

Royal Arab Scum Decreases By Two, One Unknown Saudi, Another Unknown Kuwaiti

Doha: The Emir H H Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani has sent a cable of condolences to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia on the death of Prince Saad bin Abdullah bin Abdulrahman Al Saud.

The Deputy Emir H H Sheikh Abdullah bin Hamad Al Thani and the Prime Minister and Interior Minister H E Sheikh Abdullah bin Nasser bin Khalifa Al Thani have also sent cables of condolences to the Saudi King.

The Emir H H Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani sent a cable of condolences to the Emir of Kuwait H H Sheikh Sabah Al Ahmad Al Jaber Al Sabah on the death of Sheikha Fatima Al Athbi Al Mohamed Al Sabah.

The Deputy Emir H H Sheikh Abdullah bin Hamad Al Thani and the Prime Minister and Interior Minister H E Sheikh Abdullah bin Nasser bin Khalifa Al Thani have also sent cables of condolences to  Kuwait Emir.

City of London Freaks, Frantic with Fear Over Impending Anti-Capitalist World Revolution

We-will-not-tolerate-this-system-any-more-it-is-time-for-a-world-revolution-together-we-will-change-the-world-join-us

Inclusive Capitalism Initiative is Trojan Horse to quell coming global revolt

guardian

Prince Charles, Prince of Wales talks to Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary fund, before the start of the Inclusive Capitalism Conference at the Mansion House on May 27, 2014 in London, United Kingdom.
Prince Charles, Prince of Wales talks to Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the International Monetary fund, before the start of the Inclusive Capitalism Conference at the Mansion House on May 27, 2014 in London, United Kingdom. Photograph: WPA Pool/Getty Images

Yesterday’s Conference on Inclusive Capitalism co-hosted by the City of London Corporation and EL Rothschild investment firm, brought together the people who control a third of the world’s liquid assets – the most powerful financial and business elites – to discuss the need for a more socially responsible form of capitalism that benefits everyone, not just a wealthy minority.

Leading financiers referred to statistics on rising global inequalities and the role of banks and corporations in marginalising the majority while accelerating systemic financial risk – vindicating the need for change.

While the self-reflective recognition by global capitalism’s leaders that business-as-usual cannot continue is welcome, sadly the event represented less a meaningful shift of direction than a barely transparent effort to rehabilitate a parasitical economic system on the brink of facing a global uprising.

Central to the proceedings was an undercurrent of elite fear that the increasing disenfranchisement of the vast majority of the planetary population under decades of capitalist business-as-usual could well be its own undoing.

The Conference on Inclusive Capitalism is the brainchild of the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), a little-known but influential British think tank with distinctly neoconservative and xenophobic leanings. In May 2012, HJS executive director Alan Mendoza explained the thinking behind the project:

“… we felt that such was public disgust with the system, there was a very real danger that politicians could seek to remedy the situation by legislating capitalism out of business.”

He claimed that HJS research showed that “the only real solutions that can be put forward to restore trust in the system, and which actually stand a chance of bringing economic prosperity, are being led by the private, rather than the public, sector.”

The Initiative for Inclusive Capitalism’s recommendations for reform seem well-meaning at first glance, but in reality barely skim the surface of capitalism’s growing crisis tendencies: giant corporations should invest in more job training, should encourage positive relationships and partnerships with small- and medium-sized businesses, and – while not jettisoning quarterly turnovers – should also account for ways of sustaining long-term value for shareholders.

The impetus for this, however, lies in the growing recognition that if such reforms are not pursued, global capitalists will be overthrown by the very populations currently overwhelmingly marginalised by their self-serving activity. As co-chair of the HJS Inclusive Capitalism taskforce, McKinsey managing director Dominic Barton, explained from his meetings with over 400 business and government leaders worldwide that:

“… there is growing concern that if the fundamental issues revealed in the crisis remain unaddressed and the system fails again, the social contract between the capitalist system and the citizenry may truly rupture, with unpredictable but severely damaging results.”

Among those “damaging results” – apart from the potential disruption to profits and the capitalist system itself – is the potential failure to capitalise on the finding by “corporate-finance experts” that “70 to 90 percent of a company’s value is related to cash flows expected three or more years out.”

Indeed, as the New York Observer reported after the US launch of the Henry Jackson Initiative for Inclusive Capitalism, the rather thin proposals for reform “seemed less important than bringing business leaders together to address a more central concern: In an era of rising income inequality and grim economic outlook, people seemed to be losing confidence in capitalism altogether.”

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, who co-hosted yesterday’s conference, told the NY Observer why she was concerned:

“I think that a lot of kids have neither money nor hope, and that’s really bad. Because then they’re going to get mad at America. What our hope for this initiative, is that through all the efforts of all of the decent CEOs, all the decent kids without a job feel optimistic.”

Yep. Feel optimistic. PR is the name of the game.

“I believe that it is our duty to help make all people believe that the elevator is working for them… that whatever the station of your birth, you can get on that elevator to success,” de Rothschild told Chinese business leaders last year:

“At the moment, that faith and confidence is under siege in America… As business people, we have a pragmatic reason to get it right for everyone – so that the government does not intervene in unproductive ways with business… I think that it is imperative for us to restore faith in capitalism and in free markets.”

According to the very 2011 City of London Corporation report which recommended funding the HJS inclusive capitalism project, one of its core goals is undermining public support for “increased regulation” and “greater state” involvement in the economy, while simultaneously deterring calls to “punish those deemed responsible for having caused the crisis”:

“Following the financial crisis of 2008, the Western capitalist system has been perceived to be in crisis. Although the financial recovery is now underway in Europe and America, albeit unevenly and in some cases with the risk of further adjustments, the legacy of the sudden nature of the crash lives on.”

The report, written by the City of London’s director of public relations, continues to note that “the fabric of the capitalist system has come in for protracted scrutiny,” causing governments to “confuse the need for reasoned and rational change” with “the desire to punish those deemed responsible for having caused the crisis.” But this would mean that “the capitalist model is liable to have the freedoms and ideology essential to its success corroded.”

Far from acknowledging the predatory and unequalising impact of neoliberal capitalism, the document shows that the inclusive capitalism project is concerned with PR to promote “a more nuanced view of society,” without which “there is a risk that… we will be led down a policy path of increased regulation and greater state control of institutions, businesses and the people at the heart of them, which will fatally cripple the very system that has been responsible for economic prosperity.”

The project is thus designed “to influence political and business opinion” and to target public opinion through a “media campaign that seeks to engage major outlets.”

The Henry Jackson Initiative for Inclusive Capitalism is therefore an elite response to the recognition that capitalism in its current form is unsustainable, likely to hit another crisis, and already generating massive popular resistance.

Its proposed reforms therefore amount to token PR moves to appease the disenfranchised masses. Consequently, they fail to address the very same accelerating profit-oriented systemic risks that will lead to another financial crash before decade’s end.

Their focus, in de Rothschild’s words in the Wall Street Journal, is cosmetic: repairing “capitalism’s bruised image” in order to protect the “common long-term interests of investors and of the capitalist system.”

That is why the Inclusive Capitalism Initiative has nothing to say about reversing the neoliberal pseudo-development policies which, during capitalism’s so-called ‘Golden Age’, widened inequality and retarded growth for “the vast majority of low income and middle-income countries” according to a UN report – including “reduced progress for almost all the social indicators that are available to measure health and educational outcomes” from 1980 to 2005.

Instead, proposed ‘reforms’ offer ways to rehabilitate perceptions of powerful businesses and corporations, in order to head-off rising worker discontent and thus keep the system going, while continuing to maximise profits for the few at the expense of the planet.

This is not a surprise considering the parochial financial and political interests the Henry Jackson Society appears to represent: the very same neoconservative elites that lobbied for the Iraq War and endorse mass NSA surveillance of western and non-western citizens alike.

Indeed, there is little “inclusive” about the capitalism that HJS’ risk consultancy project, Strategic Analysis, seeks to protect, when it advertises its quarterly research reports on “the oil and gas sector in all twenty” countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Those reports aim to highlight “the opportunities for investors” as well as “risks to their business.”

Just last month, HJS organised a conference on mitigating risks in the Arab world to discuss “methods for protecting your business interests, assets and people,” including “how to plan against and mitigate losses… caused by business interruption.” The focus of the conference was protecting the invariably fossil fueled interests of British and American investors and corporates in MENA – the interests and wishes of local populations was not a relevant ‘security’ concern.

The conference’s several corporate sponsors included the Control Risks Group, a British private defence contractor that has serviced Halliburton and the UK Foreign Office in postwar Iraq, and is a member of the Energy Industry Council – the largest trade association for British companies servicing the world’s energy industries.

The “inclusivity” of this new brand of capitalism is also apparent in HJS’ longtime employment of climate denier Raheem Kassam, who now runs the UK branch of the American Breitbart news network, one of whose contributors called for Americans “to start slaughtering Muslims in the street, all of them.”

Perhaps the final nail in the coffin of HJS’ vision of capitalist “inclusivity” is associate director Douglas Murray’s views about Europe’s alleged Muslim problem, of which he said in Dutch Parliament: “Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board.”

Earlier this year, Murray’s fear-mongering targeted the supposed “startling rise in Muslim infants” in Britain, a problem that explains why “white British people” are “losing their country.” London, Murray wrote, “has become a foreign country” in which “‘white Britons’ are now in a minority,” and “there aren’t enough white people around” to make its boroughs “diverse.”

So abhorrent did the Conservative front-bench find Murray’s innumerable xenophobic remarks about European Muslims, reported Paul Goodman, the Tory Party broke off relations with his Center for Social Cohesion before he revitalised himself by joining forces with HJS.

Yet this is the same neocon ideology of “inclusive” market freedom around which the forces of global capitalism are remobilising, in the name of “sustainable” prosperity for all.

They must be having a laugh.

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an international security journalist and academic. He is the author of A User’s Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It, and the forthcoming science fiction thriller, Zero Point. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @nafeezahmed. [Emphasis in quotes was added]

American Afghan Drug War TOTAL SUCCESS In Weaponizing Addiction and Infection

soldiers_drugs

[SEE:  Afghanistan opium harvest at record high as Nato withdraws ; Afghan opium inflames US-Russia tensions after failed drug war ]

 

tracks

HIV infections double in Russia, ex-Soviet states

MEDICAL XPRESS

HIV infections have doubled in ten years in Russia and former Soviet states, due mainly to unprotected sex and injecting drugs, a report said Thursday.

More than 105,000 new infections were recorded in Russia and former Soviet countries in eastern Europe and Central Asia in 2013, up from just under 50,000 in 2004, said the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health Organization.

The number of those who go on to develop AIDS has also tripled in the region, the report said, while the number of deaths from the disease continue to fall in other parts of Europe.

“In Eastern Europe, where 77 percent of all new infections were reported, two thirds of cases among injecting drug users were detected late. This means they are more likely to transmit HIV, their treatment is more expensive, and they are more likely to die,” said Zsuzsanna Jakab, WHO Regional Director for Europe.

The majority of new HIV cases are among people 30 to 39 years old, with Russia and Ukraine reporting the highest number of new infections.

Infection rates also quadrupled in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The WHO says there were some 35 million people around the world living with HIV by the end of 2013, with some 2.1 million new infections during the course of that year.

Sub-Saharan Africa is the most affected region, with almost 70 percent of new infections.

The Gods of Money and Our Entrapment

The Gods of Money & Their New World Order Project: Endgame Has Begun

Attachment-1a

By RICHARD K. MOORE

 

Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.
– Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild

Perhaps the single most important thing to know about power in the world today is that most nations do not have control over their own currencies. Instead privately owned, for-profit central banks – such as the Federal Reserve System in the US – create money out of nothing and then loan it at interest to their respective governments. This is an incredibly profitable scam, but that’s not the worst of it.

Not only do the central banks have the power to create money for free, they also have the power to set interest rates, to decide how much credit is issued, and to decide how much money is put into circulation. With this power central banks can – and do – orchestrate boom and bust cycles, enabling the super-wealthy owners of the banks to profit from investments during the booms, and buy up assets at bargain prices during the busts. And that still isn’t the whole story.

The most profitable of all central bank activities has been the financing of major wars, particularly the two World Wars. When nations are engaged in warfare, with their very survival at stake, the governments stretch their resources to the limit in the competition to prevail. The struggle to get more financing becomes as important as the competition on the battlefield. Moneylenders love a desperate borrower, and vast fortunes have been made by extending credit to both sides in conflicts: the longer a war continues, the more profit for the central bankers.

Centralised Wealth Leads to Centralised Power

Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.
– Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), 28th President of the United States

Our political systems, based on parties competing to get elected, are inherently prone to corruption. Just as the struggle for financing is important in military campaigns, so is it important in political campaigns. Wealthy donors are able to get special treatment, when it comes to legislation and regulation that affects their business interests. This kind of corruption, however, is only the tip of the iceberg.

A more effective way that wealth translates into power is by the placing of agents – individuals loyal to wealthy backers – into positions of influence and power. For example, when the Rothschilds and Rockefellers joined forces to establish the Federal Reserve, they recruited an unknown professor, Woodrow Wilson, promised to make him President, and secured a return promise that he would sign the Federal Reserve bill when the time came. With their influence over party bosses, their control of newspapers, and unlimited funding, they were able to get Wilson elected. He may have later regretted his bargain with the devil, as suggested in the above quotation.

A more modern example is Obama, who in 2009 was tasked by Henry Kissinger (himself a key agent of the Rockefellers) to create a “new world order.” Like Wilson, Obama appeared out of political nowhere, was rocketed into the Presidency, and proved his loyalty in office. In Obama’s case, this involved promptly turning the White House over to central-banker agents from Wall Street – Timothy Geithner and his buddies. They make the policy; Obama makes the speeches.

This kind of thing has been going on for centuries, first in Europe and later in the US. What began as the placement of a few key agents has evolved over time. What we have now is an international web of control, with key agents placed in political parties, governments and their agencies, the media, corporate boards, intelligence services, and the military. At the centre of the web are the central banking dynasties – the Gods of Money – who remain mostly behind the scenes, pulling the strands of real power.

The Engineering of Transformation

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
– Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd President of the United States

Have you ever daydreamed about what you would do if you had wealth and power? For some the answer might be a life of leisure and indulgence, but for many their thoughts would turn to changing the world, making the world ‘better’. An iconic example would be Bill Gates, who would rather use the bulk of his fortune for making changes in the world – primarily to do with population reduction – than devote it to amassing still more wealth.

The Gods of Money are like that. They’ve had wealth and power, in great excess, for generations, and unlike you and me, they can do more than daydream. The business they have been engaged in for the past couple of centuries has not been to accumulate more wealth, rather it has been to transform the world into their own desired kind of private fiefdom. They have been accomplishing this in a series of transformational projects on a global scale. What is referred to as ‘The New World Order’ is simply the latest in this series of projects.

The Great America Project: An Ideal Base of Operations

When the American colonies achieved independence from Britain, a new nation was created that clearly had the potential to become a truly great world power. A huge continent, bigger than all of Europe, and with immense resources, was available to be conquered and exploited. If the Rothschilds could gain control of America, they could use it as a base of operations to consolidate their power globally.

During the 1800s the US grew to become a formidable industrial power. We associate this rise to power with names like Carnegie, Mellon, JP Morgan, and Rockefeller, who came to be known as the ‘robber barons’. However it was Rothschild money, and Rothschild-linked banks, which played the major role in financing this industrialisation project. The Rothschilds were carefully preparing their future base of operations. JD Rockefeller was the greatest of the robber barons, and he was able to join the Gods of Money pantheon on more or less equal terms with the Rothschilds.

With the US established as a major industrial power, the next step was for the Gods of Money to take firm control of this giant they helped create. As described above, this was accomplished with the usual behind the scenes manipulations through the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

The World War I Project

The next step was to play the European powers off against one another. With the backing of the Rothschilds, as described in the book Hidden History (see sidebar on page 14 of this issue of New Dawn), a secret cabal of British elites engineered the ‘Great War’ with Germany, whose industrial and financial power was beginning to eclipse that of the British Empire. The cabal’s intention was to preserve British supremacy. The Gods of Money, however, were playing a deeper game. Germany lost the war, but it was the US that emerged as the main beneficiary, not Britain.

While the European powers were exhausting themselves in warfare, the US was supplying them with the means to do so, and those supplies were being paid for by loans made possible by the new Federal Reserve – which had been established just in time for that purpose. When the war ended, the European powers owed astronomical sums to the US, and the US had greatly expanded its industrial capacity in the process of supplying war materials.

Before the war, the US, Britain, and Germany were more or less on a par as industrial powers. With only negligible military involvement, the US emerged from the war by far the greatest industrial power, and the world’s wealthiest nation as well. But the US was only one Great Power among many. It did not have a world-class fleet nor did it have a world-class army.

The Fascism & Communism Experiments

The Grand Project of the Gods of Money has always been, as mentioned above, to transform the world into their own private fiefdom. With their Great America project they were building the geopolitical power base that would be needed to achieve that goal. But there remained the question of how they would rule their fiefdom once attained. They want to have absolute control over the population, and they wanted to experiment with different means of exercising such control.

They saw their first opportunity to experiment in the revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Leon Trotsky, and Vladimir Lenin. The Czarist regime in Russia was weakening, and had been forced, by the 1905 Revolution, to implement significant reforms. Weakened still further by defeats early in World War I, a second communist revolution had every probability of success. There was a danger, however, that the second revolution would lead to a democratic form of socialism, which would not be the kind of regime the Gods of Money wanted for their eventual fiefdom.

They saw in Lenin and Trotsky leaders with autocratic ideas that suited their purposes. They arranged for Lenin to be transported from Switzerland, and Trotsky from New York – both to St. Petersburg – where they created the Bolshevik faction and took control of the revolutionary aftermath. The Gods of Money then funded the development of the Soviet Union, and thus launched an experiment with an autocratic regime based on collectivist values.

The Gods of Money saw their second opportunity to experiment in the ideas of the superbly charismatic Adolf Hitler. When Hitler was arrested for leading the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, they arranged for him to be given a comfortable jail existence where he was able to develop his ideas in his magnum opus, Mein Kampf, which articulated a manifesto proposing, among other things, to seek Lebensraum and enslave the Slavs. Hitler’s ideas centred around nationalism, expansionism, eugenics, genocide, and brutal methods of population control.

If Hitler were to come to power in Germany, that would provide an opportunity to experiment with a quite different kind of autocratic regime. In addition, due to his expansionist ideas, and his hatred of communism, it would provide the means to carry out another project in geopolitical transformation, a second Great War. Hitler was also attractive to German elites, who saw in him a chance to restore Germany as a Great Power.

The rest, as they say, is history. By engineering the economic collapse of the Weimar Republic, and by other means, Hitler was indeed helped into power in Germany. He was no pawn however, and much of his hatred, due in part to the fact that the Rothschilds are Jewish, was aimed at the Gods of Money themselves, whom he referred to as the ‘Gnomes of Zurich’. That hatred did not detract from the value of the Nazi experiment to the Gods of Money.

The World War II Project

If we see that Germany is winning we should help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible.
– Harry S. Truman (1884-1972), 33rd President of the United States, NY Times, 24 June 1941

The next step in the Great America project was to play all the other Great Powers off against one another, on a grander scale than in the first Great War. This time, however, the US was to play a major military role, so that it could emerge from the war as not just one more Great Power, but as the world’s first global super power. A major military role, yes, but a highly leveraged one, where the US suffered negligible casualties compared to the astronomical casualties of most of the other combatants.

From their secure American base of operations, the Gods of Money helped arrange the rearmament of Germany and the rapid rise of Japan as a modern industrial and military power, while continuing to support the development of the Soviet Union. In this way, as they say, the ducks were all lined up in a row. The US then pretended benevolent neutrality and watched while Japan fought it out with China, and Germany fought it out with the Soviet Union.

The US bided its time and waited for the most opportune moment to join the fray. When the time came, the US systematically provoked Japan, and made no attempt to defend against the attack on Pearl Harbor, even though Roosevelt knew the exact time the attack was to occur. The American people had been strongly against entering the war, and Pearl Harbor, as planned, instantly transformed public opinion, enabling the US to enter the war with the overwhelming support of its people. A ‘Day of Infamy’ indeed, but every bit as much Roosevelt’s as Japan’s.

Again, the rest is history. At the end of the war the US had 40% of the world’s wealth and industrial capacity, dominance of the seven seas, permanent military bases spread around the world, and a monopoly on nuclear weapons. Every other major power was standing in rubble and drowning in debt, as intended. With the US established as the first global super power, the Gods of Money set out to create a postwar world order to be dominated by America.

The Postwar Regime: Establishing the Foundations for a Globalist State

In 1944, an international conference was convened at Bretton Woods, establishing new globalist institutions, including the United Nations, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and World Bank, according to a design that had been worked out during the war by the Gods of Money’s Council on Foreign Relations. Under the guise of establishing a regime of world peace and stability, the US arranged for the other Western powers to be emasculated militarily. For its part, the US maintained and expanded its military muscle.

Whereas the Nazi experiment was terminated by the war, the Soviet Union survived as a Great Power. As the primary wartime ally of America, and in light of the professed harmonious intentions of the Bretton Woods system, the Soviets were looking forward to peaceful coexistence with the West, despite their considerable ideological differences. This was not to be, as it did not fit into the plans of the Gods of Money, as they continued with their Grand Project of global domination.

America and Britain, both firmly under the thumb of the Gods of Money, invented the myth of a ‘communist threat’, and proclaimed the Cold War, which served several purposes. First, it was accompanied by a policy of containment, which aimed to prevent the Soviets, and their Chinese ideological cousins, from participating in the postwar economic boom, and also in inhibiting nations, such as Korea and Vietnam, from choosing to follow a socialist path. Second, the Cold War provided an excuse for the US to continue expanding its military might and interventionist programs.

The Collective Imperialism Project

With the US as an unrestrained super power, a Pax Americana regime prevailed in what was euphemistically called the ‘Free World’. With no need to defend their separate empires, the former European Great Powers were able to participate along with America in a grand program of neo-imperialism. This led to the greatest era of economic growth the world had ever seen.

Growth became the expected norm; any episode of non-growth was considered an aberration. The expectation of growth became a structural part of national economies, leading to routine deficit financing, government borrowing, and increasing national debts – owed to the central banks. There was no Plan B: if growth faltered – a dreaded recession episode – the only recourse was to borrow still more, if an economy was to continue functioning.

The postwar growth boom led to unprecedented prosperity throughout the West, as well as in Japan, which in the postwar era could be considered part of the West. In addition, sweeping programs of social reform were introduced, such as the National Health Service in the UK, and even more far-reaching welfare-state arrangements throughout Western Europe.

Partly because of the dissolution of traditional empires, and partly because of the social-reform measures, there was a sense in the postwar world that democratic values were on the rise. Governments were being more responsive to the needs and wishes of the people. The Enlightenment values of personal freedom and the rights of citizens were enshrined in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It seemed as if a new golden age of democracy and ever-improving social conditions had arrived.

Economic stability plus everlasting economic growth, along with peace guaranteed by a benevolent Uncle Sam: how sweet it was! With their postwar regime the Gods of Money had seduced the ‘Free World’ into a bubble of dependency. The UN Charter guaranteed the principle of national sovereignty, and no one (exception: Charles de Gaulle) seemed to realise that when someone else is guaranteeing your sovereignty, you no longer have sovereignty. Growth became the new opiate of the people, and no one seemed to realise that everlasting growth on a finite planet is a mathematical impossibility.

With most of the world willingly tied to a leash of dependency on American leadership, and with America firmly under the thumb of the Federal Reserve, the Gods of Money could now proceed to lead the world down the garden path toward total subjugation.

The Global Destabilisation Project: Nixon & the Gold Standard

For nearly 30 years, from 1944 to 1971, the Bretton Woods system operated more or less as advertised. The dollar was pegged to gold, with other currencies pegged to the dollar, providing the promised financial stability. Growth continued, providing the expected prosperity and rising living standards. However, with the US embroiled in a costly and unwinnable war in Vietnam, the American economy was beginning to falter. In 1971, in order to continue financing the war, Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard.

The Cold War project had provided an opportunity to abandon the stability project. Currency values could now fluctuate, enabling currency speculation, and introducing uncertainty into the valuation of international transactions. No great harm resulted at first, but a central pillar of financial stability had been removed. Today, only a tiny percentage of currency transactions have to do with the real economy, and the rest are rampant and destabilising speculation.

In 1980 the Gods of Money moved their destabilisation project into a higher gear. They arranged for their agents, Reagan and Thatcher, to take leadership in the US and UK, and a media propaganda campaign was launched to reintroduce the long-discredited doctrine of laissez-faire economics, which had created the horrific Dickensian conditions of the Victorian era.

Based on a fraudulent economic analysis promulgated by Milton Friedman’s Chicago School of Economics, the claim was made that reducing corporate taxes and regulations would lead to a stronger economy and benefits would accrue to all, including even government budgets. The charismatic Ronald Reagan talked about ‘getting government off our backs’, and proclaimed that ‘government is not the solution; it is the problem’.

There is of course much truth in those words, but increasing corporate power at the expense of government power was not at all a path to either prosperity or to personal freedom. One might have wondered how a career as a film actor and TV advertiser qualified someone to be President, but the mystery vanishes when one realises that the main job of the President is to tell lies convincingly to a credulous public, in support of the agendas of the Gods of Money.

Along with reducing corporate taxes and regulations, the new economic policies included encouraging corporations to move their operations to low-waged countries, which led to the de-industrialisation of both America and Britain. The Bretton Woods regime was being systematically undermined, and the decline of both stability and prosperity was thus ensured.

The European Union Project

The populations of continental Western Europe, having experienced on their own doorsteps the ravages of fascism and war, were less vulnerable to the kind of facile propaganda that succeeded so well with the more sheltered populations of Britain and America. A more nuanced campaign was required to destabilise continental Europe.

The propaganda campaign to sell the Maastricht Treaty didn’t talk about ‘getting government off our backs’, which wouldn’t have gone over very well in those economies, where the welfare state was both popular and successful. Instead it was argued that a European Union would put Europe on a par with the powerful USA, and it was even argued that the EU was necessary to prevent future wars among the European powers.

The reality of the EU was that it delivered Europe directly into the hands of the Gods of Money. Unlike the European nations themselves, which are governed by elected Parliaments and Prime Ministers, the Brussels regime is dominated by the European Commission, which is unelected and which the Gods of Money can easily arrange to be staffed by their own selected agents.

A central part of the pro-EU propaganda campaign had been promises about ‘subsidiarity’ – decisions were allegedly to be taken at the lowest possible level, depending on the issues involved: loss of sovereignty needn’t be feared. Brussels was to make decisions only on matters that affected the EU as a whole. Once the EU was established, however, the term subsidiarity began to disappear from usage, and over time more and more power has been shifted from national governments to Brussels. Today, every aspect of life in the EU is affected by reams of unreadable EU regulations.

The final nail in the coffin of European national sovereignty, and financial stability, came with the adoption of the Euro in 1999. Without the ability to control their own currencies, nations had no real control over their financial viability. Today the folly of a common currency, among nations with quite different economic circumstances, is well covered in the financial press. But the truth of this folly was there from the beginning, and the Gods of Money were well aware of it.

The Neoliberal Project & the Globalisation of Poverty

In 1994 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed by the US, Canada, and Mexico. This treaty undermined the economies and sovereignty of all three nations. Under the guise of ‘free trade’, it was really about empowering corporations at the expense of nations – the Reagan-Thatcher revolution on steroids. Under such treaties corporations have the right to sue governments if regulations undermine corporate profits. Consumer safety, environmental protection, and worker’s rights are of little concern to the corporate-controlled World Trade Organization (WTO) process that renders judgments on such suits. Since then a number of similar ‘free trade zone’ treaties have been pursued involving various combinations of nations.

The Neoliberal Project got into high gear in 1995, with the establishment of the World Trade Organization, replacing the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The WTO promptly launched a systematic campaign to increase the power of corporations, by means of ‘free trade’ treaties that are binding on all members of the WTO, including of course the EU. The overall effect of the Neoliberal Project has been to lower living standards, undermine national sovereignty, destabilise national finances, and in general to destroy everything that the Bretton Woods system was designed to protect.

In the so-called ‘third world’, particularly in sub-Sahara Africa, the ravages of the Neoliberal Project have been extended still further by the actions of the IMF and by other means – as documented by John Perkins in Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Governments are encouraged, or forced, to take on debts that they have no ability to repay. When the governments then turn to the IMF for relief, additional loans are granted, but they are encumbered by draconian conditions. Governments are forced to cut social services, and are required to sell off national assets, such as water rights, at bargain basement prices to corporations. It becomes illegal, to give an example of what draconian means, for people to capture rainwater, as that is deemed to be stealing from the corporations that have bought the nation’s water rights. By such means poverty has been systematically created wherever the IMF has managed to dig in its claws.

Destabilising Enlightenment Values: The ‘War on Terror’

On 11 September 2001 the Gods of Money arranged for the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and arranged also for that to be blamed on an imaginary Al Qaeda conspiracy to ‘destroy our freedoms’. In fact our freedoms have been destroyed – not by Al Qaeda, but by the Gods of Money themselves.

The Gods of Money were applying a lesson learned from the Nazi experiment: the demolition of the World Trade Center was a replay of the Reichstag Fire, which was also a ‘false flag’ event, blamed in that case on a ‘communist conspiracy’. Just as the Reichstag Fire was followed by the Nazi’s Enabling Act, so 9/11 was followed by the Patriot Act. Both Acts destroyed all constitutional guarantees of civil liberties, leading in both cases to concentration camps, the legitimisation of torture, indefinite detention without legal recourse, and the establishment of unaccountable police-state regimes.

Partly due to the psychological impact of 9/11, partly due to the hidden influence of the Gods of Money, and partly due to additional false flag events (e.g. the 7/7 bombings in London) governments everywhere have implemented ‘anti-terrorist’ legislation that seriously undermines civil liberties that had long been considered sacrosanct.

Besides enabling the domestic curtailment of civil liberties, the ‘War on Terror’ also became an excuse for military interventionism – one excuse among many. In addition, we saw the emergence of ‘humanitarian’ interventions, and the fabrication of excuses such as non-existent ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Such excuses enabled the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another interventionist tactic, used for example in Kosovo and Libya, has been the recruitment of mercenary terrorists to play the role of ‘domestic freedom fighters’. This then provides an excuse for ‘humanitarian’ interventions. In the case of Syria, mercenary terrorists have themselves been the primary means of destabilisation. One can hardly keep up with all the interventions. In Africa, the US has set up AFRICOM, a military command established to facilitate interventions and destabilisation throughout Africa.

One can identify geopolitical and economic reasons for these various interventions, such as control over energy and mineral resources. However, from a big-picture perspective, the overall effect has been to undermine the principle of national sovereignty, and also to create a large number of ‘failed states’.

Transforming Economics – Controlled Demolition of Capitalism

As mentioned earlier, economic growth cannot continue forever on a finite planet. Quite clearly the capitalism/growth paradigm must come to an end sooner or later. Based on these facts, many analysts have been predicting the collapse of civilisation. Some even see this as a good thing, an opportunity to build a new society from the ground up.

These analysts either don’t understand the degree to which power is centralised in today’s world, or else they assume those who have power are blind and stupid; the Gods of Money are neither. They’ve been planning the successor to the growth paradigm since the establishment of the Club of Rome in 1968, if not earlier. Rather than letting capitalism collapse of its own accord, they’ve arranged for a controlled collapse, so that they can fashion an outcome of their own choosing.

The financial collapse of 2008 did not happen by accident; it was a project engineered by the Gods of Money. There will be no recovery from the collapse because a recovery is not intended. Instead of an economy based on market activity, we’re to have a globally micro-managed economy, as presaged by the widespread deployment of ‘smart meters’. Lessons learned in the Soviet experiment are to be applied globally.

The foundation for the 2008 collapse project was the establishment of the ‘mark-to-market’ rule, also known as ‘Basel II’. This was an edict of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the central bank of central banks, with headquarters in Basel, Switzerland. This rule requires banks to value their assets according to what they could be sold for immediately on the markets.

What this means is that a temporary slump in some asset value deflates the value of all related assets. This is of little concern in rising markets, but in any kind of serious downturn it can render a bank insolvent unnecessarily. Markets do fluctuate, and banks routinely ride out bumps in values. The mark-to-market rule means that a survivable market bump can turn into a derailment: a time bomb had been placed in the global financial system.

With this bomb in place, the stage was set for the demolition project. The first step, arranged by Wall Street agents of the Gods of Money, was the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act in the US. This gave Wall Street the freedom it needed to proceed with the rest of the project. Next, global credit lines were opened wide, creating all kinds of loans that could never be repaid, particularly in the US housing market. Those bad mortgages were then bundled into derivatives, and phony insurance was attached so that the derivatives could be given a triple-A rating. These toxic derivatives were then marketed aggressively on global markets.

A housing bubble had been created; the toxic derivatives spread the risk throughout the banking system, and the time bomb ensured that when the bubble burst the banking system would be rendered insolvent. In 2008 the bubble did burst, and the planned insolvencies immediately followed. But that was not the worst of it.

If a bank, or any business, becomes insolvent, the sensible thing to do is to place the business into receivership and arrange for an orderly disposition of its assets and liabilities. What this means in the case of an insolvent bank is that the bank can be closed down on a Friday, and re-opened on the Monday under state ownership. The bad loans can be handed over to the unsecured creditors, and normal banking operations can be resumed. The bank can then be operated by the state, or it can be sold back into the private sector.

As if this well-known, orderly procedure didn’t exist, the Gods of Money were able to promulgate a nonsense doctrine called ‘too big to fail’. In order to help facilitate this scam, compliant officials and media claimed that the banks were suffering not from insolvency, but only from a temporary liquidity crisis. Based on this lie, an insane program of bank bailouts was launched. Because the banks were insolvent, governments could not possibly fulfil their fraudulently assumed bailout obligations. As bailout payments became due, governments were forced to borrow to fulfil them. The Gods of Money now had governments exactly where they wanted them.

The outcome, as planned, was the transformation of bank insolvency into government insolvency. Governments got their needed loans, but with onerous conditions attached – the same kind of conditions the IMF had been attaching to loans to ‘third world’ countries for decades. Instead of the banks going into receivership, governments were being forced into receivership, beginning with those with the greatest bailout exposure – Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain.

The Gods of Money sent their agents (troikas) into these countries, taking over control of national budgets. A regime of austerity was decreed, guaranteeing that there could be no economic recovery, and a sell-off of national assets began – at bargain basement prices. Countries like France and Germany have been economically strong enough to survive the initial assault, but as the global economy continues to deteriorate they will eventually be pulled into the trap of insolvency as well. The more they try to save the Eurozone, the more they will be mired in debt. The US is already over its head in debt, partly from bailouts, and partly for reasons of its own such as military over-extension.

Throughout the West the following scenario is being created: rather than sovereign nations operating according to market forces, we’ll have nations that are owned by the Gods of Money, operating on the basis of budgets allocated by the central banks. The goal of central governance will have been in practice achieved, by means of debt, and a regime of economic micro-management will have been achieved as well, as it already has been in the weaker economies.

The Endgame – De-Americanisation & the Empowerment of the UN

The Persian Gulf crisis is a rare opportunity to forge new bonds with old enemies (the Soviet Union)… Out of these troubled times a New World Order can emerge under a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders.
– US President George Bush Sr., State of the Union Address, 29 January 1991

In the context of multiple interventions, wars, drone strikes, etc., that the US, usually with the help of the UK, routinely engages in – with little or no concern for international law, public opinion, or consequences to civilians – it was extremely surprising that first UK Prime Minister David Cameron and then US President Obama abandoned their promise to respond to Obama’s ‘red line’ about Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons, by referring the matter to Parliament and Congress, where ‘NO’ votes were all but certain to follow.

Not everyone recognised right away that a momentous shift was signalled by this unprecedented back down, but the magnitude of the shift soon became apparent to all as subsequent events began to unfold. The first remarkable follow-on event was the sudden rise to diplomatic prominence of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Even that was eclipsed by the announcement Washington and Iran were to engage in what sounds like very promising face-to-face negotiations over the nuclear issue, to the dire chagrin of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who up until then seemed to be the tail wagging the American dog in the Middle East.

Such momentous shifts on a global scale do not happen by accident, as we have seen in our whirlwind review of two centuries of history. Such events must be interpreted in the context of the agenda of the Gods of Money, and in particular with their Grand Project, to transform the world into their own private fiefdom. They’ve ‘cleared the building site’ by destabilising the world in the many ways described above, and they’ve already begun to micromanage national budgets. The time has come, apparently, to get on with the formal installation of their New World Order. Not by force, but by popular acclaim.

The Sudden Emergence of Putin as a World Leader

There has been a struggle going on for some time between the US on the one hand, and Russia, China, and the BRICS nations on the other, regarding the latter’s desire for a multipolar world, rather than a US-dominated unipolar world. The persistence of the dollar as a reserve currency, and US exceptionalism in general, have been of serious concern, and always the US has been jealous to guard what it has seen as its legitimate prerogatives.

In the cases of Syria and Iran, for example, appeals for sanity from Putin and others were ignored, or responded to with traditional US arrogance. Suddenly all that’s changed. Putin in particular has been elevated to the status of respected world leader, and it would have been inconceivable only a short time ago that the US would leave Russia in charge of dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons. Putin has not changed his tune or his style; he’s saying the same things he’s always been saying. What’s changed is that he isn’t being dismissed by Washington. And the global media, controlled of course by the Gods of Money, is now featuring him in almost heroic terms. Multipolarism has become overnight a reality.

De-Americanisation

American interventionism, and outrage against it, is of course nothing new. But particularly since 9/11 such episodes have become more and more dangerous. With threats of war with Iran, a ‘pivot to the East’ aimed against China, and other recent moves, it seemed we were verging toward a situation that might even trigger a full-blown nuclear confrontation on a global scale – the fulfilment of the ominous ‘Project for a New American Century’.

The world, as we’ve been seeing in media reports since the ‘red line’ backdown, is more than ready to embrace de-Americanisation. American leadership, widely welcomed after World War II, has long-since passed out of favour. One can almost hear a sigh of relief when reading some of the optimistic words of pundits. And who could not be relieved by the turn of events we’ve seen since Washington no longer seems to be calling all the shots? When Obama speaks, we typically hear the rhetoric of a politician; when Putin speaks, we hear the reasoned words of an astute statesman.

The Empowerment of the UN

Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license… All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.
– David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

It does not take much imagination to see where these developments are heading. Diplomacy is taking centre stage, and new voices are being heard in the discourse of the ‘international community’. Expectations are rising that long-standing tensions and long-simmering crises may finally become resolvable. As real results begin feeding into these expectations, as will happen when the Iran crisis is settled and when the media starts saying the right things, there will emerge what amounts to a public outcry to carry this progress forward, to make sure that reason and diplomacy become the norm in international relations.

Out of the created crisis of American exceptionalism we will be treated with a ‘solution’ – putting teeth into the United Nations (UN) process. No more American vetoes in defiance of global sentiment! No more American (or Israeli) military adventurism! Let the UN do the job it was designed to do, we will hear, to provide a forum where issues can really be resolved, and to have the ability to carry out the resulting decisions on the ground. A ‘reformed’ UN won’t be called a world government, but the kinds of powers granted by the ‘reforms’ will amount to the same thing. The word subsidiarity may emerge again, if needed, to silence dissenting voices, but as with the EU such assurances would be meaningless.

It is important to notice that these recent breakthroughs and shifts are all in the realm of geopolitics. In this push toward centralised governance all attention is being focused on war and peace issues. Everyone, presumably, wants peace and stability among nations. We are being offered an attractive wooden horse named Peace, and we’re not hearing much about what’s inside the horse. Beware of elites bearing gifts.

In fact we know quite a bit about what is carried within the horse, but I’ve space here for only an example or two. Agenda 21 is one the most frightening pieces of cargo the horse carries. This agenda starts with legitimate concerns regarding sustainability, and transforms them into a Green Monster that aims to micromanage every aspect of our lives, to an extent that makes the old Soviet regime seem almost like free enterprise by comparison. Anyone not familiar with Agenda 21 would be well advised to do some research.

In the realm of international relations there are some frightening indicators, in particular regarding drone strikes. One would hope those diabolic machines would be outlawed altogether if we’re moving toward a more harmonious world. But no, already the UN is considering the drone issue, and wants to set up some kind of rating system to distinguish good strikes from bad strikes.

Which brings up the whole question of ‘terrorism’. As I’ve claimed above, and the evidence really is decisive, much of what is called ‘terrorism’ is really either false flag operations, or else the acts of mercenaries working for Western intelligence agencies, in the pursuit of some destabilisation or regime-change project. If the pretence is to continue – in our diplomacy-based world – that all this ‘terrorism’ is real, and that civil liberties must continue to be sacrificed, then our wooden horse isn’t as attractive as it might first appear.

There are two things we can be sure of, regarding what comes with our wooden horse. First, the UN will end up micro-managing society, by means of unaccountable bureaucracies, like the IMF, IPCC, WHO, etc. Second, with so many of our traditional systems intentionally destabilised, we can expect that a ‘solution’ will be given to us, in terms of a new cultural and economic paradigm.

An earlier article of mine, published in New Dawn 128 (Sept-Oct 2011), went into some detail as to the kinds of cultural changes the Gods of Money most likely have in store for us, based on various available indicators:  ‘The Elite Plan for a New World Social Order’, viewable at http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/the-elite-plan-for-a-new-world-social-order; http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-elite-plan-for-a-new-world-social-order/27188

If you appreciated this article, please consider a digital subscription to New Dawn.

.

RICHARD K. MOORE worked 30 years for leading Silicon Valley software firms, and then moved to Ireland to pursue his ‘real work’. Since then he’s been studying and writing about the problems humanity is facing, and exploring paths to solutions. He’s a prolific writer, with a popular blog, dozens of articles published in magazines and online outlets like globalresearch.ca, and has published a book, Escaping the Matrix: How We the People Can Change the World. Website: http://cyberjournal.org. He can be reached at rkm@quaylargo.com.

The above article appeared in New Dawn Special Issue Vol 7 No 6

The Uncertain Fate of the Dalit (Untouchable) Caste in India

 The sewer divers of Mumbai

The Uncertain Fate of the Dalit (Untouchable) Caste in India

Daphne Holmes

Now that India has a new Prime Minister, what does the future hold for the Dalit, the “Untouchable” caste in India? Some think it doesn’t look good, claiming that Narendra Modi’s administration will leave the Dalit on the fringes of society, as they have been for centuries. Yet others believe that Modi’s efforts to appeal to Dalits during his campaign opened the way for the latter’s increased participation in mainstream society.

Most people are at least vaguely familiar with the caste system in India, which has continued to thrive – in the world’s largest democracy, no less – well into the twenty-first century. It’s reasonable to question why a pre-feudalistic division of labor that assigns people’s social status, as well as their occupation, at birth has persisted when it seems so contrary to every modern notion of humanity, equality, and justice. Moreover, as Shikha Dalmia, a newspaper columnist and Senior Analyst at the Reason Foundation, wrote in a 2012 article published on reason.com, the caste system has endured without any legal reinforcement. It is, in the words of Ms. Dalmia, “an informal, self-perpetuating institution that has resisted half-a-century worth of (ham-handed) government efforts to eradicate it.”


It’s complicated.
The ugliness of the caste system is nowhere more apparent than in the plight of the
Dalits, the poorest of the poor in India. Depending upon which source you read, Dalits comprise anywhere from 16 percent to approximately 25 percent of India’s population. Most live in profound poverty, earning less than $1.00 a day. Historically Dalits have faced discrimination in every area of life, including education, employment, and health care. For centuries they were restricted to jobs deemed unclean, e.g., handling human waste or dead animals, and they could be punished even for letting their shadow fall on a member of an upper caste. Although the Indian government banned castes more than six decades ago and gave Dalits substantial rights, the discrimination remains widespread, particularly in rural areas.

And yet there is another dimension to this picture, as Shikha Dalmia noted in the 2012 piece mentioned above. She cites the example of a Dalit woman who has done the “dirty work” such as trash collection and cleaning for Ms. Dalmia’s family for more than 35 years. Though the caste system has made pariahs out of that woman and her peers, at the same time it has provided them with job security. Writes Ms. Dalmia, “Indians find dealing with other people’s refuse not just unpleasant, but polluting. Hence only Dalits, whose caste impels them to do this work, are willing to do it, something that both stigmatizes them and gives them a stranglehold on the market. And they have transformed this stranglehold into an ironclad cartel that closes the door on all alternatives for their customers.”

But this job security has been shaken in recent years in areas where local municipal authorities began sending vans to pick up trash from neighborhoods, threatening to make the Dalits obsolete. Already branded as “polluted” and deemed unfit for any other type of work, the affected Dalits seemed to be caught between a rock and a hard place. Compromise measures allowing the Dalits to continue some of their trash collection work were struck in some areas but were generally acknowledged as being only stopgap measures.

Optimists say that ultimately, pushing the Dalits out of their traditional roles may help move India towards a caste-free system. However, until the caste system ceases to provide rewards it will no doubt continue to exist – and for most Dalits the opportunities, however dismal, are still greater within the caste system than without.

Some who beat the odds

There are notable exceptions to the grim narrative of the Dalit in India; some Dalit have been able to break through the caste barriers to become millionaires or powerful political figures. One example of the latter is the new chief minister of the northeastern India state of Bihar, Jitan Ram Manjhi, who grew up catching and eating rats to survive. His story is so extraordinary because his “rat catcher” Musahar caste is the very lowest of India’s 900 Dalit sub-castes. In fact, most other Dalits look down on them. No caste is quite as marginalized as the Musahar, who account for almost half of the 80 million population of Bihar. Literacy rates among the Musahar are some of the lowest in the country — 6% of Musahar men and a mere 2% of women can read and write – and almost nobody from the Musahar caste holds a government job . Not surprisingly, campaigners for Musahar rights were elated by Manjhi’s election and said they believed this would set a precedent for allowing other caste members to take their place in mainstream society.

Mr. Manjhi, however, is very much an exception to the rule. For the most part, the Dalits of India are trapped in a centuries-old system that many see no hope of escaping. And there’s no geographical cure; even if one has the desire and the means to emigrate, escaping the stigma of caste in one’s adopted country can be enormously difficult.

Hope for the future, or more of the same old thing?
Much like American politicians, Indian politicians are not above exploiting or embellishing their “humble” origins in order to win votes.
The new Prime Minister, Narenda Modi, was actually aided in his quest for office by emphasizing his origins as a tea boy; though born to a higher caste, he claimed membership in one of the “backward castes.” Still, Modi never claimed to be a Dalit, and it remains to be seen how the Dalits will fare under his administration.

Some have questioned how or if Modi will address the basic rights violations suffered by Muslim and Christian “untouchables,” who are not covered by past constitutional reforms that recognized the Dalit as a Scheduled Caste. In May 2014, Tehmina Arora of the Alliance Defending Freedom wrote, “Unfortunately, the Indian government grants complete protection and freedom only to Scheduled Castes who are Hindu, Sikh, or Buddhist. Paragraph 3 of the 1950 Order states, ‘No person who professes a religion different from the Hindu, the Sikh or the Buddhist religion shall be deemed to be a member of a Scheduled Caste.’ As a result, Christian and Muslim Dalits are denied Scheduled Caste status and all ensuing privileges.” Arora added that the denial of Scheduled Caste status has severely affected the millions of Christian and Muslim Dalits who live in extreme poverty.

But some remain hopeful. In an article published just after Modi’s election, columnist Udit Raj in the Hindustan Times expressed optimism, writing, “The way Modi assured the Dalits and the poor that their expectations would be met means that his government will ensure them a share in governance and this will ensure more Dalit support for the BJP in the long run. The BJP is no more a party of the upper castes only…”

Cynics may scoff about empty political promises, but one thing is certain: human rights advocates all over the world will be watching India. At this point it is probably unreasonable to expect a wholesale abandonment of the caste system, but at the very least it is reasonable to continue advocating for a measurably better existence for the millions of marginalized Dalits, no matter what their religion.

For more information, and/or to become involved in the quest to end discrimination against the Dalits worldwide, visit the Dalit Solidarity site: http://www.dalitsolidarity.org/

Author:

Daphne Holmes contributed this guest post. She is a writer from ArrestRecords.com and you can reach her at daphneholmes9@gmail.com.

 

The War Crime of Intentional Refugee Creation

[Obama and friends have created something that it is so monstrous in intent and ruthlessness that it is incomprehensible to most “normal” human beings.  The CIA has weaponized the refugees who flood the highways surrounding the live war zones, or die in great numbers, while bobbing about on the Mediterranean.  In modern Imperial warfare, they are just a free-flowing asset, that can be turned on and off whenever and wherever the Empire needs them. 

This can best be described as a reverse “human wave assault” tactic (the Chinese tactic which literally cost us the Korean War).  Waves of armed men have been replaced by mobile masses of the poorest and most desperate human beings on the face of the planet, who can be covertly directed to overrun “enemy lines,” which impede the Empire’s progress.  This strategy of using human beings as an ocean of refuse causes far more damage than could have been wrought in a controlled attack.  More important, is that it is acceptable to use brutal violence against attackers, while refugees have to be fed, clothed and cared for, in a transparent humanitarian operation.

Now we see the two major strategies of the CIA and State Dept. merging in Libya and the other puppet states of North Africa.  This is enabling a greater international strategy to legally bind the EU to American will, utilizing the terror war (which generates both refugees and new terrorists, in large numbers) to provide the human fodder needed by State Dept. in its  campaign to use refugees and the UN. The State Dept. is Washington’s “spear,” which is being wielded to create a legal mechanism for forcing European compliance with American directives, pertaining to refugees and the international migration of the unwanted.

If the new Libyan Interior minister has threatened to unleash his substantial refugee weapon against Europe, it is because that is what his international bosses want him to do next.  It is NO COINCIDENCE that a tsunami of African refugees has been set in motion upon all of the main arteries of North Africa, just as they are needed for the invasion of Europe, where Obama will use them as a living battering ram to knock-down the wall separating Africa and Europe.  Africa’s poor and destitute have long been suffering and waiting in the wings, much like the people of Palestine, who have served as everyone’s pawns, moving the international drama forward.

(SEE:  THE CAMP OF THE SAINTSObama’s War-Generated Tsunami of Dark-Skinned People Turning Mediterranean Into Massive Watery Cemetary  ;  Spying eclipses migrant deaths at EU summit ]  

Libya threatens EU over African immigrants

Interior minister says Tripoli will allow migrants to “flood” Europe if it does not help Libya combat illegal entries

aljazeera

Mazek said he had just returned from France where he had asked his counterpart for help over the issue [AFP]

Libya’s interim interior minister has warned that Tripoli could “facilitate” the passage of those people seeking to get to Europe illegally unless the European Union (EU) helps it combat the problem.

“With regards to illegal immigration, I am warning the world, and the European Union in particular, that if they do not shoulder the responsibility with us, the state of Libya will take a position on this matter that could facilitate the quick passage of this flood of people through Libya since God has made us a transit point for this flood,” Salah Mazek told a news conference on Saturday.

Mazek said Libya was “suffering” because thousands of mainly sub-Saharan Africans were spreading disease, crime and drugs in the North African nation, the AFP news agency reported.

“Libya has paid the price. Now it’s Europe’s turn to pay,” Mazek added.

For years, Libya has been a springboard for hundreds of thousands of Africans seeking a better life in Europe.

Many cram into makeshift boats to attempt the perilous Mediterranean crossing to Malta or the Italian island of Lampedusa off Sicily. Hundreds lose their lives each year.

More than 22,000 migrants have arrived in Italy since the start of the year, 10 times more than the number during the same period in 2013.

Former leader Muammar Gaddafi, deposed and killed in the 2011 uprising, turned on and off the flow of illegal migrants as a way of exerting pressure on Brussels.

Shortly before the uprising erupted in February that year, he demanded nearly $7bn a year from the EU to solve the problem.

Mazek said he had just returned from a trip to France where he had asked his counterpart for help to tackle the problem, but without specifying the nature of any such assistance.

Kerry In Philippines To Seal Deal for American Re-Colonization

[SEE:  PHILIPPINES TYPHOON CAUSED BY US MILITARY WEAPON – REPORT ]

Kerry in Philippines to propel troop deal as China row simmers

AFP

US Secretary of State John Kerry arrives at Manila International Airport on December 17, 2013

Manila (AFP) – Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in the Philippines Tuesday for a two-day trip that could fast-track a deal on expanding the US military presence as a territorial dispute simmers with China.

Kerry flew to Manila as the two allies are in the final stages of hammering out a deal allowing more US troops, aircraft and ships to temporarily pass through the Philippines, where the last US bases closed in 1992.

He will also visit areas devastated by Super Typhoon Haiyan last month, highlighting a massive US humanitarian response to the disaster which contrasted with a modest contribution from regional power China.

“Kerry’s visit can be expected to act as a catalyst for change,” John Blaxland, a security and defence analyst at Australia National University’s College of Asia and the Pacific, told AFP.

“He will be eager to leverage the visit to speed up and finalise arrangements and assure the Philippines and other regional powers that the US is not just a fair-weather friend,” Blaxland said.

Kerry will meet with Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario and President Benigno Aquino later Tuesday to discuss ways for “broadening of economic and security cooperation”, the foreign department said.

“Humanitarian assistance and disaster response and cooperation on regional issues are also expected to be on the agenda,” it said in a statement. The United States, the former colonial power in the Philippines, has been the greatest contributor of aid following the typhoon which left nearly 8,000 dead or missing, and four million people homeless.

Washington deployed an aircraft carrier group and committed 1,000 Marines and $20 million in a mobilisation that served as a preview of the deal’s intensified defence engagement.

Beijing meanwhile drew scorn with an initial offer of just $100,000 to the Philippines, a Washington ally with which it is locked in a dispute over sovereignty of islands in the strategically vital South China Sea.

Del Rosario and Aquino have been rallying pro-US sentiment to blunt China’s muscle-flexing in the region.

Ian Storey, a senior fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, said Washington’s humanitarian response could help it secure the military pact with Manila.

“America’s immediate, massive and generous support in the aftermath of Super Typhoon Haiyan could well hasten negotiations on US military rotational deployments through the Philippines,” he said.

China’s growing assertiveness in the region as well as the increasing frequency of deadly natural disasters in the Philippines “underscore the growing importance of Manila’s alliance with Washington”, Storey said.

Kerry, who is touring the Philippines for the first time since taking office, will travel to the typhoon-ravaged town of Tacloban on Wednesday.

Tensions between the Philippines and China have risen in recent years as Beijing becomes more forthright in asserting its claim over most of the potentially resource-rich South China Sea.

Earlier this year, Manila took Beijing to a United Nations tribunal over the contested Scarborough Shoal, which lies about 220 kilometres (135 miles) from the Philippines’ main island of Luzon and has been occupied by Chinese vessels since last year.

In a bid to showcase its increasing military alliance with the United States, Manila held war games near the territory earlier this year, further stoking tensions with Beijing.

China’s recent declaration of an Air Defence Identification Zone in the East China Sea — which has infuriated Japan and South Korea — has also raised concerns in the Philippines.

Storey said that while Beijing had not officially declared a similar air cover for the South China Sea “it might do so in the near future”.

“During Kerry’s visit to the Philippines, both sides will likely reiterate the importance of freedom of navigation at sea and in the air,” he said.

The United States already has a long-time ally in the Philippines — until 1992 it had a permanent military presence at two bases in the island nation.

The bases were closed amid nationalist opposition, but the current administration led by Aquino has repeatedly said it wants to build a stronger alliance with the US.

Is Using the World’s Most Powerful Military Force To Punish Civilian Populations, “War” Or State Terrorism?

FOR SOME REASON,

The Powers That Be decided to trash this post, since someone deleted all of the commentary and image previously posted here.  Normally I copy my posts before hitting the post button….Screwed-up here.  I will try to recapture that which was lost.

[The following is a welcome admission by the Establishment press that our wars have been unmitigated disasters, but it is also very deceptive, falling far short of acceptable standards of journalistic integrity.  Despite the long-overdue admission that are wars have been failed efforts, this article is what is known as “limited hangout” propaganda, telling partial truths as a means for concealing more revelatory damning truths.  In this case, the writer wants his readers to begin to see our wars as huge “mistakes,” human-error caused disasters, rather than criminal wars of aggression.   The cold hard truth is that all of our wars have been resounding successes, judging by Pentagon/CIA standards.  The disastrous end-products of these wars was the intended result for all of them, destroying the Muslim countries that refused to follow American dictation.  We fully intended for the Iraqis, the Afghans, the Pakistanis, Yemenis, Syrians, Libyans and all of the rest of America’s perceived “enemies,” to experience unimaginable human suffering on a scale far greater than that which has been experienced so far.  In addition to all of this, the Imperial plan was to take advantage of the rising chorus of humanity, urging that we remedy all of this misery, as an excuse for inflicting even greater suffering and indignation on these populations under the guise of “humanitarian relief.”]    

 

“US ‘humanitarian interventionism’ is the official cover story for the planned destruction of governments and the sustained, relentless punishment of the people who supported those governments…plain and simple.

American foreign policy under Bush and Obama has been a concentrated effort to inflict maximum suffering upon civilian populations, under the cover of pretending to “help” them. America’s foreign policy is criminal…far worse than the alleged ‘crimes against humanity’ which Syria allegedly committed. The chaotic deadly conditions left in the wakes of these criminal wars have affected all of humanity and pushed civilization to the brink of complete collapse. This,makes America’s Imperial wars, by definition, ‘crimes against humanity.'”

war-on-terror-is-a-fraud

The bloody disaster of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan is laid bare

guardian

Bombs and militia violence make clear the folly of Britain’s wars – the removal of law and order from a nation is devastating

Demonstrators Clash With Militiamen In Tripoli

A militia member patrols during clashes with demonstrators on November 15, 2013 in Tripoli, Libya. Photograph: Xinhua/Landov/Barcroft Media

Forty-three people died on Friday in clashes between militias in Libya, as did 22 on Sunday from bombs in Iraq. In Helmand, a return of the Taliban to power is now confidently expected. Why should we care? Why should it feature on our news?

The answer is that we helped to bring it about. Britain’s three foreign wars in the past decade were uninvited military interventions to topple installed governments. All have ended in disaster.

In each case – Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan – it was easy to see evil in the prevailing regime. These are bad guys that we need to go after, said the Americans. Yet the removal of law and order from a nation is devastating, however cruel that order may have been. Iraqis today repeat that, whatever the ills of Saddam Hussein, under his rule most ordinary citizens and their families could walk the streets at night without fear of murder or kidnap. Religious differences were tolerated. Iraq should have been an oil-rich modern state. Even the Kurds, scourged by Saddam in the past, enjoyed autonomy and relative peace.

In each of these cases Britain and its allies, chiefly America, intervened to overthrow the army, disband government, dismantle the judiciary and leave militias to run riot. Little or no attempt was made to replace anarchy with a new order. “Nation building” was a fiasco. The British bombs that flattened government buildings in Kabul, Baghdad and Tripoli did not replace them, or those who worked in them. Those who dropped them congratulated themselves on their work and went home.

It is hard to exaggerate the misery and chaos created by so-called “liberal interventionism”. It is hard to think of a more immoral foreign policy, roaming the (chiefly Muslim) world, killing people and sowing anarchy. That is why the blood-stained consequence should be splashed across headlines. Those who seek political kudos by visiting violence on foreign peoples should never be allowed to forget their deeds.

America’s Addiction to Imperialism

America’s Addiction to Imperialism

Libya 360°

“The people must demand an end to war, not because it costs trillions of dollars, but because it cost millions of lives.”

By Solomon Comissiong

The US has never gone a decade without being engaged in some sort of military conflict.”

The U.S. is Number One in weapons of war and domestic civilian gun deaths – and very little else. Historically, peace has not been a priority for the United States, which has waged war every decade since 1776. A common description for the term addiction is, the continued repetition of a behavior despite adverse consequences,or a neurological impairment leading to such behaviors…” This definition is most appropriate in regard to the world’s most destructive killing machine – the United States military. The United States government has long developed an acquired taste for war. And because much of the US population is completely obsequious to whatever their duplicitous government tells them, they, too, have become complacent to a perpetual state of war. Americans punch-drunk on nationalism fail to realize that “their” government is beholden to the interests of imperialism, not their general well being. Like well controlled puppets they chant, “USA number one”, over and over and over again, failing to ever question what “their” country is actually number one in.

The mental sickness of “American Exceptionalism” maintains the asylum known as American society. American Exceptionalism designs baseless sayings like, “USA number one.” US society is an extremely competitive and insecure environment. Ultimately, a place that encourages its citizens to ritualistically chant how good they are is not so sure of itself. Either that, or it does not wish the Hoi Polloi to ever question their government at all. The US is not number one in quality of life, education or overall healthcare. The USA is not even the happiest nation in the world, by a long shot. However, a few things the United States is number one in are: incarceration, gun related deaths and yes, military expenditure.

These are among some of the unsavory rubrics in which the US reigns supreme. If Americans meant any of those areas when they blindly chant, “USA number one”, then they would be spot on, especially when it comes to military “firepower.” With around 1,000 military bases, well over 10,000 nuclear warheads, and an almost constant state of war, the US is numero uno, without rival. The US is an imperialist monster with a voracious appetite for destruction. It has an uncontrollable appetite for war, caring little what it murders on its way toward global domination. This is evident in the vast number of civilians killed as a result of the US’s military campaigns. The vast majority of people murdered when the US decides to unleash its war machine, are, in fact, civilians. This is news to most Americans because they have been socially programmed to not even think about civilian casualties. They only worry about US military casualties as if those are the only lives that matter. Thinking about the catastrophic impact their government’s wars inflict upon innocent people, in “far off lands”, is well beyond many Americans’ social radar. This mode of thinking (or lack there of) has conditioned numerous Americans to lose vast segments of their humanity.

The vast majority of people murdered when the US decides to unleash its war machine, are, in fact, civilians.”

It is of little surprise that the United States government cares little about the “adverse consequences” that come with being constantly entrenched in war and global conflict. However, when the populace have adopted that inhumane way of thinking it paves a destructive road that we are traveling upon. The people are the ones whose responsibility it is to, not request, but demand an end to these wars of imperialism. Unfortunately, the United States’ mind control program, otherwise known as corporate media, has had a firm grip on the conscience of many Americans. This fact continues to prevent Americans from understanding that the people being terrorized by the US’s imperialist wars, are human beings – just like them. It especially prevents them from understanding that people in places like Afghanistan are, in fact, being terrorized by the US military.

Americans have bought into the orchestrated mythology that “their country,” when it enters/instigates a war, is doing so for some sort of benevolent reasons. Historically speaking, this could not be further from the truth, especially when we consider the number of civilians killed. Since World War I there has been a complete reversal of civilian deaths. During World War I, 10% of all casualties were civilians. During World War II, the number of civilian deaths rose to 50%. During the Vietnam War 70% of all casualties were civilians. In the war in Iraq, civilians account for 90% of all deaths. And when we look at the number of civilians killed by way of George Bush and Barack Obama’s drone strikes (alone), more that 90 percent of the victims have been civilians. However, don’t look at the fourth branch of the US government (the corporate media), to inform you of this. They, like the Pentagon and White House, could not give a damn about the number of innocent civilians killed. When former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and Secretary of State) Colin Powell was asked, in 1991, about the number of Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US Gulf War against Iraq, he simply stated: “Its not a number I’m terribly interested in.” It is important to note that the Associated Press at the time quoted US military officials in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, estimating that the number of Iraqi dead at 100,000. However, other independent estimates place the number much higher. Not surprising, the Pentagon refused to provide an estimate of the number of dead Iraqi civilians.

The shear lack of regard for human life, especially that of civilians, is akin to that of a serial killer. The US military apparatus operates like that of a pathological killing machine with lust for war. The history of the United States more than backs up this assertion, especially when we consider the fact that since the US’s “founding” in 1776, this country has been at war 216 of those years. That’s right, out of the US’s 237 year existence it has been engaged in military conflict 216 of those years. If that is not an addiction to war, this author does not know what is. The US has never gone a decade without being engaged in some sort of military conflict.

An American life is no more valuable than that of someone from any country in which the U.S. is waging war.”

United States imperialism is destroying the world, one nation at time. And within those nations are living breathing human beings. Is it really hard to fathom why many people despise the US? It has nothing to do with Americans’ so-called “freedoms” – instead, it has everything to do with the military destruction of their countries. The politicians that ultimately control the US military care little about the soldiers they command to fight in their capitalist conquests of wealth and resources. And they certainly could not give a damn about the innocent civilians in places like Libya, Pakistan and Yemen. They are not concerned with how they are perceived by much of the globe; they are only concerned with maintaining their imperialist advancements and control. You are either “with them” or “against them”; there is no middle ground. And for these reasons it should be crystal clear why people living within the United State must care.

Organized critical masses of concerned people must serve as the moral compass, and rehabilitation, needed to end the US’s addiction to war. Bluntly put, humanity depends on it. The people must demand an end to war, not because it costs trillions of dollars, but because it cost millions of lives. There is no dollar amount that can be used to measure a human’s life. All human life must be seen as invaluable, period. An American life is no more valuable than that of someone from any country in which the U.S. is waging war. The financial cost of war is enormous and is an issue, in and of itself – however, this cost pales in comparison to the cost of human life.

We must unite and be prepared to organize to end the culture of war within the US. Ending the culture of war in this country will pave the way for wars to cease globally, especially since the US global war footprint is virtually everywhere. Creating a culture of peace begins with changing our acceptance of the United States’ addiction to war. Demanding this radical, yet humane, change to take place is paramount if we are to mold a brighter future for subsequent generations. Peace starts with all of us. It is one of the most important tasks before us. We must be firmly against war, in addition to being for peace. They go hand in hand. Now is the time to start building that brighter and more humane future.

Solomon Comissiong is an educator, community activist, author, and the host of the Your World News media collective (www.yourworldnews.org). Mr. Comissiong is also a founding member of the Pan-African collective for Advocacy & Action. Solomon is the author of A Hip Hop Activist Speaks Out on Social Issues. He can be reached at: solo@yourworldnews.org.

Spying eclipses migrant deaths at EU summit

[Here is a clear case where the NSA revelations on American spying have even gotten in the way of the Imperial agenda…putting some teeth into the “R2P” “Humanitarian warfare” plans of the Evil Empire (SEE:  The Obscenity of Humanitarian Warfare).  “Boat People” were supposed to be the “keys to the kingdom” in American plans to overcome the world with its strategy of “soft dictatorship,” a.k.a., “the New World Order.”  The horrendous image of dozens of women and children, the sick and the elderly, crammed into life rafts and tiny boats, bobbing about on the choppy Mediterranean Sea, was intended to produce a sufficient level of misplaced guilt upon Western audiences to move them into acceptance of American war plans for the region.  Merkel has spoiled the moment.

What has been missed, or overlooked by the global press, however, was the US/EU elitist attempt to open the floodgates of dark humanity into the spoiled, white, soft European underbelly.  Just like the unintended consequences of American inability to do whatever the Emperors want to solve the Syrian military situation to everybody’s liking, this particular tentacle of the American “Octopus” will not be able to wrap around the issue of Boat People and weaponize it into another weapon of “soft” war, at least not at this time.  This means that it will now take just a little bit longer to ignite the desired race war in Europe (SEE: THE CAMP OF THE SAINTS). 

That is the reallly tragic part in all of this, that there really are a handful of powerful individuals in the United States and in Europe who are doing everything in their considerable, pooled power, to turn whites against blacks, and vice versa, as a path to ultimate power.  Every individual with a conscience or a soul has a moral duty to do everything within their own power realm to oppose these evil men whose intent is covering the world with their evil seed.

END THE IMPERIAL WARS NOW!  Nothing else will solve either the problem of the Boat People, or put an end to the American invasion of everyone’s God-given right to privacy.]

boat people 

Spying eclipses migrant deaths at EU summit

dw

“Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national.”

EU leaders have resumed a Brussels summit with migrant deaths in the Mediterranean and banking union on their agenda. Overshadowing the summit are claims of US spying on the cell phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

VIDEO | Journal 01:52

White House remains evasive

Leaders of the 28-member European Union were due to debate the issue of migration on Friday, facing demands to deliver reform to end boat refugee deaths.

But allegations that the US had tapped Chancellor Merkel’s mobile phone looked set to dominate day two of the summit.

Italy and Malta, which have been confronted with a number of recent boat refugee incidents along Europe’s outer border pressed for a coordinated response from all EU nations.

Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta said the capsize deaths of 366 people off Italy’s island of Lampedusa on October 3 “cannot repeat itself.”

European Parliament President Martin Schulz told leaders on the summit’s first day on Thursday that Lampedusa had become a “symbol of a European migration policy which has turned the Mediterranean into a graveyard.”

DW.DE

US eavesdropping: What’s all the noise about?

The German government is boiling. But on the other side of the Atlantic, allegations that the NSA eavesdropped on the German chancellor’s mobile phone hardly caused a ripple. Some even say Germany should stop sulking. (25.10.2013)

Some politicians want the EU to change is so-called Dublin rules, which force asylum-seekers to first enter the bloc’s territory before being able to submit an application.

Reform ideas include the setting up of legal EU migration corridors that would put people traffickers out of business.

Foot-dragging on banking union

An ambitious timetable for banking union within the eurozone was also on the summit agenda, amid signs of integration fatigue.

A summit policymaker quoted anonymously by the Reuters njews agency said doubts were emerging over more transfers of power from the national to pan-European level after five eurozone bailouts over the past three years to member states including Greece and Cyprus.

This reluctance was compounded by fears that anti-European parties could gain ground in next year’s European Parliament election.

Anger over spying claims

EU leaders entered talks Friday still united in anger after reports during their first summit day on Thursday of widespread US spying on its allies’ communications by its National Security Agency (NSA).

In the early hours of Friday, European Council President Hermann Van Rompuy invited other EU members to join Germany and France in seeking “before the end of the year” a trust-based “understanding” with the US on intelligence gathering.

Asked about Britain’s deep intelligence ties with the US, Rompuy said all 28 EU member nations were “on board with this text.”

Earlier, Merkel had said “trust between partners” needed to be “re-established.”

French President Francois Hollande said a special EU team appointed to review leaks by the fugitive former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden needed to “accelerate their work with our American allies.”

More tensions seemed imminent with a fresh slew of damaging claims by Britain’s Guardian newspaper that the US had listened in on the conversations of 35 world leaders.

Yemen Fighting Bandar’s Boys Under the Alias of “Al-Qaeda In Arabian Peninsula,” AQAP

[Yemen, like all Muslim nations, will continue to be plagued by this militant Sunni terrorism until they approach the problem with open eyes, meaning that they are willing to acknowledge the dirty Saudi hands buying terrorism, right before their eyes.  Tribal authorities will have no better luck at getting the terror problem under control, as long as the Saudi royals have a free hand to sow the seeds of terrorism at will.

SAUDIS=Shaitan.]

Yemen is fighting a sprawling giant

yemen-post

 Yemen Post Staff
“Prisoners who are in the jails of the oppressors because of their religion” and told them to “rejoice … as your brothers are pounding the walls of injustice and demolishing the thrones of oppression… We have not forgotten you and will never forget you,” said Nasser al-Wahishi this August. Little could Yemenis have foreseen that those words would signal an unprecedented return in violence and insecurity across the country.

Over the past three months not one week has passed without the media having to report on the targeted killing of an intelligence or military officer, the targeting of a military position, the kidnapping of a foreign worker, or even the targeting of foreign diplomats. Over the past three months alone, Yemen has seen more bloodshed and terror-related violence than in the past two years.

The intensity and frequency of the attacks has security experts both abroad and at home in Yemen, ponder over the validity and relevance of Yemen’s national counter-terror strategy. Even with the full weight of the US military, Yemen coalition government still finds itself vulnerable to al-Qaeda’s attacks, having been unable to prevent the cancerous growth of its terror cells.

Gregory Johnsen, a former Fulbright scholar based in Yemen, now at Princeton University told PBS Newshour back in August that if al-Qaeda militants were only a few hundred-men strong back in December 2009, when the group carried it out its Christmas Day attack on a US airliner, he estimated their number to be closer today to several thousands.

“What we have seen over the past three-and-a-half years is that AQAP has gone from a group of about 200 to 300 people on Christmas Day 2009 to, according to the U.S. State Department, more than a few thousand fighters today.”

Johnsen has often warned that Yemen’ strategy against al-Qaeda essentially worked to strengthen the ranks of its militants rather than weaken their ability to carry out terror operations. While such warnings have often fallen on deaf ears, in favour of a heavier military footprint, officials in Sana’a have begun to see the rational reasoning standing behind Johnsen’s thinking.

Johnsen has long called for a different, more proactive approach to counter-terrorism, one which would involve clerics and tribal leaders as opposed to the blind targeting of civilian communities on the off-chance that terror militants might be passing through.

“The only people in a position to decisively disrupt, dismantle and defeat AQAP are the tribesmen and clerics in Yemen. It is men like Salim al-Jabir, a local preacher, who have the standing and stature to take the fight to al-Qaeda,” Johnsen wrote in Bloomberg this August.

One has only to take a look at Yemen’s mounting death toll to realise that so far the real winners of the war against terror, are actually the terrorists.

Over the span of a week, al-Qaeda has killed at least three high ranking officers, wounded dozens of soldiers in drive-by shootings and flash-attacks against military outposts in the southern provinces. In the past month alone terror militants have grown as bold as to target two military bases: one in Mukalla on September 30 and one in the southern restive of Abyan on October 18th.

More troubling yet, the killing of a German diplomat in the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, on October 6th by suspected terror operatives brought home the reality of radicalism, dissipating many Yemenis’ false sense of security and belief that al-Qaeda belonged to the country’s restive tribal regions and not its buzzing capital.

Short from completely cordoning off its capital and deploying an unsustainable number of security personnel to the streets, Yemen coalition government has no real mean at its disposal t protect its people and its interests.

The central government’s inherent political shortcomings, its stumbling hold over the state institutions and its internal divisions have allowed al-Qaeda to grapple Yemen by the neck and hold it hostage.

To make matters worse, recent claims made by Tribune Washington Bureau established that contrary to their public statements foreign powers have been handing wads of cash to terror militants in exchange for their nationals’ release, thus jeopardizing any hope of a financial asphyxiation. Yemen has worked hard at drying up all terror militants finding sources in an attempt to diminish its pull and zone of influence.

“Over the last two years, AQAP, as Western officials refer to the group, has extorted $20 million in ransom money, according to an estimate by Alistair Burt, who until this month was the top British diplomatic official for the Middle East,” wrote the Tribune Washington Bureau.

Burt also warned at a diplomatic meeting in New York earlier this month, “If those payments continue, AQAP’s attack capability in Yemen and against its friends and neighbours will only strengthen.”

Naser Abdel-Karim Wahishi said on the matter, “Kidnapping hostages is an easy spoil, which I may describe as a profitable trade and a precious treasure,” underscoring the profound irony and counter-productivity of Yemen’s anti-terror strategy.

So far Yemen has only managed to feed its now-sprawling monster, rather than cut off its head.
Yemen Post Staff

ROTHSCHILDS HIDDEN BEHIND obama AND THE GENOCIDAL OBAMACARE ?

[SEE:  Obama To Save Medicare By Killing-Off the Sick and the Elderly]

ARE JACOB ROTHSCHILD, BENJAMIN DE ROTHSCHILD, ARIANE DE ROTHSCHILD AND EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD HIDDEN BEHIND obama AND THE GENOCIDAL OBAMACARE ?

” HOW OBAMA FIRST GOT THE STACHE—THEY PLAN TO KILL YOU

– FACT SHEET: On the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 –

by Marcia Merry Baker

The United States was suffering from a crisis in health care when President Barack Obama came into office. As a result of the deindustrialization of the U.S. economy, the privatization of health care into profit-making ventures, and deregulation, both the health care system and the health of the American population was rapidly deteriorating.
Obama’s health care program, however, has made the situation much worse. If allowed to continue, it will turn the U.S. government into the enforcer of a worse-than-Hitler genocide machine.
In other locations, EIR has provided in-depth examination of the Nazi premises behind what is called Obamacare. Here we restrict ourselves to a presentation of crucial facts which show that such Nazi measures are already underway and leading toward mass death.
– I. PROVENANCE—HITLER’S T4 –

1. HITLER T4 HEALTH CARE. In October 1939, Adolf Hitler issued his official directive on selectively putting people to death, which was already underway in Germany on handicapped children and concentration camp inmates. It was titled, “The Destruction of Lives Unworthy of Life.” It arose from a prior meeting he held with medical professionals, to review “criteria” for practical and cheap methods of removing people, deemed to be “unrehabilitable” and thus burdens on the nation.
Hitler’s directive was administered out of headquarters in Berlin at No. 4 Tiergarten Strasse, where the Reich Work Group of Sanatoria and Nursing Homes, began by conducting surveys of patients nationwide, designating who was not worthy to continue to live. They were put to death; the principle involved came to be applied on a mass scale through the gas ovens at concentration camps.
2. TONY BLAIR T4 HEALTH CARE. In Britain, on April 1, 1999, the first initiative was taken by the Tony Blair government (1997-2007) in the name of health care “reform,” to institute an updated version of the Hitler T4 program: the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) was formed, to dictate what treatments would, and would not, be given to designated groups of patients in the British National Health Services (NHS), which had served the nation since the 1940s.
Blair’s health adviser to set up NICE, Simon Stevens, then moved to takedown the NHS system, by privatizing key functions, in particular through the private insurer UnitedHealth Group UK, which Stevens joined.
The record shows how the death rate has climbed for whole classes of Britons, especially the elderly and cancer patients, as a result of both NICE barring treatments, and the NHS being dismantled. For example, as of 10 years after NICE went into effect, only 40 to 48% of British men diagnosed with cancer survived, and 48 to 54% of British women; in stark contrast to Sweden, for example, where 60% of men and 61% of women survived after a cancer diagnosis.
A particular program to speed up death was put into effect called the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP). According to extensive exposes in the British press, over the 2000s, participating NHS hospitals were offered financial inducements to put patients deemed as at the end-of-life, on the LPC list, under which all treatment is discontinued, and even water and hygiene removed. The LCP started originally for cancer patients in Liverpool in the 1990s, with royal patronage; by 2012, it involved 178 NHS hospitals throughout Britain, and involved patients with any illness. On average, 130,000 persons a year were put under LCP, under the claim of saving medical resources, which as of 2012, had rewarded hospitals with at least $40 millions. An estimated 60,000 on LPC died yearly, without having given their consent to discontinue care. After storms of protest, the U.K. government in July 2013, ordered the LCP to be phased out over the next 12 months.
3. OBAMA T4 HEALTH CARE. In 2009, the Tony Blair/Hitler health concept was launched in the United States, by the new Obama presidency, as a campaign under the euphemism of care “reform,” just as Tony Blair had done in Britain. The Obama drive culminated in the March 23, 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Leading up to this were 18 months of intense propaganda, including 30 hearings and round-tables, under the cynical slogan that, under Obamacare, all Americans will get “access to care” through access to insurance.
In reality, the ACA law is made up of sets of measures to accomplish deliberate cuts in care, the destruction of the means to deliver it, and to perpetrate death. At the same time, private Wall Street insurers get Federal subsidies.
Key figures in bringing about the ACA—including several with direct involvement in imposing this on the British health system— have explicitly expressed the T4 principle, that there are “lives not worthy” to continue.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a longtime advocate for this Hitler health view, was appointed by Obama, in early 2009, as the health adviser to the Office of Management and Budget. In April, 2009, he was put on the new Federal Coordinating Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, to devise rationalizations for cutting medical treatment. In particular, Emanuel stressed that the Hippocratic Oath caused “over-use” of medical resources, which must stop.
Peter Orszag, Obama’s first head of the Office of Management and Budget, promoted the panoply of Hitler health arguments and mechanisms. He is considered the leading architect of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB)—the analogue to NICE, called the death panel. He advocates cost-benefit analysis to justify whether medical treatment is warranted for a person. He backs the statistical “Quality Adjusted Life Years” (QALY) metric for whether it is worth it for a person to continue to live. Orszag’s London collaborator, Sir Michael Rawlins, head of NICE, pumped the QALY formula, in a Time interview March 27, 2009, saying, “A QALY scores your health on a scale from zero to one: zero if you’re dead, and one if you’re in perfect health. You found out, as a result of a treatment, where a patient would move up the scale…” and you decide, based on how much a year of life is worth, whether to permit it or not, if it takes too much away from society’s scarce resources.
Moreover, Orszag holds that, even if you are not sick, but are living “excessively long,” he advises that you should have your Social Security “adjusted” (i.e. reduced), according to a statistical formula he backs, called the “Longevity Index.”
Simon Stevens, Tony Blair’s Hitler health operative, who re-located from the U.K. to the United States in 2007, personally advised the Obama White House, on what to set up in the new health law. In May 2009, he presented a report titled, “Reducing Avoidable and Inappropriate Care,” saying that $520 billion can be “saved” in the first 10 years of a new reform act, by cutting services to non-worthy people, especially the old. Stevens is the Medicare expert at UnitedHealth Group, the largest health insurance HMO in the United States (70 million policies).
Sir Donald M. Berwick, knighted by Queen Elizabeth, for his work on NICE and “reforming” the British National Health Service, to cut out excessive lives, was given a recess appointment by Obama on July 7, 2010, to be Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). As such, he was responsible for initiating T4 policies in programs affecting 49 million older Americans in Medicare, and 48 million poor, disabled and dependent, in Medicaid. He stayed in office as long as his recess-appointment tenure would allow, leaving in December 2011, to avoid the scrutiny that would ensue in the Senate from a proper nomination to CMS head.
While in office, he moved to strike certain cancer drugs from approved Medicare reimbursement; to set up ways to financial penalize hospitals for “over-treating” patients; and limit physicians by financial penalties and pushing top-down “evidence-based” medical practice dictates. He was followed in office by Marilyn Tavenner, a technocrat for Obamacare, with a pedigree as top executive at HCA, the mega for-profit hospital chain, benefitting from the takedown of the traditional community hospital system.
– II. CONTEXT—POVERTY; ILLNESS; –

– HOSPITAL SYSTEM DEGRADED –

The ACA measures are being imposed as the final health care “solution” to the poverty, illness, and suffering already underway as of 2010, and now far worse.

1. IMPOVERISHMENT. Of the U.S. population of 314 million, roughly 135 million are working, but 20 million are working only part-time, and more than 50 million (inclusive of most of the 20 million) have work defined as low-wage (twice poverty line or lower). 52 million people are in households defined as poor ($22,000 or less income for a family of four); this is the highest ever. The number of people living in “deep poverty,” represented by an impossible $11,000 annual income for that family of four, has jumped to 20 million—one in 15 Americans.
Some 50 million must use food stamps; and 50-80% of public school students in 20 southern and western states are poor, and rely on discount and free meals through the school-lunch programs of the Agriculture Department.
In the official jobless picture: 11.8 million Americans are unemployed; 8.8 million are forced to work part-time; 4.5 million eligible workers have left the labor force or, coming of age, never entered it. This is 25 million eligible workers who need but do not have full-time work.
Due to actual inflation as defined by major categories of the market basket of living, in government statistics, the lower-income 60% of the population has experienced a drop of 10-15% in its real income since 1999. The fourth quintile has somewhat more than broken even and the top 20%’s real income has doubled. Another measure of this for the lower 60%; their actual average income is $500 more per household than in 1999; their actual expenses of living are $5,000 more.
The ratio of the total population employed is at 4-decade low, 52.4%. For young people aged 18-34, the ratio of employed has fallen from 84% in 2000 to 72% in 2012.
But if one abstracts from self-employment, and takes Americans employed full-time by an employer not themselves, that ratio is down to 43.4%. According to Gallup, which surveys it, it has fallen by 5.0% since 2010, a tremendous drop.
As to “saved” wealth (mainly houses), more than 90% of the households in the country have less wealth than they had in 2008.

2. DESPERATION—SUICIDE RATE. The U.S. suicide rate has skyrocketed. The rate at which Americans between 50 and 64 years of age kill themselves, rose 45% between 1999 and 2010, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Women aged 60 to 64 had a rise of 60%; and men in their fifties, had a rise of 48%. The CDC researchers point out that these age cohorts of citizens are being squeezed under impossible pressures of lack of means to care for themselves, their elderly parents, and their own children, also hit by economic crisis.

3. DISEASE, DEATH RATES RISING. Sickness and mortality rates are increasing for cohorts of the population, who are poor, jobless and with no future. Many illnesses are associated with increased accident rates, obesity, malnutrition, parasites, drug and alcohol abuse, and other factors of despair, plus lack of medical treatment.
Add to this, the increased diseases associated with globalization and decline in public health services.
The CDC in September sounded the alarm about the increase in drug-resistant bacteria, in a 114-page report, Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2013, giving particulars for 18 microbes. Two million Americans—at the very least—are affected by one or more of the prevalent microbes each year, with at least 23,000 deaths from the infection.
Consider food-associated illnesses. 48 million Americans—one in six—are sickened each year from food-borne illnesses; 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 die, as reported by the CDC. A high percentage of the microbes come in food imports, which now supply 15% of U.S. food consumption overall, and much higher percentages for particular types, e.g. seafood (85%).
Overall, even crude vital statistics for the county level, show that U.S. life expectancy is declining for millions of Americans. The July 10 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association ran coverage titled, “The State of U.S. Health”, showing that in 1,405 counties (mostly in the South, Western tribal lands, and Appalachia)—which is 45% of the total number of 3,014 counties in all 50 states—female life expectancy remained static, or declined from 1985 to 2010. In 72 of these counties, the decline was very significant—over two years or more. The same for men in poor counties. If you were born a male in McDowell County, West Virginia, in 2010, your life expectancy is 63.9 years. (The analysis covers all counties; and a set of 291 diseases. See http://www.healthmetricsandevaluation.org/)

4. SAFETY NETS FAIL—MEDICAID. There are now more than 51.5 million Americans on Medicaid, the Federal program—run in conjunction with states—enacted in 1965, as a safety net to see that people out of means for necessities—temporarily or for reasons beyond their control—have medical care. Moreover, this roster of one in six Americans being so poor as to qualify for medical care, does NOT represent the extent of low-income persons who need help, because in recent years, most state governments have imposed ever-stricter enrollment requirements, to try to keep down the numbers. Over the last 10 years, Medicaid expenditures overall grew 90%, and became in many states, the foremost budget category.
Instead of seeing this as the reflection of the economic collapse, many Congressional delegations express their version of Hitler’s health care, by opposing not only Obamacare, but also demanding cuts to Medicaid, in order to “cut the deficit” by cutting lives.

5. HOSPITAL SYSTEM DISMANTLED. Over the past 40 years of worsening economic conditions, the nationwide system of hospitals, which had been built up since the 1946 Hill-Burton Act (Hospital Survey and Construction Law), has been drastically dismantled. The advent of HMOs after the enabling act of 1973, and further deregulation allowing the predation by for-profit Wall Street hospital chains, to take over or shut down non-profit local hospitals, drove the takedown.
As of 1980, when the ratios of standard care (hospital beds and physicians per 100,000 persons) was the best, there were 5,810 community hospitals, spread over 3,000 counties, which provided 987,000 beds for 226 million people. But by 2011, the number of hospitals dropped 15%, down by 837 to below 5,000. The number of beds dropped by 20%, down by 189,000, to 798,000. Yet there were 85 million more people to care for. The national average bed-to-population ratio fell from 4.4 per 1,000 people in 1980, down to 2.6 per 1,000 in 2011, a 41% drop.
In the course of this, waves of local, non-profit community hospitals have been taken over, scaled down, or shut, in the process of a few mega-chains—many of them for-profit—coming to dominate hospital care. This is another aspect of Wall Street. The hospital chains—six of the biggest are publicly traded—are positioning on how to profiteer, in the new corporatist/government ACA world.

6. PUBLIC HEALTH TAKEDOWN. Vital public health services by the Federal government, states and localities—from pest eradication, to food safety monitoring—have been cut back drastically in the last few years, under attempts at cutting government functions to try to “balance the budget” on Wall Street terms.
For example, federal aid has dropped for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s division, Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Disease, down from around $35 million yearly in the early 200s, down to $10 million by 2012. Among many other things, this is the agency supplying resources for fighting mosquito-borne diseases, such as West Nile Fever, which surged back this Summer.
– III. OBAMACARE KILLER MEASURES –

1. SHUT DOWN HOSPITALS. The U.S. hospital-centered health care system, already contracting, is now under assault from multiple Obamacare measures.
Overall, Obamacare identifies cuts of $716 billion over 10 years in cuts to Medicare, as well as cuts in other programs. Much of this directly and indirectly hits hospitals.

* Penalize readmissions. Financial penalties against hospitals are in effect for their too-frequent re-admission of sick patients. Since October 2012, hospital rates of re-admission are reported quarterly and evaluated. A rate considered too high results in docking Medicare payments to the hospital. The cut is up to 1% in FY 2013; up to 2% the next year; and 3% thereafter.
On Sept. 30, 2013, the end of the first year of the ACA Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), 2,225 hospitals were penalized a total of $227 million, according to Kaiser Health news.
The intent was clear right from the state. As of the first quarter of the program, of the 3,282 hospitals in the HRRP, fully 66.7%, or 2,189 facilities suffered a cut in Medicare payments. Teaching hospitals, which tend to have complex cases of elderly patients, and safety-net hospitals serving the poor, predictably have the most need for re-admissions, and they are reeling from the cuts. HRRP will cut Medicare spending by $8.2 billion from 2013 to 2019, say Obamacare statisticians.

* Cut charity care. Obamacare specifies cuts in Federal aid to hospitals, which has defrayed costs of treating the uninsured poor. Starting in 2014, Obamacare will cut what is called DSP—Disproportionate Share Payments. The hospitals are to get $22 billion less over the current 10 year period, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges and the Commonwealth Fund.

* Sequester cuts. Some $95 billion in other cuts in Medicare programs, are underway, including the impact of the sequester, all of which are slamming hospitals, according to Caroline Steinberg, vice president for analysis at the American Hospital Association. In fact, a specific sequestration automatic cut has taken away $45 billion from hospitals—more than double what the Obamacare DSP charity cut was.

* Mass threat to rural hospitals. In August, 2013, the Obama Administration proposed a rule change to what is called the Critical Access Hospital (CAH) program, which would shut down hospitals in rural areas en masse. There are currently 1,332 CAH hospitals nationwide, with potentially two-thirds in line for shut down. The CAH system was set up in 199x, to act to curb closures of rural hospitals.

The way it has worked prior to the Obama proposed change, is that, under the CAH system, since 2006, state health officials designate which of their community hospitals—often in low population density areas—are critical to remain open and viable in their localities, in order to provide residents, in particular the Medicare age bracket, the physical means to receive care. The criteria include that the facility not have more than 25 beds, it be at least 35 miles distant from other hospitals, and other rubrics. These CAH facilities then get reimbursed by the Federal CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) at 101% for their Medicare-related expenses, not at any lower Medicare reimbursement rates.
But in August, Inspector General Daniel Levinson, for the Health and Human Services (DHS) Department, issued a report declaring that hundreds of these CAH hospitals no longer meet the criteria. So states should no longer have the right to designate CAH facilities; the HHS/CMS should henceforth do so, and they will disqualify many such hospitals from adequate reimbursement. This will financially ruin hundreds of rural hospitals, and cut access to care for millions of people, whether or not they may have health “insurance.” Particularly vulnerable are Iowa, with 82, and Kansas with 83 CAH hospitals.
2. DRIVE OUT DOCTORS. Under various Obamacare measures, physicians are under financial pressure and subjective coercion to acquiesce to the intent of the ACA to cut care and lives. To begin with, two-thirds of the doctors in the United States no longer practice medicine independently, but they are now in the employ of other entities—groups and hospital systems, to the point where the American Medical Association, in November, 2012, issued guidelines on how to cope with the “conflict of interest” involved—namely, where the physician wants to treat his patient according to the Hippocratic Oath, and the Obamacare system does not.
Only 36% of all U.S. practicing physicians own their own practice (in whole or in part), which is way down from 57% in 2000; and way below 85% or higher in the 1960s.
Rural areas are desperate for physicians, and the threat to shut down Critical Access Hospitals is a threat to cut off all advanced care in these localities, in particular in the farm states, where counties have a high percent of elderly.

PHYSICIAN VALUE BASED MODIFIER This program mandates that all doctors who see Medicare patients, as of 2017, will be paid by the CMS on a new basis of Federal judgment of the “quality” of their “performance,” instead of being paid according to the traditional reimbursement for actual treatment administered to patients—the examination, procedures, tests, etc. Physicians who are classified as “over-treating” will be financially penalized. There a “bonus” system for doctors considered compliant. Obamacare foresees having 500,000 doctors now working in group practice, under this program by 2017..
The system is being implemented in phases, according to what the Obama Administration announced in July, 2013:
Starting in 2015, group practices of 100 or more health professionals (doctors, nurses, technicians, social workers, etc.) will gain or lose up to 1% of their pay, depending on their rating. This will rise to 2% the following year.
Starting in 2016, mid-size physician groups (10 to 99 health professionals). They will be offered 2% bonuses, and the first-year free of penalties, to ease into the system.
Starting in 2017, the remaining physicians, in practices of 9 or fewer health professionals, will be phased in. the CMS estimates this will bring in 350,000.
A whole system of “quality” measures is pending, to rate doctors, with differing factors for each specialty. All physicians and health staff will have to file reports on every case, which in itself, will be an impossible burden for all but the large-scale practices now taking over what’s left of doctoring.
There is already an acute shortage of primary physicians everywhere, and certain specialties (obstetrics and orthopoedic) from region-to-region. In the District of Columbia itself, out of 8,000 physicians licensed to work in the capital, only 453 of them are primary-care doctors, who see patients more than 20 hours a week, according to a September, 2013 report by the D.C. Board of Medicine.
3. CUT DIAGNOSTICS. Screenings and diagnostics for diseases and conditions, and the staff and facilities to conduct them, are being denied and reduced under Obamacare. One of the methods, is the issuance of guidelines to cutback on preventive screening, by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), a pre-existing agency in the Department of Health and Human Services. Private insurers, accordingly, move to implement the new restrictions. Just two examples show the thinking.
* Breast cancer. Within three months of the enactment of Obamacare, new guidelines were, that women should get less frequent mammograms. This decree was made, despite the national concern for the fact that mammography use was already declining in the 2000s, mammography facilities were decreasing, and doctors feared a rise of breast cancer mortality rates. As of 2009, 27% of U.S. counties had no mammography facilities at all, a pattern associated with poor and rural areas.
In May, 2010, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force stated that screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 should be every two years, not yearly; and for younger and older women, such screening should be less often, and decided on an “individual” basis only.
This went directly against the modern standard, recommended by cancer specialists, for women to have annual screenings age 50 and above; and every two years for those 40 to 49.
Since the USPSTF decree, preventive mammography rates in women in their 40s have dropped nearly 6%, as of 2012. (Mayo Clinic study).
* Upper age limits on screenings? The Task Force is considering an upper age limit for screening mammography. In The Netherlands, women over 75 are not prohibited from mammograms, but they are no longer reminded to do it, despite the fact that breast cancer for elderly women is still a clinical concern, and treatment can extend their lives.
* Prostate cancer. In May, 2012, the Task Force recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer.
4. MAKE MEDICINES SCARCE. Obamacare, which empowers Big Pharma to effectively run the health system, has also given them virtual carte blanche over drugs. At present, it is presiding over a fast-worsening situation of medication shortages. This involves cancer drugs, sterile injectibles, certain anti-biotics, and many other basics. For example, in recent months, the frontline drug for tuberculosis, INH (isoniazid), has been scarce.
This is the characteristic, not the exception, under the ACA. As of July, 2013, supplies were short for 302 drugs, which is up from 211, same time in 2012.

5. CUTS TO HOME HEALTH CARE. CMS has issued plans to cutback many Medicare programs, for example home health care. There will be $100 billion in cuts over 10 years to home health care, from the combined impact of new CMS proposals and cuts already under way. Nationally, 3.5 million seniors are lined up for a 14% reduction in Medicare home health payments, potentially losing the skilled services on which they depend to live at home. The entire nationwide system of home-health agencies is jeopardized by what CMS Administrator Tavenner calls, her new plan to “re-base”the rates used to calculate funding for payments for home health care.

6. BASIC RESEARCH STARVED OUT. Funding for public medical research has fallen 20% in the last 10 years to the National Institutes of Health. This holds throughout the nation, at Federal, state and private centers, such as those working with the CDC. In particular, the pipeline is running dry for ways to treat drug-resistant microbes.
Instead, the priorities and grants for studies are concentrated in the control of Wall Street networks, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the like. For example, the Weill Cornell School of Medicine, named for its financial patron Sandy Weill, former CitiGroup executive, is focusing priority research on “precision medicine”—the polite name for individual gene-profiling and custom-treatment for the elite. If you can pay, you can live.

7. IPAB—CUT LIVES, TO CUT COSTS, BY DECREE. The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) was authorized in 2010 under the ACA, in sections 3403 and 10320. Its purpose is to formulate specific cuts to medical care, mostly for those on Medicare—the old, in order to save money. Because of its infamous mandate, its 15 member board, which must be approved by the Senate, has not even been appointed so far. Unprecedented power is designated for IPAB, which is scheduled to go into effect in 2014. While the law is written to say that IPAB will not cut care according to costs, it will simply accomplish the same objective through application of the criterion of statistical “effectiveness,” and financial benchmarks. The Medicare program is under orders to implement whatever IPAB orders, unless those cuts are expressly overruled by a vote in Congress, which must be through a super-majority.
IPAB is modeled exactly on the 1999 agency created under the Tony Blair government, NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence), which has ordered cuts in treatment by the National Health System of Britain, resulting in a record of increased death rates since then.

8. SIGN-UP PRETENSE. After only two weeks into the operation of the new online markets of obtaining insurance, the drastic malfunctioning of the system, the rate of non-signups, and most of all—the fact that 5 to 9 millions of people are known in advance to be disqualified for coverage—manifest how the process is a pretense.
The “disqualified” status hits those poor persons, who make too little annual income to qualify for a Federal subsidy on an insurance policy from the exchange—specifically, less than 138% of the official poverty line; and too much money, to qualify to enroll in Medicaid, relative to the poverty line rules in their state.
These people reside mostly in the 26 states, 17 of which are in the South, where Medicaid has not been expanded under inducement of Federal financial incentives upfront, which are to be then cut back in three years. Both the White House and the respective state Congressional leaders have known all along about these categories of people, considered “unqualified” for arrangements for medical care.
Two national estimates have been done on how many people are in this category nationwide, based on census data, plus Obamacare and Medicaid rules:
A New York Times Oct. 2 report, titled, “Millions of Poor Are Left Uncovered by Health Law,” estimates that nearly nine million are in a “gap” preventing them from any insurance. Obamacare “will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers, and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance…” (by S. Tavernise and R. Gebeloff).
A report Oct. 17 by the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, puts the national figure at 5.2 million Americans denied health insurance coverage. The study reports:

* Texas. More than 1 million people won’t have access to insurance.

* Florida. 763,890 won’t get insurance. Also large numbers of uninsured under Obamacare are in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina.

* Tennessee. Up to 220,000 won’t get insurance.

On the technical dysfunction of the exchanges, details are provided in the Oct. 12 New York Times report titled, “From the Start, Signs of Trouble at Health Portal.” A research team (R. Pear, S. LaFranier, and I. Austen) summarized the analyses of many IT experts. The conclusion, “‘These are not glitches,’ said an insurance executive who has participated in many conference calls on the federal exchange…Interviews with two dozen contractors, current and former government officials, insurance executives, and consumer advocates, as well as an examination of confidential administration documents, point to a series of missteps — financial, technical and managerial — that led to the troubles.” In other words, planned failure is the name of the game. As the Times noted, “just a trickle of the 14.6 million people who have visited the federal exchange so far, have managed to enrol in insurance plans….” The Obama Administration refuses to say how many.

9. PENALIZE TRADE UNION INSURANCE PLANS. Trade union members covered by multi-employer plans—referred to as the Taft-Harley plans—are considered by the ACA as high-end insurance-policy holders, and as a class, ineligible for usage and benefit from the new exchanges. An estimated 26 million U.S. workers fall into this group, according to the National Coordinating Committee for Multi-employer Plans.
Additionally, in 2018 these types of insurance plans, among those considered “Cadillac plans,” are subject to a large new Obamacare tax.

10. BACK COMPANIES TO CUT WORKFORCE. Many companies and local government entities are cutting hours of employees to below 30 hours per week, to avoid the ACA mandate for providing coverage for all “full-time” employees, and making other kinds of downshifts. For example, Trader Joe’s and Home Depot are shifting part-time workers to the Obamacare exchanges.
Smaller companies are socked by the “Employer Shared Responsibility Payment” Obamacare mandate, which, under pressure, was postponed a year to 2015.

11. COST SHOCK. Insurance premium prices on exchanges vary by state, but cost shock is hitting online shoppers cross country for various types of policies. For example, in some states, rates for large and small companies, which already have gone up an average of over 20% a year for the last three years, will now jump as much as 40% the first year (2014). These costs will be passed on to their workers.

12. INSURANCE SUBSIDIES TO WALL STREET. Under Obamacare, the insurance mandate constitutes unprecedented flows to the insurance wing of the Wall Stree/London financial crowd. Dimensions of the matter are reported in Forbes, Oct. 1 (Robert Lenzer), noting that the “value of the S&P health insurance index has gained 43% this year alone.” Among the major companies, CIGNA is up 63%, Wellpoint 47%, and United Healthcare 28%. Since the passage of Obamacare in 2010, the stock values of these big firms have risen 200-300%.
– IV. WHAT MUST BE DONE –

1. The first step is to repeal the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This must taken in the course of Congressional action to restore the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, as the gateway for stopping the Wall Street crash process, and issuance of credits to rebuild the economy.
Glass-Steagall re-instatement bills are in both chambers of Congress: In the House of Representatives, HR 129 (The Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2013 ), with 75 co-sponsors, which is in the Senate as S.985 (Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2013), filed by Tom Harkin (D-Iowa); and S. 1282 (21st Century Glass-Steagall Act of 2013), filed by by Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), with nine co-sponsors.
Bills to repeal the ACA have been passed repeatedly in the House of Representatives. With passage in the Senate, the corollary measures outlined below can proceed.

2. Initiate impeachment proceedings to remove Barack Obama from office, for the crimes inherent and on record, from the ACA and his conduct in office.

3. Declare a moratorium on closures of hospitals, clinics, radiology centers, doctors practices, public health and research laboratories, and other vital parts of the health care delivery system, pending review, and initiation of a new program to build up health care delivery capacity to modern standards for all Americans.

4. Affirm and implement the priniciples embodied in the Hill Burton Act (Hospital Survey and Reconstruction Act of 1948), 42 U.S.C. 291 et seq., as the governing principles for U.S. health care policy.

5. Launch new research initiatives for advanced medical, biological and chemical research, in conjunction with a renewed drive for a nuclear fission-based economy, and soon, nuclear-fusion economic platform.

6. Activate anti-trust action throughout the health care sectors, in which facilities and services have been taken over and dominated by extensions of Wall Street operations in pharmaceuticals, hospital care, group practices of physicians, research, and other matters.
In particular, cancel the 1973 Health Maintenance Organization authorization law, and nullify subsequent laws to the same effect. This means, repeal 42 U.S.C. Section 300c, et seq.

7. Examine and act on the best way to provide health care for all Americans, under the principle of the clause in the Preamble to the Constitution, “to promote the General Welfare.”

The “Medicare for All” act in Congress, is the current foremost proposal to cut Wall Street out of looting health care and dictating death. It calls for instituting an insurance coverage system (called “single payer”)—different from that which worked in the pre-1970s/HMO period—but still aimed at seeing everyone gets treated. Those under age 65 would be eligible for Medicare coverage; premiums and practices would be set accordingly.
In recent years, Medicare’s overhead costs amount to only 3% of its expenditures, in contrast to what has been 30% overhead under the Wall Street HMO insurance system, and the fake mandate under Obamacare, which asks insurers to limit overhead to 20%.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) has a bill (HR 676—”Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act”) in the current session of Congress, with 51 co-sponsors.” http://larouchepac.com/node/28620

IN THIS ARTICLE WE CAN NOTE VARIOUS PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE HEALTH CARE “REFORM”.
THE FAMILY OF TONY BLAIR HAS FRIENDSHIPS WITH THE FAMILY OF JACOB ROTHSCHILD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Rothschild,_4th_Baron_Rothschild
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/6672904/Roman-Polanski-will-be-too-late-to-complete-his-film.html
“Tony Blair. Illegitimate Son Of Jacob Rothschild….Evidence”
http://the-tap.blogspot.com/2012/06/can-you-spot-it.html
TONY BLAIR IS ALSO A FRIEND OF EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD AND OF HIS WIFE . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Robert_de_Rothschild
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1138789/Now-Tony-Blairs-finally-got-private-jet-hes-wanted-rented.html
SIR DONALD M. BERWICK IS AN AGENT OF THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY.
THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY IS CONNECTED WITH JACOB ROTHSCHILD, BENJAMIN DE ROTHSCHILD, ARIANE DE ROTHSCHILD AND EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD. http://larouchepac.com/node/28600
” Lord Jacob Rothschild, the behind-the-scenes controller of the Inter-Alpha Group, was a partner at Rothschild at the time he set up the Inter-Alpha Group in 1971, using its resources and then leaving in 1980 to continue his special mission, which includes advising the genocidal British Crown and managing the funds of Prince Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall, to finance his kooky, “green” schemes.”
http://unitednationsoffilm.com/?p=1728
” Prince Charles already played polo with Evelyn de Rothschild in his student years and later set up the Interfaith consultations with him. ”
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/people_with_the_endless_bios.htm
Evelyn de Rothschild ” In 1989, he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II,[2] for whom he serves as a financial adviser. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Robert_de_Rothschild
But the Royal Bank of Scotland, that is a bank controlled by the British Royal Family, is also connected with the Edmond De Rothschild.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-dumps-rbs-boss-372885 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/laura-scolan/a/ba1/7b7 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-phillips/4/5b9/772
THE EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD IS OWNED BY BENJAMIN DE ROTHSCHILD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_de_Rothschild ) AND BY HIS WIFE ARIANE DE ROTHSCHILD
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_de_Rothschild ) http://www.lejdd.fr/Economie/Images/Les-plus-grosses-fortunes-de-France/Benjamin-de-Rothschild-206941
THE SAME obama IS A PUPPET OF THE BRITISH ROYAL FAMILY. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13489879
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225080/District-nurse-90-year-old-father-Liverpool-Care-Pathway-home–consulting-family.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238916/Ministers-order-inquiry-care-pathway-payments-saw-hospitals-receive-millions-implement-controversial-system.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9716418/Half-of-those-on-Liverpool-Care-Pathway-never-told.html

” United Healthcare, the largest insurer, with about 70 million insured, reported last summer that they had a particularly strong past year, with net income of $5.1 billion, up by 11% from the previous year; similarly for the others — even before the bonanza to result from the corporatist plan to force every American to buy their inflated products, beginning on October 1.
United Healthcare, it should be recalled, has as a top executive Simon Stevens, who was Tony Blair’s health policy advisor and the architect of NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) in 1999, the “reform” of the British National Health Service which imposed triage and genocide on the British people through selective denial of cancer drugs, surgeries, kidney dialysis, and other treatments. This was the model for the IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is now the law of the land under Obamacare. Genocide can be profitable. ” http://larouchepac.com/node/28409
( Obamacare Genocide in Action: What is Already Underway http://larouchepac.com/node/28608 )

“UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a diversified managed health care company headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota, U.S. It is No. 17 on Fortune magazines top 500 companies in the United States.[5] UnitedHealth Group offers a spectrum of products and services through two operating businesses: UnitedHealthcare and Optum. Through its family of subsidiaries and divisions, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70 million individuals nationwide. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedHealth_Group
THE BIGGEST SHAREHOLDER OF UNITEDHEALTH GROUP IS FIDELITY. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=UNH
FIDELITY IS CONNECTED WITH BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON.
” Abigail Pierrepont (Abby) Johnson[4] (born December 19, 1961) is an American businesswoman. Johnson is President of Fidelity Investments Personal and Workplace Investing. Fidelity was founded by her grandfather Edward C. Johnson II and her father Edward C. (Ned) Johnson III is its current CEO. As of March 2013 The Johnson family owns a 49% stake in the company.[3]
She had a brief stint as a consultant at Booz Allen & Hamilton from 1985–86, completed an MBA at Harvard, and joined Fidelity Investments ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Johnson
Arthur Johnson, an Independent Trustee of Fidelity, is also a director of Booz Allen & Hamilton. http://www.boozallen.com/media-center/press-releases/48399320/49502902
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON IS LINKED WITH CARLYLE, BLACKSTONE AND DEUTSCHE BANK. http://transmissionsmedia.com/the-911-illusion-part-ii-deutsche-bank-blackstone/
“In 2008 Carlyle Group bought a majority stake in Booz Allen for $2.54 billion.”
” Carlyle is the 11th largest defense contractor in the US. It is 20%-owned by Mellon Bank (http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Mellon_family) and is controlled by the powerful Blackstone Group (seeOverthrow of the American Republic), which dined cheaply on the carcasses of looted S&L’s at auctions held by Bush Sr.’s Resolution Trust Corporation. ”
http://www.almartinraw.com/uri1.html http://transmissionsmedia.com/the-911-illusion-part-ii-deutsche-bank-blackstone/
” Henry Kissinger’s good friend Lord JACOB ROTHSCHILD sat on Bioport owner Blackstone’s International Advisory Board. (See Corexit Linked to the Blackstone Group and Lord Jacob Rothschild) ”
http://transmissionsmedia.com/the-911-illusion-part-ii-deutsche-bank-blackstone/ http://beforeitsnews.com/gulf-oil-spill/2010/06/corexit-linked-to-the-blackstone-group-and-lord-jacob-rothschild-76363.html
” Blackstone was founded in 1985 as a mergers and acquisitions boutique by Peter G. Peterson and Stephen A. Schwarzman, who had previously worked together at Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone_Group
Peter G. Peterson ” is founding Chairman of the Peterson Institute for International Economics ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_George_Peterson http://larouchepac.com/node/28610
Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the wife of EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD, is a director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. http://www.petersoninstitute.org/institute/board.cfm
Blackstone is also related with the LCF EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD, for example, through the person of Daniel Costa Lindo that is a M&A Analyst at Blackstone and was Private Equity Analyst at LCF Edmond de Rothschild. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/daniel-costa-lindo/32/255/543 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_de_Rothschild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_de_Rothschild
FIDELITY (FMR, LLC) IS ALSO A SHAREHOLDER OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES CIGNA AND WELLPOINT THAT HAVE PROFITS FROM THE HEALTH CARE “REFORM” OF obama.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=CI http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=WLP

” Obama’s Budget Argument for Killing People: Meet the Elephant in the Living Room

If you are fed up with all the arguments for justifying genocidal budget cuts coming from Obama and his Democrats, as well as the Republicans, consider the following. After the orchestrated government shutdown and debt ceiling crisis, the American population is now being told we have no choice but to swallow a national discussion of how to go about:

* Cutting some $100 billion per year in health expenditures via Obamacare, by wiping millions from the rolls of the insured, reducing payments to hospitals and other providers, and denying care to the elderly and sick whose lives are “not worthy of being lived”—just as Hitler did under the T-4 policy;
* Eliminating $140 billion per year through the “sequester,” half from defense expenditures and half from other budgetary items; and
* Chopping another $95 billion per year from Social Security and other entitlements, through such ruses as the so-called chained CPI.

Those items alone add up to some $335 billion per year in cuts whose predictable—and intended—effect will be genocide. And yet the Federal Reserve is bailing out the bankrupt Wall Street banking system to the tune of $1 trillion per year in Quantitative Easing. That’s three times what we are told we have to cut from the flesh and blood of our people and our productive economy! Not to mention the much larger speculative bubble of worthless international financial assets, which now totals some $1.6 quadrillion, which the British Empire says has to be saved no matter how many billion humans are killed in the process.
And yet when Lyndon LaRouche says we should stop the bailout of Wall Street, and reorganize the banking system based on the Glass-Steagall standard, people holler that he’s “over the top.” The only thing that’s “over the top” here is the damned elephant sitting in the living room. Get rid of him. ”

Obama To Save Medicare By Killing-Off the Sick and the Elderly

[SEE: Tell Your Dying Mother That She Can’t Have Her “High Cost, Low-Value Treatments” ;  The forced healthcare plan that will force people to take-up arms ]

“Stop Genocide in America: The Premeditated Crime of Obamacare.”

eir exec intel review

SHUT DOWN HOSPITALS

The U.S. hospital-centered health care system, already contracting, is now under assault from multiple Obamacare measures.

Overall, Obamacare specifies cuts of $716 billion through 2020 in Federal health care programs (Medicare, Medicaid and “new”), much of which are cuts to hospitals, directly and indirectly.

* Penalize readmissions. Financial penalties against hospitals are in effect for their “too-frequent” re-admission of sick patients. Since October, 2012, hospital rates of re-admission are reported quarterly and evaluated. A rate considered too high results in docking Medicare payments to the hospital. The cut is up to 1 percent in FY 2013; up to 2% the next year; and 3% thereafter.

As of early 2013, of the 3,282 hospitals in the HRRP (Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program), fully 66.7%, or 2,189 facilities suffered a cut in Medicare payments. Teaching hospitals, which tend to have complex cases of elderly patients, and safety-net hospitals serving the poor, predictably have the most need for re-admissions, and they are reeling from the cuts. HRRP will cut Medicare spending by $8.2 billion from 2013 to 2019, say Obamacare statisticians.

* Cut charity care reimbursement. Obamacare specifies cuts in Federal aid to hospitals, which has defrayed costs of treating the uninsured. Starting in 2014, Obamacare will cut what is called DSP—Disproportionate Share Payments. The hospitals are to get $22 billion less over the current 10 year period, according to the American Association of Medical Colleges and the Commonwealth Fund.

* Sequester cuts. Some $95 billion in other cuts in Medicare programs are underway, including the impact of the sequester, all of which are slamming hospitals, according to Caroline Steinberg, vice president for analysis at the American Hospital Association. In fact, a specific sequestration automatic cut has taken away $45 billion from hospitals—more than double what the Obamacare DSP charity cut was.

* Mass threat to rural hospitals. In August, the Obama Administration proposed a rule change to what is called the Critical Access Hospital (CAH) program, which would shut down hospitals in rural areas en masse. There are currently 1,332 CAH hospitals nationwide, with potentially two-thirds in line for shut down. The CAH system was set up in 199x, to act to curb closures of rural hospitals.

The way it has worked prior to the Obama proposed change, is that, under the CAH system, since 2006, state health officials designate which of their community hospitals—often in low population density areas—are critical to remain open and viable in their localities, in order to provide Medicare residents the physical means to receive care. The criteria include that the facility not have more than 25 beds, it be at least 35 miles distant from other hospitals, and other factors. These CAH facilities then get reimbursed by the Federal CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) at 101 percent for their Medicare-related expenses, not at the usual lower Medicare reimbursement rates.

But in August, Inspector General Daniel Levinson, for the Health and Human Services (DHS) Department, said that hundreds of these CAH hospitals no longer meet the criteria. So states should no longer have the right to designate CAH facilities; the HHS/CMS should do so, and they will disqualify many such hospitals from adequate reimbursement. This will financially ruin the hospitals. Particularly vulnerable are Iowa, with 82, and Kansas with 83, CAH hospitals.

DRIVE OUT DOCTORS

Under various Obamacare measures, physicians are under financial and subjective pressure to acquiesce to the intent of the ACA to cut care and lives. Already, two-thirds of the doctors in the United States no longer practice medicine independently, but they are now in the employ of other entities—groups and hospital systems, to the point where the American Medical Association, in November 2012, issued guidelines on how to cope with the “conflict of interest” involved—namely, where the physician wants to treat his patient according to the Hippocratic Oath, and the Obamacare system does not.

Only 36% of all U.S. practicing physicians own their own practice (in whole or in part), which is way down from 57% in 2000; and way below 85% or higher in the 1960s.

Rural areas are desperate for physicians, and the threat to shut down Critical Access Hospitals is a threat to cut off all advanced care in these localities, in particular in the farm states, where counties have a high percent of elderly.

In addition, new “ratings” for physicians, upon which their pay will be evaluated, are being devised under the title of the “Physician Value-Based Modifier.”

CUT DIAGNOSTICS

Screenings for diseases and conditions, and the staff and facilities to conduct them, are being denied and reduced under Obamacare. One of the methods, is the issuance of guidelines to cut back on preventive screening, by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), a pre-existing agency in the Department of Health and Human Services.

* Breast cancer. Within three months of the enactment of Obamacare, new guidelines were issued that women should get less frequent mammograms. This decree was made, despite the national concern for the fact that mammography use was declining in the 2000s, mammography facilities were decreasing, and doctors feared a rise of breast cancer mortality rates. As of 2009, 27% of U.S. counties had no mammography facilities at all, associated with poor and rural areas.

In May 2010, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force stated that screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 should be every two years, not yearly; and for younger and older women, such screening should be less often, and decided on an “individual” basis.

This went directly against the modern standard, recommended by cancer specialists, for women aged 50 and above to have annual screenings; and every two years for those 40 to 49.

Since the USPSTF decree, preventive mammography rates in women in their 40s have dropped nearly 6 percent, as of 2012 (Mayo Clinic study).

* Upper limits on screenings? The Task Force is considering an upper age limit for screening mammography. In The Netherlands, women over 75 are not prohibited from mammograms, but they are no longer reminded to do it, despite the fact that breast cancer for elderly women is still a clinical concern, and treatment can extend their lives.

* Prostate cancer. In May 2012, the Task Force recommended against prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening for prostate cancer.

Obama’s War-Generated Tsunami of Dark-Skinned People Turning Mediterranean Into Massive Watery Cemetery

[Long before the Obama/Hillary State Dept. managed to generate these regime-change wars, disguising them as “democratic-revolutions,” “Boat People” were fleeing from other US-generated wars, the terror wars in Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea.  At that time, most of these people choosing to leave Africa left from the ports of Libya, seeking “the good life” in Europe.  Obviously, those refugees were all “people of color,” most likely Muslims, making them the least-wanted out of all the refugees who have been flooding Europe, seeking asylum (SEE:  Camp of the Saints).  Whenever wars are generated in civilian areas, floods of refugees are certain to follow.  ANY FOOL KNOWS THIS.  In the case of Obama and Hillary’s wars “for democracy,” overwhelming flows of refugees were the INTENDED EFFECT.  All of the American and British studies on the civilian effects of their wars against enemy cities, have focused upon manipulating refugees as a terror weapon, to be used to influence the strategic decisions made by the enemy leadership.  In WWII, agitating the civilian populations had the direct effect of forcing undesired actions upon the high command.  This is the SAME POLICY being followed by the Obama Administration as they put the squeeze upon targeted leaders, like Bashar Assad.  More refugees, the louder the public outroar over the “bad guys” who produce them.

The ongoing “Boat People” issue is merely the same terror policy, being followed upon a liquid medium, the Mediterranean.  Forcing helpless women and children onto the choppy Mediterranean waters has the desired indirect effect of forcing European leaders to accept American neo-liberal multiculturalism, as well as US-designated security roles for the individual govts. in the EU.  Italy has been the primary target in this particular manipulation, because of their far-flung possession, Lampedusa Island, the site of two recent boat people tragedies.  Malta is next in line after Italy, owing to its own proximity to the N. African coast. 

Refugees were sent back to Libya by Italy after they were rescued at sea in Malta’s search-and-rescue waters in (June 6, 7, 2010). Here, the exhausted refugees wait to hear their fate, in Tripoli (photo, M Alwash/UNHCR)—

The FRONTEX agreements are an excuse for the Imperial power to intervene between the govts. of Southern Europe and those of N. Africa.  Nothing more…issues like responsibility for refugees, in particular, the right to “Non-refoulement,” for the refugees from war zones, not being forced to go back to the wars.  We are facing a diabolical plan, which treats human beings as nothing more than cattle, “useless eaters” to be stampeded, or forced into dangerous waters, whenever it suits the Imperial will.  This plan requires a level of callous cruelty, which is unimaginable to the normal or sane person.  This is why most humans cannot even understand that there is a plot against the Nation and against the entire human race, which defies normal logic, even though it is completely “logical” from a pathological point of view.  What kind of megalomaniacal genius did it take to foresee, and plan for, this little Boat People confrontation, turning it into the cornerstone of international humanitarian policies, known as “R2P,” or “responsibility to protect”?]

[SEE: The Obscenity of Humanitarian Warfare]

Malta warns EU waters ‘a cemetery’ after fresh tragedy

BBC

Malta’s prime minister has said European waters close to Africa are turning into a cemetery, after another boat laden with migrants capsized.

Malta PM Joseph Muscat: “As things stand we are just building a cemetery within our Mediterranean Sea”

Joseph Muscat said Malta felt “abandoned” by the rest of Europe and urged the EU to take action.

Malta and Italy launched a rescue operation after a boat capsized on Friday, killing at least 50 people.

It happened 120km (70 miles) off Lampedusa, the Italian island where at least 300 migrants drowned last week.

The loss of life has renewed the debate within EU member states on migration rules.

Children among dead

In the latest incident, the vessel carrying more than 200 migrants is believed to have encountered difficulties in Maltese waters just before sunset on Friday.

The migrants used a satellite phone to raise the alarm but the boat capsized when passengers crowded to one side as they tried to get the attention of a passing aircraft, the Maltese navy said.

The BBC’s Matthew Price, on Lampedusa, says the boat was carrying Syrians and Palestinians.

The Syrians already in the refugee centre on Lampedusa had spoken to friends and relatives who had boarded the vessel, he says.

One couple who had survived the journey with their nine-month-old daughter said they had spent an hour in the water.

The husband had held the child to his chest to keep her alive, but he had been unable to help his son, who had drowned in front of them.

“Helicopters rescued 120 people”

Earlier on Friday, at least 500 other migrants travelling in separate boats were rescued in coastguard operations near the Italian island of Sicily.

Also on Friday, a separate boat accident off the Egyptian port of Alexandria claimed the lives of at least 12 migrants.

Egyptian security officials said 116 people, mostly Palestinians and Syrians, were pulled from the water.

Budget cuts

Mr Muscat said prompt action between Malta and Italy had saved lives, but he complained that the rest of Europe had supplied only “empty talk”.

“I don’t know how many more people need to die at sea before something gets done,” he said.

“Rules need to change, whether they are tighter or looser is not the issue, the fact is that this thing is broken and it needs to be fixed.

Lampedusa map

“As things stand we are building a cemetery within our Mediterranean Sea.”

After last week’s tragedy off Lampedusa the European Commission called for the EU to launch Mediterranean-wide search and rescue patrols to intercept migrant boats.

The EU’s Frontex border agency, set up in 2004, has seen its budget cut from 118m euros (£100m; $160m) in 2011 to 85m euros in 2013.

Italy has previously appealed to EU states for help in coping with the thousands of illegal migrants who wash up on its shores every year.

Our correspondent says European leaders face a quandary as they struggle to balance political pressures to restrict migrant numbers with the need to assist those desperate enough to risk such a perilous journey.

‘Sadness and anxiety’

Lampedusa, 120km off the North African coast, is a key destination for migrant vessels bound for Europe.

Tens of thousands attempt the crossing to Lampedusa, Sicily and other Italian islands each year.

The latest rescue operation swung into action after the Maltese air force spotted the boat and alerted Italian naval vessels still in the area after last Thursday’s disaster.

Helicopters were used to lift many to safety but nightfall hampered the rescue operation.

At least 33 people were confirmed dead, with one report estimating the death toll at 50.

Mr Muscat’s office said 147 survivors had been picked up by a Maltese patrol boat and were being taken to Malta. Another 56 had been saved by Italian crews.

The prime minister said the dead included three small children.

Cecilia Malmstrom, the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, praised the swift Italian and Maltese rescue effort, which she said had helped reduce the potential death toll.

She said in a statement that she was following the operation with “sadness and anxiety”.

“These new horrible events are happening while we still have the shocking images of the tragedy in Lampedusa in our minds,” she added.

Map of migrants routes

Securing the Fate of Refugees Will Pull the Plug On the Terror War

https://i0.wp.com/genevalunch.com/files/2010/06/unhcr_libya_italy_0510.jpg

[The precarious fate of “boat people” (refugees) from the civil wars in Eritrea and Somalia in the run-up to the war on Libya in 2010, who had left Africa from Libya, became an excuse for UN intervention.  They most obvious example of just how close most boat people are to dying came in the reported case of a liferaft full of people, who were left floundering off the coast of Malta because the non refoulement regulations of international agreements that were in effect at that time, which required that the rescuers take responsibility for them.  The agreement between Libya and Italy was the line of division, where each side tried to force the other to admit the refugees.  The Italians were adamant in refusing to take-in the flood of dark-skinned boat people, insisting that Libya was responsible for them, even though they were not refugees from Libya (SEE:The Obscenity of Humanitarian Warfare).  The 1951 Refugee Convention protects the civil and human rights of all migrant immigrants, but enforcement of those standards in actual cases in shaky at best.  As for boat people in the Mediterranean, the Frontex European security agency got handed the task of dealing with them along Europe’s southern boundary, even though their primary task was surveillance on the sea and land, at the fringes of the EU. 

The Lampedusa was truly a “tragedy waiting to happen,” since the flood of refugees across the Med continues today, probably approaching a tsunami of refugees by now.  On land and sea, our American wars of aggression are powering a civilian exodus from every country where the counter-terror operations play out.  We are responsible for them…their safety, their shelter, their feeding and medical care, everything that it takes to merely “SURVIVE.”  This is perhaps our greatest crime against all of humanity, using controlled releases of herds of human beings as a tool of state terrorism.  Military action in civilian areas generates instant flows of civilian refugees, either by land or sea.  All of this had to be foreseen and planned for…the plan was to ignore them all, until most of them died from starvation. 

These are the monsters who rule us “useless eaters.”]

Despite Lampedusa, Europe still split on migration

google news

By Claire Rosemberg (AFP) – 17 hours ago

Brussels — With far-right parties peddling xenophobia across Europe, the Lampedusa refugee tragedy seems unlikely to spawn a long hoped-for single EU migration policy to help avoid new drama.

The fate of the hundreds of Africans who died in the shipwreck off the Italian island is sure to dominate talks between European Union justice and home affairs next week — though migration was not on the agenda.

For years now, the EU’s executive, the European Commission, has struggled to rouse interest in a single approach to the divisive issue of migration, time after time coming up against a brick wall of national self interest.

“We need a new policy at the European level,” said Michele Cercone, spokesman for home affairs commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem.

“Migration policies are fragmented, inward-looking, left in the hands of member states and subject to domestic political considerations,” he added. “Immigration is viewed as a threat, a problem, never as a potential benefit.”

The Commission wants to open new avenues of legal migration while also sharing the burden among all 28 member states as the floods of impoverished refugees wash up on the shores of southern Europe — in Italy, Malta, Greece, Spain and Cyprus.

But rising anti-immigrant sentiment and the strains of the economic crisis stand in the way.

In Britain, where immigration for years has topped polls of voters’ concerns, Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative party fears a growing threat from the anti-EU, anti-immigration UK Independence Party (UKIP).

In the Netherlands, far-right Geert Wilders said in a statement issued as the scale of the Lampedusa tragedy was unfolding that the government’s decision to take in 250 Syrian refugees was simply “incomprehensible”.

Instead they should be sent to the Gulf states, he said, as responsibility for hosting Syrians “should not come down to Dutch taxpayers but to oil magnates”.

Yet asylum-seekers are on the rise, prompted by turmoil and war across the Middle East and North Africa.

Spain for instance says some 3,000 Africans have tried to slip through via its enclave of Melilla in Morocco this year, almost twice as many as last year in the same period.

To tighten surveillance along the EU’s long external borders, the bloc in 2004 set up Frontex, an agency based in Warsaw whose assets such as ships are all donated by member states.

Frontex is reported to have saved 16,000 lives in the Mediterranean over the last two years. But due to crisis-era belt-tightening its budget has slipped from 118 million euros ($160 million) in 2011 to 90 million in 2012 and 85 this year.

Will tightening Europe’s borders work?

But Italy, which says 30,000 migrants have arrived so far this year — more than four times the number from last year — wants the agency moved south.

“How can an operational international organisation be located so far away from the heart of the problem,” said right-wing politician Roberto Menia. “Frontex should be headquartered in Lampedusa.”

The Commission meanwhile plans to launch a new state-of-the-art surveillance system in December “to track, identify and save” ships in danger carrying migrants.

The launch of Eurosur, which will include drones, satellite systems and high resolution cameras, will be put to the vote at the European Parliament next week.

But there are divisions over the new system which will be based on data exchange between various national maritime agencies that survey sea borders.

The Migreurop network of NGOs working on migration issues says Eurosur is “the worst possible response” because it fails to address the real issue of why migrants and refugees seek to come to Europe.

“Tightening up the borders will only lead to new dramas, to migrants taking ever more dangerous and costly routes,” said Migreurop vie-president Claire Rodier.

The Commission meanwhile is also seeking to press ahead with efforts to open new channels for legal migration.

In June for instance, the EU signed a “mobility partnership” with Morocco to negotiate a deal facilitating the delivery of visas for students, researchers and business executives. Its flip side is to also agree to jointly fight trafficking.

The Commission hopes to sign similar agreements with other countries across the Mediterranean such as Tunisia.

Technology-Driven Imperial Aggression—Testing US Weapons On Civilians In the Middle East

Secret technology pushing US into military adventures

PressTV

The file photo shows a child survivor of the US atomic bombardment of the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.

The file photo shows a child survivor of the US atomic bombardment of the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.
By Gordon Duff

Now that America has these things (modern clandestine technologies), they now want to use them and what better place to test non-existent technology than Syria?”

The development of military technology, beginning with the Strategic Defense Initiative of the Reagan presidency, has given the US capabilities that have remained “dark,” not just secret but “deniable” as well.

The US can simulate any intelligence source, any terror attack, small or large, or even influence public opinion, push groups to follow insane ideas or drive individuals to acts of unspeakable horror.

The best part of this, for America’s political leaders at least, is that they aren’t officially informed. Key congressional leaders like McCain or former Senator Kerry know all of it, know but aren’t talking.

They were the proponents that pushed these technologies, some costing tens of billions of “black budget” dollars, to fruition.

Now that America has these things, they now want to use them and what better place to test non-existent technology than Syria?

Nukes
America’s new addition is to its new generation of nuclear weapons developed at Livermore labs after 1991.

New weapons can be dialed to achieve little or no blast. It is impossible to determine if any large explosion is nuclear or conventional. Nuclear weapons, when used, are claimed to be conventional weapons that hit “arms caches” or “fuel depots.”

Some weapons known as Minimal Residual Radiation (MRR) weapons produce ionizing radiation for only a few hundred yards and all detectable radiation is gone in 72 hours.

Other nuclear weapons are “tuned” to destroy particular materials. Some can destroy steel, turning it into a powder. These are designed to be used on naval targets.

Other nukes are “tuned” to destroy chemical weapons without spreading toxic materials for miles as happened in Iraq. These weapons are now on the Tomahawk missiles deployed in the Mediterranean to be used against Syria.

This is one of the reasons President Obama and Secretary Kerry have been so “cryptic” in discussing their attack plans, how large, how long?
This is why “boots on the ground” is considered unneeded. “Nukes on the ground” is what is planned instead.

Historically, these weapons have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan many times. There are also reports from nuclear weapons experts that the Marine barracks in Beirut may have been hit with a nuclear weapon, another used in Oklahoma City and another still in Bali.

There is clear proof one was used outside Damascus on May 4, 2013. When videos of the mushroom cloud and ball lightning went viral, there was no attempt at a denial.

Control and spin
A key component of a “secret nuke” strategy is calling any reports that contradict official mythology “conspiracy theory.” Pundits and comedians like Jon Stewart, Wolf Blitzer or Rush Limbaugh are key players.

Other totally controlled outlets, Murdoch’s Fox News and Wall Street Journal are, perhaps, the worst followed by DailyBeast.com and Newsweek, Jane Harmon’s AIPAC propaganda rags.

The newest entry is the Huffington Post, saturated with sex and “celebs,” used yesterday to attack Russian videos of Syrian rebels lobbing sarin shells.

A report of a nuclear attack, no matter how much science, as Dr. Chris Busby can attest, will ever hit the western press.

However, a Syrian rebel can film a gas attack, brag about doing it on video and post it on Youtube and it is virtually invisible.

Controlled news has driven the US into using unthinkable weapons, into staging horrific acts of terror and, if possible, being exceeded in every way by Israel.

Targeted individuals
There is mounting evidence that individuals known as “targeted persons” are subjected to attacks that include stalking, threats, staged incidents (accidents and murder/suicide among these) but also use of secret technologies.

The individuals are test subjects, possible security threats, whistleblowers or “Oswald” types. The US has an inventory of several thousand “targeted individuals” who, on command, as in the Charles Bronson film, “Telefon,” are ready to commit acts of terror.

Supporting these operations are “crisis actor” groups, coincidental “security drills (often Israeli companies but others are used too), and a slew of “alphabet soup” agencies, ready to plant evidence, silence real witnesses or commit the acts of terror themselves if the chosen targeted “patsies” fail in their mission.

Ft. Hood, Gabby Giffords, Sandy Hook and the Navy Yard are but a few.

John Anthony Hill was criminally charged in Britain for exposing the 7/7 terror attacks and found not guilty in a trial that was based on substantiating his claims, proving “7/7” was false flag terrorism.

Brain attack tech
Most have heard about MK Ultra or the film “Men Who Stare at Goats.” This mixture of “conspiracy theory” and disinformation media humor is used to limit public knowledge of decades-old programs that have cost endless billions.
What programs?
Here is a partial list:

– “Neural communications”: This capability is meant to allow troops to talk to each other by thought alone, through receptors in their helmets. Sounds crazy? This is an ongoing DARPA project with billions spent, but there was never an intent to use this as authorized. This pure “thought control” project has already yielded results that we may well have seen in the recent terror shootings across the US.
– “Induced psychosis”: Remember the US invasion of Panama? President Noriega was subjected to “rock music” played at unimaginable levels. Today, Israeli companies openly market energy weapon technologies that are capable of causing everything from physical pain to feelings of panic and even suicide. Soon you will be buying them on EBay. The real systems, first developed for use through mobile communications by Ericsson Corporation, are capable of inducing severe psychosis, paranoia and triggering violence.
– “Death rays”: The most advanced “black programs” are capable of inducing ideas but also of causing death. Most common is suicide, sometimes tied to induce terrorist acts.
– “Full Scale”: Targeted individuals most often have their own private “crisis actors.” The important ones are assigned mentally disturbed or abusive “partners,” selected to play on personal weaknesses such as guilt or excessive kindness. Attacks often include induced illnesses, most often fatal cancers or aneurisms, the killing of pets or staged accidents or suicides involving children or grandchildren.

The existence of these programs is fully confirmed, but it is the scale that is frightening. These aren’t programs, they are an industry.

“We got it, let’s use it!”
Breakthroughs in quantum physics have facilitated capabilities unimagined, far beyond simple extrasensory perception or “remote viewing.”

Advanced energy research looking into Tesla’s investigations of the “ether” for obtaining and transmitting energy has yielded capabilities that will never be made public.

“Non-linear” advanced technologies sneak into the consumer world from time to time, products developed and manufactured prior to the development of the processes required to create them.

This has given political leaders a “bag of tricks” that lets them do whatever they desire and never have to answer for it.

The ethos backing this up is entirely Malthusian. Victims, be they dozens or millions, are simply “useless eaters” as Henry Kissinger, chief proponent of the use of “black tech.”

Kissinger “made his bones” as an advocate for the use of nuclear weapons over conventional force. His policies from 40 years ago or more are a reality today.

His thinking, that humanity is no more than cattle, his value system, is the one we are seeing today, pouring out of Washington.

Do we need to ask how humanity has sunk so low? Perhaps, are we naïve in referring to political and economic elites as part of humanity?
Do we have evidence that they consider themselves as such?

GD/NN

Gordon Duff is a Marine Vietnam veteran, a combat infantryman, and Senior Editor at Veterans Today. His career has included extensive experience in international banking along with such diverse areas as consulting on counter insurgency, defense technologies or acting as diplomatic representative for UN humanitarian and economic development efforts. Gordon Duff has traveled to over 80 nations. His articles are published around the world and translated into a number of languages. He is regularly on TV and radio, a popular and sometimes controversial guest. More Press TV articles by Gordon Duff

“Precision Strike” By NATO Reaper Kills 16 Civilians—Now They Are Lying Their Asses Off

[The war pigs of NATO first tried to claim that all of the dead were “militants,” even though many of them were children….and the NATO operators had to know that obvious fact when they pushed the button, launching the Hellfire missiles into the center of that crowd, struggling to hang-on to the bed of that overloaded pick-up truck.  The drone had the pickup in its sights for an extended period of time, since they patiently waited while the alleged “militants” elbowed their way onto the truck’s tiny 4’x8′ bed.  Sixteen people crowded onto one truck….and the butcher NATO Operator killed them all, in order to claim a score of “3-4” Taliban fighters, who were probably not even leaders.]

afghan civilian dead

afghan civilian dead2jpg

ارشيف

12 civilians killed in Watapur airstrike

Pajhwok

By Khan Wali Salarzai

ASADABAD (PAN): A dozen civilians, including children and women, were reportedly killed during a NATO airstrike that also left four Taliban insurgents dead on a vehicle in eastern Kunar province, officials said on Sunday.

Foreign troops bombed the pick-up truck carrying civilians after four insurgents boarded it on a road in the Watapur district on Saturday, Governor Shujaul Mulk Jalala told Pajhwok Afghan News. The dead included 12 civilians and four militants, he added.

Watapur district chief Yousuf Zalmai said the Taliban boarded the vehicle in a mountainous area.

Four women and four children were among those killed, he confirmed, saying a fifth child was seriously injured.

A Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid condemned the airstrike, saying all those killed and wounded civilians, including five women and seven children.

NATO-led International Security Assistance Force media office in Kabul confirmed Coalition Forces conducted “a precision strike” in Watahpur on Saturday, killing 10 enemy forces.

“At this time, we have no reports of any civilian casualties in regards to this incident. We are continuing to look into the incident and will provide updates as appropriate,” a NATO statement said.  “We take all allegations of civilian casualties seriously.”

Many Arab and other foreign insurgents are believed to operate alongside the Afghan Taliban in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Police said the airstrike took place in Qoro village soon after three Arab and three Afghan militants boarded it Saturday evening.

mds/ma

“R2P” Can of Worms Reopened—Compassionate Response, Or Lawyers’ Excuse for Imperial Invasion?

Syria carnage reopens debate over ‘responsibility to protect’

By Andre Viollaz

NEW YORK — France’s President Francois Hollande on Tuesday became the first leader to raise the UN-backed “responsibility to protect” to justify possible military action against Syria.

However, world powers remain deeply divided over whether outside military intervention to halt atrocities is justified, with critics viewing the so-called R2P as a smoke screen for Western meddling in other countries’ internal affairs.

The so-called R2P doctrine was passed by the UN General Assembly in 2005 as the world sought a way to prevent a repeat of the horrors of the 1994 Rwanda genocide and the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia.

UN leaders from Kofi Annan onwards and Western governments have hailed R2P as a humanitarian breakthrough, but its invocation, most recently in the 2011 intervention in Libya, has been controversial.

A 2005 UN summit laid down the responsibility for each state “to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”

If a state fails to do so, the 2005 declaration committed signatories “to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations.”

The Security Council used R2P in resolutions on Libya and Ivory Coast in 2011.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon said the use of the doctrine “came of age” when used in the resolutions that allowed military force against Libya’s Moamer Kadhafi after his forces laid siege to the city of Benghazi and the dictator vowed to hunt down and kill rebels “house by house.”

Russia and China, veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council, abstained in the votes on the landmark resolutions 1970 and 1973, which allowed a no-fly zone and appropriate military strikes to protect Libyan civilians.

Russia later complained, however, that NATO went beyond the mandate and used the resolutions to bring down Kadhafi, who was eventually killed in October 2011.

Russia and China have since blocked any Security Council attempt to increase pressure on Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, whose forces are now accused by Western nations of launching a chemical weapons strike in the Damascus suburbs last week that left hundreds dead.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has said that any “outrageous” use of chemical weapons in Syria’s 29-month old conflict would be a war crime.

The responsibility to protect can be carried out through the International Criminal Court investigations into war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

But as Syria is not a member, only the Security Council could refer the case, and Russia is sure to block such a move.

Under a 1950 resolution, at the start of the Korean War, the UN General Assembly decided that if the Security Council was deadlocked, the 193-member assembly could step in to defend international peace and security.

The assembly could give its approval for a military operation now, but it would take time to build up a credible majority.